Science > Abortion > Bush is right, Federal Government needs to define marriage
| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Osprey" |
| Date: |
01 Mar 2004 05:55:42 PM |
| Object: |
Bush is right, Federal Government needs to define marriage |
Bush is right about Federal Government needing to define marriage. Why?
Simple
Lets say California does legalize gay marriage, and the homo's get married.
They decide to go to Texas, and Texas doesn't recognize gay marriage.
You are going to have situations where maybe one state will recognize it and
another will not.
Now, do I think that Bush should make the ammendment that bans gay marriage?
I think it should be up to the public to vote on it. I think the public
would vote to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Since
polls all ready show that the majority of Americans do not approve of
homosexual marriage. And it appears that the opposition is growing as well,
as long as the homosexuals keep pushing it and we have public elected
officials defying the law...more people will turn against it.
What we see happening in this country is a division. We have all ready been
divided, but it is going to get worse.
Issues like this is going to bring out the worst in people. I hope that the
liberals are proud of themselves when it gets worse.
Although I am sure they will want to blame Bush.
--
.
|
|
| User: "Patrick Lee Humphrey" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush is right, Federal Government needs to define marriage |
01 Mar 2004 06:22:40 PM |
|
|
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> writes:
Bush is right about Federal Government needing to define marriage. Why?
Simple
You are indeed simple, Cop Reject.
Lets say California does legalize gay marriage, and the homo's get married.
They decide to go to Texas, and Texas doesn't recognize gay marriage.
You are going to have situations where maybe one state will recognize it and
another will not.
Check that pesky Constitution -- Article IV, Section 1 (IIRC) -- "full faith
and credit". That's a can of worms even *you* wouldn't want to open.
Now, do I think that Bush should make the ammendment that bans gay marriage?
Since it's hardly likely to survive both houses of Congress, it doesn't matter
what you claim to think.
I think it should be up to the public to vote on it. I think the public
would vote to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Since
polls all ready show that the majority of Americans do not approve of
homosexual marriage. And it appears that the opposition is growing as well,
as long as the homosexuals keep pushing it and we have public elected
officials defying the law...more people will turn against it.
That explains the massive demonstrations against it since the mayor of San
Francisco decided to start marrying people, right? *snicker* (For someone
who claims to be an American, how the bloody hell is it that you have yet to
figure out there is no national referendum? Actually, there's one -- every
four years -- but it's not concerned with one issue, and never has been.)
What we see happening in this country is a division. We have all ready been
divided, but it is going to get worse.
So? With certified morons like you doing your best to fan the flames, why are
YOU complaining?
Issues like this is going to bring out the worst in people. I hope that the
liberals are proud of themselves when it gets worse.
Although I am sure they will want to blame Bush.
The only thing that pea-brain of 43's is concerned with is: "What can I do to
make people re-elect me?". Now he's starting to ***** off his party rank and
file...and watch the fun when *that* hits the fan.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
www.chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2003-04 Houston Aeros)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mizzyandrea" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush is right, Federal Government needs to define marriage |
01 Mar 2004 10:54:28 PM |
|
|
Bush is right about Federal Government needing to define marriage. Why?
**********************
because the misserable little turd tunnel wants you to forget all about the
Americans who are dead and destined to DIE looking for his fucking
WMDs........
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush is right, Federal Government needs to define marriage |
02 Mar 2004 11:07:01 PM |
|
|
In article <szk4qt8t7vz.fsf@fnord.io.com>, Patrick Lee Humphrey
<patrick@io.com> wrote:
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> writes:
Bush is right about Federal Government needing to define marriage. Why?
Simple
You are indeed simple, Cop Reject.
Iıve started to notice a pattern with Osprey. The list of people with
which he is afraid to debate has become so long he is pretty much
limited to saying one stupid thing and then getting out.
Lets say California does legalize gay marriage, and the homo's get married.
They decide to go to Texas, and Texas doesn't recognize gay marriage.
You are going to have situations where maybe one state will recognize it and
another will not.
Check that pesky Constitution -- Article IV, Section 1 (IIRC) -- "full faith
and credit". That's a can of worms even *you* wouldn't want to open.
Amazing, isnıt it, how a supposed Degree in Law Enforcement doesnıt
teach the Full Faith and Credit Doctrine. (And if you are like me, you
learned about Full Faith and Credit in High School.)
Now, do I think that Bush should make the ammendment that bans gay marriage?
Since it's hardly likely to survive both houses of Congress, it doesn't matter
what you claim to think.
I think it should be up to the public to vote on it. I think the public
would vote to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Since
polls all ready show that the majority of Americans do not approve of
homosexual marriage. And it appears that the opposition is growing as well,
as long as the homosexuals keep pushing it and we have public elected
officials defying the law...more people will turn against it.
