Discussion: Gay Rights II

[Marx]

I hadn't seen that video yet. Interesting.

[cerealkiller182]

it turns him on and he just can't admit it

come on, I seriously want to know. No reason to irritate him further.

[cerealkiller182]

it turns him on and he just can't admit it

come on, I seriously want to know. No reason to irritate him further.

[cerealkiller182]

it turns him on and he just can't admit it

come on, I seriously want to know. No reason to irritate him further.

[Addendum]

come on, I seriously want to know. No reason to irritate him further.

:hehe:

[Addendum]

come on, I seriously want to know. No reason to irritate him further.

:hehe:

[Addendum]

come on, I seriously want to know. No reason to irritate him further.

:hehe:

[El ASESINO]

That kid deserved what he got. Those kinds of things should not be tolerated

[El ASESINO]

That kid deserved what he got. Those kinds of things should not be tolerated

[El ASESINO]

That kid deserved what he got. Those kinds of things should not be tolerated

[TLH]

That kid deserved what he got. Those kinds of things should not be tolerated

Cynical much? :o

[TLH]

That kid deserved what he got. Those kinds of things should not be tolerated

Cynical much? :o

[TLH]

That kid deserved what he got. Those kinds of things should not be tolerated

Cynical much? :o

[Marx]

That kid deserved what he got. Those kinds of things should not be tolerated

Judging from that response, you're probably not even worth debating on this issue. Why don't you take your hatred into another thread?

[Marx]

That kid deserved what he got. Those kinds of things should not be tolerated

Judging from that response, you're probably not even worth debating on this issue. Why don't you take your hatred into another thread?

[Marx]

That kid deserved what he got. Those kinds of things should not be tolerated

Judging from that response, you're probably not even worth debating on this issue. Why don't you take your hatred into another thread?

[kainedamo]

That kid deserved what he got. Those kinds of things should not be tolerated

Maybe you wanna explain further how a 15 year old kid deserves to be shot.

[kainedamo]

That kid deserved what he got. Those kinds of things should not be tolerated

Maybe you wanna explain further how a 15 year old kid deserves to be shot.

[kainedamo]

That kid deserved what he got. Those kinds of things should not be tolerated

Maybe you wanna explain further how a 15 year old kid deserves to be shot.

[Logan's Runt]

Seriously.

[Logan's Runt]

Seriously.

[Logan's Runt]

Seriously.

[Ahura Mazda]

This kid did not deserve to be shot for his actions. He may be someone who provoked others but in no way did it garner a violent reaction.

My only question is how a 14 year old kid could get his hands on a gun, bring it to school, take it out and shoot a fellow student two bullets in the head?

[Ahura Mazda]

This kid did not deserve to be shot for his actions. He may be someone who provoked others but in no way did it garner a violent reaction.

My only question is how a 14 year old kid could get his hands on a gun, bring it to school, take it out and shoot a fellow student two bullets in the head?

[Ahura Mazda]

This kid did not deserve to be shot for his actions. He may be someone who provoked others but in no way did it garner a violent reaction.

My only question is how a 14 year old kid could get his hands on a gun, bring it to school, take it out and shoot a fellow student two bullets in the head?

[kane9321]

this is so wrong on both ends:(

flirting with the boys...was the wrong way to go

[kane9321]

this is so wrong on both ends:(

flirting with the boys...was the wrong way to go

[kane9321]

this is so wrong on both ends:(

flirting with the boys...was the wrong way to go

[kane9321]

That kid deserved what he got. Those kinds of things should not be tolerated

You cant be serious:wow:

[kane9321]

That kid deserved what he got. Those kinds of things should not be tolerated

You cant be serious:wow:

[kane9321]

That kid deserved what he got. Those kinds of things should not be tolerated

You cant be serious:wow:

[amazingfantasy15]

He knew he was going to get teased. He had before. Instead of acting like a Neanderthal and getting upset and violent when teased, he responded with humor.

He responded with the wrong type of humor though, he should've just ignored them. Flirting even with no intent or meaning behind is the wrong way to act in front of people you already know don't like/accept your lifestyle. It's not deserving of a death sentence though and I think it's poetic justice that this kid will go to jail and get exactly what he was afraid of.

[amazingfantasy15]

He knew he was going to get teased. He had before. Instead of acting like a Neanderthal and getting upset and violent when teased, he responded with humor.

He responded with the wrong type of humor though, he should've just ignored them. Flirting even with no intent or meaning behind is the wrong way to act in front of people you already know don't like/accept your lifestyle. It's not deserving of a death sentence though and I think it's poetic justice that this kid will go to jail and get exactly what he was afraid of.

[amazingfantasy15]

He knew he was going to get teased. He had before. Instead of acting like a Neanderthal and getting upset and violent when teased, he responded with humor.

He responded with the wrong type of humor though, he should've just ignored them. Flirting even with no intent or meaning behind is the wrong way to act in front of people you already know don't like/accept your lifestyle. It's not deserving of a death sentence though and I think it's poetic justice that this kid will go to jail and get exactly what he was afraid of.

[Metal Spidey]

No one deserves to die unless they've made someone's life unbearable or is a racist or murderer.

I have to admit, flirting with someone who isn't gay is not a good idea but that only warrants a complaint, not violence.

My only question is how a 14 year old kid could get his hands on a gun, bring it to school, take it out and shoot a fellow student two bullets in the head?

Because our nation has lousy gun control and rednecks let their children do anything.

[Metal Spidey]

No one deserves to die unless they've made someone's life unbearable or is a racist or murderer.

I have to admit, flirting with someone who isn't gay is not a good idea but that only warrants a complaint, not violence.

My only question is how a 14 year old kid could get his hands on a gun, bring it to school, take it out and shoot a fellow student two bullets in the head?

Because our nation has lousy gun control and rednecks let their children do anything.

[Metal Spidey]

No one deserves to die unless they've made someone's life unbearable or is a racist or murderer.

I have to admit, flirting with someone who isn't gay is not a good idea but that only warrants a complaint, not violence.

My only question is how a 14 year old kid could get his hands on a gun, bring it to school, take it out and shoot a fellow student two bullets in the head?

Because our nation has lousy gun control and rednecks let their children do anything.

[Marx]

No one deserves to die unless they've made someone's life unbearable or is a racist or murderer.

I have to admit, flirting with someone who isn't gay is not a good idea but that only warrants a complaint, not violence.



Because our nation has lousy gun control and rednecks let their children do anything.

You couldn't be more right Spidey. (Welcome to the boards!)

[Marx]

No one deserves to die unless they've made someone's life unbearable or is a racist or murderer.

I have to admit, flirting with someone who isn't gay is not a good idea but that only warrants a complaint, not violence.



Because our nation has lousy gun control and rednecks let their children do anything.

You couldn't be more right Spidey. (Welcome to the boards!)

[Marx]

No one deserves to die unless they've made someone's life unbearable or is a racist or murderer.

I have to admit, flirting with someone who isn't gay is not a good idea but that only warrants a complaint, not violence.



