2004 Presidential Election.

[Atrocities]

I just want to keep the rights I do have and stop the piliferation of "Politically Correct" laws that do little more than restrict or abolish the rights I do have.

I believe people are people and that it is none of my business and therefore by assocation, none of societies business who or whom people choose to live their lives with. I agree that the concept of marrage should be defined as between a man anda women, however gay couples should, if they do not already, have the same consititutional rights that married couples have if they choose to spend the rest of their lives together. Civil unions are a perfect match for this. Marrage is between a man and a women, Civil unions are between gay couples. This absurd notion that if we allow civil unions that people will marry their cat or dog is as I said, absurd. Any one who even remotely believes this would happen needs to seek immedate mental health assistance.

I am pro-gun, and that was my major issue with Senator Kerry. I am of those who voted the issue over the man in this election.

[Instar]

"have the same consititutional rights that married couples "
they dont in most states
"I agree that the concept of marrage should be defined as between a man anda women"
why?
the government ought to call them all civil unions, and marriages be done in a church

[Gandalf Parker]

Apparently those who invented the word "marriage" want to define it. Its interesting that these proceedings and all of the definitions being tossed around are being closely watched by the Mormons (remember that they faught a similar battle about state definition of marriage and lost it).

While I see why gays might wish for marriage to be recognized for them, most that I know would be thrilled to see equal unions be recognized. How many times have we all heard the phrase "immeadiate family only"? It sucks to go to the hospital and be told that you cant see your partner, or hear whats wrong, or sit in agony while the hospital tries to find a relative so they can get permission to do some life-saving act, or not be able to carry out their dying wishes.

Of course, as soon as that obviously important goal is reached, many of them would then move on to get marriage changed because they want to be married.

[Azselendor]

homosexual activities isn't the end of the world. It's only portrayed that way so that we can have someone to hate and blame for all our problems.

I heard a women say "We should kill all the homosexuals" as two lesbians walked by. I immediatly turned around and asked her if Cold-Blooded murder of innocent people was acceptable to her and if she would be willing to pull that trigger.

her reply "I REBUKE YOU!"

Some argument there, eh?

Anyways, I don't see a problem with homosexuals using the term marriage. I see a problem with this becoming "Seperate but equal" BS again.

Really, all of you out there that support banning gay marriage, apply it to yourself. Would you accept the banning of hetrosexual marriage? hell no.

Then look at this.

Once we start banning things and removing freedoms - despite our own views on it - it will spread into other areas. We could ban all marriage ceremonies that take place out of a church? Or how about those pesky common-law marraiges? Maybe while we are at it, we should elimate rights for children born in unfavorable Groups? how about banning marriage for immigrants? and people of other religious backings? why not also ban marriage for certain sects of one religion while we are at it?

The fact is, when one group of people start getting thier rights trampled, it's only a matter of time until that spreads to your rights and don't think anyone would be interested in helping you when that time comes.

[Atrocities]

Instar said:
"have the same consititutional rights that married couples "
they dont in most states
"I agree that the concept of marrage should be defined as between a man anda women"
why?
the government ought to call them all civil unions, and marriages be done in a church

That is regretable and in my opinion seriously wrong not to have the same rights as married couples. I am sorry, but like I said, people are people and no one should preclude one person form having the same 'rights' as another for any reason.

However, Marrage is not a right and therefore not subject to the equal rights.

Gay couples should have the same legal rights as married couples. Of this there should be no debate.

Why do I feel that marrage should be between a man and a women? Well because that is what I believe. Asking someone to answer this is a kin to asking them why they like a specific color or if they believe in God or not. And I feel that attacking someone because they believe this is the wrong thing to do. The same goes for attacking someone who does not believe this. It all boils down to personal beliefs over a term that has been historicaly defined via thousands of years, as a union between one man and one women. I simply agree that it should remain so and that gay couples that want to be married do so using the term Civil Union. It is not discrimination, it is simply defining the concept of marrage into two types, marrage and civil union with one being between a man and a women, and the other between same sex.

I really do not understand your Government Church comment so I will not say anything about it.

