muddysmind.com

Right on Muddy!!! Preach the gospel brotha! I agree 100% with your words of wisdom from above. I have no problem if you wanna ride another man's butt but don't feel you have the right to demand severance for doing so. I also feel that a homosexual has no right to fly a gay flag on the state capital lawn. The statehouse is a representation of the people as a whole and how does that represent us NON-BUTT riders. If a flag expressing a sexual preference can be flown on the statehouse lawn, (even if it is on certain days of gay pride) why can't a (Christian student) pray openly in school or public without backlash from someone crying about separation of church and state! And the last time I checked, our country was founded on religious freedom and I think its kinda ironic that the US is the most powewful and wealthy empire of all time. HECK!!! What does our money say? What was the common belief that brought 99% of our ancestors to america in the 1st place. Christianity! (For non-bible thumpers ,,, that means belief in Christ) Why is a Muslim or anything other than a believer in Christ granted the right to practice religious/cultural rituals freely anywhere in America yet the basis that our country was founded upon is being ripped from our grasp everyday. Wake up people and realize that our culture is being taken away from us while anything ethnic is openly accepted because we are afraid of offending someone. Well you know what? I am offended everytime I pull up to a drive-thru window and have to think hard of spanish class to understand half of what is being said to me. Why do we allow immigration without any standards of staying true to who we are? I really think speaking English (not Engrish Dirok...jk) would be a good idea if you're gonna live here.

I'm not saying any and everyone shouldn't be able to practice religious/culture (as long as its in line with the constituition) freely. I'm just saying as a native born american, why do I have less rights than someone that has migrated here less than 6 months ago let alone a person who rides butts? Why am I paying the toll for them? Why does my insurance cost so much for my family when they get it free? Matter of humanity? Possibly? But I see a lot of people taking advantage of the freedoms our country is based on and personally think you suck!!!!!! You know who you are.

NOW RISE UP CHILDREN OF MUDDY!!! BE STRONG! AND SHOUT @ THE DEVIL!!!

On a less serious not? <---- hmmmmm?
|
|
V
If gays can get insuance for a same sex spouse, I bet 75% of the men in this country could sue Budweiser for making them sleep with fat and ugly women!!!!!!!!

Peace Homie
Roy

Muddy,

Sorry I had to ramble on your site but blame dilok! He sent me the link from above.

Damn. I sound like Kerry blaming others don't I?

didnt martin luther king say, "injustice to anyone is injustice for everyone". something like that.

bayard ruston, someone who organized may marches and ralleys with MLK was a gay black man. that article just shows that there are blacks just as full of prejudice and hate like any other groups.

Beware a clergy that tries to fill its offering plate by advocating HATE.

many blacks today hate gays because of the process called gentrification. German village and the near east side of columbus are good examples of this.
gentrification goes like this.

1)2 gay men have money.
2)they buy a cheap old house on the east side, usually evictiing the black familiy that lives there.
3)they fix up the house and raise its value(and surrounding land values).
4) rinse, repeat
5)Blacks can no longer afford a good place to live.

They blame gays for this. The bigger picture shows that it is not the gay's fault, it is only a problem because in this country blacks still do not have the same opportunities to make money. instead many get caught in cycles of addicition, crime and poverty.

"I challenge anyone, show me where in the constitution or the bill of rights or in any founding document of this country or even the states where it guarantees rights based on sexual"

You are correct. the ERA never passed so it is still legal to discriminate based on sex. However a good christian or buddhist can not discriminate based on anything. Just because it is legal does not make it right.

Beware a clergy that tries to fill its offering plate by advocating HATE.

many blacks today hate gays because of the process called gentrification. German village and the near east side of columbus are good examples of this.
gentrification goes like this.

1)2 gay men have money.
2)they buy a cheap old house on the east side, usually evictiing the black familiy that lives there.
3)they fix up the house and raise its value(and surrounding land values).
4) rinse, repeat
5)Blacks can no longer afford a good place to live.

They blame gays for this. The bigger picture shows that it is not the gay's fault, it is only a problem because in this country blacks still do not have the same opportunities to make money. instead many get caught in cycles of addicition, crime and poverty.

