PDA

View Full Version : How did you vote on gay marriage?


SNR
11-03-2004, 04:09 PM
...if it was in your state.

It was in North Dakota. I voted "no" and "yes" won by a huge margin.

Think about this. If you are already married, think back to the time right before you got married. Imagine there was a constitutional amendment out in your state that said legally you could not marry your wife. It's the same issue. This is a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT we're talking about. It can't be changed. Even if you don't give a f*ck about this issue, think what happens if all gays/lesbians gather in one area because it's the only place they can go.

Wouldn't be good for them, nor for the rest of the country.

Lzen
11-03-2004, 04:13 PM
They shot down our chance to vote on it in this state several months ago. I would've voted on a ban if it were on the ballot.

KCN
11-03-2004, 04:17 PM
...if it was in your state.

It was in North Dakota. I voted "no" and "yes" won by a huge margin.

Think about this. If you are already married, think back to the time right before you got married. Imagine there was a constitutional amendment out in your state that said legally you could not marry your wife. It's the same issue. This is a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT we're talking about. It can't be changed. Even if you don't give a f*ck about this issue, think what happens if all gays/lesbians gather in one area because it's the only place they can go.

Wouldn't be good for them, nor for the rest of the country.

Yup.

Stinger
11-03-2004, 04:21 PM
...if it was in your state.

It was in North Dakota. I voted "no" and "yes" won by a huge margin.

Think about this. If you are already married, think back to the time right before you got married. Imagine there was a constitutional amendment out in your state that said legally you could not marry your wife. It's the same issue. This is a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT we're talking about. It can't be changed. Even if you don't give a f*ck about this issue, think what happens if all gays/lesbians gather in one area because it's the only place they can go.

Wouldn't be good for them, nor for the rest of the country.

Listening to most on this board many would have been glad if there was a constitutional ban on there first, second, or third marriage ROFL

Saulbadguy
11-03-2004, 04:24 PM
Not on my ballot. If it was, I would have voted against an amendment to ban.

SNR
11-03-2004, 04:25 PM
Listening to most on this board many would have been glad if there was a constitutional ban on there first, second, or third marriage ROFLOkay, bad example...

Cochise
11-03-2004, 04:26 PM
Voted to ban

Velvet_Jones
11-03-2004, 04:31 PM
I was waiting for someone to bring this up. It lost all 11 states that tried it. If my memory is correct, this issue was defeated by a minimum of 70/30.

Velvet

Soupnazi
11-03-2004, 04:54 PM
I've already voted once to define it as man/woman.

Getting tired of arguing with those that support "gay marriage" because none can engage the subject without the homophobe label.

FWIW, the only two friends that I have that are gay are both against "gay marriage."

Rausch
11-03-2004, 05:00 PM
I would have voted in favor of it.

Other than "I don't want you to" there is no real ligitimate reason to not allow it...

Saulbadguy
11-03-2004, 05:01 PM
I would have voted in favor of it.

Other than "I don't want you to" there is no real ligitimate reason to not allow it...
And here we go... ROFL

I agree with you, though.

ChiefFripp
11-03-2004, 05:06 PM
It's not my buisness to tell two adults they can't get married. I can't believe so many people feel it's theirs.

KCN
11-03-2004, 05:10 PM
FWIW, the only two friends that I have that are gay are both against "gay marriage."

Why are they?

ENDelt260
11-03-2004, 06:04 PM
think what happens if all gays/lesbians gather in one area because it's the only place they can go.

Put 'em in Utah. I bet they'd get along great with the Mormons.

ENDelt260
11-03-2004, 06:05 PM
This is a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT we're talking about. It can't be changed.

SHIT! I better hide all my booze!

OldTownChief
11-03-2004, 06:09 PM
It's not my buisness to tell two adults they can't get married. I can't believe so many people feel it's theirs.

Maybe if my kids didn't have to watch two fat, ugly, hairy, men sticking their tongues down each others throats on TV every time one of them gets married it wouldn't be my business either. Seems to me their making it my business. I refuse to get into a debate about it but I will wholeheartedly vote against it every chance I get.

ENDelt260
11-03-2004, 06:14 PM
Maybe if my kids didn't have to watch two fat, ugly, hairy, men sticking their tongues down each others throats on TV every time one of them gets married it wouldn't be my business either. Seems to me their making it my business. I refuse to get into a debate about it but I will wholeheartedly vote against it every chance I get.
There's plenty of straight people I'm sick and tired of seeing shove their tongues down each others' throats as well.

All you fat, nasty, f*cks... I don't care if you're gay or straight... cut it out.

Rausch
11-03-2004, 06:17 PM
Maybe if my kids didn't have to watch two fat, ugly, hairy, men sticking their tongues down each others throats on TV every time one of them gets married it wouldn't be my business either. Seems to me their making it my business. I refuse to get into a debate about it but I will wholeheartedly vote against it every chance I get.

OTOH, I do want to see hot lesbo action on prime time.

So for me, it's a necessary evil...

KCN
11-03-2004, 06:22 PM
Maybe if my kids didn't have to watch two fat, ugly, hairy, men sticking their tongues down each others throats on TV every time one of them gets married it wouldn't be my business either. Seems to me their making it my business. I refuse to get into a debate about it but I will wholeheartedly vote against it every chance I get.

So let's vote to BAN it not just for the ones who do it in your face, but for those who want to keep it private and tasteful.

Nothing like amending the constitution against things that are icky.

I wonder why someone with that justification for their vote would not want to debate his POV.

Braincase
11-03-2004, 06:25 PM
Before we start banning marriage for some people we ought to take a closer look at the idiots that are currently making "marriage" an embarrassment.

stevieray
11-03-2004, 06:29 PM
Before we start banning marriage for some people we ought to take a closer look at the idiots that are currently making "marriage" an embarrassment.

"straight" people aren't unique in being idiots.

KCN
11-03-2004, 06:31 PM
"straight" people aren't unique in being idiots.

Who said they were?

stevieray
11-03-2004, 06:33 PM
Who said they were?

that's the point. all people are capable of being idots.

OldTownChief
11-03-2004, 06:50 PM
So let's vote to BAN it for the ones who do it in your face

If thats the choice, I'm all for it. I never gave it a second thought untill now.

Braincase
11-03-2004, 06:55 PM
I just find it funny when people that have endured a divorce or three start pontificating on the sacrament of marriage. I've got one gal at work that's got kids by three men, two of which she divorced and a third she never married telling lecturing me about how gay marriage would erode the fabric of society.

mcan
11-03-2004, 07:49 PM
The real issue...

I'm a theater major at Kansas State, so not surprisingly this is the ONLY issue that hear about on a regular basis. Probably three or four times a week, I hear some kind of rhetoric about how Bush is "anti-gay" and a homophobe who is trying to dictate morality to the country. Let's dispell this myth right now...

1. BOTH candidates agreed on this issue. There was NO difference in their oppinion on gay marriage. Both are against a "marriage" being anything except a bond between one man and one woman. The only difference was that GW wants to put it into the constitution and Kerry wants it to be a regular old law...

2. BOTH candidates agree also that if gay couples want the legal rights of a married couple they should have that right by entering into a "civil union" which is the same damned thing. It's just a different wording.

3. The reason for the different wording is to protect the "institution" of marriage as a religious ceremony which is where the term "marriage" started out. The people who INVENTED marriage just want to keep the term for themselves... They are afraid that the term has been watered down. But nobody wants to say that religion invented "the couple." That's rediculous. People have been ****ing since long before religion ever got here.

DenverChief
11-03-2004, 07:53 PM
The real issue...

I'm a theater major at Kansas State, so not surprisingly this is the ONLY issue that hear about on a regular basis. Probably three or four times a week, I hear some kind of rhetoric about how Bush is "anti-gay" and a homophobe who is trying to dictate morality to the country. Let's dispell this myth right now...

1. BOTH candidates agreed on this issue. There was NO difference in their oppinion on gay marriage. Both are against a "marriage" being anything except a bond between one man and one woman. The only difference was that GW wants to put it into the constitution and Kerry wants it to be a regular old law...

2. BOTH candidates agree also that if gay couples want the legal rights of a married couple they should have that right by entering into a "civil union" which is the same damned thing. It's just a different wording.

3. The reason for the different wording is to protect the "institution" of marriage as a religious ceremony which is where the term "marriage" started out. The people who INVENTED marriage just want to keep the term for themselves... They are afraid that the term has been watered down. But nobody wants to say that religion invented "the couple." That's rediculous. People have been ****ing since long before religion ever got here.

yea all this hoopla over a freakin word...kinda sad really...I wonder when civil unions are created if we will have to have civil disunions instead of divorce....to protect the sanctity of the institution of course

Rausch
11-03-2004, 07:55 PM
yea all this hoopla over a freakin word...kinda sad really...I wonder when civil unions are created if we will have to have civil disunions instead of divorce....

What? I thought a marriage was a civil disunion...

DenverChief
11-03-2004, 07:56 PM
What? I thought a marriage was a civil disunion...
ROFL and a same sex marriage too....the same sex every night :P

Braincase
11-03-2004, 07:57 PM
3. The reason for the different wording is to protect the "institution" of marriage as a religious ceremony which is where the term "marriage" started out.

