Senate debates Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage

[Joe]

I'd rather this not turn into a Gay Marriage Debate, but I just wanted to talk about this amendment that was turned down the other day and how it will affect any possibility of passing it.

WASHINGTON - The Senate on Wednesday rejected a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, dealing a defeat to President Bush and Republicans who hope to use the measure to energize conservative voters on Election Day.

Supporters knew they wouldn’t achieve the two-thirds vote needed to approve a constitutional amendment, but they had predicted a majority of votes. Instead, they fell one short, 49-48.

That was one vote more than they got last time the Senate voted on the matter, in 2004. Later that year, Republicans gained four seats in the Senate.

“We were hoping to get over 50 percent, but that didn’t happen today,” said Sen. David Vitter, R-La., one of the amendment’s supporters. “Eventually, Congress is going to have to catch up to the wisdom of the American people or the American people will change Congress for the better.”

“We’re not going to stop until marriage between a man and a woman is protected,” said Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan.

Wednesday’s vote fell 11 short of the 60 required to send the matter for an up-or-down tally in the Senate. The 2004 vote was 48-50.

Bush: ‘The people must be heard’
Bush said he was disappointed by the vote, but it often takes time to amend the Constitution.

“Our nation’s founders set a high bar for amending our Constitution and history has shown us that it can take several tries before an amendment builds the two-thirds support it needs in both houses of Congress,” the president said in a statement.

“My position on this issue is clear; marriage is the most fundamental institution of our society, and it should not be redefined by activist judges. The people must be heard on this issue,” the statement continued.

Supporters lost three key “yes” votes. Two Republicans changed their votes from yes in 2004 to no this time: Sens. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania. And Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., did not vote this time because he was traveling with Bush.

7 Republicans vote against
All told, seven Republicans voted to kill the amendment. The four others were Sens. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, Susan Collins of Maine, John McCain of Arizona, Olympia Snowe of Maine and John Sununu of New Hampshire.

Gregg said that in 2004, he believed the Massachusetts Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage in that state would undermine the prerogatives of other states, like his, to prohibit such unions.

“Fortunately, such legal pandemonium has not ensued,” Gregg said in a statement. “The past two years have shown that federalism, not more federal laws, is a viable and preferable approach.”

First of all, having personally known Gregg, this is a total shock to me.

But, since the Republicans not only didn't get the needed 60 for cloture, but they didn't even get the 50 they thought they'd get. How do you think this will affect it getting passed? The Republicans would not have had this passed even if all 7 Republicans that were against it voted for it. If it were the actually amendment, the Republicans would not need only 11 more votes, but 18.

In your opinion, how does this affect:
1) it getting passed in the Senate?
2) it getting passed in the House of Reps?
3) it getting ratified by 38 states?
4) it's affect on Republican seats in November?
a) more importantly, how dumb were Sen. Vitter's statements?

[Reaganista]

wow Republikkkan senator Arlen 'magic bullet' Specter manages to stop hating homosexuals?

maybe there's hope for amerikans in general, then.

[Against Miik!]

Good that it didn't pass. It astounds me though that not only grown educated men, but grown educated men who have achieved a position of power like this can be so ignorant.

[Britney Diva]

“We’re not going to stop until marriage between a man and a woman is protected,” said Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan.
I don't get why these people just can't say "I don't want gays marrying". They always have to cloak it in this "protecting marriage between a man and a woman" crap.

[Joe]

I don't get why these people just can't say "I don't want gays marrying". They always have to cloak it in this "protecting marriage between a man and a woman" crap.

I agree. It's really all they're saying. They're basically saying "gay people don't deserve the same rights we do."

Old, white, male conservatives have said that about women and minorities for hundreds of years and they've been lost quite a bit in the past few decades

[thedeadwalk!]

On Conan O'Brien:

Celebrity Survey: As the situation in Iraq worstens, we must not:

Hilary Clinton: Lose our morale.

John Kerry: Bring in more troops.

George Bush: Allow gay people to marry.

[AKid2]

Good that it didn't pass. It astounds me though that not only grown educated men, but grown educated men who have achieved a position of power like this can be so ignorant.

I feel the same way. It's an awful way to approach innate dispositions. What is the foundation for anti-gay marriage? Is it the bible?

[ringworm]

^^^ Uh, nature?

[italic zero]

Really? I had no idea raccoons were getting married nowadays.

[StreetlightRock]

Flies turn gay when the tempreture rises.

[italic zero]

Yeah but who wants to be like a fly.

[Amit]

Woohoo!

[PerpetualBurn]

“We’re not going to stop until marriage between a man and a woman is protected,”

I don't know whether to laugh or cry at how stupid that is.

[StreetlightRock]

Yeah but who wants to be like a fly.

Flies are free from the social order and dont have to abide by the standards set by the system of oppression that is prevalent in much of the world today. The Ultimate Anarchists. Who WOULDNT want to be a fly? :p

I mean, jeez, changing your sexual orientation depending on the Tempreture? The only dudes that got a one up on them are the Oysters. And no one f'ucks with the Oysters.

[PerpetualBurn]

Who WOULDNT want to be a fly?

One day lifespan?

[ringworm]

Who WOULDNT want to be a fly? :p

http://f5.putfile.com/6/15911033898.jpg (http://www.putfile.com)

[StreetlightRock]

*ahem* 2 weeks.

Long enough to Tear s'hit up (http://www.delijst.net/delijst/filedump/18+%20movie%20posters/Return%20of%20The%20Fly%20(1959).jpg). F'uck them swats.

Ill stop spamming now. Carry on.

In case no one got the Oyster thing, they change sex depending on the tempreture. I wont go into the sea munchkins that are asexual or the ones that do Penis fencing.

[ringworm]

Old, white, male conservatives have said that about women and minorities for hundreds of years and they've been lost quite a bit in the past few decades
And look at where we are now? :p

It's not about hating homosexuals, it's about a union that was designed for a man & woman, that's all.
They need to invent another type of union & leave marriage alone IMO.
They have all the rights ANY other person has, just not this one, what's the big deal, oh, yeah, insurance rates that are cheaper for them that will probably just make everyone elses skyrocket.

Marriage is SO straightlaced & Church oriented, I don't see why they would even want this. They are basically wanting an organization that thinks they are going to hell for their lifestyle to "marry" them? I don't get it.
I dont care what race, creed, lifestyle, etc you are, but leave an event that was designed for specific people alone.
To me all they are up to is trying to agrrevate these conservative "Old White Men" and nothing else.

Hopefully it will pass, but I doubt it.

[Jude]

In your opinion, how does this affect:
1) it getting passed in the Senate?
2) it getting passed in the House of Reps?
3) it getting ratified by 38 states?
4) it's affect on Republican seats in November?

1. Never had a chance
2. Never had a chance
3. Never had a chance
4. We'll see...I really don't know how important of an issue this is even to hardcore Republicans. It's clearly an attempt by Republicans to get their base all fired up for the elections, but they may also end up alienating more moderate members. I think the carryover from the anti-Bush sentiments will have a much bigger effect on November's elections than this.

I don't see why this is even an issue. If the state completely stayed out of the "marriage" business, we wouldn't have these problems. I don't know why the nuclear family is of such value to the state. Any two or more people who live together for an extended period of time (whether just friends, straight or gay lovers/spouses, siblings, whatever) should be able to get "marriage" benefits but that that's as far as it should go in the eyes of the law. Whether you're "married" or not can be dealt with in your individual religious or social group. It doesn't need to be legally sanctioned.

It's not about hating homosexuals, it's about a union that was designed for a man & woman, that's all.
Who cares though? If they followed my above suggestion it would be a non-issue.

Marriage is SO straightlaced & Church oriented, I don't see why they would even want this. They are basically wanting an organization that thinks they are going to hell for their lifestyle to "marry" them? I don't get it.
I dont care what race, creed, lifestyle, etc you are, but leave an event that was designed for specific people alone.
What? There's more to marriage than the traditional Christian conception.

To me all they are up to is trying to agrrevate these conservative "Old White Men" and nothing else.No. All the gay people are up to is trying to get legal recognition for something that straight people already have. The Old White Men are the ones trying to stop them because they think the state should be in the business of protecting religious and social traditions, which it should not.

[Steerpike]

My position on this issue is clear; marriage is the most fundamental institution of our society, and it should not be redefined by activist judges.

The fact that it isn't aside, has anyone else noticed that they're only activist judges if they disgree with you?

I don't get why these people just can't say "I don't want gays marrying". They always have to cloak it in this "protecting marriage between a man and a woman" crap.

Because "protecting the sanctity of marriage" sounds more righteous and holier-than-thou.

It's not about hating homosexuals, it's about a union that was designed for a man & woman, that's all.

Which we've managed to screw up quite effectively without gay people already. I fail to see how they'd make it any worse.

They need to invent another type of union & leave marriage alone IMO.

That's a superstitious idea at best.

They have all the rights ANY other person has, just not this one,

Have you tried saying that out loud?

