# First he flips, then he flops!



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

I mean Bush of course.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/ ... .marriage/
First a flip

http://www.news24.com/News24/World/US_E ... 07,00.html
Then he flops.

http://www.advocate.com/new_news.asp?id ... d=10/27/04
Oh no!

Does a rose not smell just as sweet if by any other name? I can't believe you still back this man.


----------



## Gunner (Oct 30, 2002)

Come on MT, a little perspective please. The whole issue with Queer marriage is the State forcing the Church to perform and acknowledge the marriage. You Libs intend to disband religion all together. States have the right to make whatever laws they see fit and we as citizens of the State have the right/duty to remove the Legislators from power.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

So, being that you see that the laws should be done by state, you disagree with the republican party platform. Also, I have no intentions of disbanding religon in any way shape or form, I just want to keep it out of the government.


----------



## mr.trooper (Aug 3, 2004)

As how you claim to be a Christian MT, i would think you would be with Bush on this one; Seeing as Your God calls all forms of Homosexuality a SIN punishible by death...


----------



## Gunner (Oct 30, 2002)

If the State chooses to seed power to the Federal government (via congressmen extending our voice), so be it. This is in perfect keeping with the republican platform. Nearly 70% of the public is against gay marriage and we let our congressmen know that. Sooner or later they will see it our way and seed the power to the Federal government to amend the constitution, or they'll be removed from office. The Libs can't win on this issue.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

The conservatives want to remove rights because of the "sanctity" of something. As if your marriage means any less because a gay gets married. You conservative boys haven't won it either.


----------



## mr.trooper (Aug 3, 2004)

"You Conservative boys..."

what is so wrong about wanting to Conserve the last remaining shreds of what made America Great?


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

Trooper:



> what is so wrong about wanting to Conserve the last remaining shreds of what made America Great?


Heterosexual marriage didn't make America great, nor did Christianity. What made America great was hard work, a love of liberty, and an abundance of resources and freedoms where a person could make a living if they simply worked hard enough. What made America great was the fact that early America was truly a melting pot, and people used diversity as a strength.

People who associate religion with politics forget the fact that many (if not most) of the original settlers to America were coming here to escape religious persecution and state-sponsored religions. They did not come here to found a Christian nation.



> As how you claim to be a Christian MT, i would think you would be with Bush on this one; Seeing as Your God calls all forms of Homosexuality a SIN punishible by death...


I don't know which bible you read or god you worship, but my bible states that hateful thoughts and speech are no different than killing. Try a little love and acceptance of diversity.

This push to outlaw gay marriage is nothing more than a means to motivate the religious right to get off their butts and hit the polls to vote for the Bush. I am in a heterosexual marriage, and for me, this is really a moot point. I plan on voting against any restriction against gay marriage because it is simply none of my business. If you don't want to marry a guy, don't marry one. If you are gay and looking to marry another member of the same sex in a long-term, committed relationship, who am I to say that you shouldn't have the right?

How many heterosexual marriages occur for people every year that don't truly love each other? Instead, they marry for money, social status, or out of a necessity. Those folks eventually get divorced. How is that upholding the sanctity of marriage? Is this OK simply because the people are of different sexes? A long-term, committed homosexual marriage is worse?


----------



## mr.trooper (Aug 3, 2004)

--Saying that Homosexuality is a SIN, doesnt meen i hate them. God hates Homosexuality, but yet he loves Homosexuals just as much as eveoryone else. So your agrgument of me being a hatemonger is valid how?

"What made America great was hard work, a love of liberty, and an abundance of resources and freedoms where a person could make a living if they simply worked hard enough"

--Something called the Puritan work ethic is what you are reffering to. So yes, not only did Christianity bring about the conditions for Americas Greatnes, but also incured the Blessings of God, wich was the major factor in our greatness.

As for your view on homosexuality, ill adress that later. i have a class starting in 2 min.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Thats odd I've never read that God hated anything, since after all he was the one who created the gays along with everyone else.


----------



## Gunner (Oct 30, 2002)

MT, you must not read your Bible. It explicitly states he hates sin, of which homosexuality and divorce are inclusive. I'll get you references later.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

I have read the Bible in the past, I do not however thump it. If the government sees it fit to protect the sanctity of marriage through keeping homosextuals out of it, then why does it allow divorce as you stated? It seems to me that this whole issue has a lot less to do with protecting the sanctity of marriage, and a lot more to do with the hatred of gays. Look at it this way, if they are allowed to marry there will be less single gays trolling the streets.


