New amendment proposed......

kemet64 · Feb 25, 2004, 12:08 AM

and it will ban same-sex marriage. This is basically putting discrimination into the amendment. Banning the marriage of same sex couples will not make them turn straight. Niether will allowing them to marry make every man and woman suddenly "turn homosexual". I personally am against this, i mean, its one thing being against gay marriage. It is another trying to make an amendment in the US constitution banning it all together.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...age/index.html

Judas · Feb 25, 2004, 12:38 AM

idiots.... what are they freaking out of there mind...

digerati · Feb 25, 2004, 02:12 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by kemet64
and it will ban same-sex marriage. This is basically putting discrimination into the amendment. Banning the marriage of same sex couples will not make them turn straight. Niether will allowing them to marry make every man and woman suddenly "turn homosexual".

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...age/index.html

That's a very ignorant and unpolitical view of the situation. The word marriage stems from Christianity, the union between a man and a woman. You wanna rename words how about saying Jesus was a gay stripping donkey who whored himself to the Romans? He never banned civil unions, you know, the thing that has the legal equity (or so I've heard) to marriage. I saw some lesbians the other day being like "It was always my dream to walk down the aisle with my husband Jenny." Well too damn bad, you're gay, we don't have to force the Church to wed you.

This is something that should be left to the states though, he's overstepping his power, not condemning homosexuals.

Judas · Feb 25, 2004, 02:21 AM

the work Marriage is may be of christianity's terms.. but it's also english.... if you translate the same meaning from an other language into a word... it's is marriage.... it's not possible to say or to state that we are forcing it down the churches throat... BTW.... if they are christian... um.... doesn't the statement kinda go as being invalid.....?

digerati · Feb 25, 2004, 02:26 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Judas
the work Marriage is may be of christianity's terms.. but it's also english.... if you translate the same meaning from an other language into a word... it's is marriage.... it's not possible to say or to state that we are forcing it down the churches throat... BTW.... if they are christian... um.... doesn't the statement kinda go as being invalid.....?

But the word is derived from Christianity. And from my understanding the bible doesn't say that gay people are evil. But laying down with the same sex is a sin (and from what I understand used to be punished by death) so you can be gay and be a Christian. But everytime you have sex with your partner you're committing a sin, and so having gays marry is just not working with the bible. But they are entitled to a legal union by all counts.

tek · Feb 25, 2004, 02:32 AM

Do it, same-sex marriages arent right, at all........ its disgusting actually, not that I hate gay people I know a few they're cool. But this marriage crap is going overboard.

Ban ban ban

edperks · Feb 25, 2004, 02:54 AM

If they want to get married by the justice of the peace I think they should be able to and if they want to get married under the eyes of their church that should be up to thier church. But we shouldnt give them a tax break when they get married. HEHE

Dyre Straits · Feb 25, 2004, 03:44 AM

What has forced the issue is the activist judges who are attempting to essentially redefine the meaning of 'marriage'. It's ALWAYS been the union between a man and a woman. To try to redefine marriage as a union between any other two entities is an injustice upon society.

It is because of the push to redefine the relationship that has prompted many legislators -- as well as our President -- to make marriage a constitutionally defined entity of being only between a man and a woman. This would put a halt to activist judges who are writing and creating law -- rather than upholding and properly interpreting it.

Should people wish to form other unions, they have that option via signed and notarized 'Powers of Attorney' that give one another legal rights, spelled out in the documents, so that decisions can be made on the behalf of the other under those circumstances defined therein.

We do not need, and should not have, parties of the same sex calling their relationship a 'marriage'. It simply isn't so.

Abraham Lincoln once said, "If we call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?"

Someone answered, "Five."

"No," replied Lincoln, "calling a tail a 'leg' doesn't make it leg."

Vampyromaniac · Feb 25, 2004, 05:06 AM

Symbolic Penguin, "The word marriage stems from Christianity, the union between a man and a woman." If that is so, why should a Christian idea be enforced throughout the nation which prides itself on freedom of religion?

Dyre, "It's ALWAYS been the union between a man and a woman." What are your thoughts on polygamy? Would it technically count as the same, since there are more than one of a specific gender involved?