Marriage is SO straightlaced & Church oriented,

Which is why the Mesopotamians invented it.

I don't see why they would even want this.

Oh, so now gay people can't be down with Jesus? Don't be hatin', yo.

They are basically wanting an organization that thinks they are going to hell for their lifestyle to "marry" them?

No, if they want to get married in a church, I'm sure they'd prefer a real follower of god to marry them, not some hypocritical "God hates fags" fundamentalist who is in reality about as holy and pious as any given atheist.

I dont care what race, creed, lifestyle, etc you are, but leave an event that was designed for specific people alone.

Again, have you ever tried saying that out loud?

To me all they are up to is trying to agrrevate these conservative "Old White Men" and nothing else.

Are you kidding? Those sum'bitches get angry over everything! You don't have ot consciously try to aggravate them.

Incidentally, I know a lot of gay people who would be most unhappy with your bullshit stereotyping.

[Reaganista]

Flies are free from the social order and dont have to abide by the standards set by the system of oppression that is prevalent in much of the world today. The Ultimate Anarchists. Who WOULDNT want to be a fly?
This is a good example of why anarchy is a stupid idea.

[peeted]

id have been very suprised if they had passed it.

[Steerpike]

Well, to keep on the topic, now that I realized I wasn't supposed to drag the actual gay marriage debate into this:

In your opinion, how does this affect:
1) it getting passed in the Senate?
2) it getting passed in the House of Reps?
3) it getting ratified by 38 states?
4) it's affect on Republican seats in November?

1. Ain't gonna happen. It's utterly stupid and pointless and more and more people are coming around to that conclusion.
2. Probably dead in the water.
3. Outside of the bible belt, it'll never fly.
4. Probably won't have the effect that some other decisions the party has been making will have.

[Reaganista]

144,000 single-issue voters will defect from the republikkkan party to some third party that hates gays much harder.

this won't matter because it'll happen in districts they'll win handedly anyway.

and because liberal democracy only creates the illusion of choice and all that

[ringworm]

Incidentally, I know a lot of gay people who would be most unhappy with your bullshit stereotyping.
What are they gonna do about it, give me a makeover & redecorate my pad :chug: j/k
Sorry TS for doin exactly what you said not to. /smacks self in face/

[PerpetualBurn]

Marriage is SO straightlaced & Church oriented, I don't see why they would even want this.

I've heard that Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, Sikhs, and atheists don't get married. You are smart.

[WhoDidTheElf]

Senate needs to get a spine and do what the large majority of people want them to do, instead of catering to a minority.

[Amit]

I've heard that Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, Sikhs, and atheists don't get married. You are smart.

Yep, us filthy heathens think marriage is pointless.

[Jude]

Senate needs to get a spine and do what the large majority of people want them to do, instead of catering to a minority.
Wait what are you referring to?

[WhoDidTheElf]

Wait what are you referring to?


Pass an amendment making gay marriage illegal...

[Jude]

Pass an amendment making gay marriage illegal...
Are you saying the majority wants that amendment?

[WhoDidTheElf]

Are you saying the majority wants that amendment?


Last couple polls I heard it was some were around 60% or something...

[Jude]

Last couple polls I heard it was some were around 60% or something...
:lol: Who'd they poll, the residents of Goat****, Nebraska?

[WhoDidTheElf]

:lol: Who'd they poll, the residents of Goat****, Nebraska?


Eh nevermind it was 58% percent who oppose it. My bad I was off by 2%.

[Reaganista]

to get a spine and do what the large majority of people want them to do, instead of catering to a minority
explain in the context of electoral politics how refusing to go along with the majority could ever be construed as a spineless act.

your figures are also bull****, btw, but we'll leave that go for now.

[WhoDidTheElf]

explain in the context of electoral politics how refusing to go along with the majority could ever be construed as a spineless act.

your figures are also bull****, btw, but we'll leave that go for now.


We the people elect them to represent us. They don't represent our views. What more is needed to be said?

And for my statistics. http://abcnews.go.com/US/Politics/story?id=2041689&page=1

Edit: You'll prolly shrug this one off since it's FoxNews but: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,198343,00.html

[Jude]

We the people elect them to represent us. They don't represent our views. What more is needed to be said?

Not much, we just elect different ones next time.

Not that anyone's going to get elected on a anti-gay marriage platform even IN Goat**** Nebraska.

[Reaganista]

We the people elect them to represent us. They don't represent our views. What more is needed to be said?

spineless means cowardly you insufferable moron.
what is cowardly about defying the voters and telling them they're wrong?
I can't think of a more courageous thing a politician could do within the context of her office.

And for my statistics. http://abcnews.go.com/US/Politics/story?id=2041689&page=1

asshat that says 42% support a constitutional amendment

far from a majority.

[WhoDidTheElf]

spineless means cowardly you insufferable moron.
what is cowardly about defying the voters and telling them they're wrong?
I can't think of a more courageous thing a politician could do within the context of her office.

What's spineless about it is the fact they are tring to get the votes of people who are also for gay marriage. They are trying to play both sides. And we elect politicians to represent us, not go and do what ever the flying **** they want. If you paid me to go represent you for a job interview and I walked it like a ****ed up hobo, and lost you the job, you'd be pretty pissed right?

As for the 42%. There are other polls that show 58% also believe it should be illegal. And to top it off. 45 of the 50 states have passed either amendments or laws that have banned same sex marriage. Why not just finish the ****ing job?

[SubtleDagger]

Who WOULDNT want to be a fly?
Jeff Goldblum

[Mr Pink Tulip]

Jeff Goldblum

http://www.horrordirectors.com/DavidCronenberg/fly04.jpg

I dont blame him, looks painful.

[Iskandar]

Why not just finish the ****ing job?
Because you Americans are supposed to protect against tyranny of the majority.

What if the remaining five states want same-sex marriage? Surely you concede they have the right to self-determination.

[WhoDidTheElf]

Because you Americans are supposed to protect against tyranny of the majority.

What if the remaining five states want same-sex marriage? Surely you concede they have the right to self-determination.


Why yes, yes they do.

[Iskandar]

Why yes, yes they do.
Then why were you talking of a federal ban on same-sex marriage, applicable to all states?

[WhoDidTheElf]

Then why were you talking of a federal ban on same-sex marriage, applicable to all states?


National issue?

[Jude]

National issue?
How is it even a political issue, much less a national one?

[WhoDidTheElf]

How is it even a political issue, much less a national one?


To address the national part. You get married in a state that allows same sex marriage and then move to one that doesn't....well you got a problem.

And every thing in America is a political issue.

[Jude]

To address the national part. You get married in a state that allows same sex marriage and then move to one that doesn't....well you got a problem.
Not if we take my 100% effective solution suggested a page or two ago which should satisfy everyone.

And every thing in America is a political issue.
It shouldn't be.

[Egggo]

To address the national part. You get married in a state that allows same sex marriage and then move to one that doesn't....well you got a problem.

You can buy firecrackers in Pennsylvania but not in my state (New Jersey).

FIRECRACKER AMENDMENT GOOGOGO

[Hababi]

What if the remaining five states want same-sex marriage? Surely you concede they have the right to self-determination.

Not under the current interpretation of the Constitution, and the way it's been interpreted since McCulogh (sic) vs Maryland. The national government represents the people as a whole and thus its decisions have precedence over individual states. Your position comes close to Jeffersons' Virginia & Kentucky resolutions.

Then again, I don't think you're particularly wrong. I wouldn't mind if they let states determine it, actually. Allow states like South Dakota and Oklahoma to explicitly define marriage as between one man and one woman, and allow Massachustes to change the definition for gays. Allow Oklahoma to not recognize the gay marriage licenses from Massachustes. Then the two gay people left in Oklahoma will move to Massachustes and everyone will be happy.

Also, allow South Dakota to ban abortion. And any other states that want to do so.

[Loser]

They need to invent another type of union & leave marriage alone IMO.


"Seperate but equal" eh?

[StreetlightRock]

This is a good example of why anarchy is a stupid idea.

*tsk-o*, looks like we have ourselves a sepceist.

Jeff Goldblum

Haha, touche.

[WhoDidTheElf]

It shouldn't be.

Quite true, but it is.


You can buy firecrackers in Pennsylvania but not in my state (New Jersey).

FIRECRACKER AMENDMENT GOOGOGO


In San Francisco you can by firecrackers, but in my city they're illegal.

If you find it overly offensive, then go get some one to lobby for you to have it amended. GOGOGOGOGO.

[Jude]

Quite true, but it is.


If we take my damn suggestion it wont be!

I should be the damn senate.

[WhoDidTheElf]

If we take my damn suggestion it wont be!

I should be the damn senate.

Monarchy ftw.

[Joe]

National issue?

Marriage is most definitely not a national issue. Period.

Any power that:
1) wasn't given to the government
2) was given to the government and the states
3) or wasn't given to either

is a state power. Marriage is a state issue and should never be a federal issue.