----------



## mr.trooper (Aug 3, 2004)

MT, this is not about hating anyone. This is about something that is unquestionably wrong from a moral, spiritual, social, and traditional background. I respect your view points, but frankly they are completely apposed to all four of the aforementioned categories. You may not think much of the category marked as "tradition" as is evident from your previous posts, but you surely cannot dispute the value and authority of the remaining three points of dissention.

The bottom line is that giving the same rights to homosexuals WILL eventually effect the institution of Marriage in a negative way. Let us lay down some facts here: Homosexuals DO deserve freedom of speech, freedom from discrimination, and the right to pursue whatever "life style" will make them happy. Depriving them of any of those rights is illegal under the United States constitution, and just because homosexuality is wrong socially, morally, and spiritually doesn't change that. Marriage however is not protected at all by the constitution, but was and still is necessary to the proper function of society, and as such was not even considered to be in need of protection. The founding fathers didn't think it was necessary because they never could have imagined that such a perversion of nature would become an accepted activity. Keep in mind that I have nothing against Homosexuals as people, but I do have something against what they do. I feel that I must continually remind you all of this, seeing as to the tendency of most liberals to assume that a rebuke is a mark of hatred ( Proverbs calls people who mistake moral correction for hatred "fools" and a "wicked and perverse generation"). Seeing as you don't take the Bible seriously, nor do you fully believe that it is beneficial for society today, I will limit myself in its use to key passages.

First of all homosexuality is wrong from a moral stand point. Gays have long tried to rationalize this with excuses to the effect of "We can't help it that we were born gay!" There is no evidence to support this. If you have something that you think is evidence then submit it for review, because the nation's best scientists haven't been able to come up with anything. Homosexuality is a conscious choice. It may be aggravated, or stimulated by strange and unnatural circumstance or environments, such as being locked in prison for years on end. This situation doesn't "bring out" any kind of "latent" homosexuality, it creates it. The simple fact is that human beings of both genders have a strong internal desire for the pleasure experienced during intercourse. I am going to leave it at that because it's undeniably true, and it would be immoral for me to continue down that particular path. The point is, that eventually internal desires gain the upper hand and people choose to attempt to satisfy them any way they can. Now that we have concretely established that homosexuality is a conscious choice we can continue along with this particular point. The morals of our society come from two sources; the natural conscience of mankind, our nation's Christian Heritage. Man naturally knows that some things are bad. Cold blooded murder of another human is one of these natural acknowledgements (you don't have to tell a kid that it's wrong to kill someone, or teach it to them in school). It's a natural thing. The morals of our nation also come from our society's heritage. Our National law is based on the 10 commandments. What other proof do I need that Christian values played a major role in shaping what our society saw as morally correct? Thus Homosexuality is against nature (and thus mans conscience, until it is seared), and also against a moral system based on the Bible and the teachings of Christ. Homosexuality is morally wrong. But I'm willing to bet that morality doesn't mean much to you; and as such is not an effective argument. With this in mind I move on.

Homosexuality is wrong from a spiritual point of view. You may think that morality and spirituality are the same, but in fact they are different. Morality is simply holding beliefs as to what is good and what is bad. We are all moral according to our own standards. Being religious however is quite different. Most Atheists are moral: meaning that they try not to steal, murder, lie etcetera. This does not mean that they are Religious, as an Atheist by definition believes that no God or gods exist, and therefore have no religion (though ironically they have elevated the state of not believing in God to a form of religion). Any Christian (including you MT) who has EVER read the bible, or been to church even once knows that when God says something it is wrong, no questions asked, it is wrong. God says it is wrong. Therefore any Christian who puts any stock in his religion at all shouldn't be disputing the fact. I am sure you have read at least some of Paul's Epistles MT. Re-Read those letters and see the stern warnings Paul gave to those Churches whom were dabbling in such things. Homosexuality is spiritually wrong.

