mar·riage

[Nightingale]

we're getting off topic, but all male schools and golf clubs are still perfectly legal, and so are all female schools and golf clubs. They are run by private organizations. The term is "freedom of expressive association" and you can find out more here: http://law.freeadvice.com/government_law/civil_rights_law_ada/laws_organizations_discriminate.htm

 

[rmcrobertson]

I thought M. Edward was precisely correct: there's nothing in the Constitution that permits discrimination in this regard.

I wonder why the hell it's any of my business anyway. I mean, I can't even stand it when people near me eat with their mouths open...

And anyway, it's never been gay people who gave me trouble. It's the damn mine-is-bigger heterosexuals that I've always had to watch out for...

 

[TonyM.]

I'm confused about why married couples of any persuasion should be entitled to more rights and privileges than single people. Surely with the current world population and birthrate encouraging childbirth through taxbreaks ect. is old thinking that needs to be addressed.

 

[MisterMike]

I think married couples have always paid more in taxes, until President Bush signed the tax cuts.

I think there are a lot of tax breaks for things that are beneficial to society. Children who come from traditional families usually do quite well, so that's probably part of the reasoning. Just like the tax break for driving environmentally sound automobiles.

 

[michaeledward]

Those interested in 'Tax Breaks' and 'Tax Laws' should read 'Perfectly Legal'. It helps explain our current tax structure, and the ways tax laws are crafted.

You will perhaps find out who benefited from the 'Bush Tax Cuts'.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1591840198/qid=1076806208//ref=pd_ka_1/102-6453898-7421712?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

 

[hardheadjarhead]

2. The government has no business deciding religious and moral questions for individuals.

Agreeed the government should not decide religious questions for individuals, but the concepts of "morals" can be secular. In any case, the government can, and does, restrict behavior due to "morals". We may not, for instance, rape, steal, murder, or "bear false witness". From a perfectly secular stance, these behaviors are immoral and clamping down on them contributes to the good of society.

An interesting viewpoint on morals from the Catholic Encylopedia, which is an excellent resource:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10559a.htm

Regards,

Steve

 

[MisterMike]

Those interested in 'Tax Breaks' and 'Tax Laws' should read 'Perfectly Legal'. It helps explain our current tax structure, and the ways tax laws are crafted.

You will perhaps find out who benefited from the 'Bush Tax Cuts'.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1591840198/qid=1076806208//ref=pd_ka_1/102-6453898-7421712?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

Got my return the other day. Count me in as one who benefited!

 

[Nightingale]

Agreeed the government should not decide religious questions for individuals, but the concepts of "morals" can be secular. In any case, the government can, and does, restrict behavior due to "morals". We may not, for instance, rape, steal, murder, or "bear false witness". From a perfectly secular stance, these behaviors are immoral and clamping down on them contributes to the good of society.

Those behaviors are against the law because raping, stealing, or murdering infringe on the rights of the victim. If you don't want something to happen to you (ie. rape) you have a right to have that act not happen to you.

Gay marriage should not be against the law, because allowing it does not infringe upon the rights of others.

 

[ShaolinWolf]

Yeah, well...I'm going to come right out and say it...and I know I'm going to get guff, and I'm not a racist or believe males are superior to females and stuff, but...Gay/homosexual marriage is wrong...What then is the purpose of sex?...I mean, two gay people cannot have a baby by themselves, and also the sex part...not to get too descriptive, but it's kind of hard to see that as proper...I mean design cannot be tampered...

I mean, if gay people want to say I'm prejudice against them, let them say I am...I'll say it...so, I believe that what the Bible says...it says that god created man and woman, and that the man would leave his mother and father, and the woman would leave her mother and father and become as one unit. And no where in the Bible does it state that God endorses same-sex marriages...Every little tid bit says that gay marriage is wrong and also, studies have shown that gay marriage and just gays have sex can cause STDs alot easier than heterosexual marriage...homosexuality is unhealthy and also, there is not real marriage there...

Also, why did God create man and woman? Husband and Wife?...what's the point...why aren't we all men, or why aren't we all women?...hmmm?...that's kind of whack is we were meant to take the option of homosexuality or heterosexuality...Therefore heterosexuality is the only true option..

