Oh well, the bible mongers did it. Amazing that the US choose a president because over 22% (18+ million people) don't like the idea of gays marrying.

Man, if there wasn't anything better to base a decision on :(

Congrats!
I didn't vote for Bush based on that.

Let's just say that Bush was the lesser of two evils.

I had hopes that the liberal media and Bush haters would drop their B.S. after today.

Thanks! I'm walking on sunshine, and have the joy, joy, joy, joy down in my heart!
Posted on 2004-11-03 21:33:11 by Masmer
http://www.oilempire.us/votefraud2004.html

Let's all salute the American Flag in the name of fascism.
Posted on 2004-11-03 21:53:44 by archphase
Let's all salute the American Flag in the name of fascism.
You do what you want as this is a democracy (unless you aren't a U.S. citizen). Unlike you, I salute it with patriotism and a love of my country.
Posted on 2004-11-03 23:27:46 by Masmer
I didn't vote for Bush based on that.
Not you but In other people's cases, they voted because of a social issue such as gay marriage.

We all know that in most states, religion is strong and the christian right abhors the idea of gays marrying.
I had hopes that the liberal media and Bush haters would drop their B.S. after today.
I'm always amused by the stance of naming the media as "liberal" as if it would connote something evil. Yet failed to see the ills of the neoconservative agenda.

It ain't BS. The "hatred" of bush isn't concentrated on a single issue but a a variety of issues which bush failed. From a war based on non-existent WMD's, deficits, mounting trillions upon trillions of debt. Rise of Islamic Fundamentalism & Terrorism, Constitutional amendment, ... etc. ... etc. ...

all that points to the neoconservative agenda, whose ultimate goal is PNAC.

PNAC is what you should be worried about more than WMD's or Terrorism.

Just because Bush won the election doesn't change his history of failures. The election didn't change anything. It only provided the bush admin 4 more years to advance their agenda.
Posted on 2004-11-04 00:35:31 by arkane
Well, to Judaism, Christianity, Islam, etc., gay marriage does greatly offend their religious beliefs. It's in the Torah, the Bible and the Qur'an. The American First Ammendment has the freedom of religeon (or atheism) and seperation of church and state. Do we defile the majority of American's faiths by forcing churches to marry people of the same sex? Don't tell me that people are born gay as it is not shown scentifically.

You fail to take into account events like 9/11 and the war against terror (for freedom) on our economy. This isn't just an American thing. Shall I search for a list of all the countries who have been victims of Islamic extremism?

So you are saying that the election was between a neoconservative Bush and a liberal socialist Kerry? Radical Islamics will continue in their quest of world domination and American isolation\destruction no matter who won the American presidency.
Posted on 2004-11-04 01:42:51 by Masmer
Well, to Judaism, Christianity, Islam, etc., gay marriage does greatly offend their religious beliefs. It's in the Torah, the Bible and the Qur'an. The American First Ammendment has the freedom of religeon (or atheism) and seperation of church and state. Do we defile the majority of American's faiths by forcing churches to marry people of the same sex? Don't tell me that people are born gay as it is not shown scentifically.
Let's see, there are churches that will marry gays. There are those who don't.

If your church doesn't allow gay marriage, you are not forced to perform the rite. Only those who will perform will do it.

That is why there are a lot of denominations of christianity and other religions. No one is forcing you or your church to perform. The only one I see here is suppression from the right.

How about Civil Marriage, that is not mandated by the church?
You fail to take into account events like 9/11 and the war against terror (for freedom) on our economy. This isn't just an American thing. Shall I search for a list of all the countries who have been victims of Islamic extremism?
War on terror on our economy?

Do you know why terrorists are born?

Why did the columbine happen? Did those kids who shot and killed innocent schoolmates did it because they just wanted to kill?

No! they have a reason why.

What do living innocent men/women do when their family is killed by a bomb? chances are they get revenge.

We reap what we sow. Let us not hide our dirty pasts and pretend that we are holier than thou.

