Edwards: "We believe marriage is between a man and a woman."

if your religous and anti-gay it is reasonabally understandable (although i cirtanly dont agree by any means)

if you're not religous and you're anti-gay, you're an asshole. Please enlighten me, one of you non-religous anti-gay people, why do you hate gays so much?

((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((()))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

www.johnkerryisadouchebagbutimvotingforhimanyway.com

''When they attacked us'' - Rudolph Giuliani former republican mayor of NYC referring to Iraq in an interview on NBC news after the presidential debate
 
The two-party system is solely responsible for the decrepit state of American politics; if we had 3 or 4 parties and a modified runoff system of voting, candidates could stand for their values and we could vote for them. One of the most brilliant men in American political history, George Washington, specifically warned against the formation of political parties when he left office.

We have an old saying down on the bayou....Blehhhhh!!!
 
i have no problem with you bitching for gay rights and what not, but i do wish to point out your ignorance in the use of the term Democrat.

back in the day not all democrats were as liberal as they are now. democrats were actually considered to be possible candidates for many conservatives. standard democrats and standard republicans were much less disagreeable than they are today. but in this day and age, the left-wing liberal has taken over the image of a democrat. believe it or not there are still a few little-less-left-of-center democrats today (joe lieberman is a mediocre example), but you people remain unknowledgable about their facts (past or present).

even though I am obviously not of left stance, i recommend that you don't say that edwards is any less of a democrat because he supposedly doesn't support gay rights. even though, in the long run, he probably does, but that's besides my point. i hope that made sense.

Ezekiel 25:17
 
what a paradox! 'punk_rider' and a Bush supporter, lmao! who do you listen to? avril lavigne?

*******************

EUROPE KICKS ASS

___________________

Useless Fact of the Moment:

'The starfish is one of the only animals who can turn it's stomach inside-out. '

^hahaha ONE of the ONLY ahahaha lmao
 
''i have no problem with you bitching for gay rights and what not, but i do wish to point out your ignorance in the use of the term Democrat.

back in the day not all democrats were as liberal as they are now. democrats were actually considered to be possible candidates for many conservatives. standard democrats and standard republicans were much less disagreeable than they are today. but in this day and age, the left-wing liberal has taken over the image of a democrat. believe it or not there are still a few little-less-left-of-center democrats today (joe lieberman is a mediocre example), but you people remain unknowledgable about their facts (past or present).

even though I am obviously not of left stance, i recommend that you don't say that edwards is any less of a democrat because he supposedly doesn't support gay rights. even though, in the long run, he probably does, but that's besides my point. i hope that made sense.

''

hell dude, in this day and age, they are supposed to be the opposition. that was then, this is now, things change. democrats are supposed to be left wing and republicans are supposed to be right wing. otherwise there ould be no sense in voting fro someone no would there? he is not being ignorant at all, that is the way it is supposed to be, democrats are supposed to be liberal

((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((()))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

www.johnkerryisadouchebagbutimvotingforhimanyway.com

''When they attacked us'' - Rudolph Giuliani former republican mayor of NYC referring to Iraq in an interview on NBC news after the presidential debate
 
^i think so, his daughter is a lesbian right? seems like he would then.

'well i bumed into kristi once and she was like 'yo me and pep are gonna get big gulps, you in? and i was like, Shit yea bitch, let me bring rory bushfeild and hibbert, cause were really tight' -Mikael420

*NWFT*
 
with the gay marriage debate aside I believe that was a pretty smart move, but a douchebag thing to do as well. same with bringing cheney's personal life into the debate. when he did that I just had to shake my head in shame. I wish it didn't have to result to the democrats doing whatever they can to be elected. But hey, what needs to be done...... needs to be done.

-Lauren

Lauren and Ella: together changing teenaged boys lives since 2001.

THE FIST OF FURY

Fistin' Mad Bitches!

This is one voice not to forget:

'Fight every fight like you can win;

An iron-fisted champion,

An iron-willed fuck up.'

Skiing's not a sport, it's a lifestyle.

 
The person at the start of this thread was right, marriage isn't a human right, its an invention from the Church. Nothing against homsoexuals being together but you don't need to be 'married'. It seems you are really mising the point of being with someone if you focus everything on being married.

Mark: 'Timo how do you sleep in Finland when it's light all day long?'

Timo (Fireside Lodge pimp) 'You just close your eyes'

Member# 101
 
when cheney was asked, his response was that he would not go against his presidents opinions, right or wrong. sounds like hes for it, but politically cant say it.

**************************************************************************

If i lived in a perfect world, i would spend my days skiing in the sun, the party never ends in perfect world. Nacho cheese and anarchy, boy that sure sounds good to me, im ready to move into a perfect world.

NS ARMY, whatever is right below the General

 
Wow, some people on here need to understand the issues, not just be 'pro-gay' because its the politically correct thing to do.

