You certainly say "who cares" a lot.

Well, who cares if they call it marriage? They care. Some homosexuals might have religious beliefs as well or are you too pigheaded to consider this? Maybe they want the sacred bond of marriage.

It is not like it will harm you in any way, so 'who cares'. It will not threaten the religious people. Churches will have the right to make individual decisions, to whether each single Church or not will marry homosexuals, but will not be forced. So why do you care? If everyone in your religion is like you, then you have nothing to worry about, your church will not condone it, and as such you will never have to worry about seeing a homosexual wedding.

[Edited on 17-2-2004 by QuestForSafety]

Good point, who cares? You ask who cares, as long as it isn't called marrige. Well, guess what? Who cares if they get married? Seems to me only bigots, republicans, and christians seem to care. If they love each other, then let them marry. You keep trying to treat them like the blacks were in the 1950-1970's. It's seperate but equal! It's civil union, it's equal but seperate. But guess what? A civil union is different than a marrige, don't get the same rights.

Then, guess what? WHAT IS THE BIG DEAL! The straight couples don't seem to be able to handle marrige, 51-53% divorce rate. Let's see if the gays can get it right. Also, asked you, but you didn't answer. WHAT IS SO OFFENSIVE!?!? Two people love each other, should wish them the best of luck. Sure, I am mad at Amber cause she gets more girls than I do, but her and Rae, well, they special, they have been together for a long time, they love each other, and are planning to go all the way to Vermont to get married. Hell, probably be Amber's best man since none of her family want anything to do with her. But why? She is in love, it is great, some people never find love, yet people like you try to deny them the same rights as everyother person.

Bigot, christian, republican, whatever you call them, or yourself, what is so wrong with love? Who cares? Not like you will be forced to marry a gay person, so why not let them marry? It won't hurt you in any way. Well, they may show you up when their marriges don't end in divorce 51-53% of the time.

Not letting gays marry is such bull#! I mean, what's next? Seperate drinking fountains for gays? Are we gonna make tham sit on the back of the bus? How about schools? We'll have schools for heteros and seperate, but equal, schools for gays.
It's discrimination plain and simple. I'm not gay but, I have friends who are. Why can't they get married? Oh yeah, because our government is run by bigots!

Give me a chance to address each of you seperately.

Originally posted by QuestForSafety
You certainly say "who cares" a lot.

Well, who cares if they call it marriage? They care. Some homosexuals might have religious beliefs as well or are you too pigheaded to consider this? Maybe they want the sacred bond of marriage.

They can not have the sacred bond of marriage. Not according to Christianity, the Jews, or the Muslims. Don't blame me for what the religion says. I am just telling you that this is morally divisive and strikes to the heart of a larger part of America than gays will ever constitute.

It is not like it will harm you in any way, so 'who cares'. It will not threaten the religious people.

Here is where you are wrong. It is not religion that stops me from approving of this, it's poltics. Should we allow one "alternative" lifestyle to "marry", then how could we deny another? Check out NAMBLA. Check out the polygamy cases in Texas right now due to the gay marriage fight.

Churches will have the right to make individual decisions, to whether each single Church or not will marry homosexuals, but will not be forced. So why do you care?

I care because the Christian church is going the way of America, being divided down the middle over something that should not even be an issue.

If everyone in your religion is like you, then you have nothing to worry about, your church will not condone it, and as such you will never have to worry about seeing a homosexual wedding.

I don't care if homosexuals want to spend their lives together. I don't care if they are gay. I don't care if they want to be recognized by the government as a legal entity. Fine with me.

[Edited on 17-2-2004 by QuestForSafety]

You really are foolish sometimes, your saying that by allowing homosexuals to marry it magically changes the requirements for marriage?

Suddenly any age can marry, suddenly more than one person can marry. No, the requirements would not magically change, just by allowing same sex marriage.

As for the religious fanaticism. Well, you may spout trash about Muslims and Jewish people not being able to get married, but they can. Perhaps you never payed attention to my last post, but instead just jumped over it like a fool.

