Bush to Back Gay Marriage Ban Amendment

[ELVIS]

2-24-04 (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040224/D80TN9P80.html)


WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush backed a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage Tuesday, saying he wants to stop activist judges from changing the definition of the "most enduring human institution."

Marriage cannot be severed from its cultural and moral roots, Bush said, urging Congress to approve such an amendment.

"After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence and millenia of human experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization," the president said. "Their action has created confusion on an issue that requires clarity."

Presidential spokesman Scott McClellan said in advance of Bush's announcement that the president wanted to end "growing confusion" that has arisen from court decisions in Massachusetts, and San Francisco's permitting more than 3,000 same sex unions.

"The president believes it is important to have clarity," he said. "There is widespread support in this country for protecting and defending the sanctity of marriage."

McClellan said Bush believes that legislation for such an amendment, submitted by Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, R-Colo., "meets his principles" in protecting the "sanctity of marriage" between men and women.

But Bush did not specifically embrace any particular piece of legislation in his announcement. White House officials have said that support for Musgrave's proposed amendment has been unraveling in the Senate.

Bush decided to take action partly because the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court recently ruled that it is unconstitutional to bar gay couples from marriage. That decision could result in gay weddings there as early as May, McClellan said. "We're two months away," he said.

McClellan said 38 states have passed laws protecting the "sanctity of marriage and the president will call on Congress to move quickly to pass legislation that can then be sent to the states for ratification.

"We need to act now," he said. "The constitutional process will take time."

With the announcement, Bush is wading into a volatile social issue. The conservative wing of his party has been anxious for Bush to follow up his rhetoric on the issue with action. In recent weeks, Bush has repeatedly said he was "troubled" by the Massachusetts court decision and the gay marriages in San Francisco, but stopped short of endorsing a constitutional amendment.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court recently ruled that it is unconstitutional to bar gay couples from marriage. Gay and lesbian couples from Europe and couples from more than 20 states have flocked to San Francisco City Hall since city officials decided to begin marrying same-sex couples a few days ago. At the current pace, more than 3,200 people will have taken vows by Friday promising to be "spouses for life."

At least 38 states and the federal government have approved laws or amendments barring the recognition of gay marriage; last week, the Utah House gave final legislative approval to a measure outlawing same-sex marriages and sent it to the governor, who has not taken a position on the bill.

Musgrave's proposed amendment would define marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

Conservatives have been saying for a month that the White House had quietly assured them that Bush would take the step he was announcing on Tuesday.

Last week, he met with 13 Roman Catholic conservatives. They included Deal Hudson, the publisher of Crisis magazine and a friend of Bush political adviser Karl Rove; William Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights; Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan, former speechwriter for President Reagan; and Kathryn Jean Lopez, associate editor of National Review magazine.

Bush has indicated his support for a constitutional amendment in the past, including in a closed-door meeting with Republican lawmakers last month. At that session, according to one official in attendance, the president singled out Musgrave's proposal as one he could support, but did not endorse it.

The amendment that Musgrave and other lawmakers are backing in the House says: "Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."


:elvis:

[knuckleboner]

this is fucking ridiculious. we would be changing our CONSTITUTUION over symantics. over the definition of a fucking WORD. it trivializes the U.S. Constitution.

bush isn't against a civil union. he just doesn't want it called, "marriage."


Originially from cnn.com (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/24/elec04.prez.bush.marriage/index.html)

But Bush also said state legislatures should be left to define "legal arrangements other than marriage," suggesting that such an amendment would do nothing to stop states from allowing civil unions for same-sex couples.

so, they CAN have a civil union that gives them the same rights. but they just can't call it marriage.

while i think that outlawing ANY union between consenting adults of the same sex is wrong, at least it makes more sense than changing the Constitution based merely on the symantic definition of a word.

hell, prohibition was also wrong, but it least it made more sense then changing the Constititution to outlaw alcohol, but to allow "fermented and distilled spirits."

[John Ashcroft]

It'll never make it dude, he's pandering to the base. No worries, you and your boyfriend can enjoy a long life together... :D ;)

[knuckleboner]

but can we get MARRIED? huh? how the hell am i going to get on "queer marriage for the gay 'undercarriage'" if it's illegal?!

[FORD]

The fact that a constitutional ammendment to encourage bigotry is even being discussed is evidence of how far this country has gone down the shithole in the last three years.

BTW, Judas is for the ammendment too, so voting for his ass won't stop it.

Cheney's daughter, Ron Reagan Jr, Candace Gingrich and other gay relatives of right wing conservatives need to speak out against this fucking heresy against civil rights.

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by knuckleboner
this is fucking ridiculious. we would be changing our CONSTITUTUION over symantics. over the definition of a fucking WORD. it trivializes the U.S. Constitution.

bush isn't against a civil union. he just doesn't want it called, "marriage."



so, they CAN have a civil union that gives them the same rights. but they just can't call it marriage.



Marriage is religious institution hijacked by the politicos.

If hassles over ONE WORD is no big deal then can we call African-Americans NEGRO or N****R?

Is it now acceptable to call gay people FAGS?

Those examples may be in a different context in what we're arguing about here, but it still illustrate the words have different meanings to different people.

Food for thought.

[knuckleboner]

dude, i agree with you to some extent. but at the same time, i don't think we should be making an amendment to our Constitution saying that the n-word is bad, either.

and yeah, i know there are religious overtones for the concept of marriage.

but still, in the U.S., marriage is equally as much a civil function. you've always been able to get married outside of a religious institution by a justice of the peace. and the ease of divorce (the ending of a valid "marriage" is certainly not within the bounds of most judeo-christian religious concepts.

if i were arguing religion, i would say that the ease of divorce is doing more to harm the institution of religion than the prospect that 2 gay guys or chicks getting married is.

i mean, think of it: currently, most people in america don't think that much of marriage. is it a lifetime committment, as religion says it should be? nope. everybody knows that over half of all marriages end in divorce. and it doesn't generally concern us when a marriage lasts less than a year.

to me, saying that the thought that same-sex couples might want to get civilly married isn't nearly as strong a threat to the sanctity of marriage that the institution is supposed to be. yet that's where the amendment is.

[FORD]

Originally posted by ELVIS
The amendment that Musgrave and other lawmakers are backing in the House says: "Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."



