Looks like gay couples WILL have the right to "Marry" after all:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-02-04-mass-civil-unions_x.htm

""The history of our nation has demonstrated that separate is seldom, if ever, equal" the four justices who ruled in favor of gay marriage wrote in the advisory opinion requested by the state Senate."

"The Massachusetts court said any civil unions bill that falls short of marriage would establish an "unconstitutional, inferior, and discriminatory status for same-sex couples."

I personally thought a civil union would have appeased the court, but I guess not. Oh well, looks like the genie is out of the bottle now, or should I say its out of the closet...

Finally. :rolleyes:

So are you finally going to propose to Madman?.

Nah, he's not deviant enough for me.

Don't bet on it.

Wait for the appeals, and like Sean said, the shitstorm is coming . . .

Probably, but it's still nice to hear them say it.

IF they let that crap go legal then my company better start offering pet insurance also.
Because if my insurance is going to go up because some dude has a long term boyfriend and wants to add him to his insurance I better be able to add my Lab to it.

The article didn't say whether it was the same four idiots, who are radicals in robes, that issued this new decision.

This whole thing is the worst example of judicial activism. A Supreme Court is supposed to interpret and defend the constitution. They are not suppossed to legislate from the bench and are definitely not supposed to mandate another branch of government to draft legislation to adhere to it's radical agenda. This is a clear example that our from of government may be cracking and the judiciary is leading the way.

It won't last anyway. This will bring us one step closer to an amendment to the US Constitution. Because federal law mandates that one state must recognize the marriage of another, the amendment will sail through on a fast track. Other states will not stand for activism on the part of four radicals in Massachusetts.

Are the deviants in MA celebrating? Will they have a Pervert Pride Parade?

That makes no sense at all. First of all why would your insurance go up? They would have to pay the same as you do to have your wife on your policy. Think before you post.

You're fucking your lab?

You're making a lifetime commitment to your lab?

Maybe you're right, you should have the right to have your relationship with your dog recognized. But you're already married, so that would be bigamy, which is illegal.

I think you need to ask yourself some tough questions:

"Who would I rather fuck? Mrs. daventx? Or Peaches?"

Eeewwwww....

Dude, back away from Peaches.

Ok first Gay marriage is morally wrong.
Second Gay adoption is morally wrong.
Third this will be the demise of this country.
So much for the Christian foundation of this country.
Liberals will wreck this country into socialism.
Sure socialism sounds good on paper but wait until you have to live with it.
Next thing you know gay sex ed will be aloud in the class rooms.
I am so glad I dont have to bring a child in this world with fucks like you running it.

Decisions like this do have 1 advantage for straight couples. My company, last year, decided that employees could add 'life partners' on the health insurance.

So when I moved in with my girlfriend-fiancé, they had no choice but to allow me the same right, to cover my 'partner' regardless of if we are the same sex or not. I don't have to wait till we are married to start saving $ on insurance.

Separation of fucking church and state. Who cares what the foundation was? Hinduism, Buddhism, Druidism... it doesn't -- shouldn't -- matter. The constitution, from what I can gather, is a living document.

Roll with the punches here, dave. Roll with the punches.

daventx,

Good point. How long before unnatural gay sex will be taught in sex education class? Or gay students be allowed to walk hand-n-hand down the hallways?

If this passes it will never end.......NJ will follow MA.

And people are up in arms about a breast coming out on tv? BFD

Stone

It's already happening my friend.

There is a national organization called GLSEN (Gay Lesbian Straight Education Network) whose sole purpose is to indocrinate the children of America into the acceptance of homosexuality.

This organization is pure evil at it's very core. They have already been successful in getting their agenda taught in most public school sytems throughout the United States. The NEA (National Education Association) has already bought into this evil and fully endorses it wholeheartedly.

Just do quick Google Search for GLSEN and you will see there are chapters all over the country. Their sole purpose for existing is to get homosexuality into the mind of YOUR child.

Most parents are asleep at the wheel and have no idea what is going on. People need to wake up.

Some more interesting reading:

http://www.reclaimamerica.org/PAGES/NEWS/newspage.asp?story=878&SC=glsen

http://www.reclaimamerica.org/PAGES/NEWS/newspage.asp?story=921&SC=glsen

What?

"gay students be allowed to walk hand-n-hand down the hallways"?
Why wouldn't they be allowed to?

Agreed. Very dumb. :rolleyes:

Would love to see where separation of church and state is in the Constitution.
I believe that was something that some Democrate came up with in the 60's.

Oh and rolling with the punches is that same as letting people walk over you.
This country was not built on people that rolled with the punches. It was built on people with courage and not afraid to take on a fight.
So roll on this

Dave, to your information - gay sex was punishable by criminal law (prison + some psychatry remedies) in most of former socialist countries. Still sure you dont want to live in socialism?

Guess what. Its punishable here in the beautiful world of Capitalism also!

It IS NOT a living, breathing document as the saying goes. That's something people on the left say to justify the abuse of the constitution. Are you on the left baby?

The constitution only lives and breathes when an amendment is added. We will soon see a new amendment added. We all know it is going to happen. It must happen.

Heh, read the link in my signature. BabyX should too.

