Rant about Bush and his stance on gay marriages.

[Geo]

Ok, I'm just sorta fuming around, so I have to let this out.Our president is probably the biggest asshat I have ever seen. I have fully decided that I do in fact, HATE our president."If activist judges insist on redefining marriage by court order, the only alternative will be the constitutional process. We must do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage."-Bush on the Mass. Supreme Court ruling that gay marraiges are in fact legal in the state.I'm just going to copy and paste something I read today, and it's pretty much exactly how I feel, full article is here: http://www.ehowa.com/home.shtml (Article has "big boy" language and stuff, so people under the age of 13 and HAVEN'T been in a school yard before, should stay away. *rolls eyes*)"Do You, PoleSmoker, take this PoleSmoker...So the Massachusetts' Supreme Judicial Court upheld a ruling today that gays should have the right to marry in the state of Massachusetts. This will of course lead to many a heated moments as the beer swilling Catholics in downtown Boston get liquored up and decide to voice their opinions to those who may strike them as light in the loafers, I'm sure. I had actually intended on doing a blurb on this subject about a month ago and it slipped my mind, until I received this email last week...I live in Indiana, and in the past week or so i have been hearing a lot of talk on the radio about same (removed) marragies becoming legal. Just hearing that makes my stomach drop. Could you lift my spirits for me by doing a little old fasion gay bashing? Well not really bash them, that could cause a lot of trouble, just tease them a little. It would put a smile on my face.Thanks a lot!long time viewer-MikeNow a few years ago I used to live with a girl who had not only a spectacular pair of breasts, but a gay sister as well. I dunno if the gay sister had great boobs too because, well, she was gay. But anyway, this sister lived in California with her -- of what's the politically correct term -- life partner? Yeah, so these two lesbians have been with each other for a like eleven years and they were as committed to each other as any heterosexual couple I know. But since they obviously can't have any children without some help, they decided one of them gets artificially inseminated. They took a look at their jobs, and decided the one who had the lesser paying job would be the one to carry the baby, since her taking time off from work wouldn't be as financially straining. Nine months later, poof they've got a kid.The first thing that struck me as a little unfair is only my girlfriend's sister -- the one who actually carried the baby -- could be listed on the birth certificate as the parent. Granted even if they could they'd either have to play paper-scissors-rock to see who gets listed as the father, but still it struck me as a little unfair that only one of them was legally allowed to be recognized as a parent. I mean hey, ya wait around for that long putting up with world class *****iness beyond belief, you're gonna want some public recognition, right?The next quirk they came across was health insurance. As it so happened, the birth mother's health insurance coverage was not as robust as the her partner's insurance. You know how that goes, better job and all that, right? Well the baby's medical coverage could not be claimed against this better policy for obvious reasons -- she wasn't legally the child's parent. So this ended up costing them a lot of money out of pocket for medical expenses, and there were even some areas where the child didn't get the same level of care as she could have if she had been covered under the better insurance policy. Again, it seemed unfair not only to the parents financially, but to the baby in regards to her health care.And suppose for the sake of argument, that while the three of them were driving home from the hospital, there was a car accident and the birth mom was rendered brain dead. If it were a husband and wife deal, the surviving spouse would have legal control over medical treatment (or ceasing of it) for their injured partner, plus have no problem securing sole custody of the baby. But in this case, the surviving lezbo would have no legal recourse despite having just as much time and energy invested as a male partner would.All these issues because same (removed) marriages are currently illegal. Okay. So let me think for a minute, that if they were legal, how would they effect my life. Would I have to pay more taxes? No. Would married gay people get a special check out line at the supermarket to get through line faster than me? No. Do they get their own special lane to avoid traffic jams? No. Do they get cheaper car insurance? No. Free car? No. Free socks? No.So my question would be... what the **** do I care if gay people want to be married?They're not fighting to have two guys dressed in wedding gowns, mascara and five o'clock shadows to prance down the aisle of your local church. They're not fighting for the right to **** on the crosstown bus. They're not fighting to have Hers-and-Hers bathrooms at the mall. All the benefits and rights they're fighting for, wouldn't impact my life one bit if they did get them, so why the hell would I oppose it? It's like going out and saying you oppose blue socks. You can't see em anyway, so who the **** cares?The only people that could possibly have a valid argument against anti-same (removed) marriages are the religious groups. "Homosexuality is an abomination!" they say. Well, okay, that's your take on it that's cool. Fair enough. But then there's two things to consider when you enter that realm, too. One, where the hell were you when priests were treating eight year old children like **** toys? I didn't hear you say too much then, in fact you kind of looked at your shoes, mumbled something about out of court settlements, and then wandered off into the crowds. I don't hear you protest when atheists get married. I don't hear you protest when atheists get married in a church. I don't hear you protest when religious people get married on a cruise ship snot hanging drunk after grabbing the nearest vacationer to serve as their witness. So please, if you're going to get all high and ****ing mighty, at least have the courtesy to do it evenly across the board.And secondly, this situation my friend, is a perfect example of the REAL reason behind the separation of Church and State. It's not just a springboard for some loudmouthed ******* to use and get his name in the paper when he wants to talk about the Pledge of Allegiance, but instead a genuine reason why Judge Judy needs to leave her Bible/Koran/Torah/Whatever at home.What if I created a religion where marriage was illegal altogether, would the government have to rule all marriages null and void? What if all the 43,000 people in the United Kingdom who checked their religion as "Jedi" all decided they're never going to get laid and decided they could marry their dog? Would governments then have to recognize those marriages? The answer is no in both cases, because the whole purpose of the separation of Church and State is Uncle Sam can't pick and choose what religious movements they're going to acknowledge and which they aren't. Churchgoers have every right in the world to voice their opinions in a public forum, but when it comes time to making laws it's time to have a nice tall glass of Shut-The-****-Up. The only thing Uncle Sam can do is to make sure everyone, man, woman, black, white, tall, short, cute, ugly, straight or gay, gets a fair shake."The last time we had laws outlawing the equality of people, we had slaves.Anyone but Bush in '04.

[Mavrik]

Well with several gay/lesbian friends, some of who have been with their 'lovers' for a few years. And the fact that if they got married would not affect me in any way other then warm fuzzies for them.Who cares if they wanna marry? LET EM!

[Stang2Vibe]

If you look at the rest of that person's website that you quoted from, you should hopefully discover that that person is about as close to a total moron as I'd ever like to see. Therein lies your answer.Also, the contents of this post (quotations from moron's site) are blatantly offensive and do not have a place on this site.

[Houston]

A marriage between young folks is supposd to eventually result in little ones. No way is this going to happen with those of the same (removed).A "relationship," sure, but that''s it.I'm as liberal as the come, but for Christ's sake lets get real with this.

[Geo]

Regardless of his other opinions, his arguments presented there are good ones, and ones that I agree with.There should be no reason why two gay people who love eachother should not legally have the same rights as two heterosexual people that love eachother. This in itself is creating a stigma against those who choose to be gay. I personally don't care if it is called a "civil union" or "marriage." It is a legally binding thing, and therefore should not place restrictions on who enters in the contract. As long as the benefits remain the same between hetero and homosexual people, I don't have a problem with it.As the court ruled, the creation of that "second class" citizen is hogwash and in the "Land of the Free" people should not have to face this kind of crap.Houston: Marriage (or Unions, or whatever one wants to call it) doesn't necessarily mean that propogation has to occur. While homosexual people may not be able to have childen themselves, many lesbian couples can in fact go to a sperm bank or adopt, and the males can either have a surrogate mother or adopt. Surely you can't tell me that raising adoption rates is a bad thing for this country, or the world in general. If two people can live in happiness together and lead a good life, what is the problem? "Sanctity of Marriage" my (removed). 58% of marriages these days end up in divorce. You have kids marrying eachother because the girlfriend got pregnang. Ever heard of a "shotgun" wedding? The instuition in itself is basically a joke these days, if gays can actually improve the whole marriage situation, and perhaps bring it back to the respected position it once was in, I say go for it.What do we really have to lose by keeping people equal, instead of "seperate but equal?"

