serious gay marriage question

“People are dying by the dozens every day in Iraq and our congress is pandering to those who "fear the queer".

If it ain't one boogey man its another.”

“It's fun to say it's about those who "fear the queer", but it's really about the redefining of marriage. It's akin to that artwork of Jesus with feces smeared on it. It's disrespectful to God.”

“"It's disrespectful to God."

That is an irrelevant statement.
You can only apply your "god" to those who believe in it.

This current round of gay-bashing energizes and panders to the queer-haters.

Who is "re-defining marriage"??

Gay people just want to get married.
Why deny them something that I can freely do?”

“That is an irrelevant statement.

It's not irrelevant. People elect leaders to represent their beliefs. My beliefs, and the belief of millions of others, is it's disrespectful to God. The fact that we vote makes it relevant.

You can only apply your "god" to those who believe in it.

True. But I can apply my vote on election day.

This current round of gay-bashing energizes and panders to the queer-haters.

1. Gay-bashing <> Gay-marriage issue
2. queer-haters, as you call them, are a vocal minority and not the issue

Who is "re-defining marriage"??

Those who no longer define it as a covenant between man, woman and God.

Gay people just want to get married. Why deny them something that I can freely do?

I have no intention of denying them getting married. They can get married just like everyone else. A gay man can marry a woman, and a gay woman can marry a man.”

“Our constitution does not exist to regulate personal relationships. It exists to contain the power of government and protect certain rights. Remember when our constitution was amended to prohibit alcohol- how long did that ridiculous amendment last?

I am against a gay marriage amendment- it is not why we have a constitution. Most states and the federal government forbid gay marriage, or recognition thereof. This is a non-issue that will waste time and money, and is being used for political pandering.

It's embarassing our constitution would be amended for such ridiculous things. I thought it was a lofty document that addresses things like freedom of speech, religion, due process, etc. I guess I was mistaken.

People don't like something? Amend the Constitution! Nevada permits prostitution, most states do not- so let's amend the constitution to prohibit prostitution! How about adultery? Pre-marital sex? Extra-marital sex?

American politics is often embarassing. But our politicians aren't to blame, we are.”

“I don't fear the queer, but I am against gay marriages. (hell, I am against marriage in general, but I came by that belief a bit too late). Its almost to the point now that it shouldn't be called marriage, at all. It should just be a binding contract, for a specified term with clauses for sharing both the dividends and return of the combined union, a planned distribution of assets at the completion of the contract, as well as early buy out penalties. At the end of the term, participants should be able to either just walk away from the contract under the terms specified or renegotiate the Contract terms or continue on a month to month bases with a 30 day written notice to cancel the contract.

So, yeah, I am against gay marriages. We should just have joint use contracts for couples, or any number of people, who want to form a union. Get rid of the existing tax laws and institute a federal sales tax that doesn't care whether the goods purchaser is married, single, gay, hermaphrodite or whatever.”

“I agree with everything jmitch said except for the "non-issue" statement. (although almost certainly we came to the same conclusion for different reasons)”

“"American politics is often embarassing. But our politicians aren't to blame, we are."

Amen, brother!!

Its like I said, we got stuck with the Puritans.........
They have been a millstone around the neck of America.”

“Jmitch and Hiway have got it right.

My beliefs, and the belief of millions of others, is it's disrespectful to God.

That just shows how weak your faith & religion is.”

“I guess "non-issue" was a poor choice of words, it very much is an issue that needs to be discussed- but amending the constitution is not the answer.”

“n/m
last edited: 6/07/06 9:27:52 AM”

“No, jmitch, I think you got it right. lets use the Prohibition analogy: Is it an issue that your neighbor drinks?

How is it that your two male neighbors being married to each other is an issue?”

“how is it that they can't be married an issue? I mean it never has been before.”

“One reason it's an issue is many millions of people have a problem with the government acknowledging a sinful act as ok as policy.

Please somebody tell me you can't legislate morality ...”

“I'll tell you that it isn't a sin.”