What if there were a religion which encouraged bi-sexuality? Would you still think it's right to ban same-sex marriages, even though that means subjugating those people?

Why can't this be up to each church to decide for themselves whether to wed people of the same sex?

Dyre Straits · Feb 25, 2004, 05:27 AM

While I, personally, don't condone polygamy, there's no parallel between this practice and the 'same sex marriage' issue. The women/wives involved in those cultures that practice polygamy are not 'married' to one another. Nor are they expected to have an intimate, sexual relationship with one another. They're 'married' to a husband...not another of the wives.

I have to clarify that the term, 'marriage', isn't fundamentally a Christian-only concept. The English word actually comes from French and means to 'take a spouse' -- with the understanding that the spouse be of the opposite sex.

So, as such, we don't need to redefine the term. We need to reaffirm its meaning.

bird chest · Feb 25, 2004, 06:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ^_^
But the word is derived from Christianity. And from my understanding the bible doesn't say that gay people are evil. But laying down with the same sex is a sin (and from what I understand used to be punished by death) so you can be gay and be a Christian. But everytime you have sex with your partner you're committing a sin, and so having gays marry is just not working with the bible. But they are entitled to a legal union by all counts.

It was a state right until the mayor of sanfransisco and the judges forced the people to go to the federal government to fix the problem.

digerati · Feb 25, 2004, 06:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vampyromaniac
Symbolic Penguin, "The word marriage stems from Christianity, the union between a man and a woman." If that is so, why should a Christian idea be enforced throughout the nation which prides itself on freedom of religion?

Dyre, "It's ALWAYS been the union between a man and a woman." What are your thoughts on polygamy? Would it technically count as the same, since there are more than one of a specific gender involved?

What if there were a religion which encouraged bi-sexuality? Would you still think it's right to ban same-sex marriages, even though that means subjugating those people?

Why can't this be up to each church to decide for themselves whether to wed people of the same sex?

If a religion were to promote bi-sexuality, then they would have their own concept and would probably stem from the bible laws, and would have a different word or form that marriage. Like cults have the word freedom for mass suicide lol

That's their business, doesn't mean it's honored by law.

BluntmaN · Feb 25, 2004, 08:58 AM

The Bible is by far the worst document to pull when you are debating politics and civil rights. You think that what the bible says is right but for a large number of people it is just another book with no particular meaning.
Marriage was not a christian idea it was used through the Greek and Roman times. But different religions have different views on marriage for instance the Kohran states that marriage is the union between a man and a number of women therefore for the Islamic world polygamy is not outside the religius structure. If same sex couples want to get married and there is a church that is willing to wed them then there is no point to this debate at all.
Churches must be allowed to practice their beliefs as long as they dont oppress others and I dont see how a church like "The christian chapter of Gay saints"(imaginary but possible to happen) whould oppress the Catholics or Protestands among you.
If a church is willing to do same sex marriages and you are not a member of that church you have the right to complain and bitch about it but besides that you have no right to stop them.
What Bush does now is to try and play the Gay marriage issue against the democrats because they stand on the same viewpoints and they cant complain while in the same time he takes advantage of the large amount of christians living in the US. I doubt that the ammendment will pass and in fact it would be yet anouther black chapter in the history of the US if it does.

digerati · Feb 25, 2004, 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by BluntmaN
The Bible is by far the worst document to pull when you are debating politics and civil rights. You think that what the bible says is right but for a large number of people it is just another book with no particular meaning.
Marriage was not a christian idea it was used through the Greek and Roman times. But different religions have different views on marriage for instance the Kohran states that marriage is the union between a man and a number of women therefore for the Islamic world polygamy is not outside the religius structure. If same sex couples want to get married and there is a church that is willing to wed them then there is no point to this debate at all.
Churches must be allowed to practice their beliefs as long as they dont oppress others and I dont see how a church like "The christian chapter of Gay saints"(imaginary but possible to happen) whould oppress the Catholics or Protestands among you.
If a church is willing to do same sex marriages and you are not a member of that church you have the right to complain and bitch about it but besides that you have no right to stop them.
What Bush does now is to try and play the Gay marriage issue against the democrats because they stand on the same viewpoints and they cant complain while in the same time he takes advantage of the large amount of christians living in the US. I doubt that the ammendment will pass and in fact it would be yet anouther black chapter in the history of the US if it does.

