Support marriage amendment

[Reba]

Bush :rl:

Please show a little respect, and be careful with your threats, even in jest.

Even during President Clinton's term in office, I referred to him as President Clinton and would never, never suggest someone shoot him. He was an adulterer in the Oval Office, and a liar under oath. I fully supported impeaching him. But never would I want someone to take a shot at him. He was a draft dodger and said that he "loathed" people in uniform, and had no respect for military people. However, while I was in uniform, if I faced President Clinton, I would salute him as Commander in Chief.

Rational discussion of the topic is fine with me. Name-calling and personal attacks are not necessary in order to make a point.

 

[Beowulf]

.

 

[Beowulf]

It is hard to show respect for someone you despise. You can fake it, but there ya go, you still despise the person.
Ppl despised Hitler and got shot for it.
We are not that far along yet.
But hey, why not despise authority without getting veiled threats from the likes of hearing ppl like you?
BUSH DESERVES GETTING SHOT!
There, I said it, report me, asshole.

 

[kuifje75]

No wonder my face's cheek was hurting today, someone slapped me!
You're right, ^angel^, it's not a good idea to call ppl names, but sometimes I just feel so compelled to do so. For example, if a hearing person told you that deaf people are stupid, you would feel mad and think he is an ass, right? I guess it's the same feeling I have about people who support this amendment.

 

[Beowulf]

Links arre posted concerning laws, laws, and more laws.
If ever comes a day I got an illegal life, I will fight like hell.

 

[sablescort]

That proposed amendment is just plain CHENEYING idiotic.

Dumbya can just kiss my married ass! I want to share the opportunity for GLBT to enjoy what I have been enjoying for the past 2 years, a marriage!

How would you feel if the Biblical passages regarding marriage were applied to the Constitution?

The Founding Fathers would be rolling in their graves if they saw that the Constitution was being used as toilet paper!

Amendment XXVIII: No state may sanction marriage between people of the same gender.

Amendment XXIX: No state may sanction marriage between a man and a woman who was married previously but has since divorced (Matthew 5:32).

Amendment XXX: No state may sanction marriage involving a widow (unless it is to her brother-in-law - see amendment 34). All women whose husbands have passed away are to refrain from intimacy and pleasure for the remainder of their lives ( 1 Timothy 5:5-15).

Amendment XXXI: No state may sanction marriage between people of different races (Deuteronomy 7:3; Numbers 25:6-8; 36:3-9; 1 Kings 11:2; Ezra 9:2; Nehemiah 12:25-27).

Amendment XXXII: No state may sanction marriage between a Christian and a non-Christian (2 John 1;9-11; 2 Corinthians 6:14-17).

Amendment XXXIII: No state may sanction marriage involving a man who has had sexual thoughts about a woman other than the one he intends to marry (Matthew 5:28).

Amendment XXXIV: No state may sanction marriage between a man whose brother has passed away and any woman other than his brother's widow. Each state must require the brother of a deceased man to marry his brother's widow (Deuteronomy 25:5-10).

Amendment XXXIX: No state may sanction marriage between a rapist and any woman other than his victim. States must require a rapist to marry his victim (Deuteronomy 22:28-29) unless the victim failed to cry out, in which case the rapist is relieved of this obligation (Deuteronomy 22:23-24).

Amendment XXXX: No state may sanction marriage between a man and an aggressive or contentious woman (Proverbs 21;9, 21:19, 25:24; 27:15).

http://www.whitehouse.org/dof/marriage.asp


The real 14th Amendment that this proposed POS of an amendment would have to replace:

Amendment XIV - Citizenship rights. Ratified 7/9/1868.

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws

 

[Oceanbreeze]

TOPIC:

S. J. RES. 30
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JOINT RESOLUTION
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States:

`Article--

`SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

`This Article may be cited as the `Federal Marriage Amendment'.

`SECTION 2. MARRIAGE AMENDMENT.

`Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.'.

ACTION:
Pray, spread the word, contact your Senator, and sign the petition.
http://www.protectmarriagerally.com/default.asp#sj30

My viewpoint may be unpopular, but I don't really see the need for such an amendment. Why are our lawmakers so afraid of gay marriage that they have to enact laws defining marriage? Can't we all just live and let live? I honestly don't believe that supporting gay marriage or civil unions is going to have an effect on "traditional" marriage whatsoever. I REALLY think our lawmakers need to take a tranquilizer and RELAX!

But, that's just my humble opinion.

 

[bbnt]

any to human being wanting to be married should be allowed to. No individual or group should be allowed to control another persons right to me married!

 

[Cheri]

I think Everyone has the Right to Choose who they want to married to not us; not the Government...It does not effect my life or anyone else's Life for all that matters. :P

 

[deafdyke]

There is no analogy between same-sex "marriage" and interracial marriage whatsoever.

Reba.....let me ask you this question. Suppose your current significent other just happened to have the same body parts down south as you do? Would you feel the same way towards them? I love the people I do, b/c I love them as PEOPLE...I love their personlities. It doesn't matter worth scatalogical noun whether they happen to possess the "right" body parts.
Reba....there IS an analogy between same sex marriage and interracial marriage. Did you not know that a lot of the same people who were against interracial marriage are now against gay marriage...using virtually all of the same "arguments" Marriage hasn't gone down in flames as a sacred tenant b/c two people who love each other who happen to have different color skin were able to get married...the same will be true for gay marriage!

 

[Reba]

Reba.....Suppose your current significent other just happened to have the same body parts down south as you do?

That person would not be my "significant other" in the first place. I am a woman married to a man.

I love the people I do, b/c I love them as PEOPLE...I love their personlities.

Yes, I too love other people in a brotherly/sisterly way, not in a sexual way.

Did you not know that a lot of the same people who were against interracial marriage are now against gay marriage...using virtually all of the same "arguments"

So, what does that prove (if it is even true; I haven't seen the stats on that)? Suppose I said, "A lot of the same people who were against XYZ are now against the marriage amendment"? What would that prove? There are some nut cases on both sides of every issue.

Marriage hasn't gone down in flames as a sacred tenant b/c two people who love each other who happen to have different color skin were able to get married...the same will be true for gay marriage!

Skin color and sexual behavior are not the same thing.
If you say marriage is a "sacred tenet" then are you agreeing that marriage has a religious basis, not just civil? If that is so, then we can further discuss the theological implications of gay "marriage".
BTW, the Bible does not command against people of different races marrying each other, but of different religions.

I appreciate your courteous response. That shows we can disagree on topics in a civilized way.

 

[Angel]

I like her!

 

[Reba]

It is hard to show respect for someone you despise. You can fake it, but there ya go, you still despise the person.

Yes, it is hard to show respect for somoneone you despise. I thoroughly despised former President Clinton. However, as a civilized mature American, I still respected the office of President, and behaved accordingly.

Ppl despised Hitler and got shot for it. We are not that far along yet.

That's why I don't support "hate crimes" legislation. No one should be prosecuted for despising or hating anyone else. They should be strongly prosecuted if they act upon those feelings by means of actual or threatened material destruction or physical violence.

But hey, why not despise authority without getting veiled threats from the likes of hearing ppl like you?

No threats from me. I only request you show a little more respect for others, and learn to manage your anger. I definitely DON'T want you to get into any trouble.

BUSH DESERVES GETTING SHOT!
There, I said it, report me, asshole.

I'm not going to "report" you to anyone, but you really should get some help in coping with overreaction. Making statements like, "BUSH DESERVES GETTING SHOT" is totally irrational.

 

[Reba]

My viewpoint may be unpopular...

Actually, in reading these many replies to my post, I would say you have the popular viewpoint with the majority of these ADers. I'm the one with the "unpopular" viewpoint.

Doesn't bother me. Some things are more important than being "popular".

I agree that both sides of the debate need to stay "calm".

 

[Beowulf]

There you are, Reba.
LOL.
I dunno if a whole team of psychotherapists working around the clock in Zurich would do me any good, but you already helped by sticking with your guns and being here.
Thanks, and my apologies, was just another bad day for me...
I am so glad you are here.

