OT: Evangelicals frustrated by Bush

[Lurker]

I only have a problem with a group of people who want laws enacted based on their PREFERENCE not upon the color of their skin, etc.

They don't want laws enacted.  They want to be recognized under current laws that exclude them.  I know you hate to read it but in essence it is the same claim that Blacks had during the civil rights era.  Or that women had before that.  Just recognize them under the same existing laws that recognize other "unions".  Give them the same rights you give to heterosexual marriages.

Whether it is morally right has little to no bearing on the issue.

Molestation of children has no bearing on the issue....this is performed by heterosexuals as often as it is by homosexuals.

Whether it should be taught in school depends on whether you are talking about teaching children to become homosexuals (not the idea at all) or whether you are teaching children to tolerate them the same way we once had to teach tolerance of different skin colors.

[Lurker]

I dont think the US constitution mentions anything about marriage, and from what i can tell california does not allow same sex unions.  how does the government DEFINE marriage?  does that definition include the words "same sex", "man with man", "woman with woman" (<--i would say only if they were HOT to that one.  hehe), or "human with human"  I tend to think the definition would be "the union of a man and a woman."   I dont think same sex marriages let alone any other type of sicko perv (just kidding) type of union should be allowed to be called a "marriage."

But why should government be in the business of defining marriage at all?  Doesn't that give rights to people with a unique (albeit majority) sexual preference?

[SPURSX3]

I dont think the US constitution mentions anything about marriage, and from what i can tell california does not allow same sex unions.  how does the government DEFINE marriage?  does that definition include the words "same sex", "man with man", "woman with woman" (<--i would say only if they were HOT to that one.  hehe), or "human with human"  I tend to think the definition would be "the union of a man and a woman."   I dont think same sex marriages let alone any other type of sicko perv (just kidding) type of union should be allowed to be called a "marriage."

But why should government be in the business of defining marriage at all?  Doesn't that give rights to people with a unique (albeit majority) sexual preference?

so by this defintion if billy wanted to marry his pet dog, then it would be ok?  or perhaps mother and son have some sick thing going?  hmmmmmmm dont want to discriminate against them right?  and lets not stop r kelly from marrying that 3 year babe he has had his eye on lately, right??

[Ted]

I thought I should clarify my position because I kind of went on a tangent.

I don't care if gays have some form of legal union that gives the rights similar to those of marriage. I just don't care. If they must have it called "marriage," then that's fine, too.

Just don't throw it in my face. Don't tell me I'm a homophobe. Don't tell my children it's morally wrong to believe homosexuality is something God doesn't approve of. Don't teach my children at school how to practice it safely or anything like that. Let me teach my children about those kinds of things, and I promise I'll do a good job. They won't hate anyone, they will tolerate every one who doesn't harm anyone else, and they will love their neighbor. And they won't jam their beliefs/faith/preferences in anyone else's face.

Is that fair enough?

[Ted]

SpursX3, it depends on whether or not the dog consented to the union, and also whether the son was of legal age to consent to marrying his mother. If they're both consenting adults, then who are we to even state our opinions on the matter?

P.S. Homer S.-- "Oh and by the way, I was being sarcastic."

[Randy]

I only have a problem with a group of people who want laws enacted based on their PREFERENCE not upon the color of their skin, etc.

They don't want laws enacted.  They want to be recognized under current laws that exclude them.  I know you hate to read it but in essence it is the same claim that Blacks had during the civil rights era.  Or that women had before that.  Just recognize them under the same existing laws that recognize other "unions".  Give them the same rights you give to heterosexual marriages.

Whether it is morally right has little to no bearing on the issue.

Molestation of children has no bearing on the issue....this is performed by heterosexuals as often as it is by homosexuals.

Whether it should be taught in school depends on whether you are talking about teaching children to become homosexuals (not the idea at all) or whether you are teaching children to tolerate them the same way we once had to teach tolerance of different skin colors.

1)  How would you feel about a website that promotes molestation of children?  I don't know of any sites that heterosexuals have but NAMBLA does.  You don't see that as being different?  Sure, there are heterosexuals that do it but I don't know of any who want to change laws so that they can do it openly.  http://www.nambla.org/

2) Sorry, but when you teach children it's "okay" to be homosexual, you are saying that it's okay -- I will say that's okay as long as they teach my faith in school so that homosexuals will learn tolerance towards us as well.

[SPURSX3]

I thought I should clarify my position because I kind of went on a tangent.

I don't care if gays have some form of legal union that gives the rights similar to those of marriage. I just don't care. If they must have it called "marriage," then that's fine, too.