[Stang2Vibe]

One more mistruth that I must comment on:Quote, originally posted by Geo »the whole purpose of the separation of Church and State is Uncle Sam can't pick and choose what religious movements they're going to acknowledge and which they aren't.This is completely untrue. The words and the currently floated idea of "separation of church and state" are not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution or any federal law. It is a phrase contrived by Thomas Jefferson that was written in a private letter to someone over 200 years ago and has been abused ever since. The founders of this nation NEVER EVER intended any such thing with regard to this as what we see today and are surely rolling in their graves over and over again because of it. The only thing that the Constitution prevents is the establishment of a state religion (known as the "establishment clause"). That means that the federal government cannot establish any one particular religion as the offical religion of the government. It in no way means to throw religion out of government altogether. In fact, it was completely to the opposite. That is all. It doesn't say that we can't pray in school, on public grounds, in churches, etc. That is the fallicy that has been contrived from the sadly misguided recent rulings of the courts.As for the recent Massachusettes State Supreme Court ruling, they have performed a complete butchery and abortion on the actual law and its implied intent. The justices in this case have performed the most egregious incident of legislating from the bench that I have yet seen. Justices are appointed to interpret the existing law, not to create law by precident by making up some ruling based on nothing other than their own opinions. Legislative bodies are to create the laws, judicial bodies to interpret them, and executive bodies are to enforce them. That is how checks and balances work in this country. The judiciary has far overstepped its' boudaries in this case. They are applying a meaning to the written law that was never meant to be there. I am confident that this will be settled in the same way it has been in other states where this same issue and problem has occured. The state legislature will rewrite or create a new law that will clarify what is meant by marriage and will include the idea of the lifelong union of one man and one woman. Then the justices will just have to sit back down to do their job instead of acting as radical partisan advocates.It is completely absurd that this issue should even come into question, especially in a state like Massachusettes. Here is why. Who wrote the original laws that the current judges are misinterpreting? Pilgrims and Quakers, that's right. Now, do you think that the Pilgrims and Quakers sought to institutionalize homosexuality? I would hardly think so. Whether we consider it right or wrong is not relevant to the current issue. The courts must go on the facts of the matter, and the fact is that the laws were written and enacted by a very devout Christian religious group. When these laws were being drafted, no mention of homosexual provisions was ever made because the idea was so unthinkable that it would have been considered completely perverse to have even brought it up. And from that, the court has somehow construed that the law was intentionally written to INCLUDE it? Nothing could be further from the truth, as should be obvious to any rational person who knows the slightest thing about history.The big problem is that, according to reports that I have recently heard, it would take until early 2006 for the Massachusettes State Legislature to write and enact a law that clearly defines marriage and effectively overturns the ruling of the court. This is a problem because many other states have already enacted such laws but are mutually bound to honor every other state's marital status rights. What that means is that every other state that has already outlawed gay marriages will be forced by law to accept the legally sanctioned gay marriages that occur in Massachusettes. So, in their shortsighted and agenda driven ruling, the Supreme Court of Massachusettes has effectively forced all other 49 states to disregard their own laws, making them ineffective for some new cases. Now, if the Massachusettes state legislature passes a law that redefines marriage to exclude homosexual unions in the future, as I expect that they would now have to, then the homosexual marriages that occur there in the interim period will have to be recognized by all the other states which userps the soverign rights of every other state and that is just plain wrong. President Bush wants to put an end to all this nonsense once and for all by having a federal law that more clearly defines what marriage is so that the states will not have to deal with this time and resource consuming legal quagmire. You can Bush-bash all you want, but this controversy is not his fault. His plan of action would actually save the courts of all the states a lot of time and money by preventing them from having to deal with this frivolous issue again and again in the future. The President cannot tell any state's Supreme Court what to do with regard to matters that exclusively apply to their own affairs, so how you could possibly blame him for this is well beyond my comprehension. Also, the President cannot create any new laws on his own. That is called a dictatorship or a monarchy, which we don't have in the US today. We have a representative republic, and as such, the houses of Congress are entrusted with the creation of new federal laws. The President may suggest and/or draft new legislation, but he may not singlehandedly enact it. It must pass with the approval of BOTH houses of Congress before he can sign it into law. So if you have a major beef with this issue, take it up with the proper authority, the US Congress, not the President.As for the idiot whose article you quoted here, he most obviously has little to no understanding how our legal system works and is just spewing forth a bunch of garbage, as does the rest of his website as it is plagued with nothing but misinformation and filth. You should give more careful thought to your sources that you cite before using them to support your side of an argument. That place would be about the LAST place that I would cite information from. I don't know if it gets much poorer than that.

[Stang2Vibe]