Actually, the Constitution IS a living, breathing document. That's why it's been able to last 200+ years, without having to be rewritten too much.

Countries with a hard and fast black and white rule based Constitution invariably end up having to make an entire NEW Constitution shortly down the road.

Graham,

Why? because it is UNNATURAL!

Would you want your kids to see two guys walking down the hallway hand-n-hand? Not me.

Stone

It really doesn't matter. The apocolypse is coming soon anyways. Then we can rise up and just start offing these crazy liberal fuckers.

Seriously, if you all want to go to a country that is run by the church, feel free.

Go back in time a few months. It's the Taliban-run Afghanistan.

No it IS NOT a living breathing document. Explain how you could think that way.

We will most certainly not survive another 200 years with judicial abuse of the US and variuos state constitutions.

You just been whining that gay marriage getting legalized in that very world, didnt you? I am merely offering you alternative to escape that fate.

A living, breathing document is allowed to change from time to time when need warrents it.

A Non-living Constitution would have to be completely re-written to be amended.

Did you forget your 11th grade Government class?

Well, Vatican seem to be doing ok

You actually proved my point. I said it only breathes when amended.

In between the abuse by the judiciary cannot be considered "living" and "breathing".

By the way.......Afghanistan is a religious country AGAIN. We mistakenly allowed them to be an "Islamic State" with their new constitution.

You'll do well there, if you're a pedophile.

Now he's comparing Christianity to the Taliban. I've seen it all. This coming from someone who supposedly a Christian himself. Jesus is proud of you my man. (BTW, save the flaming, that comment is for WilMac only).

So you dont like Taliban ruled Afganistan, you dont like Vatican.. I will not ask you about Iran..

There is just no pleasing for some people

Abuse? Just because you disagree with their decision?

So, what you're saying is, it's bad for religion to get in the way of government?

No, I'm saying that not only is a government run by the church a bad idea, it also weakens the church. The church becomes influenced by the state, as well as the state being run by the church. That is why there should be complete and total seperation of chruch and state. Not only for the survival of the country, but also for the survival of the church.

Okay, fine. You don't want to see it.

But why does that mean two kids can't do it?

Are you suggesting they can't because of school policy? Because of some law?

Or simply because some knuckle-dragger like you says they can't, and threatens them?

Get over it. They exist, they don't hurt anyone, and if you have a real problem with it, maybe you need to think about why . . .

And no, I have no problem with two men holding hands. I've seen it before, I'll see it again.
:rolleyes:

What exactly is wrong with that? From the 95% of the Islamic believers that follow it correctly unlike the whacko 5% like Bin Laden & Co. that twist and spin that religion, I see no harm if that's what they want to do.

I am against any country being run by any religion, just as I'm against any religion being influenced by the government. Total seperation.

Well this is very hard, isnt it? I mean face it - people got their beliefs and there is no way you can take it out from them, just b/c they are working for goverment. So they will always influence how goverment acting. On subconsious level at least.

I guess it's how you look at it. I can see why you would think that, but I view it as helping to spread Jesus's word to those who have not properly received it. They may never get it if the government doesn't allow it and that's not fair imho.

"The Constitution is NOT a living document!"

Wrong.

As much as you want to believe it is not a living document, you have to understand the definition of "living document".

A living document is one that is never finished. By definition, the US Constitution is never finished. It is regularly reviewed and interpreted in order to apply current standards and morals to the document. The Constitution is constantly open to interpretation, and when the interpretation is lacking or incomplete or unfavorable, an Amendment is proposed.

What is an Amendment? It is a correction, through parliamentary or constitutional process . . . the Amendments to the Constitution correct oversights in the original document, provide for unforeseen circumstances, and provide updates to the original Constitution to reflect current societal tastes . . .

The US Constitution is alive and well. It might be under attack, it might be misunderstood, it might be awkwardly interpreted, but it is alive and under constant change and review.

I would wager there is no more alive document in the world.

I understand what you are saying. I said it lives and breathes when it is amended. It's going to be taking another breath shortly with this gay marriage issue.

Maybe some clarification is in order. Many on the left use the "living, breathing" document argument to justify their abuses of the constitution. Examples could be things like finding abortion rights, sodomy rights, and racial quotas in the constitution. Totally overlooking what is clear as day and in black and white in another part of the constitution that any rights not found in the document are the domain of the individual states.

I think you get what I am saying here.

Graham,

Why do you have to resolve to using insults? I did not attack you. :rolleyes:

Yes, it should be school policy and law. Regardless of how you feel, homosexuality is not the "norm" and/or the majority in America. It should not be present in schools.

Homosexuality is NOT normal or natural. It can be tolerated, but should not be accepted and allowed to spread as if it is a normal everyday occurance.

Gays do not threaten me. I could care less what they do - as long as it in the privacy of their own homes. Not in public.

They don't hurt anyone? True. But, they hurt the fundamentals of a structured society. Marriage was created as an institution that is supposed to be between a man and woman to procreate. It is physically impossible for two gay people to procreate. So there should not be any gay "marriages". If you want to allow civil unions or partnerships, fine. But not marriage.

Stone

You're right. I apologize.