Because our nation has lousy gun control and rednecks let their children do anything.

You couldn't be more right Spidey. (Welcome to the boards!)

[Alex The Great]

:notsurprised:
another school shooting. shocking :csad:

[Alex The Great]

:notsurprised:
another school shooting. shocking :csad:

[Alex The Great]

:notsurprised:
another school shooting. shocking :csad:

[Warhammer]

I know right. Shootings are just happening all the time, nowadays. It's crazy.

[Warhammer]

I know right. Shootings are just happening all the time, nowadays. It's crazy.

[Warhammer]

I know right. Shootings are just happening all the time, nowadays. It's crazy.

[terry78]

Now if you're in the presence of extreme homophobes and attempt to be funny with them in an attempt to make them look stupid, that's how mass beatings take place. Not saying it's right, but as guys, we know how each other thinks.

[terry78]

Now if you're in the presence of extreme homophobes and attempt to be funny with them in an attempt to make them look stupid, that's how mass beatings take place. Not saying it's right, but as guys, we know how each other thinks.

[terry78]

Now if you're in the presence of extreme homophobes and attempt to be funny with them in an attempt to make them look stupid, that's how mass beatings take place. Not saying it's right, but as guys, we know how each other thinks.

[Addendum]

I just stand back and let other guys look stupid on their own. They do such a good job at it, that I simply point and laugh

[Addendum]

I just stand back and let other guys look stupid on their own. They do such a good job at it, that I simply point and laugh

[Addendum]

I just stand back and let other guys look stupid on their own. They do such a good job at it, that I simply point and laugh

[souvlaki]

California Supreme Court just overturned the same sex marriage ban. Wow.

[souvlaki]

California Supreme Court just overturned the same sex marriage ban. Wow.

[souvlaki]

California Supreme Court just overturned the same sex marriage ban. Wow.

[The Senator]

So two states will now have gay marriage... that means there are 48 to go :up:

[The Senator]

So two states will now have gay marriage... that means there are 48 to go :up:

[The Senator]

So two states will now have gay marriage... that means there are 48 to go :up:

[Mr Sparkle]

shouldn't this go in community?

[Mr Sparkle]

shouldn't this go in community?

[Mr Sparkle]

shouldn't this go in community?

[The Senator]

It's a political issue :huh:

[The Senator]

It's a political issue :huh:

[The Senator]

It's a political issue :huh:

[souvlaki]

shouldn't this go in community?

I wasn't sure. I figured it could probably go in either. If a mod wants to move it though, have at it.

[souvlaki]

shouldn't this go in community?

I wasn't sure. I figured it could probably go in either. If a mod wants to move it though, have at it.

[souvlaki]

shouldn't this go in community?

I wasn't sure. I figured it could probably go in either. If a mod wants to move it though, have at it.

[Franklin Richards]

I love how the christian coalition think they invented marriage.


It's so cute how stupid they are. I just want to throw a copy of On the Origin of Species at them.



:thing: :doom: :thing:

[Franklin Richards]

I love how the christian coalition think they invented marriage.


It's so cute how stupid they are. I just want to throw a copy of On the Origin of Species at them.



:thing: :doom: :thing:

[Franklin Richards]

I love how the christian coalition think they invented marriage.


It's so cute how stupid they are. I just want to throw a copy of On the Origin of Species at them.



:thing: :doom: :thing:

[souvlaki]

I love how the christian coalition think they invented marriage.


It's so cute how stupid they are. I just want to throw a copy of On the Origin of Species at them.



:thing: :doom: :thing:

Well, see, that's the thing I never got either. Since when is marriage strictly a Christian tradition? Gay people are not demanding that Christian churches marry them, they are demanding the same rights that are given to any other couple. If the Christian church doesn't want to accept their marriage, fine, but the government should.

[souvlaki]

I love how the christian coalition think they invented marriage.


It's so cute how stupid they are. I just want to throw a copy of On the Origin of Species at them.



:thing: :doom: :thing:

Well, see, that's the thing I never got either. Since when is marriage strictly a Christian tradition? Gay people are not demanding that Christian churches marry them, they are demanding the same rights that are given to any other couple. If the Christian church doesn't want to accept their marriage, fine, but the government should.

[souvlaki]

I love how the christian coalition think they invented marriage.


It's so cute how stupid they are. I just want to throw a copy of On the Origin of Species at them.



:thing: :doom: :thing:

Well, see, that's the thing I never got either. Since when is marriage strictly a Christian tradition? Gay people are not demanding that Christian churches marry them, they are demanding the same rights that are given to any other couple. If the Christian church doesn't want to accept their marriage, fine, but the government should.

[rdh007]

Dammit, now the terrorists are going to win.

[rdh007]

Dammit, now the terrorists are going to win.

[rdh007]

Dammit, now the terrorists are going to win.

[Mr Sparkle]

I wasn't sure. I figured it could probably go in either. If a mod wants to move it though, have at it.

yeah I mean because really, it's political sure, but it's also a big cultural issue and I think it's a really good thing and more people should be made aware of it
:up: big ups on the thread BTW I didn't even know this had happened.

[Mr Sparkle]

I wasn't sure. I figured it could probably go in either. If a mod wants to move it though, have at it.

yeah I mean because really, it's political sure, but it's also a big cultural issue and I think it's a really good thing and more people should be made aware of it
:up: big ups on the thread BTW I didn't even know this had happened.

[Mr Sparkle]

I wasn't sure. I figured it could probably go in either. If a mod wants to move it though, have at it.

yeah I mean because really, it's political sure, but it's also a big cultural issue and I think it's a really good thing and more people should be made aware of it
:up: big ups on the thread BTW I didn't even know this had happened.

[Mr Sparkle]

the best part is that some people actually think that this was somehow holding back some of their kids from being gay.
you know what? the kid will have much bigger issue if the legality of same sex marriage was the thing holding him back from starting a homosexual relationship.

[Mr Sparkle]

the best part is that some people actually think that this was somehow holding back some of their kids from being gay.
you know what? the kid will have much bigger issue if the legality of same sex marriage was the thing holding him back from starting a homosexual relationship.

[Mr Sparkle]

the best part is that some people actually think that this was somehow holding back some of their kids from being gay.
you know what? the kid will have much bigger issue if the legality of same sex marriage was the thing holding him back from starting a homosexual relationship.

[souvlaki]

yeah I mean because really, it's political sure, but it's also a big cultural issue and I think it's a really good thing and more people should be made aware of it
:up: big ups on the thread BTW I didn't even know this had happened.

Good point. Can a mod move this to the community forum? It's a pretty big deal, and I'd assume more people would see it on there than here.

[souvlaki]

yeah I mean because really, it's political sure, but it's also a big cultural issue and I think it's a really good thing and more people should be made aware of it
:up: big ups on the thread BTW I didn't even know this had happened.

Good point. Can a mod move this to the community forum? It's a pretty big deal, and I'd assume more people would see it on there than here.

[souvlaki]

yeah I mean because really, it's political sure, but it's also a big cultural issue and I think it's a really good thing and more people should be made aware of it
:up: big ups on the thread BTW I didn't even know this had happened.

