I'm signing, but with reservations.

.

A bigot is simply one who is strongly partial to their own group or race or religion or even politics.

Do you, in view of your many postings on assorted topics, claim that you yourself are NOT a BIGOT? Let me disabuse you of that right now because most every one of your posts shouts to the world of your bigotry.

I'm fine with your disapproval of some segments of society and with your desire to avoid them. It is a free country. But we should not deny civil institutions to those we dislike. That goes too far.

Dan

I feel exactly the same. I cannot see why heterosexuals should be expected to accept a quirk in nature. I don't mind what homosexuals do, but not in my face, and certainly not in my church.

How about in someone else's church, surely you can't object to that? Or, more to the point, in front of a justice of the peace?

Dan

Am I going to be arrested for finding male homosexuals not to my taste. I would agree with anybody who says that we have the freedom to do whatever we wish with OUR lives, but when something is distasteful to other people we should try not to shove it in their faces. I think it is the height of bad manners not to consider the feelings of our fellow human beings. Rightly or wrongly some religious folk find homosexuality sacrilegious and I think their feelings should be considered, especially when the bible doesn't give a clear statement about the rights or wrongs of this sort of sexuality. Homosexuality may fall into the self abuse category, and their may even be a condemnation of certain acts such as buggery, which male homosexuals often participate in.

i think that he means the American version of a registry office wedding, i.e. the man says "with the powers invested in me by the State/Government of *********** and not "by the powers invested in me by the chuch/god etc."..

and as an aside, i think you'll find that the bible is very clear about the subject (check Leviticus 20:13 amongst others)

jonah

This is a bit off topic, but I don't think anyone's sexuality should be shoved in the face of those who would not appreciate it. Yet, this is still a free country so there are sexual images all about that many from varied viepoints object to. I find some public displays to be offensive and distasteful so I can understand where you're coming from.

Dan

That is the problem with long threads - it is very easy to drift away from the main topic

.

i'm far from being an "expert" on American history, but, wasn't it the religous and/or political beliefs of one man who stopped the word GOD being used in the pledge?

At this point it is still a case for the courts...

the word god was purposely left out, and inserted during the '50s? i believe

Congress inserted the words 'under God' in 1954...

as i read it, they said the opposite?

#Massachusetts' highest court ruled Tuesday that same-sex couples are legally entitled to wed under the state constitution, but stopped short of allowing marriage licenses to be issued to the couples who challenged the law.
The Supreme Judicial Court's ruling closely matches the 1999 Vermont Supreme Court decision, which led there to the Legislature's approval in 2000 of civil unions that give couples many of the same benefits of marriage#

The decision is the latest in a series of victories for gay rights advocates, but fell short of what the seven couples who sued the state had hoped to receive: the right to marry their longtime companion.

The Massachusetts question will now return to the Legislature, which already is considering a constitutional amendment that would legally define a marriage as a union between one man and one woman. The state's powerful Speaker of the House, Tom Finneran of Boston, has endorsed this proposal.

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/ap20031118_694.html

.

If you think about it outside of humans, marriage means two parts that fit together. When talking about machines two married parts fit and/or lock together. Like male and female hose ends. Or you push this part into the other part and twist to lock it in place. These parts are married and can not easily be tworn apart. Males and females 'fit' in this way, and homosexuals don't. Maybe part of the problem traditionalist have, is saying that the same thing that they have with their wife or husband is the same as a homosexual has with their partner. Maybe if people would call it something different, the traditionalists could accept that homosexuals could have the same rights(insurance, taxes and such) that everyone has and they could separate the religious factor from the legal stand point. Or maybe I'm just blowing smoke, is 'traditionalist' a word?

regardless of what others call it. You can call it a civil union if you want but they will not stop until it is called marriage. It happened in Canada.

We've been going all around this for days. I've heard lots of discussion on lots of topics. So far no one has made an argument on the harm that would occur if gays were allowed to get married.

Can anyone give me a clear, simple explanation of the harm that would come to anyone who is married or who wants to marry just because gay couples can do it too? "Because it has to be a man and a woman" ain't good enough. "Because god said so" ain't good enough. "Because it will corrup our moral fiber" ain't good enough. "Because it's icky" ain't good enough. I want to hear about problems that will occur that are not happening now. Or whatever the harm is feared to be.

Thanks.

Dan

.

I just wanted it to be the longest thread anywhere ever! ! I keep looking over my shoulder at the 'extremist judge' and 'vietnam years' threads.

I'm moving my 'And why not?' post to a new thread.

Party pooper.

Dan