Maine becomes 5th state to allow same-sex marriage

catbox_9 wrote:

gs78 wrote:

catbox_9 wrote:

gs78 wrote:

catbox_9 wrote:

gs78 wrote:

You mentioned medicine; Well; Half the medications and so called wonder pills have so many side effects; people are better off with the disease.

That's because those wonder pills they advertise on TV are crap. Name an FDA-approved drug that's worse than the disease.


100 years ago tuberculosis was a death sentence. Now...not so much. 100 years ago leprosy was some horrible, disfiguring disease. Now...nobody gets it and if they do it's no big deal. 100 years ago smallpox was a horrible disease. Now, it's been eradicated. Back in the middle ages the plague killed something like 1/3 of Europe. Now if you get the bubonic plague it's rather easy to cure. 100 years ago if your kidneys, liver, heart, etc. were bad you're dead. Now they can give you a new one and you can live for decades. I could go on and on but I think I've made my point. Then again, not a single one of these treatments are "natural" so maybe we're better off dead.

Who wants to live to be 100?


I sure as hell don't

Liver Spots; Cataracts; Dentures; Hearing Aids, Arthritis; just to name a few


I rather die young anyway

Speaking of Gays

If they strip Miss California of her title on Tuesday, I am gonna boycott California and anything to do with Donald Trump

She has a right to speak out against gay marriage

But of course the gay rights groups are against free speech when it goes against their perverted agenda; I bet it be OK if she were all for the gay people; nobody be demanding she lose her title

First....

Have you ever taken any pill of any sort? That is unnatural so maybe you shouldn't have. Have you ever gotten a vaccine? That is also unnatural.


Second....

She will not be stripped of her crown according to the people who organize the pageant. They're decision was while they find her views offensive, they cannot strip someone of the crown for having offensive views as that would be intolerant. She won fairly and will not be punished.



Back to defending same-sex couples,

Your morals say it is wrong but that doesn't matter. Many people would argue that eating meat is immoral. I would argue that forcing people to conform to their morals is wrong. Denying people the right to eat meat negatively effects a lot of people. Allowing people to eat meat denies nobody what they want - those that want meat can eat it can, those that don't want it don't have to. For same-sex marriage, making it illegal forces beliefs upon people and negatively effects them. Making same-sex marriages legal in no way effects people - you aren't forced to marry someone of the same sex.

So I guess there is nothing wrong with liberal judges and or politicians, who are in favor of gay marriage, forcing their views of what constitutes marriage on people that are against it


It is one thing if people in a given state vote to change laws and allow gays to marry; [ though I don't agree with their views and will such decisions; but at least people have a say in such an issue] but when some bonehead, liberal judge rules in favor of it or strikes down a law preventing it because they believe in their minds that it is unjust; going against what many [ of the silent majority[ are against this.


Including myself

First...

Like I said, the judges didn't like her position, but they aren't going to strip her of her title for it. The contest wasn't about being a good liberal.

Second...

The last few states to legalize gay marriage have done it through the legislature. The legislature is made up of people that the voters voted in. The voters knew their stances prior to voting. If they hated gay marriage that much they should have voted for someone else.

What about the people that didn't vote for them?

Even if a member of the legislature won by say a 70- 30 margin; That is still nearly 1/3 of the population that didn't vote for that particular person[ and with the way districts are set up; it is easy for certain parties and politicians to dominate]; and what about people that don't vote; Most elections half of those who are registered don't even vote in the first place

At least put measures on state ballots and allow both sides equal time and money to get their messsage across; and let people decide on the issue


It should not be left to a few dozen members of a legislature to decide for the entire state population; especially those laws in which they are nearly impossible to overturn [ even if the majority of the people want to do so] at a later date

At Least Miller Beer is not on that list



Or Pabst Blue Ribbon

Or Molson Canadian

catbox_9 wrote:

gs78 wrote:

I am boycotting those states

If you're going to do that, keep in mind that the following companies promote sodomy and homosexualism with "nondiscrimination" policies towards homosexuals. Boycott the following companies (and every one of the companies and products which fall under their umbrella of sin) and picket them if they are in your town:


