Please Sign Petition AGAINST Federal Marriage Amendment - Page 5

Sugar · #61 06-06-2006, 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irishgrl

frankly, its all a political ruse to get the doofuses riled up. nothing else seems to do it quite like the prospect of GAY *anything*.......

Yep. It's been made into this horrid boogeyman. Amazing.

irishgrl · #62 06-06-2006, 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I will never get it is about anything other than the promotion of one religion over another. Sadly, people just cannot make that connection. Maybe it is because so many of us come from the norm of a married home?

you dont have to "get" anything. that IS what it is about. and why some people feel threatened by same sex anything is beyond me/

irishgrl · #63 06-06-2006, 08:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sugar

Yep. It's been made into this horrid boogeyman. Amazing.

if you "see" that, then you "see" it all. and good for you.

strandinthewind · #64 06-06-2006, 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irishgrl

you dont have to "get" anything. that IS what it is about. and why some people feel threatened by same sex anything is beyond me/

And - I'll even take it further - if you want to marry eight guys and bang all of them - more power to you. Why do I give a flying fukc if you do that. Yet, the busy bodies cannot abide that. They want everyone to be like them - and "them" is a wide variety of definitions mind you.

Also, many of these very same people I see, follow no other aspect of The Bible. So, why assert this one as the absolute?

estranged4life · #65 06-06-2006, 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DavidMn

I mean it is a free country. If we took away everyone's right to think differently than we do, where would we be?

France??? "Stinky pits and all baby..."

A few years ago Oklahoma had a statewide vote on defining that marriage is only between a man and a woman.

Of course it passed by a wide margin (In the town we live in, Only 17 people out of 1100 voted against the law-Deb & myself were 2 of the 17...Strangely the lottery law on the same ballot passed

), But what those who voted in favor of the measure didnt realize by reading the complete law (Which was online because both Deb & myself read it aloud) is that now even if a man and woman, who were living together unmaried for years upon years, is that the state will now not see them as married via "common law". So in a weird way those who oppose the law shot themselve in their own foot and/or asses.

I think gays/lesbians should be allowed to marry...Who says falling in love and wanting to spend a life together is strictly for us heteroes (Probably mispelled that one)???

GateandGarden · #66 06-06-2006, 09:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by snowman

I am not a Bush fan. But I don't believe gay marriage should considered a recognized institution. Should this become a constitution ammendment?- no. Am I a gay hater?-no. But homosexuality is an anomoly(sp) it is not the norm. Gay marriage does allow for equality, recognition, security, etc but there is one very fundemental issue that needs to be understood:

If same sex marriages were the norm- if we all were married to the same sex- our hereditary line would vanish. We could not develop offspring. We as human beings would vanish. Those that favor gay marriage are only looking at the human rights issue. I am pointing out the evolutuonary isse.

I have presented my opinions on this issue before, and received a ton of critcism, as would be expected I'll receive it again.

There are alot of great people in here, gay and srtaight. My intention is not to create anger, but to present an opposing view.

I figure if we're going on this type of logic, we could reasonably ban heterosexual marriages as well, since it appears that the world is woefully overpopulated and the only way I can see to rectify that would be to discourage reproduction. And yet, I doubt that would have any effect whatsoever, as people would reproduce invariably (intentionally or unintentionally) whether or not the government chose to recognize their unions.

irishgrl · #67 06-06-2006, 09:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GateandGarden

I figure if we're going on this type of logic, we could reasonably ban heterosexual marriages as well, since it appears that the world is woefully overpopulated and the only way I can see to rectify that would be to discourage reproduction. And yet, I doubt that would have any effect whatsoever, as people would reproduce invariably (intentionally or unintentionally) whether or not the government chose to recognize their unions.

which only serves to highlight the hypocricy of this administration............

Sugar · #68 06-06-2006, 09:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Exaclty - so why do the Fed. Govt. and the state govts. have to sanction it in any way. Why can't you just marry as many or whatever you want and draw up your own contracts to leave them your property. Also, if I as one male on hundreds of millions do not procreate, there is no harm to society because many others will. I mean women past menopause marry all the time - surely that is not about procreation, but sex and commitment, which they can get through their church. Why does the govt. at any level have to give them rights above others?

I know where you stand on this, but I think it's just dandy to "sanction marriage"; I think there's plenty to be said for governments encouraging and yes, even rewarding families for forming and producing the next generation. I mean...it's in the best interest of a society to always have someone around to push around the wheelchairs and pay Social Security and stuff like that. But I also think there are a lot more families that deserve that recognition than are currently getting it.

Until I hear someone say they want to put a law on the books that prosecutes women for not having children, I don't want to hear any more of this "continuation of the species" crap. Some people, gay and straight, don't have kids. Some people, gay and straight, do. You can't legislate on that basis at all IMO based on that whole pesky "freedom" thing..

BombaySapphire3 · #69 06-06-2006, 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by snowman

If same sex marriages were the norm- if we all were married to the same sex- our hereditary line would vanish. We could not develop offspring. We as human beings would vanish. Those that favor gay marriage are only looking at the human rights issue. I am pointing out the evolutuonary isse.
.

hmmm the last time I noticed the earth was becoming way overpopulated anyway .If we could decrease human procreation by even 20% or so it would go a long way to protracting the existence of the human race if that is your concern .Our finite resources would last longer .I really can't see everyone deciding to go gay just because gay marriage was legal.Do you really think Bush is pushing the amendment because he is afraid if same sex marriage becomes legal he might feel compelled to dumb Laura and marry Dick Cheney?

estranged4life · #70 06-06-2006, 09:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BombaySapphire3

he is afraid if same sex marriage becomes legal he might fell compelled to dumb Laura and marry Dick Cheney?

cause wouldnt Cheney just go Elmer Fudd on Bush and wax him???

GypsySorcerer · #71 06-06-2006, 09:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GateandGarden

I figure if we're going on this type of logic, we could reasonably ban heterosexual marriages as well, since it appears that the world is woefully overpopulated and the only way I can see to rectify that would be to discourage reproduction. And yet, I doubt that would have any effect whatsoever, as people would reproduce invariably (intentionally or unintentionally) whether or not the government chose to recognize their unions.

And with that logic, couples who choose not to have children also shouldn't marry.

strandinthewind · #72 06-06-2006, 09:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sugar

I know where you stand on this, but I think it's just dandy to "sanction marriage"; I think there's plenty to be said for governments encouraging and yes, even rewarding families for forming and producing the next generation. I mean...it's in the best interest of a society to always have someone around to push around the wheelchairs and pay Social Security and stuff like that. But I also think there are a lot more families that deserve that recognition than are currently getting it . . . .

I do not necessarily disagree with the sanctioning of marriage. However, I think it should be all versions of it, and that is waaaaayyyy too radical for most people

But, I agree with ya in spirit!!!!!