[RudeBoyStompin]

The fact that this is even an issue is ridiculous, let alone a government issue. Jebus. I can probably think of 1000 more important things to worry about than gays getting married.

[Jude]

Monarchy ftw.
*Judarchy

Or Judocracy? I can't decide which one I like more.

The fact that this is even an issue is ridiculous, let alone a government issue. Jebus. I can probably think of 1000 more important things to worry about than gays getting married.
That's why it's so important to the Republican party. They aren't going to get any more popular by focusing on things that actually matter.

Joe: Right the hell on. That amendment gets pissed on more than any other.

[Iskandar]

*Judarchy

Or Judocracy? I can't decide which one I like more.
Judarchy would be bastardized Greek for "the ruler is Jude," and Judocracy is bastardized Greek for "rule by Jude."

The first has a connotation of despotism, while the second could simply mean you're the ruler of the nation at the time being.

Take your pick. :)

[Jude]

Whoa, both are still pretty cool.

[Iskandar]

Whoa, both are still pretty cool.
Go for "Judarchy," just because despots are cool.

[Reaganista]

What's spineless about it is the fact they are tring to get the votes of people who are also for gay marriage.

trying to get the votes of a minority of the population leads to losing elections.

As for the 42%. There are other polls that show 58% also believe it should be illegal. And to top it off. 45 of the 50 states have passed either amendments or laws that have banned same sex marriage. Why not just finish the ****ing job?
because we already tried putting a ridiculous ****ing amendment in the constitution and nobody liked prohibition

[Ghoul Hunter]

I really hope we get a nationwide ban on this soon.

[Otherside]

because we already tried putting a ridiculous ****ing amendment in the constitution and nobody liked prohibition

The Mafia did :p

[Britney Diva]

Born Gay? pro/com
Nature v. Nurture? When is sexual orientation determinded?
www.BornGayProCon.org

[Jude]

Born Gay? pro/com
Nature v. Nurture? When is sexual orientation determinded?
www.BornGayProCon.org
Nobody can prove it but nobody except right wing idiots think that people choose to be gay so it's kind of a non-issue.

[Danger Bird]

Nobody can prove it but nobody except right wing idiots think that people choose to be gay so it's kind of a non-issue.
I agree. I'm not even saying it's not a nurture issue (because it is), but it's not like it's a matter of will.

[Steerpike]

I really hope we get a nationwide ban on this soon.

It's not the place of the federal government to decide such a thing.

Nobody can prove it but nobody except right wing idiots think that people choose to be gay so it's kind of a non-issue.

What I want to know is why they think anyone would choose to be gay. To get the crap beaten out of them in high school? Yeah, I can see how everybody wants that.

[WhoDidTheElf]

What I want to know is why they think anyone would choose to be gay. To get the crap beaten out of them in high school? Yeah, I can see how everybody wants that.


I don't know what highschool you go to, but a lot of high schools around here it's "cool" to be gay.

[Steerpike]

I don't know what highschool you go to, but a lot of high schools around here it's "cool" to be gay.

I live in a god damn football town. I'm not even gay and I got the **** beaten out of me because a few wankers thought I was gay because of my long hair.

[Reaganista]

what gays have long hair

[Steerpike]

what gays have long hair

Exactly. That's how friggin stupid and out of touch these troglodytic goat-bangers are.

[Reaganista]

the blonde guy on qeftsg has long-ish hair, though. or he did anyway.

[Steerpike]

I used to have it half-way down my back. I've never seen a gay man with that kind of hair.

[Joe]

I used to have it half-way down my back. I've never seen a gay man with that kind of hair.

What would you say if you did?

[Reaganista]

he's hot I wanna do him

[italic zero]

What about that guy from AFI?

[Reaganista]

Whoooooaaa
I fell into yesterday
whooooooaaa
Our Dreams seemed not far away
I want to, I want to, I want to stay
Whoooooaaa
I fell into fantasy

[Jude]

What I want to know is why they think anyone would choose to be gay. To get the crap beaten out of them in high school? Yeah, I can see how everybody wants that.
Yeah I love how that thought process would work.

Let's see, I'm attracted to women. Not men. Nevertheless I'm goign to endure a lifetime of social stigma, lack of marriage rights, possible rejection by family, friends and society, possibly even from jobs, and force myself to have sexual relations with men despite that I'm not attracted to them sexually.

I agree. I'm not even saying it's not a nurture issue (because it is), but it's not like it's a matter of will.
I don't even think it's a nurture issue. That's sort of venturing into Freudian fantasy.

Whoooooaaa
I fell into yesterday
whooooooaaa
Our Dreams seemed not far away
I want to, I want to, I want to stay
Whoooooaaa
I fell into fantasy

What would they care, if I was gay?
No-one would know, hoooooo-moooo
What would they care, if I was gay?
No-one should know, hooooooo-moooo

[Syncratic]

I really don't see why people want to ban gay marraige. Truly, I don't.

If it's about the whole 'sanctity' business, I don't get that in the least. What sanctity are you on about?

And, truly, why is it a bad thing?

[Reaganista]

I don't even think it's a nurture issue.
I might agree if genetic homosexuality wasn't completely ridiculous

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

Does anybody else here agree that the term "activist judges" is starting to be thrown around like "unamerican" was right after 9/11?

It's even stupider that the "activist" judges are the ones interpreting the Constitution to the letter, whereas the conservatives are the ones trying to re-write it.

[RNR]

If marriage can only be between a man and a woman, then marriage is an out-dated and useless concept. A homosexual couple that love each other, and maybe even want to adopt a child are far more deserving of a piece of paper and tax deductions than a lot of heterosexual couples.

[Syncratic]

Marraige is about love. The moment love is dictated by the government, we've lost a basic right.

I believe homosexuality is a choice. Nurture influences behavior (to a degree), nature our traits. All else is choice.

How does this affect people in the least, other than making them uncomfortable?

It sickens me.

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

Hey RNR, stop being such an activist judge!

[Reaganista]

legal marriage should only be for people who are going to have and/or raise kids

otherwise what's the point

[Syncratic]

What are you on about, Tway?

[Reaganista]

I said what's the point.

can't you read?

[RNR]

Hey RNR, stop being such an activist judge!

I don't know what that means so i'm just not going to do anything.

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

legal marriage should only be for people who are going to have and/or raise kids

otherwise what's the point

Symbolically promising to spend the rest of your life together is the point of marriage. Parents dream of sending their kids off with the person they're in love with, family members gather 'round and cry their eyes out, and everybody gets a bunch of pictures, some good food, and some cake. It's something humans have done for thousands of years. Until now, not everybody has been able to enjoy it, but this isn't the first time in history a group gets what it's deserved for a bloody long time.

If you think gay people deserve that any less than straight people, you're a prick. Marriage doesn't belong to Christians, it doesn't belong to Republicans, it doesn't belong to neocons, and it doesn't belong to you. It's not your job to say what marriage is for, and it's not your job to set up some sort of filter to make sure infertile people, people who don't want kids, or homosexuals can't marry just like anybody else. If a priest decides he doesn't want to marry two men or two women, then that's between him, his Bible, and the people who attend his church (I don't think religious institutions should be forced to marry gays). People can't go around taking it upon themselves to force discrimination on an entire country.

And tbh, it's not your job to decide that because you don't understand the point, there isn't one. Homosexuals' freedom to do as they wish ends where your freedom begins - their getting married doesn't affect you in a single goddamned way, and it's not your or anybody else's job to tell them what they can and can't do unless it somehow negatively affects you.

[Reaganista]

Symbolically promising to spend the rest of your life together is the point of marriage.
no the point of marriage is to guarantee reproductive rights to the man and a provider to the woman.

Parents dream of sending their kids off with the person they're in love with, family members gather 'round and cry their eyes out, and everybody gets a bunch of pictures, some good food, and some cake.
that's an example of kkkapitalists turning something that could've been a very human experience into another consumption event.

It's something humans have done for thousands of years. Until now, not everybody has been able to enjoy it, but this isn't the first time in history a group gets what it's deserved for a bloody long time.
nobody deserves to bask in their own gluttony like that.

If you think gay people deserve that any less than straight people, you're a prick.
show me where I said anything like that

Marriage doesn't belong to Christians, it doesn't belong to Republicans, it doesn't belong to neocons, and it doesn't belong to you.
show me where I said that

It's not your job to say what marriage is for, and it's not your job to set up some sort of filter to make sure infertile people, people who don't want kids, or homosexuals can't marry just like anybody else.
not your job to decide they can marry. asshat

If a priest decides he doesn't want to marry two men or two women, then that's between him, his Bible, and the people who attend his church (I don't think religious institutions should be forced to marry gays). People can't go around taking it upon themselves to force discrimination on an entire country.
And tbh, it's not your job to decide that because you don't understand the point, there isn't one.

tell me the point. why should we give them benefit just because they threw a party?


Homosexuals' freedom to do as they wish ends where your freedom begins - their getting married doesn't affect you in a single goddamned way,
yeah it does I have to pay for marriage tax breaks, decreased health insurance and whatever else there is.

