NO on Prop 8 (California)

[chadkal 0]

really...... so you're okay with beastiality?

--------------------------------------------------
I am a greek midget

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>On my own.

Cool, so we agree.

>That is why a SC should not make a law agreeing with gay marriage.

Again, I agree. They should decide that people have the right to make their own decisions, just as they did in the 1960's when they decided that whites had the right to marry blacks. No new laws were made. They just decided that people did indeed have that right.

>Yet again striking down a state constitutional vote to make marriage a non gay union.

Right. Just as they did in 1967.

Then the vote on Prop 8 will stand, as it should.

Thanks for helping me understand your postition

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

Quote

>So you think that Congres should make law against a religious belief.

Nope. Congress should let people decide who they want to marry, and not make laws for or against any religious beliefs.

Well then we agree. Courts and congress should not make a law that says gays can be married. They can be joined under the eyes of the law however. Since being married has a religous meaning

Thanks, we agree

Unfortunately for you it also has a LEGAL meaning, and until it doesn't, denying the right of an American Citizen to get married is discrimination, Discrimination is illegal.

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[labrys 0]

Quote

So you approve of laws against religion.

Nice try. Never said that, never would. Put the straw man to bed.

Owned by Remi #?

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

>So you think that Congres should make law against a religious belief.

Nope. Congress should let people decide who they want to marry, and not make laws for or against any religious beliefs.

Well then we agree. Courts and congress should not make a law that says gays can be married. They can be joined under the eyes of the law however. Since being married has a religous meaning

Thanks, we agree

Unfortunately for you it also has a LEGAL meaning, and until it doesn't, denying the right of an American Citizen to get married is discrimination, Discrimination is illegal.

No its not, not if there is a path where the same rights can be realized.

The LEGAL meaning has a root. That is important too

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[livendive 8]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

> Why redefine what many call a holy union?

For the same reason you want to redefine it as a holy union, I suppose.

So you think that Congres should make law against a religious belief.

A law that prohibits gays from marrying is a law against a religious belief. A law that allowed gays to marry would be a law that allowed freedom of religion.

Blues,
Dave

Hmm, intersesting point. Do you know of a church that agrees gays should be allowed to marry?

Real question as I have not learned of one.

Should they want to be married in such a church I would re look at my position. But to generally say gays should be allowed to marry as opposed to a civil union, genreally, I feel is an attack agains most religions that I am aware of.

There's a minister in this video firmly in favor of marriage, regardless of the genders of the parties. The Alliance of Baptists "affirms" same-sex marriage, as does the United Church of Christ.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

So you approve of laws against religion.

Nice try. Never said that, never would. Put the straw man to bed.

Not a stawman. The result is exactly what I stated (at least from my perspective)

I cant say or know I am right under the law but, within my beliefs I am.

And for hells sake, dont call me a bigot or homphob cause I beleve they should be allowed equal recognation under the law

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

> Why redefine what many call a holy union?

For the same reason you want to redefine it as a holy union, I suppose.

So you think that Congres should make law against a religious belief.

A law that prohibits gays from marrying is a law against a religious belief. A law that allowed gays to marry would be a law that allowed freedom of religion.

Blues,
Dave

Hmm, intersesting point. Do you know of a church that agrees gays should be allowed to marry?

Real question as I have not learned of one.

Should they want to be married in such a church I would re look at my position. But to generally say gays should be allowed to marry as opposed to a civil union, genreally, I feel is an attack agains most religions that I am aware of.

There's a minister in this video firmly in favor of marriage, regardless of the genders of the parties. The Alliance of Baptists "affirms" same-sex marriage, as does the United Church of Christ.

Blues,
Dave

Something for me to consider

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,118]

>so you're okay with beastiality?

Not at all. I think it's disgusting.

[billvon 3,118]

>Then the vote on Prop 8 will stand, as it should.

Uh - no. The decision in 1967 struck down the anti-interracial-marriage laws and let people choose their own partners. No new laws were written. The Supreme Court just looked at that state's law and said "nope, that violates the right called out in the US Constitution." A similar decision should come about in this case.

You can't seem to make up your mind on this one. You keep saying the government should let you make up your own mind on who to marry, and then in the next sentence you say you want the government to force you to marry only women. It's odd.

[chadkal 0]

but people should have the right to choose.....right? What about sex with dead animals, is that okay,.... where do you draw the line between someones "rights" and laws?

--------------------------------------------------
I am a greek midget

[billvon 3,118]

>What about sex with dead animals . . .

Like with a steak? If you want to do it, knock yourself out. I think it's pretty gross.

(Do you really think there should be a law against sex with a steak?)

>where do you draw the line between someones "rights" and laws?

When the exercise of those rights harms someone else. You have a right to swing your fist all you like, but that right ends when you hit someone else.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>Then the vote on Prop 8 will stand, as it should.

Uh - no. The decision in 1967 struck down the anti-interracial-marriage laws and let people choose their own partners. No new laws were written. The Supreme Court just looked at that state's law and said "nope, that violates the right called out in the US Constitution." A similar decision should come about in this case.

You can't seem to make up your mind on this one. You keep saying the government should let you make up your own mind on who to marry, and then in the next sentence you say you want the government to force you to marry only women. It's odd.

Whats the matter. Dont like your posts twisted like you do to others?

Please be more clear and less vauge if you want to be trully understood

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

So you approve of laws against religion.

Nice try. Never said that, never would. Put the straw man to bed.

Not a stawman. The result is exactly what I stated (at least from my perspective)

I cant say or know I am right under the law but, within my beliefs I am.