First, being against gay marriage does NOT make you 'anti-gay' Many gay people themselves do NOT want to get married, as this limits sexual options, among other things. The cost to society will be huge in monetary terms as well, for benefits, taxes, medical care for these new couples. There are many things people do for sexual satisfaction, some people like to have sex with animals. Well, we cant discriminate, we better legalize marriage between humans and horses, cows, etc. WHAT BS!!!!

Second, gay marriage is NOT good for society. I'm not bashing gay people, but the family is the building block of sociey, and that means a traditional family, the way a family has been for thousands of years. This produces offspring, and earns money, adds order to society. Its a proven fact, go to any sociology text, GAY MARRIAGES LAST ON AVERAGE 35% LESS TIME THAN STRAIGHT. Divorce is already rampant in society, legalizing gay marriage will make divorce much more prevalent, negativly affecting millions of innocent children, costing society millions of dollars and further negativly affecting society.

Third, on a slightly different issue, sexual promiscuity, gay or straight, is bad for society. Read any history text. Every single nation that gave up high standards of morality and accepted a sexually promiscous lifestyle degenerated into a less ordered society, eventually collapsing from within. DO THE RESEARCH! Read about the morals in ancient Rome at about 100 AD, the 'bread and circuses', the immorality, and finally the collapse of Rome. And again, go to any sociology text, gay people are more promiscuous than straight, on average have more partners. This is bad for society.

Finally, there are a set of values that have been in place in the USA for the last 300 years. These valus have made the US the strongest and most prosperous country in the world. Why mess with a good thing? Why this push to get rid of any vestige of morality and traditional living in the name of political correctness?? It does not make sense to me.

The American way is one of tolerance towards all, and this I fully agree with. But theres a difference between tolerance and wholehearted embracing of something. And in a stange kind of dichotomy, there is less tolerance now. George W is being criticized vehmently for his faith. Wheres the tolerance, all you left wing human rights activists? If you made a movie criticizing the personal life of a gay candiate, youd be guilty of dicrimination. But becuse hes a straight white traditional male, bring on the scorn. Of course hes made mistakes, I dont ageree with his policies at all, but at least hes standing up for what he belives in.

I want to end with a quote from kamikaze.

'but I can't believe that we're still such a backwards people that a political candidate can't stand up for something he knows is right, for fear of not getting elected'

George W has stood up for what he belives in, and been crucified for it in the media. Many other traditional candidates have had to go againt waht they belived in in order to get elected. Remember that tolerance is a two way street, dotn be hypocritical about it!

Think for youselves, people, dont just listen to what the politically correct media wants you to think. We all know how oftent he media is dead wrong. Peace, Im out.

WE TAKE THESE RISKS NOT TO ESCAPE LIFE, BUT SO THAT LIFE DOES NOT ESCAPE US
 
^ wow i think you have to be one of the most ignorant people in the world. Why are gay people more promiscous? Some are some aren't. Last time i checked there are a ton of straight people that are promiscouis....look at any college campus. Too generally gay people like that is like saying all black people are more violent because they are black....no evidence to back that up.

-------------

Searching For The Truth

-------------

'There is a difference between living and being alive.'

-------------

'Hesitation will make your worst fears come true.' - JT
 
'The two-party system is solely responsible for the decrepit state of American politics; if we had 3 or 4 parties and a modified runoff system of voting, candidates could stand for their values and we could vote for them. One of the most brilliant men in American political history, George Washington, specifically warned against the formation of political parties when he left office.'

It more complex then that. The two major parties that we have cater to many different kinds of people. Their are liberal, moderate, and conservative Republicans as their are liberal, moderate, and conservative Democrats. The reason these two parties are so dominant is because they cater to the most people and are for the most part in the 'normal' realm of thinking. Most candidates do stand for their values. This is possible when these parties are such diverse group. No two candidates agree on the exact same things. You seem to be suggesting that all the people from one party are all the same. This is false. Could you really compare Clinton, Kerry of FDR as being the same? How about Nixon, Bush or Regan? The answer is no. Every one had different things to offer and valued different issues differently. The parties are now far more complex then I even think Washington could have imagined.

On an almost completely unrelated note, George Washington was initially reluctant to be the president.

****************************************

Proud member of the d-loc fanclub

 
jarossamdb7: I wanted to say that I agree with you, and I don't like the fact that politics are becoming increasingly polarized.

As for the other gentleman, here's my response:

'First, being against gay marriage does NOT make you 'anti-gay' Many gay people themselves do NOT want to get married, as this limits sexual options, among other things. The cost to society will be huge in monetary terms as well, for benefits, taxes, medical care for these new couples. There are many things people do for sexual satisfaction, some people like to have sex with animals. Well, we cant discriminate, we better legalize marriage between humans and horses, cows, etc. WHAT BS!!!!'