Why do you think the Israeli-Palestinian violence continues?

It's the fault of both sides. Not just Pals or Israelis.

Why do you think those 9/11 families were against the war?

We kill, they kill. It's a never ending solution.

War on Terror = War On Drugs. You can only reduce/undermine their operation.

You can't kill and hunt down ALL terrorists. War doesn't solve terrorism, it only creates more.
So you are saying that the election was between a neoconservative Bush and a liberal socialist Kerry? Radical Islamics will continue in their quest of world domination and American isolation\destruction no matter who won the American presidency.
No. IMO, bush is a puppet of the neoconservatives. Check out PNAC. You'll be more interested in its agenda. And while your researching about it, research who are involved in it i.e. members.... You'll find a lot of people working at the higher echelons of the current administration.

Radical Islam is no doubt should be stopped and thwarted. But provoking and inciting violence like the war in iraq isn't a solution.

The US Govt. have already done clandestine operations against terrorists ever since. No need to invade.
Posted on 2004-11-04 03:17:03 by arkane
once you point exactly where in the New Testament (old doesn't count) is described by Jesus what exactly is a marriage as well as what ritual must be performed you may have a religious point.

Of course after that you must also point out where exactly it is written that you have the right to freedom of speech, a fair and speedy trial, any right at all basically....

Gays should certainly have a right to civil marriage, by denying them that right purely on a gender(-preference) basis your government actually entered its first stadium of its dream of a perfect race. In general terms that's called fascism. (maybe blue-eyes aren't far away)

Wonder why Jesus never mingled in politics....

oh, in case you wonder: I am heterosexual. (I do have homosexual family) I'm also not proud of the fact that it took my country a long time as well to implement homosexual marriage.
Posted on 2004-11-04 08:20:35 by Hiroshimator
The neoconservatives are aware of humanity and the diversity that does/must exist as a function of life -- selling a version of reality that is not obtainable. Raping and molesting those who have entrusted them with their faith to fill their pockets.

To even entertain the idea of a pure society is madness -- everything is in contrary to that idea. We exist because of the boundaries - label them what you will.
Posted on 2004-11-04 09:28:33 by bitRAKE
once you point exactly where in the New Testament (old doesn't count) is described by Jesus what exactly is a marriage as well as what ritual must be performed you may have a religious point.
The Old Testament (Jewish Torah) doesn't count?!

Here's part of what the New Testament says:

Romans 1

26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
Posted on 2004-11-04 09:35:31 by Masmer
The priests have been reading that for years and I just think they get arroused by it. Could you find the section that tells the priests to stay away from the little boys?
Posted on 2004-11-04 10:25:56 by bitRAKE
that is Paulus/Saulus (you call him Paul?) telling the Romans why being a heathen will not give you Salvation.

You see, the few roman Christians did live in the 'decadent' Roman society, they saw and experienced lots of things every day and were probably less prude than the average American :roll:

So, even though the 'heathens' could've known God already through the "clear light of reason", still they *choose* (yeah right, but it's comforting propaganda, to explain why certain things may not be done, so that the local leaders can relay it to the flock) not to know God.

Questions like "If God is so great and radiant why don't the others see it/choose for him??" are eternal and very difficult to counter because it doesn't rhyme with the "sheperd looking for the abandoned sheep".

So while Paul tries to steel the Roman Christians in their conviction to honour God, it actually doesn't say anything about the love for each other a homosexual couple can display, of which marriage is the logical *civil* extent.

It only tells them that certain actual deeds are bad *for christians*. You didn't think veneral diseases sprung up only recently did you?

Romans 15,1-2

We who are strong ought to bear with the failings of the weak and not to please ourselves. Each of us should please his neighbor for his good, to build him up.


The only thing Organised Christians ever seem good at is lashing out at others. Compassion? Understanding? Tolerance?

