ACU Sends Congratulations, Thanks to Massachusetts Chief Justice for Making Big Bush

[heyjoeo]

Wow. Do you even realize how snobbish your tonality is when you write?

 

[Fantasea]

Wow. Do you even realize how snobbish your tonality is when you write?

How kind of you to notice. For a while, I thought I was beginning to slip.

Now that we understand each other, will you comment on the question I asked? I've repeated it below.

I've never said that a gay couple can't be a family. Of course a gay couple can be a family. All it takes is a homosexual husband married to a lesbian wife. They can have a civil or religious ceremony; whichever they want.

What's wrong with that?

 

[heyjoeo]

Why would they get married Fant? That doesn't make any sense. Gay men want to marry other men. Gay women want to marry other women. Why would a Gay man and a Gay woman get married?

The reason you wrote that was to ridicule the whole situtation. This isn't a funny topic. Just because you are a bigot doesn't mean you have the right to trash on people because they are different.

 

[Fantasea]

Why would they get married Fant? That doesn't make any sense. Gay men want to marry other men. Gay women want to marry other women. Why would a Gay man and a Gay woman get married?

The reason you wrote that was to ridicule the whole situtation. This isn't a funny topic. Just because you are a bigot doesn't mean you have the right to trash on people because they are different.

What's the point in a man wanting to marry a man and a woman wanting to marry a woman?

Marriage has always been considered a social event for the conjugating of a man and woman to form a family within which to propagate the human race.

When two men figure out a way to produce a child together or two women find away to produce a child together, then that would be time to think about same sex marriage.

Until then, it's just a group of people trying to exert pressure, via the exploitation of unintended and ridiculous loopholes in the law, to, as it were, join a club for which they can never be qualified.

They asked for 'civil unions' which were granted. But now, that is not enough, is it? Regardless of whatever may be granted, it will never be enough, will it?

 

[heyjoeo]

Well Fant you are ignorant so I guess I'll just have to spoon feed you.

Are you gay? Well if you were, I'm sure you would want to marry a man. You wouldn't understand that feeling (neither would I) but you should realize that a gay individual would want to get married to their respective gender.

Until then, it's just a group of people trying to exert pressure, via the exploitation of unintended and ridiculous loopholes in the law, to, as it were, join a club for which they can never be qualified.

Who are you to say who is qualified or not?! Goodness!

Stop the bigotry!

 

[freedom69714]

Wil someone please ASK Judge Mashall and George Bush & Friends

Where were they when A MURDER!! can get married and have the same rights as any other married couple ??????????????????????????????????????????

Where were they When a RAPPEIST could get married and have the same rights as every other married couple?????????????????????????????????

""""""""SPELL / GRAMER CHECK PLEASE!!!! WERE ARE YOU"""""""

Where were they when a CHILD MOLISTER can get married and have the same rights as everyone else???????????????????????????????????????????

When a man /woman can get married 3-5-7-10 times and have the same rights as every other married couple ????????????????????????????????

??????????? Were they DRINKING THE KOOL-AID ???????????????

We are not talking about religous marriage here this is FED / STATE marriages

In fact as far as I know most religeage's would not knowling allow any of the ABOVE I memtion to get MARRIED

No I'm not gay howeverr I do believe in fighting for the underdog

 

[Fantasea]

you should realize that a gay individual would want to get married to their respective gender.

Why?

Who are you to say who is qualified or not?!

I didn't make the rules that have governed marital relationships since the beginning of recorded history. In case it wasn't stated with suficient clarity the first time around, let me repeat:

Marriage has always been considered a social event for the conjugating of a man and woman to form a family within which to propagate the human race.

When two men figure out a way to produce a child together or two women find away to produce a child together, then that would be time to think about same sex marriage.

Until then, it's just a group of people trying to exert pressure, via the exploitation of unintended and ridiculous loopholes in the law, to, as it were, join a club for which they can never be qualified.

They asked for 'civil unions' which were granted. But now, that is not enough, is it? Regardless of whatever may be granted, it will never be enough, will it?

Stop the bigotry!

If you consider that speaking the truth is bigotry, then by your standards, I stand convicted.

 

[Gabo]

Re: ACU Sends Congratulations, Thanks to Massachusetts Chief Justice for Making Big B

Why has the government created an exclusive club anyways?

What gives a married couple more right to evade taxes than I have?

 

[Fantasea]

Re: ACU Sends Congratulations, Thanks to Massachusetts Chief Justice for Making Big B

Why has the government created an exclusive club anyways?

What gives a married couple more right to evade taxes than I have?

The US government did not create the 'club'. However it recognizes that the institution of marriage has existed since the earliest recorded history.

You are mistaken with respect to income taxes. Until George W. Bush prevailed upon Congress to pass the tax cuts he proposed, a married couple filing jointly paid more than two single individuals having the same income. For many years this was referred to as the 'marriage penalty'.

Now a married couple filing jointly will pay the same amount as two single individuals having the same income.

 

[Gabo]

Re: ACU Sends Congratulations, Thanks to Massachusetts Chief Justice for Making Big B

They should have to file for the same amount as anyone would.

That holding true, there is absolutely no reason for marriage to be in the constitution, as it is a purely religious ceremony.

 

[alienken]

To PRS.....Most people are O.K. with some kind of licensed union partnership that would give gay couples all of the same benafits of married couples. We are against gay mariage because it is defined as 1-man and 1-woman by God. Set up something legal but keep the church out of it.

 

[Fantasea]

Well, the fat's in the fire now.

Those who heard the President's SOTUA tonight heard him say that there should be a constitutional amendment to define marriage as being between one man and one woman. His remark about activist judges who 'legislate from the bench' was an obvious reference to judges who interpret the law to permit same-sex marriages.

 

[heyjoeo]

The President also didn't write that speech, probably practiced for the past 2 years, and only thinks that because the advisors in the shadows told him to.

As for you Fant, I highly recommend you do a lot of drugs, and burnout the bad brain cells that reside in your head. Come back and try to understand me then.

 

[Fantasea]

The President also didn't write that speech, probably practiced for the past 2 years, and only thinks that because the advisors in the shadows told him to.

Of course the President didn't write his State of the Union address. Have you any idea of the length of time required to research material and craft it into a forty minute speech? Evidently not. The president presents a team of speech writers with the points he wishes to have included.

When they arrive at a final draft, the president edits it and it's programmed into a teleprompter.

My guess is the last speech written by a president was Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. It was shorter than some of the posts in this forum; consisting of just 233 words. However, those immortal words had the power and majesty of a thousand times their number.

As for you Fant, I highly recommend you do a lot of drugs, and burnout the bad brain cells that reside in your head. Come back and try to understand me then.

You wouldn't be suggesting that I adopt the treatment regimen that is, apparently, sustaining you, would you?

 

[Thor]

Gay relationships go against nature. I don't hate gay people but I don't agree with their life style. In my opinion this is more of a common sense issue. If you believe in God then you understand the scriptural understanding of marriage. God created Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve. One of the purposes was for reproduction.

If you don't believe in God then just use common sense and look what has come from the gay community namely AIDS. Unless science has changed its findings I believe AIDS is a definite risk in the gay community. Once again, common sense. Don't do it--don't get AIDS. Do it and stand a chance of getting AIDS. Seems like a simple option to me.

 

[freedom69714]

HI Thor It seems you miss my point WHEATHER I believe in GOD or not we do have a separation of Church and state .

When you enter the :hm White house you leave the BIBLE at the FRONT door.
And when you enter the U.S senate you leave the BIBLE at the front door. And when you enter the the U.S house of Congress you leave the BIBLE at the FRONT door! .

This is Ex termly hard to do because # 1 This is YOUR FAITH 2) It's something you have been bought up with ever since you were a little child it's your Mother & Father your Sisters & Brothers.

It's every thing you have ever known however it must be done if we really want a separation of CHURCH and STATE

Case in point both Senator Kennedy and Kerry are Catholics how ever when they have to make a decision they MUST make it on it MERITS not their believe beliefs .

This is the only way be assured of a TRUE SEPARATION of CHURCH and STATE .

However I do believe John Kerry did pay a high price for standing up for something he believed in

BUT BEING A CHILD OF THE 60s it's something that's in your blood I did it as well as million of others have done it. From CIVIL RIGHTS to EQUAL RIGHTS for WOMAN etc., etc., etc.,

It's SO HARD to be a LIGHT in the DARKNESS :duel

 

[Thor]

Freedom69,

I wasn't actually responding to you. I was just making a general post. However, I would like to debate this with you but unfortunately I've get to get back to work. I will post a more later.

 

[Batman]

HI Thor It seems you miss my point WHEATHER I believe in GOD or not we do have a separation of Church and state .

When you enter the :hm White house you leave the BIBLE at the FRONT door.
:duel

Yet every man who has served as president placed his hand on one before entering the White House.

 

[anomaly]

Yet every man who has served as president placed his hand on one before entering the White House.

Well yes, all did. But there is a notable here. Abraham Lincoln is believed by many scholars to have been an atheist, of course acting as a Christian to gain political support.

 

[Thor]

Freedon69,

Thanks for your patience in waiting for my reply. Let me start by apologizing upfront for what I feel will be a lengthy response. I will try to shorten it as much as possible. Ok, with that said, let me begin.