 

[Oceanbreeze]

Actually, in reading these many replies to my post, I would say you have the popular viewpoint with the majority of these ADers. I'm the one with the "unpopular" viewpoint.

Doesn't bother me. Some things are more important than being "popular".

I agree that both sides of the debate need to stay "calm".

I agree that they do, too. I guess I question the need for the amendment in the first place. Why are some people so insecure about the idea of gay people marrying? It really don't understand it. I say live and let live.

 

[Beowulf]

And keep the $#%$ govt out of it.

 

[Soonersseth]

Why is GBLT griping about marriage rights now ? There were homosexuals since begining of time why did they wait 2000 years to decide they need to marry ? Homosexuality is not a new concept.

 

[deafdyke]

Reba....that's not what I asked you. I asked you if your significent other just happened to be a woman .....just the same as they are now...but with one TINY little difference (as Nathan Lane's charecter in The Birdcage says) would you still love them the same way you love them now? Why does it matter that the people I happen to be attracted to have the same sex chromosome make up and/or the same genitals as me?

Skin color and sexual behavior are not the same thing.
If you say marriage is a "sacred tenet" then are you agreeing that marriage has a religious basis, not just civil? If that is so, then we can further discuss the theological implications of gay "marriage".
BTW, the Bible does not command against people of different races marrying each other, but of different religions.

How? Give me one GOOD reason why God would condemn the love of two mutally consenting people? Because some people claim it says so in the Bible? Way back when a lot of people claimed that the Bible said that witches should be burned at the stake, that blacks weren't as good as whites and lots of other things!
I do not say that marriage is a sacred tenet...I was simply using the words of those who are against gay marriage. Marriage is a sacred thing....but it's also a civil thing...atheists can get married, some GLB folks can get married in Unitarian churches and so on....Oh and some religions (and not just Christian Idenity folk) say that the Bible does speak out against interracial marriage.
You know....Jesus NEVER EVER said anything about gay people. He just said to love your neighbor as your brother. Matter of fact, some Bibical scholars think that Jesus may have been gay!
Not all Christians think that the Bible says that homosexuality is a sin...I'lll dig up some links for you to look at...you might just might be surprised at what some scholars have to say about homosexuality in the Bible

 

[Reba]

Reba....that's not what I asked you. I asked you if your significent other just happened to be a woman ....would you still love them the same way you love them now?

I answered your question that way because for me that is a totally implausible scenario. I wouldn't have a "significant other" of the same sex in the first place. My "signficant other" wouldn't just "happen" to be a woman. I wouldn't be sexually attracted to a woman. I wouldn't pursue a romantic relationship with a woman.

Give me one GOOD reason why God would condemn the love of two mutally consenting people?

God doesn't condemn love. He condemns lust. His reason is, He is a holy God.

Way back when a lot of people claimed that the Bible said that witches should be burned at the stake, that blacks weren't as good as whites and lots of other things!

"People claimed that the Bible said" those things. Yes, the Bible condemns witchcraft but it doesn't say they should be "burned at the stake." The Bible does not say black people aren't as good as white people.

Oh and some religions (and not just Christian Idenity folk) say that the Bible does speak out against interracial marriage.

They can say all they want but please show me the Bible verse that supports that statement.

Jesus NEVER EVER said anything about gay people. He just said to love your neighbor as your brother.

Jesus didn't say anything about "gay" people but He spoke out about sexual sins. He also said, and showed, that He reenforced the laws of the Old Testament. BTW to love your neighbor as your brother certainly doesn't mean to have sex with him (incest)!

Matter of fact, some Bibical scholars think that Jesus may have been gay!

There are no real Bible scholars that say Jesus was gay. Jesus was without sin. He couldn't have been our pure sacrifice for our sins if He Himself were impure. He had no lustful relationships with anyone, man or woman.

Not all Christians think that the Bible says that homosexuality is a sin.

Not all "Christians" think that all kinds of things are not sin that God has said IS sin. The Bible's truth is not determined by how many people agree with it (like a poll).

Since you refer to "Christians" what is your definition of a Christian? Not all people or groups that use the title "Christian" are actually born-again followers of Christ.