Breaking in for Gay marriage

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 24 2004 @ 09:41 AM
link   
Oh no they did not just interupt all network TV so the president can speak out against gay marriage?

Oh please, there are more problems in this country that needs to be dealt with.

I mean I am not exactly for gay marriage but does it really require such a big response???

His priorities are not right!




posted on Feb, 24 2004 @ 09:57 AM
link   
I wanted to cry when he said, paraphrased because I forget the exact wording,
'We have to respect every citizen of the United States. But we have to protect the sanctity of marriage.'

*sighs*
So which is it, Bushy? You gonna respect two consenting adults who want to be afforded the same legal rights as everyone else, or do you want to go on about this sanctity bull# that doesn't even exist in hetero marriages anymore?

I just feel sick now.

-B.



posted on Feb, 24 2004 @ 10:00 AM
link   
The world is on the brink and he is worrying about where some stranger sticks his rod.
I have to agree that there are many other things that take priority right now....like all of them.



posted on Feb, 24 2004 @ 10:00 AM
link   
The big issue for me is CHANGING THE CONSTITUTION!

These whims are out of control. First they want an "Arnold Clause" to let Schwarzenegger run for President...now this.



posted on Feb, 24 2004 @ 10:10 AM
link   
"America is a free society, which limits the role of government in the lives of our citizens," he said.

Wait! Which America is he talking about because I am not farmiliar with that one.



posted on Feb, 24 2004 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by RANT
The big issue for me is CHANGING THE CONSTITUTION!

These whims are out of control. First they want an "Arnold Clause" to let Schwarzenegger run for President...now this.



when i read the article in which arney supports both changes ion the constitution, he was actually quoted saying he hadn't even thought about the possibility of running for president yet, and at this time has no plans to ever do so.


Jay

posted on Feb, 24 2004 @ 11:08 AM
link   
I personnelly think that the goverment has no right to out law gay marriage. This is a very sad day in our history, and to me a side in the wrong direction. We learned a long time ago that singling out a race, or group of people is wrong and cause one civil war. I also agree that they should only be allowed a civil union, this is how i married and I'm straight.

I think with this law in effect it will weaken the country even more, and directly spilt our populace. As far as Bush respecting every citizen of the US, bs with this law he is making it almost as bad as women weren't allowed to vote. We as a society need to stand up and say as a whole, they like us have the right to legally marry one another, or we are no better then 100-200 years ago with women having no right, blacks, and indians having no rights in this country.

I understand that most of you think this is (gay marriage) might be wrong, but think about this what can come next. They already lost the fight in Texas(Bush's Home State mind you) to outlaw gay sex. Whats next outlawing them the right to kiss in public, how about even being in this country, or the right to even be seen in public. If they continue on this course i see a big problem happening in the US. Think about it this way, if they outlaw kissing in publis between two men or two women, then they should outlaw it between a man and a women.

Then we could outlaw holding hands with each other, hey even better lets try what they did in the early 1900's. Lets put all gays in the mental system, then we can added AD kids to that, also people like me who don't belive in a oragnized religion could be kicked out of a country that say every one is created equal. With the passing of this law your basically saying gay's are not equal to straight people, this remind me of the Black/White back in the 1800's to early 1960's i belive. I know i will get alot of flames out of this but think about it folks, we are guarrented freedom, but with this they are taking it away from one group of people.



posted on Feb, 24 2004 @ 11:20 AM
link   
Jay, that is a rediculous arguement.

For one, no one is striping rights from gay people. No one wants to pack them up in a rocket and send them to the moon, or put them all on an island to rule themselves.

Doesn't even make sense


Jay

posted on Feb, 24 2004 @ 11:29 AM
link   
But they are tryin to stop their rights to a civil union or marriage. Cause when i had my civil union i had to fill out a marriage license and we were told your now Married. They should be given the same rights as us straight people, and be left alone. Like i said if this pass we are no better then we were 100-200 years ago with slavery and women not having any rights. It's not so much stripping rights for a gay person, but stripping rights for a person who our consitution says is CREATED EQUAL. I have been reading on this board thier is another topic which says in various posts, that being gay can be cured, bs.
They tired this with numerous people and kids, for being gay, wild children, and various other problems. I'm sorry KrazyJethro that you and some others aren't comfortable with gays being able to hae the same rights as us, but they are created equal by the constitution of our United States of America.



posted on Feb, 24 2004 @ 11:38 AM
link   
Jethro....you have done it again. (shown how ignorant you can be).