 

[Nightingale]

Shaolin-Wolf: Yeah, well...I'm going to come right out and say it...and I know I'm going to get guff, and I'm not a racist or believe males are superior to females and stuff, but...Gay/homosexual marriage is wrong...What then is the purpose of sex?...I mean, two gay people cannot have a baby by themselves, and also the sex part...not to get too descriptive, but it's kind of hard to see that as proper...I mean design cannot be tampered...

studies have shown that gay marriage and just gays have sex can cause STDs alot easier than heterosexual marriage...homosexuality is unhealthy and also, there is not real marriage there...

so, if a man and a woman have sex, and they have fertility problems and cannot have children (perhaps the woman has had a hysterectomy, or the man had testicular cancer) you would also consider this wrong, because they can't have children?

also, plenty of straight people have [edit: the kind of sex I'm pretty sure you were referring to] . I refer you to almost any straight porno geared towards men (most of 'em) on the shelf to prove this one. I'm assuming that's what you were referring to when you said "gays having sex." That form of sex is not a gay-only thing. You might call that "immoral" too, but it isn't against the law. I believe the supreme court just struck down the sodomy laws in Texas?

And actually, in the cases of lesbian sex, the incidence of STD transmission is much lower than in the case of hetero sex.

 

[Ender]

Substitution of marriage: find someone you hate...buy them a house


pssst....it's just a joke..*G

 

[rmcrobertson]

The Bible-thumping makes my point precisely, and it's exactly the one that the Mass. Supreme Court made: since arguments like this are based solely in religious belief, there is no way to ground them legally and Constitutionally.

I realize that folks disagree. One is perfectly entitled to whatever primitive belief we'd like, we're perfectly OK with writing and teaching it. I am entitled to be a Commie rat. We simply aren't Constitutionally allowed to shove our beliefs down other people's throats, or to enforce our beliefs using the legal and civil apparatus.

I wonder why it never seems to make anybody uncomfortable when they share views on homosexuality with, say, the Taliban? With the religious wackadoos presently running Iran? With those Nazi churches in Idaho?

Personally, I'd be nervous about that.

 

[Makalakumu]

I have nothing against Organized Religion. Although, if I looked at certain aspects history, I could very well form a negative opinion. With crusades and jihads and witch-hunts and inquisitions and 9/11s, who couldn’t form a negative opinion. The missing information is the good that Religion has done. Feeding the hungry and education and health and spiritual aid to those in need are part of the Religious tradition as well. In order to properly understand religion today, it is our imperative to understand both the good and the evil in the organization.

With that being said, I want to address the recent posts about homosexuality. In the bible, there is a story about two cities. Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed by God because they had invoked his wrath. There are a number of questions that can be asked concerning this story. One of which is how the population of those cities invoked the “Wrath of God.” The answer to this question is difficult. For one thing, I have seen 17 different Bibles that say 17 different things concerning this question. One Bible says that the strangers were driven out of the city because the people who lived there didn’t know them. Another says that the strangers were driven out because their Gods didn’t know them. And then another says that the strangers were killed because they refused to let the people of the city know them sexually.

Which edition is correct? According the religious fundamentalists, the Bible contains the absolute word of God. It was reportedly written by scribes whose hands were Guided by God. Maybe we need to go back to the First Bible to answer this question. Around 330 AD a Council was convened Nicene at the behest Emperor Constantine. The objective of this council was to create a state religion that could be used to control the populace of the Roman Empire. So they pooled together the body of Christian writing and chose the books that would form the early Bible. (Consequently, many of those books have been subsequently dropped in later editions) The early scripture was written in the ancient language of the Jews. To understand the Sodom and Gomorrah story, we need to look at the Hebrew word yadah, which means to know. It doesn’t mean any more then that, because specification can come later in the sentence. This is very much like the English language. In the old writings, preserved by the Vatican, the story states that the strangers were driven out because they refused to let the people of the city know them. It says nothing of whether or not this was to know them mentally, physically (sexually), or spiritually. Specification would come much later, in one of the darkest days of religion.

People across the world have always been victims to charlatanry. In an age unreason that passed long ago there was a book named the Malleus Maleficorum “The Hammer Against the Witches.” This book laid out a process for church sanctioned torture and mass murder. It also reveals the source of anti-homosexual sentiment in this country. In those days, burning people alive was big industry. The victims not only paid with his or her life, but also with their property and their families’ property. Everything that the victim owned was used to pay the inquisitors, the magistrates, and even the people who gathered the bundles of wood (******s) to burn them. The biggest portion of this loot, by far, went to the Church. In reality, the social function of burning was a phenomenon, used by the Church to make itself into the most powerful organization in Europe. With this background in mind, there was a distinct benefit for the Church to single out as many people as possible for burning. Homosexuals were murdered because they were easily identified by their relationships with people of the same sex. This happened alongside anyone else who looked or acted differently and alongside those who were incriminated by people tortured under the tutelage of the Malleus. All of their belongings were collected as profits.