"I challenge anyone, show me where in the constitution or the bill of rights or in any founding document of this country or even the states where it guarantees rights based on sexual"

You are correct. the ERA never passed so it is still legal to discriminate based on sex (as all military branches do). However a good christian or buddhist can not discriminate based on anything (love, forgiveness ring a bell?). Just because it is legal does not make it right.

"If a flag expressing a sexual preference can be flown on the statehouse lawn" Roy, the rainbow flag has absolutely nothing to with anal sex. It is a rainbow. The rainbow symbolizes different colors coming together in harmony, different races, different sexes, different lifestyles all complimenting each other and not excluding anyone.

Another point that I'm sure will fall on deaf ears here is that this country was not started by christians. Nearly all of the framers were of the Deist religion. Christians at that time were not mainstream in america as most Christian sects in those days were too puritanical and ridiculous for mass adoptaion (it was the age of reason). Think "The Scarlett Letter". Im sure many modern "Christians" (Worshippers of war and conquest) would have you believe otherwise but it is simply false.

"Beware a clergy that tries to fill its offering plate by advocating HATE."

How are they advocating hate? By standing up for what they believe in. By stating that marriage should be between a man and WOman?

The article doesn't *specifically* SAY this but, I would have to assume that the reason for their stand is because they are indeed clergymen. They know it is their responsibility as the leaders of their church (a church that I will assume God himself appointed them to) and their community to stand up for the Biblical principles they believe to be true. (of course, it *is* up to each person within their congregation to check these actions according to the Bible ---but again...beside the point). One clergy was even quoted as saying:

"People are free in our nation to pursue relationships as they choose.

Yeah....sounds like hate to me...not.

"many blacks today hate gays because of the process called gentrification."

Maybe, maybe not. Whichever the case, there's no connection of that statement to this particular article so, it's totally irrelevant.

As far as the flags being flown over the statehouse....I have NO idea myself. I assume there would (and should) only be 2 flags....the American and the State of Ohio flags. But again....irrelevant.

What is relevant is this:

If these clerymen are looking for an ammendement to be added to their STATES constitution *only* after it would be passed by a unanimous vote of the People of Georgia ...then fine. That's how it should be decided anyway. State by State with the vote of the people. I do Not believe, however, with the Federal Gov. putting an ammendement in the *Nations* constitution. It's not the business of the Federal to make the decision *for* the individual state. I think we are fully capable of deciding it for ourselves and don't need "big brothers" help.

Right is right and wrong is wrong. Rev. James is a hypocrit. Imagine, he is teaching the fine younguns' of Temple Universitee. Yes, I reckon it is mighty insensitive for gays to compare their suffrin' to the suffrin' of our African-American folk. But also it is wrong for Rev. James to hinder the efforts of ANY group to marry up. Those there straight people marry up with whos they want -over and over agin'. Maybe if them there gays could marry whoever the hell they please like other folk they wouldn't be needing those pesky Pride Parades and hanging all those dang Rainbow flags all over tarnation. Yup. Now leave me alone you varmits I have to get back to my sis' she's been waitin' a long spell.
Thank Ya'll Kindly,
Jethro

Actually, gays (as well as anyone else) can be "married" and commited to whoever they want to be...even someone of the same sex. Of course, it just won't be *recognized* by the state as a *legal* marriage.

lol, this is funny. My notes were going to be a post unto itself. I found it was along the same line as this article so I just posted them together, seems my points are lost now. :-(

"How in the hell can your rights be violated when you had NONE to begin with? You have rights based on your humanity, not your passion to pounce on another man's butt and ride it."

"You have no right to Demand any Privileges because of a choice you made."

I understand that was most likely your point (at least that's what my moneys betted on.) but the thing is:

1) People read the article and they see things that they have a problem with themselves and comment on that --- obviously.

2) Some believe that homosexuality is something your born with....like being black or white or Native American or having freckles all over. The same people don't neccessarily believe it *is* a choice.

BUT I'm not telling you *anything* you don't already know.....just a reminder.

