i am 100% against the FMA. i don't want the constitution turned into bigot porn. the bill of rights codifies, surprisingly enough, our rights, not those things we forbid people to do. it also codifies the limits on powers we grant to the government. well, it's about time we put another limit on the power of government - it's time the government got out of the marriage business, a business it never should have been in in the first place. a union of two people is a spiritual matter, not a matter of the state.
if you're against gay marriage, well then, don't go marrying someone of the same sex as you. otherwise, butt out of people's personal lives. you are not being harmed in any way by two people of the same sex entering into a union of matrimony. if it offends you, well then by all means sit there and wallow in being offended, but leave other people alone who aren't harming you.
the world needs more people who are in love entering into committed unions. not fewer. need i ask, what was holy and beautiful when that little tart brittney spears got married for 50 hours? legal marriage. 100% approval of the government. so, that's okay, but two people of the same sex who've been living in a committed monogomous relationship for fifty years - they're the ones making a mockery of 'tradition'? please.
you are not being harmed in any way by two people of the same sex entering into a union of matrimony.
Kerry for President?
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
Kerry for President?
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
Kerry for President?
hey, and thanks for that link. i used it to email my representative to tell her that i am AGAINST the FMA, and asking her to vote AGAINST the FMA.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
-
capt_buzzard
- Posts: 5557
- Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2004 12:00 pm
Kerry for President?
I have nothing against Gayes period. But I don't go along with the marriage bit. Oh stay together by all means....a lifetime.But how many gays actually stay together any number of weeks,months or ever a year?
Kerry for President?
Straight people need to preserve their rights, gays should unite in a civil union..end of story, at the alter - what is said, you may now kiss the bride? NOw we will need to create new titles for each gender if marriage is passed for gays?
you may now kiss your partner?
you may now kiss your partner?
Everyone has these on their face? TULIPS.
Kerry for President?
Good point. They will continue pretending they are the sex they want to be though. That night they will continue the farce by confirming the need for opposite sexes by pretending to be one or the other.
Schooling results in matriculation. Education is a process that changes the learner.
Kerry for President?
clint i don't understand what you are saying? please clarify what the point is? i have no problem with gays, its the marriage thing that is stupid. this world needs to draw the line, i cannot stress it enough marriage is for a man & a woman, that needs to remain. :-5 :-5 for election purposes issues like this come forward, what next?
Everyone has these on their face? TULIPS.
Kerry for President?
I don't have a problem with people who are "gay". I do have a problem with what they do. Accepting what they do has brought us to the point we are considering legalizing marriage for them. It is a slippery slope and once you are on it, what is at the end is there for all to see. We are a culture held together by families. Gay marriage will ultimately destroy families and our culture. We are strong because our families were once strong. We are losing strength at the same rate of speed as we destroy the family. This whole thing got started when mothers left the home to compete with fathers in the workplace. Children got confused about what role they should grow up to fill.
Schooling results in matriculation. Education is a process that changes the learner.
Kerry for President?
gee, i'm glad to see some-one else feels the way i do, it is out - of control this gay issue, i believe some engage in it just for attention? i think its gone too far. gay people can show their love for eachother in privacy, why make it public? have some respect for yourselves, 2 of the same gender want to be united in marriage? what next, you can baptize your pet? i cannot imagine 2 men marrying, or women, it is too damn funny, whats the point? you know no-one will get pregnant, but then some might want their sister carry an egg from the mans husband? so then you have an uncle and a dad for the child, interesting? 
Everyone has these on their face? TULIPS.
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
Kerry for President?
i posted this in another thread about gay marriage. i'm reposting again. the arguments against gay marriage are silly in my opinion.
Top 12 reasons why gays shouldn't marry:
1. Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control.
2. Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile couples and old people can't legally get married because the world needs more children.
3. Obviously, gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
4. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if Gay marriage is allowed, since Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.
5. Heterosexual marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are property, blacks can't marry whites, and divorce is illegal.
6. Gay marriage should be decided by people, not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of the minorities.
7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country.That's why we have only one religion in America.
8. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
9. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.
10. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why single parents are forbidden to raise children.
11. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven't adapted to things like cars or longer lifespan.
12. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a "separate but equal" institution is always constitutional. Separate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as separate marriages for gays and lesbians will.
Top 12 reasons why gays shouldn't marry:
1. Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control.
2. Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile couples and old people can't legally get married because the world needs more children.
3. Obviously, gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
4. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if Gay marriage is allowed, since Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.
