[pyritechips]

Oops again Randy, I just saw this: "folks make issues out of what they don't like"

You may be right, but it isn't homosexuality I don't like, it's my government's reaction to it. I don't give a tinker's damn who sleeps (or lives) with whom. It has no affect on me whatsoever. What does has an affect is how a government that is, by definition, constricted on moral grounds tries to enforce it's morality upon others.

[valley]

Jim....I'm just wondering. How do you feel about the legal system? How can the government punish criminals if they arent allowed to say whats right or wrong? Not trying to be snotty or anything like that, Jim. Its an honest question.

[RandyG]

I love a topic that generates this much "heat" so soon!

Val - I love ya, and I'll let ya go on this one. We'll have to agree to disagree. I don't see why their has to be a distinction for love. Seems it's only moralists who keep bringing that up. I stand by my saying "love is love".

As soon as someone's "love" affects me negatively is th eonly time I'm gonna disapprove of it!

PC- My bad. I dropped that one in there, and I kept saying to myself "don;t do it, he'll latch onto that one phrase and rip me a new a$$hole for the trouble!

Seems I satill have issues, regardless of what nice-nice faces I try to put on it!

I'll try to be good from now on, promise!

[valley]

Originally posted by RandyG:
Val - I love ya, and I'll let ya go on this one.

*phew* Thank you...I'm not up for getting verbally slapped around here.....I'm a lover not a fighter

[pyritechips]

Jim....I'm just wondering. How do you feel about the legal system? How can the government punish criminals if they arent allowed to say whats right or wrong?

What does the punishing of criminal acts have to do with the topic of this thread. I certainly hope you are not implying homosexuality is criminal?

A brief history lesson: As recently as 50 years agos people in Alberta that were deemed of mental defficiency were neutered so they wouldn't reproduce. "Idiocy" is not inherited.

As recently as 50 years ago in the Province of Quebec well-to-do families would take children that weren't normal and have them institutionalized. That means mental assylums. In other words, if you had the funds, and your child had epilepsy, you could have 'it' locked up for life.

If that is the kind of treatment we allow our governments to condone then we all need a long moment of personal reflection.

[RandyG]

dangit!!!

there's my problem!!

i just love to fight!

[RandyG]

Originally posted by pyritechips:
What does the punishing of criminal acts have to do with the topic of this thread. I certainly hope you are not implying homosexuality is criminal?

Actually PC . . .

in many places it still is a crime!

That's a reality lesson, and grounded all too firmly in history!

[pyritechips]

PC- My bad. I dropped that one in there, and I kept saying to myself "don;t do it, he'll latch onto that one phrase and rip me a new a$$hole for the trouble!

No, its ok Randy. All comments are welcomed and will be judged on individual merit. I am never 100% sure of any issue so I genuinely listen to all opinions.

[valley]

Originally posted by pyritechips:
What does the punishing of criminal acts have to do with the topic of this thread. I certainly hope you are not implying homosexuality is criminal?

no Jim...I'm not saying that at all. You commented that the government shouldnt have the right to impose morality on people......but isnt enforcing of laws akin to imposing morality on a nation? How do we decide if an act is criminal unless the government uses some sort of moral standard to judge it?

[pyritechips]

FYI: to set the record straight, as the starter of this thread let me state that I never have, nor have no intention or desire to have, any homosexual relationship. The thought of being imtimate with another man, or even witnessing such an act is slightly revolting to me. It is a visceral, not an intellectual or moral reaction. Yet I have had homosexual friends. I have talked to them. I know a little of what I speak.

Hmmm... I just wanna know how many of you married folks out there, had to get a marriage license??

[hewee]

Valley said what I think also.

[Davey7549]

I believe that I will stick with the Websters Dictionary version of marriage. http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary

Consider this: There are several Forms\Types of Marriage that are currently against the Law here in the US. Two of which are:
1)- Polygamy
2)- Marriage closer than 2nd cousin. (Carried to close called Incest)

Seems the Government stepped in and specified that above were wrong and legislated against allowing it.
Now because a minority of people coalesced into a special interest group and made another non-traditional situation Politically Correct the Government should not step in because there is a separation of Church and State! Seems to me the Mormon religion condones or did condone Polygamy but the Government outlawed it! It also seems to me that the pendelum is swinging only in the direction the special interests groups want it!

If the legal definition of Marriage is changed to cover Same Sex then what is wrong with the two mentioned above! Very Valid arguments could be given to support both examples being legal above. If a Man was able to support multiple wives then why not let Him. Likewise if a Woman could support multiple Husbands.
Or
If a Man and a Woman of legal age being and my mate is my Mothers Sisters Daughter why cannot we Marry? Sure there is Genetic problems there if there are offspring but what if we do not have children!

Seems this subject is only to serve a minority of people and they wish to change a time honored institution to fit their own wish to be mainstream.

Why not a Union of two instead and not change the defintion of the institution of Marriage.

Just my 2 cents.

Dave

[pyritechips]

And a very valuable 2 cents, Davey.

If the legal definition of Marriage is changed to cover Same Sex then what is wrong with the two mentioned above!

Indeed! That is my dilemna and can of worms! Do we open the can? And if we do where do we draw the line, or could we even draw it?

Without trying to sound to flippant, I care not if a man has 3 wives (or if a woman has 3 husbands) any more than whether who all those husbands and wives are sleeping with. My point being, their actions have no affect on society whatsoever, whether other members of the society approve or not. Incest itself, though, is not only repugnant to my senses but also is genetically harmful. But then again insest is beyond the scope of this thread.

but isnt enforcing of laws akin to imposing morality on a nation

I truely don't know val; I really struggle with this one. As soon as you wish to "impose morality", especially as a law, you had better be ready willing and able to define it or it will be challanged to death. And as far as imposing morality is concerned, I believe that responsibility should be taken by the family, not the government or any church.

To repeat history and continue to have prejiduce,judgement because of race , religous beliefs,Sexual preferences ect.
Is to lose sight of our future
A better world where we can learn to live together, spanning the borders ect.
Old beliefs and customs always make way for the new sooner or later. I choose to be unconditional in these terms.

We trully can learn from our mistakes and carry on with more important matters.

Bigotry ect. turns my stomach!

WEBFISH