Federal Marriage Amendment

[storch]

Originally posted by Gunslinger
How about because I dont want what I have with my wife to be equaled to what 2 men may have with each other.  

What's wrong w/ civil unions?

Why do you imediatly brush off somthing that might be associated with faith?

Sandman our laws are designed to keep govt. out of religion not religion out of govt.

what about the people that dont approve of a gay lifestyle....you just write them off as inbread rednecks?

How about the fact that I dont want a minority opinion deciding what is considered normal?

Do I not have the right to have marriage defined as being between a man and a woman?

You guys immediatly stick your heads in the sand as soon as something smacks of religion or being from a republican.

You cannot go to some beaches in South Florida with small children unless you are prepared to answer why those two boys are kissing.  Thankfully we have boats and can go to places inaccesible otherwise.  That is an infringement upon my civil rights.

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by Sandman
Legally, there should be no difference.



Nothing. Should be open to all, hetero or otherwise



Because I am a godless heathen.



Actually, the 1st Amendment works both ways.



I never used the term, but what the hell... I like it.



The Consitution was written to avoid tyranny by the majority.



Within your own home, sure. Knock yourself out.

 

Bush is Hitler?

wow not even an effort.  Well, OK a little effort.

[crowMAW]

Originally posted by Gunslinger
How about because I dont want what I have with my wife to be equaled to what 2 men may have with each other.  

So to you the phrases, "with liberty and justice for all" and "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..." mean nothing to you.  You feel that homos are less equal to you, just as many Southern whites felt that blacks are less equal.  Is that what you are saying?

Originally posted by Gunslinger
What's wrong w/ civil unions?

Aside from the word, what is the difference between that and a civil marriage?

Originally posted by Gunslinger
Why do you imediatly brush off somthing that might be associated with faith?

Sandman our laws are designed to keep govt. out of religion not religion out of govt.

And where do you draw the line?  If you are trying to legislate morality based on religious preference, then is it OK to provide fewer rights to non-Christians?  Aren't non-Christians immoral and therefore fair game for discriminatory legislation?

Originally posted by Gunslinger
what about the people that dont approve of a gay lifestyle

I don't approve of that lifestyle either, but what are you proposing to do with those who are gay, if you don't approve of them?  Second class citizenship?  Pink triangle arm bands? Concentration camps?

I also don't approve of the behavior of a lot of Christians...should my views take precedence over theirs?

Originally posted by Gunslinger
How about the fact that I dont want a minority opinion deciding what is considered normal?

So you are saying that it is OK for the majority to discriminate against a minority?

Originally posted by Gunslinger
Do I not have the right to have marriage defined as being between a man and a woman?

For yourself...sure.  Why do you feel you should have the supreme right to define it that way for people you have never met and have committed no trespass against you?

Originally posted by Gunslinger
You guys immediatly stick your heads in the sand as soon as something smacks of religion or being from a republican.

Actually, it seems to me that you are sticking your head in the sand and trying to believe that homos don't exist.  It looks like you think that by Constitutionally defining marriage that it will somehow discourage gays from being.  That seems awfully nieve.  I may not approve of their preference, but it is apparent that they have existed since at least Biblical times and long before.

[eskimo2]

Originally posted by Gunslinger
I care becuase it repulses me and it is an obomination.  

Think about how frightening this concept is.  This is a very dangerous reason to create laws.  You can justify any law or behavior with this line of thinking.  This is practically the foundation of many of the most corrupt laws ever under any government/regime.

eskimo

[FUNKED1]

Originally posted by Curval
Complete sillyness.  Don't your legislators have anything better to do?

[storch]

Originally posted by FUNKED1

well our expresident had lots of time for fellatio

[FUNKED1]

Show me a man who doesn't want his knob polished by young ladies and I'll show you a homo.

[storch]

Originally posted by FUNKED1
Show me a man who doesn't like to want his knob polished by young ladies and I'll show you a homo.

I used to like to get slobbed by a young lady but she's older now so an old lady will do for me thanks.

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by crowMAW
So to you the phrases, "with liberty and justice for all" and "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..." mean nothing to you.  You feel that homos are less equal to you, just as many Southern whites felt that blacks are less equal.  Is that what you are saying?

So how does a gay man have any less rights than me.  He has the same right as me.....he can marry a woman but chooses not to.  This is a basic fundamental of nature.  I'm not saying lock them all up and ship them to camps.  I'm saying quite redefining human existance.  

Aside from the word, what is the difference between that and a civil marriage?

aside from the word why do they have to redefine an institution that's thousands of years old?

And where do you draw the line?  If you are trying to legislate morality based on religious preference, then is it OK to provide fewer rights to non-Christians?  Aren't non-Christians immoral and therefore fair game for discriminatory legislation?

Sorry but I do not want my kids growing up in a society were immoral behavior is redefined as normal.  Yes I consider homosexuality as immoral.  That has nothing to do w/ my religious beliefs....again they have the same rights as me.

I don't approve of that lifestyle either, but what are you proposing to do with those who are gay, if you don't approve of them?  Second class citizenship?  Pink triangle arm bands? Concentration camps?

now you are reaching here.

I also don't approve of the behavior of a lot of Christians...should my views take precedence over theirs?