Good point. Can a mod move this to the community forum? It's a pretty big deal, and I'd assume more people would see it on there than here.

[The Senator]

the best part is that some people actually think that this was somehow holding back some of their kids from being gay.
you know what? the kid will have much bigger issue if the legality of same sex marriage was the thing holding him back from starting a homosexual relationship.

Yeah, exactly. I lived in a state in which gay marriage wasn't legal, and I turned out gay despite that. I even lived in a rural, fairly conservative part of my state as well. So I don't see how a ban on gay marriage prevents homosexuality.

[The Senator]

the best part is that some people actually think that this was somehow holding back some of their kids from being gay.
you know what? the kid will have much bigger issue if the legality of same sex marriage was the thing holding him back from starting a homosexual relationship.

Yeah, exactly. I lived in a state in which gay marriage wasn't legal, and I turned out gay despite that. I even lived in a rural, fairly conservative part of my state as well. So I don't see how a ban on gay marriage prevents homosexuality.

[The Senator]

the best part is that some people actually think that this was somehow holding back some of their kids from being gay.
you know what? the kid will have much bigger issue if the legality of same sex marriage was the thing holding him back from starting a homosexual relationship.

Yeah, exactly. I lived in a state in which gay marriage wasn't legal, and I turned out gay despite that. I even lived in a rural, fairly conservative part of my state as well. So I don't see how a ban on gay marriage prevents homosexuality.

[StorminNorman]

I only hope this survives the Constitutional Amendment going on the ballet in November. :up:

[StorminNorman]

I only hope this survives the Constitutional Amendment going on the ballet in November. :up:

[StorminNorman]

I only hope this survives the Constitutional Amendment going on the ballet in November. :up:

[rdh007]

Yeah, exactly. I lived in a state in which gay marriage wasn't legal, and I turned out gay despite that. I even lived in a rural, fairly conservative part of my state as well. So I don't see how a ban on gay marriage prevents homosexuality.
Simple. Since it's a choice to be gay--a ban will make you choose otherwise.

[rdh007]

Yeah, exactly. I lived in a state in which gay marriage wasn't legal, and I turned out gay despite that. I even lived in a rural, fairly conservative part of my state as well. So I don't see how a ban on gay marriage prevents homosexuality.
Simple. Since it's a choice to be gay--a ban will make you choose otherwise.

[rdh007]

Yeah, exactly. I lived in a state in which gay marriage wasn't legal, and I turned out gay despite that. I even lived in a rural, fairly conservative part of my state as well. So I don't see how a ban on gay marriage prevents homosexuality.
Simple. Since it's a choice to be gay--a ban will make you choose otherwise.

[SonnyBlack]

Thankfully it has. This is another classic case of our system taking away individual rights for the sake of "society". Gays have just as much right to get married as anyone else does. Individual rights is the basis of our nation not collective "will".

[SonnyBlack]

Thankfully it has. This is another classic case of our system taking away individual rights for the sake of "society". Gays have just as much right to get married as anyone else does. Individual rights is the basis of our nation not collective "will".

[SonnyBlack]

Thankfully it has. This is another classic case of our system taking away individual rights for the sake of "society". Gays have just as much right to get married as anyone else does. Individual rights is the basis of our nation not collective "will".

[Mister Sinister]

Delighted to hear this, hopefully it'll pave the way for more states legalising gay marriage.

[Mister Sinister]

Delighted to hear this, hopefully it'll pave the way for more states legalising gay marriage.

[Mister Sinister]

Delighted to hear this, hopefully it'll pave the way for more states legalising gay marriage.

[Matt]

shouldn't this go in community?

I wasn't sure. I figured it could probably go in either. If a mod wants to move it though, have at it.

If the community forum wants a thread on it, they can have one too. It is a hot political topic right now, therefore we can have a thread in here.

[Matt]

shouldn't this go in community?

I wasn't sure. I figured it could probably go in either. If a mod wants to move it though, have at it.

If the community forum wants a thread on it, they can have one too. It is a hot political topic right now, therefore we can have a thread in here.

[Matt]

shouldn't this go in community?

I wasn't sure. I figured it could probably go in either. If a mod wants to move it though, have at it.

If the community forum wants a thread on it, they can have one too. It is a hot political topic right now, therefore we can have a thread in here.

[Matt]

At anyrate, good for Cali. Now as Jman said, lets start working on the other 48 states. :up:

[Matt]

At anyrate, good for Cali. Now as Jman said, lets start working on the other 48 states. :up:

[Matt]

At anyrate, good for Cali. Now as Jman said, lets start working on the other 48 states. :up:

[Marx]

shouldn't this go in community?

I wasn't sure. I figured it could probably go in either. If a mod wants to move it though, have at it.

It's a very heated political issue. I think it deserves a place in here. I couldn't be more happy about overturning the ban! Like Jman said, now there are 48 states to go.

[Marx]

shouldn't this go in community?

I wasn't sure. I figured it could probably go in either. If a mod wants to move it though, have at it.

It's a very heated political issue. I think it deserves a place in here. I couldn't be more happy about overturning the ban! Like Jman said, now there are 48 states to go.

[Marx]

shouldn't this go in community?

I wasn't sure. I figured it could probably go in either. If a mod wants to move it though, have at it.

It's a very heated political issue. I think it deserves a place in here. I couldn't be more happy about overturning the ban! Like Jman said, now there are 48 states to go.

[spideyboy_1111]

just read... HELLLS yeah :), this is amazing news :D

[spideyboy_1111]

just read... HELLLS yeah :), this is amazing news :D

[spideyboy_1111]

just read... HELLLS yeah :), this is amazing news :D

[StorminNorman]

Again - don't get too excited, Constitutional Amendment is going to be on the ballet in November.

California's voters already tried to nix Gay Marriage in 2000, we can only hope they have changed their minds since.

[StorminNorman]

Again - don't get too excited, Constitutional Amendment is going to be on the ballet in November.

California's voters already tried to nix Gay Marriage in 2000, we can only hope they have changed their minds since.

[StorminNorman]

Again - don't get too excited, Constitutional Amendment is going to be on the ballet in November.

California's voters already tried to nix Gay Marriage in 2000, we can only hope they have changed their minds since.

[spideyboy_1111]

Again - don't get too excited, Constitutional Amendment is going to be on the ballet in November.

California's voters already tried to nix Gay Marriage in 2000, we can only hope they have changed their minds since.

i am excited... most very few people do i come across this day in age think there should be a ban... esp here in cali. yes theres still close minded idiots.. but that was several years ago and a few new generations get to vote on it this time :up:

[spideyboy_1111]

Again - don't get too excited, Constitutional Amendment is going to be on the ballet in November.

California's voters already tried to nix Gay Marriage in 2000, we can only hope they have changed their minds since.

i am excited... most very few people do i come across this day in age think there should be a ban... esp here in cali. yes theres still close minded idiots.. but that was several years ago and a few new generations get to vote on it this time :up:

[spideyboy_1111]

Again - don't get too excited, Constitutional Amendment is going to be on the ballet in November.