I assumed you were going to make some bullshit macho dickhead comment that would come dangreously close to a violent overture . . . I could see it coming. I was wrong. Sorry.

Jumping ahead, you talk about "procreation" being a basis for marriage.

I know several couples physically unable to procreate, and one that chooses not to.

Do I suggest to them to turn in their rings and marriage licenses?

Why do they have to call it marriage?

If you let gays marry...

You have to let:

Father marry his daughter.
Mother marry her son.
Brother marry his sister.
Adult marry a minor
Person marry multiple husbands or wives.
Human marry an animal.

They are all just alternate forms of marriage arent they?

Why cant you people see this?! It has already started. Equal Protection they scream!!

I have already been told by those for this that they think it is ok for all these types of marriages to exist. !

Why cant they create guidelines for a civil union and leave it at that. It will accomplish what they set out to do.

We, as a society are going to have to bear the cost of this activism, financially, and emotionally. They say it is none of our business. But it IS!!! We will pay believe me.

I stopped being for this when they started saying all forms of marriage should be allowed. If they dont want to be reasonable, then why should I? I hope for an ammendment.

No. That is physically abnormality.

They should be be allowed to adopt.

I am mixed on gays raising children. On one hand, having two loving people their for you is a great thing. But is the message right? Plus, it just creates a whole mountain of problems as the child grows up.

On the other hand, I just do not agree with the gay couples married thing.

Stone

Let's not forget all the other things they include in their agenda... Bisexuals, Trans-gender, Trans-sexuals.. Transylvanian, whatever...

Men wearing dresses walking around your office, teaching your kids. It's not a joke. It's serious. They want a boatload of "rights" for a wide array of perverse things.

I'm surprised nobody noticed this statement yet. Listen up Dave; this is from the 1st Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

The difficulty is balancing the free exercise clause and the establishment clause.

As far as the constitution not being a living document, can you (NY Madman) explain why the framers wrote it in such a vague way? For example, why say "Liberty" in the 14th Amendment? Why not simply enumerate exactly what liberty means? Surely that would have been a better way to ensure that the only "liberties" granted by the constitution would have been those accepted in the 18th century. Perhaps the framers were smart enough to know that such a static document could not withstand the changes a society inevitably experiences?

That's just like... you know.. your opinion, man.

In Colorado, a poll recently showed 60 percent of the populace agrees gays should be allowed to marry. If this is the case in one of the most violently conservative states in the union, how can some people still be saying 'the majority' disagrees with same-sex unions?

Are anti-gay groups more threatened now because they're in the minority?

Maybe they should have been somewhat clearer in their definition of liberty.

Today we have people who feel that liberty entails the right to murder unborn children. We have even in the past had those who felt liberty entitled them to own another man as property. There was a Supreme Court back then who agreed with that ideal in the Dredd Scott decision.

The court has many times abused and bastardized the constitution to placate contemporary social trends. It has this ability precisely because the document is vague.

I would like to think that everyone on the court is also well versed in the The Federalist Papers . While not law, they are a look into the mindset and reasoning of much of the constitution. I guess you can say the papers were the sales pitch of the constitution to the states. They should still be a source of reference for the members of the court.

On liberty Madison wrote in Federalist No. 63 "that liberty may be endangered by the abuses of liberty". I feel we are getting close to that point.

I wouldn't want it too narrowly defined. I am however tired of the abuses. I am more in favor of a constitutional amendment further defining the powers of the Supreme Court itself. It's hard to imagine the founders approving of many decisions the court has made in the name of liberty. They also certainly would never approve of a court who cites contemporary European law in a decision. They would demand for the immediate impeachment of any justice who did. So should we.

If you read it again you will see that it was not defined like that. People defined it to suit there needs. Much like people do the bible,

You appall me. How anyone could equate gays to black slaves and jews under Hitler is a complete asshole.

Yeah right. We are all Hitlers and slave owners because we do not approve of pushing this agenda on society.

Go fuck yourself.

The problem is that it doesn't say anything about one's moral or religious views having an effect on government. Sure, the government can't tell me what religion to practice. They can't tell me what religion I can't practice, either.

Religion and morals, however, can be separated. Religion and ethics can be separated as well. If it is decided that abortion is ethically or fundamentally wrong, that is not a religious decision. That is a decision based on the views of the society in which it is decided.

Sorry to deviate from the gay marriage discussion - I just wanted to throw that out there.

That is going a bit far, I must say.

DAMMIT!! I had a response all written out and the topic got moved in here, so I lost it. Well, here's my brief summary...

So is it your position that the framer's essentially fucked up when they wrote the constitution? That they really didn't mean for the constitution to be a flexible document that would endure thru the years? That is a valid position, as it is shared by more than a few constitutional scholars. My feeling is simply that I don't think the Framers were that short-sighted or stupid. I think the length and generality of the constitution sheds a lot of light on what the framers were trying to accomplish. As far as the Federalist Papers go, they really only give the perspective of the federalists (go figure) - don't forget that even back in the early days there was some serious disagreement between the Federalists and the Republicans.

And to whoever moved the topic while I was trying to post...

Could you please clarify what you are trying to say? What was not defined like what?

Without a quote, how do we know who you are talking to?