The people who originally immigrated to this country were puritans, fundamentalists, whose ideas sprouted from the old Roman Catholic Church. With them, they carried their Bibles. In many cases, the King James edition, which, by the way, is the closest version to what is quoted in the Malleus Maleficorum. With them, also, came witch-hunts and burnings. Those days are long gone, thank the Lord, but the memory of that evil remains. It remains in the steadfast refusal of fundamentalists to understand the history of their beliefs and the evil that wrought them. There is danger here. This kind of anti-reason and anti-knowledge is also a remnant of past atrocities. It is also the harbinger of future evil, able to awaken the daemons of the past. We need to be vigilant in our understanding or religion. Through science and reason we can discover much about how our beliefs need to change in this changed time. Those of you who have expressed knowledge of the Bible in order to support the belief that homosexuality is an abomination are victims of an ancient charlatanry that killed millions. In effect, you believe in the lies that led to a holocaust of unimaginable proportions. Beware, you walk a fine line. When the next holocaust marches out, will you stand with those who hold the ******s or will you finally listen to Jesus and love your fellow man?

 

[Rich Parsons]

Ok, I know others have said it, and I have said it myself before.

Seperation of Church and State.

If it is a religious knee jerk reaction that is stopping your support of a same sex marriage then, your opinion is fine. Your beliefs are not law.

If it is explained why it is negative to society and unethical to allow same sex marriages then, people should support a law banning them.

Yet, in all cases (* Excluding religion *) Same sex unions or cival unions or marriage for common terms, increase the benefits to society. Medical and life benefits. The right to see your partner in the hospital. The right to be able to . . ., fill in the blank.

I see it as being unethical in trying to stop cival unions or same sex unions. Now I support the rights of a religion to choose to recognize or not to recognize such a union.

My Opinion, my Beliefs, My Values, My Ethics, and what I believe to be the right choice for everyone's rights.
:asian:

 

[Rich Parsons]

My Letter I sent to [email protected]

Dear Mr. President,

I hope this e-mail finds you well, and in good health.

My Name is Richard E. Parsons Jr.

I think there is a problem. I believe I have almost
always voted Republican. Why? Because I think and
believe that the approach to the economy has been a
good one.

What I do not like, are the conservative religious
right making comments that it is against God and
unnatural to allow same sex marriages.

Here is my argument.

If your only argument is that it is against God, then
this is a religious view and by itself should not
become law.

Now I do think that it is the ethical thing to do by
allowing same sex unions legally. This improves the
standard of living and also provides for medical and
health care coverage for more people.

As I believe that religious morals influence the
person. The person has their values. The values are
then used to determine what is ethical in society.
Ethical is also based upon what is good for the whole
of society. What is ethical is either protected by
law, or what is found to be unethical has a law made
to
prohibit it. From a society point of view I cannot
find the idea of same sex unions to be unethical.

Take a poll, and find out what people believe and
desire, before you act. I believe you are in jeopardy
of losing support and votes in the future. I know you
have all but lost mine.

This is my opinion. I am sorry if it upsets you or
bothers you.

Rich Parsons

Ooops, I wonder what the problem is? I got the address from the website?

Message from yahoo.com.
Unable to deliver message to the following address(es).

<[email protected]>:
198.137.241.45 does not like recipient.
Remote host said: 550 5.7.1 Service unavailable code 1
(RTv2.2c/jms/990501)?: [email protected]
Giving up on 198.137.241.45.

--- Original message follows.

Return-Path: <[email protected]>
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Received: from [***.**.***.**] by web41405.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP;
Tue, 24 Feb 2004 18:14:13 PST
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 18:14:13 -0800 (PST)
From: rich parsons <[email protected]>
Subject: Amendment - for cival unions
To: [email protected]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

 

[hardheadjarhead]

I suspect the very, very large and powerful insurance industry has some influence over why the government suddenly cares so much about this issue. Think about all the benefits these companies would have to start doling out if same-sex partners were suddenly eligible.