California's voters already tried to nix Gay Marriage in 2000, we can only hope they have changed their minds since.

i am excited... most very few people do i come across this day in age think there should be a ban... esp here in cali. yes theres still close minded idiots.. but that was several years ago and a few new generations get to vote on it this time :up:

[The Senator]

Again - don't get too excited, Constitutional Amendment is going to be on the ballet in November.

I know we're talking about gay marriage, but I don't think Constitutional Amendments are able to dress up in tights and perform interpretative dance. :o:





But seriously, has it reached enough signatures? I thought it had little chance of actually making it on the ballot in the fall, and that it had quite a few signatures left before it would qualify for the ballot.

[The Senator]

Again - don't get too excited, Constitutional Amendment is going to be on the ballet in November.

I know we're talking about gay marriage, but I don't think Constitutional Amendments are able to dress up in tights and perform interpretative dance. :o:





But seriously, has it reached enough signatures? I thought it had little chance of actually making it on the ballot in the fall, and that it had quite a few signatures left before it would qualify for the ballot.

[The Senator]

Again - don't get too excited, Constitutional Amendment is going to be on the ballet in November.

I know we're talking about gay marriage, but I don't think Constitutional Amendments are able to dress up in tights and perform interpretative dance. :o:





But seriously, has it reached enough signatures? I thought it had little chance of actually making it on the ballot in the fall, and that it had quite a few signatures left before it would qualify for the ballot.

[StorminNorman]

I know we're talking about gay marriage, but I don't think Constitutional Amendments are able to dress up in tights and perform interpretative dance. :o:





But seriously, has it reached enough signatures? I thought it had little chance of actually making it on the ballot in the fall, and that it had quite a few signatures left before it would qualify for the ballot.

I am not sure on the signatures they are getting (though you can be sure this court case will increase the urgency). The news reports I heard made it sound like the ballot was a sure thing.

[StorminNorman]

I know we're talking about gay marriage, but I don't think Constitutional Amendments are able to dress up in tights and perform interpretative dance. :o:





But seriously, has it reached enough signatures? I thought it had little chance of actually making it on the ballot in the fall, and that it had quite a few signatures left before it would qualify for the ballot.

I am not sure on the signatures they are getting (though you can be sure this court case will increase the urgency). The news reports I heard made it sound like the ballot was a sure thing.

[StorminNorman]

I know we're talking about gay marriage, but I don't think Constitutional Amendments are able to dress up in tights and perform interpretative dance. :o:





But seriously, has it reached enough signatures? I thought it had little chance of actually making it on the ballot in the fall, and that it had quite a few signatures left before it would qualify for the ballot.

I am not sure on the signatures they are getting (though you can be sure this court case will increase the urgency). The news reports I heard made it sound like the ballot was a sure thing.

[SuBe]

HERE WE GO WITH THIS GAY MARRIAGE NONSENSE AGAIN

Which is more damaging to the institution of marriage?Britney Spearsgay marriage Oh ... I'm just going to love this. The screaming, the wailing, the gnashing of teeth. The California Supreme Court has set aside the California laws banning gay marriage. This. of course, will be cast by many as the end of the institution of marriage in the U.S. Now Republicans will start demanding of their candidates at all levels that they pledge support for some sort of a Constitutional amendment limiting marriage to a man and a women. This country is headed down the pipes economically and in terms of freedom and liberty, and people are going to start focusing on who can and who cannot claim to be a married couple.

Not that anyone's listening here, but the California Supreme Court can't do anything to affect your relationship with your husband or wife. Nor can this court do any more to damage the institution of marriage than Hollywood and our entertainment industry have. There is no gay couple out there that can demean marriage the way pop****s like Britney Spears, Pan Anderson and an endless list of Hollywood actors have.
Give it a rest and dedicate yourself to your own marriage... there you can make a difference.


This is from Boortz blog. I didn't read through this thread, I just wanted it known that Libertarians don't care about this stuff, it is a Freedom Issue.

[SuBe]

HERE WE GO WITH THIS GAY MARRIAGE NONSENSE AGAIN

Which is more damaging to the institution of marriage?Britney Spearsgay marriage Oh ... I'm just going to love this. The screaming, the wailing, the gnashing of teeth. The California Supreme Court has set aside the California laws banning gay marriage. This. of course, will be cast by many as the end of the institution of marriage in the U.S. Now Republicans will start demanding of their candidates at all levels that they pledge support for some sort of a Constitutional amendment limiting marriage to a man and a women. This country is headed down the pipes economically and in terms of freedom and liberty, and people are going to start focusing on who can and who cannot claim to be a married couple.

Not that anyone's listening here, but the California Supreme Court can't do anything to affect your relationship with your husband or wife. Nor can this court do any more to damage the institution of marriage than Hollywood and our entertainment industry have. There is no gay couple out there that can demean marriage the way pop****s like Britney Spears, Pan Anderson and an endless list of Hollywood actors have.
Give it a rest and dedicate yourself to your own marriage... there you can make a difference.


This is from Boortz blog. I didn't read through this thread, I just wanted it known that Libertarians don't care about this stuff, it is a Freedom Issue.

[SuBe]

HERE WE GO WITH THIS GAY MARRIAGE NONSENSE AGAIN

Which is more damaging to the institution of marriage?Britney Spearsgay marriage Oh ... I'm just going to love this. The screaming, the wailing, the gnashing of teeth. The California Supreme Court has set aside the California laws banning gay marriage. This. of course, will be cast by many as the end of the institution of marriage in the U.S. Now Republicans will start demanding of their candidates at all levels that they pledge support for some sort of a Constitutional amendment limiting marriage to a man and a women. This country is headed down the pipes economically and in terms of freedom and liberty, and people are going to start focusing on who can and who cannot claim to be a married couple.

Not that anyone's listening here, but the California Supreme Court can't do anything to affect your relationship with your husband or wife. Nor can this court do any more to damage the institution of marriage than Hollywood and our entertainment industry have. There is no gay couple out there that can demean marriage the way pop****s like Britney Spears, Pan Anderson and an endless list of Hollywood actors have.
Give it a rest and dedicate yourself to your own marriage... there you can make a difference.


This is from Boortz blog. I didn't read through this thread, I just wanted it known that Libertarians don't care about this stuff, it is a Freedom Issue.

[Addendum]

I'm not much into Boortz since I find him to be annoying, but he is spot on with this.

The only ones that "care" about it are the idiotic christian conservatives, who spend more time pointing out the faults of others instead of dealing with their own faults first... like that guy in the book they consider important said

[Addendum]

I'm not much into Boortz since I find him to be annoying, but he is spot on with this.

The only ones that "care" about it are the idiotic christian conservatives, who spend more time pointing out the faults of others instead of dealing with their own faults first... like that guy in the book they consider important said

[Addendum]

I'm not much into Boortz since I find him to be annoying, but he is spot on with this.