Besides, in a Nation like ours where we are soooo stinking politically correct, we are almost afraid NOT to give someone special treatment for the choices they make.

Then again....you know that too.

Dear Mrs Muddy,
I was just pondering your above statement re. individual state ratification of legal unions for gays. It brings to mind a past fearless leader...this time a Democrat...Woodrow Wilson. He extended the oppression of woman for years in this very manner by blocking federal legislature to allow the vote to Women! He left it to individual states. Great ploy! It worked with the Equal Rights Amendment too... I think it is still working to this day ... Heaven forbid I compare the struggle of the sexual minorities with the struggle of our better halves...which I admit are women. If they only ran the world.
Jethro

"The problem lies, I think in the fact, as beautiful as you are I'd still rather, ehhh uhmmm how did you put .... pounce on Mr. Muddy's butt!"

Actually, *I* did NOT "put it" that way....*MR* muddy did. I was just quoting and repeating what *HE* said.... he felt his point was getting lost in the shuffle - so to speak.

As for the rest....uh...maybe I'll "touch" on that later when I wake up a little more.

Greg, your label of "sexual minorities" is the most asanine thing I've heard in while. I suppose next your going to say that those sick perverted individuals who practice necrophilia are an "oppressed" sexual minority as well??

judge not, lest ye be judged.

Remind me again are you guys christians or Jews?

New testament: "Judge not"
Mt.7:1
"Judge not, that ye be not judged."
Lk.6:37
"Judge not, and ye shall not be judged."

Torah: "Judge everything and everyone."
Lev.19:15
"In righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour."
Jn.7:24
"Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment."
1 Cor.2:15
"But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man."
1 Cor.5:12-13
"For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within? But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person."
1 Cor.6:2-3
"Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?."

woops, shows how good of a Reverend I am.. Corinthians is actually the new test...

Christianity extends of Judaism.

Benny:

"Judge not, that ye be not judged."

Basically: Don't blame or condem others while you exempt yourself from blame.

I've never seen (that I can remember anyway) any Christian on this board who has ever claimed to be *without* fault. We have *all* sinned....we *all* have our short commings.

I have heard quite a few times some of us state the reasons behind our dissaproval of the homosexual life style. My God (as mentioned in His Word) does not accept it. However, as it has also been mentioned numerous times, God does NOT permit hatred either.

I have another verse to give you myself that's in the Bible but, I'm looking up certain words in the Greek and Hebrew dictionaries to compare meanings and origins sooooo..... it may take a while.

Jethro/Greg:

Maybe I'm misreading and misunderstanding your comment....but are you suggesting any law for or against gay marriages should NOT be left to the individual states. Or do you just not feel there should be an amendment period? Do you just feel there should be a "simple" law?

If the people of the nation actually vote for a *federal* ammendment ...I won't like it myself...but fine. Majority rules. That's *my* feeling, though.

Before muddy erased your previous comment...you mentioned *you* yourself to be gay - true? What would YOU like to see come out of this situation? Would you someday like to be married to a partner or does the whole thing make no difference to you? Trust me, I obviously don't agree with your life style but I am NOT judging you (God knows I've got enough crap in my own life to deal with:-/) However, I am curious to know.....that is, if you don't mind.

bennyhill1978 it seems you have not been reading everything I write. I do not judge gays, that is for God. I'm simply saying keep what belongs in the bedroom, IN the bedroom. It does not warrant or deserve a "privilege" or any rights. Their crying about marriage, rights, laws etc... is as stupid as me going to Washington and crying about how stop lights confuse me because I'm color bind and how the world should be black and white to accommodate me. If you can't see how ludicrous that would be we'll have to just agree to disagree. However I know you are a very intelligent and logical man, so I'll not give up hope. :-P

Unfortunately we live in a culture where there is not universal health care (unlike most of the civilized world)the law gives the privilege of health care to spouses/partners only if they are legally married also things like homeownership, tax libility hospital visitation and many other things are specifically denied to same-sex partners where heterosexual couple are free to marry and get all of these benefits. 'keeping it in the bedroom" has long since gone the wayside. Homosexual couples do not want special rights or privileges, they just want the same rights that same sex couples have always had. Similar arguments were used to say blacks wanted the privilege of sitting in the front of a bus or using a public drinking fountain, women wanted the special right to vote etc.

