This irritates me...

XMEN Ashaman DTM · Post by **XMEN Ashaman DTM** » Thu Feb 12, 2004 3:46 pm

<a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4240022/">w ...  I'm not gay. I think that religion should stay out of government. And I think that the rights of the individual (which is what this country was founded on) are being trampled by people that take offense to what other people do. I guess my point is easily made with this argument: (me): Why do you think that gays should not be allowed to marry? (other person): Because it offends me, and goes against what the institution of marriage is all about. (me): How does it go against marriage when all the government does for married couples is give them benefits such as tax breaks? (other person): The government should recognize a union between a man and a woman. A union between two people of the same sex is not right. (me): Is it not right because of what you believe in your religion? (other person): Yes. (me): Then why don't you live in another country? The United States is not a theocracy. If you want theocracy, live with the Taliban, Ayatollas, or another religious state. The US has held as its founding belief that the rights of the individual can not be taken away by the state. (other person): But I think it's wrong for two people to do that. It takes away from my marriage. (me): It's not harming you. If you don't like it, don't do it. How does two men or two women marrying, have anything to do with you? (other person): It's offensive. (me): But it's not harming you. It's not taking away from your rights. If you don't like it, don't do it! Your thoughts and comments please. <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/happy.gif ALT=":D">

XMEN Iceman · Post by **XMEN Iceman** » Thu Feb 12, 2004 4:14 pm

Ok, it offends me. But I think they have the right to associate and do what they want in private. However, I do not believe that they should have the right to be "married". A relationship of same sex people like this is not marriage in the strictest sense. Why do gay people require their relationship to be marriage? It is offensive to me, plus my religion. Marriage in most religions is about a union before God, not just in a government's eyes. A gay "union" is not concencrated in the eye of God or the bible. Why push the issue down my throat when I do not deny them their privacy rights? I will not treat them wrongly, but I do not agree that they have the right to be "married". Can't we agree not to push any harder and relax? Don't deny me the right to disagree with their union so they can make their rights more important than mine. **sorry, added more thoughts ** Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub141.ezboard.com/bxmenclan.sho ... ceman>XMEN Iceman </A> at: 2/12/04 4:18 pm

XMEN Iceman · Post by **XMEN Iceman** » Thu Feb 12, 2004 4:28 pm

Ok, more thoughts. Do I have to accept EVERYONE's sex practices and lifestyles? Do I have to like and accept that whatever you do to get your jollies is OK? Of course not, this is what makes America great. We can agree to disagree. But, you have to make a stand for morals. Yes, morals. If you don't have some level of morals and I consider this a moral issue, then you are more or less without some type of values. We all have a level of values that we are comfortable with. These are often associated with some type of belief in a God or higher being, level of conscienciness (sp), etc. I am not going to say that the level of morals is the same as pedofiles is the same as being gay, that is not what I am going to say. But, if a group starts saying that loving children in a sexual way is their right then should I accept it? Should I accept live animal sacrifices? Some of us love animals. I don't know where we should start and end. But I know that my beliefs are important to me and what I want to show my children is that I believe in something. Gay marriage is not what I believe to be a moral right. That is my opinion. If any of you or my friends were gay I will not hate them, that is not my place to judge you. But I don't have to agree that you have a right to be called "married" in the eyes of the state and in the eyes of God. Thanks for your understanding.

Post by **XMEN Gambit** » Thu Feb 12, 2004 4:35 pm

You are correct when you say that an individual, or a minority, has rights and freedoms. You seem quick to defend those individual rights and freedoms. That's good. We live in a country of unprecedented freedom. I thank God that I do. But our government is supposed to be ruled by the majority, not stepping carefully around every possibility of offending anyone. Yes, the individual has freedoms, but when faced with the possibility of "offending" some minority, the courts are often all too willing to offend the remaining majority in the name of individual rights/freedoms. If the majority can get a constitutional amendment made, directly or via elections, either allowing or forbidding homosexual marriage, or on any other issue, then the minority can continue to try to change the unfavorable result, live with it, or, as you say, emigrate somewhere else. The current proposal to not allow "marriage" between homosexuals, but rather to define marriage as man + woman and create a "civil union" category for homosexuals, with the benefits traditionally given married couples, seems to limit the difference to semantics. Ok, so what's the big deal? You ask the folks who think marriage = M + W to allow the label to apply to M + M or W + W, because the difference is only semantics. Well, turn the question around, and ask Mr. Gay why he can't accept a simple difference of semantics, when the majority clearly wants to lean that way! Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub141.ezboard.com/bxmenclan.sho ... ambit>XMEN Gambit</A>  <IMG HEIGHT=10 WIDTH=10 SRC="http://www.xmenclan.org/images/x.gif" BORDER=0> at: 2/12/04 4:38 pm