Homosexuality is wrong socially, and therefore is unacceptable. Now we come to my favorite point. You and others have asked what harm it will do if a few gays get married. It doesn't affect your marriage after all. Your right, it doesn't affect your marriage. But it may affect your children's marriages. You see, the whole base of society is the family unit. That's just basic Sociology and Economics. Time and hardship has proven that it takes an involved mother, and an involved father to properly raise a child. If you were lacking one or both of these and you turned out alright, then congratulations. You beat the odds. Children look to there mothers to teach them to love, to learn, to care, and how to act towards men. Children look to there fathers to teach them discipline, respect, responsibility, and how to act towards women. Children that grow up without one of these generally turn out a little skewed, and find it harder to "fit in" to parts of society. Thus we see that a traditional family unit is the BEST way to raise children. Do you think we have been doing it that way since the dawn of humanity by accident? No, we have always done it that way because that's the way it works out best. Even children who come from unhappy homes with fighting parents on average do better in school, get better jobs, are less likely to get into drugs, and form more permanent relationships than people from single parent homes. No one who has studied the family can dispute this fact. This brings us conveniently to the point. Homosexuality disrupts the traditional family unit, and therefore is bad for society AND the economy. I am not blaming gays for causing social or economic troubles. There are much larger, more significant factors involved in such things than the workings of a minority group. If gays were to be allowed to marry, however, it would just smash another wide-open hole in the side of traditional family values, and perpetuate the problems we are already having with families these days. Homosexuality is wrong from a social standpoint.

Strait up: Allowing them to marry will hurt family values, and our society along with it.

You asked why we allow divorce MT. Simply because people are selfish, and don't want to take responsibility for there actions, or don't want to forgive someone they promised God that they would love forever; but that's another article altogether.


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

Trooper, let me respond to a few of your statements:



> Marriage however is not protected at all by the constitution, but was and still is necessary to the proper function of society, and as such was not even considered to be in need of protection.


True, marriage is not protected by the constitution, but civil rights are. Our civil rights state that people cannot be denied their basic rights due to race, sex, national orgin, or some other differentiating trait. Gays are not asking for special treatment. They are asking for equal treatment. If your heterosexual spouse can benefit by being covered under your health insurance and you can benefit by being a married couple on your income tax return, why can't we offer the same benefits to a homosexual in a committed relationship?



> Gays have long tried to rationalize this with excuses to the effect of "We can't help it that we were born gay!" There is no evidence to support this. If you have something that you think is evidence then submit it for review, because the nation's best scientists haven't been able to come up with anything. Homosexuality is a conscious choice.


I got news for you, I am a scientist. Specifically, I am a toxicologist with extensive education and experience in biology, biochemistry, genetics, and chemistry. I don't know what scientists you are referring to, but it is widely accepted in the scientific community that there are biochemical and genetic predispositions for homosexuality, especially among homosexual men. Most scientists agree that there is no single "gay" gene, but there is almost certainly a genetic force. I firmly believe that for many homosexuals (maybe even most), there is no choice involved.



> Homosexuality is wrong socially, and therefore is unacceptable. Now we come to my favorite point. You and others have asked what harm it will do if a few gays get married. It doesn't affect your marriage after all. Your right, it doesn't affect your marriage. But it may affect your children's marriages. You see, the whole base of society is the family unit. That's just basic Sociology and Economics. Time and hardship has proven that it takes an involved mother, and an involved father to properly raise a child. If you were lacking one or both of these and you turned out alright, then congratulations. You beat the odds. Children look to there mothers to teach them to love, to learn, to care, and how to act towards men. Children look to there fathers to teach them discipline, respect, responsibility, and how to act towards women. Children that grow up without one of these generally turn out a little skewed, and find it harder to "fit in" to parts of society.


What? This is flawed logic because you are using a narrow definition of the term "family" to only mean a heterosexual family per Ozzie & Harriet or Leave it to Beaver. The version of a "family" hasn't existed since the early 70s.

Committed homosexual couples are a family, as are families with single parents, divorced parents, those with grandparents or other members of extended families under the same roof, and so on. I don't know about others, but my wife and I share discipline. She doesn't exclusively teach my sons how to interact with men, nor do I exclusively teach them how to be responsible. My wife and I share responsibilities for raising my sons because that's what spouses do.

I have seen children of single parents turn out just fine, just as I have seen children of divorces turn out fine. I have also seen children of homosexual couples who are perfectly comfortable in their family. If a child needs a male role model, a lesbian couple can always find one, just like a single mother can. The same goes for a gay male couple needing to find a female role model for their daughter.

Here's some advice: Live your life the way that you see fit and raise your children as you want to. I will do the same. Homosexual couples out there will also do the same if we simply afford them the same rights as I have. It's just that simple.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Well Trooper I can't possibly contest all of that (not because it's right, but because it's too long) but I will cover the major points.

I would first like to note that I do not see homosextuality as natural, or something that you are born with, but I do think that an America that doesn't give everyone the right to do whatever pleases them as long as it doesn't harm anyone else is not America at all.

