Pachemu?

YARRRRR-bla-kah!

Anybody speak the King's English?

am i gonna need to reply in german?

then stop posting this if your not going to write here again and move on with your life.

This is just the best thread...EVER. Tell it like it is mogdog, tell it like it is.

I don't know if the King even speaks the King's English. By the way, were you refering to Elvis?

"Just gimme another fried banana sandwich there, please."

Nice pun Slim!

You disagreed with the first statement, so I'm going to change it to

"Charles huyovi mujik."

I hope it's better now.

Prawcilla honey, go in the kitchen and make the king a MANWICH, wita whole stilck a butta for dessert.

Now that's getting the party started in true Russia Forum format! Good job, mawilson!

zomg this is terrible news! Satellite, I'm so sorry she left you.

You know...I find that when my heart is broken, I turn to the man who knows how to put the feelings into words. I hope this helps:



(sorry...I thought this was "dig up old threads" week. I also thought it was "post inexplicably bad 80's videos" week.)

After watching Elton John, I think it's bad sports coat week!

Kiki Dee actually looks just like a Russian lady I met over there once. Right down to the haircut!

I think you guys are in the wrong forum.

But, since we're here, let's get another topic going.....

I had a buddy in the military (female) who wanted to sponsor her girlfriend into the U.S. via K-1 visa. Obviously, she wasn't able to do that because it was girl-girl, but it was also a military girl-girl.

Thoughts, comments... possibilities on someday allowing same-sex sponsorships for K-visas?

I for one am totally unopposed to hawt girl-on-girl filing.

The hawt part is suspect. Remember, these are military chicks we're talking about. Not just military chicks, but homosexual military chicks.

So...we're not talking Ukranian army huh?

I don't know... I've seen some extremely gorgeous Russian female soldiers and some damn hot militsiya babes in Kazan'.

I'm scared of all miliciya, even female ones. Yesterday we asked policemen in rome who were directing traffic for directions, and three of them started poring over a map together to help us out. It was a really big shock for my guy. "Wow! Police who are actually nice and helpful and whose chief concern is people's safety!" Guy or girl, when i see a russian police officer i cross the street. If i were ever stopped for my dokumenty i'd probably have a panic attack. Good thing i'm blonde and female.

If the US legalized same-sex marriage they'd have to do same-sex k-1s, i guess. I know a friend of a friend who immigrated to australia to be with her gf, but i'm not sure whether they actually married or what. And "don't ask, don't tell" makes me want to vomit.

Not necessarily. The laws of marriage are completely governed by the states. The constitution does not grant congress the power to control it. Controlling immigration, however, is an enumerated that congress has. Thus all the states could legalize same sex marriage and congress can still choose to not recognize it for immigration and taxation purposes.

Couldn't the opposite be true as well then--that congress could recognize it for immigration purposes, but the state wouldn't?

Well, with very few exceptions, Federal law trumps state law. That's why the marriage debate has been so hotly debated. There are people (like me) that believe states should be the sole arbitrator on marriage, and then there are those who want to actually change the constitution to rigidly define marriage at the Federal level. If this were to happen then States would be unable to allow same-sex marriage.

Yes, but only if the Federal law was to recognize marriage as a union between a man and a woman ONLY. I would say they have better things to do.... like investigating Major League Baseball, looking for bin Laden, etc., but I guess actually legislating something may be on the horizon.

Oh wait, we're talking about the U.S. govt.

And it's election year.....

Nothing's getting done this year. Thank you Mr. Bush!

Well historically marriage has been controlled by the states. The state's have a strong 10th amendment argument if the feds interfere with it. Ever heard of divorce matter being litigated in federal district court based on say diversity jurisdiction or a federal question? It hasn't trust me on this one. The feds did pass the defense against marriage act, which concerns really the full faith and credit clause of the US constitution. Many scholars will argue that the act is illegal because it asks the state’s to ignore the full faith and credit clause by refusing to recognize a valid “marriage” from a sister state, Massachusetts comes to mind. But the full faith and credit clause might not be violated at all, because states can refuse recognize anything that is repugnant to their values and laws. Anyway, I think it would be a stretch to allow congress to regulate the laws of marriage. They’d have to articulate the law under say the commerce clause, taxing and spending, or some other enumerated power.

Federal law does trump state law under the supremacy clause, assuming however, the federal law was properly passed to begin with. A federal controlling marriage would not do so and would violate the 10th amendment. As I understand it states do have the power to define a valid marriage in their state. Yes, a constitutional amendment would be the best solution to solidify the law in either direction.

And we all know how easy it is to amend the Constitution!