Uh, aren't ALL people "unmarried couples" before their wedding? This fucking idiot just made heterosexual marriage illegal too :D

[FORD]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Marriage is religious institution hijacked by the politicos.

If hassles over ONE WORD is no big deal then can we call African-Americans NEGRO or N****R?

Is it now acceptable to call gay people FAGS?



No, but I wouldn't propose a constitutional ammendment to regulate the words either. For one thing, the rappers would never go for it.......

[Catfish]

Originally posted by FORD
The fact that a constitutional ammendment to encourage bigotry is even being discussed is evidence of how far this country has gone down the shithole in the last three years.


Bigotry. Jesus Christ.

[Guitar Shark]

Originally posted by FORD
BTW, Judas is for the ammendment too, so voting for his ass won't stop it.


Where is the evidence that Kerry would support the proposed consitutional amendment?

[KANE]

Originally posted by knuckleboner
but can we get MARRIED? huh? how the hell am i going to get on "queer marriage for the gay 'undercarriage'" if it's illegal?!
LMAO !

[KANE]

Originally posted by FORD
The fact that a constitutional ammendment to encourage bigotry is even being discussed is evidence of how far this country has gone down the shithole in the last three years.

BTW, Judas is for the ammendment too, so voting for his ass won't stop it.

Cheney's daughter, Ron Reagan Jr, Candace Gingrich and other gay relatives of right wing conservatives need to speak out against this fucking heresy against civil rights.

Last time i looked at a map there was hundreds of other countries you can pack up your backpack and move to ! by the way, do you have a job ? cause it seems like your always online.usually the people who whine like you do dont even pay fuckin taxes, they get welfare etc. if you want a job, i'll pay ya 30 bucks an hour to plant tulips this spring, 2 LIPS AROUND MY JOHNSON, you unhappy homo worshipper..god damn ive never seen a mother fucker piss & moan about how fucked up this country is, after just gettin back from fighting for your welfare, makes me wanna jump on the next plane to welfare,california and beat your fat ass into this american soil, you need to get the fuck out of this blessed country and see the rest of the world that ive seen, maybe then you'll get over that bed wetting problem you got, fuck it just shoot yourself ya miserable asshole ! And Sarge, im reporting myself again before someone else does for this post, this shit rattles my ass hairs, especially after my last tour, this boy needs to get out and get a fuckin clue..

[ELVIS]

FORD lives in Welfare Welfare Washington...

[FORD]

Originally posted by Guitar Shark
Where is the evidence that Kerry would support the proposed consitutional amendment?

He said so the day that the Masshole Supreme Court ruled in favor of gay marriage. Then he tried to back away from it with a vague comment like "depends what the language is".

As usual, waffles are the breakfast served at Kamp Kerry.

[ELVIS]

Hahahahaha!

Sounds like Clinton...:)

[John Ashcroft]

Originally posted by KANE
Last time i looked at a map there was hundreds of other countries you can pack up your backpack and move to ! by the way, do you have a job ? cause it seems like your always online.usually the people who whine like you do dont even pay fuckin taxes, they get welfare etc. if you want a job, i'll pay ya 30 bucks an hour to plant tulips this spring, 2 LIPS AROUND MY JOHNSON, you unhappy homo worshipper..god damn ive never seen a mother fucker piss & moan about how fucked up this country is, after just gettin back from fighting for your welfare, makes me wanna jump on the next plane to welfare,california and beat your fat ass into this american soil, you need to get the fuck out of this blessed country and see the rest of the world that ive seen, maybe then you'll get over that bed wetting problem you got, fuck it just shoot yourself ya miserable asshole ! And Sarge, im reporting myself again before someone else does for this post, this shit rattles my ass hairs, especially after my last tour, this boy needs to get out and get a fuckin clue..

Heh heh heh... I've tried this line dude, and it doesn't work. He won't go. :D

[KANE]

Originally posted by John Ashcroft
Heh heh heh... I've tried this line dude, and it doesn't work. He won't go. :D


How bout a good penis slappin ? ya know, when you dont have a job, i guess this is all the jabrone has, sad fuck.

[steve vai1]

George Bush in 2004, BABY!

[David Lee Rocks]

Bush can go straight to hell in 2004, hes got to go, baby!!

[Satan]

Originally posted by David Lee Rocks
Bush can go straight to hell in 2004, hes got to go, baby!!

No thanks! We don't want him either :cool:

[Wayne L.]

I don't care if gays & lesbians want to get married even though I don't agree with their lifestyle but President Bush is just playing to his far right base politicallybeing for it just like Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry is playing to his far left base politically being against it.

[John Ashcroft]

Well, he's gotta do something with all the spending going on. But I agree. Do what's right, and you'll get reelected. Do what focus groups and polls tell you to do, and it'll catch up with you. (Although Clinton was reelected by doing just that... I guess we're fucked).

[FORD]

Ken Schram Commentary: Bush Supporting Prejudice And Fear

February 24, 2004

By Ken Schram

SEATTLE - An amendment to the constitution ended slavery in America.

An amendment to the constitution gave women the right to vote.

Constitutional amendments have provided us with freedom of religion and freedom of speech.

I've always thought of the constitution as preserving our freedom and protecting our rights.

George Bush sees the constitution as a way to punish people and discriminate against them.

According to polls, 64 percent of Americans tend to agree with him.

I'm one of the 36 percent who does not.

Bush says by supporting a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, he is supporting the sanctity of that union.

What he's really supporting is prejudice and fear.

He's agreeing that gays and lesbians are so threatening that the very cornerstone of this country's freedom should be amended to deny people the right to chose their own partners.

Either we all have the right to marry, or no one has that right.

Because if we just quietly accept the government's power to tell "them" who to marry, we essentially accept the government's power to tell "us" the same thing.