Good points. The question then becomes, why is there a movement by the government to restrict a religious ceremony? What about separation of church and state?

DenverChief
11-03-2004, 07:58 PM
Good points. The question then becomes, why is there a movement by the government to restrict a religious ceremony? What about separation of church and state?

There is no such thing....we should be so lucky to have a pope as president one day

Rausch
11-03-2004, 08:03 PM
There is no such thing....we should be so lucky to have a pope as president one day

DenverChief
11-03-2004, 08:03 PM
.
ROFL

Chieficus
11-03-2004, 08:07 PM
I just find it funny when people that have endured a divorce or three start pontificating on the sacrament of marriage. I've got one gal at work that's got kids by three men, two of which she divorced and a third she never married telling lecturing me about how gay marriage would erode the fabric of society.

Just because we have some straight people out there who are doing a fine enough job of erroding the sanctity of marriage, that doesn't mean that we should just stand back and let others do the same. True, people with a divorce or two or ten would be better off keeping their mouths shut on the issue (on the other hand, we also have to consider the cause for divorce--if the first spouse was abusive or unfaithful, then the divorce was probably warrented), however that doesn't mean we should all keep our mouths shut and just let it happen.

1) Historically, even among the non-religious, marriage has been an issue tied closely in with religion...recent history has seen the change to a more secularized/civil understanding of marriage. Just because our societal understandings have become "enlightened" and "secularized" does not mean that we should bow down and shift all things to that mindset.

2) Where do we draw the line? Those who tend to lean towards the allowance of homosexual marriages also tend to call this question an overreaction. I would call it a biased near-sightedness based upon personal agenda--aka, they can't see the implications past their own desires. But, where do we draw the line. If we put our stamp of approval on the desire of a fringe group of activists screaming about their "rights" then what's to stop another fringe group to arise later and scream for the same thing? There are people out there who desire more than one spouse... there are organizations out there like the NMBLA (National Man/Boy Love Association), who love a shot at marriage as well as getting the legal age of consent lowered to a fairly low age. If we do not put a crystal clear defintion on marriage and protect the institution of marriage as well, then where do we draw the line in terms of when it is a "right" and when it is not? And why do we draw that line at that particular point. Where does something cross the line from being immoral to being a "right" of people?

3) There is data from other countries that show a correlation between a changing definition of marriage and a decline in overall family values, including a declining marriage rate as a whole and increased out-of-wedlock birth rates. This may not all be due to allowing homosexual marriage, nor does it mean that with 100% certainty that will be the result in all societies that accept it. However, we cannot overlook the correlation and brush it off as fanactism... To do so would be to place personal desire and agenda above a critical eye and concern for our society.

4) From a Christian perspective, Christianity still being the religion professed in some form by the majority of people in this country, God is the one who put the one man + one woman definition on marriage. If we change what marriage is it may not force a minister to perform a marriage against his will, but it does force us to "accept" and "be tolerant" of the idea. Combine this with the ideology of "hate speech" that is coming from our European and Canadian friends and beginning to creep into our mode of thought and suddenly we can kiss our right to "free of religion" goodbye. Anyway you cut the cake, someone's so-called "rights" are going to get stepped on. Why are the rights of us religious folk less important than the "rights" of the homosexual activists? When does equal protection become "equal freedom" for all modes of desire?

mcan
11-03-2004, 08:11 PM
Think about this from the point of view of the church... I can totally see why they would be upset. First, the idea of a marriage was thiers in the first place. The government decided to reward marriages with tax breaks because married people hold down jobs and make little babies that grow up to be gainfully employed tax payers... It's an incentive...


Then comes along this idea of "alternative marriages." Both the government and the church are pissed. First, the church feels like people who don't believe in Judeo/Christian God are clamering in line to perform a Judeo/Christian Ceremony and give themselves a Judeo/Christian title... To them it's the same thing as me just deciding one day that I should have the right to be a Brigadier General because I'm just as special as someone who's been in the military all their life... The government isn't all that pleased either because now it's handing out all these freebie benifits to a legally married couple without seeing the returns on that benifit (IE: new children to further the species and generate more taxes and more voters)...


So, the only people that are happy about it are the people that have their new title. Of course, all it means to them is that they have the same rights and privledges as "normal" people.

So, since the government has this thing is likes to call due process, they come up with a comprimise. The "civil union" would provide all the same legal rights and responsibilities to the "alternative" couple, and it wouldn't piss off the church. The only ones getting screwed here really is the government, but to not allow an "alternative" couple the same rights would be discrimination... So, there you have it. That's my story and I'm sticking to it...

KCWolfman
11-03-2004, 08:32 PM
Before we start banning marriage for some people we ought to take a closer look at the idiots that are currently making "marriage" an embarrassment.
You can't "ban" marriage for homosexuals any more than you can make a rock fly.

Boyceofsummer
11-03-2004, 09:37 PM
voted down that Bi-State thingy.

Lzen
11-04-2004, 09:00 AM
You can't "ban" marriage for homosexuals any more than you can make a rock fly.

Maybe I'm a little slow but I don't get what you're trying to say.

Cochise
11-04-2004, 09:05 AM
I thought it was amazing that all 11 states where it was on the ballot, it passed overwhelmingly. And in a few others it has been done already

Has a statewide marriage definition ballot measure ever failed? Or do they only leagalize it through the courts?

At least the voters found one thing they could agree on this year.

KCN
11-04-2004, 09:18 AM
Maybe I'm a little slow but I don't get what you're trying to say.

Hopefully he's not using that tired argument that gay people can get married...to a member of the opposite sex.

Ultra Peanut
11-04-2004, 09:21 AM
So let's vote to BAN it not just for the ones who do it in your face, but for those who want to keep it private and tasteful.

Nothing like amending the constitution against things that are icky.

I wonder why someone with that justification for their vote would not want to debate his POV.Hey, maybe we should put a ban on dudes taking off their shirts in public in the Constitution, too.

KCN
11-04-2004, 09:29 AM
Hey, maybe we should put a ban on dudes taking off their shirts in public in the Constitution, too.

Just as long as I myself can do it. So let's only ban overweight hairy males from taking their shirts off. The ones with a sweater back.

There aren't too many of those out there anyway so banning it won't be a big deal.

Soupnazi
11-04-2004, 09:49 AM
Why are they?

They're both slightly religiously inclined people, so maybe that influences them.

As I understand their position, marriage is only between a man and woman. One of them tells me, "you can call a corvette a ford as many times as you want to, but in the end we all still know it's a chevy." They both agree that the purpose of the institution is for the promotion of the family unit and the raising of children, which is impossible with same sex relationships.

They also both feel angry at the gay rights movement for putting them in a position where people resent them for this push for gay marriage. According to one of them, the gay rights agenda and the activists are what makes being gay most difficult.

I think they expect people to let them lives their lives without hurling insults or threats at them for being gay, and they won't tread on issues that are sensitive to heterosexual married couples. I tend to agree.

Boozer
11-04-2004, 09:59 AM
The sooner it becomes unacceptable to legislate solely because of moral disapproval, the better.

memyselfI
11-04-2004, 10:06 AM
...if it was in your state.

It was in North Dakota. I voted "no" and "yes" won by a huge margin.

Think about this. If you are already married, think back to the time right before you got married. Imagine there was a constitutional amendment out in your state that said legally you could not marry your wife. It's the same issue. This is a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT we're talking about. It can't be changed. Even if you don't give a f*ck about this issue, think what happens if all gays/lesbians gather in one area because it's the only place they can go.

Wouldn't be good for them, nor for the rest of the country.

Ok, this is very difficult but here it goes...

I think it's rather obvious that the 'gay marriage' issue doomed the Dems this go round. I am a supporter of civil unions and have NEVER understood the need for gays to embrace and get hung up on the semantics of 'marriage'. Likewise, for the RWNJs.

The fact that the Dems were left so exposed on this issue is stunning. Afterall, throughout the party there is less division about supporting civil unions and gay rights than there is WITHIN the Reps. They range in scope from 'live and let live but don't ask and don't tell' to the Fred Phelps bunch.

The inability of the Dems to exploit or even expose this division is what ultimately allowed the Cons/Rove to play both ends of the spectrum against the middle and the Dems...

on the one hand you have the outraged Falwell/Phelps bunch screaming about 'outing' Mary Cheney (insinuating some sort of acceptance and empathy for her) while on the other hand none of them raising an eyebrow when it was the same person being slandered as being a 'selfish hedonist'. Clearly the acceptance of such language within their own party disclosed an underlying acceptance of such a belief. Thus when Kerry brought out the dirty laundry and violated an open secret the diversion was in motion to kill the messenger vs. thus distracting from their tooling of the gay issue and how it was being used to motivate their base and ensure re-election.

Basically, Mary Cheney won this election for her father...

the notion that her privacy being violated, nevermind that what she does in private was against what many in the party believe and thus pray for her salvation, by someone who not only condones her choices but would work for those like her to make her more accepted and thus more 'outed' and more dangerous was too much. She needed to stay hidden. Their dirty laundry cannot be exposed let alone offered up as acceptable.

Too dangerous. Especially given that hedonists like Mary also seek to ban the Bible and allow Christianity and the US to be overtaken by violent Christian hating fundamentalists from faraway places.

