SG Broadband Community

Posted: **Wed Nov 03, 2004 4:08 pm**

The #1 issue according to exit polling data was "moral issues". I'd say that brought out at least 2 million more evangelicle Christians and 3 million or so non Christians who were voting on the basis of the gay marrige issue. 2.5 to 5 million or so votes that Bush might not have gotten otherwise!!!

Something to think about. It probably made the difference in Ohio.

Posted: **Wed Nov 03, 2004 4:09 pm**

That gay marriage ban proposal passed here with ease. I can see why that would help Bush, no one wants that crap. Man and woman, period.

Posted: **Wed Nov 03, 2004 4:10 pm**

Loonatic wrote:That gay marriage ban proposal passed here with ease. I can see why that would help Bush, no one wants that crap. Man and woman, period.

Word!!!

Posted: **Wed Nov 03, 2004 4:14 pm**

So my reasoning is sound? I'm not crazy?

Posted: **Wed Nov 03, 2004 4:31 pm**

Loonatic wrote:That gay marriage ban proposal passed here with ease. I can see why that would help Bush, no one wants that crap. Man and woman, period.

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.

Posted: **Wed Nov 03, 2004 4:33 pm**

Sorry, UOD.

That's why your name is Evan, and mine is Jon. Different views, different opinions, different people.

Posted: **Wed Nov 03, 2004 4:35 pm**

Loonatic wrote:Sorry, UOD.

That's why your name is Evan, and mine is Jon. Different views, different opinions, different people.

And I don't have a problem with it Jon, but please tell me that it does not in any way size shape or form affect your rights....just give me that and I'll back off.

Posted: **Wed Nov 03, 2004 4:51 pm**

http://www.seas.upenn.edu/~kenyon3/2004.htm

Posted: **Wed Nov 03, 2004 5:29 pm**

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.

Posted: **Wed Nov 03, 2004 5:37 pm**

I thought the number 1 issue was "terrorism"?

Posted: **Wed Nov 03, 2004 5:40 pm**

UOD, gay marriage does not threaten OUR rights, it blasphemes a word that by all rights, is a sacrament of the church. They can call it a union, but marriage should be reserved for a true man and woman uniting.

I do not think they should be dissalowed their rights, but they should not be allowed to distort our practices..

Posted: **Wed Nov 03, 2004 5:41 pm**

Blisster wrote:I thought the number 1 issue was "terrorism"?

You so last year....

Posted: **Wed Nov 03, 2004 5:42 pm**

Chris wrote:You so last year....

no really, i saw it on one fo the CNN polls

Posted: **Wed Nov 03, 2004 6:03 pm**

Lol @ Cnn = Biased and slanted info

Posted: **Wed Nov 03, 2004 6:20 pm**

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.

I have stated the religious issue in previous post so I won't bring those up again But there ar other concerns.

If it is, as proponents suggest, discrimination to deny same-sex couples the privilege of marriage, then it is also discrimination to deny the privilege to anyone else who wants to get married. Right?

"Well," you say, "who else wants to get married but is denied by the state?"

Many people. And as soon as this taboo is broken, watch them line up.

How long do you suppose it will be, once same-sex marriage is a reality, before brothers want to marry sisters? How long do you suppose it will be before sisters want to marry sisters? How long do you suppose it will be before brothers want to marry brothers?

How many same-sex marriage advocates want to go down that road?

Are you still with me?

If incestuous marriages don't scare you off, how about marriages involving more than two people? What possible reason could we find for "discriminating" against threesomes, foursomes, fivesomes, etc.?

and if you think I am stretching the point here, I'm not. It will happen!

Remember what sex organs are designed for.....making babies. If not, you won't be here.

Posted: **Wed Nov 03, 2004 6:25 pm**

Didn't we use to have a gay person on these forums? Mikeman or whatever? I wonder what he thinks about it.

Posted: **Wed Nov 03, 2004 6:30 pm**

J-high wrote:Lol @ Cnn = Biased and slanted info

Yeah dude fox rocks.

and UOD = pwned everybody.