Whay do we seem to place more emphasis on "under God" than we place on "liberty and justice for all"?

also, im sure you are aware that the modern traffic signal was originally based solely on color but because of color blind activists going to washington, signal design has been standardized so that color-blind are no longer confused. ..

Green is always on bottom.

Homosexual couples do not want special rights or privileges, they just want the same rights that same sex couples have always had

Oh come now, They DO want special rights, they have had and have always had the same rights as normal people. A gay man can marry a woman and file taxes jointly or whatever he wants. Who's stopping him??
That is the SAME right I have bro. What next? Do we follow suit and ban ALL marriage like the county in Oregon did?
In fact, I challenge you to list any rights I have that they don't.
[sits waiting]

(This is where you will get no more replies from bennyhill)

you have the right to legally exchance wedding vows and make your dedactaion of love official to the person you find most worthy of your love and devotion. You have the right to open a joint bank account due to your legally binding status(among many other financial benefits). you have the right to visit your love in the hospital, the right to share insurance coverage and other spousal employment benefits with your legally wedded mate, the right to marry the person who you are most attracted to and with whom you feel most comfortable. the right to adopt/raise a family with the love of your life. The right to get assistance for things like family homeownership. The protection of laws regarding divorce, custody and asset dispersion (over %50 of American hetero marriages end in divorce).

"A gay man can marry a woman and file taxes jointly or whatever he wants. Who's stopping him?"

You know many women that are just dying to enter a loveless marriage with a gay man? I think you watch too much Will&Grace. Who's stopping him? - Probably his lover whose heart would be broken. Just because someone is gay does not mean they dont believe in family, devotion and love.

You are correct, many gays have married opposite-sex friends in order to live by the system's rules (Liza Minelli and David Guest, that sure worked out great.) These ARE normal people. They just arent allowed to legally wed their freely chosen mate.

Can you imagine a society (think: Sliders) where only homosexual marriage is allowed and hetero's have to marry into sham gay marriages to be treated equally?

You know more gay people than you think you do, they arent as alien as you may feel - although the stigma is still strong enough in most of America that even your gay friends/co-workers may never feel comfortable enough to tell you that they are gay. They are realy people with real moral values who want a real wedding with the one they choose. They deserve equality and acceptance.

Homosexuality is natural, by definition, because it occurs in many, possiblty most species in the animal kingdom. The knowledge of this is of course supressed. Case in point: most people believe the Ape called the Chimpanzee is the being whose DNA is closest to Humans. This is false. The Apes known as Bonobo's are actually much closer to humans genetically. the Bonobo has been marginalized ever since their scientific discovery due to the "immoral" nature of their societies. traditional biologists went so far as to mis-classify them as monkeys for many years in order to downplay their biological similariteis to humans and to this day the Bonobo is known as 'the forgotten ape'. The Bonobo society is one of free love and matriarchy. Unlike Chimps, Bonobos are vegetarian (they will occasionally eat meat that is already dead if they find it), they do not kill each other in order to establish rank and they are almost all bisexual beginning at a very young age. They are the only mammals other than Humans known by science to have sex for pleasure's sake and not simply for procreation. they are also among the most intelligent Animals on earth and they are nearly extinct.

I am aware that a 5000 year old book written by wealthy and powerful men who 'spoke to god' and sought to unite and control a large group of people for the purposes of nation building and war making condemns homosexual lifestyles as sinful. Maybe at one point in human history it was really important to 'be fruitful and multiply' (That strategy certainly filled many catholic offering plates over the years). "every sperm is sacred, every sperm is good"-(monty python:meaning of life)

Today however there are more people than we can sustainably care for and I believe homosexuals deserve and equal place in society.

Who is hurt? whose rights are infringed upon by a gay couple obtaining a marriage license?

