what happened to America the free?

[Darklilangel23]

i dont understand what the hell happened to america the free it used to be a place where regardless of what religion u have or political beliefs u had u could voice your opinion

now we have fucking rednecks called gays immoral and devient to society

who fucking cares if gays have sex with gays honestly?
if they want to get married go ahead its none of my buisness nor it is yours or anyones but thier own..

nobody should have a right to say but god says a man who lies with man burns in hell fuck you god okay fuck god and stop bring god into the converstation

this has nothing to do with an event which may not even happened thousands of years ago so shut the fuck up
if god is angry with gays let him come down and tell us himself or is the fat bastard too busy causing earthquakes in third world countries?

not everyone belives in your god fucktwats

america should be free
worship whatever god goddess u want and no one tell you you are wrong

if your gay straight whatever it dont matter do whatever you want and purse happiness

[BobDoUrden]

Well, you could also look at it from the other side. Its also peoples right to disagree with gay unions.

[drDAK]

At 12/30/04 11:23 AM, BobDoUrden wrote: Well, you could also look at it from the other side. Its also peoples right to disagree with gay unions.

That's part of our freedom.

[ReiperX]

At 12/30/04 11:23 AM, BobDoUrden wrote: Well, you could also look at it from the other side. Its also peoples right to disagree with gay unions.

But legally why should it be illegal? It is discriminitory to keep gay marriages from happening. Lots of people have told me they have lots of reasons that are not religios on why gays should not be married, but the only ones I have heard are pretty weak.

I disagree with the church, does that mean we should ban churches?

[Memorize]

At 12/30/04 11:18 AM, Darklilangel23 wrote:

nobody should have a right to say but god says a man who lies with man burns in hell fuck you god okay fuck god and stop bring god into the converstation

Well, most of the things you have said have been over exagurated. You say that that gays should have the right to marry, but then you say that religous people shouldnt have the right to use God as an arguement? Using God as an arguement is better than using "well, i think gays should be able to marry" which is what you're doing.

[ReiperX]

At 12/30/04 02:11 PM, Soul_Chamber wrote:

Well, most of the things you have said have been over exagurated. You say that that gays should have the right to marry, but then you say that religous people shouldnt have the right to use God as an arguement? Using God as an arguement is better than using "well, i think gays should be able to marry" which is what you're doing.

Seperation of church and state keeps the church should keep the church out of the homosexual marriage issue because legally the church should not affect the laws.

Do you want me to start listing reasons on why homosexuals deserve to be allowed to be married, be allowed to get the same protections and benefits as a heterosexual couple? And could you please list some reasons on why they should not be allowed to be married if you have any that should have a legal foot to stand on.

[newbman]

the reason this is happening to our country is becasue Bush has made himself this modern propet, declaring war in the name of God, and makeing laws in the name of God, God and governmnet are different, now, but before back in the Mid ages their were crusades, Bush is calling modern crusades aginst iraq, and abortion, and gay marriage, and decent ecomomies, all in the name of God and the ALMIGHTY DOLLOR!

[Memorize]

At 12/30/04 02:15 PM, ReiperX wrote:

Seperation of church and state keeps the church should keep the church out of the homosexual marriage issue because legally the church should not affect the laws.

There's that whole, "i think..." thing again. I was only saying that its pretty sad that all they have to work with is, "well i think...", but i like Seperation of Church and State the way it is (as ive mentioned before). Im religous so i dont like it but since this is a free country i think they should have it. It'd be easier to just give gays civil unions but give them all of the benifits a married couple would.

[ReiperX]

At 12/30/04 02:24 PM, Soul_Chamber wrote:

be easier to just give gays civil unions but give them all of the benifits a married couple would.

If homosexuals could be guarenteed the exact same rights as a heterosexual couple through gay unions without any loopholes what so ever then I would be for them. But then again they are married then so whats the difference? But just like seperate but equal didn't work in the past, I doubt it would succeed in modern society, and the only way to guarentee equality is by giving them gay marriage.

This is the one thing that irks me about this issue. Marriage does not have to be religious, religion does not have to play a role what so ever in marriage. You can go to a local courthouse and get married. So whats wrong with homosexuals doing the same thing? No one will force a church to hold a wedding ceremony that it does not agree with, my wife had to go to 3 churches to find one that would marry us since she has been divorced previously and those churches did not believe in divorce. So they do have the right to not perform that cermony.

[Soul-Crash]

i cant believe you guys still voted for bush, other countrys such as mine have already accepted gay marriage.