[RNR]

yeah it does I have to pay for marriage tax breaks, decreased health insurance and whatever else there is.

Yes but that applies to anyone who is married. Gay or straight.

[Reaganista]

I know. I never suggested anything to do with orientation.

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

no the point of marriage is to guarantee reproductive rights to the man and a provider to the woman.

Alright, so then you support fertility screening before allowing a couple to get married? You seem to be saying that if you can't or won't have kids, you should not have the right to marriage.

that's an example of kkkapitalists turning something that could've been a very human experience into another consumption event.

I was being tongue in cheek fyi, but my point was that it doesn't matter why people do it, because they enjoy it and it makes them happier.

nobody deserves to bask in their own gluttony like that.

What gluttony?

show me where I said anything like that

your whole point is that gay people should not be allowed to marry each other, whereas a straight person can. And don't give me any of that "gay people are free to marry straight people" bullsh*t.

show me where I said that

You support the amendment. The amendment boils down to some people deciding that because they don't like the idea of gay marriage, they'll make it illegal. Hence, you support a small group of individuals taking it upon themselves to decide something for an entire country, and specifically on a group that doesn't want to hurt anybody, and just wants to be treated with the same respect you'd give anybody else.

not your job to decide they can marry. asshat

I'm not saying it is. It's their job to decide they want to, and my job not to do a damn thing about it.

tell me the point. why should we give them benefit just because they threw a party?

Because your country has this little thing called the Constitution which guarantees equal rights to everyone, and because you don't have a single reason not to.


yeah it does I have to pay for marriage tax breaks, decreased health insurance and whatever else there is.

... and then you call other people kkkapitalists?

Tell me something. What is it about gay marriage that you find so much more offensive than people marrying with no intention to have children or couples in which one or both of the members are infertile? If the whole point of marriage is to create tax breaks so you can have kids, why shouldn't they amend the constitution to say post-menopausal women shouldn't be allowed to get married either?

:rolleyes:


... Your whole post boils down to you not wanting to pay a fraction more in taxes for a minority of people who want to marry each other. If that's really how you see things, you're obviously much more of a selfish closed-minded "kkkapitalist" than you'd like to think.

[Reaganista]

Alright, so then you support fertility screening before allowing a couple to get married? You seem to be saying that if you can't or won't have kids, you should not have the right to marriage.

they could always adopt if it turns out he's shooting blanks

I was being tongue in cheek fyi, but my point was that it doesn't matter why people do it, because they enjoy it and it makes them happier.then why do I have to pay them for it? why not just throw parties without the government sanctifying it

What gluttony?
the gluttony of a typical western marriage celebration

your whole point is that gay people should not be allowed to marry each other, whereas a straight person can. And don't give me any of that "gay people are free to marry straight people" bullsh*t.
I never said anything like that. You should probably read posts.

You support the amendment.
no sorry jackass.

I'm not saying it is. It's their job to decide they want to, and my job not to do a damn thing about it.
right now it's your job to pay them for their decision

Because your country has this little thing called the Constitution which guarantees equal rights to everyone,
no it doesn't, the equal rights' amendment failed.

... and then you call other people kkkapitalists?
yes. kkkapitalists own the means of production and exploit labor.

I don't want to pay other people to thrown endulgent parties. their not even remotely similar acts.

why shouldn't they amend the constitution to say post-menopausal women shouldn't be allowed to get married either?
they shouldn't ammend the constitution at all.
And really, post-menopausal women who are remarrying shouldn't be entitled to marriage benefits, neither should their husband.
If they've raised a family before divorcing, however, I think they should still be entitled to proxy benefits with their current spouse to represent those they had with their past spouse because family is a lifelong commitment.

[LittlePound]

I obviously don't think gay's should be married. I don't have a problem with gays, or gay couples but i don't think they should be married for several reasons.
1. Marriage is between one man and woman. This encourages (but does not necesarily ensure) that their will be children and someone to carry on after you're gone.
2.Tests have shown that gay couples, for the most part, are twice as unfaithful to their partner than straight couples. If the divorce rate is already around 50%, and we allow gays to get married, that number will sky rocket. And also, if gay couples are able to experience love the same way straight couples do, then why are htey twice as unfaithful? That seems more like lust than love. And just for general info. I'm against divorce in most cases, marriage is a life long committment (until death do us part) and you made the decision to marry that person. If you wake up a few years later and decide you guys aren't getting a long anymore, well too freakin' bad. Live with your decision. I've also found it's a lot easier to love someone once you've decided to. If divorces were made much harder to get, couples would find ways to work through their problems and there would be many more happily married couples.
3. As seen in Canada, once htey allowed for gay marriage, they also forced churches to marry gay couples that ask. If you're a pastor/reverend and refuse you get sent to jail for discrimination. You also can't say the word Faggot or other derogatory "gay names" becuase it's a hate crime. So that is impeding on two rights, (freedom of speech and whatever freedom of standing up for you beliefs would fall under) and if america legalizes the gay marriage i don't see us to far away from that.
4. God tells me homosexuality is not something to be condoned/encouraged/or practiced so i will do what is within my power to no encourage the growth/practice of homosexuality and that means fighting against their "right to marry"

[Amit]

Oh.

My.

Vishnu.

[A Spoonful Supreme]

I obviously don't think gay's should be married. I don't have a problem with gays, or gay couples but i don't think they should be married for several reasons.
1. Marriage is between one man and woman. This encourages (but does not necesarily ensure) that their will be children and someone to carry on after you're gone.
2.Tests have shown that gay couples, for the most part, are twice as unfaithful to their partner than straight couples. If the divorce rate is already around 50%, and we allow gays to get married, that number will sky rocket. And also, if gay couples are able to experience love the same way straight couples do, then why are htey twice as unfaithful? That seems more like lust than love. And just for general info. I'm against divorce in most cases, marriage is a life long committment (until death do us part) and you made the decision to marry that person. If you wake up a few years later and decide you guys aren't getting a long anymore, well too freakin' bad. Live with your decision. I've also found it's a lot easier to love someone once you've decided to. If divorces were made much harder to get, couples would find ways to work through their problems and there would be many more happily married couples.
3. As seen in Canada, once htey allowed for gay marriage, they also forced churches to marry gay couples that ask. If you're a pastor/reverend and refuse you get sent to jail for discrimination. You also can't say the word Faggot or other derogatory "gay names" becuase it's a hate crime. So that is impeding on two rights, (freedom of speech and whatever freedom of standing up for you beliefs would fall under) and if america legalizes the gay marriage i don't see us to far away from that.
4. God tells me homosexuality is not something to be condoned/encouraged/or practiced so i will do what is within my power to no encourage the growth/practice of homosexuality and that means fighting against their "right to marry"

So..... you're saying..... our country should be run with God's views in mind?

["Freshly Baked"]

I think the ban on gay marraige is....... Well.......... GAY

Who cares, marraige is a worthless waste of money to Show friends and family what a perfect life you have.

Marraige is hell, so I think anyone should be entitled.

And the government could care less about divorce rates, all divorce is is more money in their bank accounts.

[LittlePound]

So..... you're saying..... our country should be run with God's views in mind?
no, i'm saying i run my life with God's views in mind, and since the gov. has some control over my life, i wish it to be in line with my views. I'm sorry that me voting for what i want is apparently wrong to you.

[Amit]

no, i'm saying i run my life with God's views in mind, and since the gov. has some control over my life, i wish it to be in line with my views. I'm sorry that me voting for what i want is apparently wrong to you.

Yeah, and I'm guessing seperation of church and state is completely meaningless to you.

People like you scare the **** out of me. Reminds me wayyyyyyy too much of the Islamic fundamentalists my parents had to flee from.

[PerpetualBurn]

It's only politics that stops him blowing himself up.

And, he probably couldn't figure out the buckle on the belt to strap the bombs to him.

[Hababi]

Yeah, and I'm guessing seperation of church and state is completely meaningless to you.

People like you scare the **** out of me. Reminds me wayyyyyyy too much of the Islamic fundamentalists my parents had to flee from.


Everyone votes for candidates and issues based on their moral compass. Some form the secularly, some form them based on religion. Who are you to say that your way of forming them is good and others are bad? Secularism led to Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, and the Reign of Terror. So, not taking into account God's wishes has a host of its own problems :p

[Syncratic]

People like you scare the **** out of me. Reminds me wayyyyyyy too much of the Islamic fundamentalists my parents had to flee from.

It scares me as well.

I can't wrap a mind around a God or other diety who professes unconditional love yet condemns Its own creation abomination. I can't wrap my mind around a God who hates what They have created.

[Britney Diva]

It scares me as well.

I can't wrap a mind around a God or other diety who professes unconditional love yet condemns Its own creation abomination. I can't wrap my mind around a God who hates what They have created.
I can't wrap my mind around anyone in the western world being oblivious to the whole "God loves everyone" thing.

