Same-sex marriages

[Topper Harley]

Originally posted by header
Maybe I'm a brainwashed right-wing conservative wacko but hey I know you'll love me just the same.

I don't know man. This makes me want to secede from the "er" triplets. Your right-wing fanatacism is giving us a bad name.

[header]

60 called my comment dumb. Is that exactly bad press?

[Sloats]

Originally posted by 60FeetUnderWater

Originally posted by header

The big fear is that it will lead to nambla pushing for man boy marriage

What?? Please tell me you were joking.

If you were actually serious then this is, by far, the stupidest thing I've ever seen you post. (first time for everything I guess)

Last time I checked, homosexuals are human beings who deserve the same inalienable rights that heterosexuals deserve. That's the bottom line; end of discussion.

All of you bible bangers; take your religious slant and shove it.


Oddly enough, I decided not too long ago that I was finally going to participate in the voting process in this upcoming presidential election and when Dubya announced his stance against giving gays their right to marriage, he lost my vote right there.

Dubya, I don't give a fuck what your God thinks or says about homosexuals...I mean, Hello??? Seperation of church and state, douchebag.

It's separation of church and state, not separation of church FROM state. The government was set up is such a way that there would be no officially sanctioned religion (like England and Middle Age Europe), but it was never intended that decisions would be made in absence of religious beliefs.

[header]

Separation of church and state is too often misinterpreted. So much so that I find myself unable to explain it to anyone. So thanks.

[Topper Harley]

i always thought it meant that church had to go to a different school than state

[60FeetUnderWater]

that would be "segregation of church and state", Topper.

Header - I called your point "stupid", let's not misquote, sir. That would be bad press.


Sloats - Unless you were there, back in 1776 or so, how would you know what the true intention of "sepearation of church & state" was?

It's pretty clear to me - all the citizens who live under this government would have the right to worship whichever diety they pleased. How does that translate "seperation of church and state" to mean: "We, the People will base any and all future laws on that of the Bible"?

Quite simply, it's bullshit that we see various government figures urging to push their religious beliefs through the creation and enforcement of various laws.

It's apparent that the WASP segment of our governent still yields the power still to this very day. Don't you think it's a bit funny to see how certain officials cringe at the idea of those in the Iraqi Interim Government/Council pushing for Islamic values into their constitution, scoffing at such a notion yet applaud Bush for pursing to ratify such an oppressive amendment?

Hypocrisy at its' finest.

To deny homosexuals thier right to "unions" or "marriages" (whatever you want to call it) is simply inhumane and contradictory to our "Land of the Free" mantra.

Our president claims victory as we go to Afghanistan and beyond and fight for freedom for oppressed citizens of thrid world countries, but this very same president wants to limit the rights of his own fellow americans, just because they prefer the same sex when being intimate?

There is no rationale to counter this point; Any and all reasons against my point is based in outdated, questionably fanatical, religiously flavored bullshit.

Fuck your God. Those who fight in His name, hiding under the vail of righteousness, is ultimately an oppressor.

If I could, I'd ask our presiident:

Who the fuck are you to tell a homosexual that he/she can't have a government recognized bond, affording them the opportunity to raise a family with his/her "life partner", solely because it went against the laws of any particular religious establishment?

Last time I checked, this wasn't "Land of the Free, Oppressors of the Gay".

[Crackle]

Man are you stupid. You've got the whole church and state thing so convoluted in your head that you've changed freedom of religion, to freedom from religion.

Who the fuck are you to tell a homosexual that he/she can't have a government recognized bond, affording them the opportunity to raise a family with his/her \"life partner\", solely because it went against the laws of any particular religious establishment?

There is wide spread support for recognized legal civil union of gays. The same rights as being married. It's the word "married" that is causing the problem. Gays want the word married, not civil union. The whole thing is about semantics. As I said before, it's a red herring.

[60FeetUnderWater]

Crackle, let's take a look at a dictionary.com entry, shall we?

mar·riage ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mrj)
n.

The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
The state of being married; wedlock.
A common-law marriage.
A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.

All I'm saying is that THAT bolded section of the definition of marriage is what the laws should enforce, if anything.

not the christian-approved version.

And another thing, YES, I do expect to have freedom OF & FROM religion as well.

Heaven forbid I choose to live a life that isn't based around the beliefs of any particular religion.

[The Brain]

<i>We hold these truths to be self evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.</i>
-- Thomas Jefferson, <i>Declaration of Independence</i>

The very foundation of our country states that "all men"-- which we can now infer in a more modern age to mean adult humans of either gender-- are ceratin <u>unalienable</u> rights. That means these rights are never to be denied to any of us, for any reason.

If the "pursuit of happiness" for Tom is to get hitched to Joe, or for Tina to be married to Jane, then so be it, bless the happy couple, and let's move on. We simply put do not have the authority to impinge on their rights.

[60FeetUnderWater]

Thank you Brain. I should have just posted TJ's quote in the frst place. Even though I already tried driving that point home, some people can't comprehend

Posted earlier by me, obviously not read by Crackle

Last time I checked, homosexuals are human beings who deserve the same inalienable rights that heterosexuals deserve. That's the bottom line; end of discussion.

Brain, w're so silly and stupid, regarding homosexuals as an equal to fellas like ourselves, fellow heterosexuals. Egads. How dare we.