I will never have my wife go through an abortion, or will i marry a man, but guess what? i don't impose my views on others.

Posted: **Wed Nov 03, 2004 6:45 pm**

Americans with traditional moral views have spoken. They outnumber the so called progressive secularists 2-1. Go live in the country of California if you want to fit in. Believing in something doesn't neccesarily mean you are imposing your beliefs on someone else.

I'm driven to the point where I've never been on this forum in 4 years - STHU losers and get an identity.

Posted: **Wed Nov 03, 2004 6:48 pm**

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

I dont...

Posted: **Wed Nov 03, 2004 6:52 pm**

bigmo66 wrote:Americans with traditional moral views have spoken. They outnumber the so called progressive secularists 2-1. Go live in the country of California if you want to fit in. Believing in something doesn't neccesarily mean you are imposing your beliefs on someone else.

I'm driven to the point where I've never been on this forum in 4 years - STHU losers and get an identity.

How bout i don't STHU, loser.

Country of California? sorry dude, you might want to read up on that them there constitution, ya know, the backbone of this entire shabang.

When you vote to ban something that directly affects the lives of other citizens, that's imposing your beliefs.

Posted: **Wed Nov 03, 2004 7:03 pm**

it used to be that mexicans could not marry Spanish, blacks could not marry anyone, even other blacks, whites only married whites, Asians? who cared about them?

as Mehmet said, to ban something that does NOT affect you, is imposeing your beliefs on others who may or may not share them

Posted: **Wed Nov 03, 2004 7:12 pm**

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.

I agree with you 100% but... Whats to say if a man and a man can marry, what about a man and his pet sheep.

Or a man and his favorite apple. etc. I know its crazy talk, but I am crazy.

Chim

Posted: **Wed Nov 03, 2004 7:27 pm**

aren't ya'll trying to imposing your beliefs on people?

the belief not to impose beliefs?

Posted: **Wed Nov 03, 2004 7:27 pm**

Mehmet wrote:When you vote to ban something that directly affects the lives of other citizens, that's imposing your beliefs.

So What! Are you saying that all bans should be "banned" They recently banned leaf and stick burning in my county because of health risks to those sensative to smoke. This a positive effect on those people, but due to a lack of an alternative, people are stuck with way more leaves than can be mulched and also no foilage contract with waste handlers.

Both parties effected, who's cause is more important? Sometimes we have to make a decision. 2-1 to ban gay marriages. Is that not the "people" speaking? I understand well and good about keeping from "mob rule" and such, but too many times have we let 1 person with a lawyer change law that effects countless people's rights. What about those decisions?

Posted: **Wed Nov 03, 2004 7:43 pm**

bigmo66 wrote:So What! Are you saying that all bans should be "banned" They recently banned leaf and stick burning in my county because of health risks to those sensative to smoke. This a positive effect on those people, but due to a lack of an alternative, people are stuck with way more leaves than can be mulched and also no foilage contract with waste handlers.

Both parties effected, who's cause is more important? Sometimes we have to make a decision. 2-1 to ban gay marriages. Is that not the "people" speaking? I understand well and good about keeping from "mob rule" and such, but too many times have we let 1 person with a lawyer change law that effects countless people's rights. What about those decisions?

Let's use your logic - what are the negative impacts of gay marriage on you, your friends, and/or your family? In the leaf burning scenario, I see who is negatively impacted. This is the part that no one can answer for me on this topic.

Posted: **Wed Nov 03, 2004 7:55 pm**

cyberskye wrote:Let's use your logic - what are the negative impacts of gay marriage on you, your friends, and/or your family? In the leaf burning scenario, I see who is negatively impacted. This is the part that no one can answer for me on this topic.

Gay marriage does have an impact on me and my family. We have certain beliefs and children are vulnerable regardless of what is believed in the home. What message are we sending to future generations. On this board, a good many will say "tolerance" and "freedom". What about my freedom as an evangelical, caucasion? There is a huge battle against "my kind" out there and we can't speak less we be seen as intolerant. My rights have been violated over and over, but many don't see it that way. We are more "sensative" to gays and athiests - Why?