[Instar]

Atrocities said:

That is regretable and in my opinion seriously wrong not to have the same rights as married couples. I am sorry, but like I said, people are people and no one should preclude one person form having the same 'rights' as another for any reason.

However, Marrage is not a right and therefore not subject to the equal rights.

Tough call there, actually. Married couples gain several (and quite significant) rights, many of which are denied to others.

Atrocities said:
Gay couples should have the same legal rights as married couples. Of this there should be no debate.

Why do I feel that marrage should be between a man and a women? Well because that is what I believe.

And you fail to examine/change what you believe because... ? I've changed my beliefs, thats for sure.

Atrocities said:
Asking someone to answer this is a kin to asking them why they like a specific color or if they believe in God or not. And I feel that attacking someone because they believe this is the wrong thing to do. The same goes for attacking someone who does not believe this. It all boils down to personal beliefs over a term that has been historicaly defined via thousands of years, as a union between one man and one women.

And historically, the White/Caucasian people were thought to be superior. Some traditions are worthy of discarding...

Atrocities said:

I simply agree that it should remain so and that gay couples that want to be married do so using the term Civil Union. It is not discrimination, it is simply defining the concept of marrage into two types, marrage and civil union with one being between a man and a women, and the other between same sex.

I really do not understand your Government Church comment so I will not say anything about it.

To further elaborate what I said:
I meant that there should be no government marriages. None. All unions would be termed "civil unions" and be done in a courthouse or what-have-you. The marriage would be the ritual or ceremony performed at your religious institution of choice. (edit: it would be entirely optional too)

[Atrocities]

And you fail to examine/change what you believe because... ? I've changed my beliefs, thats for sure.

I have examined my point of view and did so a long time ago and all because those in the liberal media tell me I should change it, is not enough of a reason for me to do so.

And historically, the White/Caucasian people were thought to be superior. Some traditions are worthy of discarding..

Comparing the tradition of marrage to racisim is IMHO like comparing Jesus to Hitler.

To further elaborate what I said:
I meant that there should be no government marriages. None. All unions would be termed "civil unions" and be done in a courthouse or what-have-you. The marriage would be the ritual or ceremony performed at your religious institution of choice. (edit: it would be entirely optional too)

If the people support it, vote it into law, and it is up held by the high courts then so be it.

You do realize Bush promised to reenact the AWB, right?

Yes I am aware of that and even if he did re-enact it, I would have still voted for him.

[Azselendor]

The irony with that comment is that hitler operated under the assumption he was the second coming...

As for bush, I can assure you that a lot of his supporters are gonna jump party lines if his social security plan gets passed.

[Atrocities]

Klvino [ORB] said:
The irony with that comment is that hitler operated under the assumption he was the second coming...

As for bush, I can assure you that a lot of his supporters are gonna jump party lines if his social security plan gets passed.

I don't really know at this point what people will do given what other people do.

[Will]

Atrocities said:
Comparing the tradition of marrage to racisim is IMHO like comparing Jesus to Hitler.

Godwin's Law: As an Online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.

I don't think Instar was comparing marriage to racism, per se, but more to the parallel between largely ignorant masses imposing their will on an entire segment of the population based on shakey, dubious, and sometimes outright false "facts". Such as the widely held belief in previous centuries that whites were superior to other races. When really, it was probably largely a result of European cultures happening upon a sustained technological advance useful for conquering other cultures. I would say it's pretty much a fluke that say, the Chinese never considered gunpowder as a weapon, and then went on to conquer the world. Yet people, especially white ones, believed that because of their expansion, whites were superior. And some still do.

The solution of the State using only the term "civil union", and ditching the idea of marriage entirely as a State-recognized relationship would probably be the best idea, if it could be implemented. There's hundreds of years of both legislation and common law on multiple levels of government that will need to be modified for that to happen. But if it did, the biggest argument against gay marriage (the so-called religious connection) would vaporize. Unfortunately, I think there will still be a large portion of the population opposed to "gay civil unions". And a lot of people probably having a big hissy fit because government did what they "wanted" and didn't use the term marriage for homosexuals... but then went "too far" and eliminated it from the law books entirely.