[EAST COAST]

KANE, WELCOME TO THE PARTY.. IF YOU GET A CHANCE CHECK OUT THE POSTS IVE SUBMITTED, AND SEE WHO THEY ARE DIRECTED AT AND WHO I AM DEFENDING. THIS GUY FORD HYUNDAI TOYOTA WHATEVER HIS NAME IS, HE IS A MISERABLE MORON WHO JUST ATTACKS ANYONE OR ANY IDEA THAT ACTUALLY HAS MERIT AND SUBSTANCE. HE IS AN UNHAPPY LIBERAL, COUPON CLIPPIN FRAUD WITH AN ATTITUDE PROBLEM..... DONT LET HIM GET YOU WORKED UP, HE IS 5 FOOT 3 185 LBS. HE AINT WORTH IT JUST LAUGH AT HIM.... LOOK AT IT THIS WAY.. WHEN BUSH FINALLY UNLEASHES HIS CAMPAIGN THE POLLS ARE GONNA SHIFT SO DRAMATICALLY HE WILL POUT AND HIDE FOR A MONTH. THEN HE WILL HAVE 4 MORE YEARS TO COMPLAIN WHY THE ECONOMY IS STILL GOIN UP THE UNEMPLOYMENT IS STILL GOIN DOWN, AND WEVE GOTTEN SOME WHERE WITH THAT MIDDLE EAST(FINALLY)...HOW DID CLINTON AND CARTER DO IN THE MIDDLE EAST... SPEAKING OF THE MIDDLE EAST IF FORD WENT THERE HE WOULD GET BEAT BY THE TALIBAN WITH NO TEETH CAUSE THEY WOULD MISTAKEN HIM FOR A FEMALE, (well maybe it isnt a mistake)

[ELVIS]

The best idea I've heard is civil unions for both gay and hetero, agnostic and atheist couples etc., and marriage for men and women who firmly believe in GOD...

[rustoffa]

Mike Luckovich.....arrrrgh

http://img.coxnewsweb.com/C/04/67/83/image_483674.gif

[FORD]

Originally posted by EAST COAST
KANE, WELCOME TO THE PARTY.. IF YOU GET A CHANCE CHECK OUT THE POSTS IVE SUBMITTED, AND SEE WHO THEY ARE DIRECTED AT AND WHO I AM DEFENDING. THIS GUY FORD HYUNDAI TOYOTA WHATEVER HIS NAME IS, HE IS A MISERABLE MORON WHO JUST ATTACKS ANYONE OR ANY IDEA THAT ACTUALLY HAS MERIT AND SUBSTANCE. HE IS AN UNHAPPY LIBERAL, COUPON CLIPPIN FRAUD WITH AN ATTITUDE PROBLEM..... DONT LET HIM GET YOU WORKED UP, HE IS 5 FOOT 3 185 LBS. HE AINT WORTH IT JUST LAUGH AT HIM.... LOOK AT IT THIS WAY.. WHEN BUSH FINALLY UNLEASHES HIS CAMPAIGN THE POLLS ARE GONNA SHIFT SO DRAMATICALLY HE WILL POUT AND HIDE FOR A MONTH. THEN HE WILL HAVE 4 MORE YEARS TO COMPLAIN WHY THE ECONOMY IS STILL GOIN UP THE UNEMPLOYMENT IS STILL GOIN DOWN, AND WEVE GOTTEN SOME WHERE WITH THAT MIDDLE EAST(FINALLY)...HOW DID CLINTON AND CARTER DO IN THE MIDDLE EAST... SPEAKING OF THE MIDDLE EAST IF FORD WENT THERE HE WOULD GET BEAT BY THE TALIBAN WITH NO TEETH CAUSE THEY WOULD MISTAKEN HIM FOR A FEMALE, (well maybe it isnt a mistake)

yu'l have to excooze eyst coste. hiz meddication jus' worr off and he hazn't sene his sikiyatrist this weak yet.

BUSH ROOLS!

[Pink Spider]

Originally posted by ELVIS
The best idea I've heard is civil unions for both gay and hetero, agnostic and atheist couples etc., and marriage for men and women who firmly believe in GOD...

How do you tell the Atheists/Agnostics apart from the Christians? That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

[Seshmeister]

Do an IQ test.

Anyone above 120 has to be at least agnostic...:)

[FORD]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
Do an IQ test.

Anyone above 120 has to be at least agnostic...:)

Now just a goddamn minute :mad:

[knuckleboner]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
Do an IQ test.

Anyone above 120 has to be at least agnostic...:)

not necessarily...

science can tell you how the universe started, all the way back to the big bang. it has zero answers for what started it. or what was before. some sort of deity can actually make logical sense.

now, whether or not that deity gets pissed off if you eat meat today is another story...;)

[Pink Spider]

So, what created the creator that created the universe?

:)

[Ally_Kat]

i guess we find out when we die.

[knuckleboner]

Originally posted by Pink Spider
So, what created the creator that created the universe?

:)

good question. it's the problem. eventually, you have to stop somewhere. personally, i think it's more logical to believe that an intelligent entity is at the ultimate beginning, rather than just a bunch of matter.

sure, it takes a slight leap of faith to believe in an entity that has no creator. but i say that's LESS of a leap than to believe in a universe that has no creator.

[John Ashcroft]

What's the definition of "faith" again?

[Roy Munson]

Gay marriage is wrong. End of story.

SUPPORT THE BAN!

[Catfish]

Originally posted by Roy Munson
Gay marriage is wrong. End of story.

SUPPORT THE BAN!


Yes.

Marriage is about a man and a woman. That's what marraige is. Anything different isn't marriage.

[Catfish]

All this is is another example of the liberals wanting to rewrite history to fit what is popular today.

I bet in a few years people like Ford will lead an effort to burn all $20 bills because Jackson owned slaves.

You people are fucking stoopid.

[Pink Spider]

Originally posted by knuckleboner
good question. it's the problem. eventually, you have to stop somewhere. personally, i think it's more logical to believe that an intelligent entity is at the ultimate beginning, rather than just a bunch of matter.

sure, it takes a slight leap of faith to believe in an entity that has no creator. but i say that's LESS of a leap than to believe in a universe that has no creator.

Linear beings thinking in linear terms. Who says that there really was a beginning? You would have to have a starting point to have a beginning and if we're going with the God theory, it's downright impossible.

Which makes more sense, a perfect just existing and creating everything or a bunch of molecules that have always existed that have infinity to accidentally collide, set off various chain reactions and evolve?

[FORD]

Originally posted by Catfish
I bet in a few years people like Ford will lead an effort to burn all $20 bills because Jackson owned slaves.


My answer would be the same as it was when that fucking idiot tried to get Jellybean boy on the dime - LEAVE THE FUCKING MONEY ALONE

[Catfish]

Yes, and we should leave marriage alone, too.