Post the link to your poll. There is no where in the US where 60% of people are in favor of gay marriage. Maybe if you took the poll in Grenwich Village you get that result.

What makes you think CO is very conservative? You live there. The Sierra Club is there. There are tons of liberals in CO.

Post your poll. The readers can take a look and decide on it's merits.

That's the problem with you media people. You publish results of phoney and contrived polls as if they were fact.

Colorado is not even close to the most conservative state in the union.

No... I wouldn't go that far saying they fucked up.

I would say some would have clarified it some more. I agree it was left a little vague on purpose. Probably not so much for the sole purpose of a future growing society. Possibly more as a selling point to the states. They had to "sell it" to get it ratified.

Madman, have you ever thought about volunteering?

That job would be taken by either South Carolina or Mississippi or Alabama.

I would say Idaho or Utah.

Here's my poll.

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_2537283,00.html

So basically you lied. "In Colorado, a poll recently showed 60 percent of the populace agrees gays should be allowed to marry".

Anyone ever notice the questions asked in these polls are never published? People are only given choices of responding to cleverly designed multiple choice answers. They are all BS.

What voters are polled? One district? The whole state? Why don't we ever hear the wider info about the control groups used in polls?

Has anyone ever been a part of these polls? Who are all these people being polled all the time? With all these poll results we hear every single day... everyone in the country should have been polled many times. I don't know anyone who has been polled.

They are BS. Almost all polls are nothing but propaganda with the thin veneer of "public opinion" thrown over it to make them look legit.

So the poll is false because it doesn't fit your views? It's quite comprehensive, trust me.

Especially with all those alter boys..

Now you are a tough guy.

You are nothing but scum. Who the hell are you to compare everyone who doesn't buy into this gay bullshit as being like Hitler and slave masters. You're a fucking idiot.

Now you drop the level of this thing even lower with that uncle comment. I would say you need to take a look at yourself.

I could care less if you have a deviant cousin. Some have said it runs in the family. Yeah.. we'll reorder all of society just because you and some others have gays in the family.

Don't threaten me. I can't remember the last time I was scared of anyone and I certainly wouldn't be scared of scum like you.

Governments perfer unarmed pesants just like religion perfers uneducated followers..

Just to add fuel to the fire..

I don't think it was comprehensive at all. It also didn't support the lie you posted.

Note the questions I posed in a post above. If the poll was comprehensive, we would know more about those that were polled.

That statement alone shows you are an uneducated bumblefuck who makes $6.00/hr. Don't get me wrong, I in NO way share Madman's views on gay rights, but you've been acting like a child - but in fairness, he's been posting some inflamatory shit too.

Am I now supposed to wish you luck in destroying society?

You make many assumptions. What makes you think you are better off financially then me? What makes you think that everyone who is opposed to this gay bullshit is opposed because of fear and hate? You can't make any guarentees.

The fear and hate argument is ridiculous. It makes me wonder if you actually have any type of education at all. Maybe some form of indoctrination, but arguing from that point of view doesn't show much indication of education.

That's the problem with people like you. You accuse everyone who disagrees with you as being hateful and fearful when it is anything but that. It is your side that is consumed with hate. Maybe you are just not as educated as you think or you would see it.

Madman, if you're convinced all media polls are bullshit and that the 'liberal' media controls everything (which is so untrue)and that society is crumbling underneath deviance and liberalism, why do you spend so much time fighting a fantastic inevitability that you've supported for so long?

A real sharp reply. It shows off all those years of education you bragged about.

How can there be any debate on any issue in this country when you people only come up with replies like ignorant, hateful and fearful? It could indicate that you realize you are on the wrong side.

I'm convinced the majority of media polls are bullshit. Most polls are bullshit. Polling is an occupation. They have methods and use the language to produce favorable outcomes for the client paying the bills. Those that don't turn out favorably rarely if ever get the results published.

I never said the liberal media controls everything. They control the liberal media. Not all media is liberal. Most of it is. The entertainment industry is probably more damaging and influencial on public opinion. It's a good topic to explore.

Society is most likely crumbling. The evidence is all around us. Yes, I believe radical liberalism is responsible for much.

Society can still be saved. It's not a lost cause yet.

Good men should not only confront evil when they see it... they also need to dispute bullshit when they see it. That is a good start. Why don't you join the good side.

What have I supported for so long? Certainly not liberalism and the mainstreaming of deviance. Is that what you are inferring?

I try very hard in my profession - and I may be one of the last ones - to not join a side, although the publication I work for is regularly criticized for conservativism.

What media outlets do you consider more trustworthy?

Fags rule.....

What Canadians think matters not.

Well good for you, we think NOTHING of American Dweebes that calls themselves MANDO.

Hey numbnuts, don't label me as scum or put me in the same camp as Madman. I specifically said that I don't share his views. I called you out because you claimed that your education and income (both imagined, I'm sure - care to share some specifics?) made you better than another person. A statement like on a message board generally comes from a person with an associate degree from Bumblefuck State University who is an assistant manager at Arby's. For the record, I never tried to tell anybody how to live their life.

By the way, a highly educated person such as you should be able to spell “mearly” and “thier” correctly.

