People should be able to do what they want as long as it dont hurt anyone else. The goverment should leave people alone. Let them be happy and worrie free.

Originally posted by SpittinCobra
People should be able to do what they want as long as it dont hurt anyone else. The goverment should leave people alone. Let them be happy and worrie free.

My sentiments exactly

If it doesn't hurt anyone, leave 'em alone. What the heck do I care if a gay couple wants to get married? Doesn't effect me one bit

What I find appaling is that Brittany Spears can walk in drunk off her *ss and get married, only to have it annulled (sp?) like the next day. But, two people who are actually in love with one another can't get married. Stinks in my opinion.

Originally posted by MacMerdin
What I find appaling is that Brittany Spears can walk in drunk off her *ss and get married, only to have it annulled (sp?) like the next day. But, two people who are actually in love with one another can't get married. Stinks in my opinion.

No shyte! I saw her talking about it last night and she was like, "Omi god! I was bored and like, wanted something crazy to do!" What a dumb, empty beeotch.

Oh well, at least she's a great stripper!

This whole civil union thing should be a States' rights issue. But hey - when was the last time BushCo. was accused of consulting the constitution?

maybe an attempt to increase american birthrates by promoting hetero marriage. Closet fags get married

Has anyone noticed how Bush seems to always take plays straight out of Hitler's handbook, appealing to the lowest parts of our nature? Closet racists love him cause he's made it fashionable again to hate a certain ethnic group, like Arabs. His little civil union wedge issue appeals to those who hate "faggots." It's all about hate with BushCo. It's just plain evil!

CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW.....! LET THE STATES DO WHAT THE CONSTITUTION EMPOWERED THEM TO DO! MAKE THEIR OWN LAWS!

Yes, it is all yet another "evil" plan. You are sounding more like Colonel every day.

It is a good idea for this to be in the Constitution. Speaking outside of the issue of Gay marriage, with this being such a bitter battle, it would be nationaly divisive to allow states to rule on this issue.

38 States define it as a man and a woman

12 States are ambiguous.

Even if all 12 states allow gay marriage it would still not be legally recognizable in the remaining 38 states.

That's a clear majority to me.

Homosexuals are looking for civil unions but choose to use the term marriage becuase they feel that if they don't get the same THING that they are being treated unfairly.

It is clear that they only are entitled to the same rights, not nessesarily the same thing.

It would be better for all if the civil union was created because it would be easier to legislate without religious interferance.

But using marriage, you now have the Christians, the Jews, and the Muslims against which last time I checked, was against homosexuality which is their right.

They are a clear majority. The federal government has the right to do this because it's function is to promote the general welfare of all the people, not just the minority.

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
Yes, it is all yet another "evil" plan. You are sounding more like Colonel every day.

It is a good idea for this to be in the Constitution. Speaking outside of the issue of Gay marriage, with this being such a bitter battle, it would be nationaly divisive to allow states to rule on this issue.

38 States define it as a man and a woman

12 States are ambiguous.

Even if all 12 states allow gay marriage it would still not be legally recognizable in the remaining 38 states.

That's a clear majority to me.

Homosexuals are looking for civil unions but choose to use the term marriage becuase they feel that if they don't get the same THING that they are being treated unfairly.

It is clear that they only are entitled to the same rights, not nessesarily the same thing.

It would be better for all if the civil union was created because it would be easier to legislate without religious interferance.

But using marriage, you now have the Christians, the Jews, and the Muslims against which last time I checked, was against homosexuality which is their right.

They are a clear majority. The federal government has the right to do this because it's function is to promote the general welfare of all the people, not just the minority.

I think you have sumed it up nicely. Very nice post

That which destroys the health of the society hurts all.
The very idea that after thousands of years, marriage needs defining only goes to prove the moral degradation of this society and why we are in a moral dangerous time in our nation's history than any other time yet.

Originally posted by BlackJackal

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
Yes, it is all yet another "evil" plan. You are sounding more like Colonel every day.