That explains the massive demonstrations against it since the mayor of San
Francisco decided to start marrying people, right? *snicker* (For someone
who claims to be an American, how the bloody hell is it that you have yet to
figure out there is no national referendum? Actually, there's one -- every
four years -- but it's not concerned with one issue, and never has been.)
What we see happening in this country is a division. We have all ready been
divided, but it is going to get worse.
So? With certified morons like you doing your best to fan the flames, why are
YOU complaining?
Issues like this is going to bring out the worst in people. I hope that the
liberals are proud of themselves when it gets worse.
Although I am sure they will want to blame Bush.
The only thing that pea-brain of 43's is concerned with is: "What can I do to
make people re-elect me?". Now he's starting to ***** off his party rank and
file...and watch the fun when *that* hits the fan.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Patrick Lee Humphrey" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush is right, Federal Government needs to define marriage |
03 Mar 2004 10:50:06 AM |
|
|
David Barnes <dbarnes111@yahoo.com> writes:
In article <szk4qt8t7vz.fsf@fnord.io.com>, Patrick Lee Humphrey
<patrick@io.com> wrote:
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> writes:
Bush is right about Federal Government needing to define marriage. Why?
Simple
You are indeed simple, Cop Reject.
Iıve started to notice a pattern with Osprey. The list of people with
which he is afraid to debate has become so long he is pretty much
limited to saying one stupid thing and then getting out.
The trick is to expand that list as widely as possible. :-)
Lets say California does legalize gay marriage, and the homo's get
married. They decide to go to Texas, and Texas doesn't recognize gay
marriage. You are going to have situations where maybe one state will
recognize it and another will not.
Check that pesky Constitution -- Article IV, Section 1 (IIRC) -- "full faith
and credit". That's a can of worms even *you* wouldn't want to open.
Amazing, isnıt it, how a supposed Degree in Law Enforcement doesnıt
teach the Full Faith and Credit Doctrine. (And if you are like me, you
learned about Full Faith and Credit in High School.)
The problem is, when I was learning it in high school, he was in his third
year of kindergarten.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
www.chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2003-04 Houston Aeros)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Adam H." |
|
| Title: Re: Bush is right, Federal Government needs to define marriage |
01 Mar 2004 06:26:11 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 1 Mar 2004 18:55:42 -0500, "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com>
wrote:
Bush is right about Federal Government needing to define marriage. Why?
Simple
Lets say California does legalize gay marriage, and the homo's get married.
They decide to go to Texas, and Texas doesn't recognize gay marriage.
You are going to have situations where maybe one state will recognize it and
another will not.
Now, do I think that Bush should make the ammendment that bans gay marriage?
I think it should be up to the public to vote on it. I think the public
would vote to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Since
polls all ready show that the majority of Americans do not approve of
homosexual marriage. And it appears that the opposition is growing as well,
as long as the homosexuals keep pushing it and we have public elected
officials defying the law...more people will turn against it.
What we see happening in this country is a division. We have all ready been
divided, but it is going to get worse.
Issues like this is going to bring out the worst in people. I hope that the
liberals are proud of themselves when it gets worse.
How is it the fault of the 'liberals' that people are getting pissed
about a legitimate demand for human rights?
How does that follow, exactly?
Now, precisely which other minority rights do you think the people
should vote on? Segregation? If all women (the majority) voted that
men (the minority) should have their rights curtailed, would that then
be acceptable to you? If not, why not? Why is that situation
different?
Although I am sure they will want to blame Bush.
---
Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to
evade the need to think and evaluate evidence.
Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of,
the lack of evidence.
- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush is right, Federal Government needs to define marriage |
02 Mar 2004 01:38:50 AM |
|
|
Osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Bush is right about Federal Government needing to define marriage. Why?
Because you're a fascist who wants the government controlling people's
lives.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "eddie" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush is right, Federal Government needs to define marriage |
02 Mar 2004 03:58:16 PM |
|
|
(Ray Fischer) wrote in message news:<c21dm9$uf2$1@bolt.sonic.net>...
Osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Bush is right about Federal Government needing to define marriage. Why?
Because you're a fascist who wants the government controlling people's
lives.
I do not feel the government should control me or any one else, just
the same I do not feel that other people have the right to dictate to
me and infringe on my rightsd just as I do not have the right to
infringe on any one elses rights. When it comes to same sex marriages
I do not have an opinion on that issue, however, I do feel that the
few who want these rights are pushing there sexuality in my face. I do
not push my selual preference in any one elses face. If they want to
be homosexuals then let them, but do not tell me that it is my issue,
when the issue is theres. About defining marriage, I feel that
everyone has a different opinion on what a marriage is.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush is right, Federal Government needs to define marriage |
02 Mar 2004 04:05:39 PM |
|
|
"eddie" <eddieswartz@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b20f6b73.0403021358.7bb176e2@posting.google.com...
