[$tinkle]

Originally posted by ummbikes
By all means Stinkle kick down, in my town we have homeless, hungry CHILDREN.

We Christians need to stay out of politics and spend more time in the streets taking care of the least of us. You really think the God of the universe needs us wasting our time on this crap?

He asks to be choosen, why does man think he can make rules that will make people choose one lifestyle over the other?

This is lame, people are dying all over and kids are starving and people want to spend huge resourses on the preservation of an instituion that has ALREADY DIED!

if you have the belief (as i do) that our country was based upon a set of moral absolutes, who gets the "maintenence contract"? There are plenty of people vieing for political positions under the auspices of representing us, no? What better reason to be in politics than to see our values represented. I remind you that the proponents of gay marriage are doing just that. Please bear in mind that i'm not an activist, nor do i want to take the time away from my family or riding (in that order) to become one. Next to voting, this is as involved as i get. I'm pretty toothless against the "gay machine".

Also, I do not believe that fighting one is at the exclusion of the other. I give to domestic & foreign charities - most (but not all) faith based, as my "service". You would be correct to imply that i'm not out washing the feet of the least of us, which would certainly be a sacrifice of what's most important to me: my time w/ my family. Doesn't make me a bad person, does it?

Originally posted by ummbikes
Morons, our spiritual and political leaders are complete freaking morons.

not so fast. Are we not spiritual leaders of our respective households? chewy, indeed.

 

[ummbikes]

Originally posted by $tinkle
if you have the belief (as i do) that our country was based upon a set of moral absolutes, who gets the "maintenence contract"? There are plenty of people vieing for political positions under the auspices of representing us, no? What better reason to be in politics than to see our values represented. I remind you that the proponents of gay marriage are doing just that. Please bear in mind that i'm not an activist, nor do i want to take the time away from my family or riding (in that order) to become one. Next to voting, this is as involved as i get. I'm pretty toothless against the "gay machine".

Also, I do not believe that fighting one is at the exclusion of the other. I give to domestic & foreign charities - most (but not all) faith based, as my "service". You would be correct to imply that i'm not out washing the feet of the least of us, which would certainly be a sacrifice of what's most important to me: my time w/ my family. Doesn't make me a bad person, does it?
not so fast. Are we not spiritual leaders of our respective households? chewy, indeed.

I target no one Christian specificly. My church just dropped 1.2 million on an expansion yet people wonder where we will come up with a $100 to buy some groceries for a needy single mom.

I need to flesh out this concept a little more. I'm on to something along the lines of the power of God -vs- the power of men and choice.

 

[ummbikes]

Originally posted by $tinkle

Are we not spiritual leaders of our respective households? chewy, indeed.

Yep. :devil:

 

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by $tinkle
I'm pretty toothless against the "gay machine".

 

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by ummbikes
I need to flesh out this concept a little more. I'm on to something along the lines of the power of God -vs- the power of men and choice.

I'm in agreeance

If G-d gave us freewill, then why is GWB trying to take it away from us?

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by Velocity Girl
So would you make the same argument about abortion then?? Having to "screw" with a bigger percentage of the population to deal with a problem that doesn't effect as "the masses"?

The issue is important to those who it effects and to those who believe in it as the right thing to do.

Just because something is important to a few doesnt mean it needs to be such this huge issue. For instance, I dont see any threads defending polygamists rights. Why? Because their views dont fit in with yours, just like the gays' dont fit in with mine and more than half of the rest of the country's.
Im pro-death by the way.

 

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by Velocity Girl
So would you make the same argument about abortion then?? Having to "screw" with a bigger percentage of the population to deal with a problem that doesn't effect as "the masses"?

he might not. but i would.

i mean, as long as we're pro-choice, would you tolerate my choice to beseech all expectant mothers to "let all that may become, be", and bring every bit of available information disclosing infertile couples - who, by the way, are a small number of our population? I'm not easily convinced this is unreasonable, as abortion in our country may be legal, it may even be safe (except for the unborn), but it certainly isn't rare.