The only ones that "care" about it are the idiotic christian conservatives, who spend more time pointing out the faults of others instead of dealing with their own faults first... like that guy in the book they consider important said

[SuBe]

Boortz is usually more spot on than not. This is another reason why Libertarians just know better.

[SuBe]

Boortz is usually more spot on than not. This is another reason why Libertarians just know better.

[SuBe]

Boortz is usually more spot on than not. This is another reason why Libertarians just know better.

[Addendum]

I don't bother with ideologies or political leanings.

[Addendum]

I don't bother with ideologies or political leanings.

[Addendum]

I don't bother with ideologies or political leanings.

[SuBe]

But there is always a right way or a wrong way.

[SuBe]

But there is always a right way or a wrong way.

[SuBe]

But there is always a right way or a wrong way.

[Addendum]

There's always shades of grey, though there hasn't been a right way with anyone in DC

[Addendum]

There's always shades of grey, though there hasn't been a right way with anyone in DC

[Addendum]

There's always shades of grey, though there hasn't been a right way with anyone in DC

[SuBe]

I agree. No one in Government has whats best for the Country, only themselves. They just want to keep their jobs and keep power over people.

[SuBe]

I agree. No one in Government has whats best for the Country, only themselves. They just want to keep their jobs and keep power over people.

[SuBe]

I agree. No one in Government has whats best for the Country, only themselves. They just want to keep their jobs and keep power over people.

[Addendum]

Humanity kicked itself in the balls when they invented the concept of politics. It's been downhill ever since

[Addendum]

Humanity kicked itself in the balls when they invented the concept of politics. It's been downhill ever since

[Addendum]

Humanity kicked itself in the balls when they invented the concept of politics. It's been downhill ever since

[MaskedManJRK]

Humanity kicked itself in the balls when they invented the concept of politics. It's been downhill ever since

I think the Romans had it right to stone the politictions that fail them.

Just sayin'.

:o

As for the ban...hell yes. Two down, fourty-eight to go, I say.

[MaskedManJRK]

Humanity kicked itself in the balls when they invented the concept of politics. It's been downhill ever since

I think the Romans had it right to stone the politictions that fail them.

Just sayin'.

:o

As for the ban...hell yes. Two down, fourty-eight to go, I say.

[MaskedManJRK]

Humanity kicked itself in the balls when they invented the concept of politics. It's been downhill ever since

I think the Romans had it right to stone the politictions that fail them.

Just sayin'.

:o

As for the ban...hell yes. Two down, fourty-eight to go, I say.

[SonnyBlack]

Humanity kicked itself in the balls when they invented the concept of politics. It's been downhill ever since Politics is not the problem, it's allowing such a big government and on top of that all the power over so many issues as such. When a group ANY group is allowed to ignore individual rights because of numbers we allow corruption to rule our system.

[SonnyBlack]

Humanity kicked itself in the balls when they invented the concept of politics. It's been downhill ever since Politics is not the problem, it's allowing such a big government and on top of that all the power over so many issues as such. When a group ANY group is allowed to ignore individual rights because of numbers we allow corruption to rule our system.

[SonnyBlack]

Humanity kicked itself in the balls when they invented the concept of politics. It's been downhill ever since Politics is not the problem, it's allowing such a big government and on top of that all the power over so many issues as such. When a group ANY group is allowed to ignore individual rights because of numbers we allow corruption to rule our system.

[SuBe]

Politics is not the problem, it's allowing such a big government and on top of that all the power over so many issues as such. When a group ANY group is allowed to ignore individual rights because of numbers we allow corruption to rule our system.
I agree, this just shows that we are not a democracy, but a country of the rule of law. If we were a democracy, this Ban would still be in effect.

Score one for the Republic!

[SuBe]

Politics is not the problem, it's allowing such a big government and on top of that all the power over so many issues as such. When a group ANY group is allowed to ignore individual rights because of numbers we allow corruption to rule our system.
I agree, this just shows that we are not a democracy, but a country of the rule of law. If we were a democracy, this Ban would still be in effect.

Score one for the Republic!

[SuBe]

Politics is not the problem, it's allowing such a big government and on top of that all the power over so many issues as such. When a group ANY group is allowed to ignore individual rights because of numbers we allow corruption to rule our system.
I agree, this just shows that we are not a democracy, but a country of the rule of law. If we were a democracy, this Ban would still be in effect.

Score one for the Republic!

[BlackLantern]

I remember when Gavin Newsome (mayor of SF) allowed gay marriage on a 3 day weekend....the courts didnt even get to do anything untill the following Wednesday...score one for beuracracy....

I support gay marriage, but I still think its a decision that should be left to the individual states.

[BlackLantern]

I remember when Gavin Newsome (mayor of SF) allowed gay marriage on a 3 day weekend....the courts didnt even get to do anything untill the following Wednesday...score one for beuracracy....

I support gay marriage, but I still think its a decision that should be left to the individual states.

[BlackLantern]

I remember when Gavin Newsome (mayor of SF) allowed gay marriage on a 3 day weekend....the courts didnt even get to do anything untill the following Wednesday...score one for beuracracy....

I support gay marriage, but I still think its a decision that should be left to the individual states.

[MaskedManJRK]

I remember when Gavin Newsome (mayor of SF) allowed gay marriage on a 3 day weekend....the courts didnt even get to do anything untill the following Wednesday...score one for beuracracy....

I support gay marriage, but I still think its a decision that should be left to the individual states.

Personally, I think individual rights trump state rights. I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that if a state decided to restrict the right for women to vote, the whole country would be in an uproar, and to me it's the same thing. :o

[MaskedManJRK]

I remember when Gavin Newsome (mayor of SF) allowed gay marriage on a 3 day weekend....the courts didnt even get to do anything untill the following Wednesday...score one for beuracracy....

I support gay marriage, but I still think its a decision that should be left to the individual states.

Personally, I think individual rights trump state rights. I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that if a state decided to restrict the right for women to vote, the whole country would be in an uproar, and to me it's the same thing. :o

[MaskedManJRK]

I remember when Gavin Newsome (mayor of SF) allowed gay marriage on a 3 day weekend....the courts didnt even get to do anything untill the following Wednesday...score one for beuracracy....

I support gay marriage, but I still think its a decision that should be left to the individual states.

Personally, I think individual rights trump state rights. I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that if a state decided to restrict the right for women to vote, the whole country would be in an uproar, and to me it's the same thing. :o

[BlackLantern]

Personally, I think individual rights trump state rights. I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that if a state decided to restrict the right for women to vote, the whole country would be in an uproar, and to me it's the same thing. :o

Hmm...I don't see that happening....but I think the people that live in a given state should at least be allowed to decide what type of marriage is recognized in the state they live in. Some states would pass it and some most assuredly would not. (Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi...I'm looking at you)

[BlackLantern]

Personally, I think individual rights trump state rights. I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that if a state decided to restrict the right for women to vote, the whole country would be in an uproar, and to me it's the same thing. :o

Hmm...I don't see that happening....but I think the people that live in a given state should at least be allowed to decide what type of marriage is recognized in the state they live in. Some states would pass it and some most assuredly would not. (Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi...I'm looking at you)

[BlackLantern]

Personally, I think individual rights trump state rights. I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that if a state decided to restrict the right for women to vote, the whole country would be in an uproar, and to me it's the same thing. :o

Hmm...I don't see that happening....but I think the people that live in a given state should at least be allowed to decide what type of marriage is recognized in the state they live in. Some states would pass it and some most assuredly would not. (Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi...I'm looking at you)

[SonnyBlack]

the people that live in a given state should at least be allowed to decide
Should atleast be allowed to decide? Just think of all the freedoms taken away from we individuals that such a statement can be uttered!