I believe I said that it would be up to the CHURCH to make individual decisions like whether they will marry or not. So, your little club of religion has nothing to worry about, they will not be marrying anyone. (Unless the majority of the church agrees, therefore shredding your arguement)

They would be married by a justice of the peace or something, not in a Church by a priest, UNLESS that particular religion decided to condone that. We are not talking about forcing chruches to do anything. Merely changing the law to allow equality to homosexuals.

Something that should not be an issue? You are so arrogant, and would think differently were it just YOU could not marry but everyone else in the world could.

[Edited on 17-2-2004 by QuestForSafety]

Now for James.

Originally posted by James the Lesser
Good point, who cares? You ask who cares, as long as it isn't called marrige. Well, guess what? Who cares if they get married?

See the above post bandwagon junkie. Get an original idea.

Seems to me only bigots, republicans, and christians seem to care. If they love each other, then let them marry.

If your religion said something was wrong, and you constituted a major portion of America, I would take you seriously too, so get off it.

You keep trying to treat them like the blacks were in the 1950-1970's. It's seperate but equal! It's civil union, it's equal but seperate. But guess what? A civil union is different than a marrige, don't get the same rights.

Who says they wouldn't get the same rights? You, does it just fit your arguement? I think so. We could legislate a civil union much more easily for the gay folks without religious opposition. Again, that would be my whole point. Seperate but equal is fundamentally different in that race is not a choosen lifestyle. Gay people are asking for not tolerance or acceptance, but to force us to feel bad that we think what they do it wrong. Good luck.

Then, guess what? WHAT IS THE BIG DEAL! The straight couples don't seem to be able to handle marrige, 51-53% divorce rate.

Ah, good point. I agree with you here and think that it is a sham also that people are taking this so frivilously.

Let's see if the gays can get it right. Also, asked you, but you didn't answer. WHAT IS SO OFFENSIVE!?!? Two people love each other, should wish them the best of luck.

As I do. I am not offended by them, nor do I wish them any harm. i wish them all the luck in the world. What's the point?

Sure, I am mad at Amber cause she gets more girls than I do, but her and Rae, well, they special, they have been together for a long time, they love each other, and are planning to go all the way to Vermont to get married. Hell, probably be Amber's best man since none of her family want anything to do with her. But why? She is in love, it is great, some people never find love, yet people like you try to deny them the same rights as everyother person.

Again, not a right, but a priviledge extended by the government for tax and classification purposes mainly.

Bigot, christian, republican, whatever you call them, or yourself, what is so wrong with love?

Nothing, god bless em.

Who cares?

We do and you can't stop it. Again, back to my point, legislation would be easier to pass and maintain without the religious interference that comes with calling it "marriage". If all rights were given to gays but the title, gays would not be happy, period.

Not like you will be forced to marry a gay person, so why not let them marry? It won't hurt you in any way. Well, they may show you up when their marriges don't end in divorce 51-53% of the time.

Sure, in the begining. But in the end all people are fundamentally the same and the culture of America permates everything.

Originally posted by NotTooHappy
Not letting gays marry is such bull#!

Why, because you said so? Oh, well by all means, let's bow to the smaller group. Please, tell us what to think great one.

I mean, what's next? Seperate drinking fountains for gays? Are we gonna make tham sit on the back of the bus?

Um, no and that is a rediculous arguement. Do you have a point or are you just ranting cause you can't get your way?

How about schools? We'll have schools for heteros and seperate, but equal, schools for gays.

Did you not know? It's already started for a PUBLIC school, but it was started by the homosexuals, not by us, so perhaps you should research your bull # before you speak it. As a side note, I am totally against public schools for gays. I find it divisive and wrong.

It's discrimination plain and simple. I'm not gay but, I have friends who are. Why can't they get married? Oh yeah, because our government is run by bigots!

Yes, all people who do not think like you and your fancy free friends are bigots. I find you to be the bigot for not being tolerant of our line of thinking too. Look up the word before you use it.

Originally posted by QuestForSafety
You really are foolish sometimes, your saying that by allowing homosexuals to marry it magically changes the requirements for marriage?

Suddenly any age can marry, suddenly more than one person can marry. No, the requirements would not magically change, just by allowing same sex marriage.

As for the religious fanaticism. Well, you may spout trash about Muslims and Jewish people not being able to get married, but they can. Perhaps you never payed attention to my last post, but instead just jumped over it like a fool.

I believe I said that it would be up to the CHURCH to make individual decisions like whether they will marry or not. So, your little club of religion has nothing to worry about, they will not be marrying anyone. (Unless the majority of the church agrees, therefore shredding your arguement)

They would be married by a justice of the peace or something, not in a Church by a priest, UNLESS that particular religion decided to condone that. We are not talking about forcing chruches to do anything. Merely changing the law to allow equality to homosexuals.

Something that should not be an issue? You are so arrogant, and would think differently were it just YOU could not marry but everyone else in the world could.

[Edited on 17-2-2004 by QuestForSafety]

~sigh~ If you think that progress comes in just ones step then you are truely a fool.

It would Magically change things. It would mean that the definition of marriage could be changed, and that is a danger in the country where anything is availible and you can find a group to condon it.

Look, I honestly don't care about them getting equal rights, but it really is the best for them to go for the rights and not the religious institution. That makes what they want to get that much harder. I agree that the government should recognize them, but do not ask religion to.

I would not consider 86% of America to be a little club, as you said. The gays have rights, but we do too. The sooner the folks on your side see that the better.

Once again you show how foolish and blind you are. You are such a block head when dealing with this! Look at what YOU write, 86% of Americans are religious. Did you ever happened to think some of those religious people are GAY?

Of course not, that is impossible to you probably. Well, what if these gay people want to marry for religious reasons, the majority religion.

You nicely skipped over the fact that you were wrong that Muslims can marry, perhaps the defenition is not as solid as you thought, or *gasp* perhaps the legal definition is different than the bible. This means of course, it does not need to follow a book of myths.

Giving them equal rights is not enough, some gay people have very strong religious beliefs, they often fall into a very mainstream group of Christians who believe god loves all people and that even gay people should be able to get married.

By the way ONCE again you put some bricks in your ear to fortify your block head. You never listened again how the churches would NOT BE FORCED to marry anyone, even if it is just them getting married at a government office, this would be enough to allow equality. I mean a church is not to be forced into practicing something it does not believe.

Marriage is a word, and though 86% of Americans may be religious, I do not believe 86% think gay people should not marry, more like 50 or 60%. Who knows, maybe more would even prefer to allow gays to marry, as it is in Canada.

[Edited on 17-2-2004 by QuestForSafety]

Just because they have very strong religious beliefs means....hmmm

Nothing. It is not possible to be gay and a Christian no matter what some self-serving fancy free churches like the UUs think.

Sure, God loves all people, but does that mean he condons their wrong doings? No.

If you want this to be a religious debate then fine, but I would really rather keep it from theology.

Anyway, do you disagree with me when I say that marriage legislation is divisive and would meet with heavy religious opposition?

Your clearly trying to turn this into a debate on your flawed theology. You see, when you base things on a book of myths rather than science, you get a flawed result. The Bible says gay people are evil, science says people are born homosexual, and that it is not something they choose to become.

Yes it would meet with a ton of oposition. So did abortion, but look, it is legal. Perhaps your club is not as strong as you think. The countries methods of dealing with these issues allow even minorities to have a voice, a voice which can crumble discrimination.

So now your saying a person cannot be gay and Christian, so now people cannot choose a religious faith, based on the genes they were born with, and your saying you are not discriminatory...

Well, the churches you speak of are very widespread, major religions are accepting gays as christians, catholics, whatever, though many oppose gay marriage, the majority are accepting the facts that it is not some choice a person makes, to cause themselves grief and despair but rather a fact from the moment they are conceived.