The church is free to be against it, but it isnt free to restrict it.

[7T]

Marriage is a binding between two people that does have religious roots. With that said, the case could be made that marriage is not just an institution of the goverment, buta religious institution as well.

I think the question that should be discussed then is whether or not gays should be allowed to "marry", but whether or not marriage should be kept as an institution of the goverment. Instead of state sponsored marriages (which could be left to the respected religion of each individual), civil unions could be the alternative legal status allowed for two partners. This way, religions would still be able to disallow the spiritual union of homosexuals if they wish.

This is all just a bunch of idealistic rabble, but w/e.

[drDAK]

At 12/30/04 05:23 PM, Soul_Crash wrote: i cant believe you guys still voted for bush, other countrys such as mine have already accepted gay marriage.

I can't believe your mind is so simple.

[Samuel-HALL]

Oh, look, ANOTHER gay marriage thread, tactfully refined as ANOTHER 'we aren't free at all OMG!!!" thread.

The entertainment never ceases.

At 12/30/04 11:18 AM, Darklilangel23 wrote: now we have fucking rednecks called gays immoral and devient to society

And they call people like me immoral and devient to society, because i smoke pot and experiment with hallucinagens. Does that mean they are stopping me from doing it?

who fucking cares if gays have sex with gays honestly?

Obviously, the majority of eleven sates in America, at least.

nobody should have a right to say but god says a man who lies with man burns in hell fuck you god okay fuck god and stop bring god into the converstation

You're telling the christians of america, which make up 87% of the population, to stop thinking about god.

What's that about freedom, again?

if god is angry with gays let him come down and tell us himself or is the fat bastard too busy causing earthquakes in third world countries?

Oh..you poor boy...you're so dumb.

america should be free

Just because homosexuals do not meet the qualifications for marriage, does not mean that anyone is being oppressed.

if your gay straight whatever it dont matter do whatever you want and purse happiness

Purse happiness, indeed.

[Locke666]

goddamnit you stupid bastard stop picking apart what people say while ignoring the basic idea behind it. Who gives a damn if he forgot to spell pursue right, does it even matter? Yes you can't restrict the rights of christians to oppose gay marrige on religous grounds but they can't bring that into politics. Thats what seperation of church and state means. Yes marrige is a religous institution but once it became binding under the law it can't be restricted to certain groups. A priest can still refuse to marry gays but judges can marry people too. You can say you hate gays all you want but once you try and restrict a govermentally supported institution to them (sorry but that's what marrige is now) you've crossed a line and you're oppressing their rights. If marrige was still religous you could keep them out but now you have to give them all the same rights and priveleges even if it's called a civil union. So it's just too bad cause even if you amend the constitution to keep out gays thats unconstitutional and the good ol' 9th amendment stops you from doing that.

[aXuS]

At 12/31/04 01:18 AM, Locke666 wrote: goddamnit you stupid bastard stop picking apart what people say while ignoring the basic idea behind it. Who gives a damn if he forgot to spell pursue right, does it even matter? Yes you can't restrict the rights of christians to oppose gay marrige on religous grounds but they can't bring that into politics. Thats what seperation of church and state means. Yes marrige is a religous institution but once it became binding under the law it can't be restricted to certain groups. A priest can still refuse to marry gays but judges can marry people too. You can say you hate gays all you want but once you try and restrict a govermentally supported institution to them (sorry but that's what marrige is now) you've crossed a line and you're oppressing their rights. If marrige was still religous you could keep them out but now you have to give them all the same rights and priveleges even if it's called a civil union. So it's just too bad cause even if you amend the constitution to keep out gays thats unconstitutional and the good ol' 9th amendment stops you from doing that.

I'm currently writing a book on the three major religions; Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. I've noticed from my studies that all three of them discriminate against homosexuals. I feel this is wrong and needs to be adressed by the leaders of these religious groups, considering homosexual marriage is a growing issue now. This should have nothing to do with the government. Nor should the media be blowing it out of proportion...

[Ravens-Grin]

I have figured a great way for homosexuals to make gay marriage legal. Create a religion that promotes homosexuals and does gay marriages. It'll push the system, and it will go all the way to the supreme court. I just have an odd feeling the supreme court would rule in favor of the homosexual religion and say that a ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional due to the precedents put in place that seperate church and state.

[Cevil]

Nothing is ever free.