I'm not Christian, I'm Hebrew by bloodline and no I don't have anything against gays. I have seen flamming to non flaming gays and have seen gays who were good parents. But you can't call it a marriage, and Bush has to address this concern thanks to San Francisco >.<

Mass, a catholic belief, if your not catholic and you want to attend mass you can't force the government to make them let you. The marriage stems from Christianity, and so if the Church says no then the government shouldn't interfere. Although a legal marriage is fine, but that's a civil union, which isn't being killed by this amendment. It's taking away the states right to choose though, which is something to worry about.

bird chest · Feb 26, 2004, 02:53 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ^_^
I'm not Christian, I'm Hebrew by bloodline and no I don't have anything against gays. I have seen flamming to non flaming gays and have seen gays who were good parents. But you can't call it a marriage, and Bush has to address this concern thanks to San Francisco >.<

Mass, a catholic belief, if your not catholic and you want to attend mass you can't force the government to make them let you. The marriage stems from Christianity, and so if the Church says no then the government shouldn't interfere. Although a legal marriage is fine, but that's a civil union, which isn't being killed by this amendment. It's taking away the states right to choose though, which is something to worry about.

It is something to worry about. To me it is almost entirley caused by the courts stepping out of what they are supposed to be doing. The courts have gotten so much unchecked power I feel they are the biggest threat to the US democracy. But all the bills that senate tries to pass about it are found unconstitutional. Seems suspicious to me maybe it is because lawyers like edwards have the courts in their pockets.

raid517 · Feb 26, 2004, 02:58 AM

If you ask me there should be a big gay Church - with a big gay God and a gay bible too - so that all gay people - their gay friends and gay dogs can all worship and get married in peace. All this is is a bunch of Christian zealots (as usual) waving their bibles in people's faces - and telling everyone else how things should be. However most modern democracies - including I believe what is left of the American democratic system - still guarantee the right to freedom of religeon. Therefore if there was a gay church - and they woshiped a gay God etc - wouldn't they have just as much right as you to practice their beliefs in whatever way they pleased Or are you saying that somehow your belief system is somehow superior to anyone elses? If that's the case - wouldn't that make the constitution worthless anyway?

You guys are so full of 'double standards' it amazes me.

GJ

bird chest · Feb 26, 2004, 03:05 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by raid517
If you ask me there should be a big gay Church - with a big gay God and a gay bible too - so that all gay people - their gay friends and gay dogs can all worship and get married in peace. All this is is a bunch of Christian zealots (as usual) waving their bibles in people's faces - and telling everyone else how things should be. However most modern democracies - including I believe what is left of the American democratic system - still guarantee the right to freedom of religeon. Therefore if there was a gay church - and they woshiped a gay God etc - wouldn't they have just as much right as you to practice their beliefs in whatever way they pleased Or are you saying that somehow your belief system is somehow superior to anyone elses? If that's the case - wouldn't that make the constitution worthless anyway?

You guys are so full of 'double standards' it amazes me.

GJ

You really are not getting what is being said. People are in favor of gays getting their rights. All they do not want is it being called "marriage." that is what the amendment says.I would also like to adress the fact that marriage is getting more lax. Is that a reason to make it worse? No, it is time to start to strive to make it better. Just because something is bad does not mean it should be made worse that has zero logic behind it.

digerati · Feb 26, 2004, 03:16 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by raid517
If you ask me there should be a big gay Church - with a big gay God and a gay bible too - so that all gay people - their gay friends and gay dogs can all worship and get married in peace. All this is is a bunch of Christian zealots (as usual) waving their bibles in people's faces - and telling everyone else how things should be. However most modern democracies - including I believe what is left of the American democratic system - still guarantee the right to freedom of religeon. Therefore if there was a gay church - and they woshiped a gay God etc - wouldn't they have just as much right as you to practice their beliefs in whatever way they pleased Or are you saying that somehow your belief system is somehow superior to anyone elses? If that's the case - wouldn't that make the constitution worthless anyway?

