Author Topic: gay marriage  (Read 29999 times)

RainBoots

  • Guest
Re: gay marriage
« Reply #90 on: February 25, 2004, 07:06:00 pm »
I don't see what's wrong with having gay marriages. It doesn't affect anyone except the people who are getting married. Most gay couples aren't going to go around screaming about how they're married, anyway. It technically has nothing to do with anyone else, or at least I think it doesn't.

Bags

  • Member
  • Posts: 8545
Re: gay marriage
« Reply #91 on: February 25, 2004, 07:17:00 pm »
Quote
Originally posted by mankie:
  but I also think each religion should be left to make it's own decision on wether they want to perform gay marraiges. And no I'm not religious whatsoever.
I agree with that completely.  If the Roman Catholic church will not perform that marriage, become Episcopal or Unitarian.  And that's why the government has no say.  Back to the Constitution and all....
 
 Alas, the marriage has to be recognized by the state for all those rights to convey....

  • Guest
Re: gay marriage
« Reply #92 on: February 25, 2004, 07:23:00 pm »
Quote
Originally posted by Bags:
  I agree with that completely.  If the Roman Catholic church will not perform that marriage, become Episcopal or Unitarian.  
Beware of Protestantism.  Have you ever heard a Catholic say that God talks directly to him?  God hasn't spoken directly to man for over 2000+ years.
 
 But apparently He talks frequently to George W. Bush, Pat, Robertson, Bob Jones and numerous other Protestant nutters.  God doesn't speak directly to the pope, but He does to George W. Bush, go figure..?

SPARX

  • Member
  • Posts: 2070
Re: gay marriage
« Reply #93 on: February 25, 2004, 07:27:00 pm »
Quote
Originally posted by Dupek Chopra:
 
Quote
Originally posted by Bags:
 [qb]
 
 But apparently He talks frequently to George W. Bush, Pat, Robertson, Bob Jones and numerous other Protestant nutters.  God doesn't speak directly to the pope, but He does to George W. Bush, go figure..? [/b]
Ahh,that explains it,he's been hearing voices.Shame they don't tell him to get a clue!

Celeste

  • Guest
Re: gay marriage
« Reply #94 on: February 25, 2004, 08:50:00 pm »
Quote
Originally posted by Dupek Chopra:
  Beware of Protestantism.  Have you ever heard a Catholic say that God talks directly to him?  God hasn't spoken directly to man for over 2000+ years.
That's because the Catholic church wants to ensure that man needs it to connect to God. Total B.S. I'm basically a humanist, but if I had to weigh pros and cons of different religious doctrines, I certainly wouldn't buy into a religion that requires I have another human, or saint, be an intermediary between me and God

walkman

  • Guest
Re: gay marriage
« Reply #95 on: February 25, 2004, 09:05:00 pm »
Quote
Originally posted by Harriet Balls:
   
Quote
Originally posted by Dupek Chopra:
  Beware of Protestantism.  Have you ever heard a Catholic say that God talks directly to him?  God hasn't spoken directly to man for over 2000+ years.
That's because the Catholic church wants to ensure that man needs it to connect to God. Total B.S. I'm basically a humanist, but if I had to weigh pros and cons of different religious doctrines, I certainly wouldn't buy into a religion that requires I have another human, or saint, be an intermediary between me and God [/b]
amen.

Bags

  • Member
  • Posts: 8545
Re: gay marriage
« Reply #96 on: February 25, 2004, 10:48:00 pm »
Quote
Originally posted by Dupek Chopra:
   
Quote
Originally posted by Bags:
  I agree with that completely.  If the Roman Catholic church will not perform that marriage, become Episcopal or Unitarian.  
Beware of Protestantism.  Have you ever heard a Catholic say that God talks directly to him?  God hasn't spoken directly to man for over 2000+ years.
 
 But apparently He talks frequently to George W. Bush, Pat, Robertson, Bob Jones and numerous other Protestant nutters.  God doesn't speak directly to the pope, but He does to George W. Bush, go figure..? [/b]
Well, that's why I suggested Episcopal or Unitarian.  God doesn't speak to them....not directly, at least!

  • Guest
Re: gay marriage
« Reply #97 on: February 26, 2004, 09:48:00 am »
Quote
Originally posted by Harriet Balls:
  That's because the Catholic church wants to ensure that man needs it to connect to God. Total B.S. I'm basically a humanist, but if I had to weigh pros and cons of different religious doctrines, I certainly wouldn't buy into a religion that requires I have another human, or saint, be an intermediary between me and God
Cool your jets, Ms.Balls!  I'm merely stating that to leap from one branch of X-ianity to another is pure tomfoolery.  Looking for "The Answer" in any house of worship is ridiculousness personified.  One would be better fufilled spiritually beating-off in the back row of a Mel Gibson movie.
 
 From Catholic to Protestant is from bad to worse.  The only tasteful thing the Protestants have ever done is handle snakes & drink arsenic.  If you desire a Christian religion with decorum, then may I suggest Russian Orthodox.  The ornamentation is simply splendiferous.  Iconography trumps even Michaelangelo in terms of good taste.  I always thought the Italian masters were a bit too ostentatious.  You?
 
 As to homos?  Well, according to the father of sociobioloigy, E.O.Wilson, altruistic genes are scattered throught the population.  So one needn't neccessarily be a limp wristed, lisping  ass-pirate to further the cause of fagness.  One could even be a Bush votin', gun totin', bible thumpin' homo-hater and still be carrying those same altruistic genes.  Stop worrying.   A gay future is assured.

mankie

  • Guest
Re: gay marriage
« Reply #98 on: February 26, 2004, 11:12:00 am »
Quote
Originally posted by Dupek Chopra:
   
Quote
Originally posted by Bags:
  I agree with that completely.  If the Roman Catholic church will not perform that marriage, become Episcopal or Unitarian.  
Beware of Protestantism.  Have you ever heard a Catholic say that God talks directly to him?  God hasn't spoken directly to man for over 2000+ years.
 
 But apparently He talks frequently to George W. Bush, Pat, Robertson, Bob Jones and numerous other Protestant nutters.  God doesn't speak directly to the pope, but He does to George W. Bush, go figure..? [/b]
Didn't you know that God hates Catholics because their priests are all pedeophile fags, that's why he doesn't talk to them....he told me so himself because I'm proddie-dog.

poorlulu

  • Guest
Re: gay marriage
« Reply #99 on: February 28, 2004, 01:01:00 am »
<img src="http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20040223/capt.cak10702231948.democrats_kerry_cak107.jpg" alt=" - " />
 
 poooooooooo

vansmack

  • Member
  • Posts: 19722
Re: gay marriage
« Reply #100 on: March 01, 2004, 06:05:00 pm »
Quote
Originally posted by Dupek Chopra:
   One could even be a Bush votin', gun totin', bible thumpin' homo-hater and still be carrying those same altruistic genes.  Stop worrying.   A gay future is assured.
I think you mean, used to be a Bush votin', gun totin'.......
 
 A FALLING OUT AMONG FRIENDS
 By Debra Rosenberg and Mark Miller
 
 Newsweek
 
 March 8 issue - David Catania has been one of George W. Bush's most loyal supporters. The Washington, D.C., city councilman has raised nearly $80,000 for the president's re-election. He's a Bush delegate to this summer's GOP convention and holds a seat on the platform committee, which shapes the party's official agenda. But last week Catania, like many other gay Republicans, was furious at the president's backing of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Now he's dropping his fund-raising efforts and no longer plans to vote for Bush. "You know the concept of buyer's remorse? I've got it," he says. "I want my money back." Now Catania intends to fight the amendment on the platform committee and work against a second Bush term.
 
 Catania is a member of the "Austin 12," an informal group of gay Republicans who advised the Bush 2000 campaign, serving as a sounding board on gay issues. In April of that year, the 12 traveled to Austin to meet with the then Governor Bush, who was eager to burnish his image as a "compassionate conservative." He'd resisted meeting with the chief gay GOP group, the Log Cabin Republicansâ??they'd backed his presidential-primary rival John McCainâ??but agreed to sit down with a dozen handpicked gay supporters. In an emotional meeting at his campaign headquarters, Bush listened carefully and declared himself "a better man" for their visit. But four years later, even Bush's most devoted gay supporters are wavering. "I have always accepted the president's opposition to gay marriage," says Charles Francis, a longtime Bush family friend and a D.C. consultant who organized the Austin meeting. But for the Austin 12â??all of whom spoke with NEWSWEEK last weekâ??Bush's endorsement of a constitutional amendment is a step too far. "It writes inequality into the founding document, and we can never support that," Francis says.
 