KCTitus
11-04-2004, 10:12 AM
The sooner it becomes unacceptable to legislate solely because of moral disapproval, the better.

Yep...and then it's officially over. All laws are the result of 'moral disapporval' -- I understand the elimination of moral values is the core of this movement. Once that succeeds...we're toast.

Cochise
11-04-2004, 10:21 AM
The sooner it becomes unacceptable to legislate solely because of moral disapproval, the better.

I can't wait until we stop trying to legislate things that are morally disapproved of, like robbery, sex crimes, murder, drunk driving, traffic laws, or any other kind of law basically.

Lightning Rod
11-04-2004, 10:37 AM
This has been bantered back and forth too many times so this should be my last waste of breath dedicated to this subject.

Strangely many, many people seem to be hung up on the word Marriage. It is ok to grant a “civil union” with all the same rights and protections under the law but, they just don’t want it called a marriage. I have discussed this with a number of people that feel this way and I just can’t get my brain to understand their logic. One of my best friends is by Chiefs Planet standards a raving Liberal. He just says “I’m sorry, to me Marriage it between a Man and a woman”.
In my opinion I feel legislation of this sort of stuff goes against at least the spirit of the constitution and probably more than that. I was truly more offended by trying to turn this into a federal constitutional amendment to Ban gay Marriage than some of the states jumping on the bandwagon. The constitution as I see it is all about what we as the people “can” do and what the government has no jurisdiction over. Things such as this assuming that it is not by its very nature Un-constitutional, should be left to the states. Frankly the less the Government be it federal or State meddle in our personal lives the better off we will be.

KCN
11-04-2004, 10:50 AM
I can't wait until we stop trying to legislate things that are morally disapproved of, like robbery, sex crimes, murder, drunk driving, traffic laws, or any other kind of law basically.

There is a striking difference between the said acts and what people do in their private bedrooms.

Everything you listed affects innocents. Peoples' bedroom activities do not.

Soupnazi
11-04-2004, 10:52 AM
There is a striking difference between the said acts and what people do in their private bedrooms.

Everything you listed affects innocents. Peoples' bedroom activities do not.

There's a big difference between gay marriage and simply being gay. I wish people would quit trying to frame the gay marriage argument as "what people do in their bedroom". There's more to this than that.

KCTitus
11-04-2004, 10:53 AM
There is a striking difference between the said acts and what people do in their private bedrooms.

Everything you listed affects innocents. Peoples' bedroom activities do not.

This has nothing to do with the bedroom, on another thread you listed a dozen things that requires societal approval of the couple and additionally a family unit...

KCN
11-04-2004, 11:00 AM
There's a big difference between gay marriage and simply being gay. I wish people would quit trying to frame the gay marriage argument as "what people do in their bedroom". There's more to this than that.

This has nothing to do with the bedroom, on another thread you listed a dozen things that requires societal approval of the couple and additionally a family unit...


Then perhaps you both can elaborate for me how gay marriages or civil unions will negatively affect someone else and should therefore be kept illegal.

Or is this another argument to write your personal beliefs into US law.

KCTitus
11-04-2004, 11:04 AM
Then perhaps you both can elaborate for me how gay marriages or civil unions will negatively affect someone else and should therefore be kept illegal.

Or is this another argument to write your personal beliefs into US law.

Ive done this about 20 times on the other thread.

KCN
11-04-2004, 11:06 AM
Ive done this about 20 times on the other thread.

Because marriage will be redefined? I am still unclear as to how that hurts you, or even affects you.

memyselfI
11-04-2004, 11:10 AM
This has been bantered back and forth too many times so this should be my last waste of breath dedicated to this subject.

Strangely many, many people seem to be hung up on the word Marriage. It is ok to grant a “civil union” with all the same rights and protections under the law but, they just don’t want it called a marriage. I have discussed this with a number of people that feel this way and I just can’t get my brain to understand their logic. One of my best friends is by Chiefs Planet standards a raving Liberal. He just says “I’m sorry, to me Marriage it between a Man and a woman”.
In my opinion I feel legislation of this sort of stuff goes against at least the spirit of the constitution and probably more than that. I was truly more offended by trying to turn this into a federal constitutional amendment to Ban gay Marriage than some of the states jumping on the bandwagon. The constitution as I see it is all about what we as the people “can” do and what the government has no jurisdiction over. Things such as this assuming that it is not by its very nature Un-constitutional, should be left to the states. Frankly the less the Government be it federal or State meddle in our personal lives the better off we will be.

LR,

I remember posting a couple of years ago that the gays were pushing the word marriage too hard and that it would come back to bite them. I feel it bit the Dems as well because Rove could manipulate the truth and turn around and equate supporting civil unions/couples rights as support of 'gay marriage' when it's not.

I see 'marriage' as a religious ceremony and as such I can understand why religious people want to keep that in their domain. I think the gays pushing this rhetoric too hard has really set them back in a big way...

initially I believed it was pushing hard so they could settle in the middle and gay unions/couples rights would seem as the 'middleground' thus they'd get what they really wanted. But, it seems it's backfired because that push has been attached to the Democratic party and equated with them and I think became their achilles heel this past election.

That is not to say I'm against gays or blaming them or wanting the party to change it's stance, I don't. I do think though that if the gays are offering up their issue to be 'tooled' then the Cons should not be the only ones taking advantage of their sacrifice and the Dems need to expose the hypcritical nature of what the Cons are doing so that moderate Reps are not forced to choose between banning gay 'marriage' and the perception of fighting for it.

KCTitus
11-04-2004, 11:33 AM
Because marriage will be redefined? I am still unclear as to how that hurts you, or even affects you.

Further erosion of morality in society affects all of us.

ZepSinger
11-04-2004, 11:38 AM
Then perhaps you both can elaborate for me how gay marriages or civil unions will negatively affect someone else and should therefore be kept illegal.Or is this another argument to write your personal beliefs into US law.

When marriage is defined to mean anything, it will ultimately mean nothing.

There are people waiting in the judicial system right now trying to have 3 and 4 person marriages legalized. All they'd need to gain a toehold on their position is for same sex marriage to be made legal. So where do you draw the line? Someone wants to marry their dog- or a rock. Who's to say they can't? If Tom and Joe can get married, why not Tom, Joe, and Sue?
If the initial marriage barrier falls, the rest will go down like a house of cards.

This 'privacy of the bedroom' argument is not valid. Were you married to everyone you've ever had 'bedroom privacy' with? I thought not. Marriage is a religious ceremony, one that has been recognized as strictly a man/woman partnership in this country since it's inception. If gays want to live together, hey, it's a free country. But I don't believe they should be able to force the institution to embrace and accept an arrangement that it was never intended for.

Does it affect me personally? No. But it would dramatically affect the world my 3 daughters grow up in. I believe the institution of marriage should be for them what it has been for my parents, grandparents, and generations past.

When marriage is defined to mean anything, it will ultimately mean nothing.

PastorMikH
11-04-2004, 11:41 AM
I voted in favor of an ammendment defining Marriage as between a man and a woman. It is my moral conviction that a marriage between 2 people of the same sex is wrong. Also, I don't want to face a lawsuit because I refuse to perform a wedding ceremony for 2 people of the same gender. So for me, it was pretty much a given as to how I would vote on that one.

memyselfI
11-04-2004, 11:41 AM
When marriage is defined to mean anything, it will ultimately mean nothing.

There are people waiting in the judicial system right now trying to have 3 and 4 person marriages legalized. All they'd need to gain a toehold on their position is for same sex marriage to be made legal. So where do you draw the line? Someone wants to marry their dog- or a rock. Who's to say they can't? If Tom and Joe can get married, why not Tom, Joe, and Sue?
If the initial marriage barrier falls, the rest will go down like a house of cards.

This 'privacy of the bedroom' argument is not valid. Were you married to everyone you've ever had 'bedroom privacy' with? I thought not. Marriage is a religious ceremony, one that has been recognized as strictly a man/woman partnership in this country since it's inception. If gays want to live together, hey, it's a free country. But I don't believe they should be able to force the institution to embrace and accept an arrangement that it was never intended for.

Does it affect me personally? No. But it would dramatically affect the world my 3 daughters grow up in. I believe the institution of marriage should be for them what it has been for my parents, grandparents, and generations past.

When marriage is defined to mean anything, it will ultimately mean nothing.

I don't find this belief intolerant or even close to RWNJ...

After the first paragraph, I find it reasoned and fair. The first paragraph being distracting and emotional rhetoric. But there are folks who support GM who would claim none of it was reasoned or fair.

I think the two sides are not that far apart and that the attempt to exploit the differences ON BOTH SIDES has been intentional in order to further agendas...

and in the end it did work for one side while it likely helped to doom the side that was accused of supporting such when clearly they do NOT.

KCN
11-04-2004, 11:57 AM
Further erosion of morality in society affects all of us.

Again, it is your mere opinion that homosexuality is wrong, and you cannot prove that it harms you. Existing laws exist on evidence that certain crimes harm others. A law treating the federal recognition of same-sex unions as a crime has no such evidence.

Personal beliefs not founded on evidence have no place in the US legal system.

