2
   

Homosexual Marriage defeated by WIDE Margins

 
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Nov, 2004 08:01 am
That's polygamy...a different subject altogether.......
0 Replies
 
cannistershot
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Nov, 2004 08:25 am
What would keep that from happening? We are going to open a huge can of worms!
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Nov, 2004 08:47 am
No we are not. What is being proposed is that a marriage will be a union between two humans.

More than two? We've already got that, it's called a corporation.
0 Replies
 
cannistershot
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Nov, 2004 08:49 am
I have yet to see the wording for this if it is written as "2 humans" fine but I doubt that will be the case.
0 Replies
 
littlek
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Nov, 2004 11:25 am
Yeehaw, maybe I'll finally be able to marry my goat.
0 Replies
 
cannistershot
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Nov, 2004 11:33 am
Nanny or billy?
0 Replies
 
littlek
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Nov, 2004 11:35 am
I was joking.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Nov, 2004 11:37 am
Saskatchewan now says,
Quote:
"The common-law definition of marriage for civil purposes is declared to be 'the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others,' "


link
0 Replies
 
cannistershot
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Nov, 2004 11:37 am
You just never know from Boston......just kidding.
0 Replies
 
littlek
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Nov, 2004 11:38 am
How did Hotlanta vote this election?
0 Replies
 
cannistershot
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Nov, 2004 11:41 am
I don't know yet, but from all of the Kerry signs.... On the gay rights issue Atlanta has a pretty heavy gay population.....
0 Replies
 
littlek
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Nov, 2004 11:46 am
That's what I remembered.
0 Replies
 
fbaezer
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Nov, 2004 12:50 pm
fbaezer wrote:
Just a question: Who put homosexual marriage in the agenda?

IMHO, it's obvious it was going to hurt the Democrats.


Let me insist on my question.

I don't know how many otherwise politically indifferent people went to the polls thinking on "defending family values from the homosexual agenda", cared a lot about these church-oriented issues and, while they were there, voted for Bush.
Should I count them by the thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands or millions?

In any case, I think the democrats let the issue to be set too high in the agenda, and lost the most for the least.

For the record, I personally would vote against any ban on homosexual marriages.
0 Replies
 
mac11
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Nov, 2004 01:10 pm
I'm just guessing fbaezer, but I'd say millions. I think there was a lot of pushing of this issue in various churches.

And it wasn't just the homosexual agenda they were voting against - they are hoping to put an end to legal abortion as well.
0 Replies
 
mesquite
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Nov, 2004 01:32 pm
Baldimo wrote:
Prove through science that people are born gay and there won't be an issue. At this point in time, homosexuality is a choice and we shouldn't change society on people's choice.


Baldimo,
As Frank pointed out to you earlier, the fact that the very thought of homosexual sex is repulsive to most heterosexuals shows that it is NOT a choice issue. There is absolutely no way that I could choose to be gay, therefore it is perfectly understandable to me that the reverse is also true.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Nov, 2004 07:45 pm
Quote:
Baldimo - do you believe that smoking causes lung cancer?


I think smoking is the leading cause of lung cancer, even though there are those people who don't smoke who still get it.

Quote:
Do you assume that a fetus will become a baby?


As long as it isn't aborted by an uncaring mother and her Dr.

Quote:
No one fully understands any of this stuff, but we tend to all believe that Lung cancer can be caused by smoking, that little cell clusters will miraculously become a human being.


You are right about the above, but it has all been proven by science and not left to wonder. The left tend to embrace science when they can use it to control people and gain power. When it comes to something that they believe in, and they don't want science to get in the way, they want to use faith and force that faith upon everyone else. Sounds like the claims from the left about the right and morals.

Quote:
No one can even fully explain why atoms form into cohesive units like human bodies.


Sure we can, did you miss your science class in chemistry or physics? It is all down to the electrons and the bonds between them. Remember opposites attract. Positive to a negative but in the subatomic world of atoms, these electrical bonds are very strong. Don't forget we have also discovered things smaller then atoms. Science is truly a wonderful thing.

Quote:
So, none of the above proves that gay people are biologically designated as such, but it sort of discounts your theory, doesn't it?


As explained, we happen to know the answer to several of the questions that you just asked. It still doesn't prove whether people are born gay or not, but I would love to see the research.


Quote:
Baldimo, homosexuals do not have the option of not being homosexual either.


Do you know this for a fact, or do you know this because this is what has been told to you? As I have noted before, science can prove or disprove any number of things, why not apply it to the homosexual situation. Just because someone says that they are born gay doesn't it make it that way? Are people born to be murderers or rapists? Would you accept that as an explanation for their behavior?

Quote:
Personally I did not make a conscience decision to be heterosexual, I was just attracted to men not women. Did you make a conscience decision to be attracted to the opposite sex or is it just innate to you?


Here's the difference between heterosexuals and homosexuals. Heterosexuals do what nature intended and that is to be attracted to the opposite sex for the reason of having children and further the human species. There is nothing natural about homosexuality and it doesn't do anything that nature intended. If homosexuality were natural then the human species would be much smaller then it is today.

Quote:
Just for arguments sake, lets say what you say is true. In the same vain, say a black is attracted to a white person. Well since it is not genetic, and they have the choice, it should be illegal for interracial marriages and relationships.



There is no argument sake on this issue. Men and women were meant to be together to procreate the species. You see this all through nature. When you look at horses, it doesn't matter what color the horse is, they are still attracted to the opposite sex of horse. It is the same with humans. Color is genetic and so is the drive to mate with the opposite sex. Without this genetic drive to mate the first animals would have been the only animals.

Quote:
Baldimo,
As Frank pointed out to you earlier, the fact that the very thought of homosexual sex is repulsive to most heterosexuals shows that it is NOT a choice issue. There is absolutely no way that I could choose to be gay, therefore it is perfectly understandable to me that the reverse is also true.


I find the act of murder repulsive as well as the act of pedophilia, and you won't me doing any of these things. Does this mean people are born to kill others and still others are born to have sex with children?
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Nov, 2004 08:03 pm
baldimo how do you reconcile the fact that you find murder repulsive with the obvious glee you and pride you show in proclaiming "coming to a justified war near you?" either you dig killing or you don't......
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Nov, 2004 08:51 pm
There is a difference between murder and war. I never said I "dig killing".
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Nov, 2004 09:02 pm
riiiight....
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Nov, 2004 09:13 pm
You don't know me so you don't know do you?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

New York New York! - Discussion by jcboy
Prop 8? - Discussion by majikal
Gay Marriage - Discussion by blatham
Gay Marriage -- An Old Post Revisited - Discussion by pavarasra
Who doesn't back gay marriage? - Question by The Pentacle Queen
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 11/15/2024 at 02:22:32