You are blind if you think that there were no gays when the constitution was written.

As for it damaging the social enviornment, I don't buy it. Gays cannot have children, that is a fact. They must thus adopt, if you are trying to tell me that having two loving fathers or mothers is worse than living in an orphanage you are batty. It does not take a woman and a man to raise a child, it takes two people to fill the spots. If they both happen to be of the same sex, so be it. I'm not sure where you get your facts from but kids that grow up in an unhappy home are far worse off than those who grow up in a gay home.


----------



## mr.trooper (Aug 3, 2004)

I see i have ticked off the liberals again. im sorry. but as a mischevious student i just cant help myself--its my genetics after all.

BigDaddy: "I firmly believe that for many homosexuals (maybe even most), there is no choice involved."--Thats dandy. As for your Toxocology background, great...now can you offer me any proof other than your beliefs? that is what i asked for in the paragraph after all. However nothing you said cant be explained by the simple fact that humans in general will get what they want wherever they have to, Homosexual or not.

"What? This is flawed logic because you are using a narrow definition of the term "family" to only mean a heterosexual family per Ozzie & Harriet or Leave it to Beaver. The version of a "family" hasn't existed since the early 70s."
--THEY FINALY UNDERSTOOD SOMETHING I SAID!!! Wow, this is a momentus occasion. That is exactly my point. i was using the "traditional" idea of a "leave it to Beaver" style family unit, and made no pretentions of defining it as anything else.

i never said Gays shouldnt have equal constitutional rights. Nor did i ever say that single or gay housholds couldnt raise a child correctly. i said nothing of the sort, and frankly, you need to stop tying to put words in my mouth. i included many points that i thought would make that position clear. Marriage however is not a constitutional right. Should they have equal healthcare benifits? yes. again, they deserveequal rights. thats what makes the U.S.A great. however, if we want to stay great we are going to have a VERRY hard time doing it when there s nothing left of the family structure our society was based appon.

And as for your pretention of the "Traditional" family not existing since the 70's....WRONG. has it been popular? no. But it has still existed, interestngly enough at slightly higher numbers in fundamentalist housholds. wonder why that is.

BTW: my statements about multi-parent houshold children doing SLIGHTLY better thatn single parent housholds ON AVERAGE. comes from the Department of Education. Read up on it. having two parents who can balance the load and actualy have time for you is better forthe child than living with a single parent whom the child will rarely ever see.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

" never said Gays shouldnt have equal constitutional rights. Nor did i ever say that single or gay housholds couldnt raise a child correctly. i said nothing of the sort, and frankly, you need to stop tying to put words in my mouth. i included many points that i thought would make that position clear. Marriage however is not a constitutional right. Should they have equal healthcare benifits? yes. again, they deserveequal rights. thats what makes the U.S.A great. however, if we want to stay great we are going to have a VERRY hard time doing it when there s nothing left of the family structure our society was based appon. "

Stop trying you say? You should reread your posts before you make them then

"Even children who come from unhappy homes with fighting parents on average do better in school, get better jobs, are less likely to get into drugs, and form more permanent relationships than people from single parent homes. No one who has studied the family can dispute this fact."

So you are either implying that two gay parents are better than one straight one, or that gays cannot raise children as well as straight ones.


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

OK Trooper, here you go.

First of all, scientific studies way back in the early 1990s showed that the hypothalmus region of brain is distinctly different in homosexual men compared to heterosexual men (Burr, Chandler. A Separate Creation. New York: Hyperion, 1996; LeVay, Simon. The Sexual Brain. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1993. ). Further, it is accepted that the brain structure differences were causal (meaning that brain differences caused homosexuality and not vice-versa).

Burr published more of his findings here: Burr, Chandler. "Homosexuality and Biology," Atlantic Monthly (March 1993).

However, differences in brain structure do not mean that homosexual is genetic. Brain structure differences are a biological phenomenon, but not necessarity inherited. To study whether or not homosexuality has a genetic component, there have been several studies using twins (for those that don't know, twins have similar but not identical genetics). The results are what is to be expected with a genetic phenomenon. If one twin is homosexual, there is an extremely high probability that the other twin will also be homosexual (Wertz, Dorothy C. "Genetics and Homosexuality," The Gene Letter 1 (1996)).

