[MedTechRR]

well, maybe just for the male and the fat/ugly female ones, lol. All I know is we're gonna be covered with them. Massachusetts just made it legal for gays to get married. I really don't care one way or another, people can do whatever they want and I think all people should have equal rights to get married, adopt, blah blah blah. I think it's really funny seeing all the religous people protesting saying it's unholy, immoral, etc. Yet that shouldn't matter at all since church is separate from government. Oh well, some people will always be prejudice. Must suck to be so closed-minded.

[alexandra]

in retaliation to that Gov. Taft here in Ohio passed a ban on gay marriages so that people can't go to Mass., get married and come back here. No benefits what so ever for legally married gay couples. He said he was trying to send out a positive message to our children

[MedTechRR]

positive message my ass. It's a joke. Hey, while where at it lets make a law that black women can't marry white men, or jewish women can't marry catholic men. I don't see it any other way, it's discrimination no matter how you put it. Yeah, i want my kids growing up thinking they're better than others because of their sexual preference, NOT. Oh well, maybe some day people will get over it.

[HondaGalToo]

And now Bush is trying to pass a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriages, denying power reserved to the states. This undermines the very integrity of the Constitution by upsetting the balance between the states and the federal government.
It's just plain wrong when someone in a position of power is denying civil rights to a segment of society based on his own personal religious or moral beliefs. Such an amendment would also nullify the civil unions/domestic partner acts. That just isn't right. It's one thing to insist that a marriage is only between a man and a woman, but all couples should have the same entitlements when it comes to health benefits, taxes, joint ownership of property, hospital visitation rights, etc. To deny these is to continue to treat a segment of the population as second class citizens.

[HondaGalToo]

Originally Posted by 2k2954

positive message my ass. It's a joke. Hey, while where at it lets make a law that black women can't marry white men, or jewish women can't marry catholic men. I don't see it any other way, it's discrimination no matter how you put it. Yeah, i want my kids growing up thinking they're better than others because of their sexual preference, NOT. Oh well, maybe some day people will get over it.

Yeah, I'm with ya! And, there was a time not really so long ago, that it was illegal for blacks to marry whites. That wasn't right either. People are just afraid of other people who are different from themselves. Rather than embracing those differences and learning that we're all really much more alike than we are different, they act out their fear by discrimination. And worse, like beatings and killings.

[roadracer319]

So when your son comes up to you and says: " Hey Dad, I think I want to marry a man". That will be fine with you? Not me, Hell no!

[Fig]

2k2 I realize you are trying to have a tolerant attitude, but it totally conflicts with the subject line you posted...

Me, I am just sick and tired of govt, catering to these wacko groups. There's enough of these fringe lunatics who believe that the US is just a bunch of redneck right wingers that they should branch off and form their own country where everything off the wall is legal. Might not be well defended, but it damn sure would be color coordinated..

You want to be gay, ok by me as long as you aren't pushing it in my face.. They've pushed this whole queer thing in the media to where you would just assume almost everyone is gay anyway..

[roadracer319]

Originally Posted by Fig

2k2 I realize you are trying to have a tolerant attitude, but it totally conflicts with the subject line you posted...

Me, I am just sick and tired of govt, catering to these wacko groups. There's enough of these fringe lunatics who believe that the US is just a bunch of redneck right wingers that they should branch off and form their own country where everything off the wall is legal. Might not be well defended, but it damn sure would be color coordinated..

You want to be gay, ok by me as long as you aren't pushing it in my face.. They've pushed this whole queer thing in the media to where you would just assume almost everyone is gay anyway..

That's right!

[BDA116]

Originally Posted by HondaGalToo

And now Bush is trying to pass a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriages, denying power reserved to the states. This undermines the very integrity of the Constitution by upsetting the balance between the states and the federal government.

As does the Roe vs. Wade decision. Both decisions should be left to the state, not the Federal Govt. If a certain state wants to ban all gay marriages and/or abortions, it should be their right. The opposite is also true in that if a state wants to legalize gay marriage and/or abortion they should be allowed. Same holds true with gambling, prostitution, etc.
That said, you do realize that there would be no tax benefits to marriage without the Bush tax cuts, right? Before 2002 and unless Congress makes the cut permanent being married brings tax penalties.
Also, marriage has always been and should continue to be a religious institution - one that government should not control.
If certain religions want to marry two same-sex partners, so be it, but the government should not impose on this.
Using these same standards, why is it OK to say you can't be married to multiple partners, but not OK to say you can't be married to one of the same sex?
Polygamy is illegal in all 50 states, yet no one is jumping on the bandwagon for them.
Government should not be allowed to control what happens between consenting adults.
The Federal governement has already trashed the states' rights issue many times over, why is it an issue here?
Consitency?