You guys are so full of 'double standards' it amazes me.

GJ

But what would they base on it on? Make up some book and call it holy? The bible isn't some childrens book. There are "religions" where people chop off their balls, doesn't make it a true religion, makes it a cult, and they worship the testicle free god =P

raid517 · Feb 26, 2004, 03:38 AM

And who is making it worse? Are you saying that just because gay people might get married that that necessarily makes it worse?

And there are is indeed a religion where people worship a testicle free God - its called Hinduism. They also worship gods with 6 heads and eight arms...

Are you saying that you think the Hindu religion is any less real or valid than your own? If so where is your proof?

You see that is always the problem I had with you Christians - you always make the arrogant assumption that only your religion is right - when in fact there is no real evidence to support this.

All religion is about is where you are born. If you had been born in India, maybe you would have been a Hindu, a Muslim or a Sikh - if you were born in Israel maybe a Jew - but ultimately you would be convinced that your religion whatever it was was the one true religion.

In any case the point I made was a little more complex - although clearly you missed it - because to a lot of people there is a gay church - or at least a section of the Church that is open and welcoming to gay people. They believe that God does not condem love, whatever form it may come in - and so to them God is accepting of the gay ideology.

Therefore since there are churches like this and since they are part of a recognised religion - then why not allow them to live and practice their religeous freedoms as they please - even if that means allowing them to get married? The only thing that qualifies them is having a belief system and a recognised Church - and since to a large part they have both of these - should not their rights be protected under your so called consitution?

If you were to ban gay marriages, wouldn't you also have to despense with the right to practice religious freedom also?

Unless of course you believe that it is acceptable to promote double standards?

GJ

Judas · Feb 26, 2004, 04:11 AM

OK.. the problem is directly related to the term/word.... what is a word.. it's meaningless on it's own... it's defineable in many ways..... it's taken different ways by different people... it's created a destroyed by people and everything..... i don't understand..... were the heck does it state that same sex is a sin?... i don't get it? who wrote that?..... some of these religions started the same way as all these "cults" started.... but how they were ran and operated was different.. that is what keeps it around.... of course if there is sacrifice.. and crap like that today.... it's not going to be considered a religion.... give me a break.. that's not an excuse.... also.... christianity is the root.... the churches use it as a template... (the christian ones abviously)..... they can dump some rules... and make there own up... They can interpret what they want..... What makes the problem.... is that fact that these people want to be able to be "married".... mean they want to become "married" infront of god... in gods hands... in the way that they know of it being the right religious way..... not this BS of simply changing there legal status.... and names... Damn that word MARRIAGE.... screw it to hell... who the hell cares... the word might have come from christian grounds.... but means nothing other then a term for being wed.. or whatever.. language or whatever religion would say it... they have a right.... they should be able to... there should not be a problem..... Sorry.. this is freaking driving me up the wall because i just don't get how some of you guys think this way... it isn't even slightly logical.... they could be even considered another sex..... which would be religously correct... wtf!? WTF!! FOR FRICKEN HELL SAKES>.. !#!@#!@# (my own brains implodes)

digerati · Feb 26, 2004, 04:15 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by raid517
And who is making it worse? Are you saying that just because gay people might get married that that necessarily makes it worse?

And there are is indeed a religion where people worship a testicle free God - its called Hinduism. They also worship gods with 6 heads and eight arms...

Are you saying that you think the Hindu religion is any less real or valid than your own? If so where is your proof?

You see that is always the problem I had with you Christians - you always make the arrogant assumption that only your religion is right - when in fact there is no real evidence to support this.

All religion is about is where you are born. If you had been born in India, maybe you would have been a Hindu, a Muslim or a Sikh - if you were born in Israel maybe a Jew - but ultimately you would be convinced that your religion whatever it was was the one true religion.

