Originally Posted by bouncedoggydog

I think you missed the point there. It's not so much the idea of gays getting married, but changing the constitutional definition of marriege it'self, that worries me and those like bush. Never should the views of so little dictate and or manipulate the laws put into place by the majority. I think we should stick with the majority, and the majority in this country do not want the definiton of marriage to be changed by activist judges. I mean thnk about the repercussions this will have on our way of life and society. One who's to say that if a male or female couple is able to reep the benifits of a married couple(man and woman) then who to say that a man and his girl (not married) shouldn't? Not only does that open several gray area's as this. It also undermines the institution of mariage. Don't get me wrong, Im not against gay couples being able to share benifits and live together as a couple. I just do not see any reason what so ever to change the definiton of marriege from a man and a women, to that of any combination you can think of. Where is it going to stop, these grey areas, are going to become very troublesome. Who's to say (if the current definition is changed) that a man and a boy can't get married. The laws were drafted ariound the definiton of marriege in our constitution. They were purposely written in a way to protect society from these tyoes of abominations. Pediophiles would be next in line to alter the text, and what about paligamy? Shit would be crazy, people woulld no longer have any marital bounderies, people would be paried uo with sheep walking down the isle just to reep the benifits. Which in turn would devistate this countries economy and social morality. I for one stand behind the president on this isue, and if you do not see the logic there, then hit me up and we can disscuss this indepth. Why can't gay couples live together and our governemnt offer them protection and benifits wthout changing the defiinitons. That is what Bush was syaing, so I do not understand those that talk out thier ass about the situation. You need to look deeper into the issue. I am an active politician and this has ben a pressing issue with me. I hope you can understand my jibberish, I typed it fast and did not spell check.

Originally Posted by The Necromancer

My question to you Dixie Normous is how can you have the words "So Fuck You!!" in your signature and still have anything against homosexuals? That's hypocritical.

Originally Posted by prophacyz

^just goes to show just how fuckin ignorant u are....and to make things worse, you make urself look like a bigger fuckin ass by sayin....

Originally Posted by Dixie Normous

no it's not..and besides..you are an idiot if you cant see that I'm playing around..it's a SIG....not my sexual preference..I know you know what I mean..so in return to calling my hypocritical..I'm calling you a moron..

Originally Posted by The Necromancer

I said that because swear words are forbidden according to the bible.

Homosexuality isn't.

Originally Posted by The Necromancer

Than I'm sure you wouldn't mind finding a verse or something that says homosexuality is bad.

And don't bother with Sodom and Grimorrah.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibg.htm



Quite frankly, your inhospitible behavior towards me is a bad thing. I'm suprised God hasn't turned you into a pillar of salt.

I'll have you know I don't just read the bible, but I also try and understand it. I don't just look at the text, but I look at the story behind the text.