The poor live in Nazareth.
Posted on 2004-11-04 11:00:32 by Hiroshimator
Oh, they are doing it for our own good - it is their way of showing compassion. They do understand. They are tolerant. :roll:

One of my favorites is the preaching that man has 'dominion' over the animal kingdom. Yeah, right - all the way to the point of extinction...
Posted on 2004-11-04 11:18:38 by bitRAKE
Homosexuality is natures way of saying, "If you are not going to stop f*cking then you are going to stop having children." By what laws may any nation control population? The self presevering nature of any organized body of people is too great to be contained by the body of said group.

Oh, hell - I guess we will leave it to disease and famine, and with the animals all gone we will have to start eating each other...

...what!? That is the same as homosexuality! :-D :lol: :twisted:

http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/world.html
http://www.overpopulation.org/
Posted on 2004-11-04 13:47:50 by bitRAKE
It might be supposed that it is easy for the doctor to show understanding in this respect, But people forget that even doctors have moral scruples, and that certain patients' confessions are hard even for a doctor to swallow. Yet the patient does not feel himself accepted unless the very worst in him is accepted too. No one can bring this about by mere words; it comes only through the doctor's sincerity and through his attitude towards himself and his own evil side. If the doctor wants to offer guidance to another, or even to accompany him a step of the way, he must be in touch with this other person's psychic life. He is never in touch when he passes judgement. Whether he puts his judgement into words or keeps them to himself, makes not the slightest difference. To take the opposite position, and to agree with the patient offhand, is also of no use, but estranges him as much as condemnation. We can get in touch with another person only by an attitude of unprejudiced objectivity. This may sound like a scientific precept, and may be confused with a purely detached attitude of mind. But what I mean to convey is something quite different. It is a human quality --- a kind of deep respect for fact and events and for the person who suffers from them --- a respect for the secret of such a human life. The truly religious person has this attitude. He knows that God has brought all sorts of strange and inconceivable things to pass, and seeks in the most curious ways to enter a man's heart. He therefore senses in everything the unseen presence of the divine will. This is what I mean by "unprejudiced objectivity." It is a moral achievement on the part of the doctor, who ought not to let himself be repelled by illness and corruption. We cannot change anything unless we accept it. Condemnation does not liberate, it oppresses. I am the oppressor of the person I condemn, not his friend and fellow-sufferer. I do not in the least mean to say that we must never pass judgement in the cases of persons whom we desire to help and improve. But if the doctor wishes to help a human being he must be able to accept him as he is. And he can do this in reality only when he has already seen and accepted himself.

Perhaps this sounds very simple, but simple things are always the most difficult. In actual life it requires the greatest discipline to be simple, and the acceptance of oneself is the essence of the moral problem and the epitome of a whole outlook on life. That I feed the hungry, that I forgive an insult, that I love my enemy in the name of Christ --- all these are undoubtedly great virtues. What I do unto the least of my brethren, that I do unto Christ. But what if I should discover the least among them all, the poorest of all the beggars, the most impudent of all the offenders, the very enemy himself --- that these are within me, and that I myself stand in need of the alms of my own kindness --- that I myself am the enemy who must be loved --- what then?
Carl Jung: Modern Man in Search of a Soul
Posted on 2004-11-05 20:08:34 by bitRAKE
As this is shaping up as a social issue rather than a political one, its probably a safe place to make a comment without being spammed with Republican propaganda.

Across a miriad of societies, the notion of marriage has been a relationship between a man and a woman and it has tended to be for extremely practical reasons like feeding and looking after children. A cursory glance through much of the religious material of different religions makes marriage an institution for much the same reasons.

Now in modern societies there are ther factors that come into play like property and income and these are not really dealt with by historical religious views.

Now there is a solution that should keep everybody happy except those who want society to agree with them pretending to be either boys or girls when they are not. Create another legal definition of a legal UNION between any two persons and apply property rules and rights to it to equitably deal with the dissolusions of that relationship and completely leave the idea of "marriage" alone.