In any case the point I made was a little more complex - although clearly you missed it - because to a lot of people there is a gay church - or at least a section of the Church that is open and welcoming to gay people. They believe that God does not condem love, whatever form it may come in - and so to them God is accepting of the gay ideology.

Therefore since there are churches like this and since they are part of a recognised religion - then why not allow them to live and practice their religeous freedoms as they please - even if that means allowing them to get married? The only thing that qualifies them is having a belief system and a recognised Church - and since to a large part they have both of these - should not their rights be protected under your so called consitution?

If you were to ban gay marriages, wouldn't you also have to despense with the right to practice religious freedom also?

Unless of course you believe that it is acceptable to promote double standards?

GJ

I'll say this again, I'm NOT christian. That doesn't make Hindu invalid, or make Islam invalid. But do they allow gay marriage in those religions either?

GutterPunk · Feb 26, 2004, 04:45 AM

Okay for whoever said that the Bible does not condone Gays.... why was Sodom and Gommorah burnt down? God rained brimstone and fire upon them because of the major sin... homosexuality....

No offense but if homosexuality was supposed to be natural... they would be able to live on and produce... but they cant. Some day they could possibly die out. I just think if a male and a male or female and a female were meant to be together they could live on, making a family 'naturally' and adding another gernation to the family tree.

Judas · Feb 26, 2004, 04:53 AM

ok.. that'd be me disastropy..... it's due to not knowing what some guys have wrote in this little thing we call the bible.... We are stuck on the word marriage.... scrap it.... scrap it complete... .make a new word that works..... in due time... we may see male-male's being able to reproduce.... The reliances and stances on religion have always proven to make war...

GutterPunk · Feb 26, 2004, 04:58 AM

Our bodies are made to produce heterosexually not as one sex... things are here for a reason... like male and female reproduction. I honestly do not agree with homosexuality but they can live there lives as they want. I won't put them down, its there life do what they shall please as long as they keep it away from me and my family. They set examples that it could be right... but biologically and physically it isnt. We are made to produce to live on through male/female reproduction.... different species have their own way asexual or whatever... they are made like that... we were made to produce offspring through opposite sex... it is naturally that way

Falstaff · Feb 26, 2004, 05:23 AM

the argument isnt against same sex marriage, it is fully defining the institution of marriage. Homosexuals cannot legally marry and they have existed in contracted relationships for years. Marriage is unique to heterosexual relationships and should remain so for the benefit of morally centered families. If gay activists attempt to raise the issue further it will only backfire on them. I dont give a damn about anybodys sexual identity and prefer they leave it out of politics and churches and schools. If gay activists are not careful the movement will implode, because lets face it, only a small percentage of the entire population is openly gay and even fewer are activists. Live and let live but for Gods sake keep gender challenged people out of the media, I am sick and tired of it...

GutterPunk · Feb 26, 2004, 05:26 AM

Agreed Jeff... nicely put... i just stated why i do not agree why they should be married

Falstaff · Feb 26, 2004, 05:30 AM

some of us have been accused of being hypocrites, but many of us are unafraid of gay criticism and joiners that prefer to tow the politically correct line. I for one do not, and I dont waffle on these issues at all, unlike the senator from Massachusetts.

bird chest · Feb 26, 2004, 05:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by raid517
And who is making it worse? Are you saying that just because gay people might get married that that necessarily makes it worse?GJ

This was your argument I was just saying you made no sense. You made the argument that marriage is already bad and that is why christians should give in not me. But yes I do not like the idea of them getting into a marriage but if people vote on it as a whole and say yes then I support that decission. But if the us as a whole say no and give them a civil union then I will support that.

digerati · Feb 26, 2004, 06:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by disastropy
Okay for whoever said that the Bible does not condone Gays.... why was Sodom and Gommorah burnt down? God rained brimstone and fire upon them because of the major sin... homosexuality....

No offense but if homosexuality was supposed to be natural... they would be able to live on and produce... but they cant. Some day they could possibly die out. I just think if a male and a male or female and a female were meant to be together they could live on, making a family 'naturally' and adding another gernation to the family tree.