When marriage is defined to mean anything, it will ultimately mean nothing.

There are people waiting in the judicial system right now trying to have 3 and 4 person marriages legalized. All they'd need to gain a toehold on their position is for same sex marriage to be made legal. So where do you draw the line? Someone wants to marry their dog- or a rock. Who's to say they can't? If Tom and Joe can get married, why not Tom, Joe, and Sue?
If the initial marriage barrier falls, the rest will go down like a house of cards.

This 'privacy of the bedroom' argument is not valid. Were you married to everyone you've ever had 'bedroom privacy' with? I thought not. Marriage is a religious ceremony, one that has been recognized as strictly a man/woman partnership in this country since it's inception. If gays want to live together, hey, it's a free country. But I don't believe they should be able to force the institution to embrace and accept an arrangement that it was never intended for.

Does it affect me personally? No. But it would dramatically affect the world my 3 daughters grow up in. I believe the institution of marriage should be for them what it has been for my parents, grandparents, and generations past.

When marriage is defined to mean anything, it will ultimately mean nothing.


This argument assumes that just because something has existed a certain way for generations that it is automatically right.

America did not get where it is today by standing firmly on the status quo.

I have yet to hear a valid reason why allowing same-sex unions will harm any other person.

Afraid that shifting the marriage barrier would open the door to a flood of other proposed unions? Look at it this way. If you can point out a legitimate reason why polygamous unions would harm other people in this country then it should not be allowed. Otherwise, that will not hurt you either, so live and let live.

As for marrying a rock or a dog, I can answer that one for you right now. None of the rights granted to a legally married couple can be extended to a rock or dog. Rocks and dogs do not pay taxes, do not make medical decisions, do not arrange funerals, and do not raise children.

ZepSinger
11-04-2004, 12:00 PM
Afraid that shifting the marriage barrier would open the door to a flood of other proposed unions? Look at it this way. If you can point out a legitimate reason why polygamous unions would harm other people in this country then it should not be allowed. Otherwise, that will not hurt you either, so live and let live.

When marriage is defined to mean anything, it will ultimately mean nothing.
This statement stands.

go bowe
11-04-2004, 12:02 PM
There's plenty of straight people I'm sick and tired of seeing shove their tongues down each others' throats as well.

All you fat, nasty, f*cks... I don't care if you're gay or straight... cut it out.hey! fat is not necessarily a bad thing...

i mean, look at the girls endelt chooses... :p :p :p

Lightning Rod
11-04-2004, 12:03 PM
KCN

You sound like a Libertarian. :thumb:

Mark M
11-04-2004, 12:03 PM
While, IMHO, banning gay marriage is ridiculous, an overwhelming majority of people are against it.

The solution?

Call it a civil union. If someone wants to have a big "civil union" ceremony and reception, then fine. They get all the legal rights of a hetero married couple, and those with a moral objection feel better about keeping marriage "sacred."

Just a thought ... and not a Mark M original, either.

MM
~~:shrug:

KCN
11-04-2004, 12:04 PM
This statement stands.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness..."


This statement stands as well. And this one stands in the United States constitution, not an internet forum.

Mark M
11-04-2004, 12:04 PM
When marriage is defined to mean anything, it will ultimately mean nothing.
This statement stands.

IMHO, the insane divorce rate has already made marriages mean a whole lot less than it should.

MM
~~:shrug:

KCN
11-04-2004, 12:05 PM
KCN

You sound like a Libertarian. :thumb:

Yup. Had I not had a vote in a swing state I would probably have voted Badnarik.

memyselfI
11-04-2004, 12:06 PM
While, IMHO, banning gay marriage is ridiculous, an overwhelming majority of people are against it.

The solution?

Call it a civil union. If someone wants to have a big "civil union" ceremony and reception, then fine. They get all the legal rights of a hetero married couple, and those with a moral objection feel better about keeping marriage "sacred."

Just a thought ... and not a Mark M original, either.

MM
~~:shrug:

Well that is what I've been saying for the past few years but then that would be a reasonable compromise and both sides of the issue could not then make political hay. :rolleyes:

memyselfI
11-04-2004, 12:09 PM
Again, it is your mere opinion that homosexuality is wrong, and you cannot prove that it harms you. Existing laws exist on evidence that certain crimes harm others. A law treating the federal recognition of same-sex unions as a crime has no such evidence.

Personal beliefs not founded on evidence have no place in the US legal system.




This argument assumes that just because something has existed a certain way for generations that it is automatically right.

America did not get where it is today by standing firmly on the status quo.

I have yet to hear a valid reason why allowing same-sex unions will harm any other person.

Afraid that shifting the marriage barrier would open the door to a flood of other proposed unions? Look at it this way. If you can point out a legitimate reason why polygamous unions would harm other people in this country then it should not be allowed. Otherwise, that will not hurt you either, so live and let live.

As for marrying a rock or a dog, I can answer that one for you right now. None of the rights granted to a legally married couple can be extended to a rock or dog. Rocks and dogs do not pay taxes, do not make medical decisions, do not arrange funerals, and do not raise children.

Same sex unions are supported by the majority of people in this country...last I read.

Which is why this entire focus on 'marriage' is really a shame/sham. I'm alittle peeved at the Dems for allowing themselves to be manipulated into looking like they support the notion and not making the distinction clear.

OF COURSE KARL ROVE was going to use the clear as mud position of the Democrats to try to scare 'traditional folks' who hold sacred their symbols and rituals.

KCN
11-04-2004, 12:10 PM
Well that is what I've been saying for the past few years but then that would be a reasonable compromise and both sides of the issue could not then make political hay. :rolleyes:

To read over all the CP "gay marriage" threads and tally up the number who have come to this conclusion...it really boggles me why such a relatively agreeable compromise is not being proposed.

BTW to ZepSinger and all those who understandably are concerned about the value of marriage in society...the proposed removal of the word "marriage" from state law and replacing it with civil unions for all should in no way degrade the sacredness of the institution of marriage.
Such an instution that is held dear for reasons of being "sacred" and "God's will" belong in the church and have no place in US gov't to begin with...would you not agree?

go bowe
11-04-2004, 12:26 PM
While, IMHO, banning gay marriage is ridiculous, an overwhelming majority of people are against it.

The solution?

Call it a civil union. If someone wants to have a big "civil union" ceremony and reception, then fine. They get all the legal rights of a hetero married couple, and those with a moral objection feel better about keeping marriage "sacred."

Just a thought ... and not a Mark M original, either.

MM
~~:shrug:lots of people (including president bush) say they favor civil unions, but if i understood the news reports, some of the marriage=man+woman constitutional amendments passed yesterday also banned civil unions...

legally speaking (unless 2 or 3 scalia clones are appointed to the supreme court), morality is not enough to justify infringment of constitutional rights by operation of law...

jim crow was "moral" in much of the u.s., but unconstitutional...

i suspect the courts may eventually overturn some of these gay marriage bans, even though they are imbedded in state constitutions (again, assuming that the supremes do not become scalia clones)...

the federal constitution trumps state constitutions under our system of laws...

so i'm not sure that even amendments of state constitutions will prevent civil unions or even gay marriage...

but given the obvious support for gay marriage bans in so many states, it will cause a firestorm when some federal court holds that the state constitutional bans are unconstitutional...

it should be even more unpopular than the early civil rights decsions were...

ZepSinger
11-04-2004, 02:26 PM
...the proposed removal of the word "marriage" from state law and replacing it with civil unions for all should in no way degrade the sacredness of the institution of marriage.
Such an instution that is held dear for reasons of being "sacred" and "God's will" belong in the church and have no place in US gov't to begin with...would you not agree?

I am not adverse to civil unions. As I stated before, do what you want, live with who you want in a free country. I'm not foisting my views on any individual who wants to spend their life with anyone else. I certainly don't agree with the lifestyle, but to each his own.

It's only when a segment of the population(a vast minority, in this case) want to take a religious institution that many people around the world do indeed consider sacred(minus your sarcasm quotes) and force it to include a definition that it was never intended to have that I begin to have a problem with it. So civil unions yeah, same-sex marriages no IMO.

So yeah, we do agree on this.. kinda...

ENDelt260
11-04-2004, 02:31 PM
While, IMHO, banning gay marriage is ridiculous, an overwhelming majority of people are against it.

I guess that overwhelming majority doesn't vote?

Cochise
11-04-2004, 02:34 PM
I guess that overwhelming majority doesn't vote?

I was trying to figure out where that overwhelming majority has been in the 14 or so states that have all approved a man and woman defintion. Those measures are passing in the 70% range.

Mark M
11-04-2004, 03:15 PM
I guess that overwhelming majority doesn't vote?

Oops ... what I posted didn't come out the way I meant.

An overwhelming amount of people are against gay marriage.

That's what I meant. Sorry ...

MM
~~:doh!:

Calcountry
11-04-2004, 03:17 PM
We voted on Gay marriage in California, I think it was 1998, 67% of the people passed a California constitutional ammendment prohibiting it. Yet, the gays flaunted their contempt in San Francisco last March by flocking to City Hall to perform these unions in front of the willing media.

It was kind of an IN YOUR FACE statement that they were making.

Well, now the country has responded to their audacity.