Therefore we just took away one of your ratings NI !

So touchy. And I was just kidding. I love Canada. Add my truck back!

Man, see? You're as narrow minded as the rest of them...sigh...

I'm not sure the idea of trustworthiness is what we are talking about here. There are also different situations and stories where trust can vary. If the news story is reporting Jon Doe robbed the 7-11 and stole $50 bucks and beat up the clerk... that's one thing. Newspapers even often get these details wrong.

You can have two newspapers in a city that report on the same incident. Each will put their own perspective on the situation. For example...if police are involved and minorities are also involved, one paper could try to make a racial incident out of it. Maybe even spin the story as police brutality. The other may not run the story with that angle. Same incident. Two different ways of packaging the story. It's a small example but this stuff happens every single day.

Bias exists in every media organization. It comes down from the top. The publishers and editors and after a while the reporters know how their bosses want things packaged and presented. They also know what not to write about. This a fact of life whether you wish to admit it or not. I've always said that the biggest form of bias in the media at large is what is not reported to the public. The media has long forgotten that they are in the news business. Not the business of not offending some people. This is the biggest and greatest corruption of our media.

Bias gets worse when dealing with societal issues. Especially political issues and the way they are reported and presented to the reader and viewer.

I guess what I am saying is... you have to look at each story and issue and decide for yourself the level of trustworthiness. Also get info from multiple sources. Relying on any single source of information is never good. Some will give you more info, some will not.

It is also a fact that editors and the editorial staffs of most major newspapers are biased to liberal views on social and political issues. The NY Times is the prime example and most media organizations (including broadcast) take their cue from the NY Times. The LA Times also.

Staying on topic, it is also a fact that most media organizations are pro-gay in their editorial policies. I think you know that. You as a member of the media know that all too clearly. I feel you are very reluctant to admit this fact.

Too many media people have adopted an elitist type attitude. Maybe over-education does that to some of them. Maybe because they all hang around in the same social circles.

Attending the best universities in no way makes anyone's opinions on any social subject better just because of the fact that you are educated. Many highly educated people also support big government socialism. It no way means they are right.

Sometimes so-called "educated people" have the basic sense of right and wrong and morality totally educated out of them.

Hey Fucko.....

I thought you said you were "out of here" a few posts back?

Too late you just lost another one!. Now go away or I shall taunt you a second time..

So touchy. And I was just kidding. I love Canada. Add my truck back!

Years ago as an intern I was covering the Matthew Sheppard killing for a major newspaper and practically was assaulted for asking questions like 'What was he doing picking up straight guys at bars in Wyoming?' and 'Was he forthcoming about being HIV positive?' Questions that none of the rest of the media was asking. I felt I was doing my job trying to get the whole story, and I certainly wasn't on some pro or anti gay crusade. I was quickly removed from the story and had to sit and write obits for the rest of my time there, so I know all about the media catering to certain interests. This certainly was an ugly incident, but I'm not sure it's so rare when you're writing for such a moderate, popular publication.

But I think, most of the time, the best news sources do try and present an accurate presentation of what happened.

That's not true. Editors lean more conservative. Reporters lean more liberal.

That's very true

So... Are you admitting that you have been a victim of the bias of your bosses?

The Matthew Sheppard story was a sad story. It could be argued the biggest case for media bias regarding homosexuals came from the Sheppard story.

Everyone in America knew his name. His story was pushed vigorously by the media.

Does anyone know who Jesse Dirkhising was? His story is perhaps worse than Sheppard's. No one heard about it because it was suppressed by the media. It didn't fit the agenda the media was promoting.

I have to call bullshit on that one...... BIG TIME.

Have you never heard of the NY and LA Times? Their editors and publishers are amongst the most liberal in the media business. The Washington Post runs right behind them. Many other papers are the same. Many papers are owned by a small handful of publishers. Look at what SI Newhouse owns across the country. Those publishers are VERY liberal.

We can argue about this until the cows come home. Maybe your editors are conservative. The majority lean liberal. If your argument were true, we would not have the sickening level of politically correct reporting in this country. The editors would have changed things long ago.

The publishers at the LA Times and NY Times both hire lower editors who tend to be much more conservative than they are. Otherwise you'd have an unbalanced, silly newsroom. The Washington Post, well, they're another story.

What is it with you people. I mean heck - you got those very few facts and now entire institution that been existing for ages is all the sudden bad to the core.

As much as i dont like Catholic church (and i do), i dont think it is to be blamed so solely for that crappy behavior of those few members. Its like condemning entire American society for Washington sniper's activity. Or for Enron. Or lots of other things

You've got to be kidding with that.

Howell Raines was a conservative? In what universe is that a valid statement. Bill Keller and Joseph Lelyveld are conservatives? Holy shit.... you really are in the news making business. You are making all this up from your imagination.

Whatever you do - do not mention the war..

I will drink to that....

Well I've read through some of this, and have the following thoughts:

No one's mind is going to be changed by what they read on the Xterra Owner's Club Forums. It's basically recreational typing.

For every person who feels that gay marriage is ok,a nd doesn't hurt anyone, there is another person who is deeply disturbed by the matter. That's an oversimplification of things, but what I'm getting at is that the two sides don't seem willing or able to understand the views of the other. Just like any other form of trench warfare, this will go on forever until a few brave souls get out of their fixed positions and actually try to see whats going on. (Luckily in this case, unless things get really bad, no one is likely to be mowed down by Maschinengewehr)

A

Mando, the article clearly stated that 60% were in favor of some kind of civil union, it did not say they were in favor of marriage like you so smugly posted. :rolleyes:

It also said:

I hardlt think 400 people is a representative sample.
You are being dishonest and couldnt take the heat when Madman called you on it. I am glad you posted the article so we could see what it actually said. Otherwise we would have to take your inaccurate word on it. :rolleyes:

Look at the results of the poll on this page. And for your info, I voted that they should be able to have civil unions. It is different than marriage, and it should be.

I have to say I have nothing against gays, and this is a difficult issue for many families across the nation.

It goes against my own personal convictions, but sooner or later there will have to be a point where gays who enter the bonds of partnership have the same liberties as those of us who are heterosexual. I think Frontier's story about the guys he knew is a good enough example. I think some sort of recognized civil union would do alot to prevent this kind of tragedy from happening.

I myself I guess am one of the fucked up people who think that "marriage" is the religious bond between a man and a woman.(IMO) Meaning, that it was an institution traditionally founded upon the church and teachings from the bible. (also IMO)

The question is, do homosexual couples want a civil union to recognize their "lifestyle" and the fact that they too should get equal rights protection under law? -or- Do they want to further their own "lifestyle" political agenda and force society to accept them and at the same time change laws to make them appear more "normal" thus forcing the masses to accept something that the majority still believes is "abnormal"?

Look, if you want to be gay, then be gay. It's morally wrong IMO, but it's the right of the individual...And those rights should be protected under the law in the form of a civil union of some sort. Why isn't that enough for them? Why the need to force an agenda that is "lifestyle" based upon the rest of us as if every other person feels it's normal?

But no matter what laws are passed, no matter how the homosexual agenda is forced upon society, they will never be able to legislate acceptance.

I'm sorry, but acceptance and "normalcy" seem to be at the core of the debate.

Equating slavery and holocaust to the gay issue is just plain stupid. I don't see gays being shackled and loaded up on trains. Nor do I see them as being a "race" as they would like the rest of us to think they are. I do see violence unfortunatly...the incident with the Sheppard kid was bad, not the norm. Most of us accept the fact that some people are gay. Does it hurt me in any way? Not at all, until the gay interest groups want to come into my kids school and teach homosexuality as normal sexual behavior. Not until homosexuals want to adopt children and attend my church as a family in the guise that being gay is normal.

The other day I was sitting at the Social Security office waiting to get an application put through for a duplicate card.

When this old, very old lady comes in. Explains to the people that her husband just died, and she only get $62 a month in Social Security, while her husband got $1100. So after a little typing they transfered his account to her, so she will now get his funds.

Gay couples also deserve this protection. Fine, don't call it marriage because it seems like it's something to do with the bible. But remember that Hindus, Buddhists, Atheists, etc also get married, no bible involved.

Oops, You're right Jorge. I directed my comment at Christianity, when I should have said religion in a more general sense. (also not to offend the atheists either)

However, these groups you mentioned aren't the topic of debate. It's the lifestyle, and the right of "marriage"

So let me get this straight. Gay people can get married but not in a christian way? I was under the impression that marriage was a christian act.

I think you mean religious, not christian (otherwise, does that mean all the jews did a christian act?).

Anyway. So when two people go through the justice of the peace *without* a religious ceremony, shouldn't it be called a civil union, not a marriage?

Or what about common law marrage.. No religion in that one either.

Please don't put words in my mouth Dave, read my first post. I think I made it clear that I was stating my own opinion.

I also said that I felt that gay unions should be protected. Marriage is an element of many religions and of society itself.

Changing laws to fit ones lifestyle is nothing more than attention grabbing and forcing society to accept. A pandoras box waiting to be opened...

Doesn't bother me one way or the other. I have other beefs with the government that do.

BTW, I was married by the J.O.P. 18 years ago.

Atheists
Buddhists
Taoists
Zoroastrians
Muslims
Hindus
Sikhs

They all get married, and not one of them is christian.

I think you all know what he is saying. Marriage is a Christian Sacrement. Many people get married. Whether or not they should is the question. God did not intended for marriage to be for non believers, hence much of the problem with divorce in our society.

so what do you call it when two Jewish people get "married"

Or any other religion for that matter? Is "marriage" a christian only word?

What did people do before Christianity? How do we know what God wants? Does he talk to you on a regular basis? Don't say the Bible. The interpertation of that document depends on your personal or religious views.

When two Jewish people get married it is called marriage. What did people do before Christianity? Lot's of things I suppose. They followed the writings and teachings of the Old Testament. How do we know what God wants? You listen to Him and obey His word - The Bible. Does God speak to me? Yes, He directs my life and will to anyone opens up to Him.

That's all well and good for you, but it shouldn't dictate how laws are created.

What do you think the founding fathers of this country used to dictate laws? Has society perverted itself that far?

ps. I saw you the other day on the road. Nice looking truck.

I thought it said in the bible that god would never talk directly to mankind. Did I mis-interpret the writings? Another thing.. If god's word is so precise then why are their so many factions of christianity? That would seem to me that things are a bit more fuzzy about what the bible means.

Carlton, you seem to have a lot of questions about religion and Christianity which is great. I am by no means an religous scholar. I am simply a school teacher who tries to make the best decisions in life based on the ones who came before me. I try to listen with my heart and not my head. Everything that I have read and have been taught from the Bible just seems right to me. I would also suggest to anyone that has not read from Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Proverbs, and Psalms to give it a shot. For your questions about the different denomonations- there are reasons for them all which evolved throughout history. As far a God "speaking" literally with a voice you are correct. As I said before, God directs my life.

We dont need to make this a religious issue. It is an equal protection issue. If you allow one kind of alternative marriage, you have to let all kinds. If you are fine with polygamy marriages, incestual marriage, etc etc etc, then I guess thats your opinion. You cant make special rights for one group (gays)and not allow those same rights for another group(polygamists etc.)

Since the gays do not want to find a middle ground, since they want to force it down our throats with no consideration to alternative ideas (civil union) that would pretty much give them what they are looking for. (IE benefits, SS, etc.) Then they should be denied altogether.

I for one, am not ready to see it legal for people to have multiple husbands and wives, to have brothers marry sisters, to have mothers and fathers marry thier sons and daughters, to have people marry animals.

You can stick your heads in the sand, but this is the inevitable conclusion that will be reached if they allow gays the status of marriage.

If the gays want to play hardball, then those opposed should play hardball back. Why should we be expected to work with them for a solution when they have made it abundantly clear that they are not willing to discuss the matter rationally.

Errr, what?

There is a Sacrement of Marriage in _some_ christian traditions. It isn't a sacrement in all of them. It is incorrect to state the reverse, that Marriage is a christian sacrement.

Marriage is not a word owned exclusively by Christians. The word itself comes from the Latin 'maritus'.

Estonian pre-Christian mythology speaks of heroes and their wives. The institution of marriage existed even before Judaism appeared, not to mention Christianity.

There is a problem with divorce in this country, because their are plenty of people who call themselves christians who find it easier to tell other people how to live, than to follow the path of Christ themselves.

Tim
(edited to capitalize Christ)

Welllll.. lets get this thing straight - some branches of christianity are in fact prohibit you from reading that stuff. Only priest shall do it.

Secondly, lets not go in that argument at all. Back in days of serious orthodox church it was considered as dirty to eat/speak/live with catholics. People were told to throw away plates&silverware if they had to have catholics in their house as guests. Few centuries after in totally different part of the civilized world, namely England, people were keeping warm in winter by burning catholics.

So lets not go in depths of living by the word of the God, as christians could not sort things amongst themselves, though they presumably going after same things.

As of whole marriage thing - as correctly was pointed out - it did exist LONG before Christianity ever started, and will probably exist in some form long after it will be forgotten (unless humankind will manage to curl up and die of course. Which is somewhat possible given the current pace of things)

Eh? There isnt much of mythology apart from Kalevipoeg, to my recollection Where you got more of it?

By all means its interesting to see someone here who actually managed to read such thing.

There is a big difference between gays and the others you listed. (namely polygamy, incest, marrying young girls..which you mentioned earlier). It is not against the law to be gay. It is however against the law to have more than one husband/wife, marry your immediate family member, engage in statutory rape, and all other UNLAWFUL things you are relating to this.

I have 2 uncles that are gay, I treat them as I would treat any of my straight relatives, I will admit that when I see them kissing their partners or holding hands, it does give me the willies, that is only because I cannot see having those kinds of feelings for another man. I do feel that if they are in a commited relationship, they should be able to make that commitment legal and have all the privileges that come with it, just as straight couples do. Do you have to call it marriage? no, civil union works just fine for me.

OK, let's assume that was what they intended.

Why aren't commandments 1, 2, 3, 4, 9 and 10 codified in any sort?

And WHICH commandments were they going by? The Protestant? Catholic? Hebrew? All three have different parts.

Kalev is the epic hero who is credited for the founding of Estonia. When he was killed his wife, Linda, wanted to bury him in his own grave.

Marriage is not the sole domain of any religion. The institution of mariiage is included within most religions.

Even if you find primitive people who have no concept of our society, they usually have a form of marriage.

It's not only a religious concept. It's not a Western concept.

It's the natural order of society. A man and a woman. It's normal. It's the way it has been since the beginning of time.

Now people want to change this. Many for various different reasons. Many because they are fools.

It's wrong no matter how you look at it.

so when did they invent Gays?. any sign how far back the fenomonon (like that word) goes?. Did it start with an experiment or did it really take off in the 80ties with Wang Chung and Men without hats? (safety dance).....

Just wondering

I'm not sure. It could have something to do with making Paul Lynde the center square on the old "Hollywood Squares" show.

One can find reference to homosexual behavior in the earliest records of societies. It's normal. It's the way it has been since the beginning of time.

In what manner have you shown it to be wrong?

Tim

Let's assume? You've already proved that they have as per your next statement. And that was just in the ten commandments. Second, have you looked at the different versions of the Ten Commandments? They are essentially the same. Different parts - Same meaning.

Hey Tim,

Please show me where, in the beginning of time that is, that homosexuality was normal. I hate to use this, but I think it was Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve.

Speaking of which...look at what THIS ASS CLOWN is up to now.

Homosexuality exists in human's closest animal relatives . . .

Homosexuality exists in the animal kingdom. Unless the animals are just experimenting a little after moving out of their parents' tree . . .

I was thinking Richard Simmons....HEY Let's play Name the Gayest Guy EVER !....

I vote for this guy :

If you really think we all started from two people, I feel sorry for you. Ever heard of inbreeding?

Adam and Eve are just an example.

Yeah Phelps is an idiot and gives Christians a bad name by using his demented brand of faith to condemn others.

Please read and comprehend more carefully. The fact that a certain percentage of our population is homosexual is normal, as it is the way it has been since the beginnning of society.

Reading for you:

Law, society and homosexuality in classical Athens - David Cohen

Translating Greek homosexuality: reticence and the truth of sex - James Davidson

It's fine that you don't think it is normal. It's fine you think it's wrong. You are certainly correct that the bible says it's a sin.

However, this country is great because it is filled with people of many religions, and no religions. Marriage predated christianity. We don't have the right as christians to say everyone's idea of marriage must conform to our's, and certainly not in this country.

You missed commenting on my response to you, but you managed to comment on my response to NY Madman. Interesting.

Tim

You know something.... I think all you people who feel homosexual behavior is normal have something wrong with your thought processes.

You are sick bastards. Just as sick as the deviants.

It's not normal. It is a deviation from the norm. It is a perversion of the norm.

The problem with all this gay shit going on in society is they want to "normalize" homosexuality. They want to "mainstream" it. That's not going to happen.

Anyone who thinks if gays got the right to marry, this will be the end of their demands, you are nothing but an incredible fool.

I don't care about this crap that "I have a gay friend or cousin and they are wonderful people". Maybe they are. Many are not. The gay community is a total depraved and sick corner of society. They have a much higher rate of battery and domestic abuse than the population as a whole. Most of these people are sick and live sick lifestyles. That's the truth even though you may know a few "good" ones.

PackRat is right. No one is ever going to change anyone's mind.

No I haven't. The commandments that DO have laws like them are commandments that AFFECT SOMEONE ELSE. I.E. crime against someone else. Someone else can be hurt by it.

Here's a good quote for you: ""The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia, 1782. ME 2:221

Here's another: ""Common sense [is] the foundation of all authorities, of the laws themselves, and of their construction." --Thomas Jefferson: Batture at New Orleans, 1812. ME 18:92"

(yep...sure see "christian" or "religion" or "judeo-christian" in THAT sentence. :rolleyes:

Quote:

Second, have you looked at the different versions of the Ten Commandments? They are essentially the same. Different parts - Same meaning.

Yes I have. And they are still different. Show me where in the Protestant and Catholic commandments there is anything like the Hebrew's first commandment: "I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery."

I like this discussion of the Ten Commandments:

http://www.geocities.com/bobmelzer/gc10cx.html

From Wordiq.com:
In sociology, norm is a technical term describing the expected pattern of behavior in a given situation, the custom.

As homosexuality has been ever present in society, the fact that it is present now is the norm. It would be abnormal if it wasn't present. This isn't a difficult concept if you aren't angry and you mind is thinking clearly.

How are you so tapped in to what "THEY" want?

Really? Where did you find that info?

No, that's not the truth. That is your sad little opinion about something you have little knowledge of, and much anger about. Nothing but opinion.

No, but hopefully POV such as yours will be exposed for being the hatred filled, unfounded, spew that it is.

Tim

"Do it like they do on the Discovery Channel."

Most animals engage in "deviant" behaviour. People are animals. Get over it.

Not that I think this is deviant behaviour, mind you. Hence the quotes.

That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

Pedophilia and incest are present in society. Always have been. People have always committed bestiality. Is that the norm.

Your argument is wrong. If homosexuality is to be considered a societal norm, every other form of deviant behavior by default is also normal. According to your twisted logic.

I was a cop for 11 years. Every big city cop who has a gay area in his precinct or patrol sector knows this.

That's another thing that your side always claims. "Everyone who does not approve of the homosexuals is filled with hate". That's bullshit. You only say that to shut down the debate. It's not working.

I know what Kalevipoeg is about, man I just was wandered why you talking about myths, while there is about only thing existing.

Not to mention that Roman empire and Ancient Greece are wee bit older than that, and they had notion of marriage as well Heck even older - Egypt and Messpotamia did too..
So it just struck me that someone talking about not very well known country with even less known myths&legends... Not many people in states even heard about it. Even less familiar with it mythology.

Why is this so hard for you to understand?

You are talking about whether or not something that involves a small percentage of the population is normal. Of course it isn't. It isn't normal to be a redhead, either.

I'm saying, if society has always had say, 10% redheads, it would be ridiculous to say having no redheads is normal.

Tim

Okay, so no empirical evidence. Simply your interpretation.

Tim