It's getting to where marriage is a joke in this country. It almost doesn't mean anything anymore. We have strangers marrying strangers on TV, celebreties getting married three times before 30 and skanks like Brittney Spears getting married for the hell of it and getting divorced hours later.

What the fuck is marriage anymore? It means a lot to people who actually believe in what it stands for. Now, it’s totally disrespected and this gay marriage thing is the fucking tip of the iceberg.

[Pink Spider]

If marriage is such a religious thing to people, then why care so much about the legality of it?

So, you need the government to tell you that you're married? If you're a true Christian, then why should you bother to be married legally in the first place? All of you are just legally married for the tax benefits. Admit it. That means that legal marriage straight Christians have ruined the sanctity of marriage. Hypocrites. ;)

[Catfish]

I repeat: Marriage is about a man and a woman. That is where the whole idea comes from. That is what marriage is. Nothing else.

I really hope you're not saying I'm married for the tax benefits.

[knuckleboner]

Originally posted by Pink Spider
Linear beings thinking in linear terms. Who says that there really was a beginning? You would have to have a starting point to have a beginning and if we're going with the God theory, it's downright impossible.

Which makes more sense, a perfect just existing and creating everything or a bunch of molecules that have always existed that have infinity to accidentally collide, set off various chain reactions and evolve?

i don't think inanimate objects existing on their own for infinity makes much sense.

but at some point, BOTH views require a leap of faith and a belief in infinity. on the one hand, those that believe in a deity believe that an intelligent being is the infinity who somehow (whether by setting the big bang in motion or by making adam and eve) created the universe.

those that believe there is no supreme being believe and have faith that the molecules, themselves, existed for infinity. it's still a leap of faith.


personally, i find the logic of random, inanimate molecules existing forever, and able to create such a perfect universe of uniform, physical laws on their own to be too large a leap of faith. i think there is inteligence behind the universe's construction.


(plus, i also kinda like that "jesus" guy. but that's an entirely different debate...;))

[knuckleboner]

back to bush's suggestion to amend the Constitutution:

how many of you, who are against gay marriage, are for bush's amendment?

after all, what bush's proposal will do, is simply say that you can't call a same-sex legal union a, "marriage," however, any state can create a "civil-union" that offers the same benefits as a "marriage."

personally, whether you're for or against same-sex marriages, i'd think the concept of THIS amendment is foolish.

[FORD]

There is no just cause to amend the constitution to include bigotry. Especially when preceding ammendments have done exactly the opposite.

[Pink Spider]

Originally posted by Catfish
I repeat: Marriage is about a man and a woman. That is where the whole idea comes from.

What about polygamists? There are many interpretations of what a marriage is. No idea is set in stone.

I really hope you're not saying I'm married for the tax benefits.

Maybe you knocked her up? :p

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by Pink Spider
Maybe you knocked her up? :p

You won't ever have to worry about that with your female lover, will you Butch? :eatit:

[Pink Spider]

Nah...I'm going out with a guy at the moment. If he turns out to be anything like you, I might just swear off men for good. :D

[Catfish]

Originally posted by Pink Spider
Nah...I'm going out with a guy at the moment. If he turns out to be anything like you, I might just swear off men for good. :D

What, are you a lesbo?

[KANE]

Originally posted by FORD
There is no just cause to amend the constitution to include bigotry. Especially when preceding ammendments have done exactly the opposite.


Check out Professor Ford, its only 59 bucks ,one way to mexico on Greyhound, i'll buy your ticket if ya promise me that you'll be happy and spankin some lolita's instead of pissin & moanin about the fuckin government, and wasnt Abe Lincoln a republican ?

[FORD]

Originally posted by KANE
Check out Professor Ford, its only 59 bucks ,one way to mexico on Greyhound, i'll buy your ticket if ya promise me that you'll be happy and spankin some lolita's instead of pissin & moanin about the fuckin government, and wasnt Abe Lincoln a republican ?

Yes, and possibly the last decent one :(

[John Ashcroft]

So, on that note... Which party overwhelmingly supported the Civil Rights Act of '64, and which party opposed it? Which is the Party of Governor Wallace? Which party has an ex KKK member as a senior Senator?

[ELVIS]

uhh hu uh hu hu hu hu hu hu hu

[Dr. Love]

How many amendments have there been to the constitution to take away rights of people?

How many are there today?


I think it's stupid, really. There's a big difference between a legal marriage and a religious or spritual marriage.

Most people are bitching about the latter.

[Lou]

As strongly as I am against gay marriage, I don't think it should be a federal issue. But I'll say this much, if some politician said, "I want to make an amendment to the Constitution saying, 'Homosexual marriage should be honored just like heterosexual marriage'" I seriously doubt the liberals would be bitching about it.

[rustoffa]

Originally posted by Pink Spider
How do you tell the Atheists/Agnostics apart from the Christians? That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
Go to the local Starbucks,the folks with birkenstocks over socks and bad skin....fuck it you figure it out.

[rustoffa]

Originally posted by Pink Spider
If marriage is such a religious thing to people, then why care so much about the legality of it?

So, you need the government to tell you that you're married? If you're a true Christian, then why should you bother to be married legally in the first place? All of you are just legally married for the tax benefits. Admit it. That means that legal marriage straight Christians have ruined the sanctity of marriage. Hypocrites. ;)

So,I guess you've made a habit of jumping from one egg white apartment to the next,just shackin' up.Go take some penicillin.When you're done with your wild-ass existentialist years you'll be sorry.I'm fifty-eight fucking years old.

[FORD]

Originally posted by Lou
As strongly as I am against gay marriage, I don't think it should be a federal issue. But I'll say this much, if some politician said, "I want to make an amendment to the Constitution saying, 'Homosexual marriage should be honored just like heterosexual marriage'" I seriously doubt the liberals would be bitching about it.

Well, at least that way, it would be consistent with the ammendments which allowed rights to African Americans & women.

But for the record, I don't think that would require a Constitutional ammendment either.

Actually the standard that should be upheld here is the one spoken by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence.


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness...

Now the common sense interpretation of that would be that people should be able to make a life with the partner of their choosing, and not have a legal status which is less than two other people.

The same words from Jefferson also imply that those who find their "pursuit of happiness" in religion should be able to do so without interference. Which is fine, as long as they extend the same rights to others. Jefferson's description of a "wall of seperation" between church and state applies to this discussion even more than most matters.