ENDelt260
11-04-2004, 03:23 PM
Oops ... what I posted didn't come out the way I meant.

An overwhelming amount of people are against gay marriage.

That's what I meant. Sorry ...

MM
~~:doh!:
Gotcha.

You really threw me for a loop there.

Mark M
11-04-2004, 03:25 PM
Gotcha.

You really threw me for a loop there.

I hate it when I dangle my modifier ...

MM
~~:redface:

KCN
11-04-2004, 03:39 PM
I am not adverse to civil unions. As I stated before, do what you want, live with who you want in a free country. I'm not foisting my views on any individual who wants to spend their life with anyone else. I certainly don't agree with the lifestyle, but to each his own.

It's only when a segment of the population(a vast minority, in this case) want to take a religious institution that many people around the world do indeed consider sacred(minus your sarcasm quotes) and force it to include a definition that it was never intended to have that I begin to have a problem with it. So civil unions yeah, same-sex marriages no IMO.

So yeah, we do agree on this.. kinda...

Those were not sarcasm quotes my friend. I too think marriage is a sacred bond.

KCN
11-04-2004, 03:42 PM
We voted on Gay marriage in California, I think it was 1998, 67% of the people passed a California constitutional ammendment prohibiting it. Yet, the gays flaunted their contempt in San Francisco last March by flocking to City Hall to perform these unions in front of the willing media.

It was kind of an IN YOUR FACE statement that they were making.

Well, now the country has responded to their audacity.

Please be sure to distinguish between the word "the" and "some". Nit-picking? Maybe, but it's a huge difference.

The country's response punishes not only them, but the others who wanted no part of it and just wanted to live their lives like everyone else, out of the spotlight.

ZepSinger
11-04-2004, 03:52 PM
Those were not sarcasm quotes my friend. I too think marriage is a sacred bond.

Sorry, I misinterpreted you. I stand corrected.

Baby Lee
11-04-2004, 04:14 PM
There is a striking difference between the said acts and what people do in their private bedrooms.

Everything you listed affects innocents. Peoples' bedroom activities do not.
Jeezus, it's like tracking down cockroaches. I know you've been part of the discussion on the other thread, yet you're over here spouting the debunked "acts in the privacy of our bedrooms sh!t." Don't be that guy KCN.

Baby Lee
11-04-2004, 04:16 PM
LR,

I remember posting a couple of years ago that the gays were pushing the word marriage too hard and that it would come back to bite them. I feel it bit the Dems as well because Rove could manipulate the truth and turn around and equate supporting civil unions/couples rights as support of 'gay marriage' when it's not.

I see 'marriage' as a religious ceremony and as such I can understand why religious people want to keep that in their domain. I think the gays pushing this rhetoric too hard has really set them back in a big way...

initially I believed it was pushing hard so they could settle in the middle and gay unions/couples rights would seem as the 'middleground' thus they'd get what they really wanted. But, it seems it's backfired because that push has been attached to the Democratic party and equated with them and I think became their achilles heel this past election.

That is not to say I'm against gays or blaming them or wanting the party to change it's stance, I don't. I do think though that if the gays are offering up their issue to be 'tooled' then the Cons should not be the only ones taking advantage of their sacrfice and the Dems need to expose the hypcritical nature of what the Cons are doing so that moderate Reps are not forced to choose between banning gay 'marriage' and the perception of fighting for it.
Guess I might as well recognize a ray of sanity from Mememe when she displays it. Kudos to Mememe for getting it exactly right.

Baby Lee
11-04-2004, 04:20 PM
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness..."


This statement stands as well. And this one stands in the United States constitution, not an internet forum.
Why is your right to pursue happiness take the form of having your union recognized as marriage by the government?
Do I have the right to force the government recognize me as a four star general?
I love to drive fast and haven't collided with another person since I hit someone in the HS parking lot my sophomore year. Do I have the right to keep my driver's license if I insist on speeding?

KCN
11-04-2004, 04:33 PM
Jeezus, it's like tracking down cockroaches. I know you've been part of the discussion on the other thread, yet you're over here spouting the debunked "acts in the privacy of our bedrooms sh!t." Don't be that guy KCN.

Don't talk down to me, Baby Lee.

The "debunking" you are referring to is the notion that people want to outlaw gay marriage, not being gay itself, which I have never disagreed with.

Perhaps I should have said "private unions" instead. Poor choice of words on my part, but the validity of the post is unchanged.

KCN
11-04-2004, 04:42 PM
Why is your right to pursue happiness take the form of having your union recognized as marriage by the government?
Do I have the right to force the government recognize me as a four star general?
I love to drive fast and haven't collided with another person since I hit someone in the HS parking lot my sophomore year. Do I have the right to keep my driver's license if I insist on speeding?

Back to the straw man arguments I see.

Before I answer any further, let me point out that I do not want my union recognized by the government "as marriage." I want marriage taken out of the government wording and replaced with civil unions for gay and straight couples. Marriage, as a sacred institution, doesn't belong in our government in the first place. It belongs in a church, which is who grants the blessing that people hold dear anyway.

Now, if you can't realize why the "pursuit of happiness" would include living what is commonly thought of as the American dream - being with the person you love and a family without legal hassle....then I cannot help you. But given that you are married (I think, correct me if I am wrong), I think you know what I mean.

Would you be "happy" if the government told you your union was not valid?

Boozer
11-04-2004, 06:45 PM
Yep...and then it's officially over. All laws are the result of 'moral disapporval' -- I understand the elimination of moral values is the core of this movement. Once that succeeds...we're toast.

I can't wait until we stop trying to legislate things that are morally disapproved of, like robbery, sex crimes, murder, drunk driving, traffic laws, or any other kind of law basically.

I've been trying my best to stay civil recently, but "seriously guys, come on." Do you know how to read? My post:

The sooner it becomes unacceptable to legislate solely because of moral disapproval, the better.

There are plenty of alternative justifications (other than mere moral disapproval), most quite sound, for banning robber, murder, drunk driving and the ilk. The same cannot be said of banning gay marriage.

DenverChief
11-04-2004, 11:17 PM
Why is your right to pursue happiness take the form of having your union recognized as marriage by the government?
Do I have the right to force the government recognize me as a four star general?
I love to drive fast and haven't collided with another person since I hit someone in the HS parking lot my sophomore year. Do I have the right to keep my driver's license if I insist on speeding?


uh impersonating someone and breaking the law have nothing to do with the right to pursue happiness....

HolmeZz
11-04-2004, 11:23 PM
I have yet to hear a good argument against gay marriage or unions. Not just in this topic, but ever.

DenverChief
11-04-2004, 11:24 PM
I've been trying my best to stay civil recently, but "seriously guys, come on." Do you know how to read? My post:



There are plenty of alternative justifications (other than mere moral disapproval), most quite sound, for banning robber, murder, drunk driving and the ilk. The same cannot be said of banning gay marriage.
:)

HolmeZz
11-04-2004, 11:24 PM
I would have voted in favor of it.

Other than "I don't want you to" there is no real ligitimate reason to not allow it...

Exactly.

SBK
11-04-2004, 11:34 PM
My opinion, I am against gay marriage as marriage is a covenant between 1 man 1 woman and 1 God for 1 lifetime. God created marriage as a symbol, which I won't get into everything there as it's not really the time or place.

However, I am against an amendment, but can see it's necessary. If these dumb judges would just do their job, instead of trying to run the legislative, executive and judicial branches of both state and national governments none of this talk would need to happen.

HolmeZz
11-04-2004, 11:40 PM
How would you feel if you were told you couldn't marry the person you loved, and therefore couldn't get the same benefits others got? Not being a smartass, but I'd like to hear how some of you would respond.

DenverChief
11-04-2004, 11:42 PM
How would you feel if you were told you couldn't marry the person you loved, and therfore couldn't get the same benefits others got? Not being a smartass, but I'd like to hear how some of you would respond.


pretty poed

SBK
11-04-2004, 11:55 PM
How would you feel if you were told you couldn't marry the person you loved, and therefore couldn't get the same benefits others got? Not being a smartass, but I'd like to hear how some of you would respond.
What if that person was your daughter, or your mother? That argument is great for polygamy. You can't use the basis of "person you love" cause it opens a pandoras box.

And as far as benefits go, if people living together get benefits, what about live in boyfriend girlfriend, or brothers and sisters that live together. It's a way more complicated issue than "person you love."

Then there's the whole moral and religious issue as well.

HolmeZz
11-04-2004, 11:58 PM
Incest/Marrying in your family wasn't up for discussion. Gay marriage was. So instead of trying to side-step my point, try and answer how you would react if you were denied the right to marry the person you loved.

SBK
11-05-2004, 12:01 AM
You didn't answer my question, was how would you react.

I wouldn't be happy, but if the Chiefs lose on Sunday I won't be happy either.

Of course this wouldn't happen because I am not gay. So it's a stupid point to make, as I pointed out in my last post.

SBK
11-05-2004, 12:02 AM
Incest/Marrying in your family wasn't up for discussion. Gay marriage was. So instead of trying to side-step my point, try and answer how you would react if you were denied the right to marry the person you loved.

Let me ask you a question. Should a law be written that you can marry "the person you love?"