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in message
news:<c21dm9$uf2$1@bolt.sonic.net>...
Osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Bush is right about Federal Government needing to define marriage.
Why?
Because you're a fascist who wants the government controlling people's
lives.
I do not feel the government should control me or any one else, just
the same I do not feel that other people have the right to dictate to
me and infringe on my rightsd just as I do not have the right to
infringe on any one elses rights. When it comes to same sex marriages
I do not have an opinion on that issue, however, I do feel that the
few who want these rights are pushing there sexuality in my face.
As you will see that many people feel that way also. And the longer they
keep pushing,
the worse things are going to get.
I do
not push my selual preference in any one elses face. If they want to
be homosexuals then let them, but do not tell me that it is my issue,
when the issue is theres. About defining marriage, I feel that
everyone has a different opinion on what a marriage is.
True.
I am against homosexual marriage; however, I do not object to civil
contracts.
The problem is going to be if they make it lawful in some states homosexuals
are
going to have a problem if they go to states that don't recognize homosexual
marriage.
Federal Government is going to have to step in and define marriage.
Personally I will vote for any politician that defines marriage as a union
between man and woman.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush is right, Federal Government needs to define marriage |
02 Mar 2004 10:21:00 PM |
|
|
In article <obmdnXqL2aFImdjdRVn-ig@comcast.com>, Osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"eddie" <eddieswartz@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b20f6b73.0403021358.7bb176e2@posting.google.com...
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in message
news:<c21dm9$uf2$1@bolt.sonic.net>...
Osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Bush is right about Federal Government needing to define marriage.
Why?
Because you're a fascist who wants the government controlling people's
lives.
I do not feel the government should control me or any one else, just
the same I do not feel that other people have the right to dictate to
me and infringe on my rightsd just as I do not have the right to
infringe on any one elses rights. When it comes to same sex marriages
I do not have an opinion on that issue, however, I do feel that the
few who want these rights are pushing there sexuality in my face.
As you will see that many people feel that way also. And the longer they
keep pushing,
the worse things are going to get.
I do
not push my selual preference in any one elses face. If they want to
be homosexuals then let them, but do not tell me that it is my issue,
when the issue is theres. About defining marriage, I feel that
everyone has a different opinion on what a marriage is.
True.
I am against homosexual marriage; however, I do not object to civil
contracts.
The problem is going to be if they make it lawful in some states homosexuals
are
going to have a problem if they go to states that don't recognize homosexual
marriage.
Federal Government is going to have to step in and define marriage.
Personally I will vote for any politician that defines marriage as a union
between man and woman.
Because you are a bigot who is threatened with regard to his sexuality.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush is right, Federal Government needs to define marriage |
02 Mar 2004 10:21:00 PM |
|
|
In article <b20f6b73.0403021358.7bb176e2@posting.google.com>, eddie
<eddieswartz@hotmail.com> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in message
news:<c21dm9$uf2$1@bolt.sonic.net>...
Osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Bush is right about Federal Government needing to define marriage. Why?
Because you're a fascist who wants the government controlling people's
lives.
I do not feel the government should control me or any one else, just
the same I do not feel that other people have the right to dictate to
me and infringe on my rightsd just as I do not have the right to
infringe on any one elses rights. When it comes to same sex marriages
I do not have an opinion on that issue, however, I do feel that the
few who want these rights are pushing there sexuality in my face. I do
not push my selual preference in any one elses face. If they want to
be homosexuals then let them, but do not tell me that it is my issue,
when the issue is theres. About defining marriage, I feel that
everyone has a different opinion on what a marriage is.
The opinion of the law is what is at stake.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush is right, Federal Government needs to define marriage |
03 Mar 2004 01:35:31 AM |
|
|
eddie <eddieswartz@hotmail.com> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in message news:<c21dm9$uf2$1@bolt.sonic.net>...
Osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Bush is right about Federal Government needing to define marriage. Why?
Because you're a fascist who wants the government controlling people's
lives.
I do not feel the government should control me or any one else, just
the same I do not feel that other people have the right to dictate to
me and infringe on my rightsd just as I do not have the right to
infringe on any one elses rights.
Then you're pro-chocie and not opposed to gay marriage.
When it comes to same sex marriages
I do not have an opinion on that issue, however, I do feel that the
few who want these rights are pushing there sexuality in my face.
And you would _never_ do anything like that.
I do
not push my selual preference in any one elses face.
You just did. We already know that you're heterosexual. In
fact you brought up the subject of sexuality.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