Yes. That's why the Republicans are pushing for an amendment to the Constitution. It's the only way they're going to be able to get their bigotry to stick. It has fortunately lost momentum recently, especially in the face of the immigration "debate" (quoted because it's nothing more than a spectacle), Obama's pastor, and Hillary's trip to Bosnia. Thank you 24 hour cable news.

How did we ever have scandals before news was "fair and balanced"???

But then the constitution would have to be ratified by the states, and that is where the states could take back control and strike it down by refusing to ratify.

Right. If memory serves, 3/4 of the States must approve an amendment through the State legislature. Even at the height of the Republican's power (2004-2005'ish) I don't think they'd have gotten the 38 states necessary. Which is why it was such a colossal waste of "the people's" time to even debate it.

The fight comes down to one word: "Marriage." We will live to see same sex "civil unions" in most states but they won't be called marriages without an ugly battle that will further harden peoples positions and opposition to the differing sides.

The word is important. It is not JUST a word. It is a powerful word that is thousands of years old and has a clear meaning as outlined in our oldest writings from our ancestors.

I am one who feels that a "marriage" is, indeed, between a man and a woman and let's let that be. It has a long tradition and why must that not be honored? If we mess with that tradition, we'll get a watered down or distorted or crazy definition of marriage to include whatever your imagination can concur up...people marrying dogs or sheep. Five people all "married' to each other. If we change the definition for one exceptional situation...why not all situations between any collection of mammals?

Only a marriage can and often does produce children...something same sex unions can never produce together...thus making them eternally different. Yes, same sex unions can obtain children if they adopt or have artificial insemination or whatever, but not directly from the relationship between the two people. Therefore, the ideal model for a marriage is of a man and woman creating a blood-related family. This is a key issue and why many fight to not surrender the word "marriage" to the non traditional, same sex couples.

A marriage has the balance of the male and the female facets of life and there is a flow and beauty to that. If two men or two women love each other and decide to live together legally...you have just male energy or female energy and that is something quite different. So it needs to be called something different...like civil union or let's make up a new one...just not "marriage."

I'm going to respectfully disagree here... I know several married gay couples, including my little siblings' godparents. My stepmom says gay weddings are WAY better.

I hate that "marrying dogs" argument. Marriage between TWO PEOPLE does not lead to beastiality.

A lot of these same things were said about interracial marriage. I just don't buy it. Marriage is a legal definition, not just something as nebulous as "energy" and "tradition." The arguments about "next thing you know people will want to start marrying animals" is just silly, and an argument taken to the extreme. It's a logical fallacy.

Society will not come crashing down when we recognize same-sex marriages. Society will get by just as it always has. And the sooner we get over these silly kinds of hangups, the better.

Also, seanconneryii, should infertile couples not get married, since they can't produce children? Or people who choose to remain childless? Or people who feel that they already have enough children between them and they don't need to create more?

I've never been married, but i think there's a lot more to it than procreation.

Mox, et al...

The world will not end if gay couples are seen as legally married by state governments. I do think something important will have been lost in the name of inclusiveness that relates to a very small but vocal sector of the population. It's sad to me that marriage between a man and a woman will not mean much; and will be another hostage of political correctness and misguided equality advocates who hold nothing as sacred except their own limited and purely intellectual views of the world.

I shared my viewpoints...silly or not. I'm willing to step out and be heard in an exercise in philosophy and political discourse, and accept the slings and arrows of disagreement. No big deal if you disagree. The country itself is split down the middle...so no one can claim they speak for any majority.

Call me silly but hear me respectfully...I've earned the right to speak about a country I fought for...I would hope.

I'm old school about some things and radical about others. I'm not from your generation so we see the world differently. I don't embrace any political party and I don't belong to only one "club." So I refrain from saying "Democrats" or "Republicans" as if their all automatically jackasses. I still remember the loyal opposition and gentlemanly behavior in the halls of congress.

When it comes to a marriage, which I've been in or 23 years with one woman (my dear ex wife whom I still am friends with), maybe I'm kind of an expert on the subject. When I argue about the sacredness of male-female marriage, I feel I'm defending my wives in some way...and their special qualities they bring into a man's life through marriage...and bringing in the gift of children that is, to my mind, 85% of the reason we're here on Planet Earth.

You may be on the strong legalistic ground and get the gold star, but i think you're on very shaky spiritual and humanistic ground. If we turn love and marriage over to the San Francisco style bureaucrats and judges, were all taking a big hit to our hearts and inner life.

As to how far people will go to test the letter of the marriage law...just visit the Man-Boy website where relationships with underage boys is the theme of the membership. They've been ably defended by the ACLU. Perhaps someday "marriage" between men and young boys will be OK.