Quote, originally posted by Geo »Regardless of his other opinions, his arguments presented there are good ones, and ones that I agree with.I will preface this by saying that you may agree or disagree with whomever you so choose no matter how brilliant or completely stupid that they are. That is your right. But by the granting of that right, others then have the right to disagree with you and state their reasons why. >Quote, originally posted by Geo »There should be no reason why two gay people who love eachother should not legally have the same rights as two heterosexual people that love eachotherYes, there should. The oxymoronic basis for your arguement, when coupled with the plethora of others clearly states why.Quote, originally posted by Geo »This in itself is creating a stigma against those who choose to be gay.Wrong again. The "stigma" is not created on the institutional level by the government or its' findings/rulings. Stigma are created and carried out by individuals. And I'm glad that you chose to recognize that homosexuality is a choice. That will be important to remember later as we blow up the basis for this argument.Quote, originally posted by Geo »I personally don't care if it is called a "civil union" or "marriage."Me either. I don't want to live to see homosexuality applied to either of them.Quote, originally posted by Geo »It is a legally binding thing, and therefore should not place restrictions on who enters in the contract.Umm..., what exactly to you think that it means to be "legally bound"? The very idea of a contract inherently implies that the entrants to the contract are agreeing to be legally restricted. Are you wearing the tin foil hat again? This is starting to sound like logic from some other planet. I don't mean this as a slam in any way, but you really should look up some contract law to get an idea for the mechanics of it. Then you should start to see how potentially far-reaching radical legislation such as this can stretch its' destructive tenticles.Quote, originally posted by Geo »As the court ruled, the creation of that "second class" citizen is hogwash and in the "Land of the Free" people should not have to face this kind of crap.Ruling in that way was completely fallacious and is a huge slap in the face of human history. Not only does it seek to capitalize on a tradgic theme for no other purpose than sensationalism, it has no basis in reality whatsoever as I have previously addressed. It is a complete and total disgrace to draw that comparison. To do so is to imply that black people choose to be black and white people choose to be white and so on. Race is an empirical trait, sexual orientation is not, even by your own admission. And I live in the "land of the free" and I have to pay taxes, don't I? Well I think that is a bunch of crap so can I get some radical advocate court to rule in my favor and force it down the throat of every state in the union? I don't think so. The "land of the free" thing can only be carried so far. Freedom without restraint is called anarchy. I don't want to see anarchy in my beloved country so some things must be stopped dead in their tracks. Welcome to the "slippery slope" of the real world.Quote, originally posted by Geo »Marriage (or Unions, or whatever one wants to call it) doesn't necessarily mean that propogation has to occur.Propagation: "the act or action of propagating : as (a) : increase (as of a kind of organism) in numbers (b) : the spreading of something (as a belief) abroad or into new regions (c) : enlargement or extension (as of a crack) in a solid body." I'm not exactly sure what you are talking about here. If you are referring to "procreation", then I seriously suggest that you open up a biology or anatomy book and look up what the purpose of the human genitalia is. The resultant and surrounding behavior is paramount to the foundation of what marriage is.Quote, originally posted by Geo »While homosexual people may not be able to have childen themselves, many lesbian couples can in fact go to a sperm bank or adopt, and the males can either have a surrogate mother or adopt.And that is as grand of a corruption of human creation as my mind can possibly conceive.Quote, originally posted by Geo »Surely you can't tell me that raising adoption rates is a bad thing for this country, or the world in general.Well, according to abortion advocates such as yourself it is. You can't sit with one leg on both sides of the fence. It makes it too easy for me to sit here an pick you off all day. I don't think that I should ever be put into a position where I would have to lie to my child to somehow rationalize why little Suzy down the street has two mommies and no daddy and how that came to be. Compare that to the rest of all creation around you and it doesn't make sense. There is an UNBELIEVABLE number of perfectly qualified heterosexual couples in this country that are denied adoption rights for completely absurd reasons. It has gotten so bad that many of them have to adopt from overseas to avoid our bogus restrictions. What do you think fuels the illegal baby market? But we can hand over innocent and impressionable children to the completely morally devoid? What the hell kind of messed up, backward a$$ed thinking is that?Quote, originally posted by Geo »If two people can live in happiness together and lead a good life, what is the problem?Ah, yes, now the heart of the issue rears its' ugly head. The moral relativist and/or secular humanist view that is logically bankrupt. Ok, here we go with this again. Thankfully, this one is always easy. Well, Jon, the problem with that is the same as the problem with someone going out and murdering people. As long as they didn't murder anyone that YOU knew or cared about, it's ok, right? What? No? That's different? How so? You are imposing your morality upon some innocent murderer who was just going about his business and enjoying his life of murdering people? How dare you be so narrow minded! See where this method of arguement always leads? You'll have to pull that one on someone much dumber than me. We could use your same rationale to defend and uphold adoption for pedophiles and every other sort of sexual deviate. You can't pick and choose which deviate or group of deviates gets adoption rights, that violates the logic of the arguement. If you adopt to one of them, you must adopt to them all, no exceptions.Quote, originally posted by Geo »"Sanctity of Marriage" my (removed). 58% of marriages these days end up in divorce. You have kids marrying eachother
because the girlfriend got pregnang. Ever heard of a "shotgun" wedding? The instuition in itself is basically a joke these daysYou have just proved my point for me as I could not have cited better examples myself. Guess when all of these family malfunctions began in large enough numbers to matter? With the advent of "free love" and the "I should be able to do anything I want" mentality, that's when. That is the direct offspring of your "separation of church and state", so keep coddling that "baby", it will just breed more and more malfunction without end.Quote, originally posted by Geo »if gays can actually improve the whole marriage situation, and perhaps bring it back to the respected position it once was in, I say go for it.If you wanted to define an oxymoronic situation for someone, use this statement every time. Now gays are the big "heros" that have been sent to us to save the sacred institution of marriage? I don't think I can laugh any harder! Please, tell me another one! Allowing every form of relational corruption is what put marriage in the state that it is in, it is surely not going to take marriage out of it! There's some dysfuntional logic going on in there. If gays are allowed to marry in my state or in my country on the same level as straight people, then I do not want to have my heterosexual union officially recognized in that group. I want my own special group, then. We can call it something else and hopefully it will buy us another 250 years or so until small groups of logicless people ruin it again.Quote, originally posted by Geo »What do we really have to lose by keeping people equal, instead of "seperate but equal?"Again, you fallaciously attempt to separate homosexuals from heterosexuals in this way. You are drawing parallels to racial division when in fact those parallels don't exist. Race is an empirical trait, gender is an empirical trait, ethnicity is an empirical trait, but sexual orientation is not. The parallel does not exist. You have even admitted that sexual preference is just that, a preference, it is a conscious choice and has never been proven otherwise. Just like people who choose to be overweight. I'm overweight, I admit it. I'm not some victim of society who has double quarter-pounder cheeseburgers slammed down my throat every time I pass a McDonalds. I am overweight because I have made poor eating choices. I can avoid being overweight and suffering the stigma associated with being overweight by making better and generally accepted choices. The stigma are a strong motivating factor to make those better choices regarding my behavior. I cannot expect to violate the norms of society and just get away with it. So I must do one of two things: change my ways or convince the rest of society (by reasoning or by force) to accept my maladjustment. Which method makes the most sense? Changing my ways, of course. What is being done when renegade judges hijack the courts to forcibly advocate their views? Changing society by force, the worst method of trying to bring about social change. Please stop acting as a megaphone for society's bullies and think about what you are saying.

[Charlievibe]

Geo, you are totally entitled to your opinions, and I am not going to jump on you for that. And I am entitled to my opinion's (that what makes us such a great group of people, we understand that)If you believe in God, then you need to refer back to your Bible. In God's eyes, homosexuality is wrong. Here are a few references:The Bible contains 9 specific references to homosexuality: 4 in the Old Testament (Genesis 19:1-25; Judges 19:22-30; Leviticus 18:22; and Leviticus 20:13) and 5 in the New Testament (Romans 1:24-28; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; 1 Timothy 1:8-11; 2 Peter 2:6-10; and Jude 7). In addition, there are numerous other passages that touch on this topic indirectly through comments on the biblical view of marriage and family, promiscuity, and sexual purity. Included in these references are Genesis 2:18-25; Proverbs 18:22; Mark 7:21, 1 Thessalonians 4:3-5; Romans 6:13, 13:13; 1 Corinthians 6:13, 18-19; Galatians 5:19-21; Colossians 3:5; Revelation 21:8, 22:15.I believe that one of my male friends summed it up best when he said that it is obvious to him that men and women were meant to go together.....men have one piece of the puzzle and women have the other. And the two pieces fit together nicely.This is all I am going to say on this topic.

[drunkenmaxx]

man, i would love to be involved more in this debate, but their is just way to much text on this page! i don't have time to read a term paper, then compose a rebuttle to one! i think gays should have the right to get married. everyone needs to realize that this is a very free country. who is hurt by gay marriage? does it affect you whether you like it or not? the bible and gods word are totally irrelevant in this matter. the gays are cheated out of tax and insurance cuts. if a girl who was totally qualified was told she couldn't play football because it's not for girls, she could take that to court and win, hands down. i dont condone being gay, i think it's gross. but, which hole other people prefer is none of my beeswax, who am i to deny someone elses rights, judging them by my moral standards?

[Geo]

Quote, originally posted by Charlievibe »Geo, you are totally entitled to your opinions, and I am not going to jump on you for that. And I am entitled to my opinion's (that what makes us such a great group of people, we understand that)If you believe in God, then you need to refer back to your Bible. In God's eyes, homosexuality is wrong. Here are a few references:The Bible contains 9 specific references to homosexuality: 4 in the Old Testament (Genesis 19:1-25; Judges 19:22-30; Leviticus 18:22; and Leviticus 20:13) and 5 in the New Testament (Romans 1:24-28; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; 1 Timothy 1:8-11; 2 Peter 2:6-10; and Jude 7). In addition, there are numerous other passages that touch on this topic indirectly through comments on the biblical view of marriage and family, promiscuity, and sexual purity. Included in these references are Genesis 2:18-25; Proverbs 18:22; Mark 7:21, 1 Thessalonians 4:3-5; Romans 6:13, 13:13; 1 Corinthians 6:13, 18-19; Galatians 5:19-21; Colossians 3:5; Revelation 21:8, 22:15.I believe that one of my male friends summed it up best when he said that it is obvious to him that men and women were meant to go together.....men have one piece of the puzzle and women have the other. And the two pieces fit together nicely.This is all I am going to say on this topic. I guess to make things clear, I was brought up a Christian, went to a Catholic school for 9 years and all that jazz.I have pretty much renounced all that stuff and consider myself to be much more of an athiest than anything. The militant discrimination against other people, being one of the reasons why I can't stand religion.Charlievibe, even though you are not going to answer I just want to say that anyone who says the bible is the reason for their actions, please tell me you are also following "god's word" and don't just pick and choose what you follow - doing so would be wholly hypocritical.This is reprinted from an email I got a long time ago, but I just wish to put it up, because I find it silly that people says that the "Bible says we are to hate gays" but then decide that things like killing your neighbor for working on the Sabbath aren't worth following."Dear Dr. Laura, Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's law. I have learned a great deal from you, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. How should I deal with this? I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as it suggests in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her? I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense. Lev. 25:44 states that I may buy slaves from the nations that are around us. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans but not Canadians. Can you clarify? I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself? A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 10:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Lev. 20:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear prescription glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here? I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging. "Please don't talk to me about "following the bible" if you don't follow all parts of it.w/o getting into anymore of a flamewar, I'm going to end my participation in this as well. I'm just thankful that the times are in fact changing, finally some progress in this mixed up country. For once I would like it if the rest of the world was not laughing at us.

