posted June 03, 2006 02:34 PM              

he acts as though straight people have made a better example of marriage...
we should give them rights as gay couples...people live together, just like anybody else, the need for protection in case of emergencies, bills, medical, etc is crucial....I dont know whats wrong with him...he acts as though if we dont put it in the consitution the end of america will begin...doesnt he realize...its already begun?

------------------
"WHATEVER the soul longs for, WILL be attained by the spirit"

"Love knows not its own depth until the hour of separation"

-Khalil Gibran

posted June 03, 2006 04:20 PM            

quote:

---

but we should give them rights as gay couples...people live together, just like anybody else, the need for protection in case of emergencies, bills, medical, etc is crucial

---

All the things you complain about...and more are covered in a "Domestic Partnership Agreement".

posted June 03, 2006 04:22 PM              

------------------
"WHATEVER the soul longs for, WILL be attained by the spirit"

"Love knows not its own depth until the hour of separation"

-Khalil Gibran

posted June 03, 2006 04:32 PM              

------------------
"WHATEVER the soul longs for, WILL be attained by the spirit"

"Love knows not its own depth until the hour of separation"

-Khalil Gibran

posted June 03, 2006 05:46 PM              

Having affection for the same sex..is past lives karma..and current..this is not to say that female and female or male and male relationships are not of twin soul's..for the fact remains..that in spirit..they are balanced one is male one is a female spirit..Karma to work out. ...

In Creation..Created was Man..than Woman..the Balance..this means that the Universal Laws..are of balance..male and female partnership..

what is right? what is wrong?
everything is upside down..
CHAOS is God's human counterpart. ...

posted June 03, 2006 10:16 PM              

quote:

---

Having affection for the same sex..is past lives karma..and current.

---

I do not think so, Lotus! Many people are happy when they are in love. It is their choice... and if they are happy, than why not let these people get married?

posted June 03, 2006 11:41 PM              

All I am stating is let everyone be who they want to be. It is not always based on Karma. Many people are happy in that way!

Does that make you feel better?

posted June 04, 2006 12:48 AM              

All I am trying to say is..The Universal Laws..are plain and simple. ...

posted June 05, 2006 12:23 AM              

quote:

---

Sounds like a tactic to try to raise his approval ratings with the fanatical-Christian wing of his constituency

---

posted June 05, 2006 01:52 PM            

quote:

---

At this point in time in his desparation to keep his power Bush would sell out his own mother.

---

You like to make moral equivalency arguments Mirandee.

posted June 05, 2006 02:35 PM            

Church and State must always be seperate. Thats the premise of the constitution.

Marriage I feel is based on some religios texts and the constitution will never accept it because of lack of concrete evidence that Bible is indeed from God.
Why must we live a life based on some texts in a book. There are enough contradictions in the text to confuse masses and we must not fall in to the trap.

The USA already follows the laws of Noahs seven commandments and its enuf I feel.

BTW, most major corporations in USA except Exxon Mobil already have rights for same sex couples. May be it too will follow soon.

posted June 05, 2006 02:59 PM            

First Amendment USC
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

No US government establishment of a national religion...as was the practice in England...where most of the colonists came from.

Just so we get this right.

Thomas Jefferson permitted..as did other Presidents before him...church services to be held in the main chamber of the House of Representatives. Jefferson also attended most Sundays all through the 8 years of his Presidency.

Jefferson also permitted church services to be held in other buildings owned by the US federal government.

Now, who the hell are you going to believe; atheists or one of the principle founders of the United States who also penned the Declaration of Independence?

The Declaration of Independence which includes this wording.

"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their CREATOR with certain inalienable rights. That among these are, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

So, take the phony separation of church and state argument and file it where the sun don't shine.

Marriage between one man and one woman is the oldest institution in the recorded history of humans on earth.

Anyone who thinks the rest of us are going to see marriage cheapened or defiled by an in your face homosexual lobby with an agenda has another think coming.

Domestic Partnership Agreements have been offered to gay couples. An agreement which protects all the rights gay couples say they need.

posted June 05, 2006 03:49 PM              

Who needs marriage, if you can have an affair??? (especially if you're already married)

http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?channelid=65&contentid=2123

posted June 05, 2006 04:01 PM            

They're coming to take me away, HA HA
They're coming to take me away, HO HO HEE HEE HA HA
To the funny farm
Where life is beautiful all the time
And I'll be happy to see
Those nice, young men
In their clean, white coats
And they're coming to take me away, Ha-haaa!

Don't forget to write! Oh, that's right, you won't be permitted any sharp objects

Well, I'll be thinking of you.

posted June 05, 2006 04:30 PM            

Exactly my point if you think of 2 guys wanting to get married. Why deny 2 men willing to get married in a traditional manner? Are these 2 guys not denizens of America? Where is fairness in the law?

I do respect the American founding fathers, without them America won't be what it is today. I still think that the leaders today can make it even better.

posted June 05, 2006 05:14 PM            

I don't want to see them excluded from a union, but like they have said 'A civil union that is recognized by the state is all we want". Now, that may not be true for all homosexual unions. Some absolutely want marriage (as stated in the context of the constitution).

Why can't we have both? Why can't a civil union or Domestic Partnership agreement be looked up in the same light as a marriage, with both people paying taxes as a married couple would? Both parties would have the stress and strain as we do (and trust me, many of my friends have been couples for 13-40 years). This would make it easier for domestic disputes to be worked out (in the context of a dissolution of union etc..)

At the same time- there is a contignent of militant homosexuals that really don't care about rights as much as they just want to yell and scream about the wrongs. Nothing will be enough- whether they obtain minority status or "marriage" status. People may think I am being narrowminded, but I'm not. It's here, it was the same way in Laguna and Portland.

Some people won't ever be pleased and it makes for a rough ride for the ones that just want an equal opportunity.

posted June 05, 2006 05:18 PM            

Where is the fairness in the law which prohibits:

Marriage between 1 man and 13 women?
Marriage between 13 men and 1 woman?
1 man and 1 12 year old boy?
1 woman and 1 12 year old boy?
1 man and one 12 year old girl?
2 12 year old boys?
2 12 year old girls?
1 12 year old boy and 1 12 year old girl?
1 woman and her pet 5 year old German Shepherd?