Homosexuals handed bush win!

brembo · Post by **brembo** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 11:49 pm

brembo wrote:Says who? A Christian God. Now, that is alot like forcing religion on folks. Not something the gov't is tasked to do. Even the bible says stay outta the government.

UOD said it already. Marriage is the institution of religion. So if you wanna keep gays from gettin hitched, THEN DON'T PERFORM THE CERIMONY. Thats not a ban, it's a preacher/minister/rabbi/monk refusing to allow the practice or perfom the rites. Simple now isn't it?

One problem here tho. The whole marriage licence thing. That tosses a monkey wrench in the works some. Still you CAN be married in the eyes of yer God in a church and not have a licence, it's just that the state won't recognize the union.

I don't know if the gays are fighting for state-level recognition of the union or more of a religious stance. If it's state "rights" as it were they are lookin for...so be it. All the state sees is a tax form filed as joint and a few laws regarding inheritance and such. The law should read something like "two consenting adults" or the like. Heck, insurance comapnies might like the idea, not like maternity insurance will be needed(artifical insemination aside).

HEY read this. Dangit. *grumbles*

De Plano · Post by **De Plano** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 11:53 pm

and Brembo said it pretty good also..

ub3r_n00b · Post by **ub3r_n00b** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 11:55 pm

[quote="Prey521"]LOL, that's OK, I've been called worse....you see it your way, I see it mine, great to have free will HUH! ]

Word man, totally. At least we can get along having different opinions.

-Preet

jayyy · Post by **jayyy** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 11:56 pm

I'm not gay and not interested in gay marriage one way or the other...

But it just strikes me as kind of a dumb thing to give a **** about either way. Just my 2 cents.

Whether you're liberal or conservative with everything going on in the world right now, its amazing that over 20% needed "moral issues" in order to get worked up enough to go out and vote.

War in the middle east and more coming, terrorists planning a strike that will make 9/11 look like a prelude, greatest defecit in history, worst job record for a president since the great depression, civil liberties under attack, corporations getting tax breaks for shipping white-collar tech jobs to india...

The pressing issue of 2004 that rove uses to get his man back in another term- WHAT OH WHAT IS TO BE DONE ABOUT GAY PEOPLE THAT WANT TO PLAY DRESS-UP AS IF THEY'RE A NORMAL COUPLE??!?!?

nepenthe · Post by **nepenthe** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 11:56 pm

[quote="Prey521"]LOL, that's OK, I've been called worse....you see it your way, I see it mine, great to have free will HUH! ]

Free will, bah! You're married now, Porfirio.

david

nepenthe · Post by **nepenthe** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 11:58 pm

jayyy wrote: The pressing issue of 2004 that rove uses to get his man back in another term- WHAT OH WHAT IS TO BE DONE ABOUT GAY PEOPLE THAT WANT TO PLAY DRESS-UP AS IF THEY'RE A NORMAL COUPLE??!?!?

Torsten posted a great cartoon a while back in a similar vein.

jayyy · Post by **jayyy** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 12:02 am

I miss Torsten.

JawZ · Post by **JawZ** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 12:31 am

tr87526 wrote:I have tried to give reasons as to why its bad. I am sure there are things that you are 100% convinced that are bad and no one can sway your viewpoint, same sex marriage isn't one of them. But wrong is wrong. It compromises the relationship between man and woman... our foundation.

I'm sure that it is wrong according to your belief system, and I can't argue that. I won't argue that.

But gay marriage does not compromise the Constitutional relationship between citizen and government....which is the foundation of our freedom as Americans.

If we do ban gay marriage through Constitutional provision, then the citizens have lost a basic right of freedom, the freedom to choose, while the government is granted a power that should NOT belong to them...the power to coerce and stifle free poeple.

The Constitution protects our inalienable rights while LIMITING the powers of government. Again, if we invite government into our homes, we are destroying the basic foundation of freedom which this country was built upon.

tr87526 · Post by **tr87526** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 2:46 am

UOD wrote:I'm sure that it is wrong according to your belief system, and I can't argue that. I won't argue that.

But gay marriage does not compromise the Constitutional relationship between citizen and government....which is the foundation of our freedom as Americans.

I'm not sure we disagree here. I don't want any laws created to prevent same sex marriage.

I want us, as humans to say "hey, this is not right, its not normal or the way its suppose to be, therefore we will not support it". Case closed, next issue.

The majority feels this way but because of Political correctness, the trend, not wanting to step on toes, we cave in.

Were do we draw the line and say enough is enough. We can not stand united if everyone has it thier way.

This country is in chaos because we have lost our way. Without rules there is chaos.

Wrong is still wrong. This is an "inch" we can not afford to give. I feel strongly that it would have a bad impact in the long run.

We won't ever agree but I have enjoyed the discussion.

De Plano · Post by **De Plano** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 3:05 am

Outlaw divorce, swearing, liquor, secular music, dancing, buffonry and all else that is a bad influence while we're at it. I mean that is what the point is right, to protect the family from bad influence. Not very far from the Taliban in ideals

SRF01 · Post by **SRF01** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 3:50 am

tr87526 wrote:Wrong is still wrong.

