E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSThe American Academy of Pediatrics says that a child's health benefits from a stable relationship between parents, no matter their sexual orientation. A new poll finds 49 percent of Americans favor same-sex marriage.
Politicians, business leaders, athletes and other high-profile figures are racing to announce their support for gay marriage before the Supreme Court holds landmark arguments next week — an unusually broad and public push.
Many of them have filed formal briefs with the court. Others have stayed out of the legal case but made public declarations that they said were carefully timed in hopes that they might sway the justices.
“Those kinds of things make the court feel that what they’re doing is sensible,” said Alan Morrison, who teaches constitutional law at George Washington University. “It may not affect the constitutional questions, but the court does want to feel comfortable.”
On Thursday, the American Academy of Pediatrics, which represents 60,000 doctors, published a policy statement saying that whether a child is raised by gay or straight parents has no effect on development.
Dr. Thomas McInerny, president of the academy, told NBC News that the policy change was in the works for two years but that the academy hurried its announcement so the policy would be available for the justices.
“We are an apolitical organization,” he said. “On the other hand, we do feel very strongly about the best interests of children.”
The court will hear arguments in two cases. One is about Proposition 8, a ban on gay marriage approved by California voters in 2008. The other is about the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which blocked federal recognition of same-sex unions.
In the final days before a Supreme Court deadline to file papers in both cases, prominent Republicans rushed to add their names to a brief arguing that gay marriage promotes the conservative values of stability and mutual obligation.
Besides former governors and members of Congress, the 131 signers of the brief included top aides in the administration of George W. Bush and senior advisers to the presidential campaigns of Sen. John McCain in 2008 and Mitt Romney last year.
And last week, Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio became the first Republican senator to support same-sex marriage. Portman, whom Romney considered as a running mate, said that he had had a change of heart on the matter after his son, who is 21, came out.
Portman did not sign the Republican brief before the Supreme Court but said that the upcoming arguments were a factor in his decision to go public.
Hillary Rodham Clinton, the former secretary of state and a potential Democratic presidential candidate in 2016, released a video last week through a gay rights group and said flatly: “I support marriage for lesbian and gay couples.” As a candidate in 2008, she had opposed gay marriage but supported civil unions.
Her announcement came after her husband, who signed the Defense of Marriage Act into law as president, published an Op-Ed in The Washington Post encouraging the Supreme Court to overturn it.
“I now know that, even worse than providing an excuse for discrimination, the law itself is discriminatory,” he wrote.
Morrison, from George Washington University, who filed a brief that called parts of DOMA “utterly irrational,” said that the gay rights cases may be unprecedented in drawing support from such a broad spectrum of society.
Earlier this month, more than 100 corporations, including Google, Nike and Estee Lauder, signed two briefs in support of gay marriage — arguing that blocking recognition is just not legally wrong but hurts their businesses.
Lloyd Blankfein, the head of the investment bank Goldman Sachs, told The New York Times that captains of industry “wanted to attach themselves to what may be the last great civil rights issue of our time.”
And on Monday, Rashad Evans, a mixed martial arts fighter, told the gay website Outsports that he felt a duty to support gay rights as a competitor in “a macho-type sport.”
“I have kids,” he told the site. “I don’t want them growing up in a society where they, or their friends, could be second-class citizens based on which person they fall in love with or who they want to be happy with.”
He joined a brief filed by Chris Kluwe, a punter for the Minnesota Vikings, and Brendon Ayanbadejo, a linebacker for the Baltimore Ravens.
Marc Solomon, national campaign director for the gay rights group Freedom to Marry, said that his group was pleased that the cause had drawn such broad support, particularly from the political right.
“Our side has put forth the most powerful case that could be made that America is ready,” he said. “There is no question that justices live in the real world.”
Polls show increasing public support for gay marriage. A Washington Post-ABC survey earlier this week found 58 percent for gay marriage and 36 percent opposed — a mirror image of public opinion less than a decade ago.
Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage, a leading group opposed to same-sex marriage, said that the pediatrics academy had taken a “transparently political step” by endorsing gay marriage and had been influenced by studies produced by gay-marriage advocates.
“Which parent can a child do without — her mother or her father?” he said in a statement. “We remain confident that the U.S. Supreme Court will uphold the ability of states and the federal government to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman, a definition that has served our nation well for hundreds of years.”
Another group opposed to gay marriage, the Traditional Values Coalition, mocked Portman’s announcement last week by publishing a hypothetical statement from a parent who came out in favor of drunken driving because her son is a drunk driver.
When the Supreme Court takes up the question Tuesday and Wednesday, most of the public statements won’t matter, said Tom Goldstein, a founder of the widely read Scotusblog, which analyzes the court.
What’s more, he said, “Some of these developments are a double-edged sword. The cases rely to some extent on the notion that homosexuals face widespread discrimination and hostility. The fact that the country is coming around so fast ironically could hurt their cause in court.”
The announcement by the pediatrics academy could matter because it speaks directly to conservatives and their concerns in the case, he said, but “what someone thinks in Hollywood couldn’t be more irrelevant.”
This story was originally published on Thu Mar 21, 2013 1:54 PM EDT
If you're against gay marriage, don't marry a gay person. But be sure not to get in any photos while you're protesting. You're really going to look like an assh0le in 40 years.
LOL, just remember, the internet is forever and everyone has a smart phone.
Hillary is pandering for her 2016 presidential run.. which shows she would sell her soul to become president !
You're assuming gays will be around in 40 years. They're always just one generation from being extinct, like the dodo.
Timothy - comment 1.3 - so, after thousands of years, you think we're going to disappear. Heterosexuals just keep producing us!