[SonnyBlack]

the people that live in a given state should at least be allowed to decide
Should atleast be allowed to decide? Just think of all the freedoms taken away from we individuals that such a statement can be uttered!

[SonnyBlack]

the people that live in a given state should at least be allowed to decide
Should atleast be allowed to decide? Just think of all the freedoms taken away from we individuals that such a statement can be uttered!

[Marx]

Regardless, I think we're all opposed to a FEDERAL BAN on gay marriage.

[Marx]

Regardless, I think we're all opposed to a FEDERAL BAN on gay marriage.

[Marx]

Regardless, I think we're all opposed to a FEDERAL BAN on gay marriage.

[BlackLantern]

Should atleast be allowed to decide? Just think of all the freedoms taken away from we individuals that such a statement can be uttered!

Sorry about the wording, but I hope the point gets across....I live in Connecticut and there are some things that happen here I feel should be put to a vote instead of just being told by legislature "This is whats going to happen"

[BlackLantern]

Should atleast be allowed to decide? Just think of all the freedoms taken away from we individuals that such a statement can be uttered!

Sorry about the wording, but I hope the point gets across....I live in Connecticut and there are some things that happen here I feel should be put to a vote instead of just being told by legislature "This is whats going to happen"

[BlackLantern]

Should atleast be allowed to decide? Just think of all the freedoms taken away from we individuals that such a statement can be uttered!

Sorry about the wording, but I hope the point gets across....I live in Connecticut and there are some things that happen here I feel should be put to a vote instead of just being told by legislature "This is whats going to happen"

[SonnyBlack]

Your wording was sadly apt.

[SonnyBlack]

Your wording was sadly apt.

[SonnyBlack]

Your wording was sadly apt.

[MaskedManJRK]

Hmm...I don't see that happening....but I think the people that live in a given state should at least be allowed to decide what type of marriage is recognized in the state they live in. Some states would pass it and some most assuredly would not. (Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi...I'm looking at you)

I know it's an unlikely situation, what I mean is that all people have the same rights as everyone else and, like the Sufferage and Civil Right Movements, should be made certain within the Constitution.

[MaskedManJRK]

Hmm...I don't see that happening....but I think the people that live in a given state should at least be allowed to decide what type of marriage is recognized in the state they live in. Some states would pass it and some most assuredly would not. (Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi...I'm looking at you)

I know it's an unlikely situation, what I mean is that all people have the same rights as everyone else and, like the Sufferage and Civil Right Movements, should be made certain within the Constitution.

[MaskedManJRK]

Hmm...I don't see that happening....but I think the people that live in a given state should at least be allowed to decide what type of marriage is recognized in the state they live in. Some states would pass it and some most assuredly would not. (Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi...I'm looking at you)

I know it's an unlikely situation, what I mean is that all people have the same rights as everyone else and, like the Sufferage and Civil Right Movements, should be made certain within the Constitution.

[Poetic Chaos]

Living in San Francisco, I'm surprised I didn't hear any trumpets to announce this.

[Poetic Chaos]

Living in San Francisco, I'm surprised I didn't hear any trumpets to announce this.

[Poetic Chaos]

Living in San Francisco, I'm surprised I didn't hear any trumpets to announce this.

[Marx]

Living in San Francisco, I'm surprised I didn't hear any trumpets to announce this.

Maybe there were...but you didn't hear them. :cwink:

[Marx]

Living in San Francisco, I'm surprised I didn't hear any trumpets to announce this.

Maybe there were...but you didn't hear them. :cwink:

[Marx]

Living in San Francisco, I'm surprised I didn't hear any trumpets to announce this.

Maybe there were...but you didn't hear them. :cwink:

[Poetic Chaos]

Who performs gay marriages anyway? I've only ever seen relgious figures (priests and whatnot) do them. I know people get married in court houses so who does those?

[Poetic Chaos]

Who performs gay marriages anyway? I've only ever seen relgious figures (priests and whatnot) do them. I know people get married in court houses so who does those?

[Poetic Chaos]

Who performs gay marriages anyway? I've only ever seen relgious figures (priests and whatnot) do them. I know people get married in court houses so who does those?

[BlackLantern]

Who performs gay marriages anyway? I've only ever seen relgious figures (priests and whatnot) do them. I know people get married in court houses so who does those?

usually a Justice of the Peace....

[BlackLantern]

Who performs gay marriages anyway? I've only ever seen relgious figures (priests and whatnot) do them. I know people get married in court houses so who does those?

usually a Justice of the Peace....

[BlackLantern]

Who performs gay marriages anyway? I've only ever seen relgious figures (priests and whatnot) do them. I know people get married in court houses so who does those?

usually a Justice of the Peace....

[Marx]

Who performs gay marriages anyway? I've only ever seen relgious figures (priests and whatnot) do them. I know people get married in court houses so who does those?

A Justice of the Peace is the only one that I have known to do an actual wedding.

[Marx]

Who performs gay marriages anyway? I've only ever seen relgious figures (priests and whatnot) do them. I know people get married in court houses so who does those?

A Justice of the Peace is the only one that I have known to do an actual wedding.

[Marx]

Who performs gay marriages anyway? I've only ever seen relgious figures (priests and whatnot) do them. I know people get married in court houses so who does those?

A Justice of the Peace is the only one that I have known to do an actual wedding.

[The Senator]

Who performs gay marriages anyway? I've only ever seen relgious figures (priests and whatnot) do them. I know people get married in court houses so who does those?

It depends on the situation. Sometimes justices of the peace perform them, but if the couple wants, they can probably get someone from a church which recognizes gay marriage to perform the ceremony.

[The Senator]

Who performs gay marriages anyway? I've only ever seen relgious figures (priests and whatnot) do them. I know people get married in court houses so who does those?

It depends on the situation. Sometimes justices of the peace perform them, but if the couple wants, they can probably get someone from a church which recognizes gay marriage to perform the ceremony.

[The Senator]

Who performs gay marriages anyway? I've only ever seen relgious figures (priests and whatnot) do them. I know people get married in court houses so who does those?

It depends on the situation. Sometimes justices of the peace perform them, but if the couple wants, they can probably get someone from a church which recognizes gay marriage to perform the ceremony.

[The Senator]

Living in San Francisco, I'm surprised I didn't hear any trumpets to announce this.

No, but your mayor held a big rally to celebrate the ruling.