First, I agree that being against gay marriage does not mean that you are anti-gay. However, the fact that you're in support of depriving a certain group of people a certain right SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE OF THEIR SEXUAL PREFERENCE tells me that you lack a more complete understanding of the issues here. True, many gay people may not want to get married (as many straight people may not want to get married), but the difference is, when those straight people decide that they DO want to get married, they're not BANNED BY LAW from doing so. And what the fuck are you talking about the cost to society for? Do you have any idea of HOW MANY people get married every day? Allowing gay marriage isn't going to overflow the system at all. What I'm most concerned about is the fact that you said that it will cost SOCIETY when we allow these homosexuals to have the tax breaks, benefits, and medical care changes involved in a marriage. I hope you realize how ridiculous and bigoted this argument is. You're saying, 'It will be expensive to give these people their rights, so we shouldn't give them to them.' That's bullshit, buddy. And I'm not even going to bother with your 'animal' comparison... are you even TRYING to suggest that two humans having sex with each other has anything, ANYTHING do to with a human having sex with a different species? That's one hell of a bigoted comparison.

'Second, gay marriage is NOT good for society. I'm not bashing gay people, but the family is the building block of sociey, and that means a traditional family, the way a family has been for thousands of years. This produces offspring, and earns money, adds order to society. Its a proven fact, go to any sociology text, GAY MARRIAGES LAST ON AVERAGE 35% LESS TIME THAN STRAIGHT. Divorce is already rampant in society, legalizing gay marriage will make divorce much more prevalent, negativly affecting millions of innocent children, costing society millions of dollars and further negativly affecting society.'

First off, I want you to tell me specifically what sociology text I can look at to find your results. Secondly, don't assume that the current family unit is the way families have been 'for thousands of years'... ever heard of polygamy? Third, how is a homosexual family unit any different than a 'traditional family unit' when it comes to stability and productivity? I flat-out don't believe your statement that gay marriages don't last as long as straight ones; and even if that WERE the case, you know as well as I do that in proportion, break-ups between straight couples are infinitely bigger societal problems when it comes to 'negativly affecting millions of innocent children, costing society millions of dollars and further negativly affecting society.' Your claim that legalizing gay marriage will increase divorce is true; the more marriages you allow of any kind, the more divorces there will be- that's simple. But claiming that gay marriage will make divorce 'much more prevalent'? What? Amongst whom? Everyone will start divorcing each other in massive numbers now that they're finally allowed to get married? Unfounded and ridiculous.

Third, on a slightly different issue, sexual promiscuity, gay or straight, is bad for society. Read any history text. Every single nation that gave up high standards of morality and accepted a sexually promiscous lifestyle degenerated into a less ordered society, eventually collapsing from within. DO THE RESEARCH! Read about the morals in ancient Rome at about 100 AD, the 'bread and circuses', the immorality, and finally the collapse of Rome. And again, go to any sociology text, gay people are more promiscuous than straight, on average have more partners. This is bad for society.

Marriage is a union between two people. That's not promiscuity; that's marriage. Gay marriage, if anything, would DECREASE promiscuity. You're arguing my point here. Allowing gay marriage is not 'giving up higher standards of morality.' Morality is a sticky word to throw around, but a gay union is in no way implicitly 'more immoral' than a straight one. You tell me to DO THE RESEARCH! I tell you to READ WHAT YOU'RE SAYING!!! YOU'RE SAYING THAT MARRIAGE IS SOMEHOW GOING TO INCREASE SEXUAL PROMISCUITY!

'Finally, there are a set of values that have been in place in the USA for the last 300 years. These valus have made the US the strongest and most prosperous country in the world. Why mess with a good thing? Why this push to get rid of any vestige of morality and traditional living in the name of political correctness?? It does not make sense to me.'

These are the values that have made America strong and prosperous: Individual rights. Compassion. Respect. Liberty. Freedom. Democracy. They all sound pretty good, don't they? The strict Christian morality structure and 'traditional living' didn't build America, Americans did. Black and white Americans, gay and straight Americans, every kind of American you can imagine.

'The American way is one of tolerance towards all, and this I fully agree with. But theres a difference between tolerance and wholehearted embracing of something. And in a stange kind of dichotomy, there is less tolerance now. George W is being criticized vehmently for his faith. Wheres the tolerance, all you left wing human rights activists? If you made a movie criticizing the personal life of a gay candiate, youd be guilty of dicrimination. But becuse hes a straight white traditional male, bring on the scorn. Of course hes made mistakes, I dont ageree with his policies at all, but at least hes standing up for what he belives in.'

I have never criticized George W. Bush for his faith. The point where I begin to take issues with any faith is when those 'religious' beliefs start to encroach on the rights of other people. I don't want to turn this into a religious argument, but Christian faith and Christian morals are two different things. I frown upon any attempt to deprive people of their rights through religious license. I don't criticize George W. Bush because of his religion, I criticize the decisions he makes running MY country in the name of HIS religion. It's called the separation of church and state.

'I want to end with a quote from kamikaze.

