Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The PPIA

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The PPIA

    0
    Certainly
    0%
    0
    I think so
    0%
    0
    Not sure
    0%
    0
    I don't think so
    0%
    0
    Not at all
    0%
    0

  • #2

    Comment


    • #3
      If PPIA will pass, they will eventually have to legalize gay marriage as well...

      Comment


      • #4
        Possibly but the PPIA has nothing to do with Gay Marriage....that a seperate issue, but seems like a lot of people have the two mixed up

        Comment


        • #5
          Hmmm, technically true that the PPIA on its face has nothing to do with gay marriage (since the whole point is that it would allow same sex couples to immigrate without the need to marry), but I think you are kidding yourself if you believe that it will pass without widespread acceptance of same-sex unions first. So legalization of gay marriage is probably a pre-requisite to anything like this becoming the law. Sorry!

          Comment


          • #6
            I don't know Whatdat? There are 108 cosponsers in the house of rep's......I think that if the PPIA passes then it would lead to a much stronger case for the acceptance of Gay Unions....I think that is a better phrase than marriage seeing as most people look at marriage as a religious thing...

            Comment


            • #7
              The whole point of being gay is to be critical of such bourgeois convention such as marriage.

              Congress is considering a "Defense of Marriage Act," which would limit the federal definition of marriage to "one man and one woman as husband and wife. In other words, "husband and husband, or wife and wife," are out, which is fine with me. These words sound too much like master and slave.

              Husband and husband sounds exactly like a joining of two parties who are equals so far as legal entitlements and gender role expectations are concerned. Heterosexual marriage is a "patriarchal" institution and that gays and lesbians should eschew it to avoid supporting the "patriarchy."

              The whole point of being homosexual is to poke fun at heterosexual convention. When you commit yourself to being gay you're supposed to take a lifelong vow of otherness. You're supposed to live on the outside, to glory in being different.

              Comment


              • #8
                I am well aware that terms "homosexual," "gay" or "lesbian," are, strictly speaking, anachronistic. People who continue to use these terms hold that homosexual behavior is a manifestation of some 'inner essence', perhaps biological or psychological, is relatively stable over time, and characteristic of a distinct minority of the population...while we know that homosexuality is not an 'essence' or 'condition' that some people have and others do not. It is not a 'minority orientation' that, perhaps, 10% of the population have and, when they discover their condition, become liberated to conform to their true natures. Yet, when it comes to practice, people do not understand this so they conform to practices like gays going to 'gay' sites, and straights going to hook up with other people on 'straight' sites.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Homosexuality is as old as history - assuming, of course, you take the scholarly view that true history began with Herodotus, and not the conservative Christian view that history began with Adam and Eve. But that's the problem. The differences of opinion in this dispute lie so deep that it's almost as if same-sex marriage is a secondary issue to these beliefs.

                  Most people's response to the question, "Should gays and lesbians be allowed to marry in the same way that straight couples do?" is visceral and automatic. If you believe that God created the universe some 6,000 years ago, and laid down His absolute moral law in the pages of the Holy Bible, then your parties are probably pretty boring, and you regard marriage by definition as a sacred union between a man and a woman for the purpose of procreation. If, on the other hand, you believe the universe is billions of years old, that human beings have an extremely intimate genetic relationship with chimpanzees, and that moral laws are constructed socially rather than super-naturally, you probably smoked dope in college, and you don't much care what marriage is or who does it.

                  In fact, there are a lot of people who really aren't much interested. This debate doesn't inspire the sort of blood-soaked radicalism that you get in the fight over abortion, for example. The combatants in the same-sex marriage controversy are, in the near corner (in rainbow-striped boxers), gay and lesbian activists, and, in the far corner (mouthing a quick prayer), Christian right-wingers, with each side drawing its support from its respective end of the political spectrum. Toss in a few lawyers fascinated by the constitutional issues, and you have the makings of a lukewarm crowd at best. This issue is, however, a significant and interesting one, since it forms part of the continuing evolution of mainstream values in Western society. A lot has changed.

                  The variety of sexual mores through the centuries is amazing. The founders of Western civilization, the ancient Greeks, who gave us Plato and Aristotle and who were every bit as sophisticated and self-aware as we BMW-driving, Deepak-Chopra-reading moderns, sometimes practiced man-boy homosexuality. (We have no record of when they finally got it right.) In the Marche district of medieval France, it's said that a bride-to-be on her way to the church traditionally had sex with every man she met on the way. The Mormons, like Jacob and King Solomon, had a thing for polygamy. The age of consent in the 19th century was usually around 10 years old. And interracial marriage remained illegal in thirteen U.S. states until 1967. Even by 1990, only 10 states had passed laws saying a man can't rape his own wife.

                  Same-sex marriage is not now legal in any jurisdiction in the United States. But it's closer to becoming a reality than ever before. Various cities and states have enacted "domestic partner" laws, which, while not conferring the official status of marriage on a same-sex couple, provide them with a few of the same benefits. Furthermore, the Vermont Supreme Court recently declared that "the state is constitutionally required to extend to same-sex couples the common benefits and protections that flow from marriage under Vermont law." This landmark case (Baker v. State of Vermont, 1999) will compel state legislators to provide same-sex couples wishing to unite under the law with all of the benefits of marriage, if not the actual title of "marriage." Under the "full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution, a same-sex couple "certified" in Vermont might challenge the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which gives states the right to ignore such unions licensed elsewhere.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Let gays marry each-other!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Indeed!

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        **** gays!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Wow seem hate them is a closet case, he's talking/thinking about ****ing gay's, I guess that's pretty strong evidence for my conclusion....

                          What a fool....

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            LOL "I see"!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              you gays will always will be seen as sick and criminal -- the discrimination masked as 'illness' or 'crime', is a naturally-occurring human behavior. The minority (in this case, you) will always be singled out by the majority (me). It's a fact that such behavior will be recognized (discriminated) because it is not of the majority. The majority views the minority as freaks. If you are a man, and you like to be intimate with the *** of another men, you are viewed as a freak by the majority. The majority, by definition, has voting power over the minority. Thus, you will not get your way. I suggest that you buy a house plant and eat alot of chocolate.

                              Comment

                              Sorry, you are not authorized to view this page

                              Home Page

                              Immigration Daily

                              Archives

                              Processing times

                              Immigration forms

                              Discussion board

                              Resources

                              Blogs

                              Twitter feed

                              Immigrant Nation

                              Attorney2Attorney

                              CLE Workshops

                              Immigration books

                              Advertise on ILW

                              EB-5

                              移民日报

                              About ILW.COM

                              Connect to us

                              Questions/Comments

                              SUBSCRIBE

                              Immigration Daily



                              Working...
                              X