[roadracer319]

Someone wants to marry a man....

[BDA116]

Forgot to add this:
Why on earth is it called an extremist viewpoint to disagree with homosexuality and abortion? The majority of Americans have these viewpoints and as such these are actually mainstream beliefs.
What IS extremist is pushing the gay and/or abortion agenda to the point where states and all people HAVE to accept it. The viewpoints that homosexuality and murdering a fetus are perfectly acceptable, and should be viewed as such by everyone are two of the most extreme our country faces today. Because they are extreme left it can't be called as such? Because something is a bit to the right of these extreme left beliefs and are actually mainstream they have to be labelled as extreme?

I think homosexuality is disgusting, and want it kept away from me. If two guys want to do something that is completely against nature, it is their right, but it is my right to want to keep away from it.
I think that murdering a fetus is deplorable. Even worse when it is used as a form of birth control - which is it's primary use.
So holding these beliefs makes ME extreme? Makes me a homophobe? Makes me an abortionphobe?
Wrong. These beliefs make me a mainstream American.

[luvtolean]

Originally Posted by alexandra

in retaliation to that Gov. Taft here in Ohio passed a ban on gay marriages so that people can't go to Mass., get married and come back here. No benefits what so ever for legally married gay couples.

There actually are. "Domestic Partner" laws are in effect to get insurance and everything whether you are married or not. I just looked into this as I want to add my GF to my insurance. The only real requirement is that you be together with one partner, regardless of sex, for 12 months. Married couples don't really get tax breaks so there's not much advantage there...

Basically the rights are there, but the gay community likes to use this as a rally cry. Which is fine with me, I don't particularly care if they're married or not.

[figment]

I dont think Homosexuals should be allowed to reproduce.

[HondaGalToo]

Originally Posted by BDA116

Forgot to add this:
Why on earth is it called an extremist viewpoint to disagree with homosexuality and abortion? The majority of Americans have these viewpoints and as such these are actually mainstream beliefs.
What IS extremist is pushing the gay and/or abortion agenda to the point where states and all people HAVE to accept it. The viewpoints that homosexuality and murdering a fetus are perfectly acceptable, and should be viewed as such by everyone are two of the most extreme our country faces today. Because they are extreme left it can't be called as such? Because something is a bit to the right of these extreme left beliefs and are actually mainstream they have to be labelled as extreme?

I think homosexuality is disgusting, and want it kept away from me. If two guys want to do something that is completely against nature, it is their right, but it is my right to want to keep away from it.
I think that murdering a fetus is deplorable. Even worse when it is used as a form of birth control - which is it's primary use.
So holding these beliefs makes ME extreme? Makes me a homophobe? Makes me an abortionphobe?
Wrong. These beliefs make me a mainstream American.

But by being "mainstream American" does that make it right to deny civil rights to a group of people? You want it kept away from you, fine. But don't deny someone their rights.

[BDA116]

I'm not denying anyone their civil rights.
Like I said, if two guys or gals want to defy nature, let them - it is their right.
However, marriage is NOT a civil rights issue. Marriage is a religious issue. Let them live together, have their civil unions, whatever. But to force me to accept their views is as much a denial of my civil rights.
Marriage should be up to the religion, and is not a civil rights issue. If religions don't want to recognize gay marriage, they don't have to. Forcing them to IS a Constitutional issue.


I'll ask again, is it OK for multiple men/women to mary multiple men/women?
Is not allowing a man to marry two or more women an invasion of their civil rights?

[roadracer319]

Can we get back to talking about motorcycles now?

[HondaGalToo]

Originally Posted by BDA116

I'm not denying anyone their civil rights.
Like I said, if two guys or gals want to defy nature, let them - it is their right.
However, marriage is NOT a civil rights issue. Marriage is a religious issue. Let them live together, have their civil unions, whatever. But to force me to accept their views is as much a denial of my civil rights.
Marriage should be up to the religion, and is not a civil rights issue. If religions don't want to recognize gay marriage, they don't have to. Forcing them to IS a Constitutional issue.


I'll ask again, is it OK for multiple men/women to mary multiple men/women?
Is not allowing a man to marry two or more women an invasion of their civil rights?

Ok, fair enough. If you want to consider marriage a religious issue, I can agree with that. It's the equality that I'd want for all, which you agree with since you said civil unions are ok in your book. You don't have to accept views different from your own, just tolerate them and acknowledge that although we're not all the same, everyone deserves to be treated fairly and with equality.

