Ann Coulter fun

[mappatazee]

Guys, I have to defend Finawin here. He has his own beliefs that don't adhere to any religious guidelines. These are the things he believes in:

1. ghosts
2. the integrity of the human spirit
3. there are no particular human incarnations of God, as the universal life force (Theta) is inherent in all. all humans are immortal spiritual beings (thetans) capable of realizing a nearly godlike state through Scientology practices.

[Harrison]

Example proven, retard #1 has demonstrated this to the fullest.

[brinstar]

demonstrated what, how to own you?

[Harrison]

you retards are barely capable of discerning the difference between the two.

[exploit]

This is some of the dumbest shit I have ever seen. I dont even know who this bitch is, and I dont care. Someone said fuck and ass to her, ok...is that it?

To go even further I dont give a shit about religion. I dont hate it at all, I dont even think about it. It's not even a little important, want proof? Millions of people live without religion and they do just fine. If your god wants to punish me for being able to live a good life w/o god then I accept that. If religion makes you a better person then awesome, thats super...but I still dont give a shit.

Life is too short to hate anything, just avoid it and find something you do enjoy. Shame on people who are unable to feel comfort in their own lives. Stop trying to convert everyone to think like you, be like you, act like you. Accept that people are different and there is not a fucking thing you can do to get everyone to agree. Fucking idiots like this are going to cause the world war converting everyone to be like you or die.

[Lueyen]

It has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with societal mores.

I can't believe that an intelligent person could actually believe that.

I have to agree with Zanchief. I think that with most people oposition to gay marriage stems from a religious base. Sure a certain segment doesn't like the idea based on repulsion, but I think you would find with most people you would find a moral objection that stems from religious teaching of some sort. However what you say concerning it being forced into the mainstream is very true.

Personally I struggle with the issue. On the one hand I see it as a deviant sexual practice and I don't want to see credibility given to it and in essence forced acceptance. On the other hand I also think it is pretty heartless of society as a whole to deny two people who truely love each other and want to build a life together the legal binding that allows them to pursue it to the fullest extent.

[Lyion]

Going through life viewing everything as black and white sure is simple.

Amazingly, none of my points brought up religion.

[Yamori]

Lyion is one of the few people I know of who has a rational opposition to gay marriage.

I just don't understand how he takes his assumption of what HE thinks marriage means (I don't recall ever reading a law or official proclamation saying marriage exists solely for creating families) and applies it to everyone as if it were fact.

If you look at traditional wedding ceremonies, you don't hear jack crap about children or the family unit. What you DO hear a lot about is two people expressing their official lifelong commitment to eachother.

[Lyion]

I've said what I believe societies reasons for marriage are. Many wish to change those definitions which is fine. We have a democratic system for a reason. What I don't agree with is comparing 'gay marriage' to a civil right.

Marriage is a civil law between a man and a woman bequeathing benefits that for the life of our country have been primarily for child rearing. Whether a husband and wife have them is irrelevent.

I have yet to see one good argument for Gay Marriage, save for pushing an agenda of homosexuality into the mainstream of America. Its obviously not required for 'commitment', as many who are in monogamous relationships are not married. Its an alternative issue without a good reason for implementing and thus is not legal here.

I personally could care less, but I do not believe its in the long range health of our society to allow this, as it opens a can of works in regards to laws, immigration, and other things that we do not need.

[Diekan]

I'm still amazed that this country is still more focused on gay marriages than it is about the more important issues that doing us more damage.

[Lyion]

We are?

Maybe the mainstream media who has an agenda, but not the average Murican, I don't think. Its hardly an issue in Government at all, sans Judges trying to change laws, which is an altogether different issue.

[Harrison]

I'm still amazed that this country is still more focused on gay marriages than it is about the more important issues that doing us more damage.

Why do people constantly say that?

It's something some of the liberals can't seem to get over honestly, I never hear of it unless it's used as some weak argument point in something like this.

[Gidan]

George W

The union of a man and a woman is the most enduring human institution, honored and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith

Marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society.

Today, I call upon the Congress to promptly pass and to send to the states for ratification an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of a man and woman as husband and wife.

I am mindful that we're all sinners, and I caution those who may try to take the speck out of their neighbor's eye when they got a log in their own. I think it's very important for our society to respect each individual, to welcome those with good hearts, to be a welcoming country. On the other hand, that does not mean that somebody like me needs to compromise on an issue such as marriage, And that's really where the issue is heading here in Washington, and that is the definition of marriage.

Seems Mr bush keeps associating marrage with religion.

Now bush does say that he will leave it up to the states to decide is civil unions are ok. Basicly thats the same right? Not at all. There is a very important problem with civil unions. If you live in a state that allows them, great. However should you then move to a state that does not, your union is not accepted. So in that home state where you were granted a civil union, you receive the same benefits as a married couple would, however in any other state you are 2 individualsand must be treated as such.