[ELVIS]

What about the right to marry my sister ??

[Dave's PA Rental]

Originally posted by KANE
Last time i looked at a map there was hundreds of other countries you can pack up your backpack and move to ! by the way, do you have a job ? cause it seems like your always online.usually the people who whine like you do dont even pay fuckin taxes, they get welfare etc. if you want a job, i'll pay ya 30 bucks an hour to plant tulips this spring, 2 LIPS AROUND MY JOHNSON, you unhappy homo worshipper..god damn ive never seen a mother fucker piss & moan about how fucked up this country is, after just gettin back from fighting for your welfare, makes me wanna jump on the next plane to welfare,california and beat your fat ass into this american soil, you need to get the fuck out of this blessed country and see the rest of the world that ive seen, maybe then you'll get over that bed wetting problem you got, fuck it just shoot yourself ya miserable asshole ! And Sarge, im reporting myself again before someone else does for this post, this shit rattles my ass hairs, especially after my last tour, this boy needs to get out and get a fuckin clue..

I just voted for ya KANE. One of the best bitch-slaps EVER.

[John Ashcroft]

So a Federal "Civil Union" law ensuring the same benefits to gay couples as married folk is out of the question with the left?

I don't know dudes (and hot babes). Most of you know my position(s) on discrimination. I'm against it, Mkay?... But I've heard some very strong arguments against redefining marriage to cater to one group or another. I mean, the strongest actually came from Limbaugh in my opinion (and I feel like a dick for saying this, but I'll say it to head off the predictable hits... I don't always agree with Rush Limbaugh), maybe those wishing to engage in marriage should conform to it's requirements, not visa versa. Now let me be perfectly clear. I don't condone any form of discrimination, whether it be state-instituted or from the populous. But we can't protect every citizen from "percieved" discrimination. Is this such a case?

Currently, it's a "maybe". Commonlaw marriagees aren't entitled to all of the "benefits" that true married folks are (but they're also not hit by the tax penalty). They aren't playing by the rules, so they're not entitled to the "benefits". Do gay people fall under this category? I know, gay people are legally prevented from marrying, and therefore not given the option which commonlaw folk decline to take willingly. But choice is choice. Marriage has been defined as the union between a man and a woman since long before the United States was even a gleam in it's daddy's eye. Who are we to change it? Would a "civil union" law suffice here? Why wouldn't it? You know, one that's not extended to the commonlaw community, because they have the option of true marriage. One that guarantees health and insurance benefits to "life partners". One that also contains all of the baggage (but I imagine custody battles are gonna be drastically complicated when the battle is between two moms or two dads...).

I really don't know the answer here. I'm not in favor of twisting our vocabulary when catering to certain group's "sensitivities", but I'm also immensly opposed to the notion of state directed discrimination. I'd love to hear some reasonable responses to my dilemma. And dodging the discussion with charges of "bigotry" is not what I'm talking about (Ford, I agree with you that bigotry should never be endorsed... Which begs the question "why do you continue to defend Robert Byrd?" Don't answer, I'm not intending to divert this dialog to other topics, (but I couldn't resist the jab :D )).

So other than some hurt feelings, why won't "civil unions" suffice for marriage in the gay community?

[diamondD]

Originally posted by EAST COAST
HE IS 5 FOOT 3 185 LBS.



LOL! Not quite. :D

[FORD]

Originally posted by ELVIS
What about the right to marry my sister ??

I thought that was legal in Louisiana? :D

[FORD]

Originally posted by diamondD
LOL! Not quite. :D

Good catch, Jeff. I totally missed that one. Reading that idiot's posts gives me a migraine!

[Dr. Love]

You insinuating a "seperate-but-equal" type of system here, JA? ;)

[FORD]

Originally posted by John Ashcroft
So a Federal "Civil Union" law ensuring the same benefits to gay couples as married folk is out of the question with the left?

To paraphrase Judas IsKerryot, it "depends on what the language is".

Maybe I'm not the best spokesman for the issue, being heterosexual, but my understanding from the gay friends I've talked to about the issue, is that many of them are unwilling to settle for being second class citizens, and want to ensure at the very least, that all the legal apsects of marriage - tax deductions, insurance, survivorship, partners legally adoption of kids, etc. As for those who want church weddings, odds are that if they attend church together as a couple, they probably have found an accepting church where a ceremony would be welcomed. I don't see them as wanting to force anything on anyone, but they're tired of having other's beliefs forced on them


I don't know dudes (and hot babes). Most of you know my position(s) on discrimination. I'm against it, Mkay?... But I've heard some very strong arguments against redefining marriage to cater to one group or another. I mean, the strongest actually came from Limbaugh in my opinion (and I feel like a dick for saying this, but I'll say it to head off the predictable hits... I don't always agree with Rush Limbaugh), maybe those wishing to engage in marriage should conform to it's requirements, not visa versa.

Ah, Mush's hypocrisy strikes again. I believe he's been married two or three times. As have many other preachy right wingers. And of course there's the Britney Spears case. I'm sure not even Limpdick would argue that as a model marriage, but the fact is, for those 48 hours, or how ever long it was, her and her drunken high school buddie had all the same rights of a couple that had been married for 50 years. But a gay couple who actually were together for 50 years would have none of those rights. Which one was an actual marriage, by any sane definition of the word?


Now let me be perfectly clear. I don't condone any form of discrimination, whether it be state-instituted or from the populous. But we can't protect every citizen from "percieved" discrimination. Is this such a case?

It's not "perceived". Let's say your wife was seriously injured and hospitalized. How would you feel if her family wouldn't let you see her?

Of course they can't do that, because as her husband you are legally the "next of kin". But if you were gay and had no legal relationship, then an asshole family could keep you locked out. And then, if things got even worse than that, and your partner died, his family could take your kids, if you aren't biologically related.

Obviously these are extreme situations, but everybody gets sick and dies at least once. Nobody knows when it will happen :(


Currently, it's a "maybe". Commonlaw marriagees aren't entitled to all of the "benefits" that true married folks are (but they're also not hit by the tax penalty). They aren't playing by the rules, so they're not entitled to the "benefits". Do gay people fall under this category? I know, gay people are legally prevented from marrying, and therefore not given the option which commonlaw folk decline to take willingly. But choice is choice. Marriage has been defined as the union between a man and a woman since long before the United States was even a gleam in it's daddy's eye. Who are we to change it? Would a "civil union" law suffice here? Why wouldn't it? You know, one that's not extended to the commonlaw community, because they have the option of true marriage. One that guarantees health and insurance benefits to "life partners". One that also contains all of the baggage (but I imagine custody battles are gonna be drastically complicated when the battle is between two moms or two dads...).