'but I can't believe that we're still such a backwards people that a political candidate can't stand up for something he knows is right, for fear of not getting elected'

George W has stood up for what he belives in, and been crucified for it in the media. Many other traditional candidates have had to go againt waht they belived in in order to get elected. Remember that tolerance is a two way street, dotn be hypocritical about it!'

I never said anything about George W. Bush in my original post, and never intended that he'd enter the discussion. As far as tolerance, I tolerate anyone's and everyone's religion and anyone and everyone's beliefs, and I don't consider myself hypocritical in any way when I say I will tolerate someone's religious beliefs ONLY THE THE POINT WHERE THOSE BELIEFS START FUCKING UP HUMAN RIGHTS. I don't give a damn whether George W. Bush takes communion or lights a chalice or kneels five times a day facing Mecca. I give a damn when he (and, apparently Kerry/Edwards too) uses those religious beliefs to discriminate against American citizens. That's not hypocrisy, that's ME standing up for my beliefs.

Wayne: 'I don't own a gun, let alone many guns that would necessitate the use of a rack. What am I going to do... with a gun rack?'
 
jarossamdb7: I wanted to say that I agree with you, and I don't like the fact that politics are becoming increasingly polarized.

As for the other gentleman, here's my response:

'First, being against gay marriage does NOT make you 'anti-gay' Many gay people themselves do NOT want to get married, as this limits sexual options, among other things. The cost to society will be huge in monetary terms as well, for benefits, taxes, medical care for these new couples. There are many things people do for sexual satisfaction, some people like to have sex with animals. Well, we cant discriminate, we better legalize marriage between humans and horses, cows, etc. WHAT BS!!!!'

First, I agree that being against gay marriage does not mean that you are anti-gay. However, the fact that you're in support of depriving a certain group of people a certain right SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE OF THEIR SEXUAL PREFERENCE tells me that you lack a more complete understanding of the issues here. True, many gay people may not want to get married (as many straight people may not want to get married), but the difference is, when those straight people decide that they DO want to get married, they're not BANNED BY LAW from doing so. And what the fuck are you talking about the cost to society for? Do you have any idea of HOW MANY people get married every day? Allowing gay marriage isn't going to overflow the system at all. What I'm most concerned about is the fact that you said that it will cost SOCIETY when we allow these homosexuals to have the tax breaks, benefits, and medical care changes involved in a marriage. I hope you realize how ridiculous and bigoted this argument is. You're saying, 'It will be expensive to give these people their rights, so we shouldn't give them to them.' That's bullshit, buddy. And I'm not even going to bother with your 'animal' comparison... are you even TRYING to suggest that two humans having sex with each other has anything, ANYTHING do to with a human having sex with a different species? That's one hell of a bigoted comparison.

'Second, gay marriage is NOT good for society. I'm not bashing gay people, but the family is the building block of sociey, and that means a traditional family, the way a family has been for thousands of years. This produces offspring, and earns money, adds order to society. Its a proven fact, go to any sociology text, GAY MARRIAGES LAST ON AVERAGE 35% LESS TIME THAN STRAIGHT. Divorce is already rampant in society, legalizing gay marriage will make divorce much more prevalent, negativly affecting millions of innocent children, costing society millions of dollars and further negativly affecting society.'

First off, I want you to tell me specifically what sociology text I can look at to find your results. Secondly, don't assume that the current family unit is the way families have been 'for thousands of years'... ever heard of polygamy? Third, how is a homosexual family unit any different than a 'traditional family unit' when it comes to stability and productivity? I flat-out don't believe your statement that gay marriages don't last as long as straight ones; and even if that WERE the case, you know as well as I do that in proportion, break-ups between straight couples are infinitely bigger societal problems when it comes to 'negativly affecting millions of innocent children, costing society millions of dollars and further negativly affecting society.' Your claim that legalizing gay marriage will increase divorce is true; the more marriages you allow of any kind, the more divorces there will be- that's simple. But claiming that gay marriage will make divorce 'much more prevalent'? What? Amongst whom? Everyone will start divorcing each other in massive numbers now that they're finally allowed to get married? Unfounded and ridiculous.

Third, on a slightly different issue, sexual promiscuity, gay or straight, is bad for society. Read any history text. Every single nation that gave up high standards of morality and accepted a sexually promiscous lifestyle degenerated into a less ordered society, eventually collapsing from within. DO THE RESEARCH! Read about the morals in ancient Rome at about 100 AD, the 'bread and circuses', the immorality, and finally the collapse of Rome. And again, go to any sociology text, gay people are more promiscuous than straight, on average have more partners. This is bad for society.

Marriage is a union between two people. That's not promiscuity; that's marriage. Gay marriage, if anything, would DECREASE promiscuity. You're arguing my point here. Allowing gay marriage is not 'giving up higher standards of morality.' Morality is a sticky word to throw around, but a gay union is in no way implicitly 'more immoral' than a straight one. You tell me to DO THE RESEARCH! I tell you to READ WHAT YOU'RE SAYING!!! YOU'RE SAYING THAT MARRIAGE IS SOMEHOW GOING TO INCREASE SEXUAL PROMISCUITY!