Gee, Cappy, if I really based my beliefs on what other people think of them in 40 years much less what they think of them today then I wouldn't be able to call them beliefs now, would I? My belief is that it is wrong. There, I left you all another seat on your bandwagon.
If your a frickin gay you won't have to worry about anything in 40 years you sick maggot cuz, you'll all be dead from aids.
Timothy, you silly boy. Mocking yourself like that. You're such a silly little dodo.
And why do you believe it is wrong? Exactly why do you believe it is wrong?
Poor Steve, your ignorance is showing in so many ways. Why are you so afraid of homosexuals? Did one beat you up in grade school causing your friends to tease you because you didn't get beat up by a girl, but even worse, by a fag? You poor thing.
I do not dismiss the intentions of those who argue in defense of "traditional marriage." But I would posit this response and ask you all to do this exercise:
Create a standard "pros" and "cons" list, assessing all of the positive aspects of marriage, and all of the negative aspects of marriage which come to mind.
Most of us, regardless of socio-political ideology would find our list of "pros", the positive aspects of marriage, would be lengthy. It would include things like commitment, security, belonging, trust, stability, working collectively toward goals, loyalty, "for better or worse", assurance, a partner in illness, greater financial security in death, two-parent household for children, statistically longer and healthier life of the spouses,... and on and on.
Those who are married and who are blessed with the personal insight which comes with marriage will easily create a very lengthy list indeed of the many "pros"; filled with intangible but meaningful positive aspects of their marriages. And the "cons" list will be comparatively short, and an honest analysis of the negative aspects of marriage listed might appear somewhat selfish and self-centered when reviewed in honest reflection and introspection.
Now, reread both lists and cross out those items you listed in the "pros", positive aspects of marriage which you can say with certainty are not applicable to a same-sex couple.
And then do the same for the "cons" list and add any items to the "cons" list which come to mind which you feel are applicable only to same-sex unions.
For those who are opposed to same sex marriage, you will find that the "pros" list is almost entirely unaltered when assessed both for "traditional", and same-sex marriage. Human beings are just human beings.
And on the "cons" side of this exercise you will find that the primary arguments in the negative aspects column are selfish, self-centered and/or merely personal disapprove of the union of two other persons whom you do not know. But nevertheless you disapprove, and because of your disapproval you wish to deny athem ll of the positive aspects of marriage you listed in your "pros" column.
Does that sound right to you?
And for those who answer "yes", then ask yourself if this would still sound right to you if you were one of the partners in a relationship which was being judged by others, and society argued that you should not be allowed to marry, and should not be allowed to enjoy the "pros" column and should not be blessed with the positive aspects of marriage?
Let's wait and see what the Supreme Court decides. The will of the people has changed about this.
People are entitled to believe what they want and live their life as they want. That is the American way.
In that case Mike, to whom is Sen. Portman pandering?
Well, you look like an @!$%# now. And like most will end up extinct.
Steve.....
Hahahahahahahahahahahah. Thank you.... I have been SO grouchy today and that just snapped me out of it. Stupid much?
Robert - show us your list - are you for changing the definition of marriage or are you for "gay marriage".
Gay marriage would be a special right for a special group of people - is that what you want? Kind of bigoted isn't it. If that is what you want why don't we just call it CIVIL UNIONS - you know, the thing 10 years ago that the homosexual lobby insisted they needed until they got it, now they want more...
I tried to make a con list for your presumed special right called "gay marriage", but I didn't come up with anything.
My con list for changing the definition of marriage is lengthy, my nephew and I (along with NAMBLA) can finally be accepted.
Eric - I believe I should be allowed to marry my dog. I just want equality and justice... I just want to be happy... And my dog wants the security of knowing he can have my social security benefits if something is to happen.
Nice try, but what I believe the LGBT community wanted was something treated as EQUAL to heterosexual marriage. Ever heard of DOMA?
you can say america is sinking into a hole the lime beneath there feet is melting ...GOOD
Oh, please, not this ridiculous bovine excrement AGAIN!!!
For the last bloody time, your dog/cat/horse/cow/pig/duck-billed platypus/three-toed sloth/etc has no legal standing to get married.
People in Cyprus can't get their money out of the bank to buy food, gas or anything else. They're rioting in the streets. The Brits are sending a plane loaded with cash for their people stationed in Cyprus so they can buy food to eat.
But we get to hear about this as a headline.
@NJSteve, if you can prove that your dog is consenting to the relationship, then I don't think big brother should be able to overstep your individual or states rights to deny you the freedom you seek. Where is it written in the constitution that the federal government has the power to approve or disapprove of marriages? And if it isn't in the constitution, doesn't that automatically make it a state issue? (At least according to Republican logic over the last 50+ years that should be the case)
Capitalize "America", you freedom hater.
Are you sure that's not 'Merica?
Well, I don't really care how two consenting adults care to behave with each other. The lead-in into the article states:
I find it interesting that 49% is all it took for Romney to not win the election. It doesn't matter if the majority approve or disapprove. If it works like it did for Prop 8 in California, a majority can be against gay marriage and somehow it will still get pushed through against the wishes of the majority. So I guess it doesn't really matter, do what you want.
For the record, I'm heterosexual, married with two kids. I don't think you should base your support or lack thereof on what anyone else thinks, but I have noticed that no one that has ever been in support of denying others freedoms of any kind has been looked on kindly by history, thus the "40 years, assh0le" comment. Plus, aren't the same people who are against gay marriage, the same people who are for "states rights"?
Not news worthy. Man, the thing about liberals is health is not in their subject so without knowing the consequences America will become the most infected country. Hell, even condemn won't save them. Sad that these homosexual are deluded with marriage when they really want is sex.
Eric -
American way? Not according to Liberals. They want you to live how THEY want. Guns, God, Soda, Gay, Straight, What were taught in School - It is all about how Liberals want you to live.
Ever since the Liberal movement from the Peace, Love, Dope hippies that are running country we have steadily declined in every aspect.
I'm sorry, but I am more worried about our debt, the lying media, and the hate going on around the world for America, not gay marriage.
What is it that gays want by having marriage recognized? A tax break? Fine, do away with the marriage tax break so you won't have to cry all day every day about it.
My list is between me and my wife. Create your own list.
You mean am I for changing your definition? Only you can do that, by assessing your own conscience and character.
I am for marriage, period.
No, it is allowing an equal right to marriage applicable to all, not discriminating against a "special" group of people. Yes, I want equal rights and equal protections.
Kind of bigoted isn't it to say that a person might be entitled to a "civil union" but not entitled to marriage because some disapprove of who you love?
There was a time in America when African-Americans were legally defined as 3/5 of a person. You appear to be making a similar argument and value judgment about gay people.
I made no such argument for a "special right", regardless of how you read it. You apparently entirely misunderstood my point. Perhaps your personal mindset got in the way of your reading comprehension. Try again.
Your final statement speaks volumes. Try replacing a little bit of hateful intolerance with love and understanding. You will be a much happier person.
And try to stay on topic; "NAMBLA"? Oh, please, give us a break. 'Slippery-slope' and 'straw-man' arguments are a poor way to debate.
To Robert in Oregon and other sad, ignorant, mentally ill people, the basic fact is homosexuality is against the natural law. There is no need to "make a list." Where do you people get these ideas as they are very laughable.
Do you people not believe that there are ABSOLUTES in our world whether you believe it or not? Even if the sick culture of relativism were to take over the entire world, right is right and wrong is wrong...period.
Go ahead and feel free to refute this but you will be wasting your time. One thing I love about free will is that I will never have to accept or acknowledge this abnormal lifestyle nor will anyone ever be able to make me. God be praised for all he has given to us and may those who think otherwise change their hearts and consciences to conform with His.
who cares let them join the club of marriage misery, divorce , alimony etc...lol...sorry people my bitterness surfaces sometimes.....*taking deep breath OMMMMMMM*
Once again it is proven religious nuts have no idea about science and the real world. I mean look at these comments.
This type of behavior being marketted to the public eye as a way of life and the photo's that are used to DEMON-strate them are completely and utterly sickening...
No, in 40 years there will be a Supreme Court decision giving the ok to marry children, that's where this is going..like the Ancient Greek culture aka Pederasty
Haven't you ever heard of Nambla?
And for the record, we did deny them their freedom, and we ARE looked on kindly by others. And for the record, there was a time, when the homosexual community supported this organization.
Don't like them? Don't look at them.
@Reality - Homosexuality is natural and has a purpose. Gay people make better aunts and uncles to help raise children, and make better adoptive families. They are by nature only going to reproduce by proxy, and have all the resources of a married couple which makes them ideal in these natures.
The prevalence of homosexuality means it's not a disease (and not abnormal), and since it has stuck around for so long has a productive reproductive purpose.
Homosexuality is not only natural, but it is also a very healthy thing for groups as a whole. And is definitely not abnormal unless you consider things like being ginger or left-handed equally wrong for being equally abnormal.
ScubaGolfJim:
Oh, Jim, I feel so ignorant in the presence of your superior intelligence and enlightenment. I don't fear gay anybody, nor do I hate them. However, I did take biology and anatomy courses, and my 20/20 vision reinforces the physical fact that male and female bodies are specifically designed to function for a definite procreative purpose. Homosexuality, whether it occurs involuntarily or not, is an aberration of that function..... and, one actually has the choice of not acting on one's urges. So, get out of my face with your supercilious, pompous crap!
Really? Laws regarding age of consent are set at a state level and not at a federal level...so if such a case were ever presented to a federal court what do you think they'd do with it?
In 40 years, people will call the anti-gay marriage folks what they truly are, bigots. Sorry if you don't think homosexuals should have the right to get married than you are a bigot. Just like people who fought against interracial marriage. And you can scream and moan that it's not fair that we label you a bigot. But there is no denying the simple fact that your viewpoint is bigoted.
And we will ignore you. And society will move on. And you will look like backwards fools in 40 years. So enjoy that you ignorant buffoons.
Reality, chosen, and others: If you think homosexuality is a sin and that God will send you straight to hell if you engage in homosexual behavior, then I would certainly suggest you abstain. But most people don't hold that view, so why should they live their lives according to your moral beliefs any more than you should live your life according to theirs? And in particular, why should your religious/moral beliefs be embedded in the law that everyone has to follow when the majority of people do not believe as you do?
Timothy1Mil, as long as straight people keep f--king, they'll be gay people. Straight people create gay people, genius.
spider-737231
I'm also rather clued up on biology and evolutionary biology. Homosexuality has a place in both. As for acting on urges I thought we were talking about marriage. As for whether people are acting on their urges or not, that really is none of your, or anyone's business, nor is it the focus of the debate at hand, the focus is mere allowing two people who love each other marry.
Mixedpie,
You're wandering outside the realm of fact by making claims that gay people make better aunts and uncles. That is purely conjecture. I personally am of the opinion that you are wrong on how you arrive at homosexuality being natural and normal. Prevalence has nothing to do with it, in medieval times, black plague was prevalent but that didn't mean it wasn't a disease. I'm not arguing that homosexuality is a disease by the way, it's just not normal and isn't really all that prevalent. One study I saw said 3.5% of the American population identifies as gay. At best, it's normal that a small percentage of a population identifies as gay.