Edit: I must go for now, so I can no longer whip at you with words for tonight, but do not think I am allowing you free reign to spread this sick discrimination.

[Edited on 17-2-2004 by QuestForSafety]

Originally posted by QuestForSafety
Your clearly trying to turn this into a debate on your flawed theology.

Actually, I am trying to turn it away from theology, in case you forgot to read what I wrote.

You see, when you base things on a book of myths rather than science, you get a flawed result.

You don't believe. So. We do. Let's leave it at that. Otherwise this turns into an altogether different debate.

The Bible says gay people are evil, science says people are born homosexual, and that it is not something they choose to become.

For every study that says that homosexuality is genetic or otherwise not a choice, I can show you one in opposition. To follow science as a god is flawed as well my friend.

Yes it would meet with a ton of oposition. So did abortion, but look, it is legal.

Ah, so you conceed to my point at last. Look at every abortion law/decision/etc that takes place. It is met with protest, violence, hate on both sides. Is this really how you want this one to turn out?

Perhaps your club is not as strong as you think. The countries methods of dealing with these issues allow even minorities to have a voice, a voice which can crumble discrimination.

here I agree with you, that all have a voice. But still, we choose as a society which institutions we allow and do not. We are making a choice to say no, much like polygamy, humans and animals, NAMBLA, etc.

So now your saying a person cannot be gay and Christian, so now people cannot choose a religious faith, based on the genes they were born with, and your saying you are not discriminatory...

Exactly. Religion is exclusive by nature. Discrimination is when you subject someone when they do not have a choice. i.e. black folks in public schools.

You can choose not to be a follower of a church.

Well, the churches you speak of are very widespread, major religions are accepting gays as christians, catholics, whatever, though many oppose gay marriage, the majority are accepting the facts that it is not some choice a person makes, to cause themselves grief and despair but rather a fact from the moment they are conceived.

There are many converted gays who are now heterosexuals. All thanks to our beloved church. Maybe you should ask them if it's a choice. Again we get back to the science debate.

Can you not admit that science throughout all of history has be riddled with mistakes and wrong?

Edit: I must go for now, so I can no longer whip at you with words for tonight, but do not think I am allowing you free reign to spread this sick discrimination.

Very well. I will wait with baited breath for your return.

[Edited on 17-2-2004 by QuestForSafety]

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific Bible laws and how to follow them:

1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15:19- 24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality? I don't agree. Can you settle this?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)?

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.


There is no enemy anywhere - Lao Tse

Well doesnt life suck.

You live in a REPUBLIC which mean you get represented.

And if your representor wants his way then he doesnt give a # about you.

Also I am against same sex marriages too.

Just go live together why get married?

And as you might already know major of representer are agianst gay marriges.

So until you get a Clinton into office you are just stuck.

Out,
Russian

Bush is gay so why is he fighting against gay rights??

[Edited on 18-2-2004 by drunk]

Originally posted by drunk
Bush is gay so why is he fighting against gay rights??

[Edited on 18-2-2004 by drunk]

Proof?

Out,
Russian

I have no proof i just think he's gay.

Originally posted by drunk
I have no proof i just think he's gay.

I think you are stupid.

But I got no proof so I am groundless and my statement is false.

If you get what I am getting at.

Out,
Russian

Originally posted by Russian

Originally posted by drunk
I have no proof i just think he's gay.

I think you are stupid.

But I got no proof so I am groundless and my statement is false.

If you get what I am getting at.

Out,
Russian

So i am not entitled to my own opinion am i?

besides i knew you would reply to my orignal post so hook,line and sinker i knew you supported Bush.

Originally posted by drunk

So i am not entitled to my own opinion am i?

besides i knew you would reply to my orignal post so hook,line and sinker i knew you supported Bush.

You are entitled to your own opinion what I just wanted to say is your apionion is not always true.

Also to tell you the truth I am now a independent.

I dont give a # about Bush.

I was really against his illegal alien thing.

That really ticked me off.

Out,
Russian