I really don't know the answer here. I'm not in favor of twisting our vocabulary when catering to certain group's "sensitivities", but I'm also immensly opposed to the notion of state directed discrimination. I'd love to hear some reasonable responses to my dilemma. And dodging the discussion with charges of "bigotry" is not what I'm talking about (Ford, I agree with you that bigotry should never be endorsed... Which begs the question "why do you continue to defend Robert Byrd?" Don't answer, I'm not intending to divert this dialog to other topics, (but I couldn't resist the jab :D )).

So other than some hurt feelings, why won't "civil unions" suffice for marriage in the gay community?

Legally, all marriages are "civil unions". Churches don't issue marriage licenses, the county courthouse does. What happens in the church is a ceremony which might mean a great deal to the couple and their families in terms of faith, but legally it doesn't mean shit without that signed piece of paper.

The "sky is falling" hysterical religious reich types really need to grasp that reality. If their church doesn't want to do gay weddings, don't do them! But don't tell other churches they can't, if they have chosen to do so, and don't tell the government what to do either.

And the idea that gays getting married will harm heterosexual marriage is the most ridiulous hysteria of them all. Between Dennis Rodman, Britney Spears, a half dozen reality shows, and politicians like Rush, Newt, Henry Hyde, and yes, your favorite President Bill Clinton, it seems like the heterosexuals have done all the damage to marriage. How the hell could more marriage damage the institution more than all of that?

[John Ashcroft]

Ah, missing the point. Ford I agree with alot of what you've said. But the argument that "Hetros don't follow marriage guidelines so we might as well change it's definition" really doesn't hold water. I'm all for some kind of certificate that gives gay couples recognized rights as "married" folk, but like I've mentioned, marriage has been defined as the union between a man and a woman for centuries (if not millenia). The union between two men or two women doesn't meet the criteria for the traditional definition of marriage. This is undoubtably a difficult one. And I'm a firm believer of the "law of unintended consequences". So I'm more apt to leave things alone in these situations as it's usually better in the long run. Again, some other certificate is fine that gives equal rights, but I do understand the angst alot of people have with changing the definition of marriage.

None of which excuses the behavior of a certain mayor in San Francisco, or the Mass. Supreme Court. We have ways to change law, that are difficult on purpose. No one in our society can write or even change law on a whim. The lot of them should be thrown in jail IMHO.

[FORD]

Originally posted by John Ashcroft
Ah, missing the point. Ford I agree with alot of what you've said. But the argument that "Hetros don't follow marriage guidelines so we might as well change it's definition" really doesn't hold water. I'm all for some kind of certificate that gives gay couples recognized rights as "married" folk, but like I've mentioned, marriage has been defined as the union between a man and a woman for centuries (if not millenia). The union between two men or two women doesn't meet the criteria for the traditional definition of marriage. This is undoubtably a difficult one. And I'm a firm believer of the "law of unintended consequences". So I'm more apt to leave things alone in these situations as it's usually better in the long run. Again, some other certificate is fine that gives equal rights, but I do understand the angst alot of people have with changing the definition of marriage.

None of which excuses the behavior of a certain mayor in San Francisco, or the Mass. Supreme Court. We have ways to change law, that are difficult on purpose. No one in our society can write or even change law on a whim. The lot of them should be thrown in jail IMHO.

Technically, the SF mayor did break the law, but Herr Gropenator knows better than to get involved with that. This is San Francisco, after all. The mayor certainly knows who his constituents are. Just as long as he doesn't proclaim any "Sammy Hagar Days"..... Never mind, I think Sammy actually lives on the other side of the Golden Gate bridge in Marin County.

As for the Masshole Supreme Court, accusing judges of breaking the law probably won't get very far. After all, there's 5 on the US Supreme Court who committed a far worse crime and they aren't in prison yet ;)

[John Ashcroft]

Again, which recount did Algore win? ;)

[Cathedral]

Makes sense to me. Sin is over taking this country faster than bacteria on a stale wet donut sitting in the sun for a day.
Lets just chuck every moral principle this country was founded on and re-name America to Soddom and Gomorrah West, i mean just for kicks.

The whole reason for marriage is to nurture and raise a family. you know, the fall in love, get married and have a family idea?

Just the fact that some of you can even type the words Gay and Church in the same sentence shocks me to the core.

God created Adam and Eve, NOT Adam and Steve!

The fact that alot of people see nothing morally wrong with homosexuality is proof that they will not be meeting their creator, but rather that other alternative where the heat is just way to high.
The moment you say to yourself that being gay is an acceptable lifestyle is the moment you make a grave mistake.

Homosexuality is as evil as any other blasphemus, immoral act we can choose for ourselves.
You all really need to learn more about how the "Free Will" thing operates, seriously.
And if you think re-defining marriage won't damage our children who are already confused enough on sexual matters then you are kidding yourselves in a huge yet wrong way.

The more Liberal this country gets, the more dangerous it gets for the youth in this country. The more confused our youth's get, the less hope that their future will be worth living.

Getting drunk, getting high, sleeping around, being Gay, using foul language constantly, taking advantage of people, aborting children..etc.
That is not living a life that is pleasing to the lord, folks, and there isn't much hope for your soul if you condition yourselves that immoral things are acceptable.
You see, it isn't the duty of a God fearing person to ignore lost souls. It is required by God that we take the gospel to those people in hopes that they can break free from the demons that have them on the wrong path.
To sit by and let the world dictate to us those things which we know in our hearts to be morally wrong without speaking up will be held against us all when we finally bow before the Lord for Judgement.

Civil Union?
I won't even support that...

The biggest Oxymoron i have heard on the Gay subject matter was the argument that, and i quote, "It is morally wrong to deny marriage benefits to any two people who choose to be married"
What's morally wrong is laying down with a person of the same sex and engaging in activities that are insulting to God.

Diversity is something Hell will be full of and i cannot even think of using the word "Discrimination" when saying NO to Homosexuals that want to marry each other.