[Charlievibe]

Quote, originally posted by Geo »I guess to make things clear, I was brought up a Christian, went to a Catholic school for 9 years and all that jazz.I have pretty much renounced all that stuff and consider myself to be much more of an athiest than anything. The militant discrimination against other people, being one of the reasons why I can't stand religion.Charlievibe, even though you are not going to answer I just want to say that anyone who says the bible is the reason for their actions, please tell me you are also following "god's word" and don't just pick and choose what you follow - doing so would be wholly hypocritical.This is reprinted from an email I got a long time ago, but I just wish to put it up, because I find it silly that people says that the "Bible says we are to hate gays" but then decide that things like killing your neighbor for working on the Sabbath aren't worth following.Please don't talk to me about "following the bible" if you don't follow all parts of it.w/o getting into anymore of a flamewar, I'm going to end my participation in this as well. I'm just thankful that the times are in fact changing, finally some progress in this mixed up country. For once I would like it if the rest of the world was not laughing at us. My question to you is....why jump on me when you don't know how I view any of this? I didn't attack you for your views, it is really uncool to attack me for mine when you don't have a clue as to what they are. You have no clue as to how I live my life and what I do or don't do, so don't attack me for how I may or may not live. You need to realize that your views may not be as popular as you want them to be. I realize that people don't agree with me, and that is cool, they don't have to, I respect them for their differences. But I don't attack these people for not agreeing with me.For the record, I personally feel that homosexuality is wrong. However, I have several gay friends who know where I stand on this issue and they are cool with that. Not once have they attacked me for my decisions and feelings, and I haven't attacked them for theirs. As a matter of fact, it was one of my gay friends who sent me the Bible references to post on this page. He read your argument and thought there should be the Biblical perspective added.

[wicked1981]

Free country do what you want. If its wrong in God's eye the only one that will pay for it will be them. Does not affect you so let it be.

[Stang2Vibe]

That is the exact opposite of the truth. We are given the duty and authority by the almighty Creator to create and uphold a society in which we may raise decent children and live out our lives in accordance to His word. This country (and the rest of the world for that matter) are headed in the exact opposite direction.I want to live in Michael Savage's "Savage Nation".

[drunkenmaxx]

however, this is not the united states of god. you are free in america to believe what you want. i think that banning gay marriage is a threat to the constitution and our rights as americans. free speech is already being whittled away because of hate crime laws. if you call someone an idiot, no big deal, but if you use a racial slur, the hammer comes down. society is too focused on what everyone else is doing. if your kids see a gay couple together, it won't damage them for life. hiding reality will never solve anything.

[wicked1981]

Like I said it dosent concern you so let it be. You can't change it so live with it. If you are worried about it soo much what about all the other thing wrong, killings, rapes, pre-marital (removed), language, jokes (dirty) drugs (legal or ilegal) just like this issue nothing. You cant control everything in life things will happen and learn to live with them.

[ragingfish]

Wow, I was gonna participate, but this thread is WAYYYYY tooo heated a debate...Just make sure you all keep this a healthy debate, and not a destructive one!

[VibeChick]

Quote, originally posted by ragingfish »Wow, I was gonna participate, but this thread is WAYYYYY tooo heated a debate...Just make sure you all keep this a healthy debate, and not a destructive one!My thoughts as well.

[drunkenmaxx]

i refrain from anger here on genvibe. i love to debate w/someone w/half a brain though. i can argue w/out fighting. i think this thread is about dead anyway, though, points have been made, no need to repeat.

[Stang2Vibe]

Geo, you seem to have this recurring problem with bad sources. The person who wrote that facetious letter to Dr. Laura has some screws loose when it comes to Biblical knowlege. BTW--I agree with your view about living the word of God in whole and not picking and choosing what parts you want to believe and what parts you don't like and just throw out. I have a term for those people--"cafeteria christians". They take their religion "a la carte". That is not right. However, if mankind was perfect, all people would follow the letter of God's law at all times. That pretty much sums up utopia. But this is not utopia, it is the real world where we must deal with imperfections.The person who wrote the letter left themselves wide open for easy broadside attack in the way they chose to respond. Every item in their list of statements is fundamentally flawed.Quote, originally posted by Geo »When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. How should I deal with this?The sacrificing of animals was part of the old Judaic law which was made obsolete when Christ was born and fulfilled the covenant with the Jews. Therefore, to cite this as a basis for the impeachment of other Biblical references is a bogus arguement.Quote, originally posted by Geo »I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as it suggests in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?I never heard of this one, I'll have to consult my Bible to see what context is being idealogically raped here.Quote, originally posted by Geo »I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense. Also part of the old Judaic law that became obsolete with the birth of Christ.Quote, originally posted by Geo »Lev. 25:44 states that I may buy slaves from the nations that are around us. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans but not Canadians. Can you clarify?God did not advocate the slave trade. This is another one that I never heard of and will have to investigate for the true meaning.Quote, originally posted by Geo »I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?To keep holy the Sabbath day is one of the 10 Commandments and is still applicable today. But again, the punishment was part of ancient Judaic law and changed with the fulfillment of the covenant. I am starting to see a pattern here. Whoever authored this piece seems to not understand what the birth of Christ did to the Christian and Jewish religions. > I could see why, since the birth of Christ was such a minor event in the developent of world religions and is so easily overlooked. >Quote, originally posted by Geo »A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 10:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?The logic of this whole letter is an abomination to common sense. Once again, the ancient Judaic law issue.Quote, originally posted by Geo »Lev. 20:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear prescription glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?I'm not familiar with this one either, but I'd be willing to bet that someone is taking something literally when the Bible was speaking in a figurative construction.Quote, originally posted by Geo »I'm just thankful that the times are in fact changing, finally some progress in this mixed up country.I would hardly call this progress. Rather it is the exact opposite. That can be demonstrated by historical examination. What happened when the whole Earth became morally corrupt back in early Biblical times? God reigned down distruction on mankind and renewed his creation with the Great Flood. Not to mention how the entire cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were violently laid to ruins and wiped from the face of the Earth for their wickedness and corruption. Look what happened to the ancient Romans when they let their empire become permissive of all sorts of vice and corruption. The empire collapsed upon itself. That is the path we choose by not standing up to what we know to be wrong.Quote, originally posted by Geo »For once I would like it if the rest of the world was not laughing at us. "Give me liberty, or give me death" pretty much sums up this one. I'd much rather perish from this Earth than live to see my great nation's soverignty relinquished to the evil sneers of the foolish in the rest of the world. In short, SCREW THEM. He who laughs last laughs best.

[Stang2Vibe]

Quote, originally posted by wicked1981 »Like I said it dosent concern you so let it be. You can't change it so live with it. If you are worried about it soo much what about all the other thing wrong, killings, rapes, pre-marital (removed), language, jokes (dirty) drugs (legal or ilegal) just like this issue nothing. You cant control everything in life things will happen and learn to live with them. That is completely wrong, too. There is such a thing as fighting the good fight, not just rolling over and caving to the whims of every idiot that happens along. If we follow this logic, we should ban all laws altogether and all enforcement thereof. Once again, you are paving the path to anarchy with the attitude of complacency. And who says that I can't change anything? Ever hear of "one man CAN make a difference"? It is in making that difference that I live for.

[Stang2Vibe]

Quote, originally posted by drunkenvibe »i think that banning gay marriage is a threat to the constitution and our rights as americans.Oh really? I would LOVE to hear how that can possibly be logically supported. Gay marriage has not been allowed so far in American history, so how did the Constitution ever survive the last 227 years that way? Don't even take into account that it promoted the fastest growth of the strongest nation that the world has ever seen. Now that we are allowing all this crap to go on and bog us down, we are slipping in the world.

[drunkenmaxx]

i mean that it is descrimination. gay marriage hurts noone, so let them be married. i think this issue could open a whole new can of worms in america

[wicked1981]

Quote, originally posted by Stang2Vibe » And who says that I can't change anything? Ever hear of "one man CAN make a difference"? It is in making that difference that I live for.Well when you do change this make sure you giv me a call. Or even better post it up. Would love to see you change this. Good luck!

[drunkenmaxx]

you can't just say that people with views opposite to that of yours is an idiot. in america, you have the right to not worship any god, throwing all chrisitanic views out the window. using the bible, a book written thousands of yrs ago, is not a way to make laws in this day and age. that is why the constitution is broadly worded and has so much room for ammending. the pioneers of this nation made room for change in morality. the majority wins in america, nothing else.

