Jayruss 0 #276 February 27, 2004 Quote No I didn't. I used the word homosexual not gay. I think that sex is the essence of homosexuality. ok, so what's your bases for this assumption? First hand experience? What you’ve observed? You know, a reason for your position. __________________________________________________ "Beware how you take away hope from another human being." -Oliver Wendell Holmes Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Keith 0 #277 February 27, 2004 QuoteNo I didn't. I used the word homosexual not gay. I think that sex is the essence of homosexuality. Then you'd have to agree that the basis of all heterosexual relationships is sex. Not emotional bonds, respect, caring, simple attraction, just sex.Keith Don't Fuck with me Keith - J. Mandeville Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #278 February 27, 2004 QuoteThen you'd have to agree that the basis of all heterosexual relationships is sex. Not emotional bonds, respect, caring, simple attraction, just sex. I'd agree with that... errr I mean uhh...for those other insensitive guys. For me, I find that sex brings out the caring, sensitive, gentle side of me for the entire 12 minutes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
velo90 0 #279 February 27, 2004 Just popping back into this thread again after a long absence. Despite what I may have said earlier in this thread I have changed my mind. I was wrong. Gay's should have the right to get married. They can also bring up children. A gay couple that wants to marry should have the same rights as a straight couple that wants to get married. When Ron complained about costs, I call B.S. on that one. Just how many gay people does he think are out there? If I have offended any gay people with my earlier post's, I apologize. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Keith 0 #280 February 27, 2004 QuoteIf I have offended any gay people with my earlier post's, I apologize. Group Huuuug Keith Don't Fuck with me Keith - J. Mandeville Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #281 February 27, 2004 Man, he walked right into that one. Now all the gay people want to hug him. It's part of the plot to overcome his hetero tendencies. The foot is in the door now. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bodypilot90 0 #282 February 28, 2004 In 1996, Congress overwhelmingly passed the Defense of Marriage Act to define marriage under federal law as a legal union between a man and a woman as husband and wife. President Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act into law after it passed the House 342-67 and the Senate 85-14. In all, 38 states have passed similar defensive of marriage laws - demonstrating an overwhelming consensus for protecting the institution of marriage. Recently, activist judges and local officials have aggressively attempted to redefine marriage. The Massachusetts Supreme Court narrowly approved a ruling that will require Massachusetts to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples in May. City officials in San Francisco have issued thousands of marriage licenses to same-sex couples - directly contradicting a California law, which clearly defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman. In New Mexico, a county began to issue marriage licenses to applicants of the same gender. President Bush called on Congress "to promptly pass, and to send to the states for ratification, an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of man and woman as husband and wife." This amendment should fully protect the sanctity of marriage while enabling state legislatures to make their own decisions about defining legal arrangements other than marriage. Without action, more arbitrary court decisions, litigation, and defiance of the law can be expected. More than 200 years of American law and thousands of years of human experience should not be arbitrarily changed by a handful of judges and local authorities. The Constitution says that "full faith and credit" must be given by each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. Some advocates for same-sex marriage will argue that all states and cities must recognize same-sex marriages performed anywhere in America. Congress attempted to address this problem in the Defense of Marriage Act, which declared that no state must accept another state's definition of marriage. The Bush Administration will vigorously defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court, but an activist court could strike it down - forcing every state to recognize any relationship that a handful of judges or local officials choose to call marriage. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gary350 0 #283 February 28, 2004 Found this official(?) GOP policy poster at whitehouse.org Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,112 #284 February 28, 2004 >More than 200 years of American law and thousands of years of > human experience should not be arbitrarily changed by a handful of > judges and local authorities. But imprisoning someone without charging them with anything, searches without producing a warrant, keeping people from legal representation - well, those are minor arbitrary changes. It's hardly worth mentioning when a ruler takes away those constitutional rights; he must have a good reason. Heck, I'm sure we don't need those amendments anyway. We should dump then in favor of an important amendment, the first one in history to _remove_ rights from americans! That way we can look forward to a day when the government tells us what we can, rather than what we can't, do. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
WeakMindedFool 0 #285 February 28, 2004 Second one. 18 the was the first, repealed 10 years later by the 21st cuase taking away rights is A BAD IDEA!Faith in a holy cause is to a considerable extent a substitute for lost faith in ourselves. -Eric Hoffer - Check out these Videos Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