 The 12 argue that Bush had a solid record on gay issues until the marriage amendment. In the Austin meeting, they asked him for several assurancesâ??a gay speaker at the 2000 convention, a promise not to repeal executive orders that prohibited discrimination against gays in federal jobs, a willingness to hire gays in his administration. Bush delivered on them all. He even appointed one of the 12, Scott Evertz, as his first AIDS czar. A White House aide acknowledged that Bush has friends "who are homosexual. He understands their position, but they might understand that he has his principles."
 That did little to help the sense of betrayal last week among the Austin 12. None was consulted by the White House before the decision. Some, like Evertz and former congressman Steve Gunderson, say they are deeply disappointed but so far continue to support Bush. But New York real-estate developer Donald Capoccia was so disgusted that he quit his Bush-appointed post on the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts. Like Catania, many of the 12 say they won't vote for Bush at all. That could cost him not only the estimated 1 million gay votersâ??a quarter of the gay voteâ??who supported him in 2000, but like-minded swing voters too. Still, Bush will likely have many on his side: polls show slowly rising public support for a constitutional ban on gay marriage.
 
 Now that Bush has formally called for the marriage amendment, more-radical activists are whispering about the idea of an '80s-style outing campaign against prominent gay Republicans (and their relatives) to highlight what they say is obvious hypocrisyâ??a strategy the 12 oppose. "I think it will get uglier than anything we saw on AIDS," says Gunderson. "This country will be more polarized than we've been in decades." That's exactly what the Austin 12 had hoped to avoid in the first place.
 
 With Tamara Lipper
 
 Â© 2004 Newsweek, Inc.
27>34

mankie

  • Guest
Re: gay marriage
« Reply #101 on: March 01, 2004, 06:40:00 pm »
Wouldn't it be comedic irony if Dubya lost the election just because he doesn't want a couple of fairy's to get wed, after starting this big old war to get the doodles to rally around him.
 
 It would be to me anyway.

eltee

  • Member
  • Posts: 3809
Re: gay marriage
« Reply #102 on: March 02, 2004, 07:52:00 pm »
Quote
Originally posted by Dupek Chopra:
  I think Kurt Vonnegut's suggestion from his novel SLAPSTICK is a much better proposal than either gay marriage or constitutional ammendments.
 
  all Americans were issued new middle names consisting of "...a noun, the name of a flower or fruit or nut or vegetable or legume, or a bird or reptile or a fish, or mollusk, or a gem, or a mineral or a chemical element--connected by a hypen to a number between one and twenty." People with the same middle name--both noun and number--became siblings; those who shared only the noun became cousins. The names were randomly assigned, so that everyone's family instantly expanded to include ten thousand new siblings and one-hundred and ninety-thousand new cousins, scattered across the country. Under the new system, everyone "belonged" somewhere, everyone was part of a big family. People would be "Lonesome No More!".
 
 Dupek "Daffodil Eleven" Chopra
Hey I know someone named, Coffee [One]. Just "Coffee" when addressing him. He is from Africa and his name was determined by the day of the week which he was born. The "One" is for ranking in family order. He's the oldest of 13 siblings. If his other siblings were born on the same day of the week as Coffee, they received the next number in order...ex/"Coffee Two", and so on. (Believe me, communicating that story at first, was a conversation similar to "Who's On First?")

Celeste

  • Guest
Re: gay marriage
« Reply #103 on: March 02, 2004, 09:47:00 pm »
Quote
Originally posted by vansmack:
 
Quote
David Catania has been one of George W. Bush's most loyal supporters... "You know the concept of buyer's remorse? I've got it," he says. "I want my money back."  [/b]
gay republicans are like black republicans...SCARY AS HELL

ratioci nation

  • Member
  • Posts: 4463
Re: gay marriage
« Reply #104 on: March 02, 2004, 10:17:00 pm »
Quote
Originally posted by Harriet Balls:
  gay republicans are like black republicans...SCARY AS HELL
how so, when I used to work with a group opposed to the religious right, one of the groups we worked with was  http://www.lcr.org/ ,  they are pretty reasonable people, most groups like that are republicans for economic issues, not social