That is the reasoning behind all the gay marriage talk isn't it?

HolmeZz
11-05-2004, 12:03 AM
I wouldn't be happy, but if the Chiefs lose on Sunday I won't be happy either.

Of course this wouldn't happen because I am not gay. So it's a stupid point to make, as I pointed out in my last post.

Comparing the Chiefs losing a football game to not being able to marry the person you love makes you look like an ass. Atleast to me.

HolmeZz
11-05-2004, 12:09 AM
Let me ask you a question. Should a law be written that you can marry "the person you love?"

That is the reasoning behind all the gay marriage talk isn't it?

Nope, there shouldn't be a law saying you can marry the person you love. That is too broad, especially since you don't even HAVE to be in love to marry. However, when I asked the hypothetical question, I was speaking specifically to a gay marriage. Why specifically a gay marriage? Because I believe you don't choose to be gay or straight, therefore you're not allowing someone to pursue happiness over something they can't control. It's the same as saying two people can't get married because of their race(s).

BushGaveMeApplePie
11-05-2004, 12:14 AM
...if it was in your state.

It was in North Dakota. I voted "no" and "yes" won by a huge margin.

Think about this. If you are already married, think back to the time right before you got married. Imagine there was a constitutional amendment out in your state that said legally you could not marry your wife. It's the same issue. This is a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT we're talking about. It can't be changed. Even if you don't give a f*ck about this issue, think what happens if all gays/lesbians gather in one area because it's the only place they can go.

Wouldn't be good for them, nor for the rest of the country.
so you voted "no" it should not be an amendment, or "no" it should be not be allowed?

I think it's disgusting, personally, but then again, so is open-heart surgery. I think it should be allowed (i.e. no amendment).

(The constitution can be changed. The 18th amendment was.)

DenverChief
11-05-2004, 12:15 AM
so you voted "no" it should not be an amendment, or "no" it should be not be allowed?

I think it's disgusting, personally, but then again, so is open-heart surgery. I think it should be allowed (i.e. no amendment).

(The constitution can be changed. The 18th amendment was.)


he voted no it shouldn't be an amendment

BushGaveMeApplePie
11-05-2004, 12:17 AM
I've already voted once to define it as man/woman.

Getting tired of arguing with those that support "gay marriage" because none can engage the subject without the homophobe label.

FWIW, the only two friends that I have that are gay are both against "gay marriage."
I'm curious as to why your friends want to limit their freedom. At the very least, I could see them choosing not to get married, but still wanting to retain the libery.

FWIW, the 2 homosexuals I know are pro gay marriage.

DenverChief
11-05-2004, 12:18 AM
I'm curious as to why your friends want to limit their freedom. At the very least, I could see them choosing not to get married, but still wanting to retain the libery.

FWIW, the 2 homosexuals I know are pro gay marriage.


make it 3 :)

SBK
11-05-2004, 12:19 AM
Nope, there shouldn't be a law saying you can marry the person you love. That is too broad, especially since you don't even HAVE to be in love to marry. However, when I asked the hypothetical question, I was speaking specifically to a gay marriage. Why specifically a gay marriage? Because I believe you don't choose to be gay or straight, therefore you're not allowing someone to pursue happiness over something they can't control. It's the same as saying two people can't get married because of their race(s).

Being gay IS a choice. Don't let folks tell you otherwise. If it weren't a choice they would be able to track a gene. Like your sex, or color. That's never been found.

Also, there's many former homosexuals who will tell you the same thing. Of course homosexuals want you to believe that it's not a choice, but it is.

If God created us that way, we would have had Adam and Steve. God made man and woman AT MINIMUM to procreate. But I have in an earlier post about how marriage is a symbolism. I guess you and I will just have to agree to disagree. Im off to bed, have a good one Mr. HolmeZz.

*Sidenote, I don't have any judgemental feelings or anything about folks being gay. I have many folks I would call friends who are, but I still say that's it's their choice-- thought I'd throw that in before someone uses the standard homophobe label on me.

BushGaveMeApplePie
11-05-2004, 12:20 AM
Maybe if my kids didn't have to watch two fat, ugly, hairy, men sticking their tongues down each others throats on TV every time one of them gets married it wouldn't be my business either. Seems to me their making it my business. I refuse to get into a debate about it but I will wholeheartedly vote against it every chance I get.
I see your point. Even a peck on the lips gives me the shivers, but here's the thang. I rarely see heterosexuals "sticking their tongues down each others throats on TV". why would homosexuals do such a thing?

HolmeZz
11-05-2004, 12:21 AM
Being gay IS a choice. Don't let folks tell you otherwise. If it weren't a choice they would be able to track a gene. Like your sex, or color. That's never been found.

When did you choose to be straight?

DenverChief
11-05-2004, 12:21 AM
Being gay IS a choice. Don't let folks tell you otherwise. If it weren't a choice they would be able to track a gene. Like your sex, or color. That's never been found.
.


Stop talking out your ass...it is not a choice....and just because they haven't found it doesn't mean one doesn't exsist....just a like a cure for cancer or AIDS

DenverChief
11-05-2004, 12:22 AM
When did you choose to be straight?


exactly...could you choose to be gay?

SBK
11-05-2004, 12:22 AM
When did you choose to be straight?

I was created that way. It was my choice to act upon it. :thumb:

DenverChief
11-05-2004, 12:24 AM
I was created that way. It was my choice to act upon it. :thumb:


so you just woke up one morning and said "I think I'll be straight" ? :rolleyes:

HolmeZz
11-05-2004, 12:29 AM
I was created that way. It was my choice to act upon it. :thumb:

So you look at gays as second-class citizens?

SBK
11-05-2004, 12:30 AM
No. What I was saying was that I was created straight, and I made a choice to act on it.

Every homosexual person I've ever talked to about it says that one day they just realized they were gay. That would be the part where they chose to act upon it.

That's what I was saying.

HolmeZz
11-05-2004, 12:31 AM
No. What I was saying was that I was created straight, and I made a choice to act on it.

Every homosexual person I've ever talked to about it says that one day they just realized they were gay. That would be the part where they chose to act upon it.

Exactly. They REALIZED it. They didn't just choose it. There's a difference.

SBK
11-05-2004, 12:32 AM
So you look at gays as second-class citizens?

Where did I say that? You should read a few of my other posts before leveling a charge like that. :shake:

DenverChief
11-05-2004, 12:32 AM
No. What I was saying was that I was created straight


so if you are created straight it is possible to be created gay:hmmm:

DenverChief
11-05-2004, 12:32 AM
Exactly. They REALIZED it. They didn't just choose it. There's a difference.


kinda like the moment you realized you wanted to see up lil suzy's skirt ;)

HolmeZz
11-05-2004, 12:33 AM
Where did I say that? You should read a few of my other posts before leveling a charge like that. :shake:

Well you believe that gays have made the choice to be the way they are, and you think it's a bad choice, am I right? Therefore you're looking down on them for the 'choice' they made when you decline them the same rights as people who were 'born' straight.

KS Smitty
11-05-2004, 12:33 AM
Sexual preference is an individual right. Personally, same sex relationships do not sicken me (nor do they excite me).

What does sicken me is the fact that (some) citizens feel a government entity needs to come into couples homes and tell them that what they feel for each other is right or wrong. It is a personal choice.

In the long run, gay marriage will be as universally accepted as interracial marriages, interfaith marriages and "You can do better than this" marriages.

SBK
11-05-2004, 12:36 AM
Exactly. They REALIZED it. They didn't just choose it. There's a difference.

Nothing either of us says is going to change the others mind you know that right?

DenverChief
11-05-2004, 12:36 AM
"You can do better than this" marriages.
ROFL

DenverChief
11-05-2004, 12:37 AM
Nothing either of us says is going to change the others mind you know that right?


only closed minded people don't change their mind :thumb:

HolmeZz
11-05-2004, 12:37 AM
Nothing either of us says is going to change the others mind you know that right?

Clearly, but your words helped me prove the point I was trying to make. :p

DenverChief
11-05-2004, 12:37 AM
BTW GOOD JOB ON SIDE STEPPING EVERY ONE OF MY POSTS

SBK
11-05-2004, 12:38 AM
Well you believe that gays have made the choice to be the way they are, and you think it's a bad choice, am I right? Therefore you're looking down on them for the 'choice' they made when you decline them the same rights as people who were 'born' straight.

Once again, you are putting words in my mouth. I don't look down upon gays, I don't look down upon anyone.

God made man in his image. And God made all men equal. I believe that 100%, so I view every person on this planet as equal.

By the way, I didn't make any laws.

BushGaveMeApplePie
11-05-2004, 12:38 AM
Being gay IS a choice. Don't let folks tell you otherwise. If it weren't a choice they would be able to track a gene. Like your sex, or color. That's never been found.
so because they can't find the exact gene means it's a choice? I respectfully disagree, as do 100% of the homosexuals I've ever asked, as do 100% of the doctors I've asked.

I've been told (no sources) that the current, leading medical theories suggest homosexuality is 100% genetic. I could be wrong though, as could the theories.

If they (the geneticists) could find the exact gene for most diseases, humans would live well over a hundred. Consider the movie Gattacca.