I don't like that analogy, for if it wasn't for us totally destroying and maintaining nature, the fat/weak dorky people aka nerds who need glasses would die out first as well =P

GutterPunk · Feb 26, 2004, 04:17 PM

but they can get woman too and reproduce healthy offspring... people like them are needed to technologically advance our culture...

Feb 25, 2004, 12:08 AM	#1
kemet64 DriverHeaven Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 457 Rep Power: 0	New amendment proposed...... and it will ban same-sex marriage. This is basically putting discrimination into the amendment. Banning the marriage of same sex couples will not make them turn straight. Niether will allowing them to marry make every man and woman suddenly "turn homosexual". I personally am against this, i mean, its one thing being against gay marriage. It is another trying to make an amendment in the US constitution banning it all together. http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...age/index.html __________________ Inspiron XPS Intel 3.4 ghz 1gb Corsair XMS DDR PC3200 60gig 7200 HD 128mb Radeon Mobility 9700 Creative Soundblaster Audigy 2 NX Logitech z680 Speakers

Feb 25, 2004, 02:32 AM	#6
tek DriverHeaven Senior Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: Boston, US Posts: 2,103 Rep Power: 0	Do it, same-sex marriages arent right, at all........ its disgusting actually, not that I hate gay people I know a few they're cool. But this marriage crap is going overboard. Ban ban ban __________________ [COLOR=White][/COLOR]

Feb 25, 2004, 05:06 AM	#9
Vampyromaniac confutatis maledictis Join Date: May 2002 Location: somewhere dark Posts: 5,974 Rep Power: 77 System Specs	Symbolic Penguin, "The word marriage stems from Christianity, the union between a man and a woman." If that is so, why should a Christian idea be enforced throughout the nation which prides itself on freedom of religion? Dyre, "It's ALWAYS been the union between a man and a woman." What are your thoughts on polygamy? Would it technically count as the same, since there are more than one of a specific gender involved? What if there were a religion which encouraged bi-sexuality? Would you still think it's right to ban same-sex marriages, even though that means subjugating those people? Why can't this be up to each church to decide for themselves whether to wed people of the same sex? __________________ *Digitalis 3.3* Athlon 64 3000 // ASUS K8V SE Deluxe // 1024MB PC3200 (2-2-2-10 1T) ATI All-In-Wonder 9700 Pro // 20" Dell 2005FPW (DVI) M-Audio Revo 7.1 + Philips Acoustic Edge // Klipsch ProMedia 2.1 320/16 Western Digital WD3200KS + 120/8 Seagate 7200.7 NEC ND-3550A 16x DVD±RW + Lite-On 52x24x CD-RW Antec Sonata case // 480W Antec TruePower personal bests \|\| Aq'3: 46796 \| 3D'01: 20461 \| 3D'03: 6336 \| 3D'05: 2677 \| PC'04: 4605 \| PC'02: 7691,9092,1250

Feb 25, 2004, 08:58 AM	#13
BluntmaN DriverHeaven Lover Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: I have no idea Posts: 229 Rep Power: 0	The Bible is by far the worst document to pull when you are debating politics and civil rights. You think that what the bible says is right but for a large number of people it is just another book with no particular meaning. Marriage was not a christian idea it was used through the Greek and Roman times. But different religions have different views on marriage for instance the Kohran states that marriage is the union between a man and a number of women therefore for the Islamic world polygamy is not outside the religius structure. If same sex couples want to get married and there is a church that is willing to wed them then there is no point to this debate at all. Churches must be allowed to practice their beliefs as long as they dont oppress others and I dont see how a church like "The christian chapter of Gay saints"(imaginary but possible to happen) whould oppress the Catholics or Protestands among you. If a church is willing to do same sex marriages and you are not a member of that church you have the right to complain and bitch about it but besides that you have no right to stop them. What Bush does now is to try and play the Gay marriage issue against the democrats because they stand on the same viewpoints and they cant complain while in the same time he takes advantage of the large amount of christians living in the US. I doubt that the ammendment will pass and in fact it would be yet anouther black chapter in the history of the US if it does. __________________ 'Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns â€” the ones we don't know we don't know.' Donald Rumsfeld (And then they say that the White House knows what it's doing)