I don't know about polygamy issue. I don't know enough about it, or the mentality associated with it. I guess I see a loving relationship as being between 2 people, whether it be same sex or opposite sex. I think I see polygamy more as the one person who married all the others as their "owner" somehow, rather than an equal partner in a loving relationship.

ok, back to motorcycles. When is Spring going to get here?

[abtech]

Originally Posted by HondaGalToo

Ok, fair enough. If you want to consider marriage a religious issue, I can agree with that. It's the equality that I'd want for all, which you agree with since you said civil unions are ok in your book. You don't have to accept views different from your own, just tolerate them and acknowledge that although we're not all the same, everyone deserves to be treated fairly and with equality.

I don't know about polygamy issue. I don't know enough about it, or the mentality associated with it. I guess I see a loving relationship as being between 2 people, whether it be same sex or opposite sex. I think I see polygamy more as the one person who married all the others as their "owner" somehow, rather than an equal partner in a loving relationship.

ok, back to motorcycles. When is Spring going to get here?

I have it on good authority that spring will be here March 21st at around 23:59:59.

[BDA116]

Originally Posted by HondaGalToo

I don't know about polygamy issue. I don't know enough about it, or the mentality associated with it. I guess I see a loving relationship as being between 2 people, whether it be same sex or opposite sex. I think I see polygamy more as the one person who married all the others as their "owner" somehow, rather than an equal partner in a loving relationship.

ok, back to motorcycles. When is Spring going to get here?

Personally, morally and religiously I think it is wrong. There is a bit of it here in the state, with a large colonoy of polygamists on the Arizona border in the news almost nightly. There are a lot of them - young girls among - them that want out, and are causing a stir. It seems there is a lot of control with them, but my point was just that there are fully consenting adults among them that claim to be lovong families that are trying to force the state to see polygamy as legal.
The point I was trying to make is that there are those that are for the gay marriage issue, and against the polygamy issue when they are the same thing. I find it odd when that happens, but that seems not to be the case here.
The lawyers for this polygamist clan are actually watching the gay marriage issue very closely and have cited the Massachussettes event in building their case, as it is pretty much the same issue.

Oh, and I think the stir crazy will start to diminish here on the board about the first weekend in March. :wink:

[ULEWZ]

I don't care what people do in the privacy of their own homes (straight or gay), but I do object to seeing it openly in the streets and pushing their agenda on me. Most gay people don't bother me and I could care less, but the openly soliciting their next piece right in front of me does.

[HondaGalToo]

Originally Posted by ULEWZ

I don't care what people do in the privacy of their own homes (straight or gay), but I do object to seeing it openly in the streets and pushing their agenda on me. Most gay people don't bother me and I could care less, but the openly soliciting their next piece right in front of me does.

I agree. I don't want to see 2 of anything sucking face in public, gay or straight. Get a room!

[HondaGalToo]

Originally Posted by BDA116

Personally, morally and religiously I think it is wrong. There is a bit of it here in the state, with a large colonoy of polygamists on the Arizona border in the news almost nightly. There are a lot of them - young girls among - them that want out, and are causing a stir. It seems there is a lot of control with them, but my point was just that there are fully consenting adults among them that claim to be lovong families that are trying to force the state to see polygamy as legal.
The point I was trying to make is that there are those that are for the gay marriage issue, and against the polygamy issue when they are the same thing. I find it odd when that happens, but that seems not to be the case here.
The lawyers for this polygamist clan are actually watching the gay marriage issue very closely and have cited the Massachussettes event in building their case, as it is pretty much the same issue.

Oh, and I think the stir crazy will start to diminish here on the board about the first weekend in March. :wink:

Hmmm, now, do the Mormons, a religious group, still support polygamy? If it's consensual, I don't care what they do. But, if it's a controlling thing, especially if minors are involved, then that's a whole different matter.

[BDA116]

Originally Posted by HondaGalToo

Hmmm, now, do the Mormons, a religious group, still support polygamy? If it's consensual, I don't care what they do. But, if it's a controlling thing, especially if minors are involved, then that's a whole different matter.

Um, no. One of the many rumors about the Mormon church that is absolutely false. Polygamy is both illegal in Utah and against the teachings of the Mormon church, rather it is an excommunicable offense.
There are a couple factions - this one on the Arizona border I spoke of is one - that have formed their own religions that they call "Reformed" or "Reorganized" Mormons, or something like that. They are the polygamist organizations, and typically where the controlling types are.
There is one guy that actually got convicted a few days ago for marrying his cousin/aunt when she was a minor. Sick clan, that one is. http://tv.ksl.com/index.php?nid=5&sid=71647 There's the story about the weirdo.

The only major religion I know of that actively supports and teaches polygamy is Islam.

Come on racin' season.