It's ridiculous how Bush promised a few years ago to amend the Constitution to ban same sex marriage. Either you're pissing in the same pot or you're not, and if you're not, than you can't claim to live in the freest of nations and to purportedly stand for "moral values". One thing that can't be overemphasized enough when you talk about the presidency of George W. Bush: empty words. "Freedom" and "Patriotic" and "Moral Values" don't mean anything if you keep abandoning them like he does. Gays are here to stay. It's already shameful enough that they keep having to interrupt their lives to defend themselves from narrowminded people whose lives aren't interrupted in the least by gayness. Gays are everywhere, they work with you in your banks and in your offices, they have a way with hair, decorating homes and color coordination, and are responsible for a whole generation of straight men who tend more carefully to their hygiene and appearance(metrosexuals). Give them a break already and let them get married. It'll restore meaning to freedom and liberty for all again, too.

(emphasis mine)

Not to nitpick, but I don't believe the president ever promised such a thing (though he did, I think, support the legislative innitative), and regardless, it isn't possible for the executive branch to ammend the constitution: only congress has that power.

Your God has declared alot of things to be wrong, - things that people with convictions similar to yours are not hellbent on upholding as wrongdoings but in fact either don't see anything wrong with or readily admit to as not being their business. Why is this case so very different?

Two individuals of the same gender can not procreate. Sure. But exactly which "laws" of biology does it violate?

Be careful making these kinds of claims. Other threads can showcase a specific person getting more and more entangled in his own self-declared need to find objective measures as justification for his so-called morals (in this case resulting in a completely absurd and increasingly deranged perception of arithmetic).

In heterosexual unions there is a chance for a child to be conceived either if there is a will to make a child or, otherwise, if no precautions are taken to prevent a child from being made.

If you forget the willful acts of wanting or not wanting a child, you leave yourself open to all sorts of questions regarding any advantage you may claim of heterosexual unions over homosexual unions. This of course includes non-consensual kinds of unions (e.g. incest and rape), consensual unions with no procreational desires, unions that have the desire to make a child but simply cannot procreate. Not even to mention a whole lot of questions regarding sexual orientations being solely justifiable because they're displayed by a heterosexual person (even when some of those orientations result in acts that are identical to homosexual sex acts). Seeing all these situations from the same premise that your "God is right" seems to me to cry out for one single fact of your beliefs: Your God may be right but, if he is, he made a terrible mess of his own creation.

Why do you say that? Do you really believe, just because someone disagrees with the behavior of homosexuals and doesnt feel that their activities deserve any special treatment, that same person wants to see homosexuals jailed?

__________________
In case you were wondering, yes, there really ARE more idiots these days....technology has made natural selection obsolete.

Based on their vehement criticism, yeah, I do believe that, given it as an option, some people here would like to see homosexuals jailed for no other reason than they're homosexuals.

Earlier, someone predicted that there would be at least two "YES" votes.

Check the poll.

It comes as no surprise...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

So does that mean that everything YOU criticize you want made illegal?

Criticism of a behavior does not mean people want it made illegal. For example, i would criticize anyone who chose not to wear a seatbelt, and wouldnt allow them to ride in my car without one, but i have never supported seatbelt laws.

__________________
In case you were wondering, yes, there really ARE more idiots these days....technology has made natural selection obsolete.

There are two yes vote so far, coincidentally I think Hank and kinetic have voted.

__________________
Is our children learning? -George W. Bush

"I think—tide turning—see, as I remember—I was raised in the desert, but tides kind of—it's easy to see a tide turn—did I say those words?"—Washington, D.C., June 14, 2006

"[T]he illiteracy level of our children are appalling."—Washington, D.C., Jan. 23, 2004

Being gay is just the same as being a man or woman, black or white or any other race. It isn't an illness or a disease. It's what you are "programmed" for in your DNA. It's nothing you can control. It's the ones who treat it as if it is a disease that spread fear.

__________________
Power is not a means, it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power.

- George Orwell, 1984

Not at all.

Then again, somebody voted yes and, based on posts I’ve read on this forum, I’d bet a dollar that one of those people was Dodge (Kinetic).

If you want to know if I want to make something I criticize illegal, start a poll. I’ll partake…

Fair enough.

But, the fact that two people answered "YES" does mean that they want to make it illegal. Who do you think those people are? People who haven't criticized homosexuality?

Bad example, as not wearing a seat belt is already, by and large, illegal. We're talking about taking something that isn't illegal, and making it so...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

This response is for you and Jason Marcel:
You seem to think that we are interfering in a private matter but that is where you are mistaken. Consider the following.
1. True of false, Homosexuals are coming to government and asking for a liscense for what they are doing?
2. True or false, Government is the agent of the public?
3. True or false, the other things that you are referring to are not coming to government and asking for a liscense for them?