Feb 26, 2004, 03:38 AM	#19
raid517 DriverHeaven Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 2,518 Rep Power: 0	And who is making it worse? Are you saying that just because gay people might get married that that necessarily makes it worse? And there are is indeed a religion where people worship a testicle free God - its called Hinduism. They also worship gods with 6 heads and eight arms... Are you saying that you think the Hindu religion is any less real or valid than your own? If so where is your proof? You see that is always the problem I had with you Christians - you always make the arrogant assumption that only your religion is right - when in fact there is no real evidence to support this. All religion is about is where you are born. If you had been born in India, maybe you would have been a Hindu, a Muslim or a Sikh - if you were born in Israel maybe a Jew - but ultimately you would be convinced that your religion whatever it was was the one true religion. In any case the point I made was a little more complex - although clearly you missed it - because to a lot of people there is a gay church - or at least a section of the Church that is open and welcoming to gay people. They believe that God does not condem love, whatever form it may come in - and so to them God is accepting of the gay ideology. Therefore since there are churches like this and since they are part of a recognised religion - then why not allow them to live and practice their religeous freedoms as they please - even if that means allowing them to get married? The only thing that qualifies them is having a belief system and a recognised Church - and since to a large part they have both of these - should not their rights be protected under your so called consitution? If you were to ban gay marriages, wouldn't you also have to despense with the right to practice religious freedom also? Unless of course you believe that it is acceptable to promote double standards? GJ Last edited by raid517; Feb 26, 2004 at 03:56 AM.

Feb 25, 2004, 02:54 AM	#7
edperks HardwareHeaven Senior Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Southern Illinois Posts: 780 Rep Power: 0 System Specs	If they want to get married by the justice of the peace I think they should be able to and if they want to get married under the eyes of their church that should be up to thier church. But we shouldnt give them a tax break when they get married. HEHE

Feb 26, 2004, 02:58 AM	#16
raid517 DriverHeaven Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 2,518 Rep Power: 0	If you ask me there should be a big gay Church - with a big gay God and a gay bible too - so that all gay people - their gay friends and gay dogs can all worship and get married in peace. All this is is a bunch of Christian zealots (as usual) waving their bibles in people's faces - and telling everyone else how things should be. However most modern democracies - including I believe what is left of the American democratic system - still guarantee the right to freedom of religeon. Therefore if there was a gay church - and they woshiped a gay God etc - wouldn't they have just as much right as you to practice their beliefs in whatever way they pleased Or are you saying that somehow your belief system is somehow superior to anyone elses? If that's the case - wouldn't that make the constitution worthless anyway? You guys are so full of 'double standards' it amazes me. GJ

Feb 26, 2004, 04:45 AM	#22
GutterPunk I = Greatest Dood Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Nebraska Posts: 5,949 Rep Power: 71	Okay for whoever said that the Bible does not condone Gays.... why was Sodom and Gommorah burnt down? God rained brimstone and fire upon them because of the major sin... homosexuality.... No offense but if homosexuality was supposed to be natural... they would be able to live on and produce... but they cant. Some day they could possibly die out. I just think if a male and a male or female and a female were meant to be together they could live on, making a family 'naturally' and adding another gernation to the family tree. __________________ Rock On \m/ Thank you Mousey for the Sig! --------------- Intel Core2Duo E6660 (3.4GHZ) ~ Tuniq Tower 120 ~ Enermax Galaxy 1000W ~ Corsair Dominator @ 1090MHZ 5-5-5-15 (OCZ XTC Modded Cooler)~ EVGA 8800GTX W/ HR-03 Plus 120MM ~ Asus DVD-RW LiteScribe ~ LG DVD-RW ~ Corsair Voyager 2GB ReadyBoost Drive ~ Vantec Nexus Fan Controller ~ ThermalTake Armor 25CM fan ~ Personal Finance Blog: Dent Your Debt

Feb 26, 2004, 04:58 AM	#24
GutterPunk I = Greatest Dood Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Nebraska Posts: 5,949 Rep Power: 71	Our bodies are made to produce heterosexually not as one sex... things are here for a reason... like male and female reproduction. I honestly do not agree with homosexuality but they can live there lives as they want. I won't put them down, its there life do what they shall please as long as they keep it away from me and my family. They set examples that it could be right... but biologically and physically it isnt. We are made to produce to live on through male/female reproduction.... different species have their own way asexual or whatever... they are made like that... we were made to produce offspring through opposite sex... it is naturally that way __________________ Rock On \m/ Thank you Mousey for the Sig! --------------- Intel Core2Duo E6660 (3.4GHZ) ~ Tuniq Tower 120 ~ Enermax Galaxy 1000W ~ Corsair Dominator @ 1090MHZ 5-5-5-15 (OCZ XTC Modded Cooler)~ EVGA 8800GTX W/ HR-03 Plus 120MM ~ Asus DVD-RW LiteScribe ~ LG DVD-RW ~ Corsair Voyager 2GB ReadyBoost Drive ~ Vantec Nexus Fan Controller ~ ThermalTake Armor 25CM fan ~ Personal Finance Blog: Dent Your Debt Last edited by GutterPunk; Feb 26, 2004 at 05:16 AM.

Feb 26, 2004, 05:23 AM	#25
Falstaff Old Codger Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: USAFA Posts: 19,048 Rep Power: 207	the argument isnt against same sex marriage, it is fully defining the institution of marriage. Homosexuals cannot legally marry and they have existed in contracted relationships for years. Marriage is unique to heterosexual relationships and should remain so for the benefit of morally centered families. If gay activists attempt to raise the issue further it will only backfire on them. I dont give a damn about anybodys sexual identity and prefer they leave it out of politics and churches and schools. If gay activists are not careful the movement will implode, because lets face it, only a small percentage of the entire population is openly gay and even fewer are activists. Live and let live but for Gods sake keep gender challenged people out of the media, I am sick and tired of it... __________________ "Inspiration is always a surprising visitor."

Feb 26, 2004, 05:26 AM	#26
GutterPunk I = Greatest Dood Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Nebraska Posts: 5,949 Rep Power: 71	Agreed Jeff... nicely put... i just stated why i do not agree why they should be married __________________ Rock On \m/ Thank you Mousey for the Sig! --------------- Intel Core2Duo E6660 (3.4GHZ) ~ Tuniq Tower 120 ~ Enermax Galaxy 1000W ~ Corsair Dominator @ 1090MHZ 5-5-5-15 (OCZ XTC Modded Cooler)~ EVGA 8800GTX W/ HR-03 Plus 120MM ~ Asus DVD-RW LiteScribe ~ LG DVD-RW ~ Corsair Voyager 2GB ReadyBoost Drive ~ Vantec Nexus Fan Controller ~ ThermalTake Armor 25CM fan ~ Personal Finance Blog: Dent Your Debt

Feb 26, 2004, 05:30 AM	#27
Falstaff Old Codger Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: USAFA Posts: 19,048 Rep Power: 207	some of us have been accused of being hypocrites, but many of us are unafraid of gay criticism and joiners that prefer to tow the politically correct line. I for one do not, and I dont waffle on these issues at all, unlike the senator from Massachusetts. __________________ "Inspiration is always a surprising visitor."

Feb 26, 2004, 04:17 PM	#30
GutterPunk I = Greatest Dood Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Nebraska Posts: 5,949 Rep Power: 71	but they can get woman too and reproduce healthy offspring... people like them are needed to technologically advance our culture... __________________ Rock On \m/ Thank you Mousey for the Sig! --------------- Intel Core2Duo E6660 (3.4GHZ) ~ Tuniq Tower 120 ~ Enermax Galaxy 1000W ~ Corsair Dominator @ 1090MHZ 5-5-5-15 (OCZ XTC Modded Cooler)~ EVGA 8800GTX W/ HR-03 Plus 120MM ~ Asus DVD-RW LiteScribe ~ LG DVD-RW ~ Corsair Voyager 2GB ReadyBoost Drive ~ Vantec Nexus Fan Controller ~ ThermalTake Armor 25CM fan ~ Personal Finance Blog: Dent Your Debt