Just don't throw it in my face. Don't tell me I'm a homophobe. Don't tell my children it's morally wrong to believe homosexuality is something God doesn't approve of. Don't teach my children at school how to practice it safely or anything like that. Let me teach my children about those kinds of things, and I promise I'll do a good job. They won't hate anyone, they will tolerate every one who doesn't harm anyone else, and they love their neighbor. And they won't jam their beliefs/faith/preferences in anyone else's faith.

Is that fair enough?

nothing you cold say would ever satisfy the PC liberals, they would say you are bashing people who WANT to force teacxh your children this stuff... :blink:  

[Lurker]

I thought I should clarify my position because I kind of went on a tangent.

I don't care if gays have some form of legal union that gives the rights similar to those of marriage. I just don't care. If they must have it called "marriage," then that's fine, too.

Just don't throw it in my face. Don't tell me I'm a homophobe. Don't tell my children it's morally wrong to believe homosexuality is something God doesn't approve of. Don't teach my children at school how to practice it safely or anything like that. Let me teach my children about those kinds of things, and I promise I'll do a good job. They won't hate anyone, they will tolerate every one who doesn't harm anyone else, and they love their neighbor. And they won't jam their beliefs/faith/preferences in anyone else's faith.

Is that fair enough?

Basically the point I have tried to make all along.   B)

 :ph34r:  

[jn]

Ted you stinking Homerphobe!!  

On a side note one thing you'll find about the march and chant crowd ("We're here, we're queer, we don't want any more bears!" "Homer, where did you learn this chant?" "At that mustache parade."  :lol:  :lol: ) tend to be younger or just recently out.  Most grow out that.  It's not unlike the fervor felt by people who recently quit drinking and want everyone else to or recent religous converts who suddenly tell their friends and family the will burn in hell if they don't convert NOW!!

X3 you are seeing a slippery slope where none exists.  

[Lurker]

1)  How would you feel about a website that promotes molestation of children?  I don't know of any sites that heterosexuals have but NAMBLA does.  You don't see that as being different?  Sure, there are heterosexuals that do it but I don't know of any who want to change laws so that they can do it openly.  http://www.nambla.org/

2) Sorry, but when you teach children it's "okay" to be homosexual, you are saying that it's okay -- I will say that's okay as long as they teach my faith in school so that homosexuals will learn tolerance towards us as well.

And just exactly where does it say that members of NAMBLA are homosexual?  Maybe they are in heterosexual marriages but enjoy having sex with boys.  Or are you just assuming that because both practices (homosexuality & child sex) disgust you?

And yes I believe tolerance should go both ways.  

And how many gays are out there that are tolerant.  Probably a heck of a lot more than you are giving credit to.  You seem to attach the sins of a few to the whole group.  

[SPURSX3]

I thought I should clarify my position because I kind of went on a tangent.

I don't care if gays have some form of legal union that gives the rights similar to those of marriage. I just don't care. If they must have it called "marriage," then that's fine, too.

Just don't throw it in my face. Don't tell me I'm a homophobe. Don't tell my children it's morally wrong to believe homosexuality is something God doesn't approve of. Don't teach my children at school how to practice it safely or anything like that. Let me teach my children about those kinds of things, and I promise I'll do a good job. They won't hate anyone, they will tolerate every one who doesn't harm anyone else, and they love their neighbor. And they won't jam their beliefs/faith/preferences in anyone else's faith.

Is that fair enough?

Basically the point I have tried to make all along.   B)

 :ph34r:

YOU SEE!!  thanks for the mental rape of Ted you B@stard!  dont worry Ted, We'll send you to get reprogrammed once again.... :blink:  

[Lurker]

I thought I should clarify my position because I kind of went on a tangent.

I don't care if gays have some form of legal union that gives the rights similar to those of marriage. I just don't care. If they must have it called "marriage," then that's fine, too.

Just don't throw it in my face. Don't tell me I'm a homophobe. Don't tell my children it's morally wrong to believe homosexuality is something God doesn't approve of. Don't teach my children at school how to practice it safely or anything like that. Let me teach my children about those kinds of things, and I promise I'll do a good job. They won't hate anyone, they will tolerate every one who doesn't harm anyone else, and they love their neighbor. And they won't jam their beliefs/faith/preferences in anyone else's faith.

Is that fair enough?

Basically the point I have tried to make all along.   B)

 :ph34r:

YOU SEE!!  thanks for the mental rape of Ted you B@stard!  dont worry Ted, We'll send you to get reprogrammed once again.... :blink:

Hey now Ted's not just a liberal but with 12 wives he's a f****** liberal!

 :lol:  

[Ted]

NO, NO, NO!

It was consensual. How dare you stick your nose in my mental preferences!

[Lurker]

YOU SEE!!  thanks for the mental rape of Ted you B@stard!

It's not like I killed Kenny or anything.

[Ted]

Yep. One of the few liberals in this entire nation who's actually gettin' some.