First off, not stripping anyone's rights? How bout my right to happiness, love, affection, and more over the SAME rights that the straights get from being married.

Yes, civil unions are the same but this ammendment will ban even civil unions.

I feel that we should have the right to marry and the church should also have the right to say "no you can't marry in my church". People who are Jewish and Catholic can't marry in a Catholic church...so why would it be any different for gays?

We are not trying to gain anything but the dignity that the straight people have.....oh yes and the same rights.


Jay

posted on Feb, 24 2004 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by MacMerdin
Jethro....you have done it again. (shown how ignorant you can be).

First off, not stripping anyone's rights? How bout my right to happiness, love, affection, and more over the SAME rights that the straights get from being married.

Yes, civil unions are the same but this ammendment will ban even civil unions.

I feel that we should have the right to marry and the church should also have the right to say "no you can't marry in my church". People who are Jewish and Catholic can't marry in a Catholic church...so why would it be any different for gays?

We are not trying to gain anything but the dignity that the straight people have.....oh yes and the same rights.


Mac I'm on your side on this, like i said in my post if you read it. I belive this is no better then when slavery, and the womens right to vote(or the lack of a right to vote) where in affect. The civil union is like you say a marriage, and I'm sorry that this country is filled with backwoods hicks, one just happens to run the country. Also that one church's religious views are being thrown on the populace even though thier is supposed to be a sepreation of church and State.



posted on Feb, 24 2004 @ 08:30 PM
link   
Shesh, you guys are really drawing a lot out of a couple lines.

So I'll clear it up for you.

Jay, you wrote this:

Whats next outlawing them the right to kiss in public, how about even being in this country, or the right to even be seen in public. If they continue on this course i see a big problem happening in the US. Think about it this way, if they outlaw kissing in publis between two men or two women, then they should outlaw it between a man and a women.

Then we could outlaw holding hands with each other, hey even better lets try what they did in the early 1900's. Lets put all gays in the mental system...

To which I replied:

"Jay, that is a rediculous arguement.

For one, no one is striping rights from gay people. No one wants to pack them up in a rocket and send them to the moon, or put them all on an island to rule themselves."

And it is true, no one is trying to take rights away from gay people because the rights have NEVER BEEN THERE.


You disgrace yourself again here Jay:

"if this pass we are no better then we were 100-200 years ago with slavery and women not having any rights"

Did you not get what I said? Gays have all the rights the rest of us have. They can vote, have parades, protest legally, eat in restaurants, have sex, love each other, have the right to a fair trial, drive a car, own property, make a fair wage, and even drink from the same water fountain to name a few.

Here's the kicker!

Mac, here you say (since I'm so ignorant):

First off, not stripping anyone's rights? How bout my right to happiness, love, affection,

Is it not possible to love, be happy, share affection outside of marriage? If so (and it is), then your arguement, and others like you, is rediculous. Further more, I did not say anything about this.

and more over the SAME rights that the straights get from being married.

Again, getting married is not a right, much like getting a driver's licence. The government can limit who state licences are given to at any time. You have to meet requirements in order to obtain one.


But you guys like to infer things from very few words since it is not in line with your hallowed ideals.

So, here it is. My thoughts on it.

All marriages done by the state are civil unions, to include gay and straight.

You do not get a marriage licence, you get a civil union licence.

They get the same legal rights, but not the title.



posted on Feb, 24 2004 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by RANT
The big issue for me is CHANGING THE CONSTITUTION!

These whims are out of control. First they want an "Arnold Clause" to let Schwarzenegger run for President...now this.