DID JOHN PRESCOTT PLAY CROQUET?
Private Eye has a six-figure tell-all exclusive with Prescott's mallett next issue. I can't wait.

[Amit]

Everyone votes for candidates and issues based on their moral compass. Some form the secularly, some form them based on religion. Who are you to say that your way of forming them is good and others are bad? Secularism led to Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, and the Reign of Terror. So, not taking into account God's wishes has a host of its own problems :p

Secularism didn't lead to Mao/Stalin/whomever. They could have easily done their actions with religion as well.

Using your rationale, religion fueled and/or led to the Crusades, 9/11, the Inquisition, the massacre of Hindus/Buddhists/Christians/Muslims/Sikhs during the various partitions of the Indian Subcontinent, the ongoing battle between Sikhs/Hindus/Muslims, and quite a couple of other events I'm sure.

The only thing that stops and has stopped India from destroying itself from the inside out is secularism. With the second highest population in the world and more religions in its borders than any other country out there, it's amazing that sectarian violence is so relatively low in India anyway.

Only point to be made from all this is that going on either extreme is harmful.

[Syncratic]

I can't wrap my mind around anyone in the western world being oblivious to the whole "God loves everyone" thing.

Does this mean that you believe that God loves everything or you're lampooning the notion?

[Mr. Ron]

no, i'm saying i run my life with God's views in mind, and since the gov. has some control over my life, i wish it to be in line with my views. I'm sorry that me voting for what i want is apparently wrong to you.
I want my government to have Odin's views in mind when I vote for a candidate. Free beer and nordic women for all!

:chug:

[Syncratic]

I want my government to have Odin's views in mind when I vote for a candidate. Free beer and nordic women for all!

You're my new best friend.

[Hababi]

Secularism didn't lead to Mao/Stalin/whomever. They could have easily done their actions with religion as well.

But they didn't. They did their actions under the umbrella of secular materialistic philosophy. It's only to show you that there is absolutely nothing more inherently dangerous about basing political opinions on a religious code than the lack of one.


Using your rationale, religion fueled and/or led to the Crusades, 9/11, the Inquisition, the massacre of Hindus/Buddhists/Christians/Muslims/Sikhs during the various partitions of the Indian Subcontinent, the ongoing battle between Sikhs/Hindus/Muslims, and quite a couple of other events I'm sure.


They were committed under that umbrella. It isn't Islam of Christianity's fault, but it goes to show that bad things can pop up under any creed, any philosophy, and life outlook. Whether it's in the name of God or Man.



Only point to be made from all this is that going on either extreme is harmful.

But what he said isn't extreme. If he said, "Convert or die," that'd be extreme, that'd be radical. That's the message of the Taliban. But that's not what he said.

[Steerpike]

1. Marriage is between one man and woman. This encourages (but does not necesarily ensure) that their will be children and someone to carry on after you're gone.

In that case, sterile couples also cannot marry, those freeloaders.

2.Tests have shown that gay couples, for the most part, are twice as unfaithful to their partner than straight couples.

Don't you think there's a possibility that's more of a societal issue than a biological one?

If divorces were made much harder to get, couples would find ways to work through their problems and there would be many more happily married couples.

Needlessly banning something doesn't stop it.

3. As seen in Canada, once htey allowed for gay marriage, they also forced churches to marry gay couples that ask. If you're a pastor/reverend and refuse you get sent to jail for discrimination.

I'm not saying we create such a law, but it's also unfair that a couple of churches get to call all the shots.

4. God tells me homosexuality is not something to be condoned/encouraged/or practiced so i will do what is within my power to no encourage the growth/practice of homosexuality and that means fighting against their "right to marry"

The church does not get to decide on legislation.

I want my government to have Odin's views in mind when I vote for a candidate. Free beer and nordic women for all!

:chug:

Where can I get ordained for that church?

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

All I can say is that threads like these remind me that I'm pleased that I live in Britain. We talk about meaningless crap here (DID JOHN PRESCOTT PLAY CROQUET?) but when legislation permitting civil unions for homosexuals came in late last year, nobody in the political mainstream particularly cared, as far as I can tell. It was a story for a few days, mainly because Elton John had a civil union with his partner, and then everyone got over it. At some stage it'll probably be formally called "marriage" and that'll happen without people minding that much too. But anyway, flag burning's coming up for discussion again soon!

Goddamn. Another country where morals didn't collapse after they allowed gay marriage???

Canada seems pretty ok too. And for the record (ATTN: that guy who made a post on page 5 with a long list of bullsh*t), we don't force churches to marry gays - most of them choose to, because they've woken up a little. It almost got a few of our bishops kicked out by the Vatican, but they stood up for it.

[A Spoonful Supreme]

no, i'm saying i run my life with God's views in mind, and since the gov. has some control over my life, i wish it to be in line with my views. I'm sorry that me voting for what i want is apparently wrong to you.


so..... ur saying..... that our country should be run with god's views in mind

Everyone votes for candidates and issues based on their moral compass. Some form the secularly, some form them based on religion. Who are you to say that your way of forming them is good and others are bad? Secularism led to Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, and the Reign of Terror. So, not taking into account God's wishes has a host of its own problems :p

You wish it was secularism



Using your rationale, religion fueled and/or led to the Crusades, 9/11, the Inquisition, the massacre of Hindus/Buddhists/Christians/Muslims/Sikhs during the various partitions of the Indian Subcontinent, the ongoing battle between Sikhs/Hindus/Muslims, and quite a couple of other events I'm sure.


yep



Man some people just really like to believe what they want, I guess it makes life easier for them.




But what he said isn't extreme. If he said, "Convert or die," that'd be extreme, that'd be radical. That's the message of the Taliban. But that's not what he said.

convert or die..... convert or spend eternity in hell is worse, which is exactly what christianity says

[ChickenStu]

To get back on topic after this thread has gone exactly where it wasnt intended to...

This wasn't brought forth to pass.

This amendment proposal is a political tactic to encourage the conservative base to come out and vote this November.

It is being used to show that (especially after the pitiful immigration bill) there are still people in congress fighting for the beliefs that so many americans hold.

[ChickenStu]

a) more importantly, how dumb were Sen. Vitter's statements?

“We were hoping to get over 50 percent, but that didn’t happen today,” said Sen. David Vitter, R-La., one of the amendment’s supporters. “Eventually, Congress is going to have to catch up to the wisdom of the American people or the American people will change Congress for the better.”


How is this dumb?

You libs didn't think america was "dumb" enough to re-elect president Bush after everything he has accomplished, but we did.

In the same way, if america believes strongly enough in something they can and will change congress for the better.

[Hababi]

convert or spend eternity in hell is worse


No it's not. I'll tell you what, let's line up two choices. You can go hang out with Pat Robertson, and he'll tell you that you're going to Hell unless you convert to Christianity. Or, you can go hang up with Abu Blowuuppa, and he has a rusty machete and will cut your head off if you don't convert to his (perverted) brand of Islam. Now, which one is worse?

[ChickenStu]

No it's not. I'll tell you what, let's line up two choices. You can go hang out with Pat Robertson, and he'll tell you that you're going to Hell unless you convert to Christianity. Or, you can go hang up with Abu Blowuuppa, and he has a rusty machete and will cut your head off if you don't convert to his (perverted) brand of Islam. Now, which one is worse?

For you, obviously the rusty machete is worse. Because to you this life is everything.

What you must understand is that we as christians believe in an afterlife that will last for eternity.

In this sense I choose to believe in God and his teachings and choose him over my life on this planet.

Let me put it this way.

If I believe, and you dont...

And there is a God and an afterlife.

I win, you lose.

If there is nothing as you believe.

Then we die, and you never know that you won.

So therefore,

I win, I win, You lose, You lose.

[Hababi]

For you, obviously the rusty machete is worse. Because to you this life is everything.

:confused:

Dude...you..really...don't...know...this...forum.. .too...well..

[Syncratic]

No it's not. I'll tell you what, let's line up two choices. You can go hang out with Pat Robertson, and he'll tell you that you're going to Hell unless you convert to Christianity. Or, you can go hang up with Abu Blowuuppa, and he has a rusty machete and will cut your head off if you don't convert to his (perverted) brand of Islam. Now, which one is worse?

Well, when you put it like that.

I know you're not necessarily using Pat Robertson to symbolize the entire Christian doctrine and population, but that's what it may seem like to some with that analogy.

For you, obviously the rusty machete is worse. Because to you this life is everything.

What you must understand is that we as christians believe in an afterlife that will last for eternity.

In this sense I choose to believe in God and his teachings and choose him over my life on this planet.

Let me put it this way.

If I believe, and you dont...

And there is a God and an afterlife.

I win, you lose.

If there is nothing as you believe.

Then we die, and you never know that you won.

So therefore,

I win, I win, You lose, You lose.

You aren't trying to push your religion on us and being elitist, are you?

[ChickenStu]

You aren't trying to push your religion on us and being elitist, are you?