And for hells sake, dont call me a bigot or homphob cause I beleve they should be allowed equal recognation under the law

Equal to whom? As long as Marriage is a LEGAL concept in this country, and as long as you believe that homosexuals should not be able to LEGALLY marry, you don't believe in the equality of all American Citizens.

To have it your way, marriage must be removed as a legal concept, and probably replaced with a legal union of some sort for ALL.

Then your church, a homosexual tolerant church, and the church of the pink and green frutog, can all come up with whatever name for their bonding ceremony they like.

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[billvon 3,118]

>Dont like your posts twisted like you do to others?

?? I didn't see you twist my post. You are flip flopping at least once per post, but that's not the same as twisting someone else's post.

>Please be more clear and less vauge if you want to be trully understood

I think everyone but you understands me.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

So you approve of laws against religion.

Nice try. Never said that, never would. Put the straw man to bed.

Not a stawman. The result is exactly what I stated (at least from my perspective)

I cant say or know I am right under the law but, within my beliefs I am.

And for hells sake, dont call me a bigot or homphob cause I beleve they should be allowed equal recognation under the law

Equal to whom? As long as Marriage is a LEGAL concept in this country, and as long as you believe that homosexuals should not be able to LEGALLY marry, you don't believe in the equality of all American Citizens.

To have it your way, marriage must be removed as a legal concept, and probably replaced with a legal union of some sort for ALL.

Then your church, a homosexual tolerant church, and the church of the pink and green frutog, can all come up with whatever name for their bonding ceremony they like.

Yet another stretch.

The churchs I have attended welcome gays. They have no problem they are together. They just belive "marriage" is between a man and a women. I have yet to see a church say that gays should not have the same legal rights as man and women couple (there are extreems and outliers in any example as have been demonstrated within this thread).

As for the name of the union, gays could do the same. I only make the point with less insult

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>Dont like your posts twisted like you do to others?

?? I didn't see you twist my post. You are flip flopping at least once per post, but that's not the same as twisting someone else's post.

>Please be more clear and less vauge if you want to be trully understood

I think everyone but you understands me.

I have not flipped at all. I have been very consistant in my point. But I see you need to dispute that to make a point?

Hmmm, now that is interesting

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[chadkal 0]

So this man was within his rights,... he did nothing wrong,... is that what you are saying? http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/03/22/deer_man_convicted

--------------------------------------------------
I am a greek midget

[Conundrum 1]

Quote

Quote

Where have I presented 'hate' in any of these posts? I'm simply trying to understand how gays getting "married" effects you at all and why you think you have the right to make it the law.

edit: and by the way, are you seriously telling me to be open minded while taking another breath and saying gays shouldn't be allowed to get 'married'?

Wow.

Where have I said that gays, that want to be seen as legal couples, should not be seen the same under any law?

Ooooooh, you mean the same, but with a different name.

How is that the same again? And if it's the same, why not call it marriage?

[labrys 0]

Do you believe that a man should be allowed to marry a woman?

Owned by Remi #?

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Where have I presented 'hate' in any of these posts? I'm simply trying to understand how gays getting "married" effects you at all and why you think you have the right to make it the law.

edit: and by the way, are you seriously telling me to be open minded while taking another breath and saying gays shouldn't be allowed to get 'married'?

Wow.

Where have I said that gays, that want to be seen as legal couples, should not be seen the same under any law?

Ooooooh, you mean the same, but with a different name.

How is that the same again? And if it's the same, why not call it marriage?

Back at you, why does it need/have to be?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

Yet another stretch.

The churchs I have attended welcome gays. They have no problem they are together. They just belive "marriage" is between a man and a women. I have yet to see a church say that gays should not have the same legal rights as man and women couple (there are extreems and outliers in any example as have been demonstrated within this thread).

As for the name of the union, gays could do the same. I only make the point with less insult

Not a stretch at all. There is no doubt that in this country a marriage is a legal concept. It may, depending on which church you subscribe to, ALSO be a religious concept.

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[billvon 3,118]

>I have not flipped at all

Q:Would you rather the government made your religious (and marriage) choices for you, or would you rather decide on your own?

A:On my own

RushMC:But to generally say gays should be allowed to marry as opposed to a civil union, genreally, I feel is an attack agains most religions that I am aware of.

So you want to be able to make your decisions on religion and marriage on your own in one post. In another post, you want the government to force you to marry someone of the opposite sex.

I have a feeling what you really mean is "I want all the freedoms I currently have; I just don't want gays to have them." Which is a valid opinion, but one I disagree with.

[Conundrum 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Where have I presented 'hate' in any of these posts? I'm simply trying to understand how gays getting "married" effects you at all and why you think you have the right to make it the law.

edit: and by the way, are you seriously telling me to be open minded while taking another breath and saying gays shouldn't be allowed to get 'married'?

Wow.

Where have I said that gays, that want to be seen as legal couples, should not be seen the same under any law?

Ooooooh, you mean the same, but with a different name.

How is that the same again? And if it's the same, why not call it marriage?

Back at you, why does it need/have to be?

Don't feel like answering?

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>I have not flipped at all

Q:Would you rather the government made your religious (and marriage) choices for you, or would you rather decide on your own?

A:On my own

RushMC:But to generally say gays should be allowed to marry as opposed to a civil union, genreally, I feel is an attack agains most religions that I am aware of.

So you want to be able to make your decisions on religion and marriage on your own in one post. In another post, you want the government to force you to marry someone of the opposite sex.

I have a feeling what you really mean is "I want all the freedoms I currently have; I just don't want gays to have them." Which is a valid opinion, but one I disagree with.

Again you put words in others mouth of others.

I have in not one post said I want to denie anyone the same rights have I.

Sorry you cant get it or reply in any other way

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln