Topic: Gay Marriage should be legal!
Lynann's photo
Wed 12/17/08 04:39 PM
I think anyone who presumes to speak for God will one day be asking for God's forgiveness.

Giocamo's photo
Wed 12/17/08 04:43 PM

I think anyone who presumes to speak for God will one day be asking for God's forgiveness.


duly noted...

Seamonster's photo
Wed 12/17/08 04:45 PM



I think ALL OF YOU need to go ask for God's forgiveness.


I think YOU need to keep YOUR god out of my life.laugh


SeaMonster has a good video pertaining to that.laugh


and here it is.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5YrB7TpT1Y

JaymeStephens84a0lc's photo
Wed 12/17/08 04:46 PM



I just want to ask this to anyone against gay marriage:

How does 2 people of the same sex marrying effect YOUR daily life? Does it take food off your table? Clothes off your back? A roof from above your head? Does it leave scars? Does it make your significant other love you less? Does it make your children grow purple horns? If it doesn't effect you, why does it matter to you? It doesn't effect me, I believe anyone who wants to marry should be able to and there should be NO issues with it. There shouldn't have to be a law instated for it, because in all honesty there shouldn't be any laws against it. Its unethical. Did you know that there were NO laws against it until recently? It was a deterrent Bush used to get our minds off the war and onto something else he wanted to screw up.



Well, it is kinda gross seeing two guy kissing.



Then don't look.:wink:

It's probably gross to them to see a man and a women kiss.


Its gross to me to see anyone mauling each other in public... I don't care what their orientation is. One doesn't bother me more then the other though...lol.

Winx's photo
Wed 12/17/08 04:47 PM




I think ALL OF YOU need to go ask for God's forgiveness.


I think YOU need to keep YOUR god out of my life.laugh


SeaMonster has a good video pertaining to that.laugh


and here it is.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5YrB7TpT1Y


A little help here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5YrB7TpT1Y

Foliel's photo
Wed 12/17/08 10:21 PM
hmmm asking a god i dont believe in for forgiveness?

i'm not sure that would work too well laugh :banana:

no photo
Wed 12/17/08 10:53 PM

hmmm asking a god i dont believe in for forgiveness?

i'm not sure that would work too well laugh :banana:


Good pointlaugh

adj4u's photo
Wed 12/17/08 11:02 PM
i must say i am impressed this may go to part two


imagine that



everyone did good


how did this happen



:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

flowerforyou flowerforyou flowerforyou flowerforyou

drinker drinker drinker drinker


Seakolony's photo
Thu 12/18/08 05:19 AM


Okay well you are wrong on several points.

Those opposed to gay marriage began to urge that an amendment to the Constitution be created to define marriage as being between a man and a woman only in about 2002 or so. Opponents of the amendment pointed to the failed Prohibition Amendment as a reason why such social issues should stay out of the Constitution. In the absence of any such amendment, however, marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution at any point.

The United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land and does not mention or define marriage.

Maybe you should acquaint yourself with some facts.

AIDS? Well gosh, infection rates are high among heterosexuals particularly in populations over 60 years old. Must mean old people are bad!!! Oh they shouldn't be allowed around children or allowed to adopt or marry.

Ever heard of Log Cabin Republicans? Gay republicans...bet that rocks some peoples boat. Humm if a gay republican organization gave a fund-raiser for Sarah Palin wonder who would attend?

Oh and umm the idea of majority rules wasn't a big favorite of the founding fathers. You see a fine example in the creation of the electoral college that was designed to stop states with large populations from dictating to smaller states and in the writings of both the Jeffersonian and the Federalist founders who feared mob or majority rules thinking that trampled the rights of those who embraced different religious and political philosophies.

Some of your statements like "Gay couples do not care about democracy in America." are well...never mind...





Did they not get a bill passed before the Supreme court against the will of the voters of California in 1992?Are they not suing now.Are they not working to overide it?Do you call that Democracy?No I do not believe the Supreme court has the final word in this country.I belive the voters have the final word in this country.That is exactly why after they voted on prop 8 gay marriage was null and void despite what the Supreme court says.So you are wrong on the Supreme court having the final say.

The founding fathers didn't belive in democracy?What are you smoking???Does the words "We the people" mean anything to you?Do we not vote on everything.Have we ever had a dictatorship or communism in this country?

And for your information the amendment for Marriage definition for a man and woman passed every time it was voted on.It simply did not have the majority rule to make it into the constitution.Nor is it dead.It was current as of 2008 and will be voted on again.



What I wish to know......is since marriage is a religious ceremony, why would anyone homosexual would wish to involve themselves in a religious ceremony anyways.....furthermore, due to seperation of religion and state why does one with a religious ceremony get bigger tax breaks than a person without....why is recognized by our government there? Just end it and grant the same rights to Unmarried partner as married partners with no definition of gender. grumble

no photo
Thu 12/18/08 05:32 AM
Edited by Unknow on Thu 12/18/08 05:39 AM



Okay well you are wrong on several points.

Those opposed to gay marriage began to urge that an amendment to the Constitution be created to define marriage as being between a man and a woman only in about 2002 or so. Opponents of the amendment pointed to the failed Prohibition Amendment as a reason why such social issues should stay out of the Constitution. In the absence of any such amendment, however, marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution at any point.

The United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land and does not mention or define marriage.

Maybe you should acquaint yourself with some facts.

AIDS? Well gosh, infection rates are high among heterosexuals particularly in populations over 60 years old. Must mean old people are bad!!! Oh they shouldn't be allowed around children or allowed to adopt or marry.

Ever heard of Log Cabin Republicans? Gay republicans...bet that rocks some peoples boat. Humm if a gay republican organization gave a fund-raiser for Sarah Palin wonder who would attend?

Oh and umm the idea of majority rules wasn't a big favorite of the founding fathers. You see a fine example in the creation of the electoral college that was designed to stop states with large populations from dictating to smaller states and in the writings of both the Jeffersonian and the Federalist founders who feared mob or majority rules thinking that trampled the rights of those who embraced different religious and political philosophies.

Some of your statements like "Gay couples do not care about democracy in America." are well...never mind...





Did they not get a bill passed before the Supreme court against the will of the voters of California in 1992?Are they not suing now.Are they not working to overide it?Do you call that Democracy?No I do not believe the Supreme court has the final word in this country.I belive the voters have the final word in this country.That is exactly why after they voted on prop 8 gay marriage was null and void despite what the Supreme court says.So you are wrong on the Supreme court having the final say.

The founding fathers didn't belive in democracy?What are you smoking???Does the words "We the people" mean anything to you?Do we not vote on everything.Have we ever had a dictatorship or communism in this country?

And for your information the amendment for Marriage definition for a man and woman passed every time it was voted on.It simply did not have the majority rule to make it into the constitution.Nor is it dead.It was current as of 2008 and will be voted on again.



What I wish to know......is since marriage is a religious ceremony, why would anyone homosexual would wish to involve themselves in a religious ceremony anyways.....furthermore, due to seperation of religion and state why does one with a religious ceremony get bigger tax breaks than a person without....why is recognized by our government there? Just end it and grant the same rights to Unmarried partner as married partners with no definition of gender. grumble
"Seperation of Church and State"!!!! There is no such a thing!!!! I have argued that over and over and have been proven wrong. But to me that does not make it right and I will argue there should be a defined line between church and state every time because I believe church has no business in State!!!!

Is marriage a religious thing? One would question the need to go to court to get a divorce!!! Why do you have to apply for a marriage licence? Why the need for prenups? Why is alimony forced to be paid?

Seakolony's photo
Thu 12/18/08 05:40 AM




Okay well you are wrong on several points.

Those opposed to gay marriage began to urge that an amendment to the Constitution be created to define marriage as being between a man and a woman only in about 2002 or so. Opponents of the amendment pointed to the failed Prohibition Amendment as a reason why such social issues should stay out of the Constitution. In the absence of any such amendment, however, marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution at any point.

The United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land and does not mention or define marriage.

Maybe you should acquaint yourself with some facts.

AIDS? Well gosh, infection rates are high among heterosexuals particularly in populations over 60 years old. Must mean old people are bad!!! Oh they shouldn't be allowed around children or allowed to adopt or marry.

Ever heard of Log Cabin Republicans? Gay republicans...bet that rocks some peoples boat. Humm if a gay republican organization gave a fund-raiser for Sarah Palin wonder who would attend?

Oh and umm the idea of majority rules wasn't a big favorite of the founding fathers. You see a fine example in the creation of the electoral college that was designed to stop states with large populations from dictating to smaller states and in the writings of both the Jeffersonian and the Federalist founders who feared mob or majority rules thinking that trampled the rights of those who embraced different religious and political philosophies.

Some of your statements like "Gay couples do not care about democracy in America." are well...never mind...





Did they not get a bill passed before the Supreme court against the will of the voters of California in 1992?Are they not suing now.Are they not working to overide it?Do you call that Democracy?No I do not believe the Supreme court has the final word in this country.I belive the voters have the final word in this country.That is exactly why after they voted on prop 8 gay marriage was null and void despite what the Supreme court says.So you are wrong on the Supreme court having the final say.

The founding fathers didn't belive in democracy?What are you smoking???Does the words "We the people" mean anything to you?Do we not vote on everything.Have we ever had a dictatorship or communism in this country?

And for your information the amendment for Marriage definition for a man and woman passed every time it was voted on.It simply did not have the majority rule to make it into the constitution.Nor is it dead.It was current as of 2008 and will be voted on again.



What I wish to know......is since marriage is a religious ceremony, why would anyone homosexual would wish to involve themselves in a religious ceremony anyways.....furthermore, due to seperation of religion and state why does one with a religious ceremony get bigger tax breaks than a person without....why is recognized by our government there? Just end it and grant the same rights to Unmarried partner as married partners with no definition of gender. grumble
"Seperation of Church and State"!!!! There is no such a thing!!!! I have argued that over and over and have been proven wrong. But to me that does not make it right and I will argue there should be a defined line between church and state every time because I believe church has no business in State!!!!

Is marriage a religious thing? One would question the need to go to court to get a divorce!!! Why do you have to apply for a marriage licence? Why the need for prenups? Why is alimony forced to be paid?

marriage was around before the courts

no photo
Thu 12/18/08 05:42 AM
Edited by Unknow on Thu 12/18/08 05:44 AM





Okay well you are wrong on several points.

Those opposed to gay marriage began to urge that an amendment to the Constitution be created to define marriage as being between a man and a woman only in about 2002 or so. Opponents of the amendment pointed to the failed Prohibition Amendment as a reason why such social issues should stay out of the Constitution. In the absence of any such amendment, however, marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution at any point.

The United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land and does not mention or define marriage.

Maybe you should acquaint yourself with some facts.

AIDS? Well gosh, infection rates are high among heterosexuals particularly in populations over 60 years old. Must mean old people are bad!!! Oh they shouldn't be allowed around children or allowed to adopt or marry.

Ever heard of Log Cabin Republicans? Gay republicans...bet that rocks some peoples boat. Humm if a gay republican organization gave a fund-raiser for Sarah Palin wonder who would attend?

Oh and umm the idea of majority rules wasn't a big favorite of the founding fathers. You see a fine example in the creation of the electoral college that was designed to stop states with large populations from dictating to smaller states and in the writings of both the Jeffersonian and the Federalist founders who feared mob or majority rules thinking that trampled the rights of those who embraced different religious and political philosophies.

Some of your statements like "Gay couples do not care about democracy in America." are well...never mind...





Did they not get a bill passed before the Supreme court against the will of the voters of California in 1992?Are they not suing now.Are they not working to overide it?Do you call that Democracy?No I do not believe the Supreme court has the final word in this country.I belive the voters have the final word in this country.That is exactly why after they voted on prop 8 gay marriage was null and void despite what the Supreme court says.So you are wrong on the Supreme court having the final say.

The founding fathers didn't belive in democracy?What are you smoking???Does the words "We the people" mean anything to you?Do we not vote on everything.Have we ever had a dictatorship or communism in this country?

And for your information the amendment for Marriage definition for a man and woman passed every time it was voted on.It simply did not have the majority rule to make it into the constitution.Nor is it dead.It was current as of 2008 and will be voted on again.



What I wish to know......is since marriage is a religious ceremony, why would anyone homosexual would wish to involve themselves in a religious ceremony anyways.....furthermore, due to seperation of religion and state why does one with a religious ceremony get bigger tax breaks than a person without....why is recognized by our government there? Just end it and grant the same rights to Unmarried partner as married partners with no definition of gender. grumble
"Seperation of Church and State"!!!! There is no such a thing!!!! I have argued that over and over and have been proven wrong. But to me that does not make it right and I will argue there should be a defined line between church and state every time because I believe church has no business in State!!!!

Is marriage a religious thing? One would question the need to go to court to get a divorce!!! Why do you have to apply for a marriage licence? Why the need for prenups? Why is alimony forced to be paid?

marriage was around before the courts
Well where is the separation you have said exists if marriage is a religious practice?

Seakolony's photo
Thu 12/18/08 05:50 AM






Okay well you are wrong on several points.

Those opposed to gay marriage began to urge that an amendment to the Constitution be created to define marriage as being between a man and a woman only in about 2002 or so. Opponents of the amendment pointed to the failed Prohibition Amendment as a reason why such social issues should stay out of the Constitution. In the absence of any such amendment, however, marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution at any point.

The United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land and does not mention or define marriage.

Maybe you should acquaint yourself with some facts.

AIDS? Well gosh, infection rates are high among heterosexuals particularly in populations over 60 years old. Must mean old people are bad!!! Oh they shouldn't be allowed around children or allowed to adopt or marry.

Ever heard of Log Cabin Republicans? Gay republicans...bet that rocks some peoples boat. Humm if a gay republican organization gave a fund-raiser for Sarah Palin wonder who would attend?

Oh and umm the idea of majority rules wasn't a big favorite of the founding fathers. You see a fine example in the creation of the electoral college that was designed to stop states with large populations from dictating to smaller states and in the writings of both the Jeffersonian and the Federalist founders who feared mob or majority rules thinking that trampled the rights of those who embraced different religious and political philosophies.

Some of your statements like "Gay couples do not care about democracy in America." are well...never mind...





Did they not get a bill passed before the Supreme court against the will of the voters of California in 1992?Are they not suing now.Are they not working to overide it?Do you call that Democracy?No I do not believe the Supreme court has the final word in this country.I belive the voters have the final word in this country.That is exactly why after they voted on prop 8 gay marriage was null and void despite what the Supreme court says.So you are wrong on the Supreme court having the final say.

The founding fathers didn't belive in democracy?What are you smoking???Does the words "We the people" mean anything to you?Do we not vote on everything.Have we ever had a dictatorship or communism in this country?

And for your information the amendment for Marriage definition for a man and woman passed every time it was voted on.It simply did not have the majority rule to make it into the constitution.Nor is it dead.It was current as of 2008 and will be voted on again.



What I wish to know......is since marriage is a religious ceremony, why would anyone homosexual would wish to involve themselves in a religious ceremony anyways.....furthermore, due to seperation of religion and state why does one with a religious ceremony get bigger tax breaks than a person without....why is recognized by our government there? Just end it and grant the same rights to Unmarried partner as married partners with no definition of gender. grumble

"Seperation of Church and State"!!!! There is no such a thing!!!! I have argued that over and over and have been proven wrong. But to me that does not make it right and I will argue there should be a defined line between church and state every time because I believe church has no business in State!!!!

Is marriage a religious thing? One would question the need to go to court to get a divorce!!! Why do you have to apply for a marriage licence? Why the need for prenups? Why is alimony forced to be paid?

marriage was around before the courts
Well where is the seperation you have said exsists?

I never said it existed in a true sense, this was a quote from another I was responding to, read previous comments and directs your questions there, please. I was discussing that supposed law and never intended state it actually existed. For it to truely, exist, in my opinion, you would have to strike in god we trust from our money, we would have to change the preamble and constitution to strike the word god from it. I do not believe you can seperate religion and state from our goverment when our government was based on christianity by those that governed our land when the US government implemented through the stroke of a pen and men of genious. How would you draft a document to carry a country thousands of years?

no photo
Thu 12/18/08 05:55 AM







Okay well you are wrong on several points.

Those opposed to gay marriage began to urge that an amendment to the Constitution be created to define marriage as being between a man and a woman only in about 2002 or so. Opponents of the amendment pointed to the failed Prohibition Amendment as a reason why such social issues should stay out of the Constitution. In the absence of any such amendment, however, marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution at any point.

The United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land and does not mention or define marriage.

Maybe you should acquaint yourself with some facts.

AIDS? Well gosh, infection rates are high among heterosexuals particularly in populations over 60 years old. Must mean old people are bad!!! Oh they shouldn't be allowed around children or allowed to adopt or marry.

Ever heard of Log Cabin Republicans? Gay republicans...bet that rocks some peoples boat. Humm if a gay republican organization gave a fund-raiser for Sarah Palin wonder who would attend?

Oh and umm the idea of majority rules wasn't a big favorite of the founding fathers. You see a fine example in the creation of the electoral college that was designed to stop states with large populations from dictating to smaller states and in the writings of both the Jeffersonian and the Federalist founders who feared mob or majority rules thinking that trampled the rights of those who embraced different religious and political philosophies.

Some of your statements like "Gay couples do not care about democracy in America." are well...never mind...





Did they not get a bill passed before the Supreme court against the will of the voters of California in 1992?Are they not suing now.Are they not working to overide it?Do you call that Democracy?No I do not believe the Supreme court has the final word in this country.I belive the voters have the final word in this country.That is exactly why after they voted on prop 8 gay marriage was null and void despite what the Supreme court says.So you are wrong on the Supreme court having the final say.

The founding fathers didn't belive in democracy?What are you smoking???Does the words "We the people" mean anything to you?Do we not vote on everything.Have we ever had a dictatorship or communism in this country?

And for your information the amendment for Marriage definition for a man and woman passed every time it was voted on.It simply did not have the majority rule to make it into the constitution.Nor is it dead.It was current as of 2008 and will be voted on again.



What I wish to know......is since marriage is a religious ceremony, why would anyone homosexual would wish to involve themselves in a religious ceremony anyways.....furthermore, due to seperation of religion and state why does one with a religious ceremony get bigger tax breaks than a person without....why is recognized by our government there? Just end it and grant the same rights to Unmarried partner as married partners with no definition of gender. grumble

"Seperation of Church and State"!!!! There is no such a thing!!!! I have argued that over and over and have been proven wrong. But to me that does not make it right and I will argue there should be a defined line between church and state every time because I believe church has no business in State!!!!

Is marriage a religious thing? One would question the need to go to court to get a divorce!!! Why do you have to apply for a marriage licence? Why the need for prenups? Why is alimony forced to be paid?

marriage was around before the courts
Well where is the seperation you have said exsists?

I never said it existed in a true sense, this was a quote from another I was responding to, read previous comments and directs your questions there, please. I was discussing that supposed law and never intended state it actually existed. For it to truely, exist, in my opinion, you would have to strike in god we trust from our money, we would have to change the preamble and constitution to strike the word god from it. I do not believe you can seperate religion and state from our goverment when our government was based on christianity by those that governed our land when the US government implemented through the stroke of a pen and men of genious. How would you draft a document to carry a country thousands of years?
It may have been based on christianity but there are 3 very big words that goes with it.. FREEDOM OF RELIGON. When you bring church into state you take away that right..JMO

Winx's photo
Thu 12/18/08 05:57 AM








Okay well you are wrong on several points.

Those opposed to gay marriage began to urge that an amendment to the Constitution be created to define marriage as being between a man and a woman only in about 2002 or so. Opponents of the amendment pointed to the failed Prohibition Amendment as a reason why such social issues should stay out of the Constitution. In the absence of any such amendment, however, marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution at any point.

The United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land and does not mention or define marriage.

Maybe you should acquaint yourself with some facts.

AIDS? Well gosh, infection rates are high among heterosexuals particularly in populations over 60 years old. Must mean old people are bad!!! Oh they shouldn't be allowed around children or allowed to adopt or marry.

Ever heard of Log Cabin Republicans? Gay republicans...bet that rocks some peoples boat. Humm if a gay republican organization gave a fund-raiser for Sarah Palin wonder who would attend?

Oh and umm the idea of majority rules wasn't a big favorite of the founding fathers. You see a fine example in the creation of the electoral college that was designed to stop states with large populations from dictating to smaller states and in the writings of both the Jeffersonian and the Federalist founders who feared mob or majority rules thinking that trampled the rights of those who embraced different religious and political philosophies.

Some of your statements like "Gay couples do not care about democracy in America." are well...never mind...





Did they not get a bill passed before the Supreme court against the will of the voters of California in 1992?Are they not suing now.Are they not working to overide it?Do you call that Democracy?No I do not believe the Supreme court has the final word in this country.I belive the voters have the final word in this country.That is exactly why after they voted on prop 8 gay marriage was null and void despite what the Supreme court says.So you are wrong on the Supreme court having the final say.

The founding fathers didn't belive in democracy?What are you smoking???Does the words "We the people" mean anything to you?Do we not vote on everything.Have we ever had a dictatorship or communism in this country?

And for your information the amendment for Marriage definition for a man and woman passed every time it was voted on.It simply did not have the majority rule to make it into the constitution.Nor is it dead.It was current as of 2008 and will be voted on again.



What I wish to know......is since marriage is a religious ceremony, why would anyone homosexual would wish to involve themselves in a religious ceremony anyways.....furthermore, due to seperation of religion and state why does one with a religious ceremony get bigger tax breaks than a person without....why is recognized by our government there? Just end it and grant the same rights to Unmarried partner as married partners with no definition of gender. grumble

"Seperation of Church and State"!!!! There is no such a thing!!!! I have argued that over and over and have been proven wrong. But to me that does not make it right and I will argue there should be a defined line between church and state every time because I believe church has no business in State!!!!

Is marriage a religious thing? One would question the need to go to court to get a divorce!!! Why do you have to apply for a marriage licence? Why the need for prenups? Why is alimony forced to be paid?

marriage was around before the courts
Well where is the seperation you have said exsists?

I never said it existed in a true sense, this was a quote from another I was responding to, read previous comments and directs your questions there, please. I was discussing that supposed law and never intended state it actually existed. For it to truely, exist, in my opinion, you would have to strike in god we trust from our money, we would have to change the preamble and constitution to strike the word god from it. I do not believe you can seperate religion and state from our goverment when our government was based on christianity by those that governed our land when the US government implemented through the stroke of a pen and men of genious. How would you draft a document to carry a country thousands of years?
It may have been based on christianity but there are 3 very big words that goes with it.. FREEDOM OF RELIGON. When you bring church into state you take away that right..JMO


The country was founded on freedom of religion. It wasn't founded on Christianity.

no photo
Thu 12/18/08 06:02 AM









Okay well you are wrong on several points.

Those opposed to gay marriage began to urge that an amendment to the Constitution be created to define marriage as being between a man and a woman only in about 2002 or so. Opponents of the amendment pointed to the failed Prohibition Amendment as a reason why such social issues should stay out of the Constitution. In the absence of any such amendment, however, marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution at any point.

The United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land and does not mention or define marriage.

Maybe you should acquaint yourself with some facts.

AIDS? Well gosh, infection rates are high among heterosexuals particularly in populations over 60 years old. Must mean old people are bad!!! Oh they shouldn't be allowed around children or allowed to adopt or marry.

Ever heard of Log Cabin Republicans? Gay republicans...bet that rocks some peoples boat. Humm if a gay republican organization gave a fund-raiser for Sarah Palin wonder who would attend?

Oh and umm the idea of majority rules wasn't a big favorite of the founding fathers. You see a fine example in the creation of the electoral college that was designed to stop states with large populations from dictating to smaller states and in the writings of both the Jeffersonian and the Federalist founders who feared mob or majority rules thinking that trampled the rights of those who embraced different religious and political philosophies.

Some of your statements like "Gay couples do not care about democracy in America." are well...never mind...





Did they not get a bill passed before the Supreme court against the will of the voters of California in 1992?Are they not suing now.Are they not working to overide it?Do you call that Democracy?No I do not believe the Supreme court has the final word in this country.I belive the voters have the final word in this country.That is exactly why after they voted on prop 8 gay marriage was null and void despite what the Supreme court says.So you are wrong on the Supreme court having the final say.

The founding fathers didn't belive in democracy?What are you smoking???Does the words "We the people" mean anything to you?Do we not vote on everything.Have we ever had a dictatorship or communism in this country?

And for your information the amendment for Marriage definition for a man and woman passed every time it was voted on.It simply did not have the majority rule to make it into the constitution.Nor is it dead.It was current as of 2008 and will be voted on again.



What I wish to know......is since marriage is a religious ceremony, why would anyone homosexual would wish to involve themselves in a religious ceremony anyways.....furthermore, due to seperation of religion and state why does one with a religious ceremony get bigger tax breaks than a person without....why is recognized by our government there? Just end it and grant the same rights to Unmarried partner as married partners with no definition of gender. grumble

"Seperation of Church and State"!!!! There is no such a thing!!!! I have argued that over and over and have been proven wrong. But to me that does not make it right and I will argue there should be a defined line between church and state every time because I believe church has no business in State!!!!

Is marriage a religious thing? One would question the need to go to court to get a divorce!!! Why do you have to apply for a marriage licence? Why the need for prenups? Why is alimony forced to be paid?

marriage was around before the courts
Well where is the seperation you have said exsists?

I never said it existed in a true sense, this was a quote from another I was responding to, read previous comments and directs your questions there, please. I was discussing that supposed law and never intended state it actually existed. For it to truely, exist, in my opinion, you would have to strike in god we trust from our money, we would have to change the preamble and constitution to strike the word god from it. I do not believe you can seperate religion and state from our goverment when our government was based on christianity by those that governed our land when the US government implemented through the stroke of a pen and men of genious. How would you draft a document to carry a country thousands of years?
It may have been based on christianity but there are 3 very big words that goes with it.. FREEDOM OF RELIGON. When you bring church into state you take away that right..JMO


The country was founded on freedom of religion. It wasn't founded on Christianity.
Morningflowerforyou Happy Festivus season to you on this beautiful day god has given us!!! The sun is shining here and its just a beautiful day!

Winx's photo
Thu 12/18/08 06:05 AM










Okay well you are wrong on several points.

Those opposed to gay marriage began to urge that an amendment to the Constitution be created to define marriage as being between a man and a woman only in about 2002 or so. Opponents of the amendment pointed to the failed Prohibition Amendment as a reason why such social issues should stay out of the Constitution. In the absence of any such amendment, however, marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution at any point.

The United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land and does not mention or define marriage.

Maybe you should acquaint yourself with some facts.

AIDS? Well gosh, infection rates are high among heterosexuals particularly in populations over 60 years old. Must mean old people are bad!!! Oh they shouldn't be allowed around children or allowed to adopt or marry.

Ever heard of Log Cabin Republicans? Gay republicans...bet that rocks some peoples boat. Humm if a gay republican organization gave a fund-raiser for Sarah Palin wonder who would attend?

Oh and umm the idea of majority rules wasn't a big favorite of the founding fathers. You see a fine example in the creation of the electoral college that was designed to stop states with large populations from dictating to smaller states and in the writings of both the Jeffersonian and the Federalist founders who feared mob or majority rules thinking that trampled the rights of those who embraced different religious and political philosophies.

Some of your statements like "Gay couples do not care about democracy in America." are well...never mind...





Did they not get a bill passed before the Supreme court against the will of the voters of California in 1992?Are they not suing now.Are they not working to overide it?Do you call that Democracy?No I do not believe the Supreme court has the final word in this country.I belive the voters have the final word in this country.That is exactly why after they voted on prop 8 gay marriage was null and void despite what the Supreme court says.So you are wrong on the Supreme court having the final say.

The founding fathers didn't belive in democracy?What are you smoking???Does the words "We the people" mean anything to you?Do we not vote on everything.Have we ever had a dictatorship or communism in this country?

And for your information the amendment for Marriage definition for a man and woman passed every time it was voted on.It simply did not have the majority rule to make it into the constitution.Nor is it dead.It was current as of 2008 and will be voted on again.



What I wish to know......is since marriage is a religious ceremony, why would anyone homosexual would wish to involve themselves in a religious ceremony anyways.....furthermore, due to seperation of religion and state why does one with a religious ceremony get bigger tax breaks than a person without....why is recognized by our government there? Just end it and grant the same rights to Unmarried partner as married partners with no definition of gender. grumble

"Seperation of Church and State"!!!! There is no such a thing!!!! I have argued that over and over and have been proven wrong. But to me that does not make it right and I will argue there should be a defined line between church and state every time because I believe church has no business in State!!!!

Is marriage a religious thing? One would question the need to go to court to get a divorce!!! Why do you have to apply for a marriage licence? Why the need for prenups? Why is alimony forced to be paid?

marriage was around before the courts
Well where is the seperation you have said exsists?

I never said it existed in a true sense, this was a quote from another I was responding to, read previous comments and directs your questions there, please. I was discussing that supposed law and never intended state it actually existed. For it to truely, exist, in my opinion, you would have to strike in god we trust from our money, we would have to change the preamble and constitution to strike the word god from it. I do not believe you can seperate religion and state from our goverment when our government was based on christianity by those that governed our land when the US government implemented through the stroke of a pen and men of genious. How would you draft a document to carry a country thousands of years?
It may have been based on christianity but there are 3 very big words that goes with it.. FREEDOM OF RELIGON. When you bring church into state you take away that right..JMO


The country was founded on freedom of religion. It wasn't founded on Christianity.
Morningflowerforyou Happy Festivus season to you on this beautiful day god has given us!!! The sun is shining here and its just a beautiful day!


Happy Fetivus to you too.:smile: flowerforyou

I'm going out now to warm by car up.laugh

Seakolony's photo
Thu 12/18/08 06:06 AM










Okay well you are wrong on several points.

Those opposed to gay marriage began to urge that an amendment to the Constitution be created to define marriage as being between a man and a woman only in about 2002 or so. Opponents of the amendment pointed to the failed Prohibition Amendment as a reason why such social issues should stay out of the Constitution. In the absence of any such amendment, however, marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution at any point.

The United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land and does not mention or define marriage.

Maybe you should acquaint yourself with some facts.

AIDS? Well gosh, infection rates are high among heterosexuals particularly in populations over 60 years old. Must mean old people are bad!!! Oh they shouldn't be allowed around children or allowed to adopt or marry.

Ever heard of Log Cabin Republicans? Gay republicans...bet that rocks some peoples boat. Humm if a gay republican organization gave a fund-raiser for Sarah Palin wonder who would attend?

Oh and umm the idea of majority rules wasn't a big favorite of the founding fathers. You see a fine example in the creation of the electoral college that was designed to stop states with large populations from dictating to smaller states and in the writings of both the Jeffersonian and the Federalist founders who feared mob or majority rules thinking that trampled the rights of those who embraced different religious and political philosophies.

Some of your statements like "Gay couples do not care about democracy in America." are well...never mind...





Did they not get a bill passed before the Supreme court against the will of the voters of California in 1992?Are they not suing now.Are they not working to overide it?Do you call that Democracy?No I do not believe the Supreme court has the final word in this country.I belive the voters have the final word in this country.That is exactly why after they voted on prop 8 gay marriage was null and void despite what the Supreme court says.So you are wrong on the Supreme court having the final say.

The founding fathers didn't belive in democracy?What are you smoking???Does the words "We the people" mean anything to you?Do we not vote on everything.Have we ever had a dictatorship or communism in this country?

And for your information the amendment for Marriage definition for a man and woman passed every time it was voted on.It simply did not have the majority rule to make it into the constitution.Nor is it dead.It was current as of 2008 and will be voted on again.



What I wish to know......is since marriage is a religious ceremony, why would anyone homosexual would wish to involve themselves in a religious ceremony anyways.....furthermore, due to seperation of religion and state why does one with a religious ceremony get bigger tax breaks than a person without....why is recognized by our government there? Just end it and grant the same rights to Unmarried partner as married partners with no definition of gender. grumble

"Seperation of Church and State"!!!! There is no such a thing!!!! I have argued that over and over and have been proven wrong. But to me that does not make it right and I will argue there should be a defined line between church and state every time because I believe church has no business in State!!!!

Is marriage a religious thing? One would question the need to go to court to get a divorce!!! Why do you have to apply for a marriage licence? Why the need for prenups? Why is alimony forced to be paid?

marriage was around before the courts
Well where is the seperation you have said exsists?

I never said it existed in a true sense, this was a quote from another I was responding to, read previous comments and directs your questions there, please. I was discussing that supposed law and never intended state it actually existed. For it to truely, exist, in my opinion, you would have to strike in god we trust from our money, we would have to change the preamble and constitution to strike the word god from it. I do not believe you can seperate religion and state from our goverment when our government was based on christianity by those that governed our land when the US government implemented through the stroke of a pen and men of genious. How would you draft a document to carry a country thousands of years?
It may have been based on christianity but there are 3 very big words that goes with it.. FREEDOM OF RELIGON. When you bring church into state you take away that right..JMO


The country was founded on freedom of religion. It wasn't founded on Christianity.
Morningflowerforyou Happy Festivus season to you on this beautiful day god has given us!!! The sun is shining here and its just a beautiful day!

agreed but at the time those that founded it on freedom of religion.....what religion were they? Was there another religion they were into to base it on think about it.

no photo
Thu 12/18/08 06:11 AM











Okay well you are wrong on several points.

Those opposed to gay marriage began to urge that an amendment to the Constitution be created to define marriage as being between a man and a woman only in about 2002 or so. Opponents of the amendment pointed to the failed Prohibition Amendment as a reason why such social issues should stay out of the Constitution. In the absence of any such amendment, however, marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution at any point.

The United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land and does not mention or define marriage.

Maybe you should acquaint yourself with some facts.

AIDS? Well gosh, infection rates are high among heterosexuals particularly in populations over 60 years old. Must mean old people are bad!!! Oh they shouldn't be allowed around children or allowed to adopt or marry.

Ever heard of Log Cabin Republicans? Gay republicans...bet that rocks some peoples boat. Humm if a gay republican organization gave a fund-raiser for Sarah Palin wonder who would attend?

Oh and umm the idea of majority rules wasn't a big favorite of the founding fathers. You see a fine example in the creation of the electoral college that was designed to stop states with large populations from dictating to smaller states and in the writings of both the Jeffersonian and the Federalist founders who feared mob or majority rules thinking that trampled the rights of those who embraced different religious and political philosophies.

Some of your statements like "Gay couples do not care about democracy in America." are well...never mind...





Did they not get a bill passed before the Supreme court against the will of the voters of California in 1992?Are they not suing now.Are they not working to overide it?Do you call that Democracy?No I do not believe the Supreme court has the final word in this country.I belive the voters have the final word in this country.That is exactly why after they voted on prop 8 gay marriage was null and void despite what the Supreme court says.So you are wrong on the Supreme court having the final say.

The founding fathers didn't belive in democracy?What are you smoking???Does the words "We the people" mean anything to you?Do we not vote on everything.Have we ever had a dictatorship or communism in this country?

And for your information the amendment for Marriage definition for a man and woman passed every time it was voted on.It simply did not have the majority rule to make it into the constitution.Nor is it dead.It was current as of 2008 and will be voted on again.



What I wish to know......is since marriage is a religious ceremony, why would anyone homosexual would wish to involve themselves in a religious ceremony anyways.....furthermore, due to seperation of religion and state why does one with a religious ceremony get bigger tax breaks than a person without....why is recognized by our government there? Just end it and grant the same rights to Unmarried partner as married partners with no definition of gender. grumble

"Seperation of Church and State"!!!! There is no such a thing!!!! I have argued that over and over and have been proven wrong. But to me that does not make it right and I will argue there should be a defined line between church and state every time because I believe church has no business in State!!!!

Is marriage a religious thing? One would question the need to go to court to get a divorce!!! Why do you have to apply for a marriage licence? Why the need for prenups? Why is alimony forced to be paid?

marriage was around before the courts
Well where is the seperation you have said exsists?

I never said it existed in a true sense, this was a quote from another I was responding to, read previous comments and directs your questions there, please. I was discussing that supposed law and never intended state it actually existed. For it to truely, exist, in my opinion, you would have to strike in god we trust from our money, we would have to change the preamble and constitution to strike the word god from it. I do not believe you can seperate religion and state from our goverment when our government was based on christianity by those that governed our land when the US government implemented through the stroke of a pen and men of genious. How would you draft a document to carry a country thousands of years?
It may have been based on christianity but there are 3 very big words that goes with it.. FREEDOM OF RELIGON. When you bring church into state you take away that right..JMO


The country was founded on freedom of religion. It wasn't founded on Christianity.
Morningflowerforyou Happy Festivus season to you on this beautiful day god has given us!!! The sun is shining here and its just a beautiful day!

agreed but at the time those that founded it on freedom of religion.....what religion were they? Was there another religion they were into to base it on think about it.
I might be wrong but we founded it because of religious persecution. That my friend is why church should not have any say in state. That would be going against the
whole reasoning of our founding fathers...JMO

no photo
Thu 12/18/08 06:12 AM
Edited by Unknow on Thu 12/18/08 06:15 AM
Quit the quoting its getting to long.. Thx it just makes the page very long! Im guilty too..flowerforyou