[Reynoma]

Quote, originally posted by Stang2Vibe »That is the exact opposite of the truth. We are given the duty and authority by the almighty Creator to create and uphold a society in which we may raise decent children and live out our lives in accordance to His word. This country (and the rest of the world for that matter) are headed in the exact opposite direction.Ditto! "To each his own" is the downfall of this very socially sick nation....The constitution DOES NOT SAY separation of Church and State. It says that there can be no state sponsored religion. THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT GOD NEEDS TO BE REMOVED FROM EVERYTHING. Our money says "IN GOD WE TRUST".

[drunkenmaxx]

fantastic point joat! we could be persecuted in some countrys for typing these very words!if the majority of america feels one way about an issue, then all other factors, such as religion have no bearing. that is what i like about america.to each his own is the way to be. who says that your god is the right one? in islamic society, they are brought up w/islam, this makes them feel the same way you do about christianity. the ancient greeks thought that there were tons of gods, living in a big soap opera! sure, it's funny and rediculous to us, but to them, it was just as credible as the bible.

[Reynoma]

Quote, originally posted by drunkenvibe »fantastic point joat! we could be persecuted in some countrys for typing these very words!if the majority of america feels one way about an issue, then all other factors, such as religion have no bearing. that is what i like about america.to each his own is the way to be. who says that your god is the right one? in islamic society, they are brought up w/islam, this makes them feel the same way you do about christianity. the ancient greeks thought that there were tons of gods, living in a big soap opera! sure, it's funny and rediculous to us, but to them, it was just as credible as the bible.My final post on this: I hope all of the people who are Christian bashing are right....but what if you're wrong? We are all sinners, including me. Just because I'm Christian, it doesn't make me perfect, just forgiven.

[drunkenmaxx]

Quote, originally posted by Reynoma »My final post on this: I hope all of the people who are Christian bashing are right....but what if you're wrong? We are all sinners, including me. Just because I'm Christian, it doesn't make me perfect, just forgiven.what if you are wrong? i am not bashing christianity. i wish that i did believe. life is much better for those of faith. i was brought up christian, going to church on wed. and twice on sun. (baptist). i didn't have the belief in my heart. sure, i could go to church, doubting. if you're beliefs are correct, me going and not believing wouldn't offer me salvation, it would just waste my time. i live in a world where life seems empty, in a way. i can't just decide to be different, i have no choice but to be faithless. i don't lie to myself. all in all, they are here, they are (removed), we might as well get used to it!

[Geo]

I am breaking my own rule here, but there is a document known as the "Treaty of Tripoli" which was passed through the US Government back in the 1700s which states that the US Government has nothing to do with any religion, the article is as follows:"As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."Why do we have "In god We Trust" on our money? I don't know, I'm personally for the removal of it, as well as "under god" in the Pledge of allegiance. (Being our non-secular nature as a government, they have no business being there.)Joatmon: I want to say that I agree with you on the whole "special meaning" of marriage. I think that the best of both worlds could be encompassed if we had a situation very much like that in Europe: When people are "married" there, it is by the state, officially. They get their certificate, enter in the contract, all that legal stuff to receive the benefits and whatever else they may want. It is AFTER that they they can be "married" by whatever religious or non religious organization is out there - wholly optional. This State Union vs. Marriage might be the split that is needed to keep both parties happy.This way gays are not "tarnishing" the "santicity" of marriage, and they can stil receive /all/ the legal benefits of the union.I personally see many gay and lesbian couples promoting BETTER family values than many of the broken homes and single parents I am seeing these days. Is there anyone who wouldn't disagree that two loving parents (regardless of them being the same (removed) or not) is better than a single loving parent?

[Geo]

"I would hardly call this progress. Rather it is the exact opposite. That can be demonstrated by historical examination. What happened when the whole Earth became morally corrupt back in early Biblical times? God reigned down distruction on mankind and renewed his creation with the Great Flood. Not to mention how the entire cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were violently laid to ruins and wiped from the face of the Earth for their wickedness and corruption. Look what happened to the ancient Romans when they let their empire become permissive of all sorts of vice and corruption. The empire collapsed upon itself. That is the path we choose by not standing up to what we know to be wrong."The thing is, I don't believe that any of that ever happened. To me the bible is a collection of stories and mythology, much like you can see with ANY religion, ala the Greeks, Romans, Celtics and the Norse. To treat anything as such as pure historical record is foolish to me. I don't believe in any god, I don't believe that there was a great flood that washed away the entire known world only to leave everyone to repopulate it. I don't believe the earth is 10,000 years old (or whatever it is, not necessarily meaning you believe that, but there are many that do.)If one does not believe in anything the bible teaches, then what is there to say that family values are going to hell and we are all going to be smoted upon the day of our judgement for practicing in such abominable acts? (Now, I don't actually believe that there is a judgement day or anything, but it's used more for effect here) "If the bible proves the existance of god, than superman comics prove the existance of superman.""Please leave religion at the door when attempting rational thought."

[drunkenmaxx]

lay it down homie!

[Geo]

Stang - I decided to go back and read some of the stuff when you went line by line of what I said - I tend to ignore those kinds of posts purely because they annoy me.I'm actually scared that people have this kind of mentality in this country. I really am. You told me not to impose my morals on others, I would suggest you take your own lesson and stop imposing your religious morals on the rest of the country as well.It's apparent you have an obvious problem with homosexuality"Me either. I don't want to live to see homosexuality applied to either of them." and "But we can hand over innocent and impressionable children to the completely morally devoid?" It's almost like arguing with a fundie - a total waste of time.Here's a hint: NOT EVERYONE HAS THE SAME MORAL PRINCIPLES AS YOU! It appears I surely don't, so saying something is morally wrong in your opinion is pretty much ignored. How's this for a good argument: Perhaps that if gay marriages are legal, then two men who have no love interest in eachother could get married just for the benefits and could go on screwing women, leading otherwise normal lives. THAT is a valid legal argument against this, and no talk about morals either. I can admit that that could be a problem, but then again, there are married couples (hetero) who also do this, it just makes sense financially. Will it take down our economy as a whole? Doubtful, but we can only speculate.This is what I like best about being an athiest, I don't have any sort of dogma to follow or people telling me what I have to think and believe, I can actually do this for myself.*throws on a flame retardant suit, and waves his little rainbow flag around in support of people who have to face this kind of bigotry all the time.*

[Stang2Vibe]

Quote, originally posted by Geo »*throws on a flame retardant suit, and waves his little rainbow flag around in support of people who have to face this kind of bigotry all the time.* You're going to need more than a flame retardant suit if you are going to forthrightly call me as a BIGOT!!! Just who the hell do you think you are??? Some people get a little too high and mighty when they sit enjoying the protection of being behind a monitor out of the reach of my fists! Sorry to have to explain this to you since your mind is so adept at thinking up everything itself with no outside input, but just because a person upholds a strong religous conviction that does not make them automatically a bigot. You ought to be more careful about calling people names or labeling them with highly insulting terms. Being that you have now effectively declared yourself to be omnipotent, I can't believe that you missed that! Way to go on your intentional attempt to start a flame war.Quote, originally posted by Geo »It's almost like arguing with a fundie - a total waste of time.Whatever a "fundie" is. Probably another insult, I'll assume. Sorry, us mere non-omnipotent mortals must used dictionaries and "fundie" isn't in there.Quote, originally posted by Geo »Here's a hint: NOT EVERYONE HAS THE SAME MORAL PRINCIPLES AS YOU!What kind of a moron to you exactly think I am? I have always stated that everyone has a right to voice their opinion even if it is a dissenting one. But you hold true to liberal form---"you are always free to voice your opinion in every circumstance--as long as it is a liberal opinion." That should be your motto as it is the core foundation of modern American liberalism.Quote, originally posted by Geo »It appears I surely don't, so saying something is morally wrong in your opinion is pretty much ignored.This is the proof of your subscription to the "liberal motto" I defined above.Quote, originally posted by Geo »THAT is a valid legal argument against this, and no talk about morals either.It sure is, but it is certainly not the only one. How you can separate law from morality must be a byproduct of your omnipotence as anyone with true knowledge and actual common sense can figure this out. The vast majority of all American laws are based on justice and upholding a defined moral standard. That essentially is the definition of law. You must have redefined what law actually is in your omnipotence to have fit this idea within the parameters of the definition.

