McCain gets slammed!!!

[jessica73]

Also, whatever happened to "hit it & quit it?"  Why are all these gay people getting all lovey dovey all of a sudden, it's annoying.

That's normally just the guys. Lesbians are all about renting the U-Hauls after the second date.  :lol:

And I'm joking, mods, whoever you are nowadays.

[NoelleNC]

Haha wow, I can't believe anyone on this board actually shares my opinion. I'm not even religious, so that's not my firewall. I'm agnostic at best, and I still think that for the purpose of clarity (mostly) and tradition (somewhat), "marriage" the word and the exact legal union stipulated within the definition, should remain male and female only. It has nothing to do with discrimination, and everything to do with - why the heck can't they just have their own word for it and call it a day?

Garriage people, GARRIAGE. Learn it and love it =)

[portions.for.foxes]

Well, technically, if you're christian or believe in the christian God, the Bible clearly says homosexuality it wrong. Some some uber religious people won't be able to just accept that and move on, niether will homophobes. But you're right, people should accept it as it is and not be such tightasses and speech and be vocal about it. I'm not all for the gay thing, but at least I have manners.

The Bible is not as clear on homosexuality as you think it is.  And all of the main discussion points are either old testament or the words of paul.  Neither of which is infalible in the same way the words of Jesus are treated by Christians.

Interpreations of the Bible that are not anti-homosexual are pretty easy to find.

The bible says that marriage is between a man and a woman because thousands of years ago some people were fuck stupid and out of control and would fall in love with camels, and their village elder's had to be like, "NO! You can't marry that camel! I don't care how much you love her, you're supposed to marry a woman goddamit!"

And now people interpret that as saying gay people shouldn't get married. lol

Edit - I don't really understand the whole notion of needing to keep the "sanctity" of marriage. Divorce rates are higher in red states than they are in blue states, Massachusetts, the only state with legalized gay marriage has one of the lowest divorce rates out of any states in the entire country.

Marriage isn't much of a sanctuary if you divorce from it, I mean if you ask John McCain about his stance on gay marriage, he's all about "keeping the sanctity of marriage" but he's a divorcee who left his wife because he had an affair with another woman, what a hypocrite.

If people really want to preserve the sanctity of marriage, instead of creating a bill that bans gays from getting married, they should create a bill that prevents people from getting divorced or eloped. Divorce is a much bigger problem in this country than gay marriage, and it's an even bigger problem in the states that are controlled by Evangelicals.  :roll:

[portions.for.foxes]

Haha wow, I can't believe anyone on this board actually shares my opinion. I'm not even religious, so that's not my firewall. I'm agnostic at best, and I still think that for the purpose of clarity (mostly) and tradition (somewhat), "marriage" the word and the exact legal union stipulated within the definition, should remain male and female only. It has nothing to do with discrimination, and everything to do with - why the heck can't they just have their own word for it and call it a day?

Garriage people, GARRIAGE. Learn it and love it =)

Gay people, such as myself, don't want another word for "marriage" because it's about equality. You know, in the constitution it states that all men are created equal and such, remember? So since we're all equal according to the constitution, why do we need another goddamn word for the same exact thing. :roll:

[twilightcarnival]

Well said, portions.for.foxes.

[Grakthis]

Romans 1: 24-27:

"24 Therefore God, in keeping with the desires of their hearts, gave them up to uncleanness, that their bodies might be dishonored among them, 25 even those who exchanged the truth of God for the lie and venerated and rendered sacred service to the creation rather than the One who created, who is blessed forever. Amen. 26 That is why God gave them up to disgraceful sexual appetites, for both their females changed the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature; 27 and likewise even the males left the natural use of the female and became violently inflamed in their lust toward one another, males with males, working what is obscene and receiving in themselves the full recompense, which was due for their error."

That was Paul writing, but those were God's thoughts. I don't see how that could be any clearer.

Uh... let's look at what it's saying....

The men left their "natural use" for females and became "inflamed in their lust" toward one another.