[HappyBull]

At 12/30/04 11:18 AM, Darklilangel23 wrote: i dont understand what the hell happened to america the free it used to be a place where regardless of what religion u have or political beliefs u had u could voice your opinion

You still can, it's called using this forum!

now we have fucking rednecks called gays immoral and devient to society

That could be opinion, but like hippies, there will always be "rednecks"

who fucking cares if gays have sex with gays honestly?
if they want to get married go ahead its none of my buisness nor it is yours or anyones but thier own..

I'm sure people including myself wouldn't mind it if they weren't allowed to do it in public, the thought of two guys making out especially at weddings is just gross.

nobody should have a right to say but god says a man who lies with man burns in hell fuck you god okay fuck god and stop bring god into the converstation

People have the right to say anything they want! Unfortunitely for you, America is not a secularist society like Canada and people here are free to express all religious points of view, as long as they don't try to impose or indoctrinate their religion on other people.

Many people are actually afraid of the mention of "God" in a conversation because it is too sensitive of a subject.

I'm certainly not afraid of discussing any subject.

this has nothing to do with an event which may not even happened thousands of years ago so shut the fuck up
if god is angry with gays let him come down and tell us himself or is the fat bastard too busy causing earthquakes in third world countries?

I'm not sure what you meant to say in that last statement.

not everyone belives in your god fucktwats

That's true, many people worship different religions although there's no need for profanity.

america should be free
worship whatever god goddess u want and no one tell you you are wrong

America has and is still free, just because it isn't secularist doesn't mean it isn't free. I believe that symbols of holidays like Christmas should be displayed in public along with symbols of other faiths like Hanukah- instead of trying to phase out all religions. People maybe allowed to express their beliefs towards you but that isn't "telling you that you are wrong" unless they try to force you to believe in their beliefs.

Only then is it considered that so people don't have a right to indoctrinate their religions on other people, although they have the right to express their beliefs to other people if asked or if it's on topic.

if your gay straight whatever it dont matter do whatever you want and purse happiness

Purse happiness? Please don't use words you can't spell.
People certainly can't do what is against the law without punishment, but people can do what is legal.

[PoptartKing]

At 12/30/04 05:52 PM, 7T wrote: Marriage is a binding between two people that does have religious roots. With that said, the case could be made that marriage is not just an institution of the goverment, buta religious institution as well.

One problem with that: It's been around for a very very long time. Much longer than Christianity or even Judaism. No single religious instituion controls marriage.

[7T]

At 12/31/04 04:43 PM, PoptartKing wrote: One problem with that: It's been around for a very very long time. Much longer than Christianity or even Judaism. No single religious instituion controls marriage.

Sorry, this is not what I meant. I never claimed that Christianity or Judisim had a monopoly on Marriage as an institution. I was simpily trying to point out that I believe that "Marriage" is a relationship that should be recognized spiritually, not legally (hence civil unions).

[Camarohusky]

At 12/31/04 05:22 PM, 7T wrote: Sorry, this is not what I meant. I never claimed that Christianity or Judisim had a monopoly on Marriage as an institution. I was simpily trying to point out that I believe that "Marriage" is a relationship that should be recognized spiritually, not legally (hence civil unions).

Why? Why should marriage be a religious and not a governmental thing. To really understand this we have to look at why the government would pick up marriage as a governmental thing... If you look at why and how much it saves the government and the people getting married you might rethink this idea.

[Pyrrho]

As I interpret the gay marriage issue, choosing to pursue homosexuality is a personal decision. Thus, it is a form of self-expression and freedom of speech. The First Amendment to the Constitution protects this freedom. To draft a law which states that a person's personal pursuit of happines through their own private sexual practices is in breach of that First Amendment and thus is, ultimately, unconstitutional. Mind your own business, people.

[Samuel-HALL]

At 12/31/04 01:18 AM, Locke666 wrote: goddamnit you stupid bastard stop picking apart what people say while ignoring the basic idea behind it.

I'm niether 'picking' anyting aport, or 'ignoring basinc ideas'. I'm simply refuting people's post, point-by-point. If you aren't up to par, don't pit yourself against me in a debate.

Who gives a damn if he forgot to spell pursue right, does it even matter?

Now it is you 'ignoring the basic idea' behind me post.

Yes you can't restrict the rights of christians to oppose gay marrige on religous grounds but they can't bring that into politics.

Mayhaps not everyone who disagrees with gay marriage is a christian? Take me, for example.

Yes marrige is a religous institution but once it became binding under the law it can't be restricted to certain groups.

I never claimed it was 'still a religious institute'. And yea, apparently, under law, it CAN be restricted. Especially when put up for a popular vote, as it was.