If I'm correct, you feel all Representatives regardless of the branch of government should leave their beliefs at the door. Correct? In judicial appointments I would agree. They have to rule by the Constution. No arguments there.

However, when it comes to the office of President and Congress I do not agree. Why? It's simple. These are the people WE elect to shape legislation and the general operations of the country.

I, as a voter, might vote for a man/woman on a local, state and national level based on that persons belief (secular or spiritual) and views. When I vote for them I expect that those beliefs will be represented in Washington (or where ever) they go. If not, I have been betrayed by my Representative. So, checking it at the door will not work (at least for me). If my Congressman runs on conservative value then by-golly I expect him to do his best to shape this country by those values and introduce legislation to support that view. That's why I voted for him/her. To represent me. Thus, the power of the vote. Democracy.

Creation might be just as important to me as the theory of evolution is to you (this is just an example). I'm going to lean toward someone that believes like I do.

Now, for the issue of separation of Church and State. I'm assuming we are talking about Amendment 1 of the Constitution which reads:

CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION, OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF; OR ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH, OR OF THE PRESS; ORTHE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE PEACEABLY TO ASSEMBLE, AND TO PETITION THE GOVERNMENT FOR A REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES.

The burden is on government not to restrict the church or establish one national religion. There is no way I read where the beliefs of a person (not even a "church") is restricted from influencing government. All the first Admin. is saying is "Government, you can't suppress a person for there religious belief." It's not saying that religious person can't attempt to shape government. If anything its the complete opposite. The last line says to "PETITION THE GOVERNMENT FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES. This guarantees people the right to ask the government to provide relief for a wrong thorough the courts, legislation or other governmental actions. It works with the right of assembly by allowing people to join together and seek change from the government.

People want to argue that "The framers meant this! The founders meant that!" I say, "the constitution said this!" Which is more important?

Also, I agree with Batman. We can have a President swear on the Bible but we can't expect him to uphold it's principles (if he decides to). Kinda hypocritical.

 

[Fantasea]

Well yes, all did. But there is a notable here. Abraham Lincoln is believed by many scholars to have been an atheist, of course acting as a Christian to gain political support.

It's gratifying to know that even after he's been dead for a hundred forty years, the socialist-lib-Dem and their apologists are still hard at work revising history to besmirch the man who gave them their most reliable constituency.

Talk about biting the hand that fed them.

 

[Fantasea]

Freedon69,

CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION, OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF.

Think of the context of the times. The colonists had fled from a country where the state formed and controlled a religion so that a king could rid himself of an unwanted wife. That was The Church of England, with the King of England as it head. Anyone who refused to accept that church, swear allegiance to the king as head of the church, and follow its teachings were subject to capital punishment.

The founding fathers did not want Congress to form a National Church of the United States, and they did not want anyone to be prohibited from worshiping as he pleased, or from totally ignoring worship, if that was the preference of the individual.

The modern twisted concept held by the ACLU, atheists, and socialist-lib-Dems was developed more than a hundred years after Jefferson's letter to the Danbury ministers.

Was everyone so stupid during the intervening years?

 

[Batman]

It's gratifying to know that even after he's been dead for a hundred forty years, the socialist-lib-Dem and their apologists are still hard at work revising history to besmirch the man who gave them their most reliable constituency.

Talk about biting the hand that fed them.

----------------------------------

Think of the context of the times. The colonists had fled from a country where the state formed and controlled a religion so that a king could rid himself of an unwanted wife. That was The Church of England, with the King of England as it head. Anyone who refused to accept that church, swear allegiance to the king as head of the church, and follow its teachings were subject to capital punishment.

The founding fathers did not want Congress to form a National Church of the United States, and they did not want anyone to be prohibited for worshiping as he pleased, or for totally ignoring worship, if that was the preference of the individual.

The modern twisted concept held by the ACLU, atheists, and socialist-lib-Dems was developed more than a hundred years after Jefferson's letter to the Danbury ministers.

Was everyone so stupid during the intervening years?

:applaud Very well said!

 

[anomaly]

It's gratifying to know that even after he's been dead for a hundred forty years, the socialist-lib-Dem and their apologists are still hard at work revising history to besmirch the man who gave them their most reliable constituency.

Talk about biting the hand that fed them.

Actually, I wasn't saying that Abe was bad, I appreciate the fact that an atheist could climb the ranks and become president in a mostly Christian country. Abe Lincoln ranks second, in my mind, of greatest presidents in our history. Second of course to the great FDR.

 

[Schweddy]

Re: ACU Sends Congratulations, Thanks to Massachusetts Chief Justice for Making Big B

Abe Lincoln ranks second, in my mind, of greatest presidents in our history.

Why? What did he do?