“Then vote that way. I'll vote mine.”

“Things change, hyway.”

“One reason it's an issue is many millions of people have a problem with the government acknowledging a sinful act as ok as policy.

Please somebody tell me you can't legislate morality ...”
Sarge
10:37:23 AM

and it's a sin cause the bible says so, right?

so on that note, i have a question for you sarge:

my sister in law keeps wearing garments of two different threads. i tried telling the dumb b1tch what a sinner she is, but she won't listen. i've even pointed out lev. 19.19 to her but she just won't listen.

my congressman must be a dam heathen cause she's been ignoring my phone calls on this matter.

what should i do?”

“LOL sacco, I always tell women who preach from the bible to get into the kitchen or I'll stone them.”

“my sister in law keeps wearing garments of two different threads. i tried telling the dumb b1tch what a sinner she is, but she won't listen. i've even pointed out lev. 19.19 to her but she just won't listen.

my congressman must be a dam heathen cause she's been ignoring my phone calls on this matter.

what should i do?”

You should read about the Mosaic law and what Jesus has done to supercede it.

Here's a start: http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=880

I think perhaps your sister isn't the "dumb b!tch" you think she is. She seems to know more about the law than you.
last edited: 6/07/06 10:21:47 AM”

“"My beliefs, and the belief of millions of others, is it's disrespectful to God."
Sarge

I don't care how many, perhaps a majority, believe as you do.
It is improper, to say the least, to write discrimination into OUR constitution.”

“I don't care how many, perhaps a majority, believe as you do.
It is improper, to say the least, to write discrimination into OUR constitution.

Why are you saying that in response to me? Do you think we disagree? Perhaps you should read my thoughts on this matter.

What is also my belief is that government should not "ok" marriage at all. Marriage is a covenant between a couple and God. Perhaps you think government should give their stamp of approval to a religious covenant? Millions of people get married for the purpose of fulfilling the covenant between the couple and God. I'm surprised if you support the government having a legal hand in that.

My position is that no marriage should be recognized by the Federal government. I don't want government regulating a religious institution such as marriage.
last edited: 6/07/06 11:20:14 AM”

“You should read about the Mosaic law and what Jesus has done to supercede it.

Here's a start: http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=880

I think perhaps your sister isn't the "dumb b!tch" you think she is. She seems to know more about the law than you.
last edited: 6/07/06 11:21:47 AM”
Sarge
11:14:27 AM


why would you assume she's christian?

since in my beliefs, and in the belief of millions of others who believe in mosaic law, is it's disrespectful to God, it is a sin.

what, you don't believe in the ten commandments sarge?

millions do, and we vote. we vote against gay marriage b/c we know it's wrong, just like we vote against planting 2 crops in the same field, because that is also wrong.

i'm here to warn you all, continue down your current path of homosexuality, eating shellfish, and working on sabbath - to hell you'll go, i swear!

i believe we must pass laws in this country to prevent all such abominations.”

“Frankly I think marriage should be a strictly religious ceremony, performed at the church of one's choice. Civil Unions should be available to every single man, woman, and mule that can sign the contract.
Who am I to decide who should or should not be allowed to live their life together? Who am I to decide whose love is more worthy than any others? If it or anything else is a sin then God can sort it out when the "sinner" dies. It's not my place to decide what's right for the entire world. Who gets hurt if a woman marries a woman? No one.”

“"Marriage is a covenant between a couple and God."

Perhaps it is for YOU but for me and my wife it is a coventant between the two of us.

Mea sacco, mea sacco, mea maxima sacco..........

Et cum sacco, tu tuo?
last edited: 6/07/06 11:58:33 AM”

“sacco - why would you assume she's christian?

I didn't. I just told you how what she does wasn't a sin.

what, you don't believe in the ten commandments sarge?

Maybe you should read more about the New Testament before asking silly questions. Did you read that link?

(the rest of your post is trolling, so no response necessary)

MarkO - Perhaps it is for YOU but for me and my wife it is a coventant between the two of us.

That's great. That doesn't change anything I've said.”