If for some reason the government insists that gay unions must have a different name, it needs to be uphealed in every state. Even if some states refuse to do them, they need to uphold them if they were done elsewhere.

[Zanchief]

The government shouldn't care whether its a marriage or a union. Both should be offered to anyone with the same privileges and the term "marriage" should be personal to the couple and the church they belong too.

Whether that means marriages should be brought down to the level of civil unions or vice versa, it makes no difference.

[Yamori]

Ugh. A constitutional ammendment banning gay marriage. Thats just disgraceful.

The constitution was created to protect individual liberties. Plastering in some ammendment that limits them is as close to blasphemy as you can get in my eyes.

[exploit]

I'm still amazed that this country is still more focused on gay marriages than it is about the more important issues that doing us more damage.

what could be more important then two fags stabbing eachother in the butt?

[Lyion]

I'm perfectly happy with the Government getting out of the business of marriage altogether.

However, while it remains a legal foundation of our country I will continue to be against homosexual marriage, due to my reasons listed above.

I stick to my point this is not a civil rights issue. That's an insult to those who indeed fought for them. This is merely a way for alternative activists to change the defintion of marrage from man and wife, to man/man and woman/woman also.

[Arlos]

You're welcome to your opinion, Lyion, but legal precident is against you. Look at the Hate Crime laws. In those, the law recognizes homosexuals as meeting the legal definition of a minority, and are given the same hate crime protection as blacks, asians, etc. As a result, the legal code, at least here in California, already recognizes homosexuals as a minority, giving them a very definite leg to stand on when pushing it as a civil rights issue, with them as an oppressed minority.

As far as I'm aware, hate crime statutes have bourne up under judicial review, I can't imagine them NOT having been challenged in the courts, and they still exist now after several years on the books, so it's only logical to assume they've been upheld.

So, again, while YOU may not recognize them as a minority, the LAW does.

-Arlos

[Lyion]

Again why is not wanting to change the definition of marriage at all related to hate laws, crimes, or anything else?

The LAW does not come to bear on civil institutions unless it is related to legislation. Even though Judges try to enact their own laws, even though a majority of Americans do not want it. By all means have hate crime laws, although they are a bit silly and help propagate separate systems of law, which is bad. While you are at it, add Fat people, Bald people, and addicted MMO gamers to your list who need Civil protection.

Apples and Oranges. By all means give Gays special protections from hate groups. However that has not a whit to do with the man/woman foundation of marriage save for activists who do not care about democracy, unless it suits their vision of it.

Anything 'choice' derived then could be construed a minority. Its bogus and not related, and you know it.

[Donnel]

Homosexuals are not protected by hate crime laws in all states. They are in fact no more a minority then people who chose to drive BMW's.

[Gidan]

I stick to my point this is not a civil rights issue. That's an insult to those who indeed fought for them. This is merely a way for alternative activists to change the defintion of marrage from man and wife, to man/man and woman/woman also.

The legal definition of marrage being between a Man and a Women was not inacted until 1996 (DOMA). It would appear that is was more a creating a definiton of marriage that specificaly banned same sex marriage. Not activist trying to chage the definition to allow same sex marriage.

And from the Harvard Law review

Until recently, DOMA was effectively unchallengeable by the individuals subjected to its stigma. . . . Now the time is ripe for a constitutional challenge to DOMA. . . . DOMA violates principles of equal protection and due process. A strong case can also be made that DOMA abuses the Full Faith and Credit Clause and contravenes fundamental principles of federalism. A successful equal protection or due process challenge, however, is likely to have the farthest-reaching implications for the future of same-sex marriage in two respects. First, if DOMA is found to violate equal protection or due process, the state DOMAs are likely to fall on the same grounds. And second, it is difficult to imagine how the Court could find excluding same-sex couples from the definition of marriage unconstitutional without creating a constitutional requirement that same-sex couples be allowed to marry

[Lyion]

DOMA is a federal law meant to help states. Most states have held rules for marriage for a long, long time that define it as a man and woman.

All DOMA did was allow states to NOT have to accept other states standards for marriage, so that if an Activisit Judge in Mass decides he will legislate from the bench this week, then the other 49 states can ignore it before it gets overturned by the voters.

Federal law has considered marriage to be a union of a man and woman for over 200 years. DOMA did not change that, but merely enacted states to not have to accept marriages from elsewhere.

[Gidan]

Just curious where the actual federal law is that states the definition of marrage. I can not find it and would like to actually read it. Does anyone have a link to it?

[Lyion]

Go read the DOMA legislation. It explains it there.

[Gidan]

Thanks

The thing I just cant understand is why is it such a horrible thing that George W feels we need a constitutional amendment that strictly bans same sex marrage. What is so horrible about it that is so threatens this country that we need to have our constitution specifically ban it.