[The Senator]

Living in San Francisco, I'm surprised I didn't hear any trumpets to announce this.

No, but your mayor held a big rally to celebrate the ruling.

[The Senator]

Living in San Francisco, I'm surprised I didn't hear any trumpets to announce this.

No, but your mayor held a big rally to celebrate the ruling.

[The Senator]

I remember when Gavin Newsome (mayor of SF) allowed gay marriage on a 3 day weekend....the courts didnt even get to do anything untill the following Wednesday...score one for beuracracy....

I support gay marriage, but I still think its a decision that should be left to the individual states.

I think government should keep its hands out of it and let the churches decide, since marriage is a religious institution. Civil unions should be available for everyone under all circumstances, in my opinion.

[The Senator]

I remember when Gavin Newsome (mayor of SF) allowed gay marriage on a 3 day weekend....the courts didnt even get to do anything untill the following Wednesday...score one for beuracracy....

I support gay marriage, but I still think its a decision that should be left to the individual states.

I think government should keep its hands out of it and let the churches decide, since marriage is a religious institution. Civil unions should be available for everyone under all circumstances, in my opinion.

[The Senator]

I remember when Gavin Newsome (mayor of SF) allowed gay marriage on a 3 day weekend....the courts didnt even get to do anything untill the following Wednesday...score one for beuracracy....

I support gay marriage, but I still think its a decision that should be left to the individual states.

I think government should keep its hands out of it and let the churches decide, since marriage is a religious institution. Civil unions should be available for everyone under all circumstances, in my opinion.

[Marx]

It depends on the situation. Sometimes justices of the peace perform them, but if the couple wants, they can probably get someone from a church which recognizes gay marriage to perform the ceremony.

A couple of friends of mine have had committment ceremonies. They were performed by a church official.

[Marx]

It depends on the situation. Sometimes justices of the peace perform them, but if the couple wants, they can probably get someone from a church which recognizes gay marriage to perform the ceremony.

A couple of friends of mine have had committment ceremonies. They were performed by a church official.

[Marx]

It depends on the situation. Sometimes justices of the peace perform them, but if the couple wants, they can probably get someone from a church which recognizes gay marriage to perform the ceremony.

A couple of friends of mine have had committment ceremonies. They were performed by a church official.

[BlackLantern]

or if you want someone specific to perform the ceremony...the state can "appoint" them for a day so they can legally do the ceremony for you....

[BlackLantern]

or if you want someone specific to perform the ceremony...the state can "appoint" them for a day so they can legally do the ceremony for you....

[BlackLantern]

or if you want someone specific to perform the ceremony...the state can "appoint" them for a day so they can legally do the ceremony for you....

[Addendum]

I think government should keep its hands out of it and let the churches decide, since marriage is a religious institution.
While marriage is mentioned in almost all of the religions in the world, religion doesn't have sole ownership of it

[Addendum]

I think government should keep its hands out of it and let the churches decide, since marriage is a religious institution.
While marriage is mentioned in almost all of the religions in the world, religion doesn't have sole ownership of it

[Addendum]

I think government should keep its hands out of it and let the churches decide, since marriage is a religious institution.
While marriage is mentioned in almost all of the religions in the world, religion doesn't have sole ownership of it

[The Senator]

While marriage is mentioned in almost all of the religions in the world, religion doesn't have sole ownership of it

But there's no reason why any religion should be forced to acknowledge gay marriage, especially if it goes against their doctrine of faith.

[The Senator]

While marriage is mentioned in almost all of the religions in the world, religion doesn't have sole ownership of it

But there's no reason why any religion should be forced to acknowledge gay marriage, especially if it goes against their doctrine of faith.

[The Senator]

While marriage is mentioned in almost all of the religions in the world, religion doesn't have sole ownership of it

But there's no reason why any religion should be forced to acknowledge gay marriage, especially if it goes against their doctrine of faith.

[StorminNorman]

But there's no reason why any religion should be forced to acknowledge gay marriage, especially if it goes against their doctrine of faith.

I don't think any church will be forced to hold a gay marriage.

[StorminNorman]

But there's no reason why any religion should be forced to acknowledge gay marriage, especially if it goes against their doctrine of faith.

I don't think any church will be forced to hold a gay marriage.

[StorminNorman]

But there's no reason why any religion should be forced to acknowledge gay marriage, especially if it goes against their doctrine of faith.

I don't think any church will be forced to hold a gay marriage.

[The Senator]

I don't think any church will be forced to hold a gay marriage.

I don't think so either, but I'm just saying, religious institutions should be able to set their own rules regarding marriage, per their religious beliefs.

[The Senator]

I don't think any church will be forced to hold a gay marriage.

I don't think so either, but I'm just saying, religious institutions should be able to set their own rules regarding marriage, per their religious beliefs.

[The Senator]

I don't think any church will be forced to hold a gay marriage.

I don't think so either, but I'm just saying, religious institutions should be able to set their own rules regarding marriage, per their religious beliefs.

[StorminNorman]

I don't think so either, but I'm just saying, religious institutions should be able to set their own rules regarding marriage, per their religious beliefs.

I would agree on that.

[StorminNorman]

I don't think so either, but I'm just saying, religious institutions should be able to set their own rules regarding marriage, per their religious beliefs.

I would agree on that.

[StorminNorman]

I don't think so either, but I'm just saying, religious institutions should be able to set their own rules regarding marriage, per their religious beliefs.

I would agree on that.

[spideyboy_1111]

I think government should keep its hands out of it and let the churches decide, since marriage is a religious institution. Civil unions should be available for everyone under all circumstances, in my opinion.

except religion didn't create marriage, and Christianity is also not the only religion. So your point is mute

[spideyboy_1111]

I think government should keep its hands out of it and let the churches decide, since marriage is a religious institution. Civil unions should be available for everyone under all circumstances, in my opinion.

except religion didn't create marriage, and Christianity is also not the only religion. So your point is mute

[spideyboy_1111]

I think government should keep its hands out of it and let the churches decide, since marriage is a religious institution. Civil unions should be available for everyone under all circumstances, in my opinion.

except religion didn't create marriage, and Christianity is also not the only religion. So your point is mute

[spideyboy_1111]

But there's no reason why any religion should be forced to acknowledge gay marriage, especially if it goes against their doctrine of faith.

and there not being forced it. Some churches openly accept homosexuals. I'm sure those would allow the marriages, ones that frown upon gays i'm sure wouldn't. Churches still have the right to approve or deny any marriage

[spideyboy_1111]

But there's no reason why any religion should be forced to acknowledge gay marriage, especially if it goes against their doctrine of faith.

and there not being forced it. Some churches openly accept homosexuals. I'm sure those would allow the marriages, ones that frown upon gays i'm sure wouldn't. Churches still have the right to approve or deny any marriage

[spideyboy_1111]

But there's no reason why any religion should be forced to acknowledge gay marriage, especially if it goes against their doctrine of faith.

and there not being forced it. Some churches openly accept homosexuals. I'm sure those would allow the marriages, ones that frown upon gays i'm sure wouldn't. Churches still have the right to approve or deny any marriage

[spideyboy_1111]

I don't think so either, but I'm just saying, religious institutions should be able to set their own rules regarding marriage, per their religious beliefs.

umm they do... and no ones trying to take that from them.