“Gay marriage ban falls short of majority By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer
23 minutes ago (off yahoo news)

WASHINGTON - The Senate on Wednesday rejected a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, dealing a defeat to President Bush and Republicans who hope to use the measure to energize conservative voters on Election Day.

Supporters knew they wouldn't achieve the two-thirds vote needed to approve a constitutional amendment, but they had predicted a majority of votes. Instead, they fell one short, 49-48.

That was one vote more than they got last time the Senate voted on the matter, in 2004. Later that year, Republicans gained four seats in the Senate.

"We were hoping to get over 50 percent, but that didn't happen today," said Sen. David Vitter, R-La., one of the amendment's supporters. "Eventually, Congress is going to have to catch up to the wisdom of the American people or the American people will change Congress for the better."

"We're not going to stop until marriage between a man and a woman is protected," said Sen. Sam Brownback (news, bio, voting record), R-Kan.

Wednesday's vote fell 11 short of the 60 required to send the matter for an up-or-down tally in the Senate. The 2004 vote was 48-50.

White House spokesman Tony Snow said Bush sees the issue in the long view.

"The defeat does not mean that he is despondent or he gives up on it," Snow said. "He knows that it's a long fight."

Supporters lost three key "yes" votes. Two Republicans changed their votes from yes in 2004 to no this time: Sens. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania. And Sen. Chuck Hagel (news, bio, voting record), R-Neb., did not vote this time because he was traveling with Bush.

All told, seven Republicans voted to kill the amendment. The four others were Sens. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, Susan Collins of Maine, John McCain of Arizona, Olympia Snowe of Maine and John Sununu of New Hampshire.

Gregg said that in 2004, he believed the Massachusetts Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage in that state would undermine the prerogatives of other states, like his, to prohibit such unions.

"Fortunately, such legal pandemonium has not ensued," Gregg said in a statement. "The past two years have shown that federalism, not more federal laws, is a viable and preferable approach."

A majority of Americans define marriage as a union of a man and a woman, as the proposed amendment does, according to a poll out this week by ABC News. But an equal majority opposes amending the Constitution on this issue, the poll found.

"Most Americans are not yet convinced that their elected representatives or the judiciary are likely to expand decisively the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples," said Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), R-Ariz., a possible presidential candidate in 2008. He told the Senate on Tuesday he does not support the amendment.

The tally Wednesday put the ban 18 votes short of the 67 needed for the Senate to approve a constitutional amendment.

Republicans had hoped for a better showing given their four-seat gain in the Senate after the 2004 election, with supporters predicting more than 50 votes in favor of sending the measure for an up-or-down vote, called cloture.

Asked whether Bush could have done more than voicing his support for the measure in recent days, Brownback replied, "He could have done more, but he doesn't have a vote in this one."

Sen. Wayne Allard (news, bio, voting record), R-Colo., acknowledged supporters of the amendment never were sure how the votes would fall Wednesday.

"We have never really, I don't think, got a real hard grip on the cloture vote," Allard told reporters. "Since the last election we had, we figured we would know where everybody was."

But the defeat is by no means the amendment's last stand, said its supporters.

"I do not believe the sponsors are going to fall back and cry about it," said Sen. Orrin Hatch (news, bio, voting record), R-Utah. "I think they are going to keep bringing it up."

The House plans a redux next month, said Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio.

"This is an issue that is of significant importance to many Americans," Boehner told reporters. "We have significant numbers of our members who want a vote on this, so we are going to have a vote."

The defeat came despite daily appeals for passage from Bush, whose standing is troubled by sagging poll numbers and a dissatisfied conservative base.

The Vatican also added muscle to the argument Tuesday, naming gay marriage as one of the factors threatening the traditional family as never before.

Democrats said the debate was a divisive political ploy.

"The Republican leadership is asking us to spend time writing bigotry into the Constitution," said Sen. Edward Kennedy (news, bio, voting record) of Massachusetts, which legalized gay marriage in 2003. "A vote for it is a vote against civil unions, against domestic partnership, against all other efforts for states to treat gays and lesbians fairly under the law."