Originally posted by Velocity Girl
The issue is important to those who it effects and to those who believe in it as the right thing to do.

i'm a little in a fog. What's the "right thing to do"? And whose morality is being imposed upon whom? I'm not setting a trap; i'm genuinely confused as to what you refer.

 

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
Just because something is important to a few doesnt mean it needs to be such this huge issue. For instance, I dont see any threads defending polygamists rights. Why? Because their views dont fit in with yours, just like the gays' dont fit in with mine and more than half of the rest of the country's.
Im pro-death by the way.

polygamy doesn't fit in with my views, but I wouldn't have a problem with multiple partners getting married, but just like queers, I don't care enough to do anything besides spout garbage on a message board.

 

[Serial Midget]

Originally posted by $tinkle
I'm pretty toothless against the "gay machine".

I think you be pretty popular downtown.

 

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by Serial Midget
I think you be pretty popular downtown.

i guess i'll have to change my avi to be brain boitano nailing a quad (not the christopher reeve variety, mind you)

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by LordOpie
polygamy doesn't fit in with my views, but I wouldn't have a problem with multiple partners getting married, but just like queers, I don't care enough to do anything besides spout garbage on a message board.

But that's the thing. The gays just have the right people in the right places to make such a noise...even though it's not any more or less correct than a ton of other issues out there. People pick and choose their battles and to hell with consistency. Get Bush out.
Im in a world of hell actually, being that Im mildly conservative and what "options" do I have for this election? There was a time when I thought Kerry would be OK, but now, after all the shuffling and wordgames, Im left only with Bush, who i do not "like" but can expect at least not to do something so rash as to allow gay marriages. I guess what scares me the most is people like 'Dean' who want to revolutionize things when i sort of like them the way they are...only needing some refinement.

 

[Velocity Girl]

Originally posted by $tinkle
he might not. but i would.

i mean, as long as we're pro-choice, would you tolerate my choice to beseech all expectant mothers to "let all that may become, be", and bring every bit of available information disclosing infertile couples - who, by the way, are a small number of our population? I'm not easily convinced this is unreasonable, as abortion in our country may be legal, it may even be safe (except for the unborn), but it certainly isn't rare.

i'm a little in a fog. What's the "right thing to do"? And whose morality is being imposed upon whom? I'm not setting a trap; i'm genuinely confused as to what you refer.

The "right thing to do" is anyone who stands up for what they believe in and feels strong enough to do something about it. And yes, this goes for both sides. People are arguing that we shouldn't concern ouselves with an issue that effects such a small number of people, but they feel it's the "right thing" for them to escalate their issue and make it known. (Weather pro or con) And if obviously effects more than just a small perecentage of the population because if that were truly the case....why would we even be having this debate?


As for imposing morality on people....morality is a grey issue and a slippery slope to fight on. Some might argue that allowing blacks and whites to marry was forcing a moralitly upon others? In my opinion the issue is no different than that....two people who want to be married...what's the problem? Is the next step to not allow hermaphrodites to marry?

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by Velocity Girl
The "right thing to do" is anyone who stands up for what they believe in and feels strong enough to do something about it.

The KKK?

EDIT: ooh, or how about the Nazi's? They did something about it too, was that right?

 

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
The KKK?

EDIT: ooh, or how about the Nazi's? They did something about it too, was that right?

ooh, how about I b:tch slap ya come on bro, ya know she didn't mean it that way.

 

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by Velocity Girl
Is the next step to not allow hermaphrodites to marry?

you mean they're not killed at birth?

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by LordOpie
ooh, how about I b:tch slap ya come on bro, ya know she didn't mean it that way.

The point Im getting at is that "the underdog" the "frail and downtrodden" arent always the guys to back up. Sure you feel bad for them and all, but seriously, how does this contribute to the greater good of our society?
My answer is that it does not, and therefore its wrong.

 

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by Velocity Girl
As for imposing morality on people....morality is a grey issue and a slippery slope to fight on. Some might argue that allowing blacks and whites to marry was forcing a moralitly upon others? In my opinion the issue is no different than that....two people who want to be married...what's the problem?

although i do agree with you, the gay-marriage opponents have their position for exactly the reason you touched on: the slipperly slope.

whelp, it looks like it'll go up before the high court, possibly, and then we'll go from there.