'Finally, there are a set of values that have been in place in the USA for the last 300 years. These valus have made the US the strongest and most prosperous country in the world. Why mess with a good thing? Why this push to get rid of any vestige of morality and traditional living in the name of political correctness?? It does not make sense to me.'

These are the values that have made America strong and prosperous: Individual rights. Compassion. Respect. Liberty. Freedom. Democracy. They all sound pretty good, don't they? The strict Christian morality structure and 'traditional living' didn't build America, Americans did. Black and white Americans, gay and straight Americans, every kind of American you can imagine.

'The American way is one of tolerance towards all, and this I fully agree with. But theres a difference between tolerance and wholehearted embracing of something. And in a stange kind of dichotomy, there is less tolerance now. George W is being criticized vehmently for his faith. Wheres the tolerance, all you left wing human rights activists? If you made a movie criticizing the personal life of a gay candiate, youd be guilty of dicrimination. But becuse hes a straight white traditional male, bring on the scorn. Of course hes made mistakes, I dont ageree with his policies at all, but at least hes standing up for what he belives in.'

I have never criticized George W. Bush for his faith. The point where I begin to take issues with any faith is when those 'religious' beliefs start to encroach on the rights of other people. I don't want to turn this into a religious argument, but Christian faith and Christian morals are two different things. I frown upon any attempt to deprive people of their rights through religious license. I don't criticize George W. Bush because of his religion, I criticize the decisions he makes running MY country in the name of HIS religion. It's called the separation of church and state.

'I want to end with a quote from kamikaze.

'but I can't believe that we're still such a backwards people that a political candidate can't stand up for something he knows is right, for fear of not getting elected'

George W has stood up for what he belives in, and been crucified for it in the media. Many other traditional candidates have had to go againt waht they belived in in order to get elected. Remember that tolerance is a two way street, dotn be hypocritical about it!'

I never said anything about George W. Bush in my original post, and never intended that he'd enter the discussion. As far as tolerance, I tolerate anyone's and everyone's religion and anyone and everyone's beliefs, and I don't consider myself hypocritical in any way when I say I will tolerate someone's religious beliefs ONLY THE THE POINT WHERE THOSE BELIEFS START FUCKING UP HUMAN RIGHTS. I don't give a damn whether George W. Bush takes communion or lights a chalice or kneels five times a day facing Mecca. I give a damn when he (and, apparently Kerry/Edwards too) uses those religious beliefs to discriminate against American citizens. That's not hypocrisy, that's ME standing up for my beliefs.

Wayne: 'I don't own a gun, let alone many guns that would necessitate the use of a rack. What am I going to do... with a gun rack?'

Wayne: 'I don't own a gun, let alone many guns that would necessitate the use of a rack. What am I going to do... with a gun rack?'
 
I'm well aware that the situation is more complex, an actual ideal electoral system was analyzed mathematically by Scientific American a few months back, and it included a runoff, rank voting, and popular vote. This was used because it had people vote their conscience and true beliefs more often instead of voting for the candidate they though could win and supported their views in some capacity. You can look in their archives for the article, it's actually very interesting.

In addition, no, the current two-party system doesn't exist because it caters to the most people, it exists because both parties are power-grabbing thugs who have ensured their own business and political futures through intimidation and a manipulation of the democratic process. It is NOT a natural evolution of the political system.

We have an old saying down on the bayou....Blehhhhh!!!
 
Its hypocrisy for those men to betray their religion, which should be the most important thing in their life, just for public opinion, but I wouldn't put it past Kerry. If you are president would you legalize something that you knew to be wrong?

Politicaly Active Since 1992

'Soberity is not an option.'

Drivin that Train
 
“In addition, no, the current two-party system doesn't exist because it caters to the most people, it exists because both parties are power-grabbing thugs who have ensured their own business and political futures through intimidation and a manipulation of the democratic process. It is NOT a natural evolution of the political system.�

Um, no. There is much more catering rather then manipulating. Despite what you think, most people CAN think for themselves. Its all about perception. It is true that the parties will glorify themselves and frown on their opponents, but that is naturally expected. This government is set up so somebody can’t run away with their greed. It has a balance. Most conspiracy theories are classic nonsense. You don’t think the two major parties are within the normal realm of thinking? Who is then? And what exactly is this natural evolution of a political systems? I’d love to hear it.