Stay tuned...

I really don't know if there has ever been a time marriage was truly "sacred." The divorce rate in this country is over 60%, Vegas style weddings are becoming more and more popular, and divorces are easier than filing your taxes. There doesn't seem to be an outcry about this, so I have to conclude that the majority of the public really don't hold marriage that sacred.

But even if you hold marriage "sacred," there's nothing that says you can't still, even if gay marriage is recognized by the state. Nobody is demanding that your church marry homosexuals. Homosexuals simply want to be recognized in their marriage by the state, a secular institution. If you are a Catholic, a Jew, a Muslim, or even a Scientologist, you can rest easy in knowing that the Federal government is not going to put a gun to your Priest/Rabbi/Pastor/whatever's head and make him marry gay couples. So marriage will still remain "sacred" in the venue in which "sacred" has meaning.


Just a point of order...I didn't call you silly, and I'm sorry if I gave that impression. I called the argument that gay marriage leads to bestiality silly. It's not personal against you. This argument has been used as a talking point over and over by fundamentalists, and it just holds no water whatsoever. Any argument can be taken to ridiculous extremes, but it doesn't make it true. So apologies if I gave the impression I was calling you personally "silly," I was not. But I do think that particular argument is silly, no matter whose mouth or keyboard it comes out of.


Well if you want to take a Darwinistic view (and I'm 100% non-spiritual, so I prefer this) then having children is 100% of the reason we're here on the planet. We evolved under the rules of natural selection as the dominant species to ensure our success at procreation. But now that we're here at the top of the food chain, we have the luxury of doing more than just what we were naturally selected to do.

I agree with you that women have brought a special quality into my life. And that's why I married...because she was special in my life. If procreation were the most important part to me, then I'd have just married the first one who came along. But I didn't. I married the special one. And that's all that gays want...they want the opportunity to marry that someone special.


Well, as I said, I'm 0% spiritual. It's all human-invented hooey to me designed to instill fear and control in other human beings. Humanistic ground however...well I have to disagree with you there. There's nothing humanistic about denying a fellow human being the same rights that you enjoy. (and I don't personally mean "you," I mean the collective "you.")


Come on. Seriously. You're smarter than that. You are not comparing homosexuality to pedophilia are you?

And by the way, the ACLU defended NMBLA's right to free speech, not their "right" to rape children. The right to free speech is one of the things you and I defended when we joined the military. I certainly don't condone those sick, sick practices, but thank god the ACLU is out there defending not just *your* right to free speech, but *everyone's* right to free speech. Because once we start getting selective about whose speech gets to be free, then it's not free anymore.

As I said, it's not about deeds...it's about words. I don't have any issues with same sex partnerships...but they're not marriages. And I don 't know that their happiness depends on calling their relationship a "marriage."

They deserve legal rights and so forth, but they are not truly married in any legal or historical sense. Most states have specifically defined marriage as being between a man and a woman. That's very clear. For many gays this is a non issue but for the few who care, it's a pet issue to break some perceived barrier. Much like feminists were obsessed with infiltrating all male military colleges like the Citadel and VMI. They won but destroyed a tradition that goes back a long time. Winning by destroying traditions is not the way to effect fair social changes IMO. But that continues to be the way it's done and we end of with a lot of division and hate...but it's hidden in shadow and secret where it does the most harm.

I'd like to see a win-win situation rather than at win at all cost approach to social change.

Saying nobody sees marriage as sacred is pretty cynical considering we all have to perform some sort of ritual where we make promises and take vows...even before the Justice of the Peace in Vegas.

Maybe 60% of straights get divorces...but 40% don't and maybe they'd argue marriage is sacred...which to me means it is transcendent to the individual or common self-interest. It is something we hold up as a mission that has deep ramifications for the men and the women and children and society..that in it's highest form, marriage is standing before the cosmos and saying, hey, I'm serious here and what I'm about to do is a big deal...I've even given my word to stick it out when things get tough.

Shall we cheapen marriage so we can all feel more casual about the whole process and just dispense with all the commitments and promises? Maybe we're ready for drive-thru marriage at the local Burger King? I'll have a fry, a coke, a Whopper and one premium deluxe marriage--oh and make that for same sex.

There was marriage before there were courthouses and laws. Calling anything a "marriage" only insults true marriage and waters it down to a point that maybe we'll surrender and become good socialists, and just live together until we're bored and move on...like in the Soviet Union. We can all see how well that worked out.

