Wednesday, February 04, 2004 - Page updated at 09:03 A.M.

Massachusetts high court rules same-sex couples entitled to marry

By Jennifer Peter
The Associated Press


Washington state appeals court upholds gay equity ruling

BOSTON — The Massachusetts high court ruled today that only full, equal marriage rights for gay couples — rather than civil unions — would be constitutional, erasing any doubts that the nation's first same-sex marriages could take place in the state beginning in mid-May.

The court issued the opinion in response to a request from the state Senate about whether Vermont-style civil unions, which convey the state benefits of marriage — but not the title — would meet constitutional muster.

"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. A bill that would allow for civil unions, but falls short of marriage, makes for "unconstitutional, inferior, and discriminatory status for same-sex couples."

The much-anticipated opinion sets the stage for next Wednesday's constitutional convention, where the Legislature will consider an amendment that would legally define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Without the opinion, Senate President Robert Travaglini had said the vote would be delayed.

The soonest a constitutional amendment could end up on the ballot would be 2006, meaning that until then, the high court's decision will be Massachusetts law no matter what is decided at the constitutional convention.

The Supreme Judicial Court ruled in November that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry, and gave the Legislature six months to change state laws to make it happen.

But almost immediately, the vague wording of the ruling left lawmakers — and advocates on both side of the issue — uncertain if Vermont-style civil unions would satisfy the court's decision.

The state Senate asked for more guidance from the court and sought the advisory opinion, which was made public this morning when it was read into the Senate record.

When it was issued in November, the 4-3 ruling set off a firestorm of protest across the country among politicians, religious leaders and others opposed to providing landmark rights for gay couples to marry.

President Bush immediately denounced the decision and vowed to pursue legislation to protect the traditional definition of marriage. Church leaders in the heavily Roman Catholic state also pressed their parishioners to oppose efforts to allow gays to marry.

And legislators were prepared to vote on a proposed amendment to the state constitution that would seek to make the court's ruling moot by defining as marriage as a union between one man and one woman — thus expressly making same-sex marriages illegal in Massachusetts.

What the case represented, both sides agree, was a significant new milestone in a year that has seen broad new recognitions of gay rights in America, Canada and abroad, including a June U.S. Supreme Court decision striking a Texas ban on gay sex.

Legal experts, however, said that the long-awaited decision, while clearly stating that it is unconstitutional to bar gay couples from marriage, gave ambiguous instructions to the state Legislature.

Lawmakers remained uncertain if civil unions went far enough to live up to the court's ruling — or if actual marriages were required.

When a similar decision was issued in Vermont in 1999, the court told the Legislature that it could allow gay couples to marry or create a parallel institution that conveys all the state rights and benefits of marriage. The Legislature chose the second route, leading to the approval of civil unions in that state.

The Massachusetts decision made no mention of an alternative solution, but instead pointed to a recent decision in Ontario, Canada, that changed the common law definition of marriage to include same-sex couples and led to the issuance of marriage licenses there.

The state "has failed to identify any constitutionally adequate reason for denying civil marriage to same-sex couples," the court wrote. "Barred access to the protections, benefits and obligations of civil marriage, a person who enters into an intimate, exclusive union with another of the same sex is arbitrarily deprived of membership in one of our community's most rewarding and cherished institutions."

The Massachusetts case began in 2001, when seven gay couples went to their city and town halls to obtain marriage licenses. All were denied, leading them to sue the state Department of Public Health, which administers the state's marriage laws.

A Suffolk Superior Court judge threw out the case in 2002, ruling that nothing in state law gives gay couples the right to marry. The couples immediately appealed to the Supreme Judicial Court, which heard arguments in March.

The plaintiffs argued that barring them from marrying a partner of the same sex denied them access to an intrinsic human experience and violated basic constitutional rights.

Over the past decade, Massachusetts' high court has expanded the legal parameters of family, ruling that same-sex couples can adopt children and devising child visitation right for a former partner of a lesbian.

Massachusetts has one of the highest concentrations of gay households in the country with at 1.3 percent of the total number of coupled households, according to the 2000 census. In California, 1.4 percent of the coupled households are occupied by same-sex partners. Vermont and New York also registered at 1.3 percent, while in Washington, D.C., the rate is 5.1 percent.

Copyright © 2004 The Seattle Times Company

That's just wrong. Put a stop to it before it covers the country.

Petition (http://www.onemanonewoman.com)

Who cares if gays get married. Let them. That the way everyone's supposed God created them.

Let them get married and carry on with their lives. How does gay marriage effect any of us?!

Who cares if gays get married. Let them. That the way everyone's supposed God created them.

Let them get married and carry on with their lives. How does gay marriage effect any of us?!


Didn't you read this ?How it starts (http://fullsizebronco.com/forum/showthread.php?t=12752)

Didn't you read this ?How it starts (http://fullsizebronco.com/forum/showthread.php?t=12752)

:histerica :histerica ......well I don't think anyone was hurt from Beerman's assfingering except for Beerdude's pride.....and the other guy probably #2s a little easier than before :wacko

Look at it this way, every goverment employee that is gay, we are now going to pay health benefits for the gay lover.
That is just one example of how the rest of us are going to pay for it.

Who gives a **** if they are gay or not. Let the people be happy.

Traveler - What is paying for a gay persons partner then paying for a straight persons partner? Whats the difference?

Would you like it if someone said you couldn't marry a black chick because your white? Hell no you wouldn't. Gay or Lesbian couples should have the same rights as everyone else no matter what!

So what?! So because they are gay they should be treated differently from everyone else? Maybe they should go back to segregation while they are at it.

Better yet, how would you feel if they took all the religious people and treated them differently (as in worse) then all the other non-religious people?

And oh no, we have to pay health benefits. So these gay people should be living less healthy then you or I? What a waste of a comment that was.

Your Mr. Religious, you should be talking about the equality of man and acceptance. Instead you talk of how wrong it is for gays to enjoy the same rights as you do. THE SAME RIGHTS AS YOU DO!

I don't mean to make this a personal attack, but it bothers me. I have a couple of gay friends. Not flamer super friends, they're just gay. And they would bend over backwards to help out a friend or someone in need. They're good, honest working people, who if they never told you, you would never know they were gay. So to slam ALL gays because of a stereotype or someother reason gets on my nerves.

EDIT: Sorry to restate what Bronco85 said....he just beat me to the punch

I think it is unwise to equate a belief that "homosexual behavior is wrong" with the belief that it's okay to judge people as inferior because of the color of their skin. There is a huge difference between a person's chosen behavior and the unchosen manifestation of genetics.

you should be talking about the equality of man and acceptance. Instead you talk of how wrong it is for gays to enjoy the same rights as you do.

The bible says Gay is wrong.

I'll stop there, I don't want to start another one of those threads, Flame on.

i dont give a rats ass if gheys want to marry.

It matters none.

homosexuality isn't natural, it's a perversion. the whole point of marriage is to have sex and reproduce, and that's not possible with homosexuals. that right there is enough to say that gay mariage is wrong. i don't hate the person just the fact that they are gay. but anyway's, i don't think that gay marriage should be legal because then it will progress to adopting kids. can you emagine how embarassing it would b for a kid to have gay parents? he'd b made fun of all the time in school by all the other kids, and that would mess him up so bad that he'd either turn gay himself, or shoot up the school or something. it's just not right IMO

The bible says Gay is wrong.


Who cares what the bible says. Just because a book says it's wrong doesn't make it wrong.

90Bronconate - So you would rather have kids live in foster care till they are 18, and have to pay for this with your hard earned money. Then for them to have 2 loving parents just because they are Homosexuals.? I bet you 90% of those kids that have the parents would love to have a mom and a dad no matter what. They wont care if they are gay or not.

Kids make fun of other kids for everything. They make fun of other because their fat, retarded, or disabled, or just because they don't like the kid. By you saying that these kids shouldn't be adopted because a Gay couple wants them is just plan stupid. Maybe you should teach your kids to be more tolarant of others, and that making fun of kids because they are different is wrong.

By the way If it ever comes up for a vote I will vote for Gay marrages I will vote for it. Everyone has a choice in the country to live like they want. Noone has a right to tell them otherwise.

Who cares what the bible says. Just because a book says it's wrong doesn't make it wrong.

90Bronconate - So you would rather have kids live in foster care till they are 18, and have to pay for this with your hard earned money. Then for them to have 2 loving parents just because they are Homosexuals.? I bet you 90% of those kids that have the parents would love to have a mom and a dad no matter what. They wont care if they are gay or not.

