[TANaples]

Originally Posted by HowDeDo

'All that religious stuff' are what the Founders of this Country thought was best for future generations including ours ; the opposite to morals, ethics, and values is everyone doing what they think is right in their own minds . While it might appear to be great freedom to live by, it isnt. Its enslavement and self deceiving. You dont really want a society like this even if it satisfies your entitlement. Surely you must recognize the consequences our society faces today as a result of people living the lie of immorality including two men making love with Moderator cut: .. present/dying of AIDS/ and demanding everyone applaud the lifestyle, unrestrained sexual hedonism keeping the Abortion Mills thriving at the rate of 4,000 daily murders of developing Americans, and ShackingUp keeping the door ajar for a quick exit leaving behind incalculable emotional pain. (?). Please, for your own sake, stop beleiving the lie our Culture with the Medias help is cramming down our throats ---- it does nothing short of elevating rebellion, pride, and arrogance toward the godly foundations of living correctly and civily ; foundations which werent foreign to the wise men who got this Country rolling ...and foundations which your Parents tried to instill in you also. Declaring your a full fledged Liberal is akin to declaring you just dont care anymore . Liberalism and Humanism breeds apathy because its a necessary element for one living / beleiving in an irresponsible lifestyle . The best cure is to get to know the Creator on a personal level and to commit to living according to HIS moral mandates, and not our own. Our Founding Fathers agreed . Regards.

My parents were very liberal, especially given the fact they would have been in their 90s now. I am an ONLY child, by their choice, and I grew up in Greenwich Village. My Aunt was openly gay even back in the 60s. She raised my cousin with her partner who she knew from before she married. A lot of gay women back in those days married just to have children, you know. Anyway, my parents attitude was, "some people are black, some people are white. some people have blue eyes, some people have brown eyes. some people are straight, some people are gay". I grew up on Christopher St. in NYC (ever hear of it?) and went to school just down the street from the Stonewall Inn. Yes, I knew what it was all about because my parents TOLD ME about it when I was a very little girl.

You are barking up the wrong tree here. This is America. Nobody should be denied their rights because of the color of their skin, OR their sexual orientation.

Incidentially, my older daughter is a lesbian. She is who she is because she was BORN that way. As her mother, I hope someday she finds the woman of her dreams, can get married, and find the happiness she truly deserves. I also have a younger straight daughter who has met her special someone and will be married next summer. Why would I want anything different for either of them. They are both my children.

If religion will deny either of them their happpiness and equality, then religion needs to get the hell out of the way.

[cmsvmom]

Originally Posted by Tungsten_Udder

Actually, I don't think that's the opposite of morals/ethics and values at all. I think that's just what those things are.

Good point. We're denying people who are leading decent lives in committed relationships, some of them raising children, the right to be married if they so choose. So they have to hire lawyers and circumvent laws and get all pushy because they cannot take for granted what heterosexuals can.

Unless they marry heterosexuals.

Been there, done that....bought the closet genie....Spent far too much of my life locked in someone else's closet so he could pretend to be heterosexual.....

[bale002]

This whole issue could be solved through a compromise on terminology.

From the legal, constitutional stand-point, religious organizations should be considered as clubs or associations, and they have their bylaws, including the recognition of marriage, baptism and so on.

From a legal, constitutional standpoint, people participate in civil unions, they contract partnerships.

So a couple is married, if they choose, by the bylaws of this or that club or association.

A couple contracts a civil union/partnership before the laws of the state.

Do not confuse marriage with civil union; they may be overlap or not, but the one is based on the bylaws of an association, the other on the laws of the state.

Grow up and case closed.

[AONE]

Seems the Obama supporters he got out to vote are very homophobic as well. I never did understand why any gay group supported him as he isnt very pro-gay and certainly not as much so as Nader. but thats water under the bridge. I guess it will come back to defeating these ridiculous amendments in higher courts.

[Wild Style]

Originally Posted by AONE

Seems the Obama supporters he got out to vote are very homophobic as well. I never did understand why any gay group supported him as he isnt very pro-gay and certainly not as much so as Nader. but thats water under the bridge. I guess it will come back to defeating these ridiculous amendments in higher courts.

I voted for Obama, have homosexual and bi sexual work buddies. I also voted for Amendment 2. Homophobia implies I am some how scared of people who practice this lifestyle. I don't fear them and one of my close buddies is gay. However, from a religious standpoint I don't agree with homosexuality and I will not vote for anything that in anyway supports that life style. I don't mean to offend anyone.

[MiamiGringo]

Originally Posted by gypsychic

It is my belief that people did NOT understand it correctly. When we were standing in line for early voting, there were many people confused about the wording of this and other amendments. Many said they weren't even going to vote since they weren't sure what some things meant. And I also think that due to the wording some people thought voting "yes" meant "no" and vice versa. They really should word this stuff in plain English, but I have a feeling they wanted to intentionally confuse people.

I have thought a great deal about this, and about Amendment 1 which was a simple technical change to eliminate a racist notion in the constitution.

The framers of Amendment 2 deliberately confused people with their language and the Catholic Archbishop of Miami Dade joined in with a deceitful letter to the Herald. They hold much responsibility for this.