I can't answer that question benny but I can ask these: Whose rights are infringed by my owning an AK-47 which I use for sporting pleasure? Whose right's are infringed if I carry a Glock 30 strapped to my ankle when I drive through Cabbagetown so that I can protect myself? Whose rights are infringed if someone smoked a joint or snorts a line of cocaine, or pumps a vain full of heroin? Whose rights are infringed if a woman (or a man for that matter) willingly takes money in exchange for a sex act?

"Under God" is unconstitutional but not because it says under God (let's be real here, most people in this country are monotheists of some sorts, and if it were a reference to our religious freedoms and foundations Under God flows alot better than Under gods, or "Under God or gods.") It's unconstitutional because of what Ike said when congress passed the legislation "Now, everyday millions of children will pledge their allegiance to the Almighty." That shows legislative intent.

Am I persona non grata?

greg: no, I just wasn't around when you made your posts and didn't read them. Being that I'm in the middle of finishing up my paper on the election of 1918 (in Great Britain) I don't really have time now to do so. Lo Siento.

skywalker:
I believe in the right of all people to own weapons that are just as powerful as anyone else's, to me that is the 2nd amendment.

Also I belive the "drug war" like the "terror war" is a wart against an abstract, not a country, therefore they are perfect examples of a war you can never win, a very profitable thing for those in the business of waging war. It is ironic that certain natural substances are illegal but drugs that are far more potent, addictive and less tested are advertised and mass marketed to most every demographic, including kids(beer, smokes, zoloft, viagra, paxil, enzyte etc.). It is obvious that the law enforcement/prison and drug manufacturing industries are the only ones benefitting from the drug war specfically eli lilly. data shows virtually no measurable improvement in the 20 year drug war, more people are addicted than ever, prisons are overflowing, and so many nonviolent Americans are imprisoned with mandatory minimums.. the impact to the millions of affected families is immeasurable. Clearly declaring "war on drugs" is a failed strateguy for helping victims of addiction.

The war on the oldest profession is almost as old as the oldest profession itself. Once you get past the stigma of prostitutes and see them as real people trying to make a life however they can, I believe the main reason prostituion has been stigmatized is because men are in charge of things and prostituion is a market where the women are the ones profiting.

So to your first paragraph I dont believe anyones rights are infringed, I see those all as examples of human beings excersizing their God-given rights of free will and liberty... just as i belive it is a free souls' right to marry whomever they most love, no matter what sex organs they happen to have.

Let us not forget that Under God is also a Masonic term. Our currency and national Dogma is full of masonic references. The Almighty being the eye atop the pyramid. Many of the words and phrases of older American documents have extended meanings for a Mason.

I'm glad to see we agree on something then.

The terror war is something I agree with. The only way to rid yourself of someone who is willing to die for their cause is to let them do that. IF you negotiate with terrorists, they'll simple start with their terrorist actions again. If you treat it as a law enforcement problem, then you'll simply be capturing them after the fact. The war on drugs proves that jail time is no deterent if someone wants to do something bad enough. Not to mention there is usually no terrorist left to capture and jail. No, it's a military issue.

The drug war on the other hand is different. Personally, I think people should be allowed to if they are legal adults. We allow people to smoke and drink, what's the difference? The problem is that we're attacking supply side which only increases the price which provides a greater incentive for people to sell drugs. Which means they're gonna spend more on advertising, which means a greater demand. Economically, it's stupid. The smart idea would be to make drugs so cheap by flooding the streets with them, that it's not worth it to sell them, and then attack the demand side.

As for Under God. Yes, it's a Masonic term, but in 1954 (when it was added), they weren't thinking about the Masons. Personally, I think the 9th circuit was technically correct in their decision, I also think it was stupid and nit picky and the case should have been, and should be, thrown out by the supreme court due to a technicality: the guy did not/does not have custody of his daughter, his daughter and ex-wife profess to be Christians and don't support the suit, and the guy is a publicity hound. He files suits agains tthe government all the time over similar issues. He tried to get "In God We Trust" off the money for instance.

For the record, the 2nd amendment question was brought up because I'm currently miffed about the extension of the assault weapons ban that was supposed to expire this year. The stupidest ban ever, they actually crawled through catalogs and picked the guns that looked the most menacing and designated them as assault weapons. With some obvious exceptions like AKs and MP5s, many of the weapons were just sporty hunting rifles.