Kids make fun of other kids for everything. They make fun of other because their fat, retarded, or disabled, or just because they don't like the kid. By you saying that these kids shouldn't be adopted because a Gay couple wants them is just plan stupid. Maybe you should teach your kids to be more tolarant of others, and that making fun of kids because they are different is wrong.

By the way If it ever comes up for a vote I will vote for Gay marrages I will vote for it. Everyone has a choice in the country to live like they want. Noone has a right to tell them otherwise.

Damn straight :thumbup

oh my, because the BIBLE says it, well hot damn - all of those who don't care what the bible says had better toe the line then, huh !

gay marriage affects no one but the people getting married, and it affects them in only a positive way. people need to dump the bible thumping puritian mindset and push themselves into this century.

let people be happy, however they feel. they harm no one else in their want to be with thier loved ones.

This is my favorite:

homosexuality isn't natural, it's a perversion. the whole point of marriage is to have sex and reproduce, and that's not possible with homosexuals. that right there is enough to say that gay mariage is wrong.

So a sterile man and/or woman shouldn't get married because marriage about reproduction and if they can't reproduce, they just shouldn't be allowed to get married. And, if then, marriage is just about sex, homosexuals can have sex just as well. It may not fall under your stringent discription of sex, but it's sex.

And as for costing tax payers, okay, then why don't you start crusading against the illegals, that cost WAY more tax money then it gay marriages ever will. They work under the table, for less then most will, then send all their money back to their families across the border. On top of that, if they have to be hospitalized who do you think carries that bill? What about that guy on here who had a woman hit his bronco, no insurance, no nothing, so his insurance pays for it, that brings the cost of insurance up for everyone. I do collections for a living for a paint company. You couldn't even start to guess how many come across my desk that opened the account, charged as much as they could before being locked out, purchase a few spray machines and pressure washers, some ladders, then they are gone.

Trust me, there is a lot more to worry about in this country then gay marriages, let them have equal rights.

Actually, the Bible does not say it is wrong.

It simply states that "one man shall not lay in bed with another." I will talk to Samantha tonight and post again - I cannot remember what her professor (a Biblical analyst - straight guy, btw) about that - it was a discussion in their class.

I'll elaborate later.

:beer
Bill

{rant on}
OK, I have been good for awhile, the mods are just going to have to let me be myself on this very post


F uck your bible, F Uck your literature and its stupid belief that gays are wrong.
There is nothing wrong with two people sharing their lives together, what they do in their bedroom is their business.
As long as it is not hurting anyone, MIND YOUR OWN F*CKING BUSINESS.

You f ucking christian pukes can open your f ucking mouthes when you can get your own priests, and YOUR bishops to stop raping children.
You are so strong in your belief that gays shouldnt marry but you turn the other cheek when your priest f*cks another 8 year old boy in the ass.
F*ck you!

Intel, the company I work for, (and is most likey a lot bigger than the company YOU work for) honers gay relationships.
In fact if you are gay and want to add your partner to your benefits you are allowed. If you dont believe me then look at Intels web site.
They also honor common law marriages.
That is what makes them such a great company to work for.

They respect, honor, and recognize different cultures.
Cant you christian assholes? Excluding gays is racism.

It really pisses me off when these right wing church baby raping f*ck tards say that it is wrong to be gay, but they let children get raped.
RAPED, RAPED, RAPED, RAPED, RAPED, RAPED,RAPED, RAPED, RAPED, RAPED, RAPED, RAPED,RAPED, RAPED, RAPED, RAPED, RAPED, RAPED,RAPED, RAPED, RAPED, RAPED, RAPED, RAPED.

These pieces of shit are heald at a higher regard and should be SHOT IN THE FACE, YES I SAID IT AGAIN SHOT IN THE FACE FOR RAPING CHILDREN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I know its not just priests and bishops who rape children but here is an example.
If you owned a store and a crack addict, and a cop walked in who would you expect to NOT steal from you?

Get it"?

Remember until just a few years ago these christian assholes were referring to blacks as "******S". They wouldnt allow them in their church because "god" said they were evil. Now that politics has changed that notion the church says it allright for "******s" to hold the priest hood. "******s" can now go to a christian church and not get looked at funny, or get hung because "god" said they was bad.

So what will happen when the world starts getting filled with homosexuals? I will tell you, the church will start saying it is OK to be gay now so that they will start getting money again!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

F*ck the church and everything it stands for.

I will say this again to people like Traveler.

EXCULDING PEOPLE THAT ARE GAY IS RACISM YOU F*CKING RACIST ASSHOLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[RANT OFF]

Gee... nice to see everyone can remain so civil about this issue.

Actually, I look forward to the battle. The overwhelming numbers of Americans, asked their opinions, are strongly against gay marriage... for whatever the reason.

Those who can support such relationships can easily jump to other relationships prohibited by government: brother/sister, multiple marriages; animals, if you will... there's no limit once this camel gets his nose under the tent-flap, so to speak.

I am not a Christian, so my beliefs are not driven by the Bible. But I respect those who are (like I respect those who are not) and because they have as much a say in how this country runs as anyone, rejecting their position out of hand... disrespecting them for it.... is uncalled for.

I believe this decision will either be overturned in the Federal courts, or Bush will make good on his threat to have a Constitutional Amendment on the issue. The timing of this announcement sucks, and has handed Bush a HUGE campaign issue, easily overshadowing almost any other... including the war.

Few other issues can evoke such a visceral response as this one, this thread being a prime example. And this decision may have just guaranteed Bush's re-election.

In the end, gay marriage will not become a reality in this country. And the battle will set "gay rights" back decades. But if they want to fight for gay marriage, I say:

Bring it on.

Comparing gays to people sleeping with their own kin is not only ignorant, it makes you appear uneducated and really stupid.

Again treating gays like that, is racism, and in my mind is like saying
"******s shouldnt breed because god said so" "Kain commited the first murder, and he killed his brother, typical ******".

People who think like that are ignorant and are bringing our country down.

Two women/men sleeping with each other will not cause the same after effects as would two family members.
Maybe you missed that part in 5th grade biology.

Oh my, people are really empty headed.

Please save yourself, and stay away from these "Evil gay people".
Tard.

this is the result of inbreeding, not gheys.

http://consoleservers.com/images/taco/kid.jpg

What the hell do people have against gay marriages. It's they gay couple's business. And I'm going to have to agree with Beerman about where the bible says it's wrong to be gay. Gay people aren't usually gay by choice, it's just the part of their genetic makeup that deals with their hormones. So if god doesn't want people to be gay then why did he create gay people. The bible contradicts itself in many other ways also such as it somewhere states that it's shameful and a sin for men to have long hair. Where in another section in the bible it states that it's a sin to cut your hair more than once a year. Jesus also had long hair. Overall I believe in God but the bible was not written by god, it's just an interpretation of the word of god. All I have to say is I'm not a homophobe and I've known gay people who are nice and are no different from anyone else. It's when they start hitting on me is when problems can occur.

The overwhelming numbers of Americans, asked their opinions, are strongly against gay marriage... for whatever the reason.

Prove it!
Let's see those "overwhelming numbers" you speak of!

You say:
"The overwhelming numbers of Americans, asked their opinions, are strongly against gay marriage"
... Who were the Americans that were asked?
A local church group?
Bush and his cronies?
I'm American, and I wasn't asked.

Comparing gays to people sleeping with their own kin is not only ignorant, it makes you appear uneducated and really stupid.

Yet, oddly enough, you provide nothing to back that assertion.

The entire point of your rant is to let people alone, so they can do what they want. Well, if "doing what they want" is good enough for gays, it's good enough for anyone else seeking governmental approval of their lifestyle choice.

And when it comes to the appearence of education... BM, you're hardly in a position to talk.


Again treating gays like that, is racism,


Sorry, BM.... in your brilliance have you assigned the status of a race to those who choose their lifestyle?

Here's "race" defined:

race2 [reıs]
noun
1 a group of people of common ancestry, distinguished from others by physical characteristics, such as hair type, colour of eyes and skin, stature, etc. Principal races are Caucasoid, Mongoloid, and Negroid

So now tell me... exactly what "physical characteristic" distinguishes gays from straights?

What were you saying about being "uneducated and really stupid?"


and in my mind is like saying
"******s shouldnt breed because god said so" "Kain commited the first murder, and he killed his brother, typical ******".

Fortunately, those thoughts are limited to your mind, which, occassionally, has shown itself to be a desolate place. You see, I pointed out that my position was NOT based on Christianity. So, by all means, please try and "adjust" your mind to my perspective... so you don't get them any more confused.