So, what are the two sins being dismissed here?

Lust and going against the natural way.

If you're born gay, you're not going against the natural anything.  You're doing exactly as God created you to do.

And Lust has ALWAYS been a sin, and has nothing to do with sexual preference.

So, yeah... you're right... it couldn't be any clearer.

[Grakthis]

Haha wow, I can't believe anyone on this board actually shares my opinion. I'm not even religious, so that's not my firewall. I'm agnostic at best, and I still think that for the purpose of clarity (mostly) and tradition (somewhat), "marriage" the word and the exact legal union stipulated within the definition, should remain male and female only. It has nothing to do with discrimination, and everything to do with - why the heck can't they just have their own word for it and call it a day?

Garriage people, GARRIAGE. Learn it and love it =)

Gay people, such as myself, don't want another word for "marriage" because it's about equality. You know, in the constitution it states that all men are created equal and such, remember? So since we're all equal according to the constitution, why do we need another goddamn word for the same exact thing. :roll:

I don't know, why do we need another word for murder when it's performed on a Gay person than when it's performed on a straight person?

Or maybe you want to get rid of "hate crime" too?

Why do we need a different set of laws for hiring and firing gay people than for hiring and firing straight people?  Or maybe you want to get rid of discrimination laws that specifically list sexual preference too?

Why do we need a different word for men who have sex with men and men who have sex with women?  We should just call them all "sexual" right?

You use different words to distinguish things that are different.

I don't think we should have a new legal definition, but I am OK with society giving it a new name to differentiate.

[portions.for.foxes]

Haha wow, I can't believe anyone on this board actually shares my opinion. I'm not even religious, so that's not my firewall. I'm agnostic at best, and I still think that for the purpose of clarity (mostly) and tradition (somewhat), "marriage" the word and the exact legal union stipulated within the definition, should remain male and female only. It has nothing to do with discrimination, and everything to do with - why the heck can't they just have their own word for it and call it a day?

Garriage people, GARRIAGE. Learn it and love it =)

Gay people, such as myself, don't want another word for "marriage" because it's about equality. You know, in the constitution it states that all men are created equal and such, remember? So since we're all equal according to the constitution, why do we need another goddamn word for the same exact thing. :roll:

I don't know, why do we need another word for murder when it's performed on a Gay person than when it's performed on a straight person?

Or maybe you want to get rid of "hate crime" too?

Why do we need a different set of laws for hiring and firing gay people than for hiring and firing straight people?  Or maybe you want to get rid of discrimination laws that specifically list sexual preference too?

Why do we need a different word for men who have sex with men and men who have sex with women?  We should just call them all "sexual" right?

You use different words to distinguish things that are different.

I don't think we should have a new legal definition, but I am OK with society giving it a new name to differentiate.

Murder is still murder, motivations for murder however, are different. If a gay individual is murdered during a robbery for the purpose of aquiring their money, it's not a hate a crime. It only becomes a hate crime when that gay individual is murdered because they're gay. Those are two very different scenarios. If someone is killed for their sexuality, gender, race, etc. - that's a hate crime. Which is different from other acts of murder.

You don't always need another word for when a gay person is murdered. You only need another word (hate crime) when a gay person is murdered because of a hate crime. Not all gay people killed are murdered because of hate crimes, and not all of their murder's are labeled as such. Your statement makes no sense at all.

Saying that marriage, between two people whom love one another, should be given a different name when it's not different from any other type of union between a man and woman, is a pretty moronic statement. If you're straight or gay, it fucking doesn't matter, marriage is still marriage. The act of marriage, the recognition of marriage, the financial benefits that married couples receieve from the government, are all the same. The only thing that is different, are the people being married, but marriage itself still hasn't changed.

So there's no need to differentiate marriage between two men and marriage between a man and a woman. So there's no need for another word, because marriage itself hasn't changed.

Men that have sex with other men are given a different name because the act of sex they perform is different from the act of sex a man and woman would perform. Gay sex, and straight sex, are different.  So yes, we need different labels because guess what, they're actually different things. Again, your statement makes no sense.