Ya know the Arnie Amendment is really pissing me off. Blacks and other minorities have worked hard to build up this country to the powerhouse it is for centuries. Now, this NAZI can come in and get an amendment so that HE can run for president in the next few years and have a good chance at winning on the Nazi Repugnant ticket.



posted on Feb, 24 2004 @ 08:55 PM
link   
Then get a decent black man with a solid platform in the damn race and I'll vote for him.



posted on Feb, 24 2004 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
They get the same legal rights, but not the title.


seems like a really long argument for such a simple point. why can't they have the title? is this whole debate about mere semantics? straight couples can get "married" while gay couples can be in a "legal civil union"? let's call a spade a spade here.

crapping all over the Constitution with a garbage amendment like this is a waste of time and money. I think our country has taken leave of its senses. if this amendment passes, it'll be like Prohibition...it was widely supported when it passed, but 10 years on it was clear to even its supporters what a retarded idea it was.

edit: whoops. misread Colonel's post.

[Edited on 2/24/2004 by MorningtonCrescent]



posted on Feb, 24 2004 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
Then get a decent black man with a solid platform in the damn race and I'll vote for him.


YOu wouldn't even vote for Alan Keyes---THE BEST SELLOUT NAZI REPUGNANT SPEAKER YOU HAVE IN YOUR ENTIRE PARTY WHEN HE RAN FOR PRESIDENT! Colin Powell? Forget it! You guys ran him out beofre he even started.



posted on Feb, 24 2004 @ 11:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jay
But they are tryin to stop their rights to a civil union or marriage. Cause when i had my civil union i had to fill out a marriage license and we were told your now Married. They should be given the same rights as us straight people, and be left alone. Like i said if this pass we are no better then we were 100-200 years ago with slavery and women not having any rights. It's not so much stripping rights for a gay person, but stripping rights for a person who our consitution says is CREATED EQUAL. I have been reading on this board thier is another topic which says in various posts, that being gay can be cured, bs.
They tired this with numerous people and kids, for being gay, wild children, and various other problems. I'm sorry KrazyJethro that you and some others aren't comfortable with gays being able to hae the same rights as us, but they are created equal by the constitution of our United States of America.


Excuse me, but people are missing vital points here. First of all, we are not stopping ANY gay rights. They never had the right to marry in this nation in the first place. But why should it remain that way? For a very good reason. You all say that the government has no right outlawing gay marriage, but actually it has NO right to make it legal! Marriage and its sanctity is an institution of the judeo-christian faith. A structure that God intended for a man and woman in a bond that links the two sexes to become one in body and throughout their lives. The SAME faith that declares homosexuality as immoral. Now, I'd like someone to tell me why they think they are right in saying that the government should cross the line of separation of church and state and demand that churches IGNORE there beliefs and marry gay people together if they so request it!

Now before anyone gets in a hissy-fit and calls me an intolerant __________, understand this. Homosexuality is a sin (which means to fall short or miss the mark) to God because it is a distortion of what God intended. It makes an alternate use of mating. Now, it is important to realize that He hates homosexuality, BUT loves the homosexual. So please, understand that God is not being a meany here. It is equivalent to Him hating lies, but still loving those who lie, hates murder, theft, what have you, but loves those who do it. Homosexuality isn't "singled out" among sins in the bible. It is only given as much weight as any other. A liar, or anyone who commits sin is no better than homosexuals. In other words, gays are on the exact same plane as everyone else, because we are all guilty of some sort of sin. Okay? Understand? There is no reason to become upset. I know that many Christians have been disrespectful or even hateful towards gays. Southern Baptists are known for this. This is very damaging for gay people because it is very hurtful, and to Christians because it scars the reputation that we desire and should strive for. To really anger God, is to misrepresent or carry out evil actions in His name. That is the most offensive thing to Him. So please, realize that those who bash gays are misrepresenting God and christianity and are displaying the fallacies of humans. It is of man, not God.

