[xico]

Originally Posted by poochee

Wet Chicken...You got it right!! Sin is sin.

Ahhh, but aren't there grades of sin? Mortal and venial?
Ohhh, Baltimore Catechism! Are all sins equal? Cheating on your spouse is a serious offense, but blowing her away seems to be a bit more serious IMHO. Adultery is serious, but rape is a bit more serious, IMHO. Who goes to jail for adultery? but they definitely go to jail for rape.

They same is true with crime. There are degrees of murder. There's larceny and there's grand larceny.

Yet, steal a load of bread and you're a thief; steal a country and you're a king! (Ancient Sufi Proverb)

I think we're suckers for words. The majority of US Citizens don't seem to care if two men or two women live together. But, oh boy, let them call it "marriage," and all the wal-mart republicans are freaking out! "Marriage!" for shame! Or is it an economic issue? The gays want certain economic rights that married couples have as breeders for increasing the nation's stock of canon fodder. But we don't penalize male/female couples for not breeding. But maybe we should Isn't that what marriage is all about? raising a family? Family. I think that that's the key word.
If two people of the same sex can be "married" then the family is under attack. If 2 guys can raise children, are mothers necessary? If 2 woman can raise children, are fathers necessary? If a woman can buy sperm, fathers are dispensible. If a guy can rent a womb for his sperm, mothers, like fathers, are only a commodity. Our relationships are only economic.

But family relationships are anything but economic. We help one another because of love. etc. We don't try to make a profit off our offspring. Normally we don't try to make a profit off our wives. We have team work based on love.

[Wet Chicken]

Originally Posted by xico

and all the wal-mart republicans are freaking out!

ROFL!!!

I love that term Hope you don't mind if I borrow it from time to time

[poochee]

In my bibles (NIV and King James) all sin is the same. For instance, the words from our mouths can be devastating!!

[xico]

Originally Posted by Wet Chicken

ROFL!!!

I love that term Hope you don't mind if I borrow it from time to time

Feel free to use it freely. I wish I had made it up, but actually I stole from an article I read that was tearing up the fundies.

[jonasdatum]

Originally Posted by xico

Ahhh, but aren't there grades of sin? Mortal and venial?
Ohhh, Baltimore Catechism! Are all sins equal? Cheating on your spouse is a serious offense, but blowing her away seems to be a bit more serious IMHO. Adultery is serious, but rape is a bit more serious, IMHO. Who goes to jail for adultery? but they definitely go to jail for rape.

They same is true with crime. There are degrees of murder. There's larceny and there's grand larceny.

Yet, steal a load of bread and you're a thief; steal a country and you're a king! (Ancient Sufi Proverb)

I think we're suckers for words. The majority of US Citizens don't seem to care if two men or two women live together. But, oh boy, let them call it "marriage," and all the wal-mart republicans are freaking out! "Marriage!" for shame! Or is it an economic issue? The gays want certain economic rights that married couples have as breeders for increasing the nation's stock of canon fodder. But we don't penalize male/female couples for not breeding. But maybe we should Isn't that what marriage is all about? raising a family? Family. I think that that's the key word.
If two people of the same sex can be "married" then the family is under attack. If 2 guys can raise children, are mothers necessary? If 2 woman can raise children, are fathers necessary? If a woman can buy sperm, fathers are dispensible. If a guy can rent a womb for his sperm, mothers, like fathers, are only a commodity. Our relationships are only economic.

But family relationships are anything but economic. We help one another because of love. etc. We don't try to make a profit off our offspring. Normally we don't try to make a profit off our wives. We have team work based on love.

Hello. First off what I am about to say will insult allot of people, so I apologize in advance. Not my intention though.The human race needs to grow up! Look, humans have been gay a long time. Many societies are against it if not for religious reasons (which isn't a good reason IMHO), but because it threatens the existing social structure and the continuation of our species. Quiet frankly if God had a problem with how humans organized our social structures... He should have just made all of us drones or not as intelligent as we are!

Bush simply believes that God would be mad! Many others [when I hear the reason(s)] normally use God and only God! Get over it! Xico has a valid point.

How many times have humans used God or some other crap that basically means, “we are better than you and our way is the best way?”

The rights of many humans who are Gay are compromised because of conservative views. Property and POA are typically examples. As for children, well I don’t see the problem? What happens when we can simply directly combine two separate DNA strains to produce a new human being? That could put the reproductive role of the male/female out of the picture entirely. So two Gay people could have a genuine child of their own.

See what I mean. Grow up! Call it marriage!

[alex_holker]

Originally Posted by jonasdatum

Hello. First off what I am about to say will insult allot of people, so I apologize in advance. Not my intention though.The human race needs to grow up! Look, humans have been gay a long time. Many societies are against it if not for religious reasons (which isn't a good reason IMHO), but because it threatens the existing social structure and the continuation of our species. Quiet frankly if God had a problem with how humans organized our social structures... He should have just made all of us drones or not as intelligent as we are!