Marriage itself and what it intales isn't different. That's my point.

The amount of flawed logic in your post baffles me.

[portions.for.foxes]

mmhmm... well I see it as who cares about who goes out with who if its the oppisite sex or same sex why should there be people to judge I mean we are in the land of the "free" why can't the person you want to marry/date have to be an issue were you can't really be free for some people??!? its one of those things that will mabey never get reslocved there is always going to be one person against it never 100% ok with it. Like with racists (spelled wrong) that is always going to be there. Worlds not perfect, oh well.

Like V said in a performance (The Roxy? Bowlery? one of thoes) She said that you should "be able to go out with whatever you want does not even have to be a person I dont get it"..

paraphrased a bit but you get the point.

You make no sense.
I didn't read the article, but anyway I'm gay and I happen to think that it's not right for two guys or two girls to get married.

I'm glad you're gay. Because anyone that's okay with remaining a second class citizen for the rest of their lives isn't someone who should breed.

You're the biggest moron I've ever come across. I feel really sorry for you.

[soupdujour]

mmhmm... well I see it as who cares about who goes out with who if its the oppisite sex or same sex why should there be people to judge I mean we are in the land of the "free" why can't the person you want to marry/date have to be an issue were you can't really be free for some people??!? its one of those things that will mabey never get reslocved there is always going to be one person against it never 100% ok with it. Like with racists (spelled wrong) that is always going to be there. Worlds not perfect, oh well.

Like V said in a performance (The Roxy? Bowlery? one of thoes) She said that you should "be able to go out with whatever you want does not even have to be a person I dont get it"..

paraphrased a bit but you get the point.

You make no sense.
I didn't read the article, but anyway I'm gay and I happen to think that it's not right for two guys or two girls to get married.

I'm glad you're gay. Because anyone that's okay with remaining a second class citizen for the rest of their lives isn't someone who should breed.

You're the biggest moron I've ever come across. I feel really sorry for you.

Listen bitch, you need to stfu because you don't even know me.

The word MARRIAGE, for like a bajillion years, has been used to describe the communion of a male and a female. WHY, all of a sudden, should it also be used to describe the communion between two males?

Whatever. You disgust me. It's people like YOU that I wish nothing but slow, painful death upon. That is all.

[portions.for.foxes]

mmhmm... well I see it as who cares about who goes out with who if its the oppisite sex or same sex why should there be people to judge I mean we are in the land of the "free" why can't the person you want to marry/date have to be an issue were you can't really be free for some people??!? its one of those things that will mabey never get reslocved there is always going to be one person against it never 100% ok with it. Like with racists (spelled wrong) that is always going to be there. Worlds not perfect, oh well.

Like V said in a performance (The Roxy? Bowlery? one of thoes) She said that you should "be able to go out with whatever you want does not even have to be a person I dont get it"..

paraphrased a bit but you get the point.

You make no sense.
I didn't read the article, but anyway I'm gay and I happen to think that it's not right for two guys or two girls to get married.

I'm glad you're gay. Because anyone that's okay with remaining a second class citizen for the rest of their lives isn't someone who should breed.

You're the biggest moron I've ever come across. I feel really sorry for you.

Listen bitch, you need to stfu because you don't even know me.

The word MARRIAGE, for like a bajillion years, has been used to describe the communion of a male and a female. WHY, all of a sudden, should it also be used to describe the communion between two males?

Whatever. You disgust me. It's people like YOU that I wish nothing but slow, painful death upon. That is all.

Why? Because it's the 21st century idiot. It's not a "bajillion" years ago. Even the Roman Catholic Church has adapted itself to contemporary times regarding some issues.

Times change. And it's people like you who I would wish would just shut their mouths because they never have anything intelligent to say. And wishing death upon people is really mature.

Just because something has been a certain way for awhile doesn't make it anymore right or okay. I mean, with your logic I guess slavery would still be okay, because that was the norm a long time ago, and no one questioned it or opposed it for awhile. Just because it's around, doesn't mean it's right.