Not at all, just sharing my viewpoint and how I feel.

I could care less if you believe in God, Allah, or whoever. Its your choice. Free will.

I said nothing that pushes my religion on you. Stop thinking that everytime someone talks about religion and what they believe that they are trying to convert you.

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

that's pascal's wager

you ****ing dumbass

[A Spoonful Supreme]

Bottom Line: Religion has no place in the politics of any nation and should be contained within those communities that do choose to follow that religion, and it bothers me that some people choose to make political decisions based on Religious ethics.

[WhoDidTheElf]

Bottom Line: Religion has no place in the politics of any nation and should be contained within those communities that do choose to follow that religion.


Yeah because a guy with morals just really sucks.

[A Spoonful Supreme]

Yeah because a guy with morals just really sucks.

I'm sorry you have to get your morals from religion.

And that was a self-riteous statement if I ever saw one, I guess you think there are only one set of morals, God's morals right?

[ChickenStu]

that's pascal's wager

you ****ing dumbass

It is very similar, yes. His is mainly an argument for the existence of God, while mine is a simplified version and how I feel about it.

How does that make me a dumbass?

You take philosophy 101 and turn into an elitist prick.

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

it's one of the lamest arguments ever.

[Hababi]

I'm sorry you have to get your morals from religion.


I'm sorry you don't. Saying only your philosophy belongs in the body politic is as arrogant as claiming that only mine does.

[A Spoonful Supreme]

It is very similar, yes. His is mainly an argument for the existence of God, while mine is a simplified version and how I feel about it.

How does that make me a dumbass?

You take philosophy 101 and turn into an elitist prick.

Ur not a dumbass, but what you said was EXACTLY pascal's wager lol

[ChickenStu]

Bottom Line: Religion has no place in the politics of any nation and should be contained within those communities that do choose to follow that religion, and it bothers me that some people choose to make political decisions based on Religious ethics.

Religion plays a part in politics of any nation, whether you like it or not.

Don't quote seperation of church and state. That was established to stop the country from choosing one religion over another as Britain had done. It is not to keep all religion and the morals that come with religion out of politics, it is more for a freedom of religion, the basic principle this country was founded on.

[A Spoonful Supreme]

I'm sorry you don't. Saying only your philosophy belongs in the body politic is as arrogant as claiming that only mine does.

I want everyone to be involved religious or not, it's just that religion is running a monopoly of decision and law makers and they should be filtered out. The "moral majority" says it all, why should it be a majority and not a collection of minorities?

[ChickenStu]

Ur not a dumbass, but what you said was EXACTLY pascal's wager lol

Essentially its a dumbed down version.

[A Spoonful Supreme]

Religion plays a part in politics of any nation, whether you like it or not.

Don't quote seperation of church and state. That was established to stop the country from choosing one religion over another as Britain had done. It is not to keep all religion and the morals that come with religion out of politics, it is more for a freedom of religion, the basic principle this country was founded on.

Oh well why didn't Bhudda convince Bush to not invade Iraq? It's because Bhudda is in the back of a trunk with duck tape over his mouth.... along with every other representative of alternative moral codes.

[Hababi]

I want everyone to be involved religious or not, it's just that religion is running a monopoly of decision and law makers and they should be filtered out.


:confused: Ok, now that is a confusing statement. It seems you're saying you want everyone involved but you also want to filter out religious people. Hmmm...

[Iskandar]

Yeah because a guy with morals just really sucks.
Why do you assume one has to be religious in order to be moral?

I'm not about to commit murder because I'm an atheist.

[ChickenStu]

Oh well why didn't Bhudda convince Bush to not invade Iraq? It's because Bhudda is in the back of a trunk with duck tape over his mouth.... along with every other representative of alternative moral codes.

What?

My point was that there is freedom of religion in this country...and Bush is christian...therefore, why would he listen to budda? He is free to choose religion as he pleases.

[ChickenStu]

it's one of the lamest arguments ever.

How so?

[Reaganista]

it's a false dichotomy dammit

For you, obviously the rusty machete is worse. Because to you this life is everything.

What you must understand is that we as christians believe in an afterlife that will last for eternity.

In this sense I choose to believe in God and his teachings and choose him over my life on this planet.

Let me put it this way.

If I believe, and you dont...

And there is a God and an afterlife.

I win, you lose.

If there is nothing as you believe.

Then we die, and you never know that you won.

So therefore,

I win, I win, You lose, You lose.
haha you're a stupid cunt at least 3 or 4 different ways for this post

[WhoDidTheElf]

Why do you assume one has to be religious in order to be moral?

I'm not about to commit murder because I'm an atheist.


Maybe I should edit that to Christian morals.

[Iskandar]

Maybe I should edit that to Christian morals.
Yes, you should; because Christian morals aren't the only valid morals.

[Hababi]

Yes, you should; because Christian morals aren't the only valid morals.


Other moral systems have quite a lot of good to them, too (when they share common ideas with Christian philosophy). Christianity just holds the Ultimate Truth :p

[Iskandar]

Other moral systems have quite a lot of good to them, too (when they share common ideas with Christian philosophy). Christianity just holds the Ultimate Truth :p
Islam claims that the Qur'an has the ultimate truth. We can go in circles here.

[Hababi]

Islam claims that the Qur'an has the ultimate truth. We can go in circles here.


Yeah but it's wrong :p

Islam is 60-80% correct.

[neal_672]

Yeah but i believe that it's wrong :p

I think that Islam is 60-80% correct.

Fixed.

It's all subjective, like Dropper said, the majority of religions believe theres is the ultimate truth, and nobody knows any of the truth for sure until we've died. I understand your faith lends you confidence but that's no excuse for arrogance.

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

truth isn't subjective

[Steerpike]

It boils down to this. You cna have your faith however you want it. But if I'm paying taxes on it, I don't want religious evangelizing in it at all. For example, I don't enforced prayer or intelligent design in public school, no matter whether the prayer or ID comes from Christians, Muslims, Hindus, or Neo-Pagans.

[Hababi]

I believe that It's all subjective


Fixed.

I don't feel it's subjective.

[A Spoonful Supreme]

What?

My point was that there is freedom of religion in this country...and Bush is christian...therefore, why would he listen to budda? He is free to choose religion as he pleases.

But he shouldn't be free to impose his religion on me and others through religion's influence on his decisions.

It boils down to this. You cna have your faith however you want it. But if I'm paying taxes on it, I don't want religious evangelizing in it at all. For example, I don't enforced prayer or intelligent design in public school, no matter whether the prayer or ID comes from Christians, Muslims, Hindus, or Neo-Pagans.

ya

[Hababi]

It boils down to this. You cna have your faith however you want it. But if I'm paying taxes on it, I don't want religious evangelizing in it at all. For example, I don't enforced prayer or intelligent design in public school, no matter whether the prayer or ID comes from Christians, Muslims, Hindus, or Neo-Pagans.


Intelligent Design is not an inherently Christian concept. It's not exclusive to any belief system.

And, if the people of South Dakota want prayer in their schools, why not let them? California doesn't have to, but what does it hurt for a school in an area that's 95% Christian to have a voluntary prayer in the morning?

[Hababi]

But he shouldn't be free to impose his religion on me and others through religion's influence on his decisions.


Governing on his moral code, based on his beliefs, is no different than you governing on your moral code, based on your moral beliefs. It would be ridiculous to say that you are somehow "imposing" your beliefs on people by governing based on your moral code, unless you are forcing people to convert to your religion. Which, the last time I checked, George Bush is not doing. You're just trying to blackmail politicians into governing the way you want them to.

[neal_672]

truth isn't subjective

When the actual truth isn't known then of course it is. Are you implying that religious truths aren't subjective?

[A Spoonful Supreme]

Governing on his moral code, based on his beliefs, is no different than you governing on your moral code, based on your moral beliefs. It would be ridiculous to say that you are somehow "imposing" your beliefs on people by governing based on your moral code, unless you are forcing people to convert to your religion. Which, the last time I checked, George Bush is not doing. You're just trying to blackmail politicians into governing the way you want them to.

I understand what ur saying, but what I am saying.... is that other ethnicities and religions and/or ways of thinking are not represented or misrepresented in government.

and, when bush says that god told him to go to war, he is imposing christianity onto me

[WhoDidTheElf]

and, when bush says that god told him to go to war, he is imposing christianity onto me


How?

How is saying God told him to go to war, making you believe in Christ?

[A Spoonful Supreme]

How?

How is saying God told him to go to war, making you believe in Christ?

I mean imposing in the sense that I must deal with GOD'S decisions, not that he's converting me.

[Hababi]

I mean imposing in the sense that I must deal with GOD'S decision


No, you have to deal with his decisions. What difference does it make whether he says God told him, a magic 8 ball told him, or his conscience told him? In the end, decisions are decisions. If you disagree with his decisions, don't vote for him.

[A Spoonful Supreme]

No, you have to deal with his decisions. What difference does it make whether he says God told him, a magic 8 ball told him, or his conscience told him? In the end, decisions are decisions. If you disagree with his decisions, don't vote for him.