Bush simply believes that God would be mad! Many others [when I hear the reason(s)] normally use God and only God! Get over it! Xico has a valid point.

How many times have humans used God or some other crap that basically means, “we are better than you and our way is the best way?”

The rights of many humans who are Gay are compromised because of conservative views. Property and POA are typically examples. As for children, well I don’t see the problem? What happens when we can simply directly combine two separate DNA strains to produce a new human being? That could put the reproductive role of the male/female out of the picture entirely. So two Gay people could have a genuine child of their own.

See what I mean. Grow up! Call it marriage!

While I agree with your opinion, I'd just like to point out that while 2 females' DNA could be used to produce a child (it has been done with mice already), 2 males could not. Apart from the requirement for a surrogate mother, the combined DNA would have YY chromosomes.

Alex

[jonasdatum]

Originally Posted by alex_holker

While I agree with your opinion, I'd just like to point out that while 2 females' DNA could be used to produce a child (it has been done with mice already), 2 males could not. Apart from the requirement for a surrogate mother, the combined DNA would have YY chromosomes.

Alex

So what would that mean? Sorry my biology is a little weak? Also, couldn't you take the half of the DNA from the male that is X? I mean males have the variables of X and Y right? In our sperm?

[alex_holker]

Originally Posted by jonasdatum

So what would that mean? Sorry my biology is a little weak? Also, could you take the half of the DNA from the male that is X? I mean males have the variables of X and Y right? In our sperm?

My mistake... I forgot about that... You'd still need a surrogate mother and egg though.

Alex

[xico]

Actually, since we already have so many people, the gays are really doing us a favor by not breeding, and should be rewarded for not over populating the planet.

[jonasdatum]

Originally Posted by alex_holker

My mistake... I forgot about that... You'd still need a surrogate mother and egg though.

Alex

Surrogate mothers now, but not later. Well in about 25 to 100 years [but probably "well before then"] we'll have artificial incubators. So that problem will be solved. We will need such technology for when we colonize the solar system. And that’s if we don’t blow destroy ourselves first.

[EdGreene]

Originally Posted by jonasdatum

Surrogate mothers now, but not later. Well in about 25 to 100 years [but probably "well before then"] we'll have artificial incubators. So that problem will be solved. We will need such technology for when we colonize the solar system. And that’s if we don’t blow destroy ourselves first.

Who is going to pay for your as yet constructed "Starship"?
Civilians? Government? What government?

And what "Solar system"? Certainly not ours and since the next STAR, no-less nearest "system" is some 4.3 light years away, who is going? How big will your "Starship" be; 30 kilometers by 20 kilometers by 20 kilometers?
*Got to be able to sustain yourself with hydroponics
**That's one hell of a lot of water to lift/transport to the Moonbase.

What are you going to use for propellant? Atomic fusion? Who in hell is going to pay for that?

[hammerbill]

Sorry if this seems off the current subject. I have always opposed government sanctioned marriage as I feel governments tend to mess up anything they get involved in unnecessarily. My primary reason for opposing gay marriage is that I oppose ANY licensing of marriage. Simply put-2 wrongs don't make a right. This is generally the libertarian point of view and to bring about fairness would not be to marry gays too but rather to "unmarry" (in a legal sense) straights and to allow these functions as purely civil, not legal matters-for everyone.
Any two people can sign a contract. If they choose to sign a marriage type contract, so be it. One wonders just what it is that gays want out of a marriage. Will love come of the paper signed? Or is it a tool to use to make employers and government agencies provide benefits for a lover? Being basically libertarian, I cannot condone the latter.
If it is respect that is sought, perhaps it should be earned by the creation of a new institution and not assimilated from an existing institution that is many thousands of years old. Thus would be the logic of those who wish to preserve the current definition of marriage. Is it really right to, say, allow girls to join the boy scouts (figuratively speaking) in the name of equality? I can't help but to think that this equality thing has to have limits somewhere-if for no other reason than for the sake of sanity. A leaf can't marry a tree. Some of these limits were plainly shown to the Mormons 100 or so years ago by the US government. I haven't witnessed the disparagement of their religion as a result.

[angelize56]

Bush speaks on gay unions
Posted November 10, 2004

TALLAHASSEE -- Republican Gov. Jeb Bush weighed in on the explosive issue of same sex marriage Tuesday, saying he might support a state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage if the courts open the door to such unions in Florida.

It was his strongest statement yet on the issue and came the same day that the Florida Baptist State Convention in Jacksonville unanimously agreed to seek a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

Bush said he thinks the state's Defense of Marriage Act prohibits gay marriages, but he might back putting a constitutional question on the ballot if court rulings force the issue.

"If there was a threat that gay marriage would be accepted in our state, then I might be supportive of it," Bush said. "I'm not sure it's necessary to do this in a pre-emptive fashion."

