What do we need to fear with the new MN Legislature

[goalie]

It really isn't that hard, so I'll ask again in caps: DO YOU HAVE A **** PROBLEM WITH GAYS BEING MARRIED IF THEY DO IT SOMEWHERE OTHER THAN A CHURCH THAT DOESN'T WANT THEM??!?!?!?!??!

He said yes, he does have a problem with that.

Actually, he skirted around answering it like a little *****.

[Heffay]

It really isn't that hard, so I'll ask again in caps: DO YOU HAVE A **** PROBLEM WITH GAYS BEING MARRIED IF THEY DO IT SOMEWHERE OTHER THAN A CHURCH THAT DOESN'T WANT THEM??!?!?!?!??!

He said yes, he does have a problem with that.

Actually, he skirted around answering it like a little *****.

Umm....

I also believe that marriage is, and should only be, between members of the opposite sex.

[goalie]

I also believe that marriage is, and should only be, between members of the opposite sex.

Aaaah, I can't believe you missed it. So unlike you.

I know a lot of people who's personal belief is that marriage should be between one man and one woman who voted against the marriage amendment. The difference is that they don't try and ram their **** religion down other people's throats.....

Like I said, he skirted it like a split-tail.

[Heffay]

I also believe that marriage is, and should only be, between members of the opposite sex.

Aaaah, I can't believe you missed it. So unlike you.

I know a lot of people who's personal belief is that marriage should be between one man and one woman who voted against the marriage amendment. The difference is that they don't try and ram their **** religion down other people's throats.....

Like I said, he skirted it like a split-tail.

Oh. I thought his position was fairly clear. No homo rights.

[goalie]

Oh. I thought his position was fairly clear. No homo rights.

Clear would be answering a simple yes or no question. Like I said, I have many friends who's personal beliefs did not stop them from voting against the amendment.

[infidel]

I believe that everyone already has the right to marry the opposite sex. I believe you already have the right to associate with whom you want. I believe you have the right to enter contracts with whomever you want. I believe you have the right to a civil union. I can accept your deviance without condoning it. I will never accept your definition of "marriage".

[Heffay]

I will never accept your definition of "marriage".

Noone is asking for your acceptance.

[goalie]

I will never accept your definition of "marriage".

You don't see that as the least bit ironic, do you?

Thanks for clearing that up though. At least I'll never have to mistake you for a conservative again, since one of those would be against the government having anything at all to do with marriage, let alone "recognizing" some and not others......

[infidel]

I will never accept your definition of "marriage".

You don't see that as the least bit ironic, do you?

Thanks for clearing that up though. At least I'll never have to mistake you for a conservative again, since one of those would be against the government having anything at all to do with marriage, let alone "recognizing" some and not others......

It is in the best interest of society when they endorse and or condone relationships that are in the best interests of society. It is not discrimination, when MOST everyone already HAS the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. Are you in favor of forcing the Catholic church to let gay marriage happen in the Cathedral? I believe you are in favor of using government control to force your beliefs on others, and churches.

[Heffay]

I will never accept your definition of "marriage".

You don't see that as the least bit ironic, do you?

Thanks for clearing that up though. At least I'll never have to mistake you for a conservative again, since one of those would be against the government having anything at all to do with marriage, let alone "recognizing" some and not others......

It is in the best interest of society when they endorse and or condone relationships that are in the best interests of society. It is not discrimination, when MOST everyone already HAS the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. Are you in favor of forcing the Catholic church to let gay marriage happen in the Cathedral? I believe you are in favor of using government control to force your beliefs on others, and churches.

Like goalie said: not a conservative.

Neither of us believe a church should be forced to marry someone against their will.

[goalie]

It is in the best interest of society when they endorse and or condone relationships that are in the best interests of society. It is not discrimination, when MOST everyone already HAS the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. Are you in favor of forcing the Catholic church to let gay marriage happen in the Cathedral? I believe you are in favor of using government control to force your beliefs on others, and churches.

Unlike you, I don't propose forcing my views upon anyone else, so, no I don't think the catholic church should be forced to do anything. Heck, they already don't marry jews and other denominations, and that has been upheld umpteen times in court, so what the heck makes you think that they are going to somehow be "forced" into marrying ANYONE, let alone two women or dudes???? If it did happen, I would be the first to fight that, just as I fought a bigoted amendment to our constitution this time around.

But, aside from your straw-man, which nobody but you seems to even care about, I also don't care what you believe. Especially if you "believe" that I am in favor of blah blah blah like you just stated. Deal with the fact that you feel the need to project YOUR values on others. I don't. Heck, just look at the bible for any length of time and try to count all of the ways marriage has been re-defined over the years. It doesn't bother me in the least how it is defined by others, as that has no bearing at all upon MY marriage. And, unlike you, I'm a conservative, so the last thing I want is the freaking government all into defining who can and cannot get married.

It does make me wonder just how exactly you religious people pick out which stuff to follow, and which stuff not to? I seem to remember some pretty risqué stuff from the bible.....

[goaliemn]

I believe you are in favor of using government control to force your beliefs on others, and churches.

I believe you are doing this.. voting to ban gay marriage is forcing your belief that gay marriages are icky onto everyone, including churches that may want to perform the marriages..

as I've said before, many people get married at courthouses and churches aren't the least bit involved. You stated

I believe you have the right to enter contracts with whomever you want

to people who aren't religious, marriage is a contract that you enter with another person, then get officiated by a justice of the peace.

So you believe you have the right to enter contracts you agree with, but not others?

[goalie]

I will never accept your definition of "marriage".

I just want to point out that this statement is EXACTLY what everyone who voted against the marriage amendment said to the bible-thumpers and bigots. They said you can take your myopic view of the world and shove it. NOBODY should be "defining" marriage for everyone else. At least not in a free society.

Again, you are NOT a conservative.

[goett047]

I voted no because in my opinion marriage is solely a religious institution. Leave it up to the churches who they marry. .gov should butt COMPLETELY out of it. While we are at it, tax the churches. Give unto Caesar and all that jazz

[yuppiejr]

If you don't want others views imposed upon you best not to do the same to others... In the case of government I'm simply not comfortable when they get outside of their basic charter which most social/wedge issues happen to be.

I may not believe in abortion personally but I am pro-choice because I don't think it's the government's job to make that decision for everyone in the country... I really don't care who gets married these days, I know plenty of divorced heterosexuals married in churches who've done far more harm to the institution than the concept of gay marrige ever will. I know two gay couples who are raising children (one adopted, one via invetro-fertilization pregnancy) in safe and loving homes who would put a number of hetero parents to shame (one partner stays home full time, the other works - they live within their means and enjoy a high quality of life).

Lets get to the crux of the issue... the gay marrige ammendment isn't about 'saving' anything, it's about bigotry. People have the right to be bigots, however they don't have the right to legislate that viewpoint on the rest of society or limit the freedoms of others. Freedom means being able to do what you want as long as it doesn't harm others and allowing others to do the same, even if it offends you.