Abbott Laboratories
Aetna Life & Casualty Insurance
AFLAC Inc.
Air Products & Chemicals Inc.
Airtouch Communications
Albertson's Inc.
AlliedSignal
Allstate Insurance Group
Amerada Hess
American Electric Power Co. Inc.
American Express Co.
American Home Products Corp.
American Stores Co.
AmeriSource Health Corp.
Ameritech Corp.
AMR/American Airlines
Anheuser-Busch
Anthem Insurance
Aon Corp.
Apple Computer
Arrow Electronics
AT&T
Atlantic Richfield
Automatic Data Processing Inc.
Avery Dennison
Avnet Inc.
Avon Products
Baltimore Gas and Electric
Banc One Corp.
Bank of New York Co.
BankAmerica (now includes NationsBank)
Bankers Trust Corp.
Barnes & Noble
Baxter Healthcare International
Bear Stearns
Becton Dickinson
BellSouth Telecommunications
Bergen Brunswig
Bethlehem Steel
Boeing
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.
Browning-Ferris Industries
Brunswick Corp.
Campbell Soup Co.
Capital One
Carolina Power & Light
Case
Central & South West
Champion International
Charles Schwab & Co.
Chase Manhattan Bank Corp.
Chevron Corp.
Chubb Life Insurance Co. of America
Cigna Corp. & Co. (Cigna Healthcare)
CINergy
Circuit City Group
Cisco Systems
Citigroup Inc. (Citibank, Travelers, Smith Barney)
CMS Energy Services
Coca-Cola
Colgate-Palmolive
Columbia Broadcast System (CBS)
Comdisco
Comerica
CompUSA
Computer Associates International
ConAgra Inc.
Consolidated Edison Co.
Consolidated Natural Gas
Continental Airlines
Corning Inc.
Costco Wholesale
Crown Cork & Seal
Darden Restaurants (Red Lobster, Olive Garden)
Dayton Hudson Corp. (Target, Mervyns, Marshall Fields)
Dell Computer Corp.
Delta Airlines Inc.
Dole Food Co. Inc.
Dow Chemical Co.
E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Co.
Eastman Kodak Co.
Electronic Data Systems Corp.
Eli Lilly & Co.
Estee Lauder Companies
Fannie Mae
Federated Department Stores (Bloomingdales, Macys, Fingerhut)
First Union Corp.
Firstar Corp.
FleetBoston Financial
Fluor Corp.
FMC Corp.
Ford Motor Co.
Foundation Health
Fred Meyer
Freddie Mac
Gannett
Gap Inc.
Gateway Inc.
General Dynamics Corp.
General Mills
Giant Food Inc.
Gillette
Golden West Financial Corp.
GTE
Hannaford Brothers
Harcourt General Inc.
Hartford Financial Services Co. (The Hartford Insurance)
Hasbro Inc.
Hewlett-Packard
Hilton Hotels
Honeywell
Hormel Foods
IBM (Includes Lotus)
IKON Office Solutions
Illinois Tool Works
Ingersoll-Rand
Intel Inc.
International Paper
J. P. Morgan & Co.
John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance
Johnson & Johnson
Johnson Controls
Kellogg
Kimberly-Clark
Knight-Ridder Newspapers Inc.
Liberty Mutual Insurance Group
Lincoln National
Litton Industries Inc.
Lockheed Martin Corp.
Loews Corp.
Lucent Technologies
Marriott International
Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance
Mattel Inc.
Maytag Corp.
McDonald's Corp.
McGraw-Hill
McKesson HBOC
Merck & Co. Inc.
Merisel
Merrill Lynch
Metropolitan Life Insurance
MicroAge
Microsoft Corp.
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing (3M)
Monsanto Co.
Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co.
Motorola Inc.
Nabisco Group Holdings Corp.
Nash Finch
Navistar International
NCR Corp.
New York Life Insurance
New York Times Co.
Newell Inc.
Niagara Mohawk Power
Nike Inc.
Nordstrom
Northeast Utilities
Northrop Grumman Corp.
Northwest Airlines
Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance
Occidental Petroleum
Office Depot
Oracle Corp.
Paccar
Pacificare Health Systems
Pacificorp
Paine Webber Group Inc.
PECO Energy
Pfizer
Pharmacia & Upjohn Inc.
Philip Morris
Pitney Bowes
Principal Financial Group
Procter & Gamble
Prudential
Public Service Enterprise Group
Quaker Oats
QualComm
Quantum
R.R. Donnelley & Sons
Ralston Purina
Raytheon
Reebok International
Republic New York Corp.
Rite Aid Corp.
Rockwell International Corp.
Rohm & Haas
Ryder System
Ryerson Tull
Safeco
Safeway
Sara Lee
SBC Communications Inc. (Pacific Bell, Southwestern Bell, Nevada Bell)
SCI Systems Inc.
Science Applications International Corp. (SAIC)
Seagate Technology Inc.
Sears, Roebuck and Co.
ServiceMaster
SGI
Sprint Communications
St. Paul Companies
Staples Inc.
Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide (Sheraton, Westin, Four Points)
State Farm Group
Sun Microsystems
Sunoco Inc.
Supermarkets General Holdings Corp.
Supervalu
Tandy (Radio Shack)
Tech Data Corp.
Tele-Communications Inc.
Temple-Inland
Tenet Healthcare
Tenneco Inc.
Texaco
Texas Instruments Inc.
TIAA-CREF
Time Warner Inc. (Includes America Online, CNN)
Times Mirror Co.
TJX
Toys R Us
Trans World Airlines
Transamerica
TRW
UAL/United Airlines Inc.
Unicom
Union Carbide Corp.
Union Pacific
Unisys
United HealthCare
United Services Automobile Association (USAA)
United Technologies Corp.
Unum Corp.
US Airways
US Bancorp
US Industries
US West Inc.
Venator
Verizon (formerly Bell Atlantic, merged with NYNEX)
VF Corp.
Viacom Inc.
W.W. Grainger
Wachovia Corp.
Walgreens
Walt Disney (ABC, Capp Cities, Buena Vista)
Warner-Lambert
Washington Mutual Savings Bank
Wells Fargo & Co.
Western Digital Corp.
Westvaco
Weyerhaeuser
Whirlpool
Xerox Corp.
York International

