America catches up to the modern world (slowly)

[Thud]

Massachusetts leads the way

.

[capt. apathy]

too bad, on the road to hell, I'll let another country take point.  no shame in falling behind on that trip.

btw-  I'm sure it's not the final word on the subject but the latest here is the courts have allowed an initiative vote to go through,  assuming all the needed signatures are gathered, Oregon will be allowing the people to vote on the issue of defining marriage as only between a man and a woman.  if the courts don't get involved again, that should shut down the gay marriage thing around here for awhile.

[Capt. Pork]

Originally posted by Thud
Massachusetts leads the way

.

So, Thud, are you going to have your wedding in SF or Cambridge?

[Nilsen]

I have a friend who is GAy, and i know a couple of lesbians. They are outstanding people (maybe because they are not the kind of people that overdo their "thing", but act like normal people. I have no problem with them getting "married", but i do object to them beeing allowed to adopt. I think the child should not be forced into a same-sex thing when it will have such a huge impact on thier lives.


my 1000$

[Thud]

Originally posted by Capt. Pork
So, Thud, are you going to have your wedding in SF or Cambridge?

I prefer SF but you can make the final pick on our place, as long as you let me choose the dress...

[lada]

Originally posted by Nilsen
I have a friend who is GAy, and i know a couple of lesbians. They are outstanding people
my 1000$

hell yes... lesbians are outstanding stuff... i agree

and send those money to me please


edit.: your post explain your white sweater pretty well

[capt. apathy]

I've known a few gays (that I knew of.  who knows how many that it just never came up?), I don't have a problem with gays as people.  it's the one aspect of their lives I have a problem with.  that one behavior in what may otherwise be a fine person.

but when you get married (legally.  they have been doing religious ceremony's in churches that allow it for years), you are having society and the gov't "sign off" on the behavior, sanction it and require everyone to recognize it.   that I have a problem with.

when you legalize gay marriage you are requiring everyone in this country to treat them as if they are husband and wife.  and the majority of us don't see it that way.  

it's not a 'gay bashing' thing, I feel the same way about any immoral behavior.  

it is possible to be excepting of the person without being excepting of some of their behavior.  and asking (no make the requiring) society to sanction and legitimize this behavior is a bit over the top for me.

[ravells]

Quote:

it's not a 'gay bashing' thing, I feel the same way about any immoral behavior.

And there, we have it all in a nutshell.

Ravs

[lasersailor184]

Nilsen, there are a lot of good gay people.  However, don't assume that whatever they are doing is right because they are good people.  Be it a good person or not, it's still wrong.

[BUG_EAF322]

let everybody decides what is good for them selves.

[Weavling]

Marrigae is a Christian institution, and the bible says a Man and a Woman.  Having the gov go in and redefining it IMO is wrong. If gays sought an union equal to marriage, that's fine.  But don't redefine something established by Christianity and force all the Christians to accept the new definition.  

Besides, to me, it seems like changing the definition of a religious institution goes against a supreme court ruling in 1971, in the case of  Lemon vs. Kurtzman

In the lemon test established by the ruling:  (cut and paste from link)

The government's action must not promote a particular religion or religious view;
The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion; and
The government's action must not result in an "excessive entanglement" of the government and religion.

It seems like it may violate the third rule, to me anyhow.  Maybe a violation of the second rule as well.  Anyone else agree?

[SOB]

Save us, Jebus!

[SOB]

Weavling, this is about civil marriage, not marriage in a church.

[Nilsen]

what if you invent a new religion that does not see same-sex couples as something nasty? I mean... if you only go by prooven eveidence there is really no religion that is spractised today that has a soild proven foundation. They are all based on old books that could have been written by anyone. Would the goverment then step in and tell everyone what is and what is not a "real" religion?

[txmx]

It's a joke and most sain people see it as such.