 

[zod]

Originally posted by DRB
Really it would sway your vote?

If for some reason Bush came out against a constitutional amendment and Kerry was for it, you would switch your vote?

(guessing from your posts you are Dubya kinda guy).

Not really a Dubya kind of guy DRB..... just a conservative that's all. There are certain things I don't waver on and this is one of them. It would most certainly effect my vote and I would vote against a Republican in a heartbeat if I didn't agree with his/her stances. I by the way am not a registered Republican.

Understand this, I am not for a constitutional amendment as I believe marriage laws should be controlled at the state level. However I am against gay marriage and if the left wing wacko liberals and law breaking circuit court activists judges who care nothing about upholding the law wanna play hardball and turn this into a federal issue (which they are) then they better be prepared for backlash from the conservative majority whom do not want gay marriage in the United States. After this is all over gay marriage will be banned by constitutional law and it'll all be thanks to the left wing that pushed the issue. That's the true irony of this whole situation.

 

[Velocity Girl]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
The point Im getting at is that "the underdog" the "frail and downtrodden" arent always the guys to back up. Sure you feel bad for them and all, but seriously, how does this contribute to the greater good of our society?
My answer is that it does not, and therefore its wrong.

So does allowing pedophiles to marry contribute to the greater good of our society? Or those who have a history of domestic violence? These people are still allowed this right...why shouldn't everyone be allowed the same right?

 

[derekbob]

Im a looney lib and proud, obviously I have no problems with gays marrying (and getting the full financial benefits) or with 2 consenting adults sticking whatever they want into whatever orafice they want.

If the moral police had any faith in Christianity they would simply rest assured that all these sinners will burn in hell.

and BS, would your opinion change if that Urlacher guy you love so much wanted to marry you???

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by Velocity Girl
So does allowing pedophiles to marry contribute to the greater good of our society? Or those who have a history of domestic violence? These people are still allowed this right...why shouldn't everyone be allowed the same right?

Pedophiles arent allowed to marry the kids they molest. Wife beaters get prison time if they're convicted of that crime. Youre not making an accurate analogy here. Pedophelia and Domestic Violence are detrimental to society, and those who commit such crimes should be legally punished. Getting married to a member of the opposite sex has nothing to do with either. Having same sex marriages, In my view, is also detrimental to society and should not be allowed.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by derekbob

and BS, would your opinion change if that Urlacher guy you love so much wanted to marry you???

no.

 

[Velocity Girl]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
Pedophiles arent allowed to marry the kids they molest. Wife beaters get prison time if they're convicted of that crime. Youre not making an accurate analogy here. Pedophelia and Domestic Violence are detrimental to society, and those who commit such crimes should be legally punished. Getting married to a member of the opposite sex has nothing to do with either. Having same sex marriages, In my view, is also detrimental to society and should not be allowed.

I think my analogy is an accurate one....you said same sex marriages would not to anything for the greater good of society so they should not be allowed....under that reasoning, a pedophile should not be allowed to marry and produce offspring that he could then potentially molest, or someone with a history of domestic violence should not be allowed to marry because they might turn their spouse into a punching bag, because these things would classify as being detrimental to society. That's the point I'm getting at.

In my opinion I don't see how two people, who love each other, being married can be detrimental to society. I think it would enhance our society. And the argument that we shouldn't be subjected to "their morals" can go both ways because who says they should be subjected to the "morals" of those who say only men and women should be together.

 

[RhinofromWA]

Originally posted by Velocity Girl
I think my analogy is an accurate one....you said same sex marriages would not to anything for the greater good of society so they should not be allowed....under that reasoning, a pedophile should not be allowed to marry and produce offspring that he could then potentially molest, or someone with a history of domestic violence should not be allowed to marry because they might turn their spouse into a punching bag, because these things would classify as being detrimental to society. That's the point I'm getting at.

In my opinion I don't see how two people, who love each other, being married can be detrimental to society. I think it would enhance our society. And the argument that we shouldn't be subjected to "their morals" can go both ways because who says they should be subjected to the "morals" of those who say only men and women should be together.

You are all being very naughty....