****************************************

Proud member of the d-loc fanclub

 
My opinion on the Gay marriage issue is that civil unions for gay or lesbian couples is great. I haven't a shred of hate in my body for anyone's sexual preference(as long as it's human and of proper age) but the way I was raised was that marriage is a religious ceremony. This being said gay marriage is not included. Granted these religious values were created a long long time ago in a completely different society, but they are the vaulues I follow and believe in. I am not a bible thumper of any kind, and will never say you should believe one thing or another, your choice is your choice, I have ZERO say in what you do with your life. My choice to follow what I believe is my choice, you won't sway my thoughts. Marriage is not a basic human right, it's a religious right. Many religions practice it, but in one form...Man and Woman. If you look to animals for basic rights, you won't see marriage. People can live together for life and not be married, it's not necessary to live together and be legally married. If you look at this from the legal aspect of marriage, fine legally gay and lesbian couples should be able to be legally recognized as being married, but to call it marriage doesn't sit well with me. Ideally whatever it is termed should hold equal importance to the word marriage.

In order to be a good politician, a person has to be a people pleaser. They can choose to do it by sticking to their guns, or by telling people what they want to hear. Both are equally dangerous. Both candidates have downfalls, but both have good points too. I agree with having more parties, or better yet, no parties. I hate people that vote straight ticket, on way or the other. STUPID. I am republican, but if there is a memeber of another party that impresses me most, I'll vote for them. Whoever has the best interests of the country in mind should win. What party they are a part of should have no bearing on the way folks vote.

Iraq may have been a mistake, but Sadaam was a danger to his country and the world. Pulling out now would be a huge, HUGE mistake. Let's fuck up an country then leave, that's brilliant. (

 
Skiertrav: I want to thank you for your post. That was very well thought-out, and it made me ask myself some questions that I hadn't thought of before. But I have to ask: do you mean that only straight men and women are (and should be) the only people entitled to a religious marriage? Being homosexual doesn't mean you can't be religious, too. Don't you think that exclusion from not only civil but also religious ceremony is a tremendous injustice? It's almost a manifestation of the religious extremist statement 'God hates homosexuals, and you should too.'

But I really, really liked this paragraph of yours:

In order to be a good politician, a person has to be a people pleaser. They can choose to do it by sticking to their guns, or by telling people what they want to hear. Both are equally dangerous. Both candidates have downfalls, but both have good points too. I agree with having more parties, or better yet, no parties. I hate people that vote straight ticket, on way or the other. STUPID. I am republican, but if there is a memeber of another party that impresses me most, I'll vote for them. Whoever has the best interests of the country in mind should win. What party they are a part of should have no bearing on the way folks vote.

I agree wholeheartedly! Actually I kind of feel like you're a mirror for me; you see and feel the same things I do, but you see them from the opposite side of the pond. Interesting.

Wayne: 'I don't own a gun, let alone many guns that would necessitate the use of a rack. What am I going to do... with a gun rack?'
 
I am somewhat religious, but not extremest, those types of people piss me off more than anything. It gives religion in general a bad name.

As for the gay marriages, I am all for civil unions, but an actual religious marriage is pushing my limits. I'm not saying it's totally wrong and we should ammend the constitution to ban it, but from my standpoint, I almost find it offensive. The values written out(however old, and translated) are what I believe, and until I am shown where it says gay marriage is ok, then I'm against it. Homosexuals can be religious, and I am totally fine with that, but the actual ceremony and what it means is what bothers me. I don't find it to be any sort of injustice, but that's just the way I was raised, and what I was taught and believe. Some may deem it to be unjust and everyone is entitled to their opinion, and I don't hold it against them. And who knows for sure that God hates homosexuals. As far as I am concerned the Bible is open to interpretation. That doesn't mean I'll interpret the same as the next guy, but I'll humor their ideas about it.

 
Lebbo, the thing about gays not being able to be married is that they get dicked (no pun intended) out of tax cuts, when thier lover's dead it's hard to obtain their shit. theyt are treated legally like they are single, and that sucks.

**Proud member of the d-loc fanclub**

d-loc's wit & wisdom at its best.
 
I'm also looking out for the best interest of our country and I don't like these days of 'pushing the envelope' on what is right.

As many of you know, I am a Godly person and I try to live my life by following Jesus and his teachings. Numerous times in the Bible, God sets his plan for marriage. Between a man and a woman, and when they are married they are one body and spirit. I'm not an extremist either, those people make me mad...the people who are racist 'in the name of Jesus'....that's a bunch of bull. If the gay marriage ban gets passed, I think our country will be better off. That is my opinion, and it doesn't have to be yours. I'm just letting you guys know.

-------------------

-Ryan

www.wolfcreekski.com

I'm still waiting for the one I'm waiting for
 
^ go kill yourself. you have no right to tell anyone they can't be married. marriage is something we created, why can't two guys be married? or two women for that matter. i think you need to clean your eyes cuz jesus's cum is definately covering them.

i tihnk our country would be fine with gays married. and if you don't believe that, i feel you shouldn't be able to get married, jsut so you know how that feels.

**Proud member of the d-loc fanclub**

d-loc's wit & wisdom at its best.
 
thats assuming that marrige is indeed something that we made up. we have certainly wrecked and devalued it, thats a fact, but thats like saying conclusivly that there is no God. it simply cannot be stated factually.