My point about Man-Boy members (which i thought was obvious) was not to compare gay relationships to pedophilia...that would be ridiculous...but to argue against your position that allowing gays to "marry" will not invite other more radical and freaky folks from wanting to call their relationship a marriage too.

At one time in history it was not uncommon for a man to have more than one wife in Asia and Africa for instance. Now that practice is illegal in most countries. You don't have to dig to deep to find alternative lifestyles that want to be seen as being a legal marriage as well. Thery also want in on the legal goodies and acceptance of society.

If four people profess to love each other in Provost Utah, why can't they be married too? Why must we be "number" bigots? It's their business is it not given your point of view?

With interns and well placed cigars of course!

There's a big difference between polygamy and homosexuality. I don't consider being able to practice polygamy a basic human right. For homosexuals, being able to practice homosexuality is. Being a polygamist is a choice.

These slippery slope arguments about homosexual marriages are, to agree with mox here, just plain silly.

I am also not at all spiritual, and i think that there's a lot more that straight people are currently doing to erode the institution of marriage than 2 men or 2 women would.

Here you are introducing another arguement that is not in itself entirely proveable. You infer that homosexuality is not a choice. I submit for review that we (in the collective sense) dont know if it is a choice or if it is a born instinct in some people. I do not know either way with any certainty.

Now, I want to make it clear here that I dont care either way (choice or born instinct). I really dont have a problem with homosexuals, but I will also submit for review that societal acceptance (and that is really what all these arguments boil down to when the rubber meets the road) is the crux of this argument, and the easiest way to obtain societal acceptance in situations such as these it to make the issue not a choice but a born trait that they have no control over. I mean, look at obese people. Obesity in this country while not completely accepted is not looked down upon quite as stringently now since there is evidence of a genetic abnormality in obese people which causes the problem.

I am like an agnostic wrt the homosexuality choice or no choice argument because there is enough evidence in my mind to go either way, but I cant prove it either way, nor can any other person. But maybe needing the proof is the scientist comming out in me, but I dont take too much on faith.

So the way I'm reading this, it comes down to not being an issue of man-man or woman-woman "marriage" but anything other than a "marriage" (which is defined as a union between a man and a woman) as being not deserving of the title "marriage." Maybe fitting of another title - a union or something. OK. I'm tracking so far.

Seems to me what you're arguing really is there should be a legally protected right (recognized by the states) for a man and woman to be joined in a "marriage" but not for a man and man or woman and woman?

If that's so, then what do we do about a man and man who choose to live together like a "married" couple would, and one of them doesn't get health care benefits from the other's employer? Or, let's take it a step further... lifelong partners, husbands, lovers, best friends... one's just been in a terrible accident but yet his "husband" isn't allowed to legally choose what to do because he's not recognized by the state as the "husband."

If "marriage" is going to be a legally recognized institution then disallowing any two people under any circumstances is going to be discriminatory. Using children or societal values as the reasoning behind the discrimination is an invalid argument because a "marriage" between a man and a woman doesn't equate to having a successful family or increasing the quality of life in any given society. There's actually more evidence to support that it doesn't work more often than it does.

And if you really want to delve into the breakdown of society and family, homosexual "marriages" are the last things that should be ignored by the state. Calling a marriage a sacred institution, while excluding some, yet embracing the majority who will ultimately prove it to not be sacred by divorcing, is like reading through the fine print of your insurance policy and seeing that "Acts of God" are not covered by the non-religious company that wrote the policy in the first place.

I see where you're going with this, and I won't say I agree with you but I won't say I disagree with you either. I just believe if you're going to have a government affiliated "marriage" then what's good for the goose has to be good for the gander, and that can't be based on a religious tradition that excludes anyone for any reason. To me, simply having a state hold a definition of a "marriage", which is a religious-based institution, practice, and tradition, ignores the 1st Amendment. If you're going to have protected status based on your "marriage" to another person, then it needs to be protected based on an all-inclusive defintion of "marriage" not a traditionally-held religious definition.

Simply put, defining who can be in a "marriage" is forcefully imposing a violation of the 1st Amendment. So yes, I agree with you that "marriage" should be reserved for a man and a woman in a religiously-held tradtional setting. However, I also think there should be an all-encompassing title from the state that recognizes those "married" and those who choose to have a same-sex spouse. So in effect, you would have a husband/wife in a "marriage" and also a "state-licensed significant other acquired through civil union" as well. The only difference there is those involved in a homosexual "state-licensed union" couldn't use the title "husband" or "wife" anymore.

Legally speaking, neither could the "husband" or "wife" from a "marriage" either because there would be no more state recognized "marriage." Only a secular "civil union" and marriage would be yet another thing slowly sliding into the abyss of what is becoming our "better world."