NJ Steve.... You want to marry your dog??? Can't find another human that can stand you, huh? Sad.
This is all about the buck. Votes, Money, and Fans. Sad. Sell out your beliefs for the almighty dollar.
Or maybe...they actually changed their minds.
Or maybe...they hid their true feelings previously for votes.
Or maybe...who cares? They arrived at the right answer.
Kenmor,
Who are you to judge? That's not very tolerant of you. Stop the bigoted hate!
And well you obviously should.
I'll re-post it here so you also can see it plainly, with your 20/20 closed eyes: Hey christians, did you forget about the prostate during your typical "a man has a penis and a woman has a vagina argument?" What about the "just-in-case" prostate? And since most women say a man can't tell a clitoris from a doughnut, it must be a "just-in-case" for the women also. See? Your gawd did take homosexuals into account during creation.
Did your classes not include the prostate and clitoris?
It happens in nature in many species. Scientifically documented. Look it up. See, the desire for pleasure is a natural function also. So are you saying that homosexual creatures, human or animal, seeking out pleasure is also an aberration? So what about the heterosexual couples out there fornicating with protection to prevent procreation? Isn't that an aberration in your terms. What you call an aberration is another's normality. Are you aware that 20/20 vision is now an aberration in your terms? (mine's 20/15 BTW)
Well, there's always the Ignore This Author option, in case you're afraid of knowledge as much as you are of homosexuals.
NJSteve
If your nephew is above the age of consent, go for it. I do believe it's illegal to marry your nephew in all of the union though.
Apparently, Reality44060 = self-loathing homosexual.
Why the 40 year thing anyway. With a 17 trillion dollar dbet growing every minute, a county that doesn't produce anything of value. 90 million workers supporting the other 240 million who either don't work or "work" for the government, state pension funds are bankrupt. SS, Meidcare ditto. Do you really think we will be around in 40 years?
Usurping another word from our language, marriage has always stood for a union of different genders, joining together. We now have to deal with not having a word to accurately describe what is transpiring! It would be like having heard the expression that it was a gay event and have to decide if it was a happy or homosexual event. I can no longer say, That would make me so gay,without people thinking I was being derogatory. Make up words to define yourselves ang quit trying to fit in by stealing and using words that already have an accepted definition! I have no problems with you living your lives, but I do think that forcing yourselves into my life, and promoting your lifestyle through propaganda.
♫ Come out, come out, wherever you are
And meet the young lady who fell fwom a star
She fell fwom the sky, she fell vewy far
And Kansas, she says, is the name of the star
Kansas, she says, is the name of the star ♫
Why is ANYBODY so worried when somebody else wants to marry??? What Fkn business is it of their's anyway? And, PLEZ keep that silly fantasy book (the "holy babble") out of our faces! Remember "SEPARATION OF CHURCH & STATE?" It's the LAW. If these American taxpayers are in good standing with out government, why shouldn't they be afforded the same due process which includes federal recognition of their marriages? Did they get discount taxation since they're gay and cannot marry? You bigoted hypocrites will burn in your own hell. In the mean time, have a lovely day!
New fad I suppose. Be the first on your block to cozy up to a pervert.
Well if you are going by percentages, then the concept of "marriage" is not normal. Take into consideration all the species on the planet that breed. What percentage of the total population of all species engage in the concept of "marriage", or monogamy for that matter?
If we go by pure percentages, then any species engaging in marriage, monogamy, or religion is "not normal".
I am not for Gay Marriage, I am for allowing gays and lesbians the right to marry (each other, because some of you are too stupid to grasp what im saying).
therefore you idiots who think we want "special rights" by calling it "gay marriage" can SHUT THE F UP!
FYI - the definition of marriage has CONSTANTLY been evolving since it's inception...
unless of course, all you men had to pay your wives family a dowry in order to marry your wives?
didn't think so.
Not a "new" fad... my wife has been known to "cozy up" to a perverted guy for quite a while now.
In fact, when it comes to sex, THIS straight guy is more perverted than any homosexual. You should see the things I have done with women... Actually no, a prude like you could not handle it.
ScubaGolfJim, please do the world a favor and deep six your bigoted, hatemongering, judgmental, arrogant, elitist, intolerant self, okay? Thank you. Now with that being said, heterophobia/sexophobia (homosexuality) is a way of intolerance that not only seeks to destroy the heterosexual way of thought that has proven for the world to function normally for seven millennia but they will inevitably turn upon their own ranks. I do not care how many textbooks, organizations, and the like support you and say things that are contrary to my words here, you need to just remember that people in Communist, Socialist, and Fascist circles also had THEIR proverbial big guns that forced people into those situations and that had also essentially shamed (and eventually forced) people to think how they should think or else pay the price upon eventual imprisonment and death. Do you really envision killing someone without mercy simply because they said no and that they chose to have a moral stance against a way of thought that violates every single belief that they had in their lives? Clearly, when that happens, it is harassment, it is discrimination based upon sexual orientation (which is also against the law but, in this case, you would be using that law to justify legally discriminating against heterosexuals for simply proclaiming their heterosexual orientations), and it would violate innumerable other laws such as racqueteering, extortion, payola, bribery, graft, conspiracy of all the same things and it will also lead to war crimes and murder charges. Do you REALLY want that as your future, let alone on your conscience?
You and your ilk need to realize three things in your lives. The first thing is that what is right and morally, ethically, and legally good in the sight of Yahweh is not subject to the whims of mere temporal human popularity and feelings, for, like the wind, feelings, emotions, and fads change. Morality and righteousness also do not care for who is the majority and minority and who is in power or not, for they will govern everyone regardless of how they feel or think about the issue in their lives. The second thing is this quote that I remember from my days in school. The quote says, "Whatever is popular is not always right, whatever is right is not always popular." Things that are morally, ethically, and legally right in this world are not caring for, nor thinking about, belonging to any sort of popularity contest. Their function is to simply do the right thing regardless of how people feel and think about the issue in their lives. Finally, suppose that you DO get your way. Suppose a magic wand just magically made all of your wishes come true. How long do you think that it will be when butch and femme gays and lesbians begin to fight among themselves? Furthermore, how long will it being when they begin to fight among other parts of the LGBTTIQAP coalition? Finally, how long do you think that it will be when all of the parts of your coalition are out for blood for one another? You are all acting like the lot of you were just merely sharks that were in a feeding frenzy. You do not care if you actually get a part of a school of fish or another shark, just as long as you sense and smell blood in the water and you actually take a sizeable bite out of something and that you fill your stomachs up, it is all fine and it is also all the same to you in the end.
People do not oppose the complete legalization of heterophobia/sexophobia (homosexuality) because of merely their moral, ethical, legal, and/or faith-based reasons, rather, they do so because they have seen how societies that have promoted them have either ceased to exist or that they are making an ever decreasing and diminishing role upon the world stage and thus the societies that have been thinking as you do have had less and less of a say in the view of world politics as views like yours are said more and more by your brainwashed and demonically possessed collegaues as well as yourself. It is deviant, it is not normal, and any animals that do so end up not being around very long. We are supposed to be of a species that is above an animal and your ways of thought, or lack thereof, want to debase humans to a way of thought that is far below that of an animal. The people that do what they do are not doing it for merely moral, ethical, legal, faith-based, and righteous reasons, rather, they are also preventing you from destroying yourselves through the inevitable infighting that will happen once you take out the proverbal competition, namely, Christians, Jews, and other people who still believe that they have a right to be heterosexual beings without retribution in their lives. If you disagree with me, then why is it that the people that think as you do have split up into two camps in the state of Kentucky when it comes to representing your cause? Common sense would say that a. the heterophobia movement has reached its maximum level of satiation, and b. infighting among people who are supposed to be for the same cause is not a good place for people that think as you do to be in their lives. Why not try to have some of that open mind and at least give my words some thought in your life? Thank you.
You're delusional view assumes that gay men and women are incapable or unwilling to reproduce.
Silly fool.
Let me get a couple things out here.
1. To those who say allowing Gays to Marry will lead to people marrying children and dogs: You're idiots. To get married you have to PROVIDE CONSENT. As soon as your Dog can sign that Marriage certificate as a Legal Person, sure, go ahead. Marry it. Same for your kids.
So no, you ingrates. Allowing Gays to Marry has NOTHING TO DO with Marrying ANYTHING ELSE.
2. The Christians I see in this thread: You people are really responsible for the number of Americans who profess to be Christian shrinking nowadays. If someone was forcing YOU to marry a gay person, I could absolutely understand the reaction you guys have. But really, all your doing is oppressing another group of people that have no impact on you whatsoever. Your bigotry and close mindedness, and absolute dogged insistence that EVERYONE be subject to YOUR perception of God's Law is so contrary to the tenets and beliefs that this nation was FOUNDED ON.
And before you start ranting about how Christians are oppressed, why don't you go ahead and list 5 ways that the evil Liberals "oppressing" Christians have impacted you. Not the guy down the street, not impacted you because "OMG YOU HAD TO WATCH TWO GUYS KISS!", but actually had a direct quantifiable impact on your life. Post your list.
To the moderate Christians who are actually Christ-like that I've probably offended with my generalizations above:
These nutjobs screaming about how they're oppressed and how the world is going to end if we let gays Marry, these people are the face of your religion. My completely unscientific estimate based on wholly anecdotal evidence is that 80% of you guys are normal people who actually exhibit the benevolence, tolerance, and forgiveness that Christ was famous for. Those who try their best to live as the New Testament professes, but don't feel the need to insist (legally) that everyone else lives by it also.
These crackpots are the people that most non-Christian Americans think of when they think of Christianity. There may be a ton of moderates out there who believe in Christ and think these people are nut jobs, but if you never stand up to them and take your Religion back then don't be surprised when the younger generations grow up, hear you say your Christian, and immediatly take a negative attitude to anything you have to say after that.
@JT,
"American way? Not according to Liberals. They want you to live how THEY want. Guns, God, Soda, Gay, Straight, What were taught in School - It is all about how Liberals want you to live."
Oh really? And Republicans want: to tell women what they can and can't do with their bodies, who can get married and who can't, bring prayer into the schools, wasn't it Texas re-writing text books for "intelligent design"?
In short, Republicans do enough telling of American's about how to live.
thetruthteller-3478699, heterophobia? Really? I have a friend who I have known for 18 years and not once has he expressed fear of heterosexuals. I've been friends with lesbians as well....again, no fear of heterosexuals. It's the heterosexuals who have a fear of homosexuals. But whatever, goodluck in your life. Must be very closed minded based on your very long post of....well...confusion. You seem to think that homosexuals are forcing hetersexuals to be gay because of this phobia you speak of.
Although I strongly disagree with gay marriage as most are. The minority is getting a lot of exposure and because the majority is not clamoring it is assumed they are in favor.
Many many years ago we made it illegal for anyone closer than second cousins to marry because of the genetic health risks than may turn up. Even though two people who loved each other very much they couldn't get married because of the health issues that were discovered to be linked to thier genetic pool being too close.
