Gay marriage opponents seek to reverse new law - Sentinel & Ent...

Bruce W Marien wrote:

<quoted text>
I will debate with regard to the issue posted on the thread...I will not debate the subject of gay rights for those of you that continue to make this thread an issue of gay rights instead of the actual subject.
The original comment I made was with regard to the arrogance of Massachusetts to change a law that will present an opportunity for a group of people to circumvent other state laws. Beyond that, I am not going to debate gay rights...that subject is an endless debate with no resolution. Either you support gay rights or you don't...end of subject, andy further discussion is pointless.

Rose T-H wrote:

<quoted text>
Hi Tony C,
The difficult aspect of heterosexuals to understand is it is not straight marriage, nor is it gay marriage, it is just marriage.
Get married, get all of the rights and benefits.
Don't get married, get no rights or benefits.
Pretty simple concept.
Oh, by the way, My new wife and I got married this last Saturday and it was a beautiful ceremony in front of our family and friends.
Blessed Be

Fort Myers wrote:

<quoted text>
It won't be easy accepting the zoosexuals either but it will come one day just like homosexuality did.

Davin wrote:

<quoted text>The ridiculous

Frogdoc wrote:

<quoted text>
Homosexuals are the mniority. About 4% of the population. Again we bow to the minority. If people really want a democracy then lets vote. I guaruntee the homo klan will lose. What will you libreal homosexuals do when the Muslims take over in America? You will be killed, that is what. The Muslims kill the homosexuals in the countries they have control in now. You love "freedom of expression" and "Freedom of speech". But you hate it when those freedoms are expressed by people with normal views on life.
Yes I say normal. The natural, or normal, cycle of life is for a man and a woman to reproduce. To men cannot do this hence it is not normal. Nor can two woman.

Judged:

1

1

1

Will wrote:

<quoted text>
You fail to consider that churchgoers VOTE and that their MOTIVES for who they vote for and what they vote for are beyond the ability of any court to reach, provided only that the voting churchgoers don't "establish" a state religion.
Supporting political candidates and political policies that merely reflect the values of churchgoers is NOT "establishing" a state religion, no matter how you try to spin it otherwise.

Judged:

1

1

1

Pagan and Proud wrote:

<quoted text>LOL, no, actually her wife is the equivalent of the stay at home 50's mother.

Judged:

1

1

1

Frogdoc wrote:

<quoted text>
I do not look down on gay people.
People are nit dying in the streets from over popluation. If that is one of your arguments did you have a party after 100,000 people died in Indonesia and southern Asia after the tsunami? I will bet that made you happy. Helping to keep down over population according to you.
As far as America goes we have populated less than 17% of our land. So I think we have a ways to go. Besides if you are lucky we will hae more natural disasters that kill lots of people. Perhaps HIV will mutate and kill more peole in Africa like it is now. I bet you love seeing the populationin Africa reduced so we dont over populate???

Frogdoc wrote:

I have friends that are gay and repect them very much. My wife and I have a couple (male) that come over for dinner or to hang out at the pool and have a good time. I believe that I may have come off a little over the top sounding. ot my intention.
I do not feel that marriage is betwen two people of the same sex. A few people like to quote and make up quotes concerning the law. We have what is called "A slippery slope". If you want to give two men or two women the right ot marry then you must not infringe on the rights of polygimist? What if three men want to get maried? Why cant they? The same argument you argue for two men I can argue for three men or two men and two women, or one man and 5 women. Where do we stop.
America is a nation that was founded with morals and laws. When we start to bow down to every little group that screams loud enough we will no longer be a great nation.

Judged:

1

1

1

Bruce W Marien wrote:

<quoted text>
The laws in those states do not abridge priveledges or immunity, they do not take away life, liberty, or property, and they do not remove equal protection...nice try.

Frogdoc wrote:

<quoted text>
Well since we are now calling names I do very well understande how this country designed to work BUTT PLUG!!
I served to protect your right to take it in the terd cutter for 14 years and now have a severe limp from taking two bullets in the hip so you can screw your man friend. I think I know. I am book smart besides street smart. I also have a college education.
Oh, your welcome!

