how dare the court!
I am a pretty stout Republican.
However that being said, I am also a pretty open minded guy. I take no issue at all if a gay couple wants to get married, how is this hurting you? Is it because you are some hard core Bible thumping Christian and it wasn't written like that in the "good book" so therefore it is wrong, give me a break.
I have a very good friend who is gay. He is one of the sharpest and most intelligent physicians I have ever known. He is a true professional and also a leader. If you were sick or dying and came into the ER and this guy were there would you refuse to let him work on you because he is gay? That is the overtone I get from the initial post, that gay people are wrong, period.
Open your eyes people, it is 2008.
Signed,
A Ford truck driving, gun owning, deer hunting, republican.
ha ha ha ha ha ha!
However that being said, I am also a pretty open minded guy. I take no issue at all if a gay couple wants to get married, how is this hurting you? Is it because you are some hard core Bible thumping Christian and it wasn't written like that in the "good book" so therefore it is wrong, give me a break.
I have a very good friend who is gay. He is one of the sharpest and most intelligent physicians I have ever known. He is a true professional and also a leader. If you were sick or dying and came into the ER and this guy were there would you refuse to let him work on you because he is gay? That is the overtone I get from the initial post, that gay people are wrong, period.
Open your eyes people, it is 2008.
Signed,
A Ford truck driving, gun owning, deer hunting, republican.
ha ha ha ha ha ha!
There seems to be one purpose for our lives, that is to procreate. We come into this world with nothing and we will leave it with nothing. The only thing we leave behind are our offspring.
But then again "Natural Selection"
But then again "Natural Selection"
Last edited by Tumba; Oct 11, 2008 at 03:29 PM.
Who said I found that acceptable? I hate strip clubs
sick huh.............LOL
Much of my customer base is homosexual and they are great customers and people. I don't hate the person, but I also do not approve of the lifestyle. I would not tell you friend he can't be gay or hate him because he is gay, I also feel the court system has no business justifying this lifestyle.
Gay couples should be able to be wed for more reasons than just the relationship aspect of it. Insurance, health care benefits and life insurance come to mind. I am aware of a few gay firefighters in the area near where I work. So, you're telling me that if a gay firefighter gave their life trying to save you, your wife or your kids that their partner, whom they were in a living monogamous, committed relationship with should not be entitled to the benefits of losing their spouse? Unbelievable how people can be so ignorant.
I think the biggest issue people have with gay people is they have the giant misconception that gay people are all about having sex and lewd acts and that is the only thing they are interested in. I just can't see the how people can tell 2 people that are in love and committed to one another that they can't be married because someone a log time ago wrote "between a man and a woman" in a book.
Things change, that is my point with saying it is 2008. How we do things now and how we will do them in the future will change, accept it, or move into Appalachia.
Additionally I disagree with it being called a "lifestyle." This gives the notion that it is a choice someone makes. I strongly disagree and believe that people are born gay, some people accept/understand that sooner than others. I mean come on, for all the crap gay people get, why would someone "choose" to be gay? So they can be accosted? Lets be real.
The year has nothing to do with it. Your argument seems to be that as time goes on moral decay will increase and we should be ok with it. You may be a republican, but your hardly a conservative with that thought pattern.
Not knocking you, but pointing out that myself and many others do not agree.
Not knocking you, but pointing out that myself and many others do not agree.
Thursday night, my wife and I went to the Civic Center and saw David Sedaris.
Very funny guy and great writer. I will admit some of the content was a little different for me to hear. I am not used to hearing a guy talk about his feelings for another guy he met on a train 30 years ago.
Very funny guy and great writer. I will admit some of the content was a little different for me to hear. I am not used to hearing a guy talk about his feelings for another guy he met on a train 30 years ago.
I don't mind if gay couples co-habitate, and gay couples should have (and do have in almost every state) equal rights when it comes to hospital visits, property ownership, etc... In Connecticut, the article explains that gay couples already have all these things, and their rights were in every way are equal to those of married couples.
But not being discriminated against in anwyay is somehow not enough?
I fail to see why is it so important for gay couples to call their relationships marriage, when they have all the rights of any married couple.
For many people, the word marriage has religious overtones, and is sanctioned by God. The proponents of gay marriage are determined to force a change in the definition of the word down our throats, and that is obnoxious and should be resisted, IMO.
Basically, do what you want in your home, just don't make me call it marriage.
BTW, California has a proposition on the ballot (again) to ban gay marriage. The last one passed overwhelmingly, but was overturned by the courts.
But not being discriminated against in anwyay is somehow not enough?
I fail to see why is it so important for gay couples to call their relationships marriage, when they have all the rights of any married couple.
For many people, the word marriage has religious overtones, and is sanctioned by God. The proponents of gay marriage are determined to force a change in the definition of the word down our throats, and that is obnoxious and should be resisted, IMO.
Basically, do what you want in your home, just don't make me call it marriage.
BTW, California has a proposition on the ballot (again) to ban gay marriage. The last one passed overwhelmingly, but was overturned by the courts.
I don't mind if gay couples co-habitate, and gay couples should have (and do have in almost every state) equal rights when it comes to hospital visits, property ownership, etc... In Connecticut, the article explains that gay couples already have all these things, and their rights were in every way are equal to those of married couples.