We know with certainty that there are MANY bad health factors related togay activity. We have spent BILLIONS in research trying to find a way to cure one of the most deadly illnesses the gay community brought into the general public through blood transfusions and other fluid transmission. There are many more beyond HIV and many more that will mutate as time goes by yet those in support of gay marriage are ignoring these health issues.
If we are to ignore the health risks associated with gays by endorsing gay marriage as acceptable because thier civil right to be married to the one they love , then we surely can not deny ANYONE who wishes to marry another regardless of who they are. We should also allow a brother and sister to marrry, a brother and brother, sister and sister, mother and son, father daugter, father son and mother daughter . After all there is no stronger love than that of a partent for thier child. Why should two people of the same sex be granted more rights than any of the couples I listed here? Why shouldn't a son be allowed to marry his mother so he too can place her on his insurance or recieve her SSI when she passes just as gay couples will/ This is after all what this is about right? Two people who love each other and take care of and provide for one another.
If we are gonn do this lets do it right.
Eric, probably best not to respond like that.
Instead, ask them to give specific examples of how Liberals have forced them to live any way whatsoever.
So JT, how exactly have Liberals forced you to live a certain way. Like, give two or three specific examples of something Liberals have done that have forced you to change your lifestyle.
I always have a laugh when people try to justify not allowing marriage equality becasue then what would stop someone marrying a dog or their car.
I had a look at the history books and when voter equality was established and woman where allowed to vote there did not appear to be an up surge in pigeons and hammers voting, so I guess your arguments are what they appear to be, ridiculous, and have the effect of making you look rather stupid.
Avenger, did you just compare being gay to incest? Did you also just say Gays are responsible for the spread of AIDS/HIV in America?
Are you out of your mind?
w ww.nytimes.com/2010/09/17/health/17aids.html?_r=0 - Here's an article you can read about THAT SPECIFIC THING that will correct your ignorance.
There are verifiable scientific reasons not to allow incest. There are none (if you discount the crackpot idea that's been disproven over and over again about gays causing AIDS) around same-sex couples.
So in short. Stop lying.
If you've got proof that Gays have caused the spread of AIDS/HIV, then by all means, post links. And to an article with actual scientists and studies please, not a blog.
As a note: Gays having unprotected sex, leading to the spread of AIDS, is not because of homosexuality, it's because of unprotected sex. So don't bother going there please.
Also Avenger, it's not a vocal minority clamoring while the Majority (who, obviously in your view is against allowing gays to marry) sits silently that's causing this. Polling shows the majority of Americans are in favor of gay marriage, vs those who are against.
Avenger, even if allowing homosexuals to marry didn't pass, your assumption on the health issues have no relevance. Homosexuals will continue doing what they are doing which is really none of your business as you are not being asked to practice what they do. If you contract HIV or any other disease, either you have a bad habit yourself (drugs, sex habits, etc) or your partner was exposed in a similar way. Also, studies are now coming out that HIV may have been spread to humans that had nothing to do with some idiot having sex with an animal (which is what I hear most by people who fear homosexuals and their allowance to marry).
trip*toe*fan,
In response to your post in #1.37.....
Now people,.....And a one and a two and a three, lets all practice saying...
'Bigot, bigot, bigot, bigot, bigot, bigot, bigot, bigot, bigot, bigot, bigot, bigot, bigot......
Bigot, bigot, bigot, bigot, bigot, bigot, bigot, bigot, bigot, bigot, bigot, bigot, bigot......
Bigot, bigot, bigot, bigot, bigot, bigot, bigot, bigot, bigot, bigot, bigot, bigot, bigot......
Bigot, bigot, bigot, bigot, bigot, bigot, bigot, bigot, bigot, bigot, bigot, bigot, bigot......
Bigot, bigot, bigot, bigot, bigot, bigot, bigot, bigot, bigot, bigot, bigot, bigot, bigot......'
****Yes, your gay activist motto is: 'Oh what a beautiful world it would be if this gay can name call everyone into thinking just like me!
See trip*toe*fan, I can make a truly non-bigoted argument for this forum about you.
Cappy-1911
If you're against gay marriage, don't marry a gay person. But be sure not to get in any photos while you're protesting. You're really going to look like an assh0le in 40 years.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
If you don't like the laws of the US, then move
=====================================
See David, that's where you're wrong. No one wants to make you think being Gay is OK. No one really cares what you think. Gays just want you to leave them alone and stop prohibiting them from doing something that provides VAST benefits to them and does NOTHING affect others.
You Anti-Gay Marriage people have so many strawman arguments it's farking pathetic.
People call you a bigot because you're bigoted. You're actively oppressing a group of people for NO OTHER REASON then a religious one.
Very American.
Avenger-2464988
Please do tell me about these other viruses that are about to mutate and cause disease, it appears you know something that the scientific community does not. As for HIV, the H is for HUMAN. It infects all races all sexes and all sexualities, and all nationalities.
Your arguments are without merit and substance.
Avenger.... AIDS is not limited to gays. A lot of men (and women) who have cheated on their spouses have contracted AIDS and then spread it to their spouses (BIG OOPS). There is also a new drug resistant form of gono that is being spread by heterosexuals. In other words, diseases and death from sexual contact is across the board and not limited to homosexuals. Should we just ban SEX?
Hey Walter, that's a great sentiment. Did you say the same thing to the minorities who pushed Civil Rights in the 50's and 60's? Howabout the women who pushed for Equal Rights?
Don't like the rules? Then GTFO.