People who think like that are ignorant and are bringing our country down.

True, but it doesn't seem to stop you.... does it?


Two women/men sleeping with each other will not cause the same after effects as would two family members. Maybe you missed that part in 5th grade biology.

Which, of course, has nothing to do with my base point... which is this: If the only standard used to approve gay marriage is the "they want too" standard, then, under our system of laws, anyone who "wants" to do anything in the area of relationships would be equally free to so engage.

Thus, if same sex people are allowed to marry, then it would follow that siblings would also be allowed to marry, as would those involved in the "haram multiple marriage" set, and almost any other type of relationship that would come under the "they want to" standard you so cherish.


Oh my, people are really empty headed.


Uhh..... hem. Do tell.


Please save yourself, and stay away from these "Evil gay people".
Tard.

Gee... it must suck to be you.

Prove it!
Let's see those "overwhelming numbers" you speak of!

You say:
"The overwhelming numbers of Americans, asked their opinions, are strongly against gay marriage"
... Who were the Americans that were asked?
A local church group?
Bush and his cronies?
I'm American, and I wasn't asked.

Due to your complete ignorance, who would want to ask you?

Otherwise, you'd do a Google serch on something like this:

"Polls on gay marriage"

Which would result in stories like these:

The bipartisan NPR poll: 56 against, 30 for. (Dec 15)

CBS/NYT poll: 49 against, 41 for. (Dec 15)

Fox poll: 66 against, 25 for (Nov 3)

And so on.

But.... thanks for playing.

this is gonna be a good one

Due to your complete ignorance, who would want to ask you?
Otherwise, you'd do a Google serch on something like this:

"Polls on gay marriage"

Which would result in stories like these:


Well I did just that, and the results are definately not "overwhelming" by any means.

In fact it looks as though you simply picked a few polls that would prove your point while leaving out the ones that won't.
(Doesn't suprise me)

http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm

The bipartisan NPR poll: 56 against, 30 for. (Dec 15)
Let's correct this one:

The bipartisan NPR poll: 56 against, 30 for. 13 undecided, +/-3.1%


CBS/NYT poll: 49 against, 41 for. (Dec 15)
...and this one:

CBS/NYT poll: 49 against, 41 for. (Dec 15) 10 undecided, +/- 3%


Fox poll: 66 against, 25 for (Nov 3)
whoops... this one too.

Fox poll: 66 against, 25 for (Nov 3) 9 undecided, +/-3%


So I'm completely ignorant simply for asking you to provide proof of the claims you made? :wacko

Did you expect anyone here to simply accept your accusation that "The overwhelming numbers of Americans, asked their opinions, are strongly against gay marriage... for whatever the reason." simply because you said so?
:histerica :histerica :histerica :histerica :histerica :histerica :histerica

Nice try asshole.

The next time you want to spew your falsities here at least back it up with some sort of point of reference. Don't expect others to do it for you.

[b]Remember until just a few years ago these christian assholes were referring to blacks as "******S". They wouldnt allow them in their church because "god" said they were evil.
i'm glad i wasn't raised in that church :shocked

Everyone has a choice in the country to live like they want. Noone has a right to tell them otherwise.

:usa

a persons lifestyle is their own, its the American way, there are too may religions that consider their way the right way, there are too many people that dont have a way, let those that do have one live their freakin life, right or wrong to you, dont hate because you are uneducated or in most cases over educated and cannot see any other way, my beliefs are mine, yours are yours, I respect you, you respect me, my love is is my love, yours is yours, happiness is f'n happiness however you look at it, the bible is up for interpretation, the great thing about freedom of religion, you may read being gay as wrong, i may read about those "who judge" going straight to hell, dont judge others, judge yourself only and be happy only with yourself

i repect others opinions as I wish others to respect mine and everyone here is great for being able to discuss these things in a civil way, it makes FSB a great place :rockon

Those religious groups are the biggest hypocrites. They're saying that gays or blacks or whoever else is evil. The last time I checked it is a sin to judge people which is what they are doing. This is America and people should not have to be told to look, act, or be a certain way.

Do I really want to comment?!?!?!?


Naw, ain't worth the head ache.

http://www.consoleservers.com/images/taco/eject.jpg

I'm all for same sex marriages. I am not saying any more because I will end up getting into it with a bible thumper. They are people. They deserve to be able to live out their dreams. Respect that.

Well I did just that, and the results are definately not "overwhelming" by any means.

In fact it looks as though you simply picked a few polls that would prove your point while leaving out the ones that won't.
(Doesn't suprise me)

Odd... you seem easily surpriseable.


http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm


Let's correct this one:

The bipartisan NPR poll: 56 against, 30 for. 13 undecided, +/-3.1%

OK... obviously, where you went to school, they failed to explain to you that when only 30% support something, and 56% oppose something, those who oppose have an overwhelming advantage over those who support.

All you've done is highlight the undecided. All I've done is prove my point.

Let me know when you get past 8th grade, won't you?

There's a good chap.

I'm all for same sex marriages. I am not saying any more because I will end up getting into it with a bible thumper. They are people. They deserve to be able to live out their dreams. Respect that.

So.... if the dream includes marrying the next-door neighbor's dog.... that should be OK as well, right? I mean... we would have to "respect that," wouldn't we?

Not the same thing. If the dog consents, tho.....

Who f*cking cares?

I talked to Samantha about that Bible verse - but, I think I'll just keep the information to myself. Don't feel like posting in this one and getting flamed.

Oh, and just my .02 - "let them get wed"

:banghead
Bill

boy, therer's a lot of ignorant people around here. it's a shame really, i think that gay marriage is a beautiful thing :thumbup
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2004-2/628241/021.jpg

Not the same thing. If the dog consents, tho.....

Who f*cking cares?

Interesting response. So you have no lines that you won't cross?

No, personally I find the thought repugnant. I am just not self rightous enough to believe that I have the right or "responsibility" to impose my beliefs and hang ups on other people.

I suppose it all depends... because if we follow your plan, then, of course, your lack of beliefs and hang ups would be imposed on everyone else.

:shocked This is becoming a weekly thing around here. Anyway, who cares what gays do and don't do. If your that concerned about them getting married and having sex, you might just have some "special feelings" or maybe you're a little jealous. Who knows, who cares. By the way I'm working on a school project with my son and was wondering if someone could thump on their bible and tell me which chapter covers dinosaurs. :shrug I couldn't find it.

:uke:

In fact it looks as though you simply picked a few polls that would prove your point while leaving out the ones that won't.

OK... obviously, where you went to school, they failed to explain to you that when only 30% support something, and 56% oppose something, those who oppose have an overwhelming advantage over those who support.

All you've done is highlight the undecided. All I've done is prove my point.


Either you didn't read my post, or you simply didn't understand it.
:uhoh3

By the way I'm working on a school project with my son and was wondering if someone could thump on their bible and tell me which chapter covers dinosaurs. I couldn't find it.
Gay dinosaurs or the regular ones?
:smash

I talked to Samantha about that Bible verse - but, I think I'll just keep the information to myself. Don't feel like posting in this one and getting flamed.

Oh, and just my .02 - "let them get wed"

:banghead
Bill
Bill, the only thing that kept me reading this horseshit was to hear what your wife had to say, so if it's not too much trouble, shoot me that in a PM...:beer

:shocked This is becoming a weekly thing around here.
Yes it is! and what's sad is when these threads flare up like this 3/4 of the folks get diahrea of the mouth and constapation of the brain...They get all bent outa shape like someone just called their mother a slut...Jezzus folks if ya wanna make a valid argument for something, ya gotta stay unemotional, level headed, and at least make sence...:shrug Or right off the bat, no matter how right you are, you lose crediability.... :twak

ok kids .. let's think about this quote :

God made Adam and EVE .....

NOT ADAM AND STEVE :goodfinge




carry on :lowblow

This is becoming a weekly thing around here

Yeah that's my fault. :(

I guess as I'm closing in on the ripe old age of 34 I'm learning that I shouldn't ignore all of the hypocrisies seen in our government and the world around me simply because it didn't effect me. Peoples' lives are changed (generaly for the worse) everytime our government acts upon them, and although I wasn't affected by those acts people suffered.

And that just isn't right, and shouldn't be ignored.

I was however deeply affected by what happened on 9/11. I was in the middle of a career change from being a VP of a communications company to that as an airline pilot. Right after I took the 'big leap of faith' in May '01 my intended landing spot vanished into thin air virtually overnight without even a single word of warning.

I was ****ed.