It is a good idea for this to be in the Constitution. Speaking outside of the issue of Gay marriage, with this being such a bitter battle, it would be nationaly divisive to allow states to rule on this issue.

38 States define it as a man and a woman

12 States are ambiguous.

Even if all 12 states allow gay marriage it would still not be legally recognizable in the remaining 38 states.

That's a clear majority to me.

Homosexuals are looking for civil unions but choose to use the term marriage becuase they feel that if they don't get the same THING that they are being treated unfairly.

It is clear that they only are entitled to the same rights, not nessesarily the same thing.

It would be better for all if the civil union was created because it would be easier to legislate without religious interferance.

But using marriage, you now have the Christians, the Jews, and the Muslims against which last time I checked, was against homosexuality which is their right.

They are a clear majority. The federal government has the right to do this because it's function is to promote the general welfare of all the people, not just the minority.

I think you have sumed it up nicely. Very nice post

Well from what I read in the two sentences, it states that even civil unions would NOT...I repeat NOT have the same rights as married people. The last line says unmarried couples. A civil union does NOT mean that you are a married couple. So don't give me that shiit about "ooooo why don't they just have civil unions, it's the same" BS!!!!!!!!!

The bottom line is this.. man can call it whatever they want. But in God's sight, marriage is between a man and a woman. All the legislation in the world will not change that.

I'm not slamming any group. It's just common sense.

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
Yes, it is all yet another "evil" plan. You are sounding more like Colonel every day.

Is this nessary, are you being for real in saying this? Whats it mean , to sound like Colonel?

Most people know of evolotion, Or the new name changes of biology over time. May all the new uprise in % of gays in the world is a means of population contral from nature.


If a frog can change its sex depending on the count of males to females. We are all animals. Just a thought. It seems to me people hate what they dont understand, the down fall of man.

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
The bottom line is this.. man can call it whatever they want. But in God's sight, marriage is between a man and a woman. All the legislation in the world will not change that.

I'm not slamming any group. It's just common sense.

We say its not in GODs eye cuz its in the Bible? If so Documents are changed all the time to fit agendas. The bible is atleast 2000 Years old thats alot of agendas.

How can there be a new testment? Shouldnt it all be the same. Is there an origanal?

I agree that all the legislation will not change the fact that it is not accepted or recognized by God.

But the fact is, is that most people do not want gay people to have the ability to be married, plain and simple.

Who says that civil unions would not have the same rights as married people. It is not even law yet.

What I am saying is that they SHOULD be afforded all the rights as a married person, but not be "married"

Is it all a semantics debate? Yes. But one that a lot of people are up tight about.

Why divide the country further, there is just no reason.

and about the "evil" thing. It was a joke.

Colonel is always spinning off about "evil" this and that.

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
and about the "evil" thing. It was a joke.

Colonel is always spinning off about "evil" this and that.

I see thanks for clarifing

Originally posted by SpittinCobra

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
The bottom line is this.. man can call it whatever they want. But in God's sight, marriage is between a man and a woman. All the legislation in the world will not change that.

I'm not slamming any group. It's just common sense.

We say its not in GODs eye cuz its in the Bible? If so Documents are changed all the time to fit agendas. The bible is atleast 2000 Years old thats alot of agendas.

How can there be a new testment? Shouldnt it all be the same. Is there an origanal?

According to the bible - and you can believe it or leave it - God created marriage.

I just don't get why God allowed gay DNA into people's makeups, since He deemed it - and I quote - "an abomination." Just doesn't seem right.



[Edited on 19-09-2003 by EastCoastKid]

Repugnants mind: We couldn't stop the whites and negroes from marrying! We couldn't stop the Catholics and the Protestants from marrying! We couldn't stop the Jews and Gentiles from marrying! BUT, BY CHRIST, WE'LL STOP THE QUEERS!
By creating laws that discriminate against a certain group of people.