Rose T-H wrote:

<quoted text>
Hey Pagan and Proud,
You are right.
My wife is truly the stay at home "housewife".
She is very proud of that title.
Blessed Be

Judged:

1

1

1

Pagan and Proud wrote:

<quoted text>Yep, I understand that. Too bad the bigots never will. It's sad really, watching them attempt to define how others should live their lives. it must be really horrible to be so bitter and base your happiness on what you think others should or shouldn't have.

Judged:

1

1

1

devons wrote:

<quoted text>
If you didn't look down on gay people you would never consider using the ability to procreate as something to use against them.
I said 'when' people are dying in the streets. And yes, people are dying in our streets....it's just we don't want to see it. We don't seem to be able to care for our mentally ill in a way that leaves them with much dignity.
I just feel that as our resources are dwindling we should start looking for an answer rather then waiting until it's too late and people are dying because there isn't enough. But if you want to look at it as if I'm happy when people die that is your choice.
Apparently you don't mind eating up more of our land and cutting down forests and taking more and more farm land to continue to develop. I guess that's why we will face going into the dark because we still have oil so why look for an alternative now.
Don't worry, there are enough 'normal' thinking people that will lead us to an answer. You can continue to sit back and wait for others to solve the problems for you. In that way you will never have to take off those rose colored glasses and see reality and you can continue to believe that certain people deserve to be treated differently just because they don't fit into a certain category.

Frogdoc wrote:

<quoted text>
Since you are trying make a point with a "Global Warming" agenda and population ponder this:
Oil naturally comes out of the ground and flows into the oceans, seas and the Gulf of Mexico. Since oil is so bad should we take that oil tht floats to the top of the water and pour it onto the ground so it can soak back in? It came from the ground so why not go to ANWR and dump the oil on the ground there. It can soak back into the ground where it comes from. That oil arugment is silly.
You like to use the guise of over population but when people die by the hundreds of thousands are you happy? You should be because thtt fis your agenda.
As far as gay marriage, I like the arguement that it should be "Marriage" and not gay marriage or any other speific type of marriage. I think that is a good point. And I agree with it even though I morally do not like it. I feel the point is well made. Hate to admit it but I am open for alternate points of view or and I do believe in the constitution. I just do not feel (and when we speak constutionaly feelings should be put asisde) that a group should get mor rights. I believe the gay community does not want the same protections they want more protection and more rigths. Just as the blacks want more rights and more protections than the Jew or the white guy.

Judged:

1

1

1

Frogdoc wrote:

I have friends that are gay and repect them very much. My wife and I have a couple (male) that come over for dinner or to hang out at the pool and have a good time. I believe that I may have come off a little over the top sounding. ot my intention.
I do not feel that marriage is betwen two people of the same sex. A few people like to quote and make up quotes concerning the law. We have what is called "A slippery slope". If you want to give two men or two women the right ot marry then you must not infringe on the rights of polygimist? What if three men want to get maried? Why cant they? The same argument you argue for two men I can argue for three men or two men and two women, or one man and 5 women. Where do we stop.
America is a nation that was founded with morals and laws. When we start to bow down to every little group that screams loud enough we will no longer be a great nation.

Frogdoc wrote:

mar·riage Audio Help /&#712;mær&#618;d& #658;/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[mar-ij] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
2. the state, condition, or relationship of being married; wedlock: a happy marriage.
3. the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of a man and woman to live as husband and wife, including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage.
4. a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife, without legal sanction: trial marriage; homosexual marriage.
5. any close or intimate association or union: the marriage of words and music in a hit song.
6. a formal agreement between two companies or enterprises to combine operations, resources, etc., for mutual benefit; merger.
When do we change the definition? I have seen no where marraige is defined between two men or two women or a man and 5 women. The definition is singular and between individuals of diferent sexes.