Who do I vote for who isn't christian?

[PerpetualBurn]

When the actual truth isn't known then of course it is. Are you implying that religious truths aren't subjective?

Just because we don't know which religion is true doesn't mean that it's subjective. They're either true or false. No in between.

[Steerpike]

Intelligent Design is not an inherently Christian concept. It's not exclusive to any belief system.

But's it's not science. It's based on faith. I'm not paying taxes for faith pretending to be science.

And, if the people of South Dakota want prayer in their schools, why not let them? California doesn't have to, but what does it hurt for a school in an area that's 95% Christian to have a voluntary prayer in the morning?

They can do that during homeroom if they want to. Or maybe they can just get up 15 minutes earlier every day and do it at home. Hell, if there's something I need to do in the morning before class, I get up earlier to do it. But don't make a law out of it. The government is Constitutionally forbidden from sponsoring religion.

[WhoDidTheElf]

Who do I vote for who isn't christian?


Democrat.

[Iskandar]

what does it hurt for a school in an area that's 95% Christian to have a voluntary prayer in the morning?
Not in public schools. They're government property.
Democrat.
Most Democrats are Christian you dummie

[WhoDidTheElf]

Not in public schools. They're government property.

Most Democrats are Christian you dummie


Besides just being a cheap shot. I really don't think many of them are real Christians.

How can you be for same sex-marriage, and be a Christian? I mean they aren't going around pushing their Christian morals on you right?

[A Spoonful Supreme]

Democrat.

still christian....

[Steerpike]

How can you be for same sex-marriage, and be a Christian?

It mostly has something to do with realizing love is more important than you being creeped out by boys kissing.

[Iskandar]

How can you be for same sex-marriage, and be a Christian?
Follow the teachings of Jesus while supporting same-sex marriage by the state?

[Reaganista]

California doesn't have to, but what does it hurt for a school in an area that's 95% Christian to have a voluntary prayer in the morning?
it hurts all proletarians

and hurts the other 5% even more

[WhoDidTheElf]

It mostly has something to do with realizing love is more important than you being creeped out by boys kissing.


Thanks for insulting my maturity.


Follow the teachings of Jesus while supporting same-sex marriage by the state?

So your saying the believe it's wrong, but it's ok for the state to have it?

[A Spoonful Supreme]

How can you be for same sex-marriage, and be a Christian?

Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve!!

[Iskandar]

So your saying the believe it's wrong, but it's ok for the state to have it?
Yeah, I could go for that were I a Christian.

It's not like it affects them or anything. The state wouldn't be forcing priests to perform same-sex marriages or anything.

[Steerpike]

Thanks for insulting my maturity.

It is immature to believe for even a nanosecond that denying marriage to gay people is the upright, moral, and virtuous thing to do.

[Spoonful of Shame]

It is immature to believe for even a nanosecond that denying marriage to gay people is the upright, moral, and virtuous thing to do.
Quoted for truth.

[Syncratic]

Okay...

The whole 'sanctity' issues is so invalid and wrong.

The sanctity of marraige is instilled with the love of the two people in the relationship. The moment that love dissipates, sanctity is thrown out the door, usually culminating in divorce.

So, you wanna protect the 'sanctity' of marraige, ban divorce.

Seriously, the banning of love between two people is Orwellian and wrong.

[Reaganista]

marriage is not about love it's about reproduction and socialization

[Steerpike]

marriage is not about love it's about reproduction and socialization

Arguably. But you don't need to get married to have babies or socialize. In all practical regards, marriage just provides a lot of efficient order to matters of inheritance and the like.

It's not a sacred institution by nature. It's a bureaucratic one.

[Reaganista]

you don't need the ceremony

but there's considerably less incentive for a man to help raise a kid which probably isn't even his

and the babies are the ones being socialized not the parents

[Rounder]

Hmm.. MX Jeopardy

War in Iraq

Nukes in Iran

Hurricanes '06

Illegal immigration

China

Taliban emerging again in afghanistan

Bin Laden

Palestine

Canadian terrorists


Answer: Things that are infinitely more important than narrowing the rights of a minority.

The thing I keep hearing from conservative groups is 'we are protecting a tradition'. Slavery was a tradition too, doesn't make it right. There are so many more important issues going on right now, and bam out of nowhere an issue comes that would energize Bush's base when his poll numbers are low....

I honestly can't think of one good reason to ban gay marriage. If you want to protect the name 'marriage' as being man-woman fine, but to deny people rights because of your religious beliefs is wrong. Gay people should have the same tax breaks, the same insurance benifits, the ability to access health information when at the hospital, and all the other advantages that goes with marriage. If this bill was signed into law, it would be narrowing the rights of a group, a first for the constitution.

I can't understand how conservatives who are against big government and are pro-privacy are always willing to bend their beliefs in order to accomodate their antiquated religious right wing base so they can gain support in other areas that they are struggling in.

[Jude]

Gay people should have the same tax breaks, the same insurance benifits, the ability to access health information when at the hospital, and all the other advantages that goes with marriage.
Exactly and then the state can just stay out of it and you can call it whatever you want, marriage or not and religions can each decide for themselves if they want to marry gays. Everyone wins.

I can't understand how conservatives who are against big government and are pro-privacy are always willing to bend their beliefs in order to accomodate their antiquated religious right wing base so they can gain support in other areas that they are struggling in.
Because they're hypocrites. The only time they're "against big government" is when the big government is helping poor/black people. They don't have a problem with 50% of our budget going to the military for example.

[Steerpike]

The Republican party has been dominated by the Neo-Cons lately, a group that is wholly self-serving and callous toward anyone who disagrees with them. They know that they can't get anyone other than rich people on their side, so they use fake issues like gay marriage to draw in the votes of fire-and-brimstone religious nuts, and the uneducated knee-jerk reactionaries.

Load of crap, really.

[WhoDidTheElf]

Because they're hypocrites. The only time they're "against big government" is when the big government is helping poor/black people. They don't have a problem with 50% of our budget going to the military for example.


Can you show me any where 50% of the national bugget goes to the military?

In 1998, 48% of the national governments bugget whent to Direct Benefit Payment.(including medicare, and social security)

While national defence only got 16%.

[Iskandar]

Answer: Things that are infinitely more important than narrowing the rights of a minority.
Not domestically. The rights of a country's citizens are paramount. Governments are instituted in part to protect those rights.

[Reaganista]

Gay people should have the same tax breaks, the same insurance benifits, the ability to access health information when at the hospital, and all the other advantages that goes with marriage.
not if they don't have kids
otherwise what's the point

[Steerpike]

Not domestically. The rights of a country's citizens are paramount. Governments are instituted in part to protect those rights.

But the rights of the individual are more important than the comfort of the majority.

not if they don't have kids
otherwise what's the point

So if you're sterile or old, you can't get married?

[Reaganista]

you shouldn't be paid to be married if you aren't raising kids

[ringworm]

Everyone wins.
Except half the country who doesnt agree with this & think it's wrong.
But the rights of the individual are more important than the comfort of the majority.
So we make EVERYONE happy? Impossible.
Voting is the only way to solve it, PERIOD.
Unfortunately, there are enough supporters that it will eventually come to pass. :confused: Oh well
Health Care premium's would skyrocket too making the same people who wouldn't vote for gay marriage to pay extra to compensate for the discounts handed out, everyone's premiums would rise.

How fair is that?

[Herbert]

Besides just being a cheap shot. I really don't think many of them are real Christians.

How can you be for same sex-marriage, and be a Christian? I mean they aren't going around pushing their Christian morals on you right?
:lol: that's like saying no Christians are gay, idiot.

[ringworm]

:lol: that's like saying no Christians are gay, idiot.
How can you? I am not a Christian & know it's a sin in their eyes?
I think its hilarious how anybody can interpret that it is anything otherwise.

Besides that, it's just unatural anyway. It's called Procreation, it's why there are male & female, & I dont care about oysters or flies changing sex, we are talking about humans OK.

[Jude]

Can you show me any where 50% of the national bugget goes to the military?

In 1998, 48% of the national governments bugget whent to Direct Benefit Payment.(including medicare, and social security)

While national defence only got 16%.
I'm talking about the United States

I don't know where you're getting those numbers from.

Except half the country who doesnt agree with this & think it's wrong.
Uh what? A significantly larger amount than half the country disagrees with banning gay marriage. And the point of my proposal is to make it a complete non-issue. I can't see how anyone would disagree with it even.

How can you? I am not a Christian & know it's a sin in their eyes?But there can still be gay Christians.

[ringworm]

I can't see how anyone would disagree with it even.
Because it's wrong, I dont see how so many people can disagree with how we were either created or evolved to behave?
But there can still be gay Christians.
I guess they can believe whatever they want, I know otherwise.