Most of those companies I don't even deal with in the first place

A lot of those corporations aren't even in Michigan; including Texaco;


Sunoco still exists around here; but not as many stations as there used to be

gs78 wrote:

What about the people that didn't vote for them?

Even if a member of the legislature won by say a 70- 30 margin; That is still nearly 1/3 of the population that didn't vote for that particular person[ and with the way districts are set up; it is easy for certain parties and politicians to dominate]; and what about people that don't vote; Most elections half of those who are registered don't even vote in the first place

At least put measures on state ballots and allow both sides equal time and money to get their messsage across; and let people decide on the issue


It should not be left to a few dozen members of a legislature to decide for the entire state population; especially those laws in which they are nearly impossible to overturn [ even if the majority of the people want to do so] at a later date

You'll never get unanimous agreement on anything. Heck, there's probably some backwards people in the South that still say we should have slaves.

Also, Massachusetts has allowed same-sex marriage for just over 5 years now. While the judicial branch is what allowed it, the people of Massachusetts can have it repealed with a simple vote. Some people have attempted to get such a measure on the ballot, but they've never been able to collect enough signatures (5% of however many people voted in the last election).

gs78 wrote:

Most of those companies I don't even deal with in the first place

Most, but not all? You'll need to try harder if you want to boycott all of them.

I could never boycott them all. Just today...

I used our house phone, our carrier is AT&T.

I checked my bank account online, one of my banks is Bank of America

I brushed my teeth with Colgate.

I was flipping through the channels and saw some Columbia Broadcast System (CBS). I also used their website, sportsline.com

I drove a car made by Ford Motor Co.

I shaved and used a razor made by Gillette

I used my printer made by Hewlett-Packard

I am using my computer which has a processor built by Intel Inc.

I studied for a test using a textbook printed by McGraw-Hill

I am using my computers which runs Windows by Microsoft Corp.

I went to a drug store owned by Rite Aid Corp.

I drove a car insured by State Farm Group

I used my cell phone, my carrier is Verizon

I checked a different bank account online which is through Washington Mutual Savings Bank

I used my computer which has a hard drive made by Western Digital Corp.


I think that's it...today

catbox_9 wrote:

gs78 wrote:

What about the people that didn't vote for them?

Even if a member of the legislature won by say a 70- 30 margin; That is still nearly 1/3 of the population that didn't vote for that particular person[ and with the way districts are set up; it is easy for certain parties and politicians to dominate]; and what about people that don't vote; Most elections half of those who are registered don't even vote in the first place

At least put measures on state ballots and allow both sides equal time and money to get their messsage across; and let people decide on the issue


It should not be left to a few dozen members of a legislature to decide for the entire state population; especially those laws in which they are nearly impossible to overturn [ even if the majority of the people want to do so] at a later date

You'll never get unanimous agreement on anything. Heck, there's probably some backwards people in the South that still say we should have slaves.

Also, Massachusetts has allowed same-sex marriage for just over 5 years now. While the judicial branch is what allowed it, the people of Massachusetts can have it repealed with a simple vote. Some people have attempted to get such a measure on the ballot, but they've never been able to collect enough signatures (5% of however many people voted in the last election).

Nah; People in the South aren't that backwards

Except for the ones that marry their own family!

gs78 wrote:

Nah; People in the South aren't that backwards

Except for the ones that marry their own family!

So only like 75% then?

I was in Tennessee and a guy I met introduced me to his mother, who is also his aunt. His grandmother is also his great-grandmother.

I was driving through Kentucky and I saw a billboard advertising dentures.

catbox_9 wrote:

gs78 wrote:

Nah; People in the South aren't that backwards

Except for the ones that marry their own family!

So only like 75% then?

I was in Tennessee and a guy I met introduced me to his mother, who is also his aunt. His grandmother is also his great-grandmother.

I was driving through Kentucky and I saw a billboard advertising dentures.

More like 80 percent!

Or 85%

catbox_9 wrote:

Or 85%

:

I am so pissed off right now


I wouldn't care if they let all the gays marry


I don't care anymore

Let em marry, and let God sort it out... If somebody wants to sin bad enough, it does not matter what we think, they will do it... Only thing is they will have to explain it to God.

GoGetEmTigers wrote:

Let em marry, and let God sort it out... If somebody wants to sin bad enough, it does not matter what we think, they will do it... Only thing is they will have to explain it to God.

Works for me. That way the people that don't want to deal with religion don't have to.

------------------------------------

While we're discussing God, here's a post I made earlier that got no responses that I thought was half-decent.....


Sodomy is listed as a sin in Leviticus, but so is eating pork - which christians obviously do not adhere to because they claim Christ died for their sins and his grace covers them from the OT admonitions. So in order to again attack homosexuals they are forced to turn to the New Testament.

All christians admit they sin, just as Paul did... but apparently some sins are not forgiven if you do not truly repent and therefore "lifestyle sins" fall into this. However, christians will pick and and choose which lifestyle sins are covered by God's grace and which ones are not. They claim God's grace covers their own lifestyle sins but not those of the homosexual. They do this by accepting God's grace in their own lives and then refusing to extend that same grace to those they condemn for having the wrong lifestyle.

And they can do this because they don't believe they have any lifestyle sins of their own. If you ask them about it, they'll say things like, "I used to sleep around but I was forgiven of that sin and now I don't do it anymore." However, ask them if a homosexual can be saved by God's grace, and they will say, "The gay man who does not turn from his homosexuality is choosing to live a lifestyle counter to God's laws and is not, therefore, saved by grace." What they conveniently forget is that over 50% of them - those who count themselves among the Religious Right - are divorced, and more than 85% of those are remarried. What that means is, according to the Bible, that nearly 43% of the same people who condemn the gay man for his homosexuality choose to live in a lifestyle of adultery, a sin that ranks equal to homosexuality in God's eyes.

In the Bible Jesus said:
"Every one who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery." (Luke 16:18)

And the Apostle Paul said:
"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God." (1 Corinthians 6:9-10)

A divorced man who remarries is entering into an adulterous relationship. And it's not just a relationship; it's an adulterous lifestyle because the remarried man chooses to continue living in the adulterous relationship for the rest of his life (or until he divorces and remarries again). However, if you ask this adulterous man if he is still a Christian, he will say something like, "I believe God has forgiven me and I'm now living under his grace." And ask him if he's willing to leave his current wife in order to "turn from his adulterous lifestyle," and he will refuse because "God's grace has already saved him." But this is the same man who earlier claimed that the homosexual must turn from his "sinful" lifestyle as a condition of receiving God's grace.

It is hypocritical, unfair and an outright mockery of their own religion. 50% of the families in this nation are torn apart through divorce and at most 10% of individuals in this nation are gay - fighting for the right to marry - now please tell me, which is more damaging to our society and children?