[Stang2Vibe]

Quote, originally posted by Geo »The thing is, I don't believe that any of that ever happened. To me the bible is a collection of stories and mythology, much like you can see with ANY religion... To treat anything as such as pure historical record is foolish to me. Too bad for your argument that archeologists have found the remains of both Sodom AND Gomorrah as well as other biblically historical cities such as Jericho. Also, what is commonly believed to be "Noah's Ark" has been seen and photgraphed lodged in a glacier on Mount Ararat within the past decade, just as the Bible describes. The crucifixion of Christ exists in the Roman records from that time, and they were completely non-religious records, as the Romans kept meticulous records and counts on just about everything that affected or influenced their empire. There are countless other events that were recorded historically in the Bible that are confirmed through one or more other highly respected historic records from the same time period. You can ignore historic fact all you want, but that doesn't affect its' existance. In fact, due to the historic crediblity of the Bible, it is often used as a reference by non-secular studies of the time period that it covers. I think that droves of lifelong historians would disagree with your view on the historic accuracy of the Bible and easily be able to disprove it.Quote, originally posted by Geo »If one does not believe in anything the bible teaches, then what is there to say that family values are going to hell and we are all going to be smoted upon the day of our judgement for practicing in such abominable acts?The following example shall use the same logic as that which is presented in your statement. You and I are standing in a room carrying on a conversation about, let's say, the weather. While you are talking to me, I proceed to plug my ears with my fingers and yell "la la la la la I can't hear you la la la....". Does that prove that you aren't talking? To me, you aren't talking, but in reality you are. Then let's say I go one step further and shut my eyes while plugging my ears and yelling. Now I can't see OR hear you so you really really must not exist now. Boy am I going to be surprised when it rains later that day and I didn't bring my umbrella. And here's something to put on your list of things for your free thinking and vastly superior mind to teach itself: there's no such word as "smoted". "Smote" is already the past tense of "smite". I wouldn't want you to fall too far behind while you are busy thinking up everything yourself, now.Quote, originally posted by Geo »"If the bible proves the existance of god, than superman comics prove the existance of superman."The Bible does not prove the existance of God. If it did, then nobody would question His existance because it would already be proven! Duh!Quote, originally posted by Geo »I don't believe the earth is 10,000 years old (or whatever it is, not necessarily meaning you believe that, but there are many that do.)I don't think that the age of the Earth is relavent to the foundation of any aspect of Judeo-Christian religion. The Bible doesn't clearly say how old the Earth is and honestly, it really doesn't matter. But in any case, I believe that the best explanation for the discrepancy on how old the Earth is by Biblical reasoning and scientific reasoning was best described by a young girl whom I heard quoted on the radio one day about 10 years ago. She said that God could do anything he wanted so why couldn't he make the Earth seem to be really old when actually it was brand new? Probably the simplest and best explanation I will ever hear.

[Stang2Vibe]

You brought this part up, so you asked for it--don't blame me.I found your Treaty of Tripoli piece to be very interesting. You should have also noted that it was passed by the U.S. Senate with a unanimous vote, something that has only ever been done 3 times in history. That right there should tip you off to something. I just looked up and read throught the entire treaty and I think I have the answer for why that sentence was placed there. You should have considered more than just Article 11 of the treaty so that it wouldn't have been taken out of context. If you scan through it to get the basic idea for the whole thing and consider it against historical events of the time, you should come to about the same conclusion that I did. The treaty is actually a little-known and rather shameful piece of American history. Tripoli was an area of soverign governance at the time that the U.S. signed the treaty, today it is part of Libya. The treaty followed suit with most of Europe at the time. It's purpose was to secure the safety of merchant ships in the Mediterranean, as the majority of the treaty deals with that issue. The U.S. was to pay a "tribute" to Tripoli in return for the guarantee of safe passage of our trade ships in their coastal waters. It was basically a bribe because the nations in that area were engaging in pirate activities on ships from the Western world. So the treaty laid out the rules that we were to pay them a one-time tribute in return for not having our ships in the Mediterrranean looted by their pirates. Being an Arabic state and probably not very up to date on the particulars of the rest of the world, we had to appease them by downplaying our ties to Chrisianity. Why? Because hundreds of years before the treaty, part of the Crusades took place in that region and they were still carrying a grudge about it. They know our new nation was founded by Europeans, but since they were living literally in a barbaric state at the time, they feared an attempt by us of taking over their territory in the name of religion. Therefore, the treaty had to stretch the truth about the basis of our country's founding to calm their fears and get them to sign the treaty. In any event, they broke the terms of the treaty and demanded more payment, which, of course, we refused. So, from 1801 to 1805 a little-known conflict known as the Tripolitan War was fought with them over the violation of that treaty. Seems that we have a much longer history of being stabbed in the back by Middle Eastern entities than I had previously known.But anyway, that is why that phrase was in the treaty and ratified by Congress. It in no way could be construed to mean that the government of the U.S. completely disavows its' foundational ties to the Christian religion. In fact, several more recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings have upheld the exact opposite. Looks like you'll have to try again. But I do give you credit for trying to pull one over on me by abstractly citing an obscure and obsolete government document out of context in your quest to prove "separation of chuch and state". Man, I've had to face and shoot down several such attempts but I must admit that this one has sunk to a new low. And you probably thought that I wasn't smart enough to figure this one out. LOL.

[Stang2Vibe]

I found your Treaty of Tripoli piece to be very interesting. You should have also noted that it was passed by the U.S. Senate with a unanimous vote, something that has only ever been done 3 times in history. That right there should tip you off to something. I just looked up and read throught the entire treaty and I think I have the answer for why that sentence was placed there. You should have considered more than just Article 11 of the treaty so that it wouldn't have been taken out of context. If you scan through it to get the basic idea for the whole thing and consider it against historical events of the time, you should come to about the same conclusion that I did. The treaty is actually a little-known and rather shameful piece of American history. Tripoli was an area of soverign governance at the time that the U.S. signed the treaty, today it is part of Libya. The treaty followed suit with most of Europe at the time. It's purpose was to secure the safety of merchant ships in the Mediterranean, as the majority of the treaty deals with that issue. The U.S. was to pay a "tribute" to Tripoli in return for the guarantee of safe passage of our trade ships in their coastal waters. It was basically a bribe because the nations in that area were engaging in pirate activities on ships from the Western world. So the treaty laid out the rules that we were to pay them a one-time tribute in return for not having our ships in the Mediterrranean looted by their pirates. Being an Arabic state and probably not very up to date on the particulars of the rest of the world, we had to appease them by downplaying our ties to Chrisianity. Why? Because hundreds of years before the treaty, part of the Crusades took place in that region and they were still carrying a grudge about it. They know our new nation was founded by Europeans, but since they were living literally in a barbaric state at the time, they feared an attempt by us of taking over their territory in the name of religion. Therefore, the treaty had to stretch the truth about the basis of our country's founding to calm their fears and get them to sign the treaty. In any event, they broke the terms of the treaty and demanded more payment, which, of course, we refused. So, from 1801 to 1805 a little-known conflict known as the Tripolitan War was fought with them over the violation of that treaty. Seems that we have a much longer history of being stabbed in the back by Middle Eastern entities than I had previously known.But anyway, that is why that phrase was in the treaty and ratified by Congress. It in no way could be construed to mean that the government of the U.S. completely disavows its' foundational ties to the Christian religion. In fact, several more recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings have upheld the exact opposite. Looks like you'll have to try again. But I do give you credit for trying to pull one over on me by abstractly citing an obscure and obsolete government document out of context in your quest to prove "separation of chuch and state". Man, I've had to face and shoot down several such attempts but I must admit that this one has sunk to a new low. And you probably thought that I wasn't smart enough to figure this one out. LOL.Quote, originally posted by Geo »Why do we have "In god We Trust" on our money? I don't know...Well stop right there because I do. It's because it's our National Motto and has been for over 200 years. Nobody has ever been damaged by it and they never will. Now that one was much easier.Quote, originally posted by Geo »Joatmon: I want to say that I agree with you on the whole "special meaning" of marriage. I think that the best of both worlds could be encompassed if we had a situation very much like that in Europe: When people are "married" there, it is by the state, officially. They get their certificate, enter in the contract, all that legal stuff to receive the benefits and whatever else they may want. It is AFTER that they they can be "married" by whatever religious or non religious organization is out there - wholly optional. This State Union vs. Marriage might be the split that is needed to keep both parties happy.This situation already exists in the U.S. and has for many years now. You must apply for and be granted a Marriage Liscense by your State before you may legally be married. At that point, you can choose to be married by an authorized agent in your religion or by an agent of your local government (usually a magistrate). This system has obviously had no bearing on solving this problem. That is because you are trying to solve an ideological problem by means that are strictly procedural.Quote, originally posted by Geo »Is there anyone who wouldn't disagree that two loving parents (regardless of them being the same (removed) or not) is better than a single loving parent?Umm, the wording is awkward here but I think I can answer. No. I wouldn't disagree. A single loving parent is better than two loving parents of the same (removed), to clarify. The bond that exists between a loving natural parent and their child cannot be replicated in these artificial family situations. Just ask any mother who truly loves her child. That may sound harsh and/or insensitive, but it really isn't when you think about it.