5. Heterosexual marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are property, blacks can't marry whites, and divorce is illegal.
6. Gay marriage should be decided by people, not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of the minorities.
7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country.That's why we have only one religion in America.
8. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
9. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.
10. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why single parents are forbidden to raise children.
11. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven't adapted to things like cars or longer lifespan.
12. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a "separate but equal" institution is always constitutional. Separate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as separate marriages for gays and lesbians will.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
Kerry for President?
anastrophe, sounds like you're for gay marriage? i would prefer to see marriage as unchanged, but that is just (my) opinion. kerry for president? well in this area he will win, as there are so many gays who want this marriage thing? for some reason in my heart - it doesn't pass? i feel the attiutude here about the subject - is - a delibrate dis-honor to us straight people? if these people could be civil about it, maybe it would pass, until then it is considered a civil union, i believe in the end, thats what relationships of this nature will be identified as. :-4
Everyone has these on their face? TULIPS.
-
capt_buzzard
- Posts: 5557
- Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2004 12:00 pm
Kerry for President?
Mickey Mouse for President
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
Kerry for President?
Paula wrote: anastrophe, sounds like you're for gay marriage? i would prefer to see marriage as unchanged, but that is just (my) opinion. kerry for president? well in this area he will win, as there are so many gays who want this marriage thing? for some reason in my heart - it doesn't pass? i feel the attiutude here about the subject - is - a delibrate dis-honor to us straight people? if these people could be civil about it, maybe it would pass, until then it is considered a civil union, i believe in the end, thats what relationships of this nature will be identified as. :-4
in what way is it a dishonor to straight people?
my fundamental argument is that *churches/religions* are free to define "marriage" however they want, within the confines of their spiritual decisions. that's fine. however, the *government* should first and foremost NOT be in the marriage business. marriage as i just said is a spiritual/traditional/ ceremonional union of two people. the government got in the marriage business for one reason, and one reason only: to find new and interesting ways to tax people (and to provide tax benefits as well, to be fair). the problem is the 'separate but equal' nonsense. if you want to get married in a church, and that church will only wed a man and a woman - then go forth and have a blast. but you don't get a marriage certificate from the government then - you get a civil union certificate. in that way, your union, for legal purposes, is the same as that of any other couple, man/woman, man/man, woman/woman. and that's what it boils down to. now, if a church feels that within the confines of their spiritual decisions that the marriage of two people of the same sex is acceptable, then that's just dandy too. because it is not up to you, nor me, to tell other people what is right, spiritually. whatever arguments there may be for or against gay marriage, they must exist strictly in the spiritual realm of discourse, not the legal realm.
what i am for is the abolishment of state-issued marriage licenses. if two people want to join together, they can get married whereever they want, and they can be a part of whatever church they want, and exercise their religion however they want. i'm all for that. but since we do not have a state-sponsored religion in this country (the united states), then the *legal* aspect of the union should strictly be a civil union.
a man and a man join together: civil union certificate.
a woman and a woman join together: civil union certificate.
a man and a woman join together: civil union certificate.
the notion of a constitutional amendment codifying that marriage is the union of a man and a woman is deeply offensive to me. the US constitution is all about codifying *rights*, not codifying what one group of people doesn't like another group of people doing.
in what way is it a dishonor to straight people?
my fundamental argument is that *churches/religions* are free to define "marriage" however they want, within the confines of their spiritual decisions. that's fine. however, the *government* should first and foremost NOT be in the marriage business. marriage as i just said is a spiritual/traditional/ ceremonional union of two people. the government got in the marriage business for one reason, and one reason only: to find new and interesting ways to tax people (and to provide tax benefits as well, to be fair). the problem is the 'separate but equal' nonsense. if you want to get married in a church, and that church will only wed a man and a woman - then go forth and have a blast. but you don't get a marriage certificate from the government then - you get a civil union certificate. in that way, your union, for legal purposes, is the same as that of any other couple, man/woman, man/man, woman/woman. and that's what it boils down to. now, if a church feels that within the confines of their spiritual decisions that the marriage of two people of the same sex is acceptable, then that's just dandy too. because it is not up to you, nor me, to tell other people what is right, spiritually. whatever arguments there may be for or against gay marriage, they must exist strictly in the spiritual realm of discourse, not the legal realm.
