NO on Prop 8 (California)

[rushmc 18]

Quote

>So you think that Congres should make law against a religious belief.

Nope. Congress should let people decide who they want to marry, and not make laws for or against any religious beliefs.

Well then we agree. Courts and congress should not make a law that says gays can be married. They can be joined under the eyes of the law however. Since being married has a religous meaning

Thanks, we agree

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Where have I presented 'hate' in any of these posts? I'm simply trying to understand how gays getting "married" effects you at all and why you think you have the right to make it the law.

edit: and by the way, are you seriously telling me to be open minded while taking another breath and saying gays shouldn't be allowed to get 'married'?

Wow.

Where have I said that gays, that want to be seen as legal couples, should not be seen the same under any law?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[livendive 8]

Quote

Quote

> Why redefine what many call a holy union?

For the same reason you want to redefine it as a holy union, I suppose.

So you think that Congres should make law against a religious belief.

A law that prohibits gays from marrying is a law against a religious belief. A law that allowed gays to marry would be a law that allowed freedom of religion.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[billvon 2,426]

> Courts and congress should not make a law that says gays can be married.

Correct. Nor should they make a law that says gays cannot be married. Thus, the Supreme Court should strike down the provisions of Proposition 8, and let people decide for themselves.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Quote

> Why redefine what many call a holy union?

For the same reason you want to redefine it as a holy union, I suppose.

So you think that Congres should make law against a religious belief.

A law that prohibits gays from marrying is a law against a religious belief. A law that allowed gays to marry would be a law that allowed freedom of religion.

Blues,
Dave

Hmm, intersesting point. Do you know of a church that agrees gays should be allowed to marry?

Real question as I have not learned of one.

Should they want to be married in such a church I would re look at my position. But to generally say gays should be allowed to marry as opposed to a civil union, genreally, I feel is an attack agains most religions that I am aware of.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[chadkal 0]

what about a marriage between a person and an animal, should there be any laws?

--------------------------------------------------
I am a greek midget

[rushmc 18]

Quote

> Courts and congress should not make a law that says gays can be married.

Correct. Nor should they make a law that says gays cannot be married. Thus, the Supreme Court should strike down the provisions of Proposition 8, and let people decide for themselves.

In that case the SC would be making law against religion. Which way do you want it? Or do you want it both ways?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[livendive 8]

Quote

Quote

>So you think that Congres should make law against a religious belief.

Nope. Congress should let people decide who they want to marry, and not make laws for or against any religious beliefs.

Well then we agree. Courts and congress should not make a law that says gays can be married. They can be joined under the eyes of the law however. Since being married has a religous meaning

Thanks, we agree

If you agree with him, than you also believe that a church that is willing to marry gays should be free to. A law saying they can't would be a law respecting an establishment of religion and abridging the free exercise thereof.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[labrys 0]

Quote

Since being married has a religous meaning

Nope. Being married has a religious meaning to a religious person. Being married does not have a religious meaning to a non religious person.

Owned by Remi #?

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Quote

>So you think that Congres should make law against a religious belief.

Nope. Congress should let people decide who they want to marry, and not make laws for or against any religious beliefs.

Well then we agree. Courts and congress should not make a law that says gays can be married. They can be joined under the eyes of the law however. Since being married has a religous meaning

Thanks, we agree

If you agree with him, than you also believe that a church that is willing to marry gays should be free to. A law saying they can't would be a law respecting an establishment of religion and abridging the free exercise thereof.

Blues,
Dave

I assume you posted this before you read my reply to you

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[livendive 8]

Quote

what about a marriage between a person and an animal, should there be any laws?

Neither a child nor an animal can legally enter into a binding contract. Marriage is a legally binding contract.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Since being married has a religous meaning

Nope. Being married has a religious meaning to a religious person. Being married does not have a religious meaning to a non religious person.

Disagree

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[chadkal 0]

I believe that an animal can enter a legal contract, but all that aside, should there be laws?

--------------------------------------------------
I am a greek midget

[labrys 0]

Quote

Hmm, intersesting point. Do you know of a church that agrees gays should be allowed to marry?

Real question as I have not learned of one.

You haven't tried to find one.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/05/national/05church.html

Owned by Remi #?

[labrys 0]

Quote

Disagree

So what?

Owned by Remi #?

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Hmm, intersesting point. Do you know of a church that agrees gays should be allowed to marry?

Real question as I have not learned of one.

You haven't tried to find one.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/05/national/05church.html

Thanks for the info.

While I (at this time) know little of this church, I can lead you to churchs here where I live that create churchs out of their houses to avoid taxes.

Let me ask you, why is it not good enough to say gays joined have the same rights under the law but not calling it being married is not good enough?

After all, thay see all the same "rights" which is in the end, what they are after right?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Disagree

So what?

?

So, you cant handle someone with an opinion with which you disagree?


Dont answer, I already know the answer

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,426]

>In that case the SC would be making law against religion.

No, it wouldn't, any more so than saying the freedom to choose your own religion is a law against religion. It would let people make their own choices.

Would you rather the government made your religious (and marriage) choices for you, or would you rather decide on your own?

[rushmc 18]

Quote

I believe that an animal can enter a legal contract, but all that aside, should there be laws?

Many like to say the "slippery slope" does not exist in most cases.

I seem to remember a country that just voted to give nature a legal standing under their law

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[chadkal 0]

so should there be laws against the marriage of man and animal?

--------------------------------------------------
I am a greek midget

[labrys 0]

Quote

Let me ask you, why is it not good enough to say gays joined have the same rights under the law but not calling it being married is not good enough?

First, well... the UCC isn't exactly a small church. But aside from that and to answer, I don't have any problem at all with civil unions as long as the governent refers to and legislates to civil unions for everyone. Not marriages for some and civil unions for others.

Owned by Remi #?

[rushmc 18]

Quote

>In that case the SC would be making law against religion.

No, it wouldn't, any more so than saying the freedom to choose your own religion is a law against religion. It would let people make their own choices.

Would you rather the government made your religious (and marriage) choices for you, or would you rather decide on your own?

On my own. That is why a SC should not make a law agreeing with gay marriage. Yet again striking down a state constitutional vote to make marriage a non gay union

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,426]

>so should there be laws against the marriage of man and animal?

Nope. If you want to join the Religion of the Big Furry Pooch and marry you dog, go for it. The government should have absolutely nothing to do with it.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Let me ask you, why is it not good enough to say gays joined have the same rights under the law but not calling it being married is not good enough?

First, well... the UCC isn't exactly a small church. But aside from that and to answer, I don't have any problem at all with civil unions as long as the governent refers to and legislates to civil unions for everyone. Not marriages for some and civil unions for others.

So you approve of laws against religion. The holy state of marriage to be specific

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,426]

>On my own.

Cool, so we agree.

>That is why a SC should not make a law agreeing with gay marriage.

Again, I agree. They should decide that people have the right to make their own decisions, just as they did in the 1960's when they decided that whites had the right to marry blacks. No new laws were made. They just decided that people did indeed have that right.

>Yet again striking down a state constitutional vote to make marriage a non gay union.

Right. Just as they did in 1967.