Now come bend over Rhino's lap, and take your discipline... are we still on the Sodamy topic? LOL

 

[Velocity Girl]

Originally posted by RhinofromWA
You are all being very naughty....

Now come bend over Rhino's lap, and take your discipline... are we still on the Sodamy topic? LOL

I've been a baaaaaaaddddd girl :devil:

 

[RhinofromWA]

Originally posted by Velocity Girl
I've been a baaaaaaaddddd girl :devil:

LOL

 

[DRB]

Originally posted by N8
Its because the lib's can't muster any meaningful issues this election year. Heck, even their star canidate supported the President on just about all the key issues at one time or another.

Gay marriage is a fore-gone conclusion in my opinon. Its gonna happen sooner or later and then queer folk can be held to all the same myriad of laws that us hetro's are. Serves 'em right I say!

Next issue ....

Hey pinhead... let's see who put this issue in the State of the Union subsequently bringing it into the National debate? Who is the one that in a speech today decided it needed to be a Constitutional amendment? Just in case your simple brain can't process the answers, I'll let you in on a secret it was George W. Bush.

Bush is pushing this for exactly the reason you have already brought up to try and pacify his ultra conservative constituents that are pissed at him for being a closet Democrat. The whole spending thing..... remember?

 

[DRB]

Originally posted by Capt. Jack Sparrow
Perhaps Jr's education thread hasn't heated up yet because we all need to read her post carefully and process it. It's not that we don't care. (My background is in education, but I know I don't feel I can comment on "No Child Left Behind" at the moment.) Whereas with the issue of gay marriage and an amendment to the Constitution, it's easier for us to post because a lot of us are speaking from our hearts... and can hit the thread running.

Haven't been around long here have you?

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by Velocity Girl
I think my analogy is an accurate one....you said same sex marriages would not to anything for the greater good of society so they should not be allowed....under that reasoning, a pedophile should not be allowed to marry and produce offspring that he could then potentially molest, or someone with a history of domestic violence should not be allowed to marry because they might turn their spouse into a punching bag, because these things would classify as being detrimental to society. That's the point I'm getting at.

In my opinion I don't see how two people, who love each other, being married can be detrimental to society. I think it would enhance our society. And the argument that we shouldn't be subjected to "their morals" can go both ways because who says they should be subjected to the "morals" of those who say only men and women should be together.

No, your analogy was not accurate at all. These people represent criminals of a particular crime which there are laws against, not a particular lifestyle that wishes for acceptance by the mainstream of society. I, for one, would not care if child molestors and spousal abusers were not allowed to get married. Heck, get a group together and lobby for that to be a law. It would likely have more effect on our country than this whole GAY debate thing. Which is why Im wondering why it even has to be an issue. But then, I guess, we'd be grouping gays with criminals which they are not, of course. IN MY OPINION, allowing gay marriages is more trouble than its worth, simply because setting the precedent of "equality" which it is not, would allow for more items like 'Gay affirmative action' and 'Gay-only Scholarships' 'Gay clubs in public schools, 'Same sex couples pictured in text books' 'Gay sex education' in schools and a ton of other ideas that i dont even want to imagine, not because I dislike gay people, but because the amount of crap that goes with it comes at too great a cost for what little is accomplished. Who cares if steve and stever are happy? Not me.

 

[DRB]

Originally posted by zod
Not really a Dubya kind of guy DRB..... just a conservative that's all. There are certain things I don't waver on and this is one of them. It would most certainly effect my vote and I would vote against a Republican in a heartbeat if I didn't agree with his/her stances. I by the way am not a registered Republican.

So you would vote for Kerry if he was against gay marriage and Bush was for it?

Originally posted by zod
Understand this, I am not for a constitutional amendment as I believe marriage laws should be controlled at the state level. However I am against gay marriage and if the left wing wacko liberals and law breaking circuit court activists judges who care nothing about upholding the law wanna play hardball and turn this into a federal issue (which they are) then they better be prepared for backlash from the conservative majority whom do not want gay marriage in the United States. After this is all over gay marriage will be banned by constitutional law and it'll all be thanks to the left wing that pushed the issue. That's the true irony of this whole situation.