As my wife said, "It's interesting how for years women unsuccessfully tried to get their own amendment to the constitution to ensure their equality, yet it seems likely this much more trivial amendment will be successful. There's got to be special interests behind that decision."

As for the issue in general, two consenting adults who make all the emotional and financial efforts to support each other over the years deserve all the legal and societal dignities that marriage offers. I certainly don't think anything relating to what happens in the bedroom remotely belongs in the constitution. Think of all those states (like Mass., I believe) that still have sodomy laws on the books--they're completely absurd. Just to be sure you know, in most places, oral sex is considered sodomy.

Last year the Supreme Court ruled laws outlawing sodomy were unconsitutional. I checked awhile back, and Texas still had the law listed on their web site, but it matters not. The law is no longer binding. Interestingly, not so very long ago sodomy was illegal in some states between a man and his wife.

Forgive me this digression...but the "talking heads" of Fox and MSNBC were asking lawyers what the big legal events of the year were. They didn't list this incredibly controversial S.C. decision...rather talked about Kobe Bryant, Scott Peterson, Michael Jackson, and Martha Stewart. It shows us where our priorities are.



Here is an interesting compilation of arguments against proscriptions of gay marriage...of course, written by a gay man. I found it worth reading.

http://www.bidstrup.com/marriage.htm


Regards,


Steve

 

[Rich Parsons]

As my wife said, "It's interesting how for years women unsuccessfully tried to get their own amendment to the constitution to ensure their equality, yet it seems likely this much more trivial amendment will be successful. There's got to be special interests behind that decision."

No disrespect to your wife or any other women is meant.

Article XIV.


Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,(See Note 15) and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State. Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.



Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Proposal and Ratification The fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States was proposed to the legislatures of the several States by the Thirty-ninth Congress, on the 13th of June, 1866. It was declared, in a certificate of the Secretary of State dated July 28, 1868 to have been ratified by the legislatures of 28 of the 37 States. The dates of ratification were: Connecticut, June 25, 1866; New Hampshire, July 6, 1866; Tennessee, July 19, 1866; New Jersey, September 11, 1866 (subsequently the legislature rescinded its ratification, and on March 24, 1868, readopted its resolution of rescission over the Governor's veto, and on Nov. 12, 1980, expressed support for the amendment); Oregon, September 19, 1866 (and rescinded its ratification on October 15, 1868); Vermont, October 30, 1866; Ohio, January 4, 1867 (and rescinded its ratification on January 15, 1868); New York, January 10, 1867; Kansas, January 11, 1867; Illinois, January 15, 1867; West Virginia, January 16, 1867; Michigan, January 16, 1867; Minnesota, January 16, 1867; Maine, January 19, 1867; Nevada, January 22, 1867; Indiana, January 23, 1867; Missouri, January 25, 1867; Rhode Island, February 7, 1867; Wisconsin, February 7, 1867; Pennsylvania, February 12, 1867; Massachusetts, March 20, 1867; Nebraska, June 15, 1867; Iowa, March 16, 1868; Arkansas, April 6, 1868; Florida, June 9, 1868; North Carolina, July 4, 1868 (after having rejected it on December 14, 1866); Louisiana, July 9, 1868 (after having rejected it on February 6, 1867); South Carolina, July 9, 1868 (after having rejected it on December 20, 1866).



Ratification was completed on July 9, 1868. The amendment was subsequently ratified by Alabama, July 13, 1868; Georgia, July 21, 1868 (after having rejected it on November 9, 1866); Virginia, October 8, 1869 (after having rejected it on January 9, 1867); Mississippi, January 17, 1870; Texas, February 18, 1870 (after having rejected it on October 27, 1866); Delaware, February 12, 1901 (after having rejected it on February 8, 1867); Maryland, April 4, 1959 (after having rejected it on March 23, 1867); California, May 6, 1959; Kentucky, March 18, 1976 (after having rejected it on January 8, 1867).

Section 1 of the fourteenth amendment, is what the lawyers fell back on, when asked about the ERA. Why would you need a separate Amendment for women? This would imply that when the term man was used it only was meant for males and not females, as opposed to the man kind usage.

One could read that it is already illegal to ban same sex unions or marriages. Although the term state could easily and has the meaning in this case a State, as in one of the United States. Therefore the only true legal way to put a ban on this, is for the federal government to implement the amendment. I wonder if they go to the states legislations like they did with the ERA, would the federal government then be in a dead lock? as no State can make a law. . .,

Hmmmm? I think I might run for office.