So who is to say what is right and what is wrong? You?

lonewolfz28 · Post by **lonewolfz28** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 4:10 am

SRF01 wrote:So who is to say what is right and what is wrong? You?

Not you, at least not in the US.

It strikes me funny that UOD is putting up such a stiff fight for gay marriage since, as US military, it's not an option.

He's just playing devils advocate again I guess.

rightwinger · Post by **rightwinger** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 4:40 am

UOD wrote:Yeah, then how did we ever let those damn negroes marry our white women?

Freedom to choose fellas. Why you wouldn't support a fellow American in their right to choose....especially in an activity which you don't take part in is beyond comprehension....

How does gay marriage threaten you and your rights?

Oh...that's right...it doesn't.

So let's stop the sickle cell from infecting our white heritage and ban inter-racial marriage.....sound like a plan?

I didn't think so.

Although I do not particularly agree with interracial marriages, it is still between a man and a woman, which is how God intended it to be. "Marriages" and I use that term very loosely, between two people of the same sex is against everything the Bible teaches and is morally corrupt. It runs counter to all the values upon which our founding fathers held close when they started this country.

Homosexuality is morally corrupt, plain and simple, no shades of gray, check please. I do not believe in discriminating on a single person because of it but I am damn sure against the "union" of two of them.

De Plano · Post by **De Plano** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 5:21 am

That is a personal opinion. Like I said what is next swearing, drinking, and dirty dancing?

So many of you want a Christian Taliban in the U.S. and say your patriotic. Freedom folks freedom, oh thats right this is the U.S., not a country that protects peoples rights.

Christian fundamentalist laws for a country that is supposed to have a seperation of church and state. Sounds like folks do not like what our country was founded on.

What does it matter if there is a union between two of them, they'll be busier with each other and tempting you less.

De Plano · Post by **De Plano** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 5:27 am

lonewolfz28 wrote:Not you, at least not in the US.

It strikes me funny that UOD is putting up such a stiff fight for gay marriage since, as US military, it's not an option.

He's just playing devils advocate again I guess.

I guess he is trying to explain to folks the concept of seperation of church and state and the protection of the rights of Americans. If that is the devils advocate to you, fine

lonewolfz28 · Post by **lonewolfz28** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 5:31 am

De Plano wrote:I guess he is trying to explain to folks the concept of seperation of church and state and the protection of the rights of Americans. If that is the devils advocate to you, fine

I'll wait for his explanation, thanks.

JawZ · Post by **JawZ** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 3:36 pm

lonewolfz28 wrote:Not you, at least not in the US.

It strikes me funny that UOD is putting up such a stiff fight for gay marriage since, as US military, it's not an option.

He's just playing devils advocate again I guess.

So because I don't want to change the Constitution to appease one belief system, you think I'm for gay marriage????

I'm not gay. I don't plan on becoming gay. I don't plan on marrying a gay person. (not to mention my wife is ALL hawt

)I don't give a rats ass what other people do in the privacy of their own home.

What happens OUTSIDE of the military is really none of my business.

Or is it?

You see, I took an oath as did you, to support and defend the Constitiution of the US....if the Constitution is changed, does that void my contract? I don't know if I'd be so adamant in defending a special interest version of the Constitution.

Brent · Post by **Brent** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 3:50 pm

I do not agree with the act of Homosexuality, I believe it is a sin.

And stand on my previous posting on this topic recently and basically sum up: I do not want the constitution changed, I do not want the government to decide who can and can't get married. That should be left up to the states, and ultimately the places at which marriages are carried out, for example Churches, it should be decided on that level. As for having a "union" of two people, that should be decided by the State, but not called a Marriage IMO, call it a Union.

Blisster · Post by **Blisster** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 4:10 pm

all these people really want is the same rights any other married couple has. The same tax breaks, the same medical benefits and rights etc. I don't see why its such a big ****ing deal.

Fundamentalists won't be happy until we live unser the same oppression (all in the name of freedom and God, of course) that the Afghani's STILL live under.

cyberskye · Post by **cyberskye** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 4:26 pm

bigmo66 wrote:That raises an interesting question. Do you believe the media is partially at fault for spreading fear and confusion just for the sake of business?

I think the evangicals profit most from the FUD. Keeps them in business. That's how Bush was able to mobilize his fiscally-disappointed base that wouldn't have supported him otherwise.

cyberskye · Post by **cyberskye** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 4:29 pm

Blisster wrote:all these people really want is the same rights any other married couple has. The same tax breaks, the same medical benefits and rights etc. I don't see why its such a big ****ing deal.

Fundamentalists won't be happy until we live unser the same oppression (all in the name of freedom and God, of course) that the Afghani's STILL live under.

Fundamentalists will always view things relative to their god. That's why it is always a moral rather than logical, pragmatic conversation. It polarizes before long before the first sign of debate.