[spideyboy_1111]

I don't think so either, but I'm just saying, religious institutions should be able to set their own rules regarding marriage, per their religious beliefs.

umm they do... and no ones trying to take that from them.

[spideyboy_1111]

I don't think so either, but I'm just saying, religious institutions should be able to set their own rules regarding marriage, per their religious beliefs.

umm they do... and no ones trying to take that from them.

[MaskedManJRK]

But there's no reason why any religion should be forced to acknowledge gay marriage, especially if it goes against their doctrine of faith.

Uh, I know NOBODY who wants to actually force churches to do same-sex marriages. It's purely on a legal level. Blame the Feds for calling the legal documents MARRIAGE licences. :o

[MaskedManJRK]

But there's no reason why any religion should be forced to acknowledge gay marriage, especially if it goes against their doctrine of faith.

Uh, I know NOBODY who wants to actually force churches to do same-sex marriages. It's purely on a legal level. Blame the Feds for calling the legal documents MARRIAGE licences. :o

[MaskedManJRK]

But there's no reason why any religion should be forced to acknowledge gay marriage, especially if it goes against their doctrine of faith.

Uh, I know NOBODY who wants to actually force churches to do same-sex marriages. It's purely on a legal level. Blame the Feds for calling the legal documents MARRIAGE licences. :o

[Mister Sinister]

I think government should keep its hands out of it and let the churches decide, since marriage is a religious institution. Civil unions should be available for everyone under all circumstances, in my opinion.

It's not a religious institution, it was a civil institution until religions hijacked it as their own.

[Mister Sinister]

I think government should keep its hands out of it and let the churches decide, since marriage is a religious institution. Civil unions should be available for everyone under all circumstances, in my opinion.

It's not a religious institution, it was a civil institution until religions hijacked it as their own.

[Mister Sinister]

I think government should keep its hands out of it and let the churches decide, since marriage is a religious institution. Civil unions should be available for everyone under all circumstances, in my opinion.

It's not a religious institution, it was a civil institution until religions hijacked it as their own.

[Addendum]

But there's no reason why any religion should be forced to acknowledge gay marriage, especially if it goes against their doctrine of faith.

The government cannot force any religion to do something that goes against their teachings. Such action or actions would violate the free exercise clause in the first amendment.

The various religions can choose to administer same-sex weddings or not, just like heterosexual weddings. However, some heterosexual weddings are done with no involvement from any religion. So the idea that gay weddings will weaken heterosexual marriages and any religion is moot.

[Addendum]

But there's no reason why any religion should be forced to acknowledge gay marriage, especially if it goes against their doctrine of faith.

The government cannot force any religion to do something that goes against their teachings. Such action or actions would violate the free exercise clause in the first amendment.

The various religions can choose to administer same-sex weddings or not, just like heterosexual weddings. However, some heterosexual weddings are done with no involvement from any religion. So the idea that gay weddings will weaken heterosexual marriages and any religion is moot.

[Addendum]

But there's no reason why any religion should be forced to acknowledge gay marriage, especially if it goes against their doctrine of faith.

The government cannot force any religion to do something that goes against their teachings. Such action or actions would violate the free exercise clause in the first amendment.

The various religions can choose to administer same-sex weddings or not, just like heterosexual weddings. However, some heterosexual weddings are done with no involvement from any religion. So the idea that gay weddings will weaken heterosexual marriages and any religion is moot.

[The Senator]

except religion didn't create marriage, and Christianity is also not the only religion. So your point is mute

Did I say Christianity is the only religion? No.

I said that religious institutions should decide whether to recognize gay marriage.

That includes all religions, from Christianity to Judaism to Hinduism and beyond.

There are religious institutions which recognize gay marriage, and there are others which do not.

and there not being forced it. Some churches openly accept homosexuals. I'm sure those would allow the marriages, ones that frown upon gays i'm sure wouldn't. Churches still have the right to approve or deny any marriage

Really?! I already knew this, hence why I said religious institutions should be able to make this decision...

Uh, I know NOBODY who wants to actually force churches to do same-sex marriages. It's purely on a legal level. Blame the Feds for calling the legal documents MARRIAGE licences. :o

There are some people who have little respect for a church's right to live by its own doctrine. For example, I do not feel Baptists should have to perform a gay marriage ceremony, when the United Church of Christ supports gay marriage. There are religious institutions which recognize gay marriage. I'm simply saying that if gay marriage becomes legal, churches shouldn't have to recognize it if their faith advises against it.

[The Senator]

except religion didn't create marriage, and Christianity is also not the only religion. So your point is mute

Did I say Christianity is the only religion? No.

I said that religious institutions should decide whether to recognize gay marriage.

That includes all religions, from Christianity to Judaism to Hinduism and beyond.

There are religious institutions which recognize gay marriage, and there are others which do not.

and there not being forced it. Some churches openly accept homosexuals. I'm sure those would allow the marriages, ones that frown upon gays i'm sure wouldn't. Churches still have the right to approve or deny any marriage

Really?! I already knew this, hence why I said religious institutions should be able to make this decision...

Uh, I know NOBODY who wants to actually force churches to do same-sex marriages. It's purely on a legal level. Blame the Feds for calling the legal documents MARRIAGE licences. :o

There are some people who have little respect for a church's right to live by its own doctrine. For example, I do not feel Baptists should have to perform a gay marriage ceremony, when the United Church of Christ supports gay marriage. There are religious institutions which recognize gay marriage. I'm simply saying that if gay marriage becomes legal, churches shouldn't have to recognize it if their faith advises against it.

[The Senator]

except religion didn't create marriage, and Christianity is also not the only religion. So your point is mute

Did I say Christianity is the only religion? No.

I said that religious institutions should decide whether to recognize gay marriage.

That includes all religions, from Christianity to Judaism to Hinduism and beyond.

There are religious institutions which recognize gay marriage, and there are others which do not.

and there not being forced it. Some churches openly accept homosexuals. I'm sure those would allow the marriages, ones that frown upon gays i'm sure wouldn't. Churches still have the right to approve or deny any marriage

Really?! I already knew this, hence why I said religious institutions should be able to make this decision...

Uh, I know NOBODY who wants to actually force churches to do same-sex marriages. It's purely on a legal level. Blame the Feds for calling the legal documents MARRIAGE licences. :o

There are some people who have little respect for a church's right to live by its own doctrine. For example, I do not feel Baptists should have to perform a gay marriage ceremony, when the United Church of Christ supports gay marriage. There are religious institutions which recognize gay marriage. I'm simply saying that if gay marriage becomes legal, churches shouldn't have to recognize it if their faith advises against it.

[Addendum]

But no one is saying they have to :huh:

[Addendum]

But no one is saying they have to :huh:

[Addendum]

But no one is saying they have to :huh: