|
|
who cares about the Guard thing?
..... We have this gay marriage crisis facing our
fair nation! Drop everything, get that amendment passed, proto!!(or, at least bring it up at those GOP stump speeches). Good God! If anyone has sullied marriage in a society with a 53% divorce rate, it sure as hell isn't a few thousand committed homosexuals, is it? Tom Hell, that ain't all! The Episcopalians are appointing gay bishops! It's the end of Christianity as we know it! I think the following item pretty well sums up our outrage at that development: "The actions taken by the New Hampshire Episcopalians are an affront to Christians everywhere. I am just thankful that the church's founder, Henry VIII, and his wife Catherine of Aragon, his wife Anne Boleyn, his wife Jane Seymour, his wife Anne of Cleves, his wife Katherine Howard, and his wife Catherine Parr are no longer here to suffer through this assault on our traditional and sacred Christian marriage." vince |
who cares about the Guard thing?
.....or the economy, or terrorism. We have this gay marriage crisis facing our
fair nation! Drop everything, get that amendment passed, proto!!(or, at least bring it up at those GOP stump speeches). Good God! If anyone has sullied marriage in a society with a 53% divorce rate, it sure as hell isn't a few thousand committed homosexuals, is it? Tom |
who cares about the Guard thing?
Tom Littleton wrote:
....or the economy, or terrorism. We have this gay marriage crisis facing our fair nation! Drop everything, get that amendment passed, proto!!(or, at least bring it up at those GOP stump speeches). Good God! If anyone has sullied marriage in a society with a 53% divorce rate, it sure as hell isn't a few thousand committed homosexuals, is it? Tom In Canada, we have been hearing all the arguments against gay marriages for quite some time. The usual "it will cheapen marriage" to the latest on how it will lead to incestuous marriages. A lot of nonsense in my opinion. I honestly cannot fathom how anyone could feel threatened by gay marriage. Tim Lysyk |
who cares about the Guard thing?
"Tom Littleton" wrote in message ... ....or the economy, or terrorism. We have this gay marriage crisis facing our fair nation! Drop everything, get that amendment passed, proto!!(or, at least bring it up at those GOP stump speeches). Good God! If anyone has sullied marriage in a society with a 53% divorce rate, it sure as hell isn't a few thousand committed homosexuals, is it? Tom Quite frankly, I don't give a **** who gets married. One can look at gay marriage from a romantic point of view, and say that love is precious, and that anytime a couple is willing to commit to one another- especially under such socially difficult circumstances- they should face no obstacles. One can also look at gay marriage from a political and religious viewpoint. Historically the institution of marriage has been encouraged and supported, and even controlled by the church. This was done for a variety of reasons, not the least being social control. Now, when one looks at gay marriage from this viewpoint, it becomes obvious that the next step is to review the Constitution, and in doing so be reminded of our endeavor to separate church from state. In that light, it becomes clear that failure to allow gay marriage is in itself a violation of the Constitution of the United States. Snakefiddler |
who cares about the Guard thing?
We have this gay marriage crisis facing our
fair nation! Yeh! Give the gays the marrige tax breaks. The rest of us can pick up the lost revenues through increased taxes. ..Lou T |
who cares about the Guard thing?
|
who cares about the Guard thing?
"snakefiddler" wrote in message In that light, it becomes clear that failure to allow gay marriage is in itself a violation of the Constitution of the United States. Despite all the heated debate, I think it boils down to a no-brainer. Civilly, marriage is nothing more than a contract that affords certain rights, responsibilities, and priveleges to the entrants. The right to be degnated next of kin, right of inheritance, child custody, etc. To deny me a civil right simply because of my gender is as discriminatory as it gets. So what's the difference between a hetero union & a homo union? Only what occurs in the privacy of the home; and when that becomes the government's business, we're all in it deep. If a church wants to refuse to perform a ceremony because of their institutional beliefs, I can live with that; but the Justice of the Peace is a government representative and cannot discriminate. I think the underlying problem is that the government and religious institutions use the same word to describe two very different things. $.02, Joe F. |
who cares about the Guard thing?
In article , fleischman608
@NOSPAMverizon.net says... "snakefiddler" wrote in message In that light, it becomes clear that failure to allow gay marriage is in itself a violation of the Constitution of the United States. Despite all the heated debate, I think it boils down to a no-brainer. Civilly, marriage is nothing more than a contract that affords certain rights, responsibilities, and priveleges to the entrants. The right to be degnated next of kin, right of inheritance, child custody, etc. To deny me a civil right simply because of my gender is as discriminatory as it gets. So what's the difference between a hetero union & a homo union? Only what occurs in the privacy of the home; and when that becomes the government's business, we're all in it deep. If a church wants to refuse to perform a ceremony because of their institutional beliefs, I can live with that; but the Justice of the Peace is a government representative and cannot discriminate. I think the underlying problem is that the government and religious institutions use the same word to describe two very different things. I think the more underlying problem is that the religious institutions (in general) don't like it.....regardless of what it's called. - Ken |
who cares about the Guard thing?
"rb608" wrote in message ... "snakefiddler" wrote in message In that light, it becomes clear that failure to allow gay marriage is in itself a violation of the Constitution of the United States. Despite all the heated debate, I think it boils down to a no-brainer. Civilly, marriage is nothing more than a contract that affords certain rights, responsibilities, and priveleges to the entrants. The right to be degnated next of kin, right of inheritance, child custody, etc. To deny me a civil right simply because of my gender is as discriminatory as it gets. So what's the difference between a hetero union & a homo union? Only what occurs in the privacy of the home; and when that becomes the government's business, we're all in it deep. If a church wants to refuse to perform a ceremony because of their institutional beliefs, I can live with that; but the Justice of the Peace is a government representative and cannot discriminate. I think the underlying problem is that the government and religious institutions use the same word to describe two very different things. $.02, Joe F. Well Said....... Snake |
who cares about the Guard thing?
"Lat705" wrote in message
... Yeh! Give the gays the marrige tax breaks. The rest of us can pick up the lost revenues through increased taxes. No doubt you have not heard of the marriage penalty in the computation of federal income tax. While the Bush tax cut attempted to remove the effect of some of it, it's still there. |
who cares about the Guard thing?
wrote in message ... In article , fleischman608 @NOSPAMverizon.net says... "snakefiddler" wrote in message In that light, it becomes clear that failure to allow gay marriage is in itself a violation of the Constitution of the United States. Despite all the heated debate, I think it boils down to a no-brainer. Civilly, marriage is nothing more than a contract that affords certain rights, responsibilities, and priveleges to the entrants. The right to be degnated next of kin, right of inheritance, child custody, etc. To deny me a civil right simply because of my gender is as discriminatory as it gets. So what's the difference between a hetero union & a homo union? Only what occurs in the privacy of the home; and when that becomes the government's business, we're all in it deep. If a church wants to refuse to perform a ceremony because of their institutional beliefs, I can live with that; but the Justice of the Peace is a government representative and cannot discriminate. I think the underlying problem is that the government and religious institutions use the same word to describe two very different things. I think the more underlying problem is that the religious institutions (in general) don't like it.....regardless of what it's called. - Ken I think you are right. I also think it is important to note the Reformed and even (somewhat) the Conservative Jewish community has supported gay marriage for some time now. Snake |
who cares about the Guard thing?
Die. Then see if your legal spouse doesn't get a tax break. Asked the rental
car clerk in Bozeman if me and my male fishing buddy would have to pay the extra $5 per day if we were gay. She said no. I would not kiss him though. There IS a financial break given to gays not given to others. |
who cares about the Guard thing?
Lou writes:
She said no. I would not kiss him though. There IS a financial break given to gays not given to others. ....I think the clerk was trying to amuse herself by watching you mull it over. Tom |
who cares about the Guard thing?
If a church wants to refuse to perform a ceremony because of their
institutional beliefs, I can live with that; but the Justice of the Peace is a government representative and cannot discriminate. I think the underlying problem is that the government and religious institutions use the same word to describe two very different things. $.02, Joe F. Exactly what we should be looking at. All the unions we currently call marriage in this country are actually civil unions. In some cases the various states have allowed religious leaders the authority to perform said unions and , in doing so, sanction such unions under the auspices of that particular religion. Here in FL, a notary public can legally perform such a legal union and have it recognized as a marriage. I have no idea how many weddings are performed in Las Vegas by non religious people. Even the majority of Christians still accept these as legal "marriages." We need to take a stab at changing the language we work under in this instance. Like many others, I don't care who does what to whom if they consent and do it in private. I don't care who wishes to grant each other legal and medical power of attorney, rights to inherit, or other property and civil rights as long as it is done between consenting adults. The civil union of two gays performed by a civil authority in any state has exactly no effect and no bearing on the civil union performed by a Rabbi in MD when Gloria and I were married. Now I've got to write my various congress people and tell them to vote against this stupid amendment. -- Stev Lenon 91B20 '68-'69 Drowning flies to Dark Star http://web.tampabay.rr.com/stevglo/i...age92kword.htm |
who cares about the Guard thing?
It is inherently unfair and sancitmonious to deny anyone, based on their
sexual orientation, the pleasure of a really nasty divorce. john "Tom Littleton" wrote in message ... ....or the economy, or terrorism. We have this gay marriage crisis facing our fair nation! Drop everything, get that amendment passed, proto!!(or, at least bring it up at those GOP stump speeches). Good God! If anyone has sullied marriage in a society with a 53% divorce rate, it sure as hell isn't a few thousand committed homosexuals, is it? Tom |
who cares about the Guard thing?
asadi notes:
It is inherently unfair and sancitmonious to deny anyone, based on their sexual orientation, the pleasure of a really nasty divorce. john precisely! Tom |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:09 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2006 FishingBanter