AS YOU CAN SEE from the posted article--gay marriage is simply wrong. gays are not wrong, but gays being sanctioned by the state is very very very bad. WAKE UP and smell the TRUTH
jACk
jACk
Gay Marriage
- Thread starter ARogueTrader
- Start date
Alfonso:
>Actually, it's quite an apt example, Turok. Because it
>illustrates quite clearly that homosexually activity arises.
Sure, if you have no interest as to WHY the activity arises (which apparently you are not or you wouldn't consider it a apt example).
You seem to make no distinction between someone with limited options who is willing to engage in homosexual behavior for purposes of sexual release (jail inmate say) and someone who is actually attracted to the same sex (true homosexual).
So, for the purposes of a continued constructive exchange, do you believe:
A: that there are humans who are physically attracted to the same sex and physically un-attracted to the opposite sex?
B: all humans are attracted to the opposite sex and some simply pretend to be attracted to the same sex for any number of reasons?
JB
>Actually, it's quite an apt example, Turok. Because it
>illustrates quite clearly that homosexually activity arises.
Sure, if you have no interest as to WHY the activity arises (which apparently you are not or you wouldn't consider it a apt example).
You seem to make no distinction between someone with limited options who is willing to engage in homosexual behavior for purposes of sexual release (jail inmate say) and someone who is actually attracted to the same sex (true homosexual).
So, for the purposes of a continued constructive exchange, do you believe:
A: that there are humans who are physically attracted to the same sex and physically un-attracted to the opposite sex?
B: all humans are attracted to the opposite sex and some simply pretend to be attracted to the same sex for any number of reasons?
JB
If some of you straight hicks can get away with marrying your cousins, then just let the gay couple do the same. LOVE is love, the important part is the person and their soul, not the package they come in. Need to look at the larger picture. 
This is gonna be just like the civil rights for blacks, and votes for women. You mess with civil liberties your asking to get politicallly burned or assasinated. All the right wing followers of this mess are going to be somday labeled the Anti-semites of the 21st century.
Let it be..
This is gonna be just like the civil rights for blacks, and votes for women. You mess with civil liberties your asking to get politicallly burned or assasinated. All the right wing followers of this mess are going to be somday labeled the Anti-semites of the 21st century.
Let it be..
Quote from ChaosNSX:
If some of you straight hicks can get away with marrying your cousins, then just let the gay couple do the same. LOVE is love, the important part is the person and their soul, not the package they come in. Need to look at the larger picture.
This is gonna be just like the civil rights for blacks, and votes for women. You mess with civil liberties your asking to get politicallly burned or assasinated. All the right wing followers of this mess are going to be somday labeled the Anti-semites of the 21st century.
Let it be..
I agree with everything in this post and this IS a civil rights issue.
In watching the news lately on this topic, you can see that the gay couples really do deeply love each other. What the hell is the problem here exactly? And why would I care exactly what people do behind closed doors? (In my dating past I met some chicks that were into some very weird stuff....can't be any worse than that!)
How exactly by allowing marriage of same sex couples are we really changing things for the worse in society?
You probably get more germs picking up the average kitchen sponge...and it's a heck of a lot more fun!
1.) There is no doubt about it that this is a Civil Rights issue, and the last time I checked, the US Constitution was designed to give rights to the people, not restrict them or have the federal government control an individuals right to choose. Moreover, since when does our Constitution stand for "discrimination"?
2.) There has never, ever been an Amendment to the US Constitution that has restricted one's rights, never!
So why should we start by writing discrimination into the Constitution now?
3.) Furthermore, Dubya doesn't seem to have a very good understanding of how long the legal process would take to "ratify" just such an amendment to the Constitution.
The last Amendment to be ratified was the 27th Amendment, and it states that congress cannot raise their own pay without giving the voters a chance to respond to the pay raise. This amendment was passed by Congress on Sept. 25th, 1789 and not ratified until May 7th, 1992! Come on George, get real.
4.) I am at a total loss as to why the religous right and heterosexual couples feel threatened . . . Homosexuality is nothing new. It has been around for Centuries. If two people wish to commit to each other and raise a family, why should Government have a right to tell them "how and who" they choose to love? Why would a commitment to monogamy be perceived as so threatening?
5.) As Brittney Spears remarked, "This is about the sanctity of marraige!" Duh. Spoken by someone that really has a good grasp on reality . . . Perhaps while we are at it, we should ratify the US Constitution to include making divorce illegal too.
Just my 2 cents!
2.) There has never, ever been an Amendment to the US Constitution that has restricted one's rights, never!
So why should we start by writing discrimination into the Constitution now?
3.) Furthermore, Dubya doesn't seem to have a very good understanding of how long the legal process would take to "ratify" just such an amendment to the Constitution.
The last Amendment to be ratified was the 27th Amendment, and it states that congress cannot raise their own pay without giving the voters a chance to respond to the pay raise. This amendment was passed by Congress on Sept. 25th, 1789 and not ratified until May 7th, 1992! Come on George, get real.
4.) I am at a total loss as to why the religous right and heterosexual couples feel threatened . . . Homosexuality is nothing new. It has been around for Centuries. If two people wish to commit to each other and raise a family, why should Government have a right to tell them "how and who" they choose to love? Why would a commitment to monogamy be perceived as so threatening?
5.) As Brittney Spears remarked, "This is about the sanctity of marraige!" Duh. Spoken by someone that really has a good grasp on reality . . . Perhaps while we are at it, we should ratify the US Constitution to include making divorce illegal too.
Just my 2 cents!
Marries and divorces in a weekend and sucks face with a woman.
Don't get them started on divorce!
Just a show of hands. How many members here live in states where their grandparents grew up with antimiscegenation laws?
bush is such a f*cking idiot on this. instead of getting the gov. involved even more (const. amend.), he should be getting marriage out of government all-together and let the CHURCHES DECIDE THIS CRAP!!!!!