Furthermore, ScubaGolfJim and other people who believe in his viewpoint, when you promote heterophobia/sexophobia (homosexuality), you also forget four things when you are dealing with people who differ from your belief structures. The first thing that you forget is when you think of a sexual orientation and you as a human being as one in the same individual, you also come into contact with people that say that the sexual orientation of a person is a completely different and seperate matter than the person as a human being. Naturally, both idealogues will clash and they will do so until one triumphs over the other and, since human history has been on the side of the second viewpoint, namely that sexual orientation and the person as a human being are two completely different and unrelated things, for seven millennia, then you should not expect it to change not only any time soon but ever, period. The second thing is that a person is more than merely their sexual orientation. This may infuriate you but it is actually very demeaning to equate heterophobia/sexophobia (homosexuality) as merely the sole reason upon which you exist on this planet, not to mention that, for people that are so open minded, that it is, ironically, a closed-minded, narrow-minded, intolerant, deviant, narcissistic, egotistical, arrogant, divisive, judgmental, hypocritical, myopic, misogynistic, stereotypical, prejudicial, and just plain rude, abrasive, and elitist viewpoint in the lives of all of you people that think in this manner. The third thing is that if you were truly tolerant of heterosexuals, then why do you have so much hatred towards the heterosexual way of thought? The majority of heterosexuals did nothing to you, and some of them even support your viewpoints. Honestly, people that ended up thinking in manners like yourself gave the world such wonderful things like Communism, Socialism, and Fascism, just to name a few of their byproducts. Because you have proven to be intolerant of the heterosexual way of thought, then would not logic dictate that it is the lot of you that are truly the intolerant ones? Oh, but as with Hitler and others that promoted deceptively evil ways of thought, you had to likewise paint yourselves as the victims rather than as the cold-blooded, evil, heartless monsters that you wish to become not only to people that oppose you but, if it is convenient enough, to do the same things to your fellow members that are in your own ranks. The fourth, and final, thing is when you judge someone due to the content of their gender and/or their morality rather than the content of their character, then you have proven yourselves to be intolerant of the gender of a person as well as of their religious practices and their sexual orientation, which, if I do recall correctly, are all against the law in this country. A smart person would know how to battle you in court but there also is this matter of money and having a great amount of it to favor a smart person in battle, but alas, the courts and people that think like you are controlled by the globalist elite who run the New World Order and who basically own every country in the world as well as their legal systems, banks, and monetary supplies, right down to the precious metals and gemstones. You will force people to use force when they see that injustice will always be denied to them and when you do that, then it will be people that think like you, among many other groups of people, that will be responsible for the third World War to appear as well as a possible second Civil War in the USA and similar civil wars worldwide. You now can not say that I did not warn you of the truth for failing to listen to me and for failure to follow the law.
Ed-2990755,
In response to the kind words of this individual Ed-2990755,
Now people,.....And a one and a two and a three, lets all practice saying...
'Bigot, bigot, bigot, bigot, bigot, bigot, bigot, bigot, bigot, bigot, bigot, bigot, bigot......
Bigot, bigot, bigot, bigot, bigot, bigot, bigot, bigot, bigot, bigot, bigot, bigot, bigot......
Bigot, bigot, bigot, bigot, bigot, bigot, bigot, bigot, bigot, bigot, bigot, bigot, bigot......
Bigot, bigot, bigot, bigot, bigot, bigot, bigot, bigot, bigot, bigot, bigot, bigot, bigot......
Bigot, bigot, bigot, bigot, bigot, bigot, bigot, bigot, bigot, bigot, bigot, bigot, bigot......'
****Yes, your gay activist motto is: 'Oh what a beautiful world it would be if this gay can name call everyone into thinking just like me!
Ed, people who use a form of name calling are always using a bigoted form or argumentation.
Please consider.
Thetruthteller:
1. Paragraphs are your friend.
2. Your whole post is a Strawman. THE. WHOLE. THING. Please link to one article, blog post, hell, WHATEVER where Gay activists have taken a stance that they hate Heterosexuals.
3. Being scared of sex and being gay are not the same. See, unlike you, I don't hate people because of their sexual orientation. I couldn't care less. The fact that you can't seem to understand that Homosexuals couldn't really give less of a sh*t about Heterosexual's makes it very clear that you absolutely dislike people based on their sexual orientation.
And that, good sir, is pathetic.
I don't like or dislike Homosexuals or Heterosexuals. I like and dislike people based on merit. And you, Sir, I don't like.
David-3994413, you didn't make an argument, you just allowed sprayed mental garbage into a post.
Congrats.
Look, I know me calling people opposed to gay marriage gets you angry. But I'm sorry. The simple fact is that if you deny basic rights to one group of people, you are a bigot.
Now go run along.
State of Unawareness, you just proved that you were an intolerant bigot by your remark and no evidence to back up your claims. No, I do not mean the "evidence" that is promoted by your graft, payola, bias, people that you have slept with, cronyism, or other such things, nor do I mean the "evidence" that is promoted by your propaganda machines, excuse me, your "educational" (that is re-educational) publishing companies, your "schools," "colleges," and "universities" (read re-educational centers), nor by the people that you use for your illegal schemes, regardless of whether they are political leaders, part of the military, part of the law enforcement complex, or even celebrities. I can and will defeat you every single time in the courtroom and you will lose, even in the most liberal of places in the country. If you want to commit crimes to get people to think like you, then you will pay dearly for breaking the laws of the land.
David, I apologize for you not being able to tell the difference between a descriptor and name calling. Bigot is the perfect descriptor for someone like you. From the dictionary:
a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.
Hmmm.
Yep.
Name calling would be me calling you a assh0le.
See the difference? I realize you're actually not a rectum. Not literally, anyways.
thetrutheteller: Did you just basically say that you'll only accept "evidence" from people that agree with you? I'm not a fortune teller or a psychic, but I bet you're a Conservative. Remember how only believing the polls that agreed with you worked out for you guys? Teehee.