XMEN Ashaman DTM · Post by **XMEN Ashaman DTM** » Thu Feb 12, 2004 4:43 pm

This is my personal beliefs here... I don't think pedophiles should have the right to "love" children. That harms children. I don't think that animals should be sacrificed, but that's a personal belief and has no bearing on my religious beliefs... I just think it's wrong to take away animals in that way. There are groups that believe in animal sacrifice, and they do sacrifice animals. But the state has dictated that they must be sacrificed in a humane manner. That satisfies my moral value that animals are living beings and deserve respect. But, pedophilia and gay marriage is a separate thing. Gay marriage doesn't hurt either party involved. What it does is it puts the couple on an equal footing with opposite sex marriages... according to what laws and rights can be granted to them. I believe that the state can recognize a marriage, and the church can not. (Indeed, this is the case with my dad's second marriage... the catholic church doesn't recognize a second marriage.) But just because a church recognizes a marriage, doesn't give that marriage any priveledges from the state (no matter how seemingly insignificant those benefits are). <blockquote>Quote:<hr> That is my opinion. If any of you or my friends were gay I will not hate them, that is not my place to judge you. But I don't have to agree that you have a right to be called "married" in the eyes of the state and in the eyes of God.<hr></blockquote> That's a big part of the problem from my view. Too many people believe that the government should take on values according to their belief system. In my opinion, if you want to follow a religion, you have to abide by its beliefs. But if you don't want to follow a religion, then there is no way that that religion's beliefs should be applied to you. I highly doubt that Catholic (or protestant for that matter) women would want to be clothed, from head to toe, according to Islam (as I understand it). Yet that is a fundamental belief of most Islamic sects. And what if you are Atheist? Should someone else's definition of right and wrong apply to you when that definition clearly violates no rights of other people? Please remember that if I offend, it is only because I have a different veiwpoint on the matter. It is not because I'm out to hurt anyone.

Post by **XMEN Gambit** » Thu Feb 12, 2004 4:49 pm

Asha, did you write that before or after reading my post above? I thought it answered these points sufficiently.

XMEN Ashaman DTM · Post by **XMEN Ashaman DTM** » Thu Feb 12, 2004 4:50 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>But our government is supposed to be ruled by the majority, not stepping carefully around every possibility of offending anyone. Yes, the individual has freedoms, but when faced with the possibility of "offending" some minority, the courts are often all too willing to offend the remaining majority in the name of individual rights/freedoms.<hr></blockquote> That's the rub though. Our judicial system is supposed to check that "majority rules" side of our government and be sure to weigh the rights of the individual against the law. Now, if a law is passed that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman, then I see two things happening: 1) Gays try to change the law back the other way. I'm slightly in favor of this. Only because I'm of the view that I don't want anyone else dictating how I should live my personal life, as long as I don't stomp on the rights of others. (I think it would be entertaining to see the sides reversed: pro-gay marriage in the majority and anti-gay marriage in the minority. It would be instructive to both sides, IMO.) 2) Any benefits to marrying, given by the government, are repealed. No tax breaks, no credits, no adjustments for income, and so on. You file with your spouse as a dependent, or you file separately. This is the BIG issue here with gay marriages. Currently, only a couple of states allow benefits to be given by the state to gay couples. IMO, this is very wrong and goes against what our society stands for.

XMEN Ashaman DTM · Post by **XMEN Ashaman DTM** » Thu Feb 12, 2004 4:51 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Asha, did you write that before or after reading my post above? I thought it answered these points sufficiently.<hr></blockquote> Before. Just took a minute to post it. <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/happy.gif ALT=":D">

Variable · Post by **Variable** » Thu Feb 12, 2004 5:10 pm

I absolutely hate to do this, but I have to paraphrase Bill O'Reilly. Caught a part of his show during my mid shift last night, and he made a very valid point on this topic: If a Constitutional ammendment is passed legalizing gay marriage, then under the "Equal Treatment*" law any other lifestyle would be legally entitled to marriage, ie polygamy etc. That being said, I think this is more of a motion to try to make a point. There was a poll amongst those supporting this, asking if the Gov't gave gay civil unions equality under the law, meaning tax incentives and such, but didn't call it "Marriage", would they still accept it? The answer was overwhelmingly no. *Not sure if thats the exact phrase used, but gimme a break, it was 3 am. <div style="text-align:center"><img src="http://www.ryanaaron.com/dtm/images/ava ... riable.gif" style="border:0;"/></div> <div style="text-align:center">The world will not end in a blinding flash of light or virulent pestilence. It will end with me choking the life out of it with my bare hands.</div>

Scorch · Post by **Scorch** » Thu Feb 12, 2004 10:23 pm

Sitting back and reading so far, as well as bringing my own knowledge of the subject here is what I have observed. Gay/Homosexual people wish to get married not only because of the benifits involved (IE tax breaks, whatever) but also for a few more important reasons, 1) They can visit each other in the hospital which they are currently unable to do in some places because they are not married or are not family, also will enable them to make important descisions for each other in emergency situations. 2) They want to show the world the love that they have for each other. This love makes many people uncomfortable (I will admit myself included a bit) and so many people wish to hide it away where it can't be seen. In other words people wish to deny them the feeling of love they have for each other is valid, or that it is wrong. Now I am sure there are a few people out there that would get married just for the benifits, however there are plenty of examples of there on the hetrosexual side as well so it really doesn't mean anything other then they are human. Religious people want to deny homosexuals from getting married for a few reasons. 1) They feel it will diminish the meaning of being married, which has traditionally been 1 man and 1 woman joined together in a bond of love. 2) They believe homosecuality is wrong and anything legitimizing as valid should not be done. So anyways thats pretty much what I have observed. And now a few questions/arguements... As far as gay marriage diminishing the meaning of marriage? I think the fact that 50% of marriages end in divorace kinda does more damage then the fact that people of the same sex are married. I mean isn't marriage supposed to last "till death do us apart"? How would you feel if somebody came up to you and said that the love you feel for your wife/husband wasn't real and so you weren't allowed to be married and would have to settle for a civil union? I mean come on who is anybody else to tell you the feelings that you have are real or not? Try this one... Because my religion does not agree with your life style, we are going to make you second rate citizens and deny you the one thing that this country was based on, all men were created equal. We will do this by denying you of your humanity, that is deny that you are capable of feeling love. Hoping that you run back into the shadows where we won't have to look at you and we can pretend you don't exist. Yeah I know the last ones a bit harsh, but think about it. What exactly do you think you are saying when you say... <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Why do gay people require their relationship to be marriage? It is offensive to me, plus my religion.<hr></blockquote> and <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Why push the issue down my throat when I do not deny them their privacy rights? <hr></blockquote> ok so they can do what they do as long as they do it in privicy, yet what if they found your lifestyle offensive, would you do everything behind closed doors? <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Don't deny me the right to disagree with their union so they can make their rights more important than mine.<hr></blockquote> Now what right are they taking away from you? your right to disagree with their life style? Nope you are still allowed to disagree with them as much as you want to, however that right does not include the ability to accutally stop them from doing what they are doing (nor should it) <blockquote>Quote:<hr>The current proposal to not allow "marriage" between homosexuals, but rather to define marriage as man + woman and create a "civil union" category for homosexuals, with the benefits traditionally given married couples, seems to limit the difference to semantics. <hr></blockquote> I think I pretty much covered this up above, but I wanted to just point it out again, The diffrence is not semantics, in truth marriage is not the issue, what is the issue is what the marriage represents. Now if you create somthing seperate from marriage, even if it has all the same benifits then you are telling people that their feelings are not real, and they are incapable of feeling the emotions involved in a true marriage.

Post by **XMEN Gambit** » Thu Feb 12, 2004 11:21 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Why push the issue down my throat when I do not deny them their privacy rights? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ok so they can do what they do as long as they do it in privicy, yet what if they found your lifestyle offensive, would you do everything behind closed doors?<hr></blockquote> Um, I DO do everything behind closed doors. I don't demand to be able to parade down the streets of a city, or take over a CHILDREN'S theme park, to express my sexuality. (Disney does it every year...) Do I not have the right to raise my children according to my beliefs? Why does the homosexual agenda demand that books such as "Heather has two mommies" be read to my children in a public school? Does another book which denounces instead of promotes the practice get equal time? Don't think so. So that's one strike; that agenda intends (not just threatens, but willfully intends) to erode my family values. Discussions like this usually have at least one foray into what is moral and what is not. Iceman went there briefly already. He, and I, believe that practicing homosexuality is morally wrong. Several of you reading this either don't feel that way, or do to some extent but do not wish to appear intolerant, etc. To both I would say, what is the basis for your morals? Is it what you personally believe? That would mean that what is morally right would change with people's opinions, and the majority would always be "right". Is it the laws or constitution written by the leaders of your nation or community? I don't think you'll find many people who think that laws are always moral. But even if you do, we live in a democracy where the majority rules (or should). Is there some "fabric of the universe" or law of nature thing that defines it? Seems that that would be pretty fuzzy where morals are concerned, and open to interpretaion, and we're back to everyone having an opinon. Majority rules. Then there are those who believe that there is a God, who created the universe (or at least knows more about it than we do), and has given us an instruction book to live by. For some that is the Bible, for others the Koran, etc. Then the discussion gets into religion, and we can cover that but it would take another thread. Suffice it to say that most of these written spiritual guides denounce homosexuality. So, what is moral and good? According to the arguments above, it boils down to either "majority rules" or a set of guidelines given to us by a/the God who knows what's best for us. Either way, homosexuality is in most cases on the wrong side of that fence. I've often heard people say "you can't legislate morality," and I've seen many examples of that. But it seems that something you don't want to do is reward immorality.

Spinning Hat · Post by **Spinning Hat** » Thu Feb 12, 2004 11:58 pm

I don't normally get into topics like this, (As most of you know.) but I feel a need to support the rights of Gay couples, even though it is not something I feel is right, but something that has been happening since the beginning of time, but is now, in this last generation or so, really coming to light in society. I have a few gay friends, and even a few coworkers who are gay, and I repect their right to do as they please in the privacy of their homes. I do feel that they have a right to be recognized by the state as some form of "unionized" couple. whether that be a civil-union, granting all the same priviledges as a marriage, or a regular marriage, like many of us here are in. I love my wife and children ( born and the one on the way..) and wouldn't give that up for the world. Everyone has the capacity to love and be loved, homosexuals included. I think they should be able to show their love for each other in a meanigful way, regardless of the semantics. Hopefully, we'll find a solution that fits for most everyone. I am a firm believer of the separation of church and state, and feel that religous values should not play a part in this decision whether to allow or disallow gay marriages. I know that is never going to happen, but what if one of our children turns out to be homosexual? Have we failed then as partents? It's not a disease, that we can take them to the doctor and have cured, it's a biological and emotional attraction to someone of the same sex. Do we then want our children to be denied the ability to express their love and undying devotion to their partner? As parents, we want to give our children everything we can to make them good, honest and moral adults as they grow older, and to pass our values and morals onto their children, and most of all, we want our kids to be happy in who they are, and unashamed if they are different, or "special", because they just wouldn't be our kids if they weren't unique in some way. Overall, I think that Gay marriages should be allowed. Let the couples make their own decisions whether they feel that they want to make a lifelong commitment to their partner. Leave religion out of it. <hr /><div style="text-align:center"> "Never, Never, Never Quit" -Winston Churchill</div>