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/gay/long.htm
Leviticus
Homosexual acts are an abomination to God. 18:22
If a man has sex with another man, kill them both. 20:13
God says not be bring any whore, sodomite, or dog into the house of the Lord. For "these things are an abomination to the Lord." Sodomites and dogs are biblical names for homosexuals. 23:17-18

[WhoDidTheElf]

I'm talking about the United States

I don't know where you're getting those numbers from.


Yes, so am I. I got these numbers from a text book which in turn got the numbers from, Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the United States Government.

[ringworm]

Uh what? A significantly larger amount than half the country disagrees with banning gay marriage.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/12/19/opinion/polls/main589551.shtml
Some 61 percent of respondents in a CBS News/New York Times poll said they were against gay marriage, up from 55 percent in July, and only 34 percent said they favor gay marriage, down from 40 percent five months ago.

More than half now favor an amendment to the U.S. Constitution defining marriage as only between a man and a woman.

So I guess The Country will be pretty much split on this one if you read the whole article. Like I said earlier

[Joe]

you shouldn't be paid to be married if you aren't raising kids

Ok so then NO ONE should be paid for being married without kids. It shouldn't matter if the marriage is hetero or homo.

Gay people should have the same tax breaks, the same insurance benifits, the ability to access health information when at the hospital, and all the other advantages that goes with marriage.

Exactly. They should get every legal advantage there is to getting married.


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/12/19/opinion/polls/main589551.shtml

Opposition To Gay Marriage Grows

Dec. 21, 2003

You're three years out of date, buddy. Only 5 months before this poll the numbers were above 50%. Also, these polls are never straight. This one says:

The December 10-13, 2003 poll was conducted among a nationwide random sample of 1057 adults interviewed by telephone. The error due to sampling could be plus or minus three percentage points for results based on the entire sample.

1057 adults can't tell us anything. 2003 doesn't tell us anything.

Even if you do think this poll is valid, one of the bottom polls says that the majority of people think the government has no right to play any role in this and the majority of people politcally approve gay marriage. Case closed.

[Reaganista]

Ok so then NO ONE should be paid for being married without kids. It shouldn't matter if the marriage is hetero or homo.

no **** sherlock

1057 adults can't tell us anything.
actually they can tell us what they were asked within a 3% margin of error

[pppoe]

Ringworm, I want to fight you.

[Jude]

Because it's wrong, I dont see how so many people can disagree with how we were either created or evolved to behave?

I don't think you actually read what my suggestion was? I don't know what you're talking about.

I guess they can believe whatever they want, I know otherwise.

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/gay/long.htm

Homosexuality being a sin doesn't make it and Christianity mutually exclusive. One of the central doctrines of Christianity is that EVERYONE is a sinner, which makes all this Christian discrimination against gays rather hypocritical.

Exactly. They should get every legal advantage there is to getting married.
Exactly right. And that shoudl be the ONLY part of marriage that is even involved with the law. Couples can declare themselves married by whatever religion or social convention they want, and work out their own damn divorce deals. Everyone wins.

[Reaganista]

why should we pay people to throw parties

[Jude]

why should we pay people to throw parties
Nono I was saying that if they are raising kids they get the benefits.

[Reaganista]

I agree with that.

the current way of doing it is ridiculous

[Hababi]

Not in public schools. They're government property.

Most Democrats are Christian you dummie


The people make up the government, and the government is supposed to represent the will of the people. If the people of South Dakota want voluntary prayer, let them have it. What's it hurting you?

If you want to allow radical, activist judges to abrogate the law and give a gay nirvana in Massachustes, then allow the same for the people of South Dakota, Oklahoma, Nebraska etc.

[Cain]

The people make up the government, and the government is supposed to represent the will of the people. If the people of South Dakota want voluntary prayer, let them have it. What's it hurting you?

If you want to allow radical, activist judges to abrogate the law and give a gay nirvana in Massachustes, then allow the same for the people of South Dakota, Oklahoma, Nebraska etc.

How does the law change except by an active attempt to change it? How are new laws written except by active attempts to write it? This whole "activist judge" refrain of you conservatives is really one of less sensical simplifications you dole out.

[Jude]

The people make up the government, and the government is supposed to represent the will of the people. If the people of South Dakota want voluntary prayer, let them have it. What's it hurting you?


It's hurting the rule of law. One of the major points of the constitution is that the whims of the people can't just change it over some extremely temporary issue.

If you want to allow radical, activist judges to abrogate the law and give a gay nirvana in Massachustes, then allow the same for the people of South Dakota, Oklahoma, Nebraska etc.
The constitution has nothing to say about marriage but it DOES say that laws shall not respect religion.

Of course IMO that makes schools which make rulings against student groups holding prayers in the wrong, but that's beside the point.

[RockAndRoll]

If the people of South Dakota want voluntary prayer, let them have it.
What? Are you saying people aren't allowed to pray in South Dakota?

[Hababi]

What? Are you saying people aren't allowed to pray in South Dakota?

Not in school.

[Hababi]

It's hurting the rule of law. One of the major points of the constitution is that the whims of the people can't just change it over some extremely temporary issue.


It's not temporary; there's been support for school prayer in South Dakota since the state was first incorporated into the union, it's just that up until recent times, the Court didn't feel the need to centralize power to that degree.


The constitution has nothing to say about marriage but it DOES say that laws shall not respect religion.


The law wouldn't. The society would. The culture of the individual state would be allowed to flourish instead of being abnegated by the whim of nine Harvard law alumns.

[Jude]

The law wouldn't. The society would. The culture of the individual state would be allowed to flourish instead of being abnegated by the whim of nine Harvard law alumns.
I fail to see how the culture of the individual state is being stifled here. It's not like it's illegal to pray in a school. It's just illegal to have it as a school-sanctioned activity, because that's unconstitutional. Having fundamentalist Christian judges wouldn't change that (even if they tried to)

[Hababi]

It's just illegal to have it as a school-sanctioned activity, because that's unconstitutional.


That depends your interpretation of the Constitution. I don't see it as unconstitutional, as it establishes no state church. And, the people of many states don't see it as such.

[owenbassist]

Originally Posted by Broadway Danny Rose
It's not temporary; there's been support for school prayer in South Dakota since the state was first incorporated into the union, it's just that up until recent times, the Court didn't feel the need to centralize power to that degree.

The problem with this is that our government is not entirely based on the will of the people. Law does not exist to protect the majority, because the majority needs no protection. By allowing organized prayer in schools, officials of the state are endorsing one religion, and denying others, which is clearly discrimination.

[Reaganista]

zero there was widespread support for segregation in Alabama

abnegated by the whim of nine Harvard law alumns.
no

[Hababi]

zero there was widespread support for segregation in Alabama


The difference is that segregation directly infringed on the basic civil rights of the minority. Voluntary prayer does not.


By allowing organized prayer in schools, officials of the state are endorsing one religion, and denying others, which is clearly discrimination.


It would be entirely up to the localities, not state officials. Individual localities would determine, through school boards, whether to allow for a moment of silence in the morning at schools, and/or a prayer at sporting events and the such. Are you going to honestly tell me that you're somehow discriminated against if you sit through a moment of silence during which people are praying? If I went to a Muslim area, I'd be perfectly fine with hearing a Muslim prayer before a sporting event. I'm not a Muslim, but if that's the overwhelming culture, why not? What does it affect you?

[PerpetualBurn]

Voluntarily pray at lunch time and stop crying.

[Rounder]

Because it's wrong, I dont see how so many people can disagree with how we were either created or evolved to behave?

I guess they can believe whatever they want, I know otherwise.

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/gay/long.htm

Ringworm, How about following the other rules in the Holiness Code in that EXACT same chapter you pulled to quote from that site.


9 " 'If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother, and his blood will be on his own head

10 " 'If a man commits adultery with another man's wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death

'Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.

44 " 'Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property.

How about these, in the chapter after the ten commandments? (actually just a continuation of said commandments)

7 "If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as menservants do.

17 "Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.


>>>>20 "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, 21 but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property. <<<<<!?!?!?

16 "If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife. 17 If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he must still pay the bride-price for virgins.

Ok i finally found a rule i could live with:

19 "Anyone who has sexual relations with an animal must be put to death

So if your gonna use the bible as your source for constitional law, use it, picking and choosing doesn't work. It's either the Word of God or it's not.

By the way, Homos are to be put to death, the bible doesn't say anything about not being able to marry.....

[Herbert]

How can you? I am not a Christian & know it's a sin in their eyes?
I think its hilarious how anybody can interpret that it is anything otherwise.

Besides that, it's just unatural anyway. It's called Procreation, it's why there are male & female, & I dont care about oysters or flies changing sex, we are talking about humans OK.
You think all Christians are born with the immunity against homosexuality. Of course Christians can be gay, it just makes it hard for the individual involved.

[coheneran]

You think all Christians are born with the immunity against homosexuality. Of course Christians can be gay, it just makes it hard for the individual involved.

I know gay Christians. They are idiots.

[Reaganista]

The difference is that segregation directly infringed on the basic civil rights of the minor