If God created us that way, we would have had Adam and Steve. God made man and woman AT MINIMUM to procreate.
Consider heterosexuality. There's an infinite spectrum of personal tastes, of diverse interests and preferences. Why would God not allow preferences to bleed over into the homosexual side of the spectrum?

Consider rednecks. Inbreeding kills. Diversity saves. Isn't homosexuality merely an extension of the sexual diversity that keeps species alive for so long?

SBK
11-05-2004, 12:40 AM
only closed minded people don't change their mind :thumb:

Tolerance is the virtue of a man without any convictions.

HolmeZz
11-05-2004, 12:40 AM
Once again, you are putting words in my mouth. I don't look down upon gays, I don't look down upon anyone.

God made man in his image. And God made all men equal. I believe that 100%, so I view every person on this planet as equal.

By the way, I didn't make any laws.

How can you say everyone's equal when you won't give everyone equal rights?

SBK
11-05-2004, 12:42 AM
so because they can't find the exact gene means it's a choice? I respectfully disagree, as do 100% of the homosexuals I've ever asked, as do 100% of the doctors I've asked.

I've been told (no sources) that the current, leading medical theories suggest homosexuality is 100% genetic. I could be wrong though, as could the theories.

If they (the geneticists) could find the exact gene for most diseases, humans would live well over a hundred. Consider the movie Gattacca.

There was 1 study done that found conclusive evidence of a "gay gene." It was later thrown out because the Dr. that found it revealed he was gay and made it up.

By the way, man will never live to be over 120. I guarantee it.

BushGaveMeApplePie
11-05-2004, 12:45 AM
exactly...could you choose to be gay?
...especially in the Bible Belt of all places! It's not popular or advantageous.

DenverChief
11-05-2004, 12:45 AM
Tolerance is the virtue of a man without any convictions.

What is tolerance? -- it is the consequence of humanity. We are all formed of frailty and error; let us pardon reciprocally each other's folly -- that is the first law of nature.--Voltaire

SBK
11-05-2004, 12:47 AM
How can you say everyone's equal when you won't give everyone equal rights?

Guess my 3 year old nephew should be able to smoke, since other people can.
We should let illegals vote because everyone else here can.
Prisons should be closed, because the people in those don't have the same rights as everyone else.
Polygamists can't marry, we need to change that.
Incest should be legalized because those folks that like that need the same rights as everyone else.

etc. etc.

SBK
11-05-2004, 12:48 AM
What is tolerance? -- it is the consequence of humanity. We are all formed of frailty and error; let us pardon reciprocally each other's folly -- that is the first law of nature.--Voltaire

In english?

You told me I was closed minded, and I just told you that I have convictions. :thumb:

DenverChief
11-05-2004, 12:50 AM
Guess my 3 year old nephew should be able to smoke, since other people can.
We should let illegals vote because everyone else here can.
Prisons should be closed, because the people in those don't have the same rights as everyone else.
Polygamists can't marry, we need to change that.
Incest should be legalized because those folks that like that need the same rights as everyone else.

etc. etc.


ROFL

DenverChief
11-05-2004, 12:52 AM
In english?

You told me I was closed minded, and I just told you that I have convictions. :thumb:

"The United States must keep what it has — diversity and tolerance — which make us what we are." Georgie Anne Geyer

BushGaveMeApplePie
11-05-2004, 12:53 AM
There was 1 study done that found conclusive evidence of a "gay gene." It was later thrown out because the Dr. that found it revealed he was gay and made it up.
other studies have been done. they were not thrown out.
By the way, man will never live to be over 120. I guarantee it.
Some men and women have already lived over 120 years.
http://www.brainyencyclopedia.com/encyclopedia/s/su/supercentenarian.html

Please keep an open mind.

DenverChief
11-05-2004, 12:54 AM
"If we could look into each other's hearts and understand the unique challenges each of us face, I think we would treat each other much more gently, with more love, patience, tolerance, and care."Marvin J. Ashton

SBK
11-05-2004, 12:54 AM
Diversity is beautiful. How boring would it be around here if we all felt the same way? Tolerance is good, to a point. There are limits to how tolerant one should be, in all issues. There comes a time when one has to put his foot down and say enough!

I had a fun time chatting with each of you, I have to be up in 6 hours so Im getting to bed. Have a good one!

BushGaveMeApplePie
11-05-2004, 12:55 AM
good night.

SBK
11-05-2004, 12:58 AM
other studies have been done. they were not thrown out.

Some men and women have already lived over 120 years.
http://www.brainyencyclopedia.com/encyclopedia/s/su/supercentenarian.html

Please keep an open mind.

Which studies? Also, several folks back before Noahs Ark lived almost 1000 years. After the flood God promised that he'd never flood the earth again, and made rainbows as a reminder to us. He also said he was tired of mans ways so he limited his time on earth to 120 years. You can find that in Genesis.

Im not closed minded, but I do have convictions. Too much of an open mind is a bad thing. :hmmm:

Hel'n
11-05-2004, 01:01 AM
"If we could look into each other's hearts and understand the unique challenges each of us face, I think we would treat each other much more gently, with more love, patience, tolerance, and care."Marvin J. Ashton


Wish it were true. Beautiful sentiments.

But now there's going to be more battles... more phobias... and more hate... for all concerned...

And I'm going to help...

BushGaveMeApplePie
11-05-2004, 01:04 AM
Which studies? Also, several folks back before Noahs Ark lived almost 1000 years. After the flood God promised that he'd never flood the earth again, and made rainbows as a reminder to us. He also said he was tired of mans ways so he limited his time on earth to 120 years. You can find that in Genesis.

Im not closed minded, but I do have convictions. Too much of an open mind is a bad thing. :hmmm:
How can you say you have an open mind when you just guaranteed that "man will never live to be over 120" and the link I gave showed several cases where man has in fact lived over 120?

I can't find any reference to the 120-year ceiling you're referring to in Genesis. If you can, please enlighten.

Here's a link to an online bible site. there are over 15 versions of the English-langugae Bible. In addition, it's also translated into over 15 languages.
http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?

(I'll try to find evidence that suggests homosexuality is genetic, but I've already admitted I don't have sources, just expert testimony.)

SBK
11-05-2004, 01:19 AM
How can you say you have an open mind when you just guaranteed that "man will never live to be over 120" and the link I gave showed several cases where man has in fact lived over 120?

I can't find any reference to the 120-year ceiling you're referring to in Genesis. If you can, please enlighten.

Here's a link to an online bible site. there are over 15 versions of the English-langugae Bible. In addition, it's also translated into over 15 languages.
http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?

(I'll try to find evidence that suggests homosexuality is genetic, but I've already admitted I don't have sources, just expert testimony.)

Really old guys Genesis 5; Rainbow Genesis 9; 120 years Genesis 6:3

Bibles take on homosexuality, from the back of my bible's references.
Leviticus 18:22, 20:13; Romans 1:18-32; 1 Corinthians 6:9-11; 1 Timothy 1:9-11

These work? Great site by the way!

BushGaveMeApplePie
11-05-2004, 01:25 AM
Really old guys Genesis 5; Rainbow Genesis 9; 120 years Genesis 6:3
Interesting. I had never heard of this 120-year thing before. thanks for the verse.

Genesis 6:3
Then GOD said, "I'm not going to breathe life into men and women endlessly. Eventually they're going to die; from now on they can expect a life span of 120 years."

I'm not sure what to make of this. Is God saying that no one shall live to be over 120? Or is he saying that people in general shall live to be 120?

Hardly anyone lives to be 120 years old these days. Was God wrong? Clearly, history documents several cases where people have lived to be over 120. It seems like any way someone interprets this verse, it's not true today. Maybe I'm missing something.

I agree that the Bible condemns homosexuality. I don't share it's beliefs though.

SBK
11-05-2004, 01:28 AM
Interesting. I had never heard of this 120-year thing before. thanks for the verse.

Genesis 6:3
Then GOD said, "I'm not going to breathe life into men and women endlessly. Eventually they're going to die; from now on they can expect a life span of 120 years."

I'm not sure what to make of this. Is God saying that no one shall live to be over 120? Or is he saying that people in general shall live to be 120?

Hardly anyone lives to be 120 years old these days. Was God wrong? Clearly, history documents several cases where people have lived to be over 120. It seems like any way someone interprets this verse, it's not true today. Maybe I'm missing something.

I agree that the Bible condemns homosexuality. I don't share it's beliefs though.

God is saying that man won't live over 120. Before that, if you read the old guys verses I gave you they lived almost 1000 years. God doesn't guarantee how long anyone will lives, He just says that each man is given once to die.

If you don't care what the bible says about homosexuality why do you care about 120 years?

BushGaveMeApplePie
11-05-2004, 01:31 AM
I realize we're getting off topic here, but I want to ask you a personal question, if you don't mind.

Would you agree that God's role in our everyday lives has been somewhat diminished with the advances in technology?

200 years ago people would die from strep throat, even through the village prayed earnestly for weeks. People don't often pray for victims of strep throat these days. They just pop an amoxicillin, or one if its derivatives.

My question: do you think God's perceived importance will continue to decrease as technology and knowledge continue to increase?