This is insane ... I thought this was a place for sharing ideas and expressing thoughts. I did not realize the thoughts and ideas I had to express would have to be same as the censors' i.e. The Master of This Blog. I would imagine the readers and writers of this blog are intelligent enough to make up their own minds.
What does a person gain from interacting with people who only think like themselves?
So, now that I have been censorred and i can not contribute to this site from my home computer I will bid you all farewell and go where I may contribute. Good Luck and try to keep an OPEN mind
Jethro
AKA Greg greg1211961@yahoo.com or gregbythec@verizon.net

"A gay man can marry a woman and file taxes jointly or whatever he wants. Who's stopping him?"

Sorry, muddy, but even though you're right in the fact that a gay man can marry a woman ....who's stopping him? That was just a stupid response because you know what benny ment.

I mean, I don't mean to be "jumping ship" here but, Benny's right. Why would any gay man (or woman for that matter) want to be in a loveless marriage where they can be miserable?

That would be like me comming up to you and telling you I'm a lesbian. Now, before you go joking about and getting excited in the sterio typical male mental image of the "girl on girl" thing...remember this:

1) I'm NOT *really* a lesbian (I love men way too much) so get that hopefull mental picture out of your head because it's really just *not* going to happen :-) Sorry babe. And here you thought I was about to make you the *happiest* man on earth. hehehe

Now *consider* this:

2) Ok...seriously, what if you DID find out that I really did not love you in the way you deserved. That although I love our kids dearly and that would never change...but that I didn't love you like a wife should. That would indeed be devastating. I know *I* would be devastated to find out if *you* were gay.

I'm not changing my mind on how I think or feel but I do see what Benny's saying. Though I still do *not* agree that homosexuality is natural I do believe people can choose to "marry" whomever they want. Of course, it would depend on someone's definition *of* 'marriage' AND if a gay couple wants the state to recognize the marriage then they should go about having the laws changed in a LEGAL manner. Would *I* vote in favor of having gay marriages in my state....no. However, if majority rules then would I contest it? No.

Are we back on the gay thing again? Let them marry. Hell let them marry multiple people and pets too. What does it really matter anyhow? There are already companies that offer same sex insurance. I have recently taken a job with one. This is a growing trend now. You can have anyone your want on your mortage (pending the obvious) so there is no point there. The only thing left is insurance benefits. Hell people are leaving their money to their dogs anyhow so its just a matter of time.

So really the only point I see is to speed these things up so that these happen faster.

Oh wait. I forgot one point: To put it in everyones face. If they make it legal than that means that everyone who is against it is wrong. This means that religion is wrong too. If religion is wrong about this than what else is religion wrong about? Its funny how that fits so nicely into the liberal agenda...

Yea. I forgot about that one...

Benny and Skywalker:

You know, I actually happen to agree with you both on the "war on drugs" issue.

"The smart idea would be to make drugs so cheap by flooding the streets with them, that it's not worth it to sell them, and then attack the demand side."

I never thought about that, skywalker, that's definately an interresting thought. The best muddy and I ever came up with was to make illegal drugs legal but tax some of them (cocaine, heroin) out the butt :-)

Benny:

"The war on the oldest profession is almost as old as the oldest profession itself. Once you get past the stigma of prostitutes and see them as real people trying to make a life however they can, I believe the main reason prostituion has been stigmatized is because men are in charge of things and prostituion is a market where the women are the ones profiting."

I don't know if I *completely* agree with that statement. Women aren't exactly the ones profiting....well, not the ONLY ones anyway. She does have a pimp to pay in some cases. Although some women may be "profiting" from prostitution I would imagine some if not all feel like a slave to it. Yes, it *is* their choice but some women probably feel they *have* no choice based on how much of a mess their lives may be in.

Greg: Some of the people here rarely, if ever agree with each other. I personally lead an extraordinarily busy life that has me home in Atlanta one minute, and getting kicked out of Canada the next. Sometimes people just don't feel a need to respond or, like me they don't always have time to respond.