A priest can still refuse to marry gays but judges can marry people too.

The judges can refuse, as well.

You can say you hate gays all you want

I don't 'hate gays'. Actually, i'm 'one of them'.

but once you try and restrict a govermentally supported institution to them (sorry but that's what marrige is now)

I never claimed otherwise.

you've crossed a line and you're oppressing their rights.

That's an opinin.

If marrige was still religous you could keep them out but now you have to give them all the same rights and priveleges even if it's called a civil union.

But, GASP, we're not.

Get over it.

So it's just too bad cause even if you amend the constitution to keep out gays thats unconstitutional and the good ol' 9th amendment stops you from doing that.

We don't need an amendment, obviously. Gay marriage has been halted very well without an amendment.

[7T]

At 12/31/04 06:11 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

Why? Why should marriage be a religious and not a governmental thing. To really understand this we have to look at why the government would pick up marriage as a governmental thing... If you look at why and how much it saves the government and the people getting married you might rethink this idea.

What? I'm not sure if you understand my point.

The goverment should be endorsing civil unions for all relationships. Marriage would be a spiritual recognition of this bond that would be completely seperate and optional from the proposed civil union. The Unions would confer all rights that current straight marriages gives to married couples. "Marriage" would be a strictly spiritual term. This way, if religions did not wish to see/recognize gay marriage, they would not have to.

If you did understand my post, please tell me. I didn't quite understand yours myself.

[Locke666]

ignoring everything else you said damien why is it that gays don't have the right to marry? Your "point by point" argument system is very good at refuting others opinions but dosen't help you state your own. Why is it that refusing gays the right to marry isn't considered restricting their rights? What's the argument against it that isn't based in christian beliefs? Why is it that restricting what a certain group of people can do isn't prejudice? Being neither a christian or a gay I consider myself more unbiased than most people in this matter and I don't support everything on the party platform either. So what are the answers to those questions? I haven't been able to find any and thats why I don't support restricting gay marrige?

[Samuel-HALL]

At 12/31/04 11:07 PM, Locke666 wrote: ignoring everything else you said damien why is it that gays don't have the right to marry?

There are qualifications for marriage, as there are qualifications for everything. If i can't type, i won't get a secratary job. If i can't hand sheetrock, i won't get the construction job. And if there are two dicks involved, i can't get married.

And i swear to Christ, if you call me a homophobe i'm going to hang myself.

Your "point by point" argument system is very good at refuting others opinions but dosen't help you state your own.

It serves the purpose.

Why is it that refusing gays the right to marry isn't considered restricting their rights?

Because they never qualified for marriage, in the first place.

What's the argument against it that isn't based in christian beliefs?

See above. Marriage was once a religious thing, then it became a legal thing. There are standards, in every aspect of legalities. Homosexuals do not be the standards for marriage.

And i'm agnostic, so don't give me that 'christian bias' crap.

Why is it that restricting what a certain group of people can do isn't prejudice?

That group never qualified for the legal bondage of marriage, in the first place. If they never had it, we cannot take it away.

Being neither a christian or a gay I consider myself more unbiased than most people in this matter and I don't support everything on the party platform either.

I'm agnostic, and bisexual.
Who's more bias, again?

[7T]

Since Marriage has become a legal thing, why cannot two dicks become hitched to each other? You state that there are "qualifacations", but you fail to list any.

The fact that Gays are infertile is kind of a moot point. Why is it bad for America to have an influx of those looking to adopt kids?

[Locke666]

wow damien you just made an argument against gay marrige that sounded completely valid and yet all you actually said is that gays cant marry because they are two guys with dicks. That basically boils down to gays cant marry because they're gay!!

If you can't come up with some legal support or at least a non circular argument you'd better convert so you can at least quote some scripture.

ps: homophobe!!!!

[AntiangelicAngel]

People like to pick on other people. It takes the focus off their own faults. Up untill the last election, Democrats seemed to play the blame game as much as possible, though in a completely different manner. Then it flipped.

[Samuel-HALL]

At 12/31/04 11:43 PM, Locke666 wrote: wow damien you just made an argument against gay marrige that sounded completely valid and yet all you actually said is that gays cant marry because they are two guys with dicks. That basically boils down to gays cant marry because they're gay!!

If you can't come up with some legal support or at least a non circular argument you'd better convert so you can at least quote some scripture.

ps: homophobe!!!!

*shrugs. There are standards for marriage. Homosexuals don't meet that standard. So, they attempt to change the standard.

That's cheating, and the majority of America thinks so too.