My government and it's intelligence communities let me, and my country down.

So whether it be in a bar, on a message board, in a town meeting, or most importantly in a voting booth I'm going to do my part as an American citizen. It's time for me to "shit or get off the pot" so to speak, and I'm sorry for taking my demonic dump here, but at least I did it in an 'off-topic' forum.

Discussion and debates on issues that crop up here are good! It makes people think (hopefully). If they change my or someone else's mind then it was an awesome dump well worth all the sometimes heated arguments that result from all the loaf pinching.

Don't get any on ya! :beer

:usa

Do I really want to comment?!?!?!?


Naw, ain't worth the head ache.
Hey Byrd,
You know I started reading this and was hoping you would jump in here, but after finishing it I see now why you stayed out...........
I'm actually suprised by the content of this thread, stereotypicly you'd think this site would be just chocked full of good ol' hillbilly redness, but it's actually not. Good thread.



And personally, I don't care if they get hitched or not. Morally I have some problems it, but It dosn't seem to affect me, so I stay out of it.......It's between them and the big guy.....Fog

Per CNN.com:
Do you support the legalization of same-sex marriage?

Yes: 43% 62686 votes
No: 57% 85692 votes

Total: 145378 votes, as of 2/5/04 8:39 AM EST. Poll created 2/4/04 11:55 AM EST.

Pretty good sized sample. Dunno how representative it is of JQP, though.

Man, you guys are just working down the top ten list of most debatable modern subjects that people feel very passionately about, aren't you? :shocked

[Edit: The above was just FYI. I personally support their right to wed.]

First off. All those who think that gays shouldn't get married either...
1) Don't know anyone personally who is gay
2) Are probably the type of people who shouldn't be allowed to reproduce.

Everyone talks about the 'moral majority'. The 'majority' of people don't approve of gay marriage. Well....maybe we should start a poll on FSB, right here, to determine what the majority of FSB thinks.

Furthermore, the squeaky wheel gets the grease. "Gay marriage gets approved and millions of Americans march to the whitehouse in approval"(<---A headline you'll NEVER see) :twak .......people don't speak up unless they have a problem with something.

So what happens is these people who are jealous because they have met men who look better then their wives go out and find one more thing to protest. They run rampant with an American flag in their right hand proclaiming freedom while in the other denying a right of a gay couple.

So to those who don't approve gay marriage, I accept your opinion, but I think it is very ignorant and SELFISH of you.

I will repeat the word SELFISH here. The results of gay marriage have a minimal impact on you but yet you chose to vote it down. SELFISH!

As far as the adoption comment. Another ignorant ass obviously made this one. I have an adopted brother and sister. I PROMISE you that those two kids would have been perfectly willing to have to homosexual parents who LOVED them (notice the LOVED THEM) then living under foster care, house after house. Or in my sibling's case, in Jouvinile Hall because they had no where else to put them.

I give up with arguing with people...and I hope no one on this board is homosexual and was offended in anyway by the people on here who don't know how to think before they speak.

ok kids .. let's think about this quote :

God made Adam and EVE .....

NOT ADAM AND STEVE :goodfinge




carry on :lowblow

Good Damager :thumbup
There must be alot of Gay Bronco drivers in here reading through these posts the way there defending this :shocked
If so, fine. To each his own.
My "Opinion" is that is is wrong and I will not support it.

Carry on..........

That's good, they must be gay to support it. Are you black if you support equal rights? An infant to support prolife?

Are you black if you support equal rights?

Actually that is true.




(HeHe..... at least I'll change the subject :histerica )

Thanks for having a sense of humor about it. These threads are getting to harsh. (And yes I'm as guilty as others).

Cheers! :drinkbud :beer

Thanks for having a sense of humor about it. These threads are getting to harsh. (And yes I'm as guilty as others).

Cheers! :drinkbud :beer

:beer Agreed, this is unreal.

I don't think the thread is unreal....

I like the fact that on this board that people can express their views and the debate usually doesn't turn into an argument....unless someone blows their stack (which yes I am guilty of).

And thanks for adding the humor 94XLT, even if your opinion does make you a douche bag :goodfinge :toothless

OK I am not being serious with this post, but just to lighten it up a bit.

Those who dont see the beauty of it, probably never did it with two chicks before at the same time. That is beauty!!!!!!!!
There is nothing wrong with watching two hot chicks go at it either, if you dont like that then you have problems....

Again, just a funny.

:lolup....you kill me

And thanks for adding the humor 94XLT, even if your opinion does make you a douche bag :goodfinge :toothless

:goodfinge
I didn't mean the thread being unreal, just how personnel and out of line some get.......
:beer

Either you didn't read my post, or you simply didn't understand it.
:uhoh3

OK... obviously, where you went to school, they failed to explain to you that when only 30% support something, and 56% oppose something, those who oppose have an overwhelming advantage over those who support.

All you've done is highlight the undecided. All I've done is prove my point.

So.... uh.... when you moving to Massachusetts, eh, stang?

To disagree with you... or disagree with this decision is to be "ignorant" or to be denied the opportunity "to reproduce?"

One thing your post here proves is that bigotry can exist on all sides of an issue.

As for my position "offending" someone, well, that's just too, damned, bad.

Your position offends a great many people, yet you have not the least concern for THEIR sensibilities. Your lack of concern over offending people on both sides of this issue tends to show a certain level of hypocrisy on your part.

You held up the bigoted side rather well. Thanks.



First off. All those who think that gays shouldn't get married either...
1) Don't know anyone personally who is gay
2) Are probably the type of people who shouldn't be allowed to reproduce.

Everyone talks about the 'moral majority'. The 'majority' of people don't approve of gay marriage. Well....maybe we should start a poll on FSB, right here, to determine what the majority of FSB thinks.

Furthermore, the squeaky wheel gets the grease. "Gay marriage gets approved and millions of Americans march to the whitehouse in approval"(<---A headline you'll NEVER see) :twak .......people don't speak up unless they have a problem with something.

So what happens is these people who are jealous because they have met men who look better then their wives go out and find one more thing to protest. They run rampant with an American flag in their right hand proclaiming freedom while in the other denying a right of a gay couple.

So to those who don't approve gay marriage, I accept your opinion, but I think it is very ignorant and SELFISH of you.

I will repeat the word SELFISH here. The results of gay marriage have a minimal impact on you but yet you chose to vote it down. SELFISH!

As far as the adoption comment. Another ignorant ass obviously made this one. I have an adopted brother and sister. I PROMISE you that those two kids would have been perfectly willing to have to homosexual parents who LOVED them (notice the LOVED THEM) then living under foster care, house after house. Or in my sibling's case, in Jouvinile Hall because they had no where else to put them.

I give up with arguing with people...and I hope no one on this board is homosexual and was offended in anyway by the people on here who don't know how to think before they speak.

So.... uh.... when you moving to Massachusetts, eh, stang?

To disagree with you... or disagree with this decision is to be "ignorant" or to be denied the opportunity "to reproduce?"

One thing your post here proves is that bigotry can exist on all sides of an issue.

As for my position "offending" someone, well, that's just too, damned, bad.

Your position offends a great many people, yet you have not the least concern for THEIR sensibilities. Your lack of concern over offending people on both sides of this issue tends to show a certain level of hypocrisy on your part.

You held up the bigoted side rather well. Thanks.


If you want to get into a personal bashing match then PM me. I'll be more than happy to go hit for hit. That is not what this thread is about and it sure as hell gains no respect and ads no credibility to your argument.

That's fine that you don't care that you may offend someone. Once again a selfish view, but I understand nonetheless.

To accuse me of being a bigot.....I strongly believe that gays should be able to marry. I have justifiable reason to believe that. However I am not intollerant of other opinions. I tolerate them and state why I think that they are wrong. I don't call them wrong persay (although, yes, I came across that way) but merely point out why I disagree. In this case I pointed out that your opinion as well as those who agree with you without any good reason, is a selfish opinion.

So my OPINION of your OPINION is that your OPINION is a selfish one. I am not trying to call you a selfish personally. I apologize if it came out as a personal attack.

That's all

EDIT: I did call someone an ignorant ass. I don't apologize for this comment unless the person was adopted, has adopted, or had immediate family who is adopted.

ColoradoBronco--

I believe they were also called a Leviathen. I've been told before what chapter(s) they were in, but I can't remember or find it.

I don't agree with the laws on gay marriage, I don't think it should be allowed. IMO--It's morally wrong.

Like a few others... I think it's wrong and would vote against it.
I have my own reasons and beliefs... and have no need to try and make any of you understand or believe them. Not my problem.