 

[ShaolinWolf]

Well, first off, I'd like to ask a Question, which I will leave open, yet give my opinion...you say that Church and State should be separate, but why? I mean if America were not founded by such great, Christian Men and Women, then where would we be? Without the morals laid down by our founding fathers, we'd be somewhere between England and the Phillipines. Last time I checked, the phillipines was not the nicest place to be. Nearly everybody carries at least one knife there, and it's pretty much guerilla and such, aside from the assasinations of people who tick others off and this goes on every day over there. But America: Well, I can't say its too much different other than if you get caught, you get busted big time. And we aren't allowed legally to carry Butterfly knives(balisong) around in alot of states, heck plenty of states have rules to the size and such.

Another issue that bothers me that a few of you brought up is this: Christianity and Catholicism is not the same thing! They believe that you can't talk to God if you have done sins and you have to go to confessional to ask for forgiveness, then, as I've seen with plenty of people I know from Catholic churches, they go out and party, be promiscuous and such, then go back and ask for forgiveness. What the heck is the dividing line between the world and a large majority of Catholics? But then again, Christians basically can do the same thing, but the difference is, a true Faithful Christian will try to turn away from the sin and drive on a straighter path. And for those of you who call Christians bigots and fundamentalists...I don't think you have a right to call us that. First off, do you seriously look into it or just say, "well, they look like religious whackos like my grandma used to be"? I mean, Christianity seriously isn't just chanting and junk and isn't just reading God's Word and just sitting around acting austere and all. Not at all. Heck, Catholic monks do that, aside from constantly reading the Bible.

Another issue: you say they were just catholics and fundamentalists that came over from the European continent? Hmmm, then where do I fit in? I mean, some people seriously just think Catholics and Christians are the same thing. First off, I do not go to Mass and read from some manuscript over and over and over. Then, I don't believe that the Fear of God is the thing that should greatly govern my life. It's the Love of God. Not Fear. Sure there is the Fear of God, but God Love's us like a father. 'Nuff Said.

Anyways, getting onto the subject topic: You think that bigots just made this Bible and put in junk that would make it unfair for people to live out their sexual fantasies, which, in my mind, is sick to be, umm, yeah, a guy. Since I'm a guy, I'd rather not be doing that with a guy. It's just totally sick and wrong. Why do you think everything "fits", aside from your "butt" stuff. Yuck. And along with that, why would you have that kind of sex. I mean Abstinance is the way, so is that what you just want to get away with? Have second rate and not get preg or anything? STDs are still transmitted that way. Even people who have never had sex get diseases that way due to the fact that fecal matter has disease and rots. Why risk such a thing as that aside from the other ways? I mean the safest way, well, is abstenance. Why risk it, get married and still go through the fact that you could get STDs?

And back to the church and state issue. Evolution. Not getting into how wrong it is and I don't want this topic swayed to that, but that's a belief in itself. Why do Christian kids in Public School have to learn it? I mean why can't we learn Creationism? The junk that is in those books are balony, yet it's a belief that is pressed on everyone, whether they believe it or not. It's like taking some sort of create-your-own-religion-that's-not-real-system. And that's Separation of Church and State. uh-huh. Sure it is. And you people want to believe that we came from some stupid little amoeba? Bah. What are the chances that all thos amoebas could possibly evolve into a being every time? 1 in in a googleplex(a 1 with 100 zeroes after it). Even more than that. Heck 1 in an infinity. And banning Prayer from school? What is everyone so afraid of? Oh are Christians going to blow up the schools planning in prayer?

So, what you people want is not a structured government, but a I want it my way government and I wish that they would cater to the people, but only if it fits my needs, or makes everybody happy. The government isn't some system that gives people their every want and desire. Sex is a gift from God, but humankind has made it a joke. On TV, Magazines, movies, etc.

The biggest issue here is that everyone is born into the world with the view that there are 4 sexes basically. Heterosexual male, heterosexual female, homsexual male, and lesbian. Well, back 50 years ago people never publicized gays. Heck, the words gay and queer meant cool words. Gay meant happy. Queer meant strange and unusual. I liked the word queer when I first heard it, and then my mom told me what it meant and I was like, man that sucks. And it's funny that gays remind me of a sect or cult. They act like they have been persecuted and such and then they go an bash the Christians for saying things against them. And then they go and get more help when nobody will go along with them and bash the Christians. Man, that's pathetic.