We aren't talking about a private issue that is just going on in a persons home, we are talking about legal recognition. If they had left it in the privacy of their homes we may not be having this debate but that isn't the case. They came to government (a public realm) and asked for a liscense for what they are doing in their homes. How many other immoral activites do this? (I can guarantee that you will have a hard time thinking of some others and if you do manage to come up with a few, most likely I oppose legal recognition of them as well) When something comes to the government and asks for a liscense, that something is the buisness of the public.

Secondly, we aren't forcing anything. See below:
Lastly, you seem to think that they have a right to be legally recognised which is another falsehood. The equal protection of the law protects individuals but does not protect lifestyles, actions or feelings. As individuals we cannot deprive them of the rights that all individuals have (freedom of speech, right to a trial by jury, etc.) but their lifestyles, actions and feelings are not entitled to be recognised by law. One Ex. A local government chooses to have a freeway with no bike lane and chooses to bans bicycles from it. That doesn't mean that they are denying equal protection of the law. Riding a bicycle is a personal lifestyle. Another Ex. Why don't singles have the "rights" that you claim?

I think you know really. Male and Female bodies are compatable with each other. Two of the same gender are not.

This doesn't matter because in their natural state children would come along. Try that in a homosexual union.

I don't see how that leaves me open. We are talking about which unions can have children.

Do incest and rape have legal recognition? Nope. Besides we oppose these things (as they are also morally wrong) as well.

By stating that heterosexual marriages are the only ones that should be recognised that does not (and you know it) mean that we are saying that any heterosexual activity is alright.

Again, irrelevant because in their natural state children would come along. With or without the desire there will be no children in a homosexual union and their natural state is not capable of creating children.

Again, irrelevant. Take away the defects and children come along. Try that with a homosexual union.

Addressed above. Just because something is done between two of the opposite gender doesn't mean it is alright. Take rape for an example. Some things are alright and some things aren't and guess who defines the line. God does. Sexual relations within marriage are okay but adultery, fornication, rape, incest and homosexuality are all not okay.

No, humans have made a terrible mess of things. He created a simple system. Men are the ones that complicate things. God's system is that men and women are the only ones who get married and that they then stay faithful to each other. Mankind are the ones that choose to bring other things into the picture.

You may not like this but I will say it anyway: Let's face it. The reason you brought up alot of these things is the same reason that others arguing for homosexuality do. That is that they want to make things seem so complicated that people in essence lose their sense of direction and become willing to accept anything. Again, I'm sorry if that seems rude but that is the truth. Perhaps you are just restating something that someone else told you but don't let this argument fool you. I know deep down that you and everyone else has a conscience and ultimately knows what is right and wrong. People bring up this kind of argument to try to silence that conscience, to make it seem that maybe your conscience isn't right. All it is doing is trying to create confusion so that people won't believe their consciences. It doesn't change what the conscience says or what is right, however. With this said, I bear you no ill will and I am not trying to make you feel bad. I am simply trying to help you and everyone else to see things clearly. Some people are honestly misled by the media and other influences but would do the right thing if not for that. These are still good people they just have gotten a little disoriented. The people that are bad are the ones that know what is right and wrong and then choose to do wrong anyway.

__________________
Serious Quotes:


Funny But True Quotes
Those who argue for complete secularism are funny. They see what government does and then argue that we don't need it to start with prayer.

Is it a bad example? He is talking about something that is done involving consenting adults...

Really? Then why can people choose to not act on the said innate attribute? People don't wake up in the morning with a feeling about with race or gender they should be and then choose to act on it. I don't wake up in the morning and say that I feel like I should be caucasian or that I feel I should be male and then choose my skin color and gender. I also cannot choose to resist actions on the said things. Homosexuals don't have to date or pursue those of the same gender.

__________________
Serious Quotes:


Funny But True Quotes
Those who argue for complete secularism are funny. They see what government does and then argue that we don't need it to start with prayer.

Just because I feel like I can understand where homosexuals come from. Does not mean I think gay marriage is an appropriate solution. I think this will only increase tensions, I do not and you should not expect a person of faith to approve of homosexuality. I personally do not look forward to the day where everyone is declared the same and equal. I prefer to be different and better.

Bad example, because it's discussing something which the powers-that-be have already made illegal, and it discusses something which people have absolute control over: whether or not they buckle up.

Let's look at something else, instead: Having blonde hair. Should having blonde hair be illegal? People can't control what color hair they're born with, just as they can't control their sexual orientation.

Wouldn't it be silly to suggest that having blonde hair should be illegal?

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

It's about 20 degrees out. Be my guest. However, if you do it in front of a trailer, you are not at my house.First, I hate no one. Second, what you are advocating is the opposite of 'keeping America out of your bedroom' and not only engaging in homosexual conduct, but behavior that would be a criminal offense.

__________________
United We Stand.