Posted: **Wed Nov 03, 2004 7:59 pm**

Brent wrote:aren't ya'll trying to imposing your beliefs on people?

the belief not to impose beliefs?

Brent - it's called freedom. I'm not a liberal - I'm a libertarian

Posted: **Wed Nov 03, 2004 8:05 pm**

bigmo66 wrote:Gay marriage does have an impact on me and my family. We have certain beliefs and children are vulnerable regardless of what is believed in the home. What message are we sending to future generations. On this board, a good many will say "tolerance" and "freedom". What about my freedom as an evangelical, caucasion? There is a huge battle against "my kind" out there and we can't speak less we be seen as intolerant. My rights have been violated over and over, but many don't see it that way. We are more "sensative" to gays and athiests - Why?

Which freedoms have been taken from you?

You know that a gay couple living down the street is not going to break up over not being able to marry. That mean's you are equally 'exposed' with or without the ban.

I think a lot of religious folks are labelled intolerant because there is no debate. You are required to believe that you believe what's right and others are [misguided, confused, sinners]. You (subjective "You") never come to the table with the possibility of compromise. That makes any debate with you impossible. That's exactly why religion should not enter politics. Teach by example rahter than preaching.

I don't believe in protecting gay rights, or women's rights, or any race - I believe in human rights. No one likes being lectured to. It's extremely arrogant and condescending.

Skye

Posted: **Wed Nov 03, 2004 8:42 pm**

Massa wrote:UOD, gay marriage does not threaten OUR rights, it blasphemes a word that by all rights, is a sacrament of the church. They can call it a union, but marriage should be reserved for a true man and woman uniting.

I do not think they should be dissalowed their rights, but they should not be allowed to distort our practices..

Gay marriage is out of the question but feed the priests with alter boys and everything is a- o -k! It's all about the morals...

Posted: **Wed Nov 03, 2004 8:47 pm**

bigmo66 wrote:Gay marriage does have an impact on me and my family. We have certain beliefs and children are vulnerable regardless of what is believed in the home. What message are we sending to future generations. On this board, a good many will say "tolerance" and "freedom". What about my freedom as an evangelical, caucasion? There is a huge battle against "my kind" out there and we can't speak less we be seen as intolerant. My rights have been violated over and over, but many don't see it that way. We are more "sensative" to gays and athiests - Why?

People lose thier tolerence for those that hold a powerful position in our society (gay, molesteing, child abusing, manipulating preists) due to their hypocricy when all along they should be LOSEING their freedom!

Posted: **Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:01 pm**

tr87526 wrote:I have stated the religious issue in previous post so I won't bring those up again But there ar other concerns.

If it is, as proponents suggest, discrimination to deny same-sex couples the privilege of marriage, then it is also discrimination to deny the privilege to anyone else who wants to get married. Right?

"Well," you say, "who else wants to get married but is denied by the state?"

Many people. And as soon as this taboo is broken, watch them line up.

How long do you suppose it will be, once same-sex marriage is a reality, before brothers want to marry sisters? How long do you suppose it will be before sisters want to marry sisters? How long do you suppose it will be before brothers want to marry brothers?

How many same-sex marriage advocates want to go down that road?

Are you still with me?

If incestuous marriages don't scare you off, how about marriages involving more than two people? What possible reason could we find for "discriminating" against threesomes, foursomes, fivesomes, etc.?

and if you think I am stretching the point here, I'm not. It will happen!

Remember what sex organs are designed for.....making babies. If not, you won't be here.

incestuous relationships already exist.....marriage is NOT going to stop them. Polygamy is a reality...even for some religions as an accepted practice. And do you really think that allowing same sex marriage is going to prevent baby-making????????? LOL

Posted: **Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:04 pm**

Massa wrote:UOD, gay marriage does not threaten OUR rights, it blasphemes a word that by all rights, is a sacrament of the church. They can call it a union, but marriage should be reserved for a true man and woman uniting.

Exactly what does it have to do with "the church?"