Mercy's eyes are blue

When she places them in front of you

Nothing holds a roman candle to

The solemn warmth you feel inside

 
^^that's the nicest thing I've ever heard. thank you. ^does everything need to be supported factually? Ok, let's say that it's snows in Denver...8 inches. 3 miles away in Aurora, it snows 13 inches. How can this be supported factually? I believe in the wind, yet I can't see it. I can feel it though, the same with God.

-------------------

-Ryan

www.wolfcreekski.com

I'm still waiting for the one I'm waiting for
 
^ come on man. don't act dumb, yea some magical man came and created marriage, and the paper work for it, and the benefits of being married.

we made marriage what it is today. it's not just be with each other and having kids, it effects the way the government treats you homie.

**Proud member of the d-loc fanclub**

d-loc's wit & wisdom at its best.
 
^yes we have created what marriage is today....screwed up

-------------------

-Ryan

www.wolfcreekski.com

I'm still waiting for the one I'm waiting for
 
Hmm...some interesting points have been raised...but my question is, where will it end? Where are we getting our morality from??

What about that 30 year old teacher that got pregnant from her 12 year old student?? She went to jail!!! They claimed to love each other, but instead the government broke them up. WHAT DISCRIMINATION!!! WHAT BIGOTRY! She should have the right to get married to whomever she wants!

Heck, lets let everyone get married....the fat 50 year old down the street to the 8 year old girl next door, Dang while we're at it I'd like a few wives, ITS MY RIGHT, DONT BE A BIGOT, IF I CHOOSE TO MARRY 4 WOMEN ITS MY RIGHT.....

The dad that loves his daughter, let them get married too! And yeah this guy loves his dog, heck we cant discriminate, make them a couple too!

See where I'm going with this?? I know Im being unrealistic, but it just seems wrong. Im not a homophobe, I guess I just don't understand why marriage is all of a sudden a 'right' and I also don't understand where society will get its moral code from if the traditional moral code that has been in place for the last 300 years, is thrown out the window. This includes the marriage of man and woman, to work together, better society, and produce offspring. This is how the USA was settled, how it grew into a great country.

I am NOT bashing gay people, I just think legalizing gay marriage is a BAD IDEA. Trust me, I know. Its been legal here in Canada for not even a year and the legal headaches have been enormous.

WE TAKE THESE RISKS NOT TO ESCAPE LIFE, BUT SO THAT LIFE DOES NOT ESCAPE US
 
First of all the 'moral code' that you say has been in place for 300 years initially included the idea that it was ok to enslave black people, beat your wife and children, and deny a whoooole bunch of people the right to vote. Let's just say that times have changed. That argument is pretty idiotic, really... it implies a complete lack of moral progress. Hey, torture worked in the middle ages, it made some countries pretty great. So what's wrong with it? Come on, you should be able to do better than THAT.

Secondly, you're really harping on the morality issue, but we can't really have any sort of discussion about it until you define what your morality is. What principle do you subscribe to? Because if you can't define that, you're making judgments arbitrarily. Let me help. Complete this sentence: ''We should do whatever accomplishes the goal of...'' Agreeing with the bible? Making people happy? According with logic? What? This is kind of important if you want to talk about ethics.

------------

In a haze

A stormy haze

I’ll be around

I’ll be loving you

Always

Always

Here I am

And I’ll take my time

Here I am

And I’ll wait in line

Always

Always...
 
I agree with you that gay marriage is wrong, but your example is lame. In a gay marraige, both partners are legal adults. You cant use the examples with minors in them to make an argument for yourself. Minors arent accountable from a legal standpoint.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Worrying is like a rocking chair. It gives you something to do, but in the end, it doesnt get you anywhere. Write that down.
 
well if i was gay and i jsut got the right to marry my partner i would, even if we were getting devorced in 4 months. i'd jsut like the option.

^ your whole post was jsut stupid man. people used to be able to marry 12 year old girls and shit like that. we've passed that stage. how can you even compare that to a gay marriage? that jsut goes to show all of us how you view gays: bizarre. when i think of a gay couple, i think of them the same as a straight couple. they can't help the fact that they are attracted to the other sex. you think they wanted to be different? fuck no, people like you bahs them all the time. who would want that? but at least they are being themselves. and if two gay people want to get married they damn well have the right to, no matter what a straight homophobe like yourself has to say about it. and im only calling you a homophobe because i know you'll take that as an insult, because you're all about being politically correct.

why not jsut go out and say you hate gay people. it'd be muchb etter than hiding it. i don't hate gay people and im straight, they don't effect my life what so ever. well i guess they do stupid gay pride things, but that's jsut because of all the homophobes in the world. what im getting at and having a hard time not rambling off, is if you don't dislike gays, what the fuck is the problem? why wouldn't you want them to be married and happy?

and don't go acting like you are the defender of god's intention on marriage! not everyone believes in religion and government and religion sohld not mix. therefor the government should not listen to the rules of the bible, and should treat everyone as an equal, not putting stupid restrictions on people who like the same gender.

can't stand people like you. why can't you put yourself in their shoes? if you were gay and wanted to get married wouldn't you be all about it? yes you would, and so having people tell you, you can not, how would that make you feel buddy?

it's the same as if men and women weren't allowed to get married, i would be pissed if i couldn't marry the woman i loved.