I dont either....I'm not basing this on christian views but of on mine

So you are saying that it is OK for the majority to discriminate against a minority?

so you are saying its ok for the minority to rule over the majority by creating laws were they werent meant to be created in the first place

For yourself...sure.  Why do you feel you should have the supreme right to define it that way for people you have never met and have committed no trespass against you?

why should they feel they have the supreme right to redefine something I've beleived in for a long time.
 

Actually, it seems to me that you are sticking your head in the sand and trying to believe that homos don't exist.  It looks like you think that by Constitutionally defining marriage that it will somehow discourage gays from being.  That seems awfully nieve.  I may not approve of their preference, but it is apparent that they have existed since at least Biblical times and long before.

I dont approve of them....that doesnt mean I want all them tattood and boot stomped by skin heads.

Look I can answer all of your questions with questions all night long.  We live in a country were our laws should be written by the legislative branch and not by the judicial branch.  This amendment garuntees that CONSTITUTIONAL right.

I agree with this amendment and will support any govt official with my vote who beleives in it as well.  Its not a number one deciding factor for me but a big one.

You write off my beleifs as religious or old fasion but than who are you to say what I beleive it.  All I did was announce my support for the amendment and why and out came the concentration camp remarks.  what about people like me WHO ARE A MAJORITY IN THIS COUNTRY.....you can just write us off as Nazis?

[demaw1]

Sabre couldnt have said it better

   funny thing people dont understand any more ,if you let the unelected get by with doing things the elected are suppose to do,one day the unelected will puncture your goard, then what will u do.

[crowMAW]

Originally posted by Gunslinger
So how does a gay man have any less rights than me.  He has the same right as me

He/she does not have the right to marry the person they love and desire as a sexual partner. You and I have that right.  They do not.

Are their benefits to the legal recognition of marriage?  If so then they are denied those rights as well.

Originally posted by Gunslinger
Sorry but I do not want my kids growing up in a society were immoral behavior is redefined as normal.

Well, teach your children about the behaviors you find moral.  But otherwise, get used to it and stop meddling with other people's lives...there are lots of legal behaviors out in the USA --and world for that matter-- that your kids are going to be exposed to, which you may find immoral.  I'm sure you are a good parent and role model, so studmuffins getting married shouldn't effect them at all as adults.  What are you afraid of regarding your kids should Dick and Peter get married?

Originally posted by Gunslinger
so you are saying its ok for the minority to rule over the majority by creating laws were they werent meant to be created in the first place

How are the minority curtailing your rights in this case?

Originally posted by Gunslinger
why should they feel they have the supreme right to redefine something I've beleived in for a long time.

They are not redefining your beliefs...have your beliefs changed since a few of them got married in SF?  It seems they are asking to recieve the same privalages and legal recognition that hetro married couples get.  Rights that they are currently denied.

[Silat]

Originally posted by Martlet
It's not that anything will "happen".  Marriage was legalized here in Massachusetts, too.  Nothing has "happened".  

That isn't the issue.  Traditionalists are concerned, legitimately, that it changes what marriage for them is all about.  That concern isn't right or wrong.  The problem doesn't lie with people's views, it lies with the state's involvement in marriage.

The state should be legitimizing unions for tax and rights reasons.  Leave the marrying up to the church.

Traditionalists is way to nice a term for those who want their beliefs forced on others.
And the "Christian" marriage must be in real trouble if they are concerned that someone they dont know may affect their marriage.
Hetero's , Homo's and bi's have been part of mankinds makeup since the beginning. So if you happen to be a believer then it must be your Gods plan.

[SOB]

Originally posted by Gunslinger
aside from the word why do they have to redefine an institution that's thousands of years old?

Well, I hate to be a stickler, but civil marriage in the United States isn't thousands of years old.  And that's what this is about, civil marriage.

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by crowMAW
He/she does not have the right to marry the person they love and desire as a sexual partner. You and I have that right.  They do not.

How are the minority curtailing your rights in this case?

They are not redefining your beliefs...have your beliefs changed since a few of them got married in SF?  It seems they are asking to recieve the same privalages and legal recognition that hetro married couples get.  Rights that they are currently denied.

THEY HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS AS EVERYONE ELSE.  


The Majority of this country does not wish same sexes to be able to marry.  No one is trampling their rights they choose to be different.  If the Majority does not feel something should be allowed in a democracy it does not.....

you may argue that a person doesnt choose to be gay and was born this way....

So if a man is sick enough to love children and he was born this way and did "choose it"  Should we let pedophelia become a way of life.....why trample on their right to love.....what about bestiality??????  were do you stop?

You can write this off as silly all you want but 40 years ago you would have thaught the same thing about a Gay marriage.  Well today we have groups that advocate pedophilia and are even task themselves with providing legal deffense for offenders

were does this end.  Give them civil unions and all the same benies associated with it and be done with it.

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by Silat
Traditionalists is way to nice a term for those who want their beliefs forced on others.
And the "Christian" marriage must be in real trouble if they are concerned that someone they dont know may affect their marriage.
Hetero's , Homo's and bi's have been part of mankinds makeup since the beginning. So if you happen to be a believer then it must be your Gods plan.

Silat what about non-traditionalist forcing their views on me.  That seems to be what's happening here.  If its christian it must be bad right?

I just had de ja vu really bad right now