[Stang2Vibe]

Quote, originally posted by drunkenvibe »i mean that it is descrimination. gay marriage hurts noone, so let them be married. i think this issue could open a whole new can of worms in americaGo ahead and allow gay marriage on that basis and let me open up the next can of worms. Here it is: suppose I am a guy who doesn't want to wait in line in the men's bathroom in public places. I decide that I am just going to start using women's bathrooms whenever I feel like it and the women in there now have no say in the matter. I'm not hurting anyone, am I? Of course not, I just want to go to the bathroom just like everyone else. It's discrimination to have men's and women's bathrooms. That's even segregation! What am I, some kind of "second class citizen" that I have to use a restroom that is designated for men only? Men's restrooms are usually WAY dirtier than women's bathrooms so now you are exposing me to diseases because of your prejudice and bigotry! WHAAAAAAAAAA! That's not fair!!! I need to go around posting a flag sporting the women's restroom symbol to champion my noble cause and fight this unjust oppression!!!See drunken, that is the kind of thing that results when careless and dangerous precidents are set by activist judges. There probably are even worse ones, but I thought of that one quickly and thought it would be a funny example. You're a jokester yourself drunken, why don't you try using that line of reasoning with the management of a fancy restaurant in your area when they throw you out for using the women's restroom? And no I won't come up there and post your bail because it was my idea. LOL.

[Stang2Vibe]

Quote, originally posted by drunkenvibe » i am not bashing christianity.I really do belive you on this one. You are just holding an opposing viewpoint.Quote, originally posted by drunkenvibe »i wish that i did believe. life is much better for those of faith. i was brought up christian, going to church on wed. and twice on sun. (baptist). i didn't have the belief in my heart.This is smacking me in the face and begging the question: what is stopping you from believing then? You are 3/4 of the way there! You just need that little ray of light to reveal something to you that will trigger your faith! It is so obvious that you are so close! I have hope for you yet. Quote, originally posted by drunkenvibe »sure, i could go to church, doubting. if you're beliefs are correct, me going and not believing wouldn't offer me salvation, it would just waste my time.Yes, this is correct in a way. Many of us doubt sometimes, then we usually look at the broader scheme of things and realize that we HAVE to be right about this, the world doesn't make sense any other way! But it takes a while usually for a person to get to that point in their faith. Don't be discouraged so easily. "Let not your heart be troubled."Quote, originally posted by drunkenvibe »i live in a world where life seems empty, in a way. i can't just decide to be different, i have no choice but to be faithless. i don't lie to myself.Make no mistake, we live in the same world, but our perceptions are different. A whole new world will open up if you alter you perception of it a little bit. That surely sounds overly simplistic for many, but it is fundamentally true.Why do you have not choice but to be faithless? That IS a lie to yourself. You are seeking faith by looking for truth. It doesn't work that easily. "Blessed are those who believe, but do not see." That is part of the answer that the Bible gives to us. It seems that you want to believe, but are holding yourself back. There is a very wise saying that I often use to remind myself with when I begin to doubt things and follow my human nature to seek proof. "For those with faith, no proof is necessary. For those without faith, no proof is possible." It is completely true when you think about it. If you scientifically seek to prove that there is no God, why don't you first seek the proof? There's good news here---there isn't any! I can't prove to a scientist that God exists, but they can't prove to me that He doesn't exist. We can both cite scietific evidence to support our claims, but neither of us can prove it through science. The answer is not there. The answer is in your heart. When that call is placed to your heart, try and answer it. "For if today you hear his voice, harden not your heart." That is the first step. It will all fall in line from there. And don't be afraid to ask questions! It's ok and perfectly normal. There are good reasons why Christians believe what they do. Ask one if you don't understand something!

[Geo]

Well, at least we can agree that neither of us is going to change our opinions on the matter. I'm just going to continue to support my gay/lesbian/bi friends in their fight. I am also throwing this out there, because so far two people have asked me what a Fundie was.This is a rather good definition for one: http://www.urbandictionary.com...undie"The more you know!"On a side note, Zeus called, he's rather angry that people have been worshipping this other imaginary being.

[JohnC]

Thanks for your efforts here Stang2Vib, you have way more patience than I. How do you reason with someone who "hates" our president over the fact that he is following his religeous convictions. Seems a bit two faced when you think about it. Is there a politically correct term for this...oh yea liberal.

[Geo]

Quote, originally posted by JohnC » How do you reason with someone who "hates" our president over the fact that he is following his religeous convictions. Seems a bit two faced when you think about it. Is there a politically correct term for this...oh yea liberal.I don't hate him because he is following his religious convictions, I've grown to hate him because of how he has been running the country. I also disagree with the discrimination of other people based on their "race/(removed)/creed," regardless of whether or not you are following your religious ideals or not. When a President follows his religious convictions, he is deciding what is best for those people who take part in the same religion as himself. Not everyone in America is Christian, though. Decisions should be made on political decisions on what is best for the people. According to the polls, Bush has a ~48% approval rating, the lowest he has had in his entire term. (http://www.pollingreport.com) I'm personally wondering what your opinion is on Islamic terrorists. They are just following their religious convictions when they blow up hundreds of people in a suicide bomb. Do you not hate the people who flew the planes into the WTC on 9-11, because they were following their religious convictions? Is there a political term for those who cannot see the other side of the matter, because they are blinded by religious ideals and seem to fear change so much that the term "progressive" causes them to wet themselves? Oh yea ... a neocon.

[Geo]

Quote, originally posted by joatmon »I do not know the current law, but I think there are currently laws that prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Is that true, and do these set any meaningful legal precedent for the issue of same (removed) marriages?Aside from any philosophical "recognition of the lifestyle", what are the legal benefits that same (removed) couples are denied by not having a marriage equivalent? Is there really no other way to obtain these things?I don't know about that first one, it would make sense if it could be used, but so far I haven't heard anything.Here's a short list I found of legal benefits of marriage:On the order of 1,400 legal rights are conferred upon married couples in the U.S. Typically these are composed of about 400 state benefits and over 1,000 federal benefits. Among them are the rights to:joint parenting;joint adoption;joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents);status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent;joint insurance policies for home, auto and health;dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support;immigration and residency for partners from other countries;inheritance automatically in the absence of a will;joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment;inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate);benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare;spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home;veterans' discounts on medical care, education, and home loans; joint filing of tax returns;joint filing of customs claims when traveling;wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children;bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child;decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her;crime victims' recovery benefits;loss of consortium tort benefits;domestic violence protection orders;judicial protections and evidentiary immunity;and more....Most of these legal and economic benefits cannot be privately arranged or contracted for. For example, absent a legal (or civil) marriage, there is no guaranteed joint responsibility to the partner and to third parties (including children) in such areas as child support, debts to creditors, taxes, etc. In addition, private employers and institutions often give other economic privileges and other benefits (special rates or memberships) only to married couples. And, of course, when people cannot marry, they are denied all the emotional and social benefits and responsibilities of marriage as well./cut and paste

[Geo]

*cough cough*I think some people can take a lesson from this website, http://www.religioustolerance.org/I always thought religion was supposed to bring people together and ya know, bring kindness to the world, stop hate and all that jazz...I guess I was wrong.On a side note, I just came across this, and even though it's old, I lauged my (removed) off: http://www.geocities.com/bobmelzer/gc10cx.htmlGeorce Carlin ... so funny

[ArcsVibe]

All I want to say about this thread is "Wow!"That is all!!!!