The law breaking circuit court activist judges like Roy Moore. No wait you must be talking about the ones that Bush labeled activists. The ones that simply applied law and precedent on the books to make a determination when asked about same sex marriage versus civil unions. Remember the term "separate but equal" and the fact that the supreme court already said that won't fly. That Supreme Court was labeled activist as well and were tarred with the not upholding the law label as well.

Judges jobs are interpreting the law. If they had agreed with you I'm sure they wouldn't have been activist judges.

 

[Velocity Girl]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
No, your analogy was not accurate at all. These people represent criminals of a particular crime which there are laws against, not a particular lifestyle that wishes for acceptance by the mainstream of society. I, for one, would not care if child molestors and spousal abusers were not allowed to get married. Heck, get a group together and lobby for that to be a law. It would likely have more effect on our country than this whole GAY debate thing. Which is why Im wondering why it even has to be an issue. But then, I guess, we'd be grouping gays with criminals which they are not, of course. IN MY OPINION, allowing gay marriages is more trouble than its worth, simply because setting the precedent of "equality" which it is not, would allow for more items like 'Gay affirmative action' and 'Gay-only Scholarships' 'Gay clubs in public schools, 'Same sex couples pictured in text books' 'Gay sex education' in schools and a ton of other ideas that i dont even want to imagine, not because I dislike gay people, but because the amount of crap that goes with it comes at too great a cost for what little is accomplished. Who cares if steve and stever are happy? Not me.

I don't want to lump them with criminals at all, just was arguing the point of it being detrimental to society. I do see your point on the potential landslide effect though. But it doesn't mean that I still don't believe it should be legal. There are a lot of things that we Americans take to extreme I think (being sooooo worried about being ultra politically correct all the time and making sure everyone is always accounted for in every freakin' scenario) but we have to start with things somewhere, and it's a change I personally would like to see.

 

[brenth]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
Having same sex marriages, In my view, is also detrimental to society and should not be allowed.

Hey BS, how is it detrimental to society? I have heard this said many times, but I've yet to hear anyone show how. I just don't understand the rational behind the agument that its going to ruin mariage.

I can't forsee anything that will happen to me and my wife's marriage, it gays were legally alowed to marry. I would imagine that men and women will still marry and live happily ever after or crash and burn in messy divorces that will buy many a fancy car for rich divorce lawyers.

 

[valve bouncer]

Originally posted by brenth
Hey BS, how is it detrimental to society? I have heard this said many times, but I've yet to hear anyone show how. I just don't understand the rational behind the agument that its going to ruin mariage.

I can't forsee anything that will happen to me and my wife's marriage, it gays were legally alowed to marry. I would imagine that men and women will still marry and live happily ever after or crash and burn in messy divorces that will buy many a fancy car for rich divorce lawyers.

I think our Shirley is just a bit scared to face up to the real reason he can't form meaningful relationships with the opposite sex. Come out of the closet Shirley.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by brenth
Hey BS, how is it detrimental to society? I have heard this said many times, but I've yet to hear anyone show how. I just don't understand the rational behind the agument that its going to ruin mariage.

I can't forsee anything that will happen to me and my wife's marriage, it gays were legally alowed to marry. I would imagine that men and women will still marry and live happily ever after or crash and burn in messy divorces that will buy many a fancy car for rich divorce lawyers.

Well, without getting into the "American Family" thing, which i think speaks for itself, being that its the common catchall for conservative ideals, the reasons i posted above...mainly about the greater of society being force fed images of an issue it does not, in large part, even agree with, let alone want exposed to its children really bothers me. Again, not that i hate gays or anything, its just that in my simple view of the world, homosexuality was never meant to be mainstream or accepted lifestyle. And why should we promote it as such when it only affects a barely significant portion of the population? Because LESS than half the country thinks its the right thing to do? That just dont jive with me.
Of course, every high school is still going to have 'that one guy' who joins the color guard, dresses well and talks with a lisp...so at some point everyone's going to be exposed to this lifestyle, but if we as a society morally accept such things as gay marriages, we're opening a can of worms bigger than we need to deal with. Can you imagine a military unit with a gay commander? Can you imagine missing out ona job that you're better qualified for because you havent slept with a man? Its all in the cards, dude.