Slim, your tracking is good. I think the way it will go for now is that some states will recognize "civil unions" and these unions will get the legal status for taxes, insurance, estates, etc. In such unions there is no husband and wife...but life partners.

The dictionary tells me--a husband is defined as follows: "a married man considered in relation to his wife." A wife is defined as follows: "a married woman considered in relation to her husband." I don't see any ambiguity.

Ah, fun with Bill and Monica! BJs, cigars, stained dresses, impeachment hearings...what more could we want from our president?

Why would anyone choose to make their life so much more difficult? I've been around gay people since i was born, and several of my closest friends are, and nothing has ever lead me to believe that they made any kind of "choice."

I had a close lesbian friend once. She described just how difficult is was to feel the way she did when she was maturing knowing everyone felt it was a sin. It cannot be a choice, IMO. The greatest compliment she ever paid me and really helped me understand, "If you were just a woman, I could so fall in love with you. You'd be perfect."

What I'm saying is the state shouldn't have marriage period. There should only be civil unions between two people... any two people... and whatever kind of sacred mumbo-jumbo you want to put on there should be Constitutionally protected under the 1st Amendment. But, that's all up to you, the state would only recognize the union between you and your significant other for legal purposes associated with things like what you listed above.



How about keeping his personal religious beliefs out of the White House?



They have made a choice.

So have we all.

Whether they choose to be gay or straight, all people choose to act in accordance with societal standards and decide how "gay" they want to be. (Or how promiscuous or taboo or private or open... etc.) It's the actions that define one's orientation, not the inclination.

However, I too have heard 100% of the gay people I've known say it wasn't something they just decided to try and then "went gay" after enjoying it. It was something they just "knew" and even "felt" the same way they have feelings for everything else in their life.

Homosexuality is actually very common in nature. Primates practice it, dolphins practice it, insects practice it...in fact there is growing evidence that homosexuality is not only common in most species on the planet, but that there seem to be evolutionary advantages to it. I wish I had sources to cite, but I do not. I didn't get it from hot-gay-man-on-man-nekked-booty-sex-action.com though. I'll see if I can dig up a credible source.

Regarding the definition of "husband" and "wife," (DJeffery! ), definitions change with time. As I mentioned in a previous post, the very thought of interracial marriage was thought to be an abomination just a few short decades ago. In the late 1800's Ohio was the first state to abolish anti-interracial marriage laws (there's a term for this, but I suffer from CRS syndrome*), but it wasn't until the late 60's that California became only the second state, and not until 2000 that the very last southern state (CRS again, don't remember which one) repealed these laws. Up until that point, the definition of a husband and wife would have included provisions about the color of one's skin.

I have to say that Slim has articulated my position much better than I was able to do. Simply put, the states have a legal definition of marriage that should not have to carry such burdens as "sacred" and any other nebulous baggage we wish to attach. Marriage, as far as the states are concerned, is a legal partnership, nothing more. Counting the number of penises and vaginas in that partnership to make sure they add up correctly is, from a strictly constitutional/humanist point of view, counter-intuitive. As Americans we have always prided ourselves on the idea that as long as what you're doing doesn't hurt anyone else you should be allowed to do it. Marriage should be no different.

In response to sc's point about:

It seems to me that if the states considered marriage to be "sacred," there would be laws against marrying in Elvis costumes, or dressed up as Han Solo and Princess Leia, or as your favorite Star Trek characters, etc. At the very least these kinds of things would be sternly condemned by a majority of the population. But there is no outrage. You see it all the time on the nightly news or the internet, and the only thing I really hear is "wow, those people need to get a life."

Note that I (and others) are speaking of marriage OUTSIDE of a religious context. If you believe in God, and believe YOUR marriage to be sacred, then I for one support your right to this freedom of expression. In fact, I even support your church's right to refuse to marry a gay couple. But in the strictly legal sense, I see the state denying gay marriage as simply unconstitutional, and no weasel-wording about "domestic partnership" is going to fix that unless we declare all marriages to be domestic partnerships and give the term "marriage" back to the religious institutions. (I would be perfectly fine with that actually, and it would actually be a much better separation between church and state.)

* "Can't Remember Shiт" syndrome.

I see some loose agreement around state civil unions, but beyond that I will simply agree to disagree.

As Barack Obama says, "Words matter." Yes, they do. A civil union is not a marriage. A life partner is not a wife or husband.

I will only add that the exceptions in life and nature still do not define the rule. The great preponderance of nature is "straight." If not, we all might might be here...so three cheers for heterosexuality.

"You may now kiss the bride...uh, once you decide who IS the bride."