That was probably the first time benny and I have found anything we could agree on. Usually we're to busy argueing over national defense to find any common ground.

Who was it that wrote about the public sphere? He was a lovely little communist whose writings I had to endure my freshman year at Tech, but he was right about the public sphere thing: cause this is one. He also said they were a place for people to argue and discuss issues of the day and perhaps come to a consensus. He based his ideas off the salons of PAris at the time. Now if I could just remember his name... But anyhow...you see my point?

cwilli:

"If they make it legal that means that everyone who is against it is wrong"

Ok....explain this one to me....because you lost me *big* time.

Mrs Muddy, My entire point is that I dont think that this is about gay rights at all. I think that, given time, homosexuals will be able to have everything they are complaining about even if they are not able to marry.

I personally believe that homosexuals are just being used as pawns. This is actually just a battle in the war on religion (specifically Christianity). The same people who are fighting so hard to remove God from everything are the same ones who are fighting for gay rights.

If you are trying to win a battle over someone who believes something that you are against, the first thing you need to do is change everybody elses mind and eventually get everyone to think that your enemy is wrong. Most Christians believe that homosexuality is wrong. So if they can make it legal than everyone on the fence will start to believe that homosexuality must not be wrong because it is legal. Eventually everyone will believe that the Christians are the ones who are wrong. This being so now you have to start to wonder what else Christianity is wrong about and thus your have just won your battle in the war on Christianity.

I personally do not take the position that Marriage is a civil institution, as so many other have said it is. Marriage is a religious institution. Almost all religions have an issue creating/dealing with marriage. That being said, homosexual marriage is incompatible with almost every religion I can think of. Marriage is also for the express purpose of procreating and raising children, something homosexuals can not do. I also do not believe homosexuality to be genetic, nor have I ever seen any evidence to this fact. Though, I've seen plenty to the contrary. In fact, every homosexual I have ever known was either a) raised by a homosexual, b) a troubled child, c) sexually abused or d) all of the above.

This being in mind, though it goes against many of my political beliefs, I can not support it.

On a side note, I've noticed something else, the vast majority of the homosexual coupled that were getting married in San Fran-sissie, we lesbian couples. Apparently the males knew better.

cwilli:

Thanks for clarifying, by the way, because I do see where you're comming from.

My stand on gay marriage has been (for the past couple of years anyway) that even if the states (or the federal gov. for that matter) eventually passes a law that allow gay marriages to be legal then I don't care anymore because frankly, it's the people's right to pass it if they want to. BUT that doesn't mean it's "okay" with God because I feel it is not.

If it *did* come to a vote in our state, I would very well vote against it because, as a Christian my conscience would not allow me to do other wise.

The laws are made up by people. People - as we know are fallible. Therefore just because they pass a law that would allow gay marriages to be legal doesn't mean that law would be right - or moral - in this case. But, all in all, if the people want the law to be passed then that is their freedom to do so. So to me, it is irrelevant if any or all states allow gay marriages to be legal because in God's eyes....it won't be accepted anyway.

Skywalker:

May I ask a question? Actually, it's a few questions. A few weeks ago, I believe you mentioned you have a gay friend and that this guy is a conservative? So here are my questions:

1) Does this guy claim to be a Christian? If so, how does he justify his lifestyle according to the Bible?

2) And....what does *he* feel about gay marriages becomming legal. I mean is it something he is wanting for his *own* life one day?

Actually, I feel like a *complete* JERK (as I probably should) for asking these questions because I don't want to make you feel like you're talking about him "behind his back" and that just isn't right....So please forgive me :-) It's just I happened to think about this friend you mentioned before because of the last comment you made.

If you want to hand this question off to your friend so he can speak for himself that's cool. Like I said, I feel like a jerk in asking but I'm curious to learn the view from someone who is *actually* gay so as I can try to understand their point of view better for myself.

He does claim to be a Christian but I've never asked him to justify his lifestyle. Nor have I asked him about the gay marriage issue, though I doubt he supports it.

HI, I'm a website spammer, please hack me @ ip addy 66.90.104.167 or you could call and prank my company @ 1-888-738-3822.