Any form of oppression and prejudice, is wrong. End of story.

What a moron. Get over yourself.

[Suicidalboobs]

If you're born gay, you're not going against the natural anything. You're doing exactly as God created you to do.

Not true. Since imperfection you are born that way. God did not create humans imperfect. They became imperfect after adam and eve screwed up. They were perfect before. Thus, all of us are unnatural. Don't ask me how these defects came about, but God didn't make them.

And grakthis, what's your opinion on this scripture:

1 Corinthians 6:9 What! Do YOU not know that unrighteous persons will not inherit God’s kingdom? Do not be misled. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men kept for unnatural purposes, nor men who lie with men, 10 nor thieves,...

[Manda]

I think most of you make really good points in this thread but I just have to say that marriage has always been between a man and a woman, no matter if you are born gay (which I do not believe) and the church does not agree with it. If the church did agree with it it would be in effect today. However its not.

This will probably never change because the church holds on to the old values it had and the amount of people who are against same sex marriage is pretty high and it will probably take something like a miracle to get people to think that it is okay.

My cousin, who is also my god brother means the world to me. I love him to death and he is gay. However he never said he was born gay but after college he just felt that his heart and mind were attracted to men, not women. I support him, I don't bas him, and he's not angry that same sex marriage is not allowed.

I think its fine if you are gay, but you can't turn a man and woman union into a same sex union and I'm against gay couples adopting children. Yes, people say that they get the same amount of love, attention, and care but its just difficult for the child to grow up and have to explain and be explained too that they have two mommy's or two daddy's. Its not fair for a child.

thats just my feelings on that. Don't bash me because I'm not bashing anyone, I didn't make the laws, and I can't change them. If I could I wouldn't. Marriage and adoption should be for heterosexual couples only (man/woman).

[portions.for.foxes]

There's nothing wrong with sharing that opinion and belief, it only becomes wrong when people choose to act on it and suppress the rights of another group of people because it doesnt adhere to their philosophies. Then that becomes oppression and prejudice.

I believe the adoption argument is a lame one. Not all children are adopted, and because some believe that gays shouldn't adopt, they are depriving children of having good homes, where people will love and take of them. I'd rather see a child happy in an adopted home with people who love him than stuck in the horrible adoption and foster care system.

In Massachusetts, gays are allowed to adopt, the Church naturally didn't agree that they should, which is fine, they're perfectly entitled to feel that way. However, in response, the Church shut down all of it's adoption agencies in the State.  I guess the Church feels its better to not even adopt children at all than allow gays to adopt. And that move really bothered me. Because it was completely unfair to the orphans.

Actually, according to recent polls, 55% of people all across the country are in favor of gay marriage. The margin is still fairly narrow, but it's obvious people's feelings are moving the other way.

The right-wing is losing it's political clout day by day, I mean, just look at the GOP line up for presidential candidates, Evangelicals don't like any of them. Americans are finally staring to understand the real issues, like Iraq, health care, and our education system. It really sickens me that every election year Republicans wave the gay marriage flag to get their right-wing base all revved up and ready to vote. But after every election year, we never hear about gay marriage again.

Any why? The Republicans don't care about gay marriage, they use it as a politcal selling point to get votes. They know there's a huge number of potential votes with Evangelicals and neo-conservatives, so they pander to them. And that's it.

[Manda]

55% of the people who actually took the poll.

Obviously Republicans dominate and as long as they dominate there will be no gay marriage. Most people voted for Bush just because they didn't want gay marriage to be a possibility.

Most people do not do polls but when it comes down to voting, they sure as hell will show up to vote against something.

As far as the loving home issue with gay parents, I'm just not in favor of that. I think its cruel no matter how much love is there a child with two same sex parents will be the center of jokes, ridicule, and constant humiliation. People are cruel, and most places are not going to hide how they feel when they see that. Maybe in Massachusetts they might not do that, but in most other places they will not stop hurting the child, parents, or the family because they are different in their eyes.