Religion in Government

Because the union of the three groups is necessarily larger than any single group, and thus will cost more.

Was just pointing out that they need the constitutional right so that they can get that benifit, not that a pension would come out of my pocket.Medical benifits can come from the governement. You should have said, thats the way its supposed to go, but thats not the fault of gay people.
Remember spouse can recieve death benifits. I agree with that.When anyone can add someone to their medical policy, it comes from our pockets, because the insurance companys will have to adjust their rates, due to more people to insure. I am not against this, just pointing out that it will cost us more money, and in a round about way we are supporting it.

Are you sure about that? Don't you think one of the reasons we, as a society, encourage marriage is because it reduces public costs?

Holy crap dude, you just keep missing my point.
Pretty much I have answered all the things you so eagerly argue with me about. Umm no.If the first time sex was presented to as being gay, and you never had to think about it, or didn't even know what you thought was wrong or right, you would then be able to consider the option. There is your choice.
There are also people who don't even know that they are gay, yet find out later in life, so they choose then too.
We all have a choice, because it is there for the pickin.
The cake is there, and death is there all the time. We are never out of cake.
Just because you consider it, doesn't make you bi-sexual either.Alot more people will be considering it, the more mainstream it becomes. then alot more people will be sinning. My religion encourages me to help stop people sinning. Thats why I have a hard time supporting it. So when it becomes legal, America will be making me go against my religion in a matter of speaking.
But at the same time, I do not want to deny people their right to freedom.This is why I ultimately do not have an answer yet.
Do you understand?How come you never answer my questions? Are you thick headed?
I answered that already.
Not everything is covered by the constitution, or depends on it to satisfy the majority. What happens if the constitution makes me go against my religion?

Ask God.
Or a Judge who has to send his own child to prison.again I tell you that when the constitution was written, the word marriage did not mean gay marriage. It was gay people who decided that it could be considered a marriage.
I do not consider gay people to be married in the same sense as straight people because it IS different. Thats why you keep pointing that out.Thats why there needs to be a separating defining the 2.
I don't think it is as much a equality right as it is a difference of the word marriage by definition. You get respect if you give respect. You need to answer my qestions too. Religion is a choice, but maybe not according to you .
Being gay for some is not a choice either.
It is different. By allowing it run rampaged in our country could possibly cause God to allow our freedom to disappear. There in lies a problem.
You are coward to state what you believe in, and it kind of makes everything you say invalid. Who the hell knows what you are sticking up for. You seem to think we can live in a society free of opinion, but you sure have alot of opinions. I am really starting to wonder about you. I think I am wasting my time talking to you. Like I said before, even Jesus gave up on people.You just contradicted yourself bigtime.
How the heck can know if you like chocolate cake unless you try it.
How can you even compare being gay to liking cake?
There are so many reasons why people are gay, some of them being a choice, some of them being just the way they are born due to inherent sin. Some of them being the way society has made them, because of deep problems created when they were young, which is also directly related to sin.Even if you like cake, and there is some there, you can still not choose to eat it.
Sometimes people even try it, knowing that they won't like it.Its still a choice. That part espcially, you contradict yourself and support what I am saying about choosing not to be gay.
lol Prove that my dog doesn't love me. Just because you don't speak dog, doesn't mean he's not giving consent. In God's eyes we are supposed to save our selves for the person we marry. Therefor we wouldn't know if they were infertle or not.
With gay people it is a given that they cannot produce a baby on their own. Wow you are cabable of humor, there is light at the end of the tunnel.

Rrhain was talking about pension rights (and other associated benefits that are passed to a married partner at death), I was responding specifically on that point.

There is the other half of your contradiction. Which one is it? That is incorrect.
And you could be easily traced.
Your e-mail and mine are registered. Amoung other things like ip's.Its still America inside the forum. What is a Christain God, please explain.
As far as I know there is only one God in the world today.
Acting like a wise guy will not get you into the gates of heaven either.

I kind of agree with tis, but I have to give it more thought.
I think its more complicated than that. Its not other people's sins that I am worried about, its there sins affecting my children, and whether I am supporting their sins. It directly relates me to their sins. I am not throwing stones, or judging. So if I say to world, its ok to be gay, and then turn around and preach to my child its not, what does that make me? I am not judging others. I am not totally convinced that if I support the rights of gay people that "I" am clear in God's eyes.

So, only perky breasts are sexy?

quote:

---

Besides what are all the reasons that gay people want to get married in the government eyes?
It all has to do with money, and an equal right to it. It doesn't have to do with love because the governement cannot control love.
Pension, medical benifits, governmental benifits, social security, money money money, all coming out of our pockets.

---

So, I suppose the only reason you got married was because of the money, right?Also, since my husband and I are not going to have any children, does that mean that we are a burden upon taxpayers and we shouldn't be allowed to be married?This message has been edited by schrafinator, 06-15-2004 09:59 AM

Again, that is simply wrong. The Insurance companies already adjust the rates for families. And in fact, costs should go down instead of up.Family insurance policies already cost more than single coverage. In most cases, the Family rate covers spouse AND children. Since most Gay Married couples will not have children but still pay the family rate, the average cost to the Insurance Company will go down. But I bet they don't pass on the savings to us.No, RR, you really don't have much to stand on there.BUT!!!!!!!!!can you think of ANY non-religious reason to oppose homosexuality?Do you agree that getting married in the US is simply a social, legal, contract?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Again, I think you misunderstand. First, please point out where the Constitution mentions marriage.But secondly, it is not what a word meant but how it was used. Usage changes. But when the founding fathers said "Keep Religion out of Government" I believe they meant exactly the same thing we mean today. Religion has NO place in government.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

They have the Constitutional Right. Why do you think frauds and bigots like Falwell are pushing for a Constitutional Amendment to take that right away?edited to change thing to think. flying fumblefingers strikes again.This message has been edited by jar, 06-15-2004 01:07 PM

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

In general, if it's a breast it's probably sexy. It's really the degree of sexiness to which I was referring. I'm glad JJ finally decided to flash us, I just wish she'd made that decision about twenty years ago.

Well put Jar.I agree with everything you said except this sentence: I don't think the veracity of that statement one way or the other strengthens or weakens your argument. While I have yet to see actual, valid evidence that supports these recycled claims, I think, if anything, reliance on the 'gays are smarter, more educated, richer' argument actually weakens the main point: the only difference between gays and lesbians and heterosexuals is sexual preference.I guess I'm confused by the need to differentiate at all. Homosexuals are people. Heteros are people. A cross section of the gay community should include just as many smart, well educated, nice people and sociopathic, malevolent predators as a cross section of heteros would.These arguments about why homosexuals want to be married are fascinating. I submit that the reasons why homosexuals want to get married are as complex, simple, reasonable, irrational, wonderful, banal, well-thought, and impulsive as why heterosexuals want to get married. Why isn't that enough?Oh wait, I almost forgot, god hates homosexuals.