Now Jay, I have come to realize that homosexuality is definitely partially, or even fully caused by genetics, and so urges or attractions gay people have are genuine feelings. So I agree with you there. But why would God instill this into someone if it is wrong? It seems unfair to many if that's really true. Well, for one thing, God doesn't directly insert those genes because He feels like toying with us. Much of the world He lets run its course, and because it is imperfect, imperfections happen like sin for example. So we all struggle with this. Certain people are born with the predisposition of lying. Others are more inherently susceptible to violence or anger. So gays are not unique, even though their sexual preference is genetic. Very importantly, God never desired for the world to come to such a state of imperfection, where gays, and everyone are unfortunately born with these parts of us that want to do the opposite of His intentions for us. The world is the way it is because Adam and Eve committed the first sin which set the trend and gradual degeneration for the rest of history til now. God allowed that to happen and still lets the world take its present course, even with the sin and evil, only because it is necessary for us
to have a choice with what we do. Either follow Him, or not. Sure, He could wipe out sin now, but then we would have no alternative and would be forced or dictated to do His will. Love cannot exist under force and must be someone's own will and discernment. And God wants love.

So, I'm not a biggot here, and neither is Jesus or the christian faith. I had a good friend in high school who was gay. Like I said we all fall short of God's law throughout life and no one has the right to see themself above any other group. And though we are born with certain weaknesses, there is no excuse to just give in to them and pretend that it is alright. We should recognize our urges and how some differ from God's intentions and fight them off. This is why the church does not condone gay marriage. Just as we don't condone many other things we consider wrong. And our law is the way it is (it declares same sex marriage illegal along with the other illegal acts) because it was originally based around judeo-christian values. It has held that way until today where it is being challenged. So, the way to make up to God our sins, gays or straights, murderers, liars, pedophiles, thieves, selfish people, etc. is to admit them to Christ and ask for Him to pay them off through His death which He will do for ANYONE who asks. We shouldn't accept and support our sins, such as gay marriage would do. It must be through Christ, because humans don't have the ability to remove sins ourselves. That is why God decided to send His Son. We need His help to remove our faults and shortcomings.

Please understand that, yes all men and women are created equal, but our rights stop where it violates law, and in our case our law is related to God's law. There are certain groups out there that all agree that they want to do outlandish or awful things. I'm sure they want the right to do eccentric things too, but we should not. I'm not saying gays are eccentric though, only used that to illustrate the principle and why it's not wrong to draw the line before condoning same sex marriage. Hopefully, this cleared up some reasons on why some of you wonder why there are those who want to ban gay marriage.



posted on Feb, 25 2004 @ 12:17 AM
link   
Unfortunately, this is no longer a debate about who has what rights. There are proper ways
for people in a republic to address legislative issues. This aint it. In San Francisco, the mayor
has disobeyed the law (Prop 22). In Massachusetts, the state Supreme Court has ordered another
branch of government—the Legislature—to pass a law making homosexual “marriage” legal.
In New Mexico, the Attorney General's office has shut down the Bernallio County "illegal"
attempts at forcing the agenda. Chicago Mayor Richard Daley has said he has no problem
with breaking the law and is willing to issue "marriage" licenses to homosexuals.
This morning, Florida. Who will be the next official to break the law for their own personal
agenda? I have been able to stay neutral and above the fray until now. The only oath I have
ever taken is one many people today no longer understand, and even think it is "patriotic"
to question it. My loyalty is to the Constitution, and the rule of law. Anarchy cannot and must not
be allowed. These are the seeds of civil war at a time of national division, and external
warfare. A President, regardless of party affiliation, dam well better act. He is trying
to place a steam valve in the pressure cooker. And he aint the one that lit the fire and capped
the water. Normally, I would warn bystanders to stand back in case it blows. So here is
that warning : a time of choosing has begun. Choose wisely.

/\/ight\/\/ing



posted on Feb, 25 2004 @ 12:34 AM
link   
Thanks nightwing. Very insightful and I agree. Religion aside, you have a meaningful argument.



posted on Feb, 25 2004 @ 01:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by SimpleTruth
Homosexuality is a sin (which means to fall short or miss the mark) to God because it is a distortion of what God intended.


whoa. hold up the Jesus parade, captain. what makes you think that we believe in the same god? if this is entirely an issue of what you think God thinks, then it's a religious issue. so if it's a religious issue, by passing this law, the government starts making laws that favor the views of a particular religion. which just won't fly...unless, the government wants to make allowances for the beliefs of all religions. so unless the law can be written so that the beliefs of every religion represented in the United States are respected, it shouldn't stand.

unless, of course, your justification for your stance isn't purely religious. in which case, give it another try.





top topics
 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join