what i am for is the abolishment of state-issued marriage licenses. if two people want to join together, they can get married whereever they want, and they can be a part of whatever church they want, and exercise their religion however they want. i'm all for that. but since we do not have a state-sponsored religion in this country (the united states), then the *legal* aspect of the union should strictly be a civil union.
a man and a man join together: civil union certificate.
a woman and a woman join together: civil union certificate.
a man and a woman join together: civil union certificate.
the notion of a constitutional amendment codifying that marriage is the union of a man and a woman is deeply offensive to me. the US constitution is all about codifying *rights*, not codifying what one group of people doesn't like another group of people doing.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
Kerry for President?
very well said, i just learned something, and you have a good point, i never looked at it that way. i respect what you have said. this is whats good about forums for people like myself, i get insight as to whats going on in the world, thank you..
this is whats good about forums for people like myself, i get insight as to whats going on in the world, thank you.. Everyone has these on their face? TULIPS.
Kerry for President?
capt_buzzard wrote: I have nothing against Gayes period. But I don't go along with the marriage bit. Oh stay together by all means....a lifetime.But how many gays actually stay together any number of weeks,months or ever a year?
Its gotta be a possession thing? I am not for the marriage idea at all...gay people are gay people. I do not believe it will ever pass? At least they are recognized as human, and are out of the closet? This is a complex issue, i feel it is too bizarre and ridiculous. We need to keep some traditional values left alone. :driving: :driving:
Its gotta be a possession thing? I am not for the marriage idea at all...gay people are gay people. I do not believe it will ever pass? At least they are recognized as human, and are out of the closet? This is a complex issue, i feel it is too bizarre and ridiculous. We need to keep some traditional values left alone. :driving: :driving:
Everyone has these on their face? TULIPS.
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
Kerry for President?
back to kerry....
i've decided i am definitely not voting for him. i've had it. every single day, all that is heard from him is lament. what a horrible job bush is doing. this is wrong with the country under bush's leadership. that is wrong with the country under bush's leadership.
enough. the relentless litany alone is proof enough for me that he is not qualified to be the leader of the most powerful nation in the world. a leader cannot frame everything from the viewpoint of what is bad, negative, wrong. a leader must *lead* - and you don't lead by telling people what is wrong, but what is right in spite of what is wrong. if kerry were to express just the slightest hint of positiveness, of optimism, of a brighter future for the world - and express it NOT in comparison to the horrible horrible world under bush - then he might have a chance at my vote.
bill clinton succeeded as a president because he always projected confidence, enthusiasm, optimism. when things were bad, he framed them in terms of what was good, not the other way around. compare kerry to clinton, not bush. you'll see why i have a manifest lack of enthusiasm for kerry.
no, i'm not voting 'for' bush. he'll get my vote by default. as a president i find him average. he'll go down in history as a president along the lines of a chester arthur. what, you didn't know we once had a president chester arthur?
exactly. :yh_clown
i've decided i am definitely not voting for him. i've had it. every single day, all that is heard from him is lament. what a horrible job bush is doing. this is wrong with the country under bush's leadership. that is wrong with the country under bush's leadership.
enough. the relentless litany alone is proof enough for me that he is not qualified to be the leader of the most powerful nation in the world. a leader cannot frame everything from the viewpoint of what is bad, negative, wrong. a leader must *lead* - and you don't lead by telling people what is wrong, but what is right in spite of what is wrong. if kerry were to express just the slightest hint of positiveness, of optimism, of a brighter future for the world - and express it NOT in comparison to the horrible horrible world under bush - then he might have a chance at my vote.
bill clinton succeeded as a president because he always projected confidence, enthusiasm, optimism. when things were bad, he framed them in terms of what was good, not the other way around. compare kerry to clinton, not bush. you'll see why i have a manifest lack of enthusiasm for kerry.
no, i'm not voting 'for' bush. he'll get my vote by default. as a president i find him average. he'll go down in history as a president along the lines of a chester arthur. what, you didn't know we once had a president chester arthur?
exactly. :yh_clown
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
Kerry for President?
We really don't have much to choose from, i would prefer to leave Bush there for one more term, i don't pay alot of attention, but my feelings are Kerry is incapable to lead...i agree to slander another - you won;t get my :-2 vote..
Everyone has these on their face? TULIPS.
-
Bill Sikes
- Posts: 5515
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am
Kerry for President?
Paula wrote: We really don't have much to choose from, i would prefer to leave Bush there for one more term, i don't pay alot of attention, but my feelings are Kerry is incapable to lead...i agree to slander another - you won;t get my :-2 vote..
If there's nothing to choose between them, vote for someone else.
If there's nothing to choose between them, vote for someone else.
Kerry for President?
ya you have a point there, i can really see there are some very intelligent people in this forum, i think you're right, why bother voting...good point, :p
Everyone has these on their face? TULIPS.
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
Kerry for President?
Bill Sikes wrote: If there's nothing to choose between them, vote for someone else.
There are indeed many other candidates for president to choose from. gleened from http://www.politics1.com/p2004.htm , the following third party candidates:
Concerns of People (Prohibition) Party
P: Gene Amondson
VP: Leroy Pletten
Constitution Party
P: Michael Peroutka
VP: Chuck Baldwin
Green Party
P: David Cobb
VP: Pat LaMarche
Libertarian Party
P: Michael Badnarik
VP: Richard Campagna
Peace & Freedom Party of California
P: Leonard Peltier
VP: Janice Jordan
Personal Choice Party
P: Charles Jay
VP: Marilyn Chambers Taylor
Prohibition Party of Colorado:
P: Earl F. Dodge
VP: Howard Lydick
Reform Party/Independent
P: Ralph Nader
VP: Peter M. Camejo
Socialist Party USA
P: Walt Brown
VP: Mary Alice Herbert
Socialist Workers Party
P: Roger Calero
VP: Arrin Hawkins
Workers World Party
P: John Parker
VP: Teresa Gutierrez
Independent
P: Stanford E. "Andy" Andress
VP: Irene M. Deasy
Independent
P: Thomas Harens
VP: Jennifer Ryan
And another 32 write-in candidates.
so, there's a large field to choose from. the problem of course is the chickenegg issue that the mainstream media completely ignores these candidates, so they get no exposure, which limits the contributions they might get, which prevents them from getting the word out about themselves, which further marginalizes them, which leads the press to further ignore them, ad infinitum.
until there's real reform of the de facto two party system - a system which is not specified in the constitution as the only way for it to be, but that the dominant two parties have successfully managed to enforce through their monopoly of power.
until that stranglehold is broken, there are no choices worth voting for. period. we are left with john kerry or george bush. ralph nader is barely a blip on the radar - and he's only on the radar because of name recognition generated before he ever ran for office.
so, we vote for tweedledee or tweedledum. which is which is left to the reader to decide.
There are indeed many other candidates for president to choose from. gleened from http://www.politics1.com/p2004.htm , the following third party candidates:
Concerns of People (Prohibition) Party
P: Gene Amondson
VP: Leroy Pletten
Constitution Party
P: Michael Peroutka
VP: Chuck Baldwin
Green Party
P: David Cobb
VP: Pat LaMarche
Libertarian Party
P: Michael Badnarik
VP: Richard Campagna
Peace & Freedom Party of California
P: Leonard Peltier
VP: Janice Jordan
Personal Choice Party
P: Charles Jay
VP: Marilyn Chambers Taylor
Prohibition Party of Colorado:
P: Earl F. Dodge
VP: Howard Lydick
Reform Party/Independent
P: Ralph Nader
VP: Peter M. Camejo
Socialist Party USA
P: Walt Brown
VP: Mary Alice Herbert
Socialist Workers Party
P: Roger Calero
VP: Arrin Hawkins
Workers World Party
P: John Parker
VP: Teresa Gutierrez
Independent
P: Stanford E. "Andy" Andress
VP: Irene M. Deasy
Independent
P: Thomas Harens
VP: Jennifer Ryan
And another 32 write-in candidates.
so, there's a large field to choose from. the problem of course is the chickenegg issue that the mainstream media completely ignores these candidates, so they get no exposure, which limits the contributions they might get, which prevents them from getting the word out about themselves, which further marginalizes them, which leads the press to further ignore them, ad infinitum.
until there's real reform of the de facto two party system - a system which is not specified in the constitution as the only way for it to be, but that the dominant two parties have successfully managed to enforce through their monopoly of power.
until that stranglehold is broken, there are no choices worth voting for. period. we are left with john kerry or george bush. ralph nader is barely a blip on the radar - and he's only on the radar because of name recognition generated before he ever ran for office.
so, we vote for tweedledee or tweedledum. which is which is left to the reader to decide.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
Kerry for President?
okay, how come you aren't running for president then? i guess these others listed don't have the money to campaign? very interesting..wasn;t there some chicken guy from texas who was running awhile ago? :-2 :-2
Everyone has these on their face? TULIPS.