There has also been work studying the genetics and family trees of homosexual men (Hamer, Dean and Peter Copeland. The Science of Desire. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1994. ). In these studies, researchers found a region of the X chromosome that had high levels of similarity in those members of a family tree that were homosexua. There was no similarity with those members of the family that were heterosexual.

My church has recently discussed the issue of homosexual marriage and whether or not we will recognize homosexual unions. Therefore, we studied at length whether or not there was a biological or genetic basis for homosexuality. There is little doubt that there are biological and genetic forces at play.

You should also note that way back in the early 1970s, the American Psychological Association removed homosexuality from its list of psychological disorders. Here is an excerpt from the APA's homepage:



> Is Sexual Orientation a Choice?
> 
> No, human beings can not choose to be either gay or straight. Sexual orientation emerges for most people in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience. Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed.


How's that?


----------



## mr.trooper (Aug 3, 2004)

Better. However, I this statement: "Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed." Has a very serious flaw.

How do they justify there statements that what you choose to do sexually is not your sexual orientation? Being wired funny doesn't make you gay or strait. Your strait by nature, or else organisms that do not eproduce couldn't have survived. Therefore the only way for it to continue is for strait people to become gay, which would mean that it is a choice. You're honestly telling me that one of these men that were supposedly "born gay" couldn't choose to start have normal relations with a woman and stop practicing homosexuality? Even though that's how we are designed? I don't think so. You choose to be gay, and your orientation is a choice. the supposed theory of "survival of the fittest" would enshure that genes with "homosexual tendencies" would not be passed on.


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

Trooper,

Let's assume that you are straight (notice I didn't say "strait") and you were born that way. Could you suddenly cease being straight and make a conscious decision to start boinking guys? No, you couldn't because it is not in your nature. Why is it so difficult to understand that a homosexual guy can't suddenly decide to start boinking chicks? Does it threaten a person's sexuality to think that they could be gay with a simple genetic change?

I view sexual tendencies as a bell curve or continuum. At one end of the bell curve are those that are 100% heterosexual, while at the others are those that are 100% homosexual. The rest of use lie somewhere on that continuum. For some, they might be able to make a choice. For others, it is no choice.

Your survival of the fittest argument (I assume that you are talking about natural selection) has a fundamental flaw because you are assuming that selection forces are strong enough to cull homosexual genes out of the population. This might be true when resources were seriously lacking and males competed for mates to breed with. In those cases, heterosexual males would have the advantage of passing their genes onto a subsequent generation. However, what about the females? You are assuming that genes dealing with sexual preferance are paternally inherited. Couldn't a female pass on genetic preference genes?

You must also remember that genetic mutations play a huge role in genetic diversity. Therefore, if the segment of DNA controlling sexual preference is prone to variability, those genes could express themselves in a population in the future even if they have a relatively low frequency at any given time.

The lesson here is that natural selection will only cull certain genes from a population if there is sufficient selection pressure against those genotypes. At the present time, the selection pressure is not sufficiently high.

I am reminded of an interesting social behavior study that I read about several years ago in which a researcher placed a small number of rats in a confined space. Things were just fine for awhile and the rats reproduced as normal. However, as the population density increased, the researcher observed some interesting things. The rats became more violant. He observed non-consensual sexual relations between rats (read that as "rape"), and the rats started to form small groups (read that as gangs or tribes). He also observed increased levels of homosexual activities. Were those rats homosexual before social forces made them express that behavior or did the behavior come about because of environmental forces? I would guess that those rats that did express homosexual behavior were somewhere towards the end of the continuum towards homosexuality, and the environmental forces were sufficiently strong to express that behavior.

The lesson here is that the human population has increased to the point that natural selection no longer plays a major role in dictating which genes are passed onto subsequent generations. The strongest and brightest don't always reproduce. Therefore, it is not surprising that homosexuality genes are common at low or moderate rates in a population.

Again, homosexuality is not a choice for some people. Why do you want to tell those people that they should not be able to enter into a long-term relationships with all of the legal protections and benefits of a heterosexual marriage? What gives you the wisdom and right to make that decision? Why is that a decision that you even want to make? Is it fear? Is it hate? I, for one, don't have time in my life to worry about the private affairs of others.


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

Perfectly well put BigDaddy. I can't understand why homosexuality is such an issue with the right. They just can't stop thinking about it.