In response, Hatch fumed: "Does he really want to suggest that over half of the United States Senate is a crew of bigots?"

Forty-five of the 50 states have acted to define traditional marriage in ways that would ban same-sex marriage — 19 with constitutional amendments and 26 with statutes.

The amendment would prohibit states from recognizing same-sex marriages. To become ratified, it would need two-thirds support in the Senate and House, and then would have to be ratified by at least 38 state legislatures.

Ben Nelson of Nebraska, the only Democratic senator who supports the amendment, voted "yes." The only other Democrat to vote in favor of moving forward with an up-or-down vote Wednesday, Robert Byrd of West Virginia, opposes the amendment itself.

Three senators did not vote: Democrats Christopher Dodd of Connecticut and John Rockefeller of West Virginia, and Republican Chuck Hagel of Nebraska.
last edited: 6/07/06 12:05:05 PM”

“Who gets hurt if a woman marries a woman? Sassafras
12:46:53 PM


baby jesus, that's who. now get in the kitchen before i stone you to death, woman*



*hyway, why reserve good stoning threats strictly for those thumping the bible? i believe all woman are equally worthy of getting stoned a time or two.”

“Who gets hurt if a woman marries a woman? - Sassafras

baby jesus - sacco

Pretty close. Jesus was tortured on the cross for our sins. He descended into Hell for every sin.”

“i think women marrying women should really be encouraged. Especially co-eds.”

“Pretty close. Jesus was tortured on the cross for our sins. He descended into Hell for every sin.

Simply retarded.”

“And...........simple”

“Who gets hurt if a woman marries a woman? - Sassafras

baby jesus - sacco

Pretty close. Jesus was tortured on the cross for our sins. He descended into Hell for every sin.”
Sarge
1:08:22 PM

i'm glad you agree with me sarge. do you think sass' comments warrant a good stoning? my gut tells me yes.”

“I don't blame you for making nervous jokes out of fear of your unrepentant sinful nature. That's a natural reaction.”

“I'd get stoned with sass anytime. You brutes need to step off”

“Life, Liberty, and THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS.

Why shouldn't devoted couples, regardless of gender, be afforded the same rights/protections under the law?
Because YOUR belief system finds them sinful???

Who am I directing that to??? If the shoe fits...”

“Why shouldn't devoted couples, regardless of age, be afforded the same rights/protections under the law?
Because YOUR belief system finds them sinful???”

“What do you mean, Sarge?”

“Jmitch hit is on the head. State's are losing their rights all the time. It's a state thing and they should be the ones to decide.”

“Civil Unions should be available to every single man, woman, and mule that can sign the contract.

Thank you for your support.”

“lol”

“LOL!”

““What do you mean, Sarge?”

Now I'm confused. What do you mean? What was confusing about my statement?”

“President Bush gave his weekly, regular radio address on Saturday and the theme was pro-marriage. And then right afterwards, Bill Clinton gave the rebuttal. - Jay Leno”

“Sarge, are you making assumptions about my beliefs (as concerning age of consent, etc?)”

“MarkO thinks of himself as a great defender of gays in this thread.
He's one of the biggest homophobes on TT.

Quite odd behavior from one that makes negative gay slurs against his political enemies all the time.
One might believe MarkO thinks gays are something to be ridiculed and mocked.

I've become too used to the bald hypocrisy of the far lefties like MarkO.”

“something something something treebeards dick!”

“stovestomper has trouble grasping irony”

“Get a life, NumbNutz.

You can't take a joke and you have no idea who I am.

He's one of the biggest homophobes on TT.

Ya stinkin' liar!

Quite odd behavior from one that makes negative gay slurs against his political enemies all the time.
One might believe MarkO thinks gays are something to be ridiculed and mocked.

When was the last time I called someone "queer"??

I'm just not uncomfortable with "gay" and "queer", unlike you.

When was the last time I even picked on you in anything more than an obviously ridiculous way?”