Christians have been around since the beginning of time, and we are here to stay. God is on our side, and we don't have to worry about the flame leaving this earth. But homosexual lifestyle. It will only lead to more acts of demoralization. This world gets worse and worse. I love being a Christian and wouldn't change knowing Christ as my personal LORD AND SAVIOUR! I can't see through the fog of evil in this world without the LIGHT. I can't say too much more, because it looks like rambling. People will always think of others who think differently as bigots. But I like to think of those who are thought of as bigots and not Christians as lost and wide open to the Love of God.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I know a guy who is very much against homosexual (male) relations, in any form.
He is in accord with W.
He is a regular church going BAC, heavily involved in his groups activities, projects, etc.

Why do I mention all this?
Because he has the -best- lesbian porn collection I've seen.

2 guys - ew, ick, ungodly, unnatural, sinners!
2 girls - yum, yay, look at em go.


Interesting controdiction huh? I run into this often.

While this issue is debated, and it spreads, more important things like health, domestic issues, foriegn policy, budgets, etc are being ignored.

I know gays, bi's and straights. I think all are entitled to love, and pursue happyness. They are all people. Why is this president seeking to -remove- rights and privilages from a document that for over 200 years has been a shining example of human freedom?

Because its all he's good for?

Religion and Government should not mix. His agenda is that of the ultra-conservative religious minority. For that reason alone, it shouldn't stand. But for these as well:
- It strengthens the institution, not weakens it by expanding the rights to all those seeking comitment.
- Seperate but equal desn't work.
- Its unconstitutional and unAmerican to discriminate
- There are more important issues to worry about

While this issue becomes the dominant theme of the 2004 election, the rest of the world laughs at us. Japan wonders what the big deal is...having entire industries that focus on various pairings (guy/guy, girl/girl, alien/animal, etc). Greece (who gave us a slang term for anal sex, as well as the now 'outed' Alexander the Great) just shakes their head. And Russia, where greeting your comrade with a kiss is tradition, wonders if they will still be welcome at state dinners.

Let em marry, give them the same benifits as 'straight' couples. The key here is the term 'couple'. Define marage as 2 people, comitted to love, honor and charish one another, til death do they part.

I salute the mayor of San Fransisco...he had the balls to do what he swore to do.
Uphold the law. A law that said "You can't discriminate'.

 

[ShaolinWolf]

And to go with the recent replies...The homosexual movement is so much different from the women's Right movement and ammendments. Women were treated unfairly. And why would Gays want to be married? I mean I know all of wanting the legal papers and all, but why? Gays and gay sex is ok for people as long as they don't interfere with getting the government involved?

Big difference from the women's rights and gay rights. Women's rights was lawful and had Scripture backing it up. What's gays excuse? Oh, we want to be treated equal. Well, unless you try your hardest to change what the whole world over knows as marriage is male and female, husband and wife, even in the dictionary, and reference books and amendments, and governments and such, then you need to seriously rethink this. It's like some large cult or sect wanting to be recognized because of its size and they are fed up as being seen as a cult or sect and want to be a "religion". No, it doesn't make sense.

And one more thing before I'm finished. Oh, The Bible is ruining your fun? awww. And also, why does this country seem to have the Scriptures from the Bible plastered all over the Lincoln memorial and all the major historical Landmarks. What, are you going to tear down all the landmarks that make this nation a nation? Also, Washington D.C. would have to go. I mean there is significance in all the U.S. that the Word of God speaks Truth. All Through History. But seriously, what is everyone afraid of? Conviction? Well, when I've said that before, everyone get's all tense and pounce on me. LOL! So I guess it's true. Because they know what Christianity is and they don't want it to ruin their fun. They want to live. They want to live life to it's fullest, no matter what. Oh, don't be prudes, have fun. You only live once, right?...yeah, you only live once. Well, I don't want to waste my life away with nothingness. So, its your decision. But seriously, why so afraid? People just wig out when Christians start saying what's right and wrong, yet when some small whatever says something about right and wrong, they say, oh they are nuts, just ignore them, they'll go away...Heh, yeah, well Christians haven't gone away after all the persecution we've gone through since the beginning, so we must be doing something right, or Someone is out there watching over us and will not let the flame of Christianity go out.