But the voters of Florida hold most of the responsibility. Both Amendments 1 & 2 were not plainly written but with even a minimum of research, could be easily understood. And people don't make that effort.

That's sad. And it's irresponsible of the voter.

If someone voted for Amendment 2 because they thought it would support heterosexual marriage, they show a true disdain for empirical reasoning.

If someone voted for Amendment 2 because they thought it would not affect gay people, they are at best lazy.

If someone voted for Amendment 2 because they thought it would support gay marriage, as some people said they did, then for the good of all, they should not vote, sign contracts or procreate.

There was only valid reason to vote for Amendment 2. That would be because the voter hated gay people and wanted to use the constitution as a weapon.

Now the average Florida voter has never been prized for his/her intelligence. Let's face it, the state we live in is the slow learner group of the country. It might be better if Floridians laid off the voting for a few years until we get this "informed electorate" thing down.

[TANaples]

Originally Posted by Wild Style

I voted for Obama, have homosexual and bi sexual work buddies. I also voted for Amendment 2. Homophobia implies I am some how scared of people who practice this lifestyle. I don't fear them and one of my close buddies is gay. However, from a religious standpoint I don't agree with homosexuality and I will not vote for anything that in anyway supports that life style. I don't mean to offend anyone.

Letting YOUR religion dictate a CIVIL matter. Suppose for argument that you are a Catholic. Divorce and remarriage is against your religion. Would you favor an amendment banning divorce? Would you work to keep divorced couples from a CIVIL remarriage because of YOUR RELIGION? "What God has joined together, let no man put asunder". Would you like the Catholic Church to dicate who can and cannot get married? Do you see where this is going?

This is why we need separation of church and state. RELIGION cannot dictate who can and cannot marry.

[Lakeland Yankee]

Originally Posted by HowDeDo

Surely you must recognize the consequences our society faces today as a result of people living the lie of immorality including two men making love Moderator cut: .. present/dying of AIDS/ and demanding everyone applaud the lifestyle,

Aids is plague sent by God to kill off the "perverted" lifestyles, right?
Here's a little better explaination Discovery Channel :: News - Animals :: HIV's Ancestry Traced to Wild Chimps.


What about Feline Aids? Feline Immunodeficiency Virus (FIV or Feline AIDS) ~ Pawprints and Purrs, Inc.
I guess God is also sick and tired of these kittens and cats running around wreaking havok on the morals of society through their perverted deviant behaviors. Die Fluffy die! Burn in Hell Mittens!

Just remember~ Luke 6:37 Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:

[MiamiGringo]

Originally Posted by Wild Style

one of my close buddies is gay. However, from a religious standpoint I don't agree with homosexuality .

You don't agree with homosexuality? What makes you think your liking, your agreement on something should have any bearing on the ability of another person to live life freely?

Do you agree that your "close buddy" is human? Do you agree that he has the right to legal protections? And who appointed you his boss that you get to decide the limits of his entirely personal freedom?

In my opinion, Christianity is a false and destructive belief. does that mean if I convince a majority of Floridians to agree with me that we have the right to drive you underground and deprive you of your basic protections? I don't agree with that concept.

You've got a lot of thinking to do and I hope you have carefully explained your disagreement to this supposedly close buddy of yours. He has a right to know what you really think of him.

[Wild Style]

Originally Posted by TANaples

Letting YOUR religion dictate a CIVIL matter. Suppose for argument that you are a Catholic. Divorce and remarriage is against your religion. Would you favor an amendment banning divorce? Would you work to keep divorced couples from a CIVIL remarriage because of YOUR RELIGION? "What God has joined together, let no man put asunder". Would you like the Catholic Church to dicate who can and cannot get married? Do you see where this is going?

This is why we need separation of church and state. RELIGION cannot dictate who can and cannot marry.

Marriage my friend is a religious union. The rituals practiced during marriage ceremonies are religious based. So to separate religion from marriage is sort of impossible. Well that is unless you want to go around making stuff up. Now, if you want to make it a CIVIL matter (your emphasis not mine). Then have a civil union and be done with it.

Originally Posted by MiamiGringo

You don't agree with homosexuality? What makes you think your liking, your agreement on something should have any bearing on the ability of another person to live life freely?

Do you agree that your "close buddy" is human? Do you agree that he has the right to legal protections? And who appointed you his boss that you get to decide the limits of his entirely personal freedom?

In my opinion, Christianity is a false and destructive belief. does that mean if I convince a majority of Floridians to agree with me that we have the right to drive you underground and deprive you of your basic protections? I don't agree with that concept.

You've got a lot of thinking to do and I hope you have carefully explained your disagreement to this supposedly close buddy of yours. He has a right to know what you really think of him.

We citizens were asked to vote on the matter based on our beliefs/opinions/views of weather or not marriage should be classified in such a manner. The key thing in this matter is, people are voting on what they FEEL is right. It is your OPINION that "marriage" is between two people regardless of sex. It is my opinion that "marriage" is between two people of the opposite sex. Its a opinion on both sides of the argument. These opinions are based on religion or individual belief or whatever.