Don't let Satan have his way with you, the price to pay is far to high for mere mortal men to endure.
Satan is a liar and his little band of demons are busy polluting the minds of everyone who doesn't know Christ.
Are you going to let him win and take you to the lake of fire with him?

If you don't believe in God enough to fear his wrath i can only pray for you to seek the truth.

A lady a few weeks ago asked me if i thought good people went to hell and i told her that it depended on if they served God or not. If they have accepted Jesus Christ as their savior and have lived a life that is pleasing to the Lord then they may find their name in the Book of Life.
Her husband died a few months earlier and she is haunted by dreams that he is in Hell. He was a mean, foul mouthed man that started trouble with anyone that looked at him, but he was very sweet to his wife.
As a matter of fact, the preacher talked with her about getting him into church on Sunday for a message that may mean something to him. well, she tried and he went off on a tangent, threw the bible and said he would be dead before he set foot in a church.

Sunday came and she showed up alone as usual and just shrugged her head at the preacher because she couldn't get him to come with her.
He got a call to fill in for another guy at work who was doing emergancy calls while his wife was at church that morning (where he should have been), he was an HVAC Technician.
He went on this service call and during the call discovered that the Circuit Breaker was mis-labled and he was electrocuted to death, almost blowing his head clean off his shoulders.

To me, God reached out to him through the preacher who until the previous week had never even thought about this woman or if she was even married.
He threw his last chance away and died a sinner according to the word of God.

The point, and it woke me up quite a bit.
Don't take life and it's purpose for granted. We aren't here for ourselves, we are here for each other as brothers and sisters in Christ.
To accept immorality in our lives makes us immoral as well.
We as believers have a duty to reach out to the lost and bring them into the light. Doing nothing and saying "Oh well, that's them" is not acceptable to God.

We have all seen what 8 years of a Liberal President has done to our society and it's mental condition. Now, we're gonna take the next 4 returning this country to the principled values it was founded on, but to no avail.
All of this has been written and will come to pass because these are the end times, they are before us, and as far as the scripture goes there is nothing we can do to prevent the long awaited battle in the heavens except for going out and spreading the Good News and preparing to fight for the lost during the perilous times.

"Every Eye Shall See Him"
Will you be joyous or ashamed?
It's not about if there is a God or a Devil. It is as simple as will you go to Heaven or Hell?

Chowski! Y'all take care now and God Bless...

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by John Ashcroft
What's the definition of "faith" again?

Making up shit just because you don't know the answer.

[Cathedral]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
Making up shit just because you don't know the answer.

Nope, try again...

[knuckleboner]

Originally posted by John Ashcroft
Again, some other certificate is fine that gives equal rights, but I do understand the angst alot of people have with changing the definition of marriage.



i hear ya. but really, if a "civil union" winds up offering the same civil benefits of a civil marriage, then isn't it a little odd to protect simply the word, "marriage?"

i don't think anyone is saying that any specific religion has to recognize every civil marriage (hell, they don't recognize them all currently.)

calling it a "civil union" and not a "marriage" certainly makes it easier for the average populace to swall...(er, sorry, bad choice of words:D)...uh, accept. but if all we're really doing is protecting the definition of the word, then i think it's not doing anything other than trivializing the Constitutution by playing symantics.

[Dr. Love]

Originally posted by Cathedral
Getting drunk, getting high, sleeping around, being Gay, using foul language constantly, taking advantage of people, aborting children..etc.

posting pornographic pictures of chicks on message boards, lusting after women, passing judgement on the supernatural destination of others, etc ;)



The biggest Oxymoron i have heard on the Gay subject matter was the argument that, and i quote, "It is morally wrong to deny marriage benefits to any two people who choose to be married"
What's morally wrong is laying down with a person of the same sex and engaging in activities that are insulting to God.

This would presuppose that God is the origin of morality and only that believers in your faith are moral individuals (condemning the vast majority of the world as immoral by default).

Also, I think it's actually LEGALLY wrong to deny benefits. If it weren't legally wrong, and they weren't fearing that these laws they have would be found unconstitutional, they wouldn't be proposing a Constitutional Amendment that basically tells people who they can and cannot marry.

You can find it unacceptable that homos want to get married, but what right do you have to tell them how to behave? In your view, God's gonna fuck 'em in the end anyway by sending them to hell regardless of if they have the legal benefits of marriage or not, all you're doing is ignoring that whole "love thy neighbor/judge not lest ye be judged" thing.

So far as I understand it, sin is sin, and we all do it, so you and I have every chance of going to hell as those crazy homos.

Shouldn't you worry about your own soul first?

[Dr. Love]

Btw, all these homos that are "getting married" in SF... can they get divorced?

[John Ashcroft]

Originally posted by knuckleboner
i hear ya. but really, if a "civil union" winds up offering the same civil benefits of a civil marriage, then isn't it a little odd to protect simply the word, "marriage?"

i don't think anyone is saying that any specific religion has to recognize every civil marriage (hell, they don't recognize them all currently.)

calling it a "civil union" and not a "marriage" certainly makes it easier for the average populace to swall...(er, sorry, bad choice of words:D)...uh, accept. but if all we're really doing is protecting the definition of the word, then i think it's not doing anything other than trivializing the Constitutution by playing symantics.

Ah, but where did I state my support for this proposed Constitutional Ammendment?

[Cathedral]

Originally posted by Dr. Love
posting pornographic pictures of chicks on message boards, lusting after women, passing judgement on the supernatural destination of others, etc ;)


[b]

This would presuppose that God is the origin of morality and only that believers in your faith are moral individuals (condemning the vast majority of the world as immoral by default).

Also, I think it's actually LEGALLY wrong to deny benefits. If it weren't legally wrong, and they weren't fearing that these laws they have would be found unconstitutional, they wouldn't be proposing a Constitutional Amendment that basically tells people who they can and cannot marry.

You can find it unacceptable that homos want to get married, but what right do you have to tell them how to behave? In your view, God's gonna fuck 'em in the end anyway by sending them to hell regardless of if they have the legal benefits of marriage or not, all you're doing is ignoring that whole "love thy neighbor/judge not lest ye be judged" thing.

So far as I understand it, sin is sin, and we all do it, so you and I have every chance of going to hell as those crazy homos.