ITIMAN · Post by **ITIMAN** » Fri Feb 13, 2004 12:46 am

It is late so I will just say a few words and maybe continue later... Being a Father now, I want to teach my kids that a Man and Woman are supposed to be together and marry and not two of the same sex... Like Gambit said, the book reading in school I think is ridiculous...I feel like that is forcing our innocent children to look at something they are not prepared for at a young age. There are umpteen hundred more books I would rather them read or be read to. Yes my religion, same as Gambit's and Iceman's, believe that homosexuality is wrong.. You dont have to look far for the reason God made a male and a female to carry on bloodlines. I do not want to slam gays but I just can not fathom a household with two Dad's or two Mothers raising children that are not fully their own....What can they create together? nothing. (cloning embryo's I am scared of too, but that is another thread) It is not natural for two women to concieve a child, or two men to concieve a child... Although children having an adult to look up to is better that nothing at all. In this day and age sadly this lifestyle is becoming an accepted norm. TV Shows are not ashamed of showing us this lifestyle, "because there is a market" for it the networks say..(Another thread about media, The media takes all of us to the HOUSE without blinking...) Anyway....I am deeply saddened to think my children will have to make tougher decisions about life than I probably will in the span of my lifetime.. I am greatly saddened for those people and I wish it just would not happen.. I will teach my children to avoid same sex attraction, but at the same time I will teach them not to hate the people who decide to choose that lifestyle. Goodnight! ITIMAN Galations 2:20 <img src="http://members.cox.net/ccraig3/webavatarbioderm.jpg" style="border:0;"/>

XMEN Ashaman DTM · Post by **XMEN Ashaman DTM** » Fri Feb 13, 2004 1:25 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>To both I would say, what is the basis for your morals?<hr></blockquote> Many of my morals come from whether or not I feel bad or good when what I do affects other people. Many others are from what my dad and step-mom taught me. Religion does play a part, but I've found that the same conclusions that are obtained from a religious basis also come from logical thought. (Taking lives for example.) Overall, I think my morals can change. Though the driving force for that change has to be so profound as to shake me to my deepest core. A lot of my beliefs also come from putting myself on the other side of the argument, and having a desire for everyone to be treated as equally as possible. Believe it or not, I believe very strongly in the principle of all people are created equal. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Like Gambit said, the book reading in school I think is ridiculous...I feel like that is forcing our innocent children to look at something they are not prepared for at a young age. There are umpteen hundred more books I would rather them read or be read to.<hr></blockquote> Oh, I'm very much in favor of this. I feel very strongly that kids should be taught the most basic, generic, non-idealogical material that is possible up until they enter into highschool. At that point, they are soon going to be considered adults by the rest of us (when they turn 1<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/glasses.gif ALT="8)"> . I sincerely believe that religious ideas should stay out of public school, and should remain the realm of the parents. That's something that is entirely up to the parents and should have no place in being taught in schools. I believe that children should be taught the purpose for there being men and women (to make children by mixing genetic material). Okay... maybe not quite so dryly.... but in my kids' sex-ed class, I'd want them to know what certain parts of their bodies are for, what is right and wrong as far as who can touch those parts. Basically, I'd want them to know why things are the way they are: so that a male's genetic material can be mixed with a female's. <-- that is the whole purpose for men and women. It's a lot like baking a cake, or making fajitas: there are many combinations of ingredients, but only certain ones that work... and a man contributes certain parts, and a woman contributes certain parts. I totally agree with you ITI, in that teaching children should maintain their innocence.

IRS Cronos · Post by **IRS Cronos** » Fri Feb 13, 2004 2:02 am

Normally I would not post as due to our clan rules but i just want to put a quick thought forward then i will go. What I have seen so far it the discussion of weather gays should have the right to marry. I assume most of the people hear have a spouse or partner so u should understand this a little better, ask yourself why your with them, what makes u hang around and make changes to your life to be with that other person, then ask yourself if u had considered marriage? After listing all of that in your head how would u feel if you had a basis of people denying you that option? Why do we have the right to deny what we expect and take for granted, try it on for size. Do you think just because they are gay that they dont have love?, or there feelings dont matter as much as what ours do? Anyways my piece later gays IRS Cronos International Rebel Squad Server Admin <a href="mailto:rp016@yahoo.com.au"> rp016@yahoo.com.au</a> <blockquote>Quote:<hr>If you see the person next to you drop, you better pray your not the head in my sights<hr></blockquote>

This irritates me...

This irritates me...

Re: This irritates me...

Re: This irritates me...

Re: This irritates me...

Re: This irritates me...

Re: This irritates me...

Re: This irritates me...

Re: This irritates me...

Re: This irritates me...

Re: This irritates me...

Re: This irritates me...

Re: This irritates me...

Re: This irritates me...

Re: This irritates me...

Re: This irritates me...