But not being discriminated against in anwyay is somehow not enough?
I fail to see why is it so important for gay couples to call their relationships marriage, when they have all the rights of any married couple.
For many people, the word marriage has religious overtones, and is sanctioned by God. The proponents of gay marriage are determined to force a change in the definition of the word down our throats, and that is obnoxious and should be resisted, IMO.
Basically, do what you want in your home, just don't make me call it marriage.
BTW, California has a proposition on the ballot (again) to ban gay marriage. The last one passed overwhelmingly, but was overturned by the courts.
But not being discriminated against in anwyay is somehow not enough?
I fail to see why is it so important for gay couples to call their relationships marriage, when they have all the rights of any married couple.
For many people, the word marriage has religious overtones, and is sanctioned by God. The proponents of gay marriage are determined to force a change in the definition of the word down our throats, and that is obnoxious and should be resisted, IMO.
Basically, do what you want in your home, just don't make me call it marriage.
BTW, California has a proposition on the ballot (again) to ban gay marriage. The last one passed overwhelmingly, but was overturned by the courts.
For some reason, acceptance is a powerful motivation for some people. Seems to me that if you have to use the courts to force me (or your own church) to accept you, the value of the 'acceptance' is greatly diminished. But whatever.
How or why is it good to keep changing the rules of society in a way that is deviant? Since there was such thing as marriage, it has been between a man and a woman. After so many centuries, how does it make our society better? where is the benifit? Who are we to judge? Are you serious? Every law made was by the judgment of people who made the law. There is right and wrong. Why do we keep doing what is wrong?
This is only deviant because YOU (and others) think it is. It's your opinion. Changing the rules, in this case hurts nobody.
It doesn't necessarily make society better or give it a benefit but so what? Not all laws take that into account.
Yes, who are we to judge? Doesn't one of your favourite books say in the Gospel of Matthew "Judge not lest ye be judged"?
You've always been a very strong proponent of us following the Bible.
Now I know you will want to come back with a Bible quote saying Homosexuality is a sin but I want you to be clear on my point.
I'm not saying it's right or wrong. I'm saying that we shouldn't judge.
Are you advocating that the Bible shouldn't be followed? Or are you ( as most Christians do) picking and choosing only the parts you agree with?
The Church and the State are separate. That's in your constitution.
Are you saying that laws should be made that take religion into account and break the Constitution?
Last edited by EnglishAdam; Oct 11, 2008 at 03:48 PM.
I could be wrong, but basically they want to force people to accept them as 'normal'.
For some reason, acceptance is a powerful motivation for some people. Seems to me that if you have to use the courts to force me (or your own church) to accept you, the value of the 'acceptance' is greatly diminished. But whatever.
For some reason, acceptance is a powerful motivation for some people. Seems to me that if you have to use the courts to force me (or your own church) to accept you, the value of the 'acceptance' is greatly diminished. But whatever.
In the '50's or '60's a "normal" household might have been like the TV show, Leave it to Beaver, My Three Son's, or Ozzie and Harriet. Today, what is "normal?" Maybe those shows were not like the typical household then.
Are you advocating that the Bible shouldn't be followed? Or are you ( as most Christians do) picking and choosing only the parts you agree with?
Ah, but as we have seen in previous threads, not everybody believes in your God.
The Church and the State are separate. That's in your constitution.
Are you saying that laws should be made that take religion into account and break the Constitution?
Ah, but as we have seen in previous threads, not everybody believes in your God.
The Church and the State are separate. That's in your constitution.
Are you saying that laws should be made that take religion into account and break the Constitution?
Chris.
This is only deviant because YOU (and others) think it is. It's your opinion. Changing the rules, in this case hurts nobody.
It doesn't necessarily make society better or give it a benefit but so what? Not all laws take that into account.
Yes, who are we to judge? Doesn't one of your favourite books say in the Gospel of Matthew "Judge not lest ye be judged"?
You've always been a very strong proponent of us following the Bible.
Now I know you will want to come back with a Bible quote saying Homosexuality is a sin but I want you to be clear on my point.
I'm not saying it's right or wrong. I'm saying that we shouldn't judge.
Are you advocating that the Bible shouldn't be followed? Or are you ( as most Christians do) picking and choosing only the parts you agree with?
Ah, but as we have seen in previous threads, not everybody believes in your God.
The Church and the State are separate. That's in your constitution.
Are you saying that laws should be made that take religion into account and break the Constitution?
This is only deviant because YOU (and others) think it is. It's your opinion. Changing the rules, in this case hurts nobody.
It doesn't necessarily make society better or give it a benefit but so what? Not all laws take that into account.
Yes, who are we to judge? Doesn't one of your favourite books say in the Gospel of Matthew "Judge not lest ye be judged"?
You've always been a very strong proponent of us following the Bible.
Now I know you will want to come back with a Bible quote saying Homosexuality is a sin but I want you to be clear on my point.
I'm not saying it's right or wrong. I'm saying that we shouldn't judge.
Are you advocating that the Bible shouldn't be followed? Or are you ( as most Christians do) picking and choosing only the parts you agree with?
Ah, but as we have seen in previous threads, not everybody believes in your God.
The Church and the State are separate. That's in your constitution.
Are you saying that laws should be made that take religion into account and break the Constitution?
I do indeed too love the picking and choosing.