Ya know... I love to see a good debate, but you folks have got to keep this and all other debates within reason. Just becouse someone doesn't agree with your view is no reason to insult or belittle them or thier opinion.
Share yours... even defend it, if you feel the need... but there is ABSOLUTLY NO REASON TO PERSONALLY ATTACK YOUR FELLOW F.S.B. MEMBERS.

Thank you and Have a Nice Day! :goodfinge

DISCLAIMER: I am far from gay

To all those who vote against gay marraige.

I would like to see you walk a mile in a gay person's shoes (sure the high heels may bother you) but I would bet you would see the situation defferently.

Like walking in a black man's shoes back in the 40's and 50's.

Yak: Without getting into anything personal.....why do you view it "morally" wrong? What makes regular marriage morally right?

Like a few others... I think it's wrong and would vote against it.
I have my own reasons and beliefs... and have no need to try and make any of you understand or believe them. Not my problem.

Ya know... I love to see a good debate, but you folks have got to keep this and all other debates within reason. Just becouse someone doesn't agree with your view is no reason to insult or belittle them or thier opinion.
Share yours... even defend it, if you feel the need... but there is ABSOLUTLY NO REASON TO PERSONALLY ATTACK YOUR FELLOW F.S.B. MEMBERS.

Thank you and Have a Nice Day! :goodfinge

:thumbup

My reasons are based on religious belief, and what I very strongly believe in. God didn't intend on two men getting married, if he did, they would be getting pregnant and having children. I believe these people choose what they want to be, and their lifestyle is a perversion. Society in general is making some unwise decisions, IMO, because we're all trying to make everything so P.C.

These are my opinions, no flame intended.

DISCLAIMER: I am far from gay

To all those who vote against gay marraige.

I would like to see you walk a mile in a gay person's shoes (sure the high heels may bother you) but I would bet you would see the situation defferently.

Like walking in a black man's shoes back in the 40's and 50's.

Yak: Without getting into anything personal.....why do you view it "morally" wrong? What makes regular marriage morally right?

Again, my opionions, im not flaming:

I would never choose to walk in a gay mans shoes. And yes, IN MY OPINION it is a choice. I believe there is no biological or other reason why. It is a choice they made. I know gay poeple and I do not treat them any differently. It was there choice and I just dont agree with it. Thats all. I do not treat them differently. Nor do I treat anyone like a black man, or any other race any differently because of race. And as I said, I have friends of all races, religions, and beliefs.

I also view it "morally wrong" And the reason is because of what I choose to believe according to the bible.

My opinions. Thank you.

Okay, if it is religious reasons then I understand.

Of course, I'm not religious so I can't see where you're coming from, but i buy that nontheless.


It would be interesting to see someday what science shows us. If it shows us whether being gay is under freewill or from a 'defect' in biological makeup. I'm sure some of the "if God intended...." would come into question. I know that personally, the thought of being with another man makes me sick.....so I couldn't understand the choice in that.

I know gay poeple and I do not treat them any differently. It was there choice and I just dont agree with it. Thats all.

If you were to vote against gay marriage then that is treating them differently. If the ONLY thing you did was disagree with it then you would really not have an issue with them getting married, you would live and just disagree with it.

But I think I know what you were saying.

Your correct,
If you don't believe in the Bible do what ever you want and don't read my post, but also don't run off with half truths, rumors and ignorantly make incorrect claims about what the Bible says.


I talked to Samantha about that Bible verse - but, I think I'll just keep the information to myself. Don't feel like posting in this one and getting flamed.

Oh, and just my .02 - "let them get wed"

:banghead
Bill

1 Corinthians 6:9
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders
(Whole Chapter: 1 Corinthians 6 In context: 1 Corinthians 6:8-10)

Dinosaurs

Job 40:15
Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.
(Whole Chapter: Job 40 In context: Job 40:14-16)
The word Dinosaur was not invented till 300 years after the King James version was written.

Yes Jesus had long hair as was the custom at the time, A sin to cut it?
Where do you guys get this crap?


Beerman especially, and others you make all these claims about what the religous groups say or do, but Those groups are not doing what is in the bible, so don't blame the Bible. that's like blaming all Arabs for 911.

Damager, WELL SAID! Simple, staight forward.

God didn't intend on two men getting married, if he did, they would be getting pregnant and having children.
Back to the "It's wrong b/c they can't make babies" thing again. So I will again ask (as others have already) if a straight couple couldn't have childeren, b/c on infertility caused by something) does that make their mariage morrally wrong too?

Okay Traveler, I want you to help me out. And this is meant hearnestly (sp?) not sarcastically. I know alot of people with in christianity (not all) group the idea of homosexuality with incest. Morally wrong sexual acts.

But I thought I remember in my old testament class (coulda been new testament) where a guy killed his father who was a king, and slept with his mother on the top of the tower of the castle for everyone to see that he now had his father's power. Is that a story in the bible, or am I just really confused.

If it is a real story, how can you seperate the bible showing where people did that as (kinda) normal, but have a problem with homosexuality.

Again, not trying to flame, I'm trying to have a civil conversation as we did before.

Your correct,
1 Corinthians 6:9
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders
(Whole Chapter: 1 Corinthians 6 In context: 1 Corinthians 6:8-10)


Traveler: Can you define sexually immoral and idolaters for me?

Also, I know nothing about what the bible says about homosexuality, so I'm not even going to try and argue with it.

Beerman- you are absolutley right two hot chicks going at is beautiful ( and one day before I die I will join them ). And most of us being men on this site would agree with that. :beer

And i think like most men, two men going at it is plain sick. I think that is why most people have a problem with gay marriage, cause as men we are ( most of us ) taught to look at women as beautiful, and taught not to look at men in that way.

Do I support the marriage part NO! But then why do I LOVE it when two chicks are going at it right in front of me? Maybe we can all ask ourselves that ?.

Just my opinion.

Hank, would it be sexier if the two woman going at it had wedding rings on when they were doin their thing?

So is lesbian marriage ok but not gay male marriage?

Or is it that you just like watching mutual box eating?

Nathaniel--

You're camparing apples to oranges. If a married couple (man and woman) can't have children, that in no way makes the marriage wrong. I don't believe gay marriage is wrong because they can't have children, I believe it's wrong because it goes against what God intended. IMO--it's a sin, it's morally wrong, it's sick........

I understand what you are saying now (not that I agree, but that is what it's about right? voicing our opinions) It just seemed to me that was what you were saying in your first post/

Or is it that you just like watching mutual box eating?

Good job keeping the humor in it man... :thumbup

Idolator? That's what you get when and idle air control valve and an alternator marry. Not sure if that's legal either, but I have no opinion either way. :toothless

Hank, would it be sexier if the two woman going at it had wedding rings on when they were doin their thing?


If one of those wedding rings was my wife's? Hell Yeah :thumbup

But we all know most REAl lesbians don't look like the ones we like to watch.

Idolator? That's what you get when and idle air control valve and an alternator marry. Not sure if that's legal either, but I have no opinion either way. :toothless

If one of those wedding rings was my wife's? Hell Yeah

But we all know most REAl lesbians don't look like the ones we like to watch.


I think I'm going to piss myself :histerica :histerica :histerica

I do believe (from watching Dogma a shit load of times) that an Idoliter is someone who whorships some one other than god. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Smooth and Stang, thanks for the level headed questions.
Smooth I need to dig a little to find which story you are refering to, and find the context of it.
The Old testiment is full of people that were full of sin, some which met their doom and some which God converted for his use.
As far as being normal, Soddam and Gamorah were destroyed for things such as prostituition, homosexual behaviour, and sexual immorallity.

Traveler: Can you define sexually immoral and idolaters for me?

Also, I know nothing about what the bible says about homosexuality, so I'm not even going to try and argue with it.

Sexually Immoral is Father sleeping with daughter type thing, Idolaters are people that worship things other than God.

Did everyone here vote for Top 4x4?

Ok, back to our regularly scheduled debate.

Sexually Immoral is Father sleeping with daughter type thing, Idolaters are people that worship things other than God.

I am an idolator....... WHY DID YOU DO IT TO ME FORD?!?!

Marriage is a religious institution that unfortunately got saddled with politics in the form of tax credits, insurance benefits, and other 'perks' given to two people that form a union. To deny anyone of these 'perks' based solely on religious or sexual orientation is called discrimination.

What difference does it make to the IRS, insurance company, or estate trustee if the two people in the union are the same sex? NONE

What business is it of the government to regulate who marries who? Why are they even involved in the first place? All they have to know are the names on their 1040's, and how much they owe in taxes, not the sex.
I thought all people were supposed to be treated as equals in this country.

If religion stayed separate from government like it should be this issue would've never arisen, but unfortunately our government is loaded with religious zealots that get off imposing their moral and religious ideals on the very people they're supposed to represent.

I don't want my government telling me how to live my life, and neither should you.
Just because you might not agree with two same-sex people wanting to form a union you have no right taking that right away from them.

I personally think it's gross. I can only imagine the added strain it would add if children were ever involved. Then again I can see where it could benefit the child to have two people loving them instead of one.
Who knows?
Who cares?

In the end it's none of my ****ing business.
It's none of yours' either.

Marriage is a religious institution that unfortunately got saddled with politics in the form of tax credits, insurance benefits, and other 'perks' given to two people that form a union. To deny anyone of these 'perks' based solely on religious or sexual orientation is called discrimination..

Yes it is


If religion stayed separate from government like it should be this issue would've never arisen, but unfortunately our government is loaded with religious zealots that get off imposing their moral and religious ideals on the very people they're supposed to represent.

Another good point


In the end it's none of my ****ing business.
It's none of yours' either.

And the best point I've heard so far.

"In the end it's none of my ****ing business.
It's none of yours' either."

Amen to that.

SMOOTH - To me it doesn't matter whether the two women have rings on or not, it all sexy to me, as long as they have no clothes on. :beer

Stangmata - I do not support either of the two getting married be it two women or men. I just know I preffer mutual " box eating " to " sword fighting/swallowing " contests. :toothless

:lolup :histerica :histerica :histerica :histerica :lolup
Sword fighting!!!I'm gonna have to clean off my mointor now, I spewed Dr. Pepper all over it!!!---Fog


That Chit might make a good sig line too........

All I'll say is this...

I know a lesbian women...her and her partner adopted a 25 week old premature baby...no questions asked. All they wanted was to have a child to love and raise. They didn't care if he was healthy or sick...black or white...gay or straight.

How many of you would adopt a 25 week old child and take the risk of all that comes with it (and trust me there are plenty of them). Not many...probably none. Should they be treated differently...NO! Should they be allowed to wed...YES!

With all of the rotten parenting going on in this world, what difference does it make what sexual orientation you are..as long as you will love, nurture, and provide for a child. Trust me...they are alot better off than most traditional couples I know.

For the record...I am a republican...I support Bush, but would flip my vote in a second if he made it law for gays not to marry. Gays have been around since the beginning of time....seems to me it's not a choice, but who they are. Ask any gay person and 99 out of 100 will tell you that they were like that for as long as they could remember.

Opposing gay marriage is just ignorant...you may not like it, but then again it's not your choice....it's theirs.

All I'll say is this... Opposing gay marriage is just ignorant...
This is exactly the kind of attack I'm speaking of. Just becouse my opinioin is different from your does not mean I am "ignorant". :twak
Keep it to yourself if you can't debate w/out being insulting to others.
This is directed to everyone making these type of comments, not just you.

So a sterile man and/or woman shouldn't get married because marriage about reproduction and if they can't reproduce, they just shouldn't be allowed to get married.

right after i posted this i knew it would come up :banghead oh well, just my opinion.

It really pisses me off when these right wing church baby raping f*ck tards say that it is wrong to be gay, but they let children get raped.
RAPED, RAPED, RAPED, RAPED, RAPED, RAPED,RAPED, RAPED, RAPED, RAPED, RAPED, RAPED,RAPED, RAPED, RAPED, RAPED, RAPED, RAPED,RAPED, RAPED, RAPED, RAPED, RAPED, RAPED.

These pieces of shit are heald at a higher regard and should be SHOT IN THE FACE, YES I SAID IT AGAIN SHOT IN THE FACE FOR RAPING CHILDREN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

i totally agree....but the raping thing, to my knowledge is only in the catholic church, so don't just group them in with "christians"

Why does this matter to anyone here? Just live your life and let others live thiers. As long as they do not try to impose on your life, then all should be good. That is the problem today, no matter the situation, other people try to hard to change other people to be like them.

wow! another hot topic. i keep my mouth shut most of the time but i will jump in to give my opinion. first let me say that my g.f. has a 19 year old son that is gay and that i love without condition. i dont support gay marriage because of my own religous beliefs. i think that there is some confusion about the separation of church and state. our goverment is not to be influance by any particular religion.we are however influanced by biblical ethics. weather this is right or wrong is again a matter of opinion. i do believe that having our morals and ethics biblicly based is what our founding fathers intented. i also support keeping our goverment that way. if my g.f. son wished to marry or raise a child with another man i would offer all i could in way of love and guidance but i would not claim that i approved of it. one of the things i respect about him is that being gay is not what defines who he is. i have a hard time accepting those that make their sexuality the loudest part of their personality. just my problem i guess

If one of those wedding rings was my wife's? Hell Yeah :thumbup

But we all know most REAl lesbians don't look like the ones we like to watch.

Bullshit. I had a 3some with my ex...who was hot by the way....and her friend blond hair green eyes oh I'd say size 3 and South African....in otherwords....holy shit hot. :goodfinge :goodfinge :goodfinge :goodfinge


Oh and I have to mention something on the subject here. My of my best friends came out of the closet when we were roomates. It was a real hard thing for me to deal with at first, but I couldn't afford to move out. I HAD to learn to deal with it. It changed my outlook totally. He was still the same person he always was. The same friend he always was. People like him deserve to be happy.

Oh and to all of those saying homosexuallity is a choice....You're full of shit. Trust me, my friend would have rather not been. Is it a choice for you to be attracted to women?

Frankly I don't care what your religion is or what it says. We are all intelligent enough to make our own decisions and stop acting like SHEEPle. Homosexuals aren't evil or deviant. They are just people like you and me with all the same hopes, passions and dreams. The only difference being that they are attracted to their same sex. BFD. If you don't agree with them, fine that is your right. But let them make the choice for themselves.

Grow up and let them be happy. Mind your own business.

holy, in through the out door,buttman! I'm gonna hug the first homo i see , and then we might even play swallow the leader :goodfinge

i'm told i should tolerate gays....i'm told i should be racially tolerant...should the pro this and that really be using the word tolerant?How about the word acceptance if you're really serious? I accept a differtnt race for who they are.There is no right or wrong race,but there are good and bad within. I accept the good and tolerate the bad, because i'm not in a position to hand out the verdicts.We elect officials to dispense our justice,make laws, or what have you upon the bad based on the opinion of the majority.It's not a perfect system but it's all we have. i don't like being told gays should be able to marry,i tolerate it though. Public opinion changes all the time.What was once immoral is now accepted by the majority,tolerated by some. An issue such as sexuality has lasted at least a couple thousand years....and we've yet to see an end in sight to the hershey highway.Who knows....in another couple thousand years we might all be turning our barstools upside down and gossiping with our three closest buds :kiss .....beerman's half way there with the finger thing :goodfinge

toodles

:goodfinge Only with you snoogle poop :goodfinge

:goodfinge Only with you snoogle poop :goodfinge

:lolup

Hey Byrd,
You know I started reading this and was hoping you would jump in here, but after finishing it I see now why you stayed out...........
I'm actually suprised by the content of this thread, stereotypicly you'd think this site would be just chocked full of good ol' hillbilly redness, but it's actually not. Good thread.



And personally, I don't care if they get hitched or not. Morally I have some problems it, but It dosn't seem to affect me, so I stay out of it.......It's between them and the big guy.....Fog

I've been around the block enough to know if you have a person who is totally commited to an idea or an opinion there's not much you can do to change their minds. Most of you guys know that I am a minister, so you know my views. There have been a few of the replies that have been a little overboard in regards to personal insults but most have been OK. In the end, no one will feel any differently nor of changed their mind. Have a great day Guys! :thumbup

Well said stepbyrd. I need to use that mentality. The line gets blurry inbetween wanting to voice your opinion, and trying to change someone elses.

You are working your way to earning two cokes! :beer

But I thought I remember in my old testament class (coulda been new testament) where a guy killed his father who was a king, and slept with his mother on the top of the tower of the castle for everyone to see that he now had his father's power. Is that a story in the bible, or am I just really confused.

If it is a real story, how can you seperate the bible showing where people did that as (kinda) normal, but have a problem with homosexuality.

.
I haven't found anything that perfectly matches that, but I am still looking. Son's killing their fathers to become King was not all the uncommon.

One instance that is commonly known and made argument of is King David.
He could not sleep one night, decided to go for a walk on the roof. He saw Bathsheba, bathing. He slept with her, He then sent her husband off to fight in the front lines of the war, where which he was killed. Then King David took her as his own.
God did not care much for that, as punishment, David's son died, and he lost his wife to a freind of his, and it was made known to everyone, but he lived to see it all, and that was just the beginning.
2 Samuel Chapter 11 & 12.

Was that maybe it.

Well said stepbyrd. I need to use that mentality. The line gets blurry inbetween wanting to voice your opinion, and trying to change someone elses.



Your both right, But at some point it is good to make your opinion known, that what this country is about, mine is no more valid than yours, but I have a right to express it as you do.
It wouldn't be so bad, but the minute someone takes a stand that is not P.C. then everyone jumps down their throught. If they could express their own, and not just bash someone elses, the touchy topics wouldn't last near this long.

How many of you would adopt a 25 week old child and take the risk of all that comes with it (and trust me there are plenty of them). Not many...probably none. Should they be treated differently...NO! Should they be allowed to wed...YES!

We adopted both of our children, the oldest was born addicted to methadone and has fetal alcohol syndrome, she was a 6 month old in a 2 year old body when we met her. The youngest tested positive for cocaine and has fetal alcohol affect, so to answer your question, my wife and I did, and would again!

Should gays be allowed to marry? It's not my concern, but if a gay/lesbian couple can provide a loving and nurturing home for a child. I'd stand up for them.

We adopted both of our children, the oldest was born addicted to methadone and has fetal alcohol syndrome, she was a 6 month old in a 2 year old body when we met her. The youngest tested positive for cocaine and has fetal alcohol affect, so to answer your question, my wife and I did, and would again!



Thats Great Bnkrtsk, I respect you for that. Wonderfull :thumbup

We adopted both of our children, the oldest was born addicted to methadone and has fetal alcohol syndrome, she was a 6 month old in a 2 year old body when we met her. The youngest tested positive for cocaine and has fetal alcohol affect, so to answer your question, my wife and I did, and would again!

Should gays be allowed to marry? It's not my concern, but if a gay/lesbian couple can provide a loving and nurturing home for a child. I'd stand up for them.

Now THAT! is what I'm talkin' about. :thumbup

OK.... I'm starting to get it now. You completely ignore the issues I bring up, and focus entirely on the name calling.

"Bigot" is defined as:
"bigot
n : a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own"

You fit the bill to a t.

YOU call ME "ignorant" and "selfish," and that's not "personal bashing?" Then, having called ME that, you tell me my response, which accurately portrayed your OPINION as "bigoted," "gains (me) no respect and adds no credibility to (my) argument."

This after YOU are the one who started with the name-calling?

Then you tell us: "That's fine that you don't care that you may offend someone. Once again a selfish view, but I understand nonetheless."

Yet you express no concern over those who YOUR views may offend, do you?

"Bigot(n)
....In an extended sense, a person who is intolerant of opinions which conflict with his own, as in politics or morals; one obstinately and blindly devoted to his own church, party, belief, or opinion."

That, of course, goes back to my initial perspective that caused your name-calling rant in the first place... which was "To disagree with you... or disagree with this decision is to be "ignorant" or to be denied the opportunity "to reproduce?"

I would submit that while your position of disagreement will, ultimately, have less merit then my own, due to the absolute surety of a Constitutional amendment banning the practice, your penchant for name calling gains YOU "no respect" nor your position "any credibility."

In fact, stang, I'll go you one better: Those on your side of the issue who insist on treating those who disagree with you in this hypocritical. bigoted matter essentially GUARANTEE a relatively early end to the practice, and what will be, perhaps, the fastest completed and enacted Amendment in this nation's history.

"However I am not intolerant of other opinions."

Sorry, stang... your own words put the lie to that. You engage on name-calling and labeling on one hand, and then attempt to tell us how "tolerant" you are on the other? Perhaps if you could tell us how it would be possible for you to be any LESS tolerant of opposing points of view then you've demonstrated in this thread?

You are, in fact, quite guilty of the many things you accuse those of us who disagree with you of having perpetuated.

My reasons for opposing this are, as I have stated, not based on the Bible, which should remove your auto-response to religious bigotry, so amply illustrated by someone else on this thread that shares your perspective.

The reasoning for allowing this life-style choice in the face of the proof that continuing to outlaw the practice does NOT constitute a violation of rights boils down to this: Allowing gay marriage will automatically require the sanction of other forms of behavior that even the most ardent supporter of gay marriage would oppose.

The legal aspect of allowing gay marriage will AUTOMATICALLY HAVE TO BE EXTENDED TO EVERY FORM OF RELATIONSHIP IMAGINABLE.

To me, this isn't even a moral issue.... it's a legal issue. "Selfishness" has nothing to do with it.

In the end, what has happened here is that you've held up a position of someone else, beat the hell out of it on a personal level, and then said something like, "Oh, gee, sorry about that.... didn't mean to make it personal."




If you want to get into a personal bashing match then PM me. I'll be more than happy to go hit for hit. That is not what this thread is about and it sure as hell gains no respect and ads no credibility to your argument.

That's fine that you don't care that you may offend someone. Once again a selfish view, but I understand nonetheless.

To accuse me of being a bigot.....I strongly believe that gays should be able to marry. I have justifiable reason to believe that. However I am not intollerant of other opinions. I tolerate them and state why I think that they are wrong. I don't call them wrong persay (although, yes, I came across that way) but merely point out why I disagree. In this case I pointed out that your opinion as well as those who agree with you without any good reason, is a selfish opinion.

So my OPINION of your OPINION is that your OPINION is a selfish one. I am not trying to call you a selfish personally. I apologize if it came out as a personal attack.

That's all

EDIT: I did call someone an ignorant ass. I don't apologize for this comment unless the person was adopted, has adopted, or had immediate family who is adopted.

Hey 95BXL, reading that post gave me a headache! :goodfinge

But you made a good point nonetheless.

Marriage is a religious institution that unfortunately got saddled with politics in the form of tax credits, insurance benefits, and other 'perks' given to two people that form a union. To deny anyone of these 'perks' based solely on religious or sexual orientation is called discrimination.

Yup... You're right. So what?


What difference does it make to the IRS, insurance company, or estate trustee if the two people in the union are the same sex? NONE

Obviously, that position is incorrect. Government has asserted what is known as a "compelling interest" in the practice of marriage. It is up to those who disagree with that perspective to, in the legal sense, prove that the interest in question is NOT "compelling" enough for government to regulate it. Given our current system, I wish you luck.


What business is it of the government to regulate who marries who? Why are they even involved in the first place? All they have to know are the names on their 1040's, and how much they owe in taxes, not the sex.
I thought all people were supposed to be treated as equals in this country.

Why its government's business is, of course, obvious. One can only believe that your observation here is rhetorical, as opposed to literal.

As for "all people being treated equal" here.... when was the last time you heard of a woman having to register for the draft on her 18th birthday? Have you ever heard of affirmative action? Do you know that, for example, women are around 53% of the population of this country, yet they have minority status for hiring and other programs?

"Equality" is a nebulous term the way this country practices it. And the issues I've raised, along with the dozens of other forms of institutional discrimination practiced in this country on a daily basis doesn't seem to upset too terribly many people.... either on this board.... or anywhere else.


If religion stayed separate from government like it should be this issue would've never arisen, but unfortunately our government is loaded with religious zealots that get off imposing their moral and religious ideals on the very people they're supposed to represent.

The vast majority of people, including those of us who are not religious, will oppose gay marriage. And the fact is that will include a great majority of elected democrats, a group you can hardly refer to as "religious zealots." Even now, 37 states have enacted "Defense of Marriage" Acts (DOMA), In fact, the Federal DOMA was signed into law by that religious zealot you admire so much, Bill Clinton.


I don't want my government telling me how to live my life, and neither should you.


Sorry. denying marriage to same sex couples has nothing to do with telling you, or anyone else, how to live their life. Being gay is not illegal. Living with someone of the same sex, and/or engaging in sex acts with someone of the same sex in and of itself is not illegal. And this government denial does not change any of that.


Just because you might not agree with two same-sex people wanting to form a union you have no right taking that right away from them.

Just because you might agree with two same-sex people wanting to form a union you have no right giving that right to them.

Nor does the denial of a "same sex marriage" right deny anyone the right to a "union." But then, as the Mass. court said, a "union" is not a "marriage."


I personally think it's gross. I can only imagine the added strain it would add if children were ever involved. Then again I can see where it could benefit the child to have two people loving them instead of one.
Who knows?
Who cares?

Most of America.... but thanks for asking.


In the end it's none of my ****ing business.
It's none of yours' either.

Well, in a year or two, the Amendment will be in place, and that will be the end of it. As for public policy matters.... as Americans, those are ALL our business.

Hey 95BXL, reading that post gave me a headache! :goodfinge

But you made a good point nonetheless.

"Headaches are my business... and business is good!" :chili: :twak

95BXL: So much for the PM thing huh? Anyway, all I can do is apologize. I did get out of control and I said some hypocritical stuff because I am at a keyboard all heated up on something that I feel stongly about. So I'm making an honest apology to you and anyone else that I offended. And that is the best I can do. I'm not going to justify what I said/typed, so if you accept the apology then fine, if not, no skin off my back.

As far as the gay marriage argument....I think I'm going to step out until I cool off about it a little bit.

Well said 95BXL....

Interesting points BXL, but pointing out other places where discrimination runs rampant within our government and the seeming insurmountable struggle one would face in correcting them still doesn't justify any of them. That's akin to saying: "It's too hard to change course so don't bother trying, and let's just continue along the same wrong path we've been on".

The problem with that logic is that if we continue along that same path of discrimination more and more groups of Americans will suffer from our government's propensity for enacting new laws that take even more rights away from us simply because our lawmakers feel the need to wrongly impose their own moral, ethical, and religious beliefs upon us.

That's just criminal, shouldn't be tolerated, and we shouldn't have to fight now to reverse this course because it shouldn't have ever been followed in the first place.

In the past similar battles have been fought, and courses were reversed. Women can now vote, and serve in the military. Blacks can now vote. And in the state of Massachusetts Gays can now legally 'form a union'.

These newly given rights should have never been made illegal in the first place.

Sorry. denying marriage to same sex couples has nothing to do with telling you, or anyone else, how to live their life.
Sure it does! It's telling same sex couples that they can't live married lives like opposite-sex couples can.


Being gay is not illegal. Living with someone of the same sex, and/or engaging in sex acts with someone of the same sex in and of itself is not illegal.
You'd think they weren't, but think again. There are so many bizzare sex laws in this country comparable in idiocy to the one that banned same-sex marriages.
http://www.lectlaw.com/tsex.htm
http://www.sodomylaws.org/
http://www.weirdsexlaws.com/

I wonder how many of those insane laws you were ever guilty of.

Well, in a year or two, the Amendment will be in place, and that will be the end of it.
Well only time will tell on that one.

***On a side note***
You are just as guilty as anyone else here that doled out personal attacks so you have no right to chastise anyone for it. You too have pretty large dents in your credibility for doing both.

And when did I ever say that I admired Bill Clinton? :wacko

All I can say is that when I heard two lesbians were moving in next door :chili: :chili: :chili: I had dreams of frolicking bikini playmates. :santa But then, THEY, moved in. It went from lipstick lesbians to holy sh!t I hope she doesn't sit on me :shocked :brownbag :lowblow

Oh well, maybe in another life :histerica

BTW....who gives a flying fawk if gays want to get married. It's their bidniz not mine. I do my own thing.

Interesting points BXL, but pointing out other places where discrimination runs rampant within our government and the seeming insurmountable struggle one would face in correcting them still doesn't justify any of them. That's akin to saying: "It's too hard to change course so don't bother trying, and let's just continue along the same wrong path we've been on".

Sorry. The idea that you want to extend an additional, non-existent right to any group of people merely because of their lifestyle choice does not provide adequate reason or legal logic to do so.

Let’s keep in mind the fact that no one is denying gays the right to marry. The denial is the “right” (non-existent in the 400 years of successful Western society on the North American Continent) to marry someone of the same gender. Anyone homosexual who cares to may, under most circumstances, marry anyone they like.

To that end, there is no legally compelling reason to extend a previously non-existent right to anyone for anything.


The problem with that logic is that if we continue along that same path of discrimination more and more groups of Americans will suffer from our government's propensity for enacting new laws that take even more rights away from us simply because our lawmakers feel the need to wrongly impose their own moral, ethical, and religious beliefs upon us.

So… what “rights” have been “taken away from you?” And why is it this issue that you defend so strongly? Why aren’t you advocating the ending of affirmative action? Why don’t you fight to end discrimination by the military against women in combat? Why don’t you fight to end discrimination against men on college campuses, where 56% and climbing of all graduates are female?

There are so many forms of discrimination that you, and so many others, just accept. Yet here, on this issue, you draw the line?

And let’s remember: your concern over “our lawmakers feel[ing] the need to wrongly impose their moral, ethical, and religious beliefs upon us” is solved by the exercise of democracy. Because any time anyone is elected to any law-making office, you are also electing their moral, ethical and religious beliefs. They are no more separable from themselves then they would be from you.

Even politicians who may actually SUPPORT gay marriage are doing that very thing… attempting to impose THEIR morals, ethics and religious beliefs (or lack of them) on us. In this instance, you merely point out that you only object to such a practice when the end product is something you don’t support. Frankly, I don’t believe you can have it both ways.


That's just criminal, shouldn't be tolerated, and we shouldn't have to fight now to reverse this course because it shouldn't have ever been followed in the first place.

Actually, things are “criminal” only when a law has been violated. If such a thing is “criminal” merely because YOU say so, then anyone else could say that ALL homosexual conduct is “criminal” merely because THEY say so.

Speaking of “criminal,” would you think that the lesbian Justice on the Massachusetts Supreme Court who ruled in favor of gay marriage should have recused herself? I mean, God forbid that SHE would impose HER “moral, ethical and religious beliefs" on US…. Right?


In the past similar battles have been fought, and courses were reversed. Women can now vote, and serve in the military. Blacks can now vote. And in the state of Massachusetts Gays can now legally 'form a union'.

And for women to serve and blacks to vote, both required a compelling legal interest to do so. And while women do serve, that service is severely restricted, is it not? And you do understand that the Supreme Court decision in Mass declared that “unions” were unconstitutional and that only marriage would do, don’t you?

“BOSTON — The Massachusetts high court ruled today that only full, equal marriage rights for gay couples — rather than civil unions — would be constitutional, erasing any doubts that the nation's first same-sex marriages could take place in the state beginning in mid-May.”


These newly given rights should have never been made illegal in the first place.

These rights are “non-existent,“ to the extent that no gay is denied the right to marry anyone so choosing, as long as they are of the opposite gender.

I wrote:

Quote:
Sorry. denying marriage to same sex couples has nothing to do with telling you, or anyone else, how to live their life.

You replied:

Sure it does! It's telling same sex couples that they can't live married lives like opposite-sex couples can.

NOT TRUE. Gays can marry someone just like straights can. They, EXACTLY LIKE STRAIGHTS, must marry someone of another gender. Further, since when does “living a married life” require a license from the state? People are living together all the time… doing everything that married couples do. Most rights of marriage can be included in a civil contract between the parties that has the exact same force of law. At this point, about the only legal thing denied gay couples is the issue of “married, filing jointly” on tax returns, an issue I have no problem fixing.

I wrote:

Quote:
Being gay is not illegal. Living with someone of the same sex, and/or engaging in sex acts with someone of the same sex in and of itself is not illegal.

You replied:

You'd think they weren't, but think again. There are so many bizzare sex laws in this country comparable in idiocy to the one that banned same-sex marriages.
http://www.lectlaw.com/tsex.htm
http://www.sodomylaws.org/
http://www.weirdsexlaws.com/

Most of those laws were struck down by the Supreme Court in Lawrence and Garner v. Texas, case no. 02-0102. Any remaining are not being enforced, and, therefore have no force in law, which goes to my initial observation concerning homosexual legality.


I wonder how many of those insane laws you were ever guilty of.

Kinky. Let’s talk about leather.


Well only time will tell on that one.

Nope. The writing is on the wall, and gay marriage is DOA.


***On a side note***
You are just as guilty as anyone else here that doled out personal attacks so you have no right to chastise anyone for it. You too have pretty large dents in your credibility for doing both.

Thank you for assuming the role of thread police. But you should also admit that my initial efforts on this thread had nothing to do with personal attacks. I merely rose to the occasion.


And when did I ever say that I admired Bill Clinton? :wacko

You mean he isn’t one of those “religious zealots” you were talking about here:

If religion stayed separate from government like it should be this issue would've never arisen, but unfortunately our government is loaded with religious zealots that get off imposing their moral and religious ideals on the very people they're supposed to represent.

Sorry. I obviously misunderstood.

At least Bush won't get any votes from San Francisco!