----------



## tail chaser (Sep 24, 2004)

Big Daddy , 
good post but I think most people here are to slow to understand it. I'm not gay and I don't understand the idea of homosexuality but I could care less what somebody else wants to do. Most people forget about what made this country great and why it was created in the first place. Most on this forum forget why their relatives crossed the ocean in the first place. You don't suppose it had anything to do with religous religous freedom do you? Did it have anything to do with being told what they could and couldn't do? Religion has no place in polotics, if someone wants to be a christian who hates homosexuality then be one, but I don't want their morals forced on me, nor do I want the morals of gay ideas forced on me.
Its called freedom of religion you narrow minded so called Christians, wake up! I thought this country was about being free.
TC


----------



## mr.trooper (Aug 3, 2004)

Actually BD, the natural selection argument was done completely in Jest. Something that should have been evident, as its connotations conflicts with my religious beliefs.

The Rat example was interesting. I just don't see how anyone can say that the behavior the rats developed was a result of anything else than there pressured environment. Again, they got it where they had to. a rat is incapable of human emotions and thus cannot be homosexual, but only what is natural. if you were to take one of those rats with homosexual behavior, and isolate it with a female rat, i think i know what would happen (assuming they didn't just eat each other first, as rats sometimes do).

"It's called freedom of religion you narrow minded so called Christians, wake up! I thought this country was about being free." (Note: an apostrophe was added to the "Its" of the quote during spell-check)
--Do you still think I'm against letting homosexuals have there constitutional rights? If you do then honestly, hold your tongue and read my posts again. I don't know how many times I said that I think they should have all of their constitutional rights, yet you seem to think I don't. CHRISTIANS DONT HATE GAYS. They hate homosexuality because it is wrong. THAT DOESNT MEAN WE HATE THE PERSON! This is kind of a silly analogy, but it is principle the same: if you HATE country music(not camparing hoosexuality to country music, i just coudnt think of anything else i am strongly against.), and one day your best friend starts listening to it, do you hate him for it? if you do, then you've got social and mental problems that you need to see a doctor about. the same it true if you hate someone because they are gay.

Neither i, nor any other Christian that i Affiliate with hate gays. We just don't like what they do, and the potential effects it may have on future generations.


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

> We just don't like what they do, and the potential effects it may have on future generations.


OK troop, let me ask you this: What is it exactly that you don't like that gays do? Is it holding hands in public, having homosexual sex, or getting married?

You are confusing homosexual sexual and social behavior with their request to have their unions legally recognized.

Getting married and having that union acknowledged by the government has nothing to do with behaviors such as showing affection in public or having sex in a person's own house. 
I had lots of sex with my wife before we got married and showed her lots of affection in public, but that had nothing to do with whether or not the government would recognize our marriage when we went down to the courthouse with our marriage license application. In my humble opinion, what we did in the bedroom was not anybody else's business

Homosexuals have been showing affection in public and having homosexual sex long before this marriage debate came along. Do you think that homosexual have refrained from having sex because they haven't been married? Are you worried that issuing marriage licenses will lead to increased homosexual sex and showing affection in public? That argument doesn't hold water.

I think that you simply don't like the idea of seeing two guys holding hands or two chicks shacking up together. That's OK. We all have a right to think and feel whatever we want to. However, this doesn't allow you to infringe on the rights of others. Again, if you don't want to marry a guy, don't.


----------



## mr.trooper (Aug 3, 2004)

That's not what this is about BD! No, I don't like the idea of same sex couples. BUT THEY STILL HAVE A RIGHT TO DO WHATEVER THEY WANT! QUIT ACCUSING ME OF TYING TO SUPRESS PEOPLES RIGHTS. HOW MANY TIMES HAVE I SAID THAT I THINK THEY SHOULD HAVE EQUAL RIGHTS!?!?!?!?!?!? Fine, recognize same sex unions. I don't care. I honestly do not care. But that doesn't change the fact that you've missed the point of my posts!

THE POINT: I don't have a problem with some people living "alternative" lifestyles; even if I think they are wrong, because they are perfectly free to do that. That's their choice. The problem is that the more "alternative" styles there are, the less people there are to live a more traditional life style (what people used to call the American way.) if nobody chooses to live like that anymore, then that way of life will naturally die, and the culture that made us great will change into something else entirely. We are becoming more like Europe every day, and that's something I don't want to see. After all, if Europe was as peachy of a place as the "modernist" of today seems to think it is, then why would we have left it to begin with? I AM SIMPLY TRYNG WHAT I CAN TO PRESERVE WHAT LITTLE IS LEFT FROM OUR GOLDEN AGE. That is my point.


----------



## SniperPride (Sep 20, 2004)

God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.


----------