[ragingfish]

Seriously...I thought the thread about dmitiri blowin' his clutch was heated...that's NOTHING compared to this!!!

[ArcsVibe]

I know that in Canada they are talking about passing a law that would allow gay marriages. Here is the link: http://story.news.yahoo.com/ne...riageBTW I respectfully am staying out of this discussion.

[Stang2Vibe]

About 1/2 of those legal difficulties that you listed are already available to homosexual couples, at least in PA, anyway (I don't know about every other state). They can be done between any two people, regardless of sexual orientation, race, religion, etc. as long as people take the time to fill out the paperwork correctly. Married people, in most of the cases, would have to fill out the same paperwork.The website on the peace between all the religions of the world that you linked to: nice idea, but anyone with the mentality of that beyond a 4 year old would know that it doesn't work that way. If those people had their way, there would be one world religion, that everyone would be forced to embrace whether they like it or not, and it would be a perfect combination of every religion and values system that exists on the planet. Welcome to liberal hell.Quote, originally posted by Geo »I don't hate him because he is following his religious convictions, I've grown to hate him because of how he has been running the country.Yes you do, it is so blatantly obvious. You hate religion, period. Let's see, if your statement here was true, then we would have to assume that you hate Bush because he cut taxes so you could keep more of your money, expanded Medicare benefits so your grandparents could get the medications and health care that they need at less cost to themselves, defended you and your country from who knows how many terrorist threats, had the testicular fortitude to overthrow a brutal and oppressive dictator and hunt down his regime, while assembling the largest coalition of international aid that the modern world has ever seen, and the list goes on. Yeah, sounds like good reasons to hate a President. Makes perfect sense to me (still scratching head in bewilderment). Just admit it, you hate religion, everything that it stands for, and anyone who follows it. President Bush openly professes his Christian affiliation and conviction and tries to live accordingly and you just can't stand it.Perfect example of my belief that liberalism always generates the exact opposite of its' stated intent. You want to promote peace among all people unified under one common belief based on disbelief. You, as a liberal, want to end hatred and so on and so forth in the world. You hate Bush and everything he stands for. I don't get it. Oh wait, yes I do. I forgot something important here. Liberals want the rewrite all the rules to encompass and apply to all people-----except themselves. They are exempt because they know more than everyone else and can dictate to everyone else what they want and need. Now it all makes sense. Just like your careless throwing around of hateful and divisive terms like bigot and "fundie". Thats a great way to promote peace and unity. >Quote, originally posted by Geo »According to the polls, Bush has a ~48% approval rating, the lowest he has had in his entire term. (http://www.pollingreport.com)Nobody has ever polled me on this. Nor anyone I know. Let's go out and call up 5,000 registered Democrats who have their names on the list of supporters of liberal causes and ask them if they approve of the job that the President is doing through a series of intentionally leading questions. Then call about 1,500 people at random, lump the results all together, call it a poll and anounce to the world that overnight, the President's approval rating has dropped 25 points. Yeah, that's a credible bit of information. Good thing we have a thing called an electoral college system to determine the Presidency and not some goofy group of liberal poll pundits.Quote, originally posted by Geo »I'm personally wondering what your opinion is on Islamic terrorists. They are just following their religious convictions when they blow up hundreds of people in a suicide bomb.You probably don't care, but I'll give you mine anyway. They were not following their religious convictions. Not only did they hijack 4 planes that day, they hijacked the Islamic religion. Now I'm no expert on Islam, but I can be reasonably sure that the true followers of Islam are not taught to go out to all the world and brutalize and murder every non-Muslim just because they are not a Muslim. These people were sick in the head, not following a religion. You won't get this because you draw no distiction between the two.Quote, originally posted by Geo »Do you not hate the people who flew the planes into the WTC on 9-11, because they were following their religious convictions? Well, I've already explained why they weren't following religious convictions so I'll get to the other part of the question. And my answer to that is no, I do not hate them. I want to hate them and I do hate what they did and why they did it with every molecule of my being, but I do not hate them. Being a Christian requires that I hate no one. I can hate the act, but not the person. It would keep me from getting into heaven to hate people, so therefore I cannot hate them. I will not let them win by allowing them the means to have my soul condemned. I am consoled by the knowlege that their souls are judged by the Perfect Judge and will be condemned to eternal punishment of an unimaginable kind for what they did if He, not I, finds them worthy of such punishment.Quote, originally posted by Geo »Is there a political term for those who cannot see the other side of the matter, because they are blinded by religious ideals and seem to fear change so much that the term "progressive" causes them to wet themselves? Oh yea ... a neocon. LOL. Saying things like that promotes peace and harmony among people by........??? Oh yeah, I forgot again, "exact opposite of its' stated intent".I feel compelled to inform you that I am quite happy and completely honored that you hate me and everyone else who stands firm in their Christian beliefs for their beliefs. You know why? Because you are only making it easier for us all to get into heaven. Blessed are those who are harmed or hated for His sake, for greater in the Eternal Kingdom shall be their reward. So please, by all means, hate us some more. Hate ME more because I believe in the salvation provided by Christ and act on my beliefs, please. Let me help you to hate me a little more for my belief in Him. I'll be praying for you. Yes, you specifically. So feel free to hate me for this all you want.

[Stang2Vibe]

you're proud to be human... as opposed to???

[Stang2Vibe]

and by then it will be too late. Hindsight is always 20/20.

[Geo]

Quote, originally posted by Stang2Vibe »Yes you do, it is so blatantly obvious. You hate religion, period. Let's see, if your statement here was true, then we would have to assume that you hate Bush because he cut taxes so you could keep more of your money, expanded Medicare benefits so your grandparents could get the medications and health care that they need at less cost to themselves, defended you and your country from who knows how many terrorist threats, had the testicular fortitude to overthrow a brutal and oppressive dictator and hunt down his regime, while assembling the largest coalition of international aid that the modern world has ever seen, and the list goes on. Yeah, sounds like good reasons to hate a President. Makes perfect sense to me (still scratching head in bewilderment). Just admit it, you hate religion, everything that it stands for, and anyone who follows it. President Bush openly professes his Christian affiliation and conviction and tries to live accordingly and you just can't stand it.Good guess, but wrong. ^_^I don't hate religion in itself, I dislike certain types of religion greatly, but I don't hate religion. I have plenty of religious friends, I enjoy learning abour religious mythology, hell, I even think religious architecture is quite amazing. I don't care for religion in general, because it tells one how to practice their faith, and gives you a set bit of morals instead of deciding what is right and wrong yourself. I see religion as a way of controlling people, and you have done quite a lot to only fortify my opinion on that.My dislike for Bush stems from his issues on homosexuals, the war in Iraq (I was quite for it in the beginning, now that we still have YET to find any WMDs I feel as though we have been lied to, etc etc. If we find them, I'll chance my stance. Although I have a bet going that we are going to find Osama, WMDs or Both around a month or so before November. Sort of how we just "found" Saddam in the midst of another whitehouse booboo) I don't care for his environmental stances, how the US stands with foreign relations, abortion, some of his gun control things, and I think he has a funny haircut.Then there are the people he has appointed, like Herr Ashcroft, and the resulting "Patriot Act" ... thank god that's on it's way to expire this year, so long as we can keep it renewed it'll be good.No no, Stang, I don't hate Bush because of his religion, I just think he's a monkey.And to set things straight, I'm actually more moderate than liberal. I just am on the left side of being moderate, I just feel things like equality between (removed)/hetero sexuals, our environment and some other stuff is rather important to me.If I hated religion, that means I would hate Buddha.Who can hate such a jolly fat guy, I mean c'mon.