 

[fluff]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
Which is why Im wondering why it even has to be an issue.

It's an issue because bigots like you make it so. Say yes, allow gay couples to have the same legal rights as straight couples and move on to the more important issues.

How the hell does it hurt anyone if two gay people who are already a couple are allowed additional legal rights under the name of marriage.

It's only a word for heaven's sake and if God hates the idea so much I'm sure he'll find his own way of dealing with it.

The American family? How is that affected, that'll just as separated and dysfuntional as ever.

Affirmative action? Take away the reason. Are you people really that stupid?

Your country is getting fvcked up beyond belief

 

[N8 v2.0]

Originally posted by fluff


Your country is getting fvcked up beyond belief

Can queers in the UK marry?

 

[fluff]

Originally posted by N8
Can queers in the UK marry?

I don't know and I couldn't give a toss.

In case I'm coming off as a prick regarding the US going to the dogs, I just think that you guys have the potential to achieve so much yet spend so much time and money on crap that doesn't really matter.

I guess it's an inevitable thing in an affluent society. Too much choice can be dangerous.

 

[zod]

Originally posted by DRB
So you would vote for Kerry if he was against gay marriage and Bush was for it?

I most certainly would, and btw Kerry is not exactly for gay marriage. I would not cast my vote soley on this issue but it is one that holds a lot of influence in my decesion.

Originally posted by DRB
The law breaking circuit court activist judges like Roy Moore. No wait you must be talking about the ones that Bush labeled activists. The ones that simply applied law and precedent on the books to make a determination when asked about same sex marriage versus civil unions. Remember the term "separate but equal" and the fact that the supreme court already said that won't fly. That Supreme Court was labeled activist as well and were tarred with the not upholding the law label as well.

Judges jobs are interpreting the law. If they had agreed with you I'm sure they wouldn't have been activist judges.

DRB I don't need GW to hold my hand....I'm a well educated big boy and can come to conclusions on my own. I PERSONALLY label this judge as an activists and question why him and the mayor have not been lawfully removed from their positions. There are laws in the books for their state that specifically say gay marriage is illegal. A judge cannot go against that, even if he interpret "separate but equal" to have some sort of place in these cases. It's a state law, like laws against murder. There is nothing to interpret, it's there in black and white and they are in defiance of the state law and should be charged as criminals.
If the Mayor has a problem with it then he should go through the proper channels and bring his position before the state and work through instead of against the democratic process. Instead he has chosen the path of civil disobedience which is fine and it's his right as a CIVILIAN, but he should be well aware of and have to face the consequences of that decision......as does anybody else who breaks state law.
It has nothing to do with them agreeing with me, I could care less what they personally think about gays.......but in their jobs they must abide by and protect the laws of thier state. They are not doing so and that is why they are activist. Just as they would be activists if gay marriage was legal and they refused gays the right to marry.

Once again the last thing I want to see is this end up altering the constitution, it should be a state level decision as should 95% of government IMHO. I am not exactly happy that Bush is taking this where he is taking it. I am also not happy with the other side either whom are breaking state law in order to push their own agenda. It's all a big friggin' mess and it's only gonna get worse. Especially if it turns out that Bush says civil union is OK for gays but that marriage is not........that really does create a "separate but equal" kind of scenario.
My personal belief is that you can't stand in the middle of the bridge on this issue. Either gay unions, be them marriage or civil, are wrong or they are right and I think the law must be written that way. Giving gays some right but not all creates a recipe for distaster.

All this being said I see no reason for us to all start slandering each other in this forum, let's keep the conversation open and remember that it is going to be opinionated.......after all that's what us American's are all about. (fluff still bows to a queen though )

 

[fluff]

Originally posted by zod

All this being said I see no reason for us to all start slandering each other in this forum. (fluff still bows to a queen though )

That's libellous and untrue. :devil:

If you ever see a photo of me bowing to any queen it'll be faked.

I am not a royalist - complete waste of money in my opinion.

 

[zod]

Hmmm.......