Bush said he thinks the Legislature would enthusiastically back a constitutional move to ban same-sex marriages if conditions change.

Gay groups and some liberal state lawmakers pounced on the governor's comment, saying it could signal a political move to push for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage such as those passed last week in 11 states.

"We're talking about civil marriage, and the government has no place in that," said Brian Winfield, a spokesman for Tampa-based Equality Florida, the state's largest gay and lesbian advocacy group.

But some religious leaders hailed Bush's words, saying they strongly back a constitutional amendment because it would support traditional views of matrimony.

"For thousands of years, marriage has been between a man and a woman," said the Rev. Jerry Walsh of Seminole Community Church in Sanford. "It concerns me that the courts can redefine what American and human culture have accepted as the norm."

Florida made history as the first state in the nation to ban gay marriages in the 1970s amid a controversial campaign by singer Anita Bryant. But it does not have a constitutional ban such as those adopted in 11 states on Election Day. Legal challenges already have been filed against such bans in several states.

Gov. Bush's comments don't go nearly as far as his brother, President Bush, who has called for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution banning same-sex marriage.

Nevertheless, State Rep. Ron Greenstein, D-Coconut Creek, called the governor's support for a constitutional amendment blatantly political.

"The statutes are very clear that they ban gay marriage in Florida," Greenstein said. "But I think the Republicans are really looking at it. They want to drive a final stake in the hearts of Democrats."

Greenstein said he had already heard rumors that Republican state lawmakers would push to put a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage on the ballot in 2006 to damage Democratic candidates and energize the conservative Christian Republican base that has backed Gov. Bush and his brother.

State Sen. Ron Klein, D-Delray Beach, the outgoing Senate Democratic leader, was not so sure.

"Maybe he's signaling to the Legislature, 'Don't do it right now,' " Klein said, noting a number of other states have quickly passed such amendments.

Klein also questioned whether Gov. Bush was trying to energize the Republican base.

"I don't think his base needs energizing. His base knows where he stands on this stuff," Klein said.

Equality Florida's Winfield said it's curious that Gov. Bush is taking a more restrained position than the president.

"He [President Bush] has led the charge on amending the U.S. Constitution to discriminate against gay couples, so they seem to be taking opposite approaches," Winfield said.

Some Florida religious leaders argue that putting a proposed ban on same-sex marriage on the ballot simply lets voters decide.

"If there was an amendment that went out for a vote, it would be up to the people of Florida. That's the way our government works, " said the Rev. Rol Erickson, minister of pastoral care, Northland, a Church Distributed, in Longwood. Erickson said he would personally support such an amendment.

"Marriage is an institution ordained by God that was designed for a man and a woman," he said.

But Winfield argued that legal definitions of marriage have been evolving for generations and will continue to do so.

"Marriage is not a stagnant institution," he said. "Forty years ago, marriage was between a man and a woman of the same race, and that was the law."

[MEMNOCH451]

Any one over 18 can vote and be drafted but they can't decide who to marry?

Since the earth as we know it is populated by people. Who the heck cares if a person loves another person and wants to get married? I don't see any where in the Bible where it says in "order to get into heaven you have to force "GODS" views on any one whether you agree with them or not! Do we not have free will and choice?

The right seems to think that they might not get into the kingdom of god if they mind their own business? So let it go! If the right, middle and the left just cleaned up their own back yards what a wonderful world it could be!

I could find fault with the leaders of the USA pretty easily, so as they say "let he who is with out sin cast the first stone!"


Memnoch451 A man with an opinion and very little facts but who's Chihuahuas love him...Hmm the treats might have something to do with that at times?

[xico]

Originally Posted by MEMNOCH451

Any one over 18 can vote and be drafted but they can't decide who to marry?

Since the earth as we know it is populated by people. Who the heck cares if a person loves another person and wants to get married? I don't see any where in the Bible where it says in "order to get into heaven you have to force "GODS" views on any one whether you agree with them or not! Do we not have free will and choice?

The right seems to think that they might not get into the kingdom of god if they mind their own business? So let it go! If the right, middle and the left just cleaned up their own back yards what a wonderful world it could be!

I could find fault with the leaders of the USA pretty easily, so as they say "let he who is with out sin cast the first stone!"


Memnoch451 A man with an opinion and very little facts but who's Chihuahuas love him...Hmm the treats might have something to do with that at times?

Good post, Mem! My accountant had a posted that said: Do Somebody a Favor Mind Your Own Business

Memnoch451 A man with an opinion and very little facts but who's Chihuahuas love him...Hmm the treats might have something to do with that at times?

Maybe if we gave the right wingers some treats they'd learn to love us. Wonder if they'd sit up, roll over and play dead. No, don't think so.

I've got a big Dalmatian who smiles when we tell him that he's handsome, and a white boxer with brindle patches on her eyes (who's the terror of the meter readers who now ask permission to read the meters). They're the apples of my eyes.