BushGaveMeApplePie
11-05-2004, 01:35 AM
God is saying that man won't live over 120. Before that, if you read the old guys verses I gave you they lived almost 1000 years. God doesn't guarantee how long anyone will lives, He just says that each man is given once to die.

If you don't care what the bible says about homosexuality why do you care about 120 years?
I care what the Bible says just as you care for homosexuals--a tolerance for one's peers and a respect for others' beliefs. I grew up worshipping the Bible 3 times a week. I know without looking that Methuselah (sp?) lived to be 969 and that Enoch and Enosh are way up there. Even Adam was way up there.

I still don't understand what God meant in Gen 6:3. Was he saying that Man will usually live to be 120, or that man will never exceed 120? I'm just curious what you think. Can Genesis be interpretted literally?

SBK
11-05-2004, 01:36 AM
I realize we're getting off topic here, but I want to ask you a personal question, if you don't mind.

Would you agree that God's role in our everyday lives has been somewhat diminished with the advances in technology?

200 years ago people would die from strep throat, even through the village prayed earnestly for weeks. People don't often pray for victims of strep throat these days. They just pop an amoxicillin, or one if its derivatives.

My question: do you think God's perceived importance will continue to decrease as technology and knowledge continue to increase?

God's role hasn't diminished in my life. The only reason is has happened to many folks is because they have pushed him aside. Technology has nothing to do with it.
I've learned that God's always there, and always in control of everything. You just have to take the time to look and take notice. Kind of like the wind, I can't see it, but I can feel it and I know it's there.
Seek God out. He'll find you. Then you'll be able to answer your question from your own experience.

SBK
11-05-2004, 01:40 AM
I care what the Bible says just as you care for homosexuals--a tolerance for one's peers and a respect for others' beliefs. I grew up worshipping the Bible 3 times a week. I know without looking that Methuselah (sp?) lived to be 969 and that Enoch and Enosh are way up there. Even Adam was way up there.

I still don't understand what God meant in Gen 6:3. Was he saying that Man will usually live to be 120, or that man will never exceed 120? I'm just curious what you think. Can Genesis be interpretted literally?

I interpret it literally. The bible is a book that God uses to reveal himself. So we don't always understand exactly what is being said at a given time. That's how people can read it everyday for their whole life and get something out of it everytime.

Try looking at the verse in different translations. That's a good place to start. Unfortunately Greek and Hebrew don't translate to English very well. :thumb:

SBK
11-05-2004, 01:42 AM
I really gotta get to bed, I'll check this thread again, but you can PM me as well.

BushGaveMeApplePie
11-05-2004, 01:47 AM
OK, thanks for sharing. good night.

BushGaveMeApplePie
11-05-2004, 01:50 AM
I interpret it literally. The bible is a book that God uses to reveal himself. So we don't always understand exactly what is being said at a given time. That's how people can read it everyday for their whole life and get something out of it everytime.

Try looking at the verse in different translations. That's a good place to start. Unfortunately Greek and Hebrew don't translate to English very well. :thumb:
yes, I agree. I think it would be fascinating to have a friend who spoke fluet greek, or was learned in Hebrew, and to be able to read the Bible in its original manuscripts to see what we miss.

Maybe Discovery or TLC should get on that! ;-)

BushGaveMeApplePie
11-05-2004, 02:53 AM
The online database finally started working. ;-) Here are a few studies that conclude the relation between homosexuality and genetics. If you don't have access to Lexis Nexis, I can copy & paste the entire contents of each article.

Copyright 2004 Medicine & Law Weekly via LawRx.com via NewsRx.com and NewsRx.net
Medicine & Law Weekly
April 2, 2004
SECTION: EXPANDED REPORTING; Pg. 172
LENGTH: 673 words
HEADLINE: OREGON HEALTH & SCIENCE UNIVERSITY: Biology is behind homosexuality in sheep, study confirms

Copyright 2003 Women's Health Weekly via NewsRx.com and NewsRx.net
Women's Health Weekly
February 20, 2003
SECTION: EDITOR'S CHOICE; Pg. 5
LENGTH: 400 words
HEADLINE: HOMOSEXUALITY: Prenatal environment may dictate sexual orientation

Copyright 2000 Genomics & Genetics Weekly via NewsRx.com and NewsRx.net
Genomics & Genetics Weekly
March 24, 2000
SECTION: EDITOR'S CHOICE; Pg. 2
LENGTH: 480 words
HEADLINE: MALE TRANSSEXUALS: Feminization Associated with X Chromosome Variations
BODY:
Researchers have found that male transsexuality and homosexuality may be linked to variations in the X chromosome.

Copyright 2000 Genomics & Genetics Weekly via NewsRx.com and NewsRx.net
Genomics & Genetics Weekly
February 4, 2000
SECTION: EXPANDED REPORTING; Pg. 7-8
LENGTH: 322 words
HEADLINE: DROSOPHILA STUDIES (COURTSHIP): Study Maps Male Homosexuality in Drosophila
BODY:
Researchers are studying genetic mutations that cause male-to-male courtship in Drosophila melanogaster.

Copyright 1997 Sex Weekly via NewsRx.com and NewsRx.net
Sex Weekly
June 23, 1997
SECTION: EDITOR'S CHOICE; Pg. 5
LENGTH: 525 words
HEADLINE: ANIMAL MODELS: Sheep Homosexuality Linked To Brain Structure, Hormones

Here's one from the www w/many hyperlinked sources:
THE GENETICS OF HOMOSEXUALITY
Dara Newman
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/biology/b103/f97/projects97/Newman.html

...and another:
The Hypothetical Genetics of Sexual Orientation
by Keith Bell
Boston University Undergraduate Biology Program
http://salmon.psy.plym.ac.uk/year1/psychobiology_site_backups/homosexuality-debate/genetics.html

...yet another from Reuters:
The naturalness of homosexuality
Sexual Identity Hard-Wired by Genetics, Study Says October 20, 2003
http://www.libchrist.com/other/homosexual/genetics.html

Now, my challenge to you is this: can you find any recent medical studies that suggest homosexuality is NOT genetic?

SBK
11-05-2004, 09:16 AM
yes, I agree. I think it would be fascinating to have a friend who spoke fluet greek, or was learned in Hebrew, and to be able to read the Bible in its original manuscripts to see what we miss.

Maybe Discovery or TLC should get on that! ;-)

No lie, that would be some cool tv. I'll look around and see what I can find from your other post.

BushGaveMeApplePie
11-05-2004, 01:31 PM
It slowly occured to me that, from a religious perspective, God made man with all kinds of imperfections. Why would God not make man with homosexuality?

the interesting part is why does Jesus say this:
John 6:44 "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day."

from a religious standpoint, doesn't sound like homosexuals have a choice at all to be saved unless God wants them to be saved; hence, the tradition of condemnation and condescension.

SBK
11-06-2004, 12:46 AM
It slowly occured to me that, from a religious perspective, God made man with all kinds of imperfections. Why would God not make man with homosexuality?

the interesting part is why does Jesus say this:
John 6:44 "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day."

from a religious standpoint, doesn't sound like homosexuals have a choice at all to be saved unless God wants them to be saved; hence, the tradition of condemnation and condescension.

You're a deep thinker. Let me try to answer this.

God created man with a free will. Let man choose his ways. We all know what happened with Adam and Eve, and with sin brought destruction. That's why man is imperfect now, it's sin, not the way God created him.

A person has to make a choice to get saved, but God reveals himself to everyone who seeks him. There's a lot of debate in Christian circles, Calvinsits and such who say you're predestined, and others say you are not. I don't have the answer to that, but my personal opinion is that it's man's choice whether to accept God or not. God knows whether you will or not, as He knows everything, but it's up to you.

If you're going to try to use the bible to say man was created homosexual I think you might run into some trouble. Just a thought though. Im still working on finding some stuff from your earlier post.

Ultra Peanut
11-06-2004, 01:42 AM
Guess my 3 year old nephew should be able to smoke, since other people can.Three year olds are minors, and are therefore legally limited in their rights and privileges.

We should let illegals vote because everyone else here can.Illegals are not citizens of this country, and and are therefore legally limited in their rights and privileges.

Prisons should be closed, because the people in those don't have the same rights as everyone else.Prisoners have been deemed guilty of committing crimes, thus infringing upon the rights of others, in a court of law, and are therefore limited in their rights and privileges.

Polygamists can't marry, we need to change that.I don't really see what's so wrong with polygamy, on a legal level. I see it in the same light as gay marriage. Neither would affect me in the least, and I don't see what the big deal is.

Incest should be legalized because those folks that like that need the same rights as everyone else.Incest has serious potential negative effects on the potential child that could result.

BushGaveMeApplePie
11-06-2004, 09:05 AM
God created man with a free will. Let man choose his ways. We all know what happened with Adam and Eve, and with sin brought destruction. That's why man is imperfect now, it's sin, not the way God created him.
I appreciate the explanation. I'll write more when ASAP.

The Pedestrian
11-06-2004, 07:42 PM
I have absolutely nothing against a civil union for homosexuals, but I believe it shouldn't be called marriage...the definition we have used in civilizations for thousands of years has remained "a holy and civil union between a man and a woman" and although people have pissed on it by getting married out of lust, we shouldn't ruin the title by throwing the entire definition out the window.