Shouldn't you worry about your own soul first?

I am not placing myself on a higher level than anyone and in no way shape or form think i am above anyone or their beliefs.
My point is that i simply will not support anything that says its ok for homosexuals to do their thing, and in public.

Of course we should worry about our own souls first, that goes without saying.
But then again, you didn't grow up in the world i did so i am not surprised that you only addressed the parts of my post that you did.
I am the first person that will tell you that i have alot to change in my life, but my point was that for all of us to accept that which is morally wrong makes us wrong as well.
America was founded on Christian Values and the Secular Society is slowly but surely steering this country off it's proper path.

The sad part is that neither political party stands firm on their issues. Both sides of the coin want it both ways and that just is not possible. there is only once choice that can be made when the options are either right or wrong.
And homosexuality is just wrong in my opinion, that will never change.

[FORD]

Originally posted by Cathedral

And homosexuality is just wrong in my opinion, that will never change.

Key words here - "my opinion".And nobody's trying to change your opinion. But why should your opinion be codified in a law that affects the personal relationships of others and doesn't impact your life whatsoever. Let alone in a constitutional ammendment.

[knuckleboner]

Originally posted by John Ashcroft
Ah, but where did I state my support for this proposed Constitutional Ammendment?


you didn't. i was just referring to the concept you considered about whether a full civil union-equivalent would be proper.


Originally posted by John Ashcroft
Again, some other certificate is fine that gives equal rights, but I do understand the angst alot of people have with changing the definition of marriage.


not that this is an easy, straightforward issue.

(unlike impeachment...;) which actually, while i definitely don't think i'd have voted for removal if i were in the senate, you may have me reconsidering a vote to impeach in the house...)

[Cathedral]

First of all, I think an Amendment is the exact wrong way to deal with the situation. I don't support that at all, but i do support something being done to preserve the moral fabric of this country.

I'm all for putting the subject to a vote by the American people which i already know would be a NO vote for making immoral relationships legal.
When i was 8 years old, Gay meant "Happy"
To my 8 year old it is two men or women kissing in the mall, but that's ok, right?
You just don't get it at all do you?
Maybe if you were a parent you'd see things differently i guess.

[Sarge]

Rosie O'Donnell to marry girlfriend in San Francisco
LISA LEFF, Associated Press Writer
Thursday, February 26, 2004
©2004 Associated Press

URL: sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2004/02/26/national0950EST0561.DTL



(02-26) 10:00 PST SAN FRANCISCO (AP) --

Rosie O'Donnell flew across the country Thursday to marry her longtime girlfriend in the city where more than 3,300 other same-sex couples have tied the knot since Feb. 12.

The couple traveled to San Francisco from New York on Thursday morning, said Cindi Berger, O'Donnell's publicist. They have a 1 p.m. appointment to pick up a marriage license, according to the mayor's office.

"We, too, have a dream of equality for all families," the comedian and former talk show host said in a statement. "The only way changes are made in society is when people like Mayor Gavin Newsom have the courage to stand up against injustice."

City officials didn't know who O'Donnell wants to officiate when she marries her girlfriend, Kelli Carpenter, said Francisco Castillo, a spokesman for the mayor. The women plan to take their vows on the steps of City Hall, according to Berger.

Earlier Thursday, O'Donnell announced her wedding plans on ABC's "Good Morning America," just two days after President Bush called for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

She said the president's call is what inspired her to come to San Francisco, where city officials continue to perform same-sex weddings even as state courts are considering the legality of those marriages.

"I think the actions of the president are, in my opinion, the most vile and hateful words ever spoken by a sitting president," O'Donnell said on the program. "I am stunned and I'm horrified.

"I find this proposed amendment very, very, very, very shocking. And immoral. And, you know, if civil disobedience is the way to go about change, then I think a lot of people will be going to San Francisco. And I hope they put more people on the steps to marry as many people as show up. And I hope everyone shows up."

O'Donnell said she decided to marry Carpenter, a former dancer and marketing director at Nickelodeon, during her recent trial in New York over the now-defunct Rosie magazine. During the case, she referred to Carpenter as her wife.

"We applied for spousal privilege and were denied it by the state. As a result, everything that I said to Kelli, every letter that I wrote her, every e-mail, every correspondence and conversation was entered into the record," O'Donnell said. "After the trial, I am now and will forever be a total proponent of gay marriage."

[Dr. Love]

Originally posted by Cathedral
First of all, I think an Amendment is the exact wrong way to deal with the situation. I don't support that at all, but i do support something being done to preserve the moral fabric of this country.

I'm all for putting the subject to a vote by the American people which i already know would be a NO vote for making immoral relationships legal.
When i was 8 years old, Gay meant "Happy"
To my 8 year old it is two men or women kissing in the mall, but that's ok, right?
You just don't get it at all do you?
Maybe if you were a parent you'd see things differently i guess.

Hey Cat, I can respect your stance and opinion.

Just today I realized there was a disconnect with some people in my age-range. We had a debate if someone in a assignment I had to read was homosexual or not (he wasn't.)

One girl in class insisted he was gay because of all the gay (stupid/uncool) things he did in the story, like insulting a woman. She found that to be gay because it was "classless".

I'm not sure if we ever got across to her that we were talking about his sexual orientation.

[John Ashcroft]

Did the story include a "sword-fight"?

[Dr. Love]

nah, the story was mostly about the night screwing this magical rich lady

[Cathedral]

LMMFAO @ Sword Fight...

cat is scratching his head wondering if Dr. Love really got what JA was saying

"Oh, i see your schwartz is as big as mine"

[Dr. Love]

I got it. ;)

[ELVIS]

Amen brother Cat.. Now stop posting porn.. having premarital sex.. and lusting after every body that looks good.. they have souls too...

REPENT!

Today may be your last day on earth...

:elvis:

[EAST COAST]

was ford showing his support in fag francisco, for rosie? odd didnt she leave him for her new husband? have a nice weekend.....

[Jesus Christ]

Originally posted by ELVIS
Amen brother Cat.. Now stop posting porn.. having premarital sex.. and lusting after every body that looks good.. they have souls too...

REPENT!

Today may be your last day on earth...

:elvis:

Gregory hath a point, James. For whomever shall look upon a woman with lust in his heart, the same hath committed adultery with her. Now go, and sin no more :)