Why does everyone get the impression that 'marriage/civil union/whatever you want to call it' will suddenly turn Sunday mass into an Elton John concert?

The whole "gay marriage" thing has to do with citizens and their country. Your church and religion is still free to practice as it sees fit.

Posted: **Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:06 pm**

Jim wrote:Exactly what does it have to do with "the church?"

Why does everyone get the impression that 'marriage/civil union/whatever you want to call it' will suddenly turn Sunday mass into an Elton John concert?

The whole "gay marriage" thing has to do with citizens and their country. Your church and religion is still free to practice as it sees fit.

Elton John concert?

ROFL

Posted: **Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:08 pm**

cyberskye wrote:Which freedoms have been taken from you?

You know that a gay couple living down the street is not going to break up over not being able to marry. That mean's you are equally 'exposed' with or without the ban.

There are countless freedoms lost. The seperation of church and state has been misused and abused for one.

What is so hard to understand about the gay marriage thing? It isn't the union of gays, it is the definition of marriage that I don't want changed. The attack is on the mainstream definition of marriage. Why change it now? Do we all have to succumb to the new "progressive" generation? I'll not.

Anything goes isn't always the smart move, but it's the movement none the less.

Posted: **Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:12 pm**

bigmo66 wrote:Gay marriage does have an impact on me and my family. We have certain beliefs and children are vulnerable regardless of what is believed in the home. What message are we sending to future generations. On this board, a good many will say "tolerance" and "freedom". What about my freedom as an evangelical, caucasion? There is a huge battle against "my kind" out there and we can't speak less we be seen as intolerant. My rights have been violated over and over, but many don't see it that way. We are more "sensative" to gays and athiests - Why?

Massa: UOD, gay marriage does not threaten OUR rights, it blasphemes a word that by all rights, is a sacrament of the church. They can call it a union, but marriage should be reserved for a true man and woman uniting.

For you two I offer this:

Blasphemes????????????

No.

You see the problem here is that you are hiding behind the very document which grants AND protects your right to your religious freedom.....that document is called the Constitution. One of you was charged with defending it at one time....how we forget our heritage. The Constitution is not a toy for your amusement and it is not a tool for you to use at your discretion. The Constitution which grants and protects your religious freedom is now being wielded by you to INFRINGE upon the rights of others.

As far as majority opinions go....don't mean squat. America proved that to the Germans during the majority controlled holocaust. So just because you have a majority....it doesn't mean you are right. Jesus was a minority.

Posted: **Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:21 pm**

UOD wrote:For you two I offer this:

Blasphemes????????????

No.

You see the problem here is that you are hiding behind the very document which grants AND protects your right to your religious freedom.....that document is called the Constitution. One of you was charged with defending it at one time....how we forget our heritage. The Constitution is not a toy for your amusement and it is not a tool for you to use at your discretion. The Constitution which grants and protects your religious freedom is now being wielded by you to INFRINGE upon the rights of others.

As far as majority opinions go....don't mean squat. America proved that to the Germans during the majority controlled holocaust. So just because you have a majority....it doesn't mean you are right. Jesus was a minority.

So where does it end UOD? Are there no perversions, no limits, nothing too rediculous to define as just plain wrong? People's rights to an abortion are protected, but inmy town and many others where "Pro-life" activists display gruesome images of late term abortions, the same folks are calling for their heads claiming their rights are being violated by being exposed to the images. Where's the freedom there? Who are the sign holders hurting. Are they any worse than taking my kids to the park only to witness to men engaged in a long, passionate kiss?

Posted: **Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:25 pm**

I think graphic images of aborted fetuses are worse than seeing two people express there affection for one another, but if you don't, I suppose that explains alot fo things

Posted: **Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:26 pm**

THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN BUSH GET'S RE-ELECTED!!

Posted: **Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:30 pm**

Mark wrote:THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN BUSH GET'S RE-ELECTED!!

Posted: **Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:31 pm**

[quote="Blisster"][/QUOTE]

see i told ya so

SG Broadband Community

Homosexuals handed bush win!

Homosexuals handed bush win!