:)

Freddie,

Those things would have to be put there by Brent just like the stars and cups were. Welcome back. Mike is going for a record of days before his thread is shut down. :LOL: :LOL:

Ron :p

Actually, for the exceptionally well qualified, we give special recognition: "Banned" stays under their name permanently. We're making it easier to attain.

...and for those who are qualified to understand (though it has been repeated many times), the First Amendment has no application to this private site.

Mike...great post, but me thinks you're a bit guilty of mixing up rights with privileges when you compare marriage licenses with business and driving licenses.

And while CDC is quick to mount a stone outcropping with finger pointed while he screams "Sodomites!" (which in some Southern States can mean simply allowing a female to be on top), the fact of the matter is that the debate is a political and moral one, regardless of who is pushing it.

Personally, I could care less who's screwing who and how they screw, and there are few here who are more "conservative" than me. I happen to know more than a few conservative gays, and it troubles me that they feel they have to choose between their political/economic positions (Republican) and their anal diversions (Democrat). It also bothers me that insurance companies, retirement plans and credit providers do, in fact, distinguish between married and unmarried partners in providing benefits/protections, even in states allowing for civil unions.

I guess I'm conservative enough to not only want government to get the phuk out of everyone's life, stay off their property, leave their guns alone, stop stealing their money...but also to stay out of their bed.

:cool:

...and BTW, that being said...I'm also damn tired of gays of dancing around and sashaying their asses while they procalim how damn gay they are (just as I'm damn tired of hearing how black, jewish or white someone is). Hilton should've been kicked off the show, and Miss California provided an honor for doing no less than Ms. Parks in refusing to give up her seat.

:cool:

Mike,
Who decides what is the 'norm'? I would prefer that individuals decide what is the norm for themselves rather than the group decide what is the norm for everybody. I think that the country was founded on individual liberty, and that liberty is the most important thing that we have as Americans. Trying to impose your religious morals on somebody else seems un-American to me.

The 14th Amendment says that states cannot deny any person within it's jurisdiction equal protection of the laws. MA Constitution says that equality under the law will not be abridged or denied because of sex. The MA marriage law does not provide for any clause against same sex marriages.

You can call marriage a privilege or a right, but there are state and federal legal rights extended to people who are married that gay people do not have access to because some people feel the need to mind somebody elses business.

Conservatives like to say that the Conservative viewpoint is all about personal freedom and responsibility. That only seems to be true if it does not interfere with with the morals the right wingers are trying to cram down somebodies throat.

I'm sticking with Franklins viewpoint; Mind your own business.

Steve

Ben Franklin took it in the ass?

Wow Jamo! I was busy typing my own rant and missed yours!

Bloody well said!! Including the second bit about everybody sashaying around.

Steve

Well, he did go to France a lot...

You realize this makes us an item.

I'm on top!

Butt only if I can wear my hair like BF.;)

So Mike...you still want YOUR thread to stay open?

:p

Well, they are sodomits, right?

Besides, the introduction of legalized gay marriages will lead inexorably to polygamy and other alternatives to one-man, one-woman unions. Because there is no place to stop once that Rubicon has been crossed. Historically, the definition of marriage has rested on a bedrock of tradition, legal precedent, theology and the overwhelming support of the people.

After the introduction of marriage between homosexuals, however, it will be supported by nothing more substantial than the opinion of a single judge or by a black-robed panel of justices. After they have done their wretched work, the family will consist of little more than someone's interpretation of "rights."

Perhaps most important, the spread of the Gospel of Jesus Christ will be severely curtailed. The family has been God's primary vehicle for evangelism since the beginning.

The biggest secular danger homosexual civil marriage presents is the enshrining into law the notion that sexual love, regardless of its fecundity, is the sole criterion for marriage. If the state must recognize a marriage of two men simply because they love one another, upon what basis can it deny marital recognition to a group of two men and three women, for example, or a sterile brother and sister who claim to love each other? Homosexual activists protest that they only want all couples treated equally. But why is sexual love between two people more worthy of state sanction than love between three, or five? When the purpose of marriage is procreation, the answer is obvious. If sexual love becomes the primary purpose, the restriction of marriage to couples loses its logical basis, leading to marital chaos.

The gay marriage movement must be stopped.

Gosh, I hope you're right CdC, cuz I have a flock of sheep waiting to be brought under my Blue Cross plan.

And, you don't lie!

All kidding, sort of, aside - there is no end in sight once something like gay marriage is approved nationwide - additional humans, all kinds of animals, snakes, even non-human/animal entities will have a place in the marriage-go- round. Gays could end up marrying a dozen gays just to get them on insurance. Animals could end up marrying each other, even robots.

The point is this: if you say all sexual relationships between consenting adults are equally deserving of government endorsement, you have no basis for excluding other types of relationships, like polygamy. The definition of marriage would be watered down to the point of being meaningless.

I just don't think it is in this country's interest to go tampering with the legal definition of marriage and those that support the effort to do so have bubbles in their think tank.

But don't polygamist get married too? all be it multiple times, and often in a church.

Now can we close it? What! where's the sense of humor? Ha! Oh yeah that's right, I'm blocked.

Not in MA - only 1 person at a time here. Of course, MA also does not let you get hitched until you are 18. I know we are not as advanced as some Southern states that practise less age or species discrimination.:LOL::JEKYLHYDE

species discrimination ? is that legal? Ha!

CdC...there is a federal prohibition against polygamy. How to define marriage for state-issued licenses is within each state's retained powers.

In other words, only part of the sky will fall, and not everywhere. As to the religious concerns, I realize I'm going to hell for saying this...it should not be relevant. Each religion can determine what rules it wishes to follow for church/temple/stone alter sanctioned/blessed weddings.

See, it's like legalizing grass...we can tax it while people are phuked up. If we allow gays to marry, we can tax their asses more heavily while they are being nailed.

In either case, it should drive the market up for Twinkies.

Morals of the right wingers? It's the left trying to cram something down a throat, pun intended,:eek: they want to change what society has accepted since the beginning of this country.Now they want to make the change and force it on us.

May be best said by a founding father and author of the Massachusetts state constitution, he said of the U.S. constitution.

"Our constitution was made for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other" John Adams

Interracial marriage was once illegal, and the same arguments were made to keep it from happening, and we survived that one, I think we will survive this too.