I would suggest that the term "marriage" belongs exclusively to a relationship between a man and a woman in line with a whole range of historical religious views that were the basis for the legislation that currently exists in the first place.

To impose "same sex" marriages onto the range of historical religious views is allowing the state to interfere with the church which is as foolish as allowing the church to interfere with the state. We have as examples when the church had control of the state like the Inquisition and in reverse when the state interfered with the church as in Barcelona during the Spanish civil war and neither example produced viable results.

Seperate the two arrangements and you deal equatably with both, confuse the two and you have a disaster on your hands.

Regards,

hutch at movsd dot com
Posted on 2004-11-05 22:25:06 by hutch--
That is the very solution being suggested here in California - civil union. One of the aspects is of equality between the advantages of marriage and civil union. What prevents people from using civil union for strictly financial reason - when no relationship exists?

Government tends to offer services to families/marriages because they are generators of young tax paying citizens. Governement would profit little from civil union. Civil union would become the norm and marriages would decline - not that they last long here in California anyways. :)

Homosexuals are requesting cultural acknowledgement parallel to marriage - not to be segregated into their own little groups. No less than a cultural shift is required - of course it is rarely complete. I still speak with biggoted people that hate blacks/asians/latinos/etc., but it has certainly become more rare.

We see a similar problem between men and women because women are the bearers of children. Here heterosexuals are the bearers of the next generation of citizens. Must they support the country and their family without no additional shelter by the country? If no, what are the additional consequences?

Following the same metaphor it would seem equality would be impossible and homosexuals would have a socio-economic advantage. Hence population growth would slow... :)

...now we can see the scary dreams of the conservative - they don't want that reality!
Posted on 2004-11-05 22:50:55 by bitRAKE
Through the centuries it also used to be that if I were physically stronger than you and I'd bash your head, I simply won. Shall we re-institute that again as well or do we wish to grow as a society?

Nobody wishes to impose on religion: Belgium has same-sex *civil* marriage now, because a government shouldn't discriminate based on legal allowed preferences. Homosexuals still can't marry in Catholic church here. (Don't think any of them would want to either :P )

Organised religions should keep their head out of politics.

What if the shoe is on the other foot and the religions are the minority (welcome to a large part of Europe), should they banish religion as you banish same-sex civil marriage?

Rights are but priviledges granted to you by the majority. Majorities can change. Democracy is the rule of the majority with protections for the minorities (such as homosexuals).
Posted on 2004-11-06 09:19:42 by Hiroshimator
Some people are just too nosy. They cannot help but stick their noses into issues that they have no rights to be in it. I like the usage of "organised religion" though . :-D

Anyway Democracy is just the tranny of the majorities. Most of the time, the majority do not care about the minority,

Just my 2 cents...
Posted on 2004-11-06 09:38:08 by roticv
Through the centuries it also used to be that if I were physically stronger than you and I'd bash your head, I simply won. Shall we re-institute that again as well or do we wish to grow as a society?
Do you mean expansion into space? Or maybe like the expanding universe? What kind of growth? The bashing still takes place - that hasn't changed - nothing to re-institute. We have only spread it thinner and renamed it. Everyone gets their fair share of abuse. :-D
Posted on 2004-11-06 10:50:53 by bitRAKE
yes, we replaced it with Law & Court but at least that sometimes gives the weak a thin chance to actually fight back.

It's not a big chance but even a thin chance is better than nothing..


On a personal level I'm usually a bit disgusted when I see 2 men or 2 women kissing (frankly most hetero couples are disgusting to see as well), but who am I to tell them they aren't allowed to do so, who am I to tell them they're not entitled to the same rights I am just because they chose differently (and aren't hurting anybody by doing so)?

So the question is: if the heathen tries to stop and look at the 2x4 in his eye, why do the christians keep staring at those splinters ( of course some closet-minded people could also secretly be staring at some other stick :roll: )
Posted on 2004-11-06 11:01:48 by Hiroshimator