**Proud member of the d-loc fanclub**

d-loc's wit & wisdom at its best.
 
ok. I was wondering if that was really for me.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Worrying is like a rocking chair. It gives you something to do, but in the end, it doesnt get you anywhere. Write that down.
 
it applies to you as well, you're aren't for gay marriage. fucking drop the homophobe attitude.

how is it wrong, give me a reason why it is wrong. i jsut can't find anything wrng aobut it.

tha'ts liek you telling me that gay people can't raise children. they have all the same abilities as you and me buddy. their dick/pussy gets turned on for different reasons thats all.

**Proud member of the d-loc fanclub**

d-loc's wit & wisdom at its best.
 
There's a lack of understanding involved when people make comparisons like those, and it's evidence of an individual who just can't conceive of a homosexual relationship as a loving, romantic union between two mentally healthy, intelligent, rational, good-natured, mature adults. It's possible to have this. I only know one married gay man, and not only is he one of the nicest, most good-natured, cheerful people I've ever met, his 'marriage' has lasted over 6 years thus far, one being legal. It's one of the more romantic relationships among any of the people I know, actually. The way gay people feel about each other isn't any different from the way straight people feel, in that way. They can love just as we can.

------------

In a haze

A stormy haze

I’ll be around

I’ll be loving you

Always

Always

Here I am

And I’ll take my time

Here I am

And I’ll wait in line

Always

Always...
 
yea, i just don't understand how people can confuse love. i mean, love is love whatever the outside package is.

it's like loving a man with a small penis, he isn't nearly as good as the guy with the 12 inch dick, but you love him jsut the same as the lady who's fucking the 12 inch cock.

**Proud member of the d-loc fanclub**

d-loc's wit & wisdom at its best.
 
Bitchass....tolerence is a two way street, buddy. I simply stated my opinion, something I have a right to, just like you and everyone else. I did not bash gays or you or anyone else. However, you used profanity, stated that you hated me..... dude, graduate from kindergarten. If you can prove me wrong, go for it. Don't just go off in a poorly written rant that does not make sense.

And to prove you wrong...

'and if two gay people want to get married they damn well have the right to'-bitchass

Where?? how do you back that up? Marriage is NOT a constitutional right, it is a creation of the churh and society to help organize and make a society work and function. Explain to me how legalizing same sex marriage will help society to grow and prosper. I'm all ears buddy.

WE TAKE THESE RISKS NOT TO ESCAPE LIFE, BUT SO THAT LIFE DOES NOT ESCAPE US
 
Im not a homophobe. I just have personal beliefs, just like you do apparently. I am not attacking you for your beliefs.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Worrying is like a rocking chair. It gives you something to do, but in the end, it doesnt get you anywhere. Write that down.
 
nope.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Worrying is like a rocking chair. It gives you something to do, but in the end, it doesnt get you anywhere. Write that down.
 
some of you are harsh. You do realize not everyone worships the same God as you. Maybe those people shouldn't be allowed to do that either eh? stop saying you're defending God, because the bible says a lot more stuff other than homosexuals are bad. Open your eyes, don't be so ignorant

-------------

I Love Jenna Malone
 
To JD...as always I appreciate your well written posts on here.

On the subject of morality...I am unapologetic, I get my moral code from the Biblical principles that the founding fathers of the USA belived in. This is a tried and true code of ethics that everyone, whether they like it or not WANTS everyone ELSE to live by. Dont kill, don't steal, be respectful to your elders...arent we all pretty glad when people in society live by these principles?

Read the 10 commandments, and tell me ONE, that you think should be thrown out. You are right, many atrocities have been committed in the history of the USA, by people who should have known better. The Bible tells you to love your neighbor as yourself, to treat others the same way as you would like to be treated. If people had paid attention to that 200 years ago, slavery would not have been an option, dont ya think?

Just because people ignored parts of this moral code 200 years ago doesn't mean the whole thing should be chucked out the window! And this is precicely what I see many of the liberals in politics today trying to do.

Anyways...read the next thread that I start. Its another opinion piece, this one by a friend of mine, on the subject of marriage. Very through provoking.

WE TAKE THESE RISKS NOT TO ESCAPE LIFE, BUT SO THAT LIFE DOES NOT ESCAPE US
 
you realize they used the bible to justify slavery. The bible and God should not even be an issue in whether gay marriage should be banned. Don't preach your shit to people who don't want to hear it. It is a matter of state, which should be separate from religion.

-------------

I Love Jenna Malone
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top