Also, pay dearly? Are you going to internet-punch him?
thetruthteller-3478699
I was just interested in what you are fighting in these courts of yours? You're post was rather confusing.
William B. Travis: "The fun in attending a gay marriage is trying to figure out whose the "wife"!"
Except at lesbian "weddings." One of them is usually in men's clothing, rather large (looks like she could beat the cramp out of a Hells Angel), has short hair, and looks like she dropped out of the fifth grade.
It's funny: The people writing against gay marriage on here have atrocious grammar and spelling. I wonder what that says about people who oppose gay marriage?
trip*toe*fan: It says the same thing about them that their ability to handle cognitive dissonance says about them.
They have a very tenuous grasp on reality. Their life is filled with shadows and spooks (real and imagined) that are always out to get them.
Basically they're 12th century minds living in 21st century bodies.
BTW, that's about all I read. Why? Just a glance confirmed how the hypocrisy rains down in copious amounts on this one. First, and foremost of all, when you mention your buybull, or your gawd (however you wish to refer to it,) you show your true ignorance. It has absolutely no bearing in this conversation. You lose. The Constitution of the United States of America guarantees my freedom from your religious idiocy. You try to use that basis for your proposed discrimination and you lose.
You call me bigoted and hate-mongering. Why do you project so much? Judgmental, arrogant, elitist, and intolerant? Like that mirror you're looking into? I do have an open mind. You have a right to hate as much as you wish. Go ahead. But like you idiots always screw up with the Free Speech clause of the First Amendment, don't expect to not get backlash from the open minded when your vile hatred is spewed forth in public, or when you try to force you archaic beliefs onto others. You also believe that you should be able to say anything you want because of the First Amendment. But you think no one should be allowed to say anything negative in response. That's called... wait for it... hypocrisy.
Your "words" were rejected by me when I was ten or elevenyears old and could never get an answer to any questions referring to religion except: "It's why we call it 'faith'; "Gawd works in mysterious ways"; "Because the buybull says so"
I grew up. I understood and understand the difference between reality and fantasy. And also the lack of difference between 'faith' and fantasy. Keep your moronic religious bull@!$%#. And keep it to yourself and your ilk. Otherwise you're just advertising to the world how moronic you can be.
You're welcome.
Eddie boy, I DO use paragraphs. Also, my arguments are not strawman ones when one considers reading about the reasons that societies fall. Every single society that has ceased to exist upon this planet has done so due to, among other reasons, the promotion of abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide, and heterophobia/sexophobia (homosexuality). I would not call seven millennia of evidence that prove that anti-life philosophies such as those would be a straw man argument. I doubt that you even properly KNOW what a straw man argument even IS anyway and that you are just using those words to pretend that you are smart. Yes, you are a pathetic attempt at an intelligent being and Beavis and Butt-Head would be MENSA members in comparison to you. Also, if you want to use your own straw man argument on merit, then you would have understood that I tend to view people by what they do rather than what they say and, more often than not, heterophobes (homosexuals) show a lot more hatred and intolerance than the majority of heterosexuals (and no, I do not mean real bigots like racial supremacists, Muslims, and the Westboro Baptist Church crowd). When heterophobia advocates beat up an old woman simply for professing her belief structure, does THAT sound very tolerant to you? When John Wayne Gacy rapes and kills little boys before doing very gruesome things to their bodies, does THAT sound very tolerant to you? When the lady that inspired the movie "Monster" slept with and killed men simply for them being men, does THAT sound very tolerant to you? When the vast majority of Communists, Socialists, and Fascists are either in support of or are heterophobes (homosexuals), despite their claims otherwise, and they kill Christians and Jews and then lie about the homosexuals and then backhandedly support Holocaust museums into saying that heterophobes (homosexuals) died as martyrs rather than essentially betraying one another for political expedience, does THAT sound tolerant, let alone truthful to you? No, sir, it is not truthful OR tolerant and you will never know the meaning of the words in your life. Seven millennia of human history that has overcame all sorts of opposition to tell the truth and to preserve the lives of humans who wish to learn to not repeat its mistakes versus a nearly infinite amount of resources that are only geared towards the destruction of all human life and that does not care for human history...which do you think is going to win. Clearly it is not you that is going to become the winner, Ed Bighead.
trip*toe*fan,
Calling people bigoted just because they disagree is bigoted in itself.
I'm not angry at all. I already know gay marriage is coming. We are at the end of the world and the Bible, long ago, said this in some future time, this is how people like yourself will behave.
I don't own the rite of marriage. God does. And God will deal with everyone messing with His rite of marriage.
Yes sir, you will get your gay marriage, but it will not make you happy in the long run.
No one can be happy and live in a way God says is wrong, rebelling against his divine order.
Maybe, that's why most gays have multiple sex partners over the years they live. Nothing satisfies.
Sorry, but gay marriage will not bring any satisfaction in the long term.
No one can fight God and win.
You will win the battle soon but you have already lost the war.
Sadly, unless you repent you only find out that fact standing before the Judge, Jesus.
...he says and then proceeds to write a rambling post without paragraph breaks.
I don't think thetruthteller-3478699 knows what a paragraph is.
thetruthteller: Still no paragraphs.
Also, it's great that you can come up with terrible crimes that were commited against people of the same sex. Many of them sexual in nature.
I guess I lose this whole argument then, because I could NEVER come up with any sexual crimes committed by heterosexuals against other heterosexuals. Heh.
"Every single society that has ceased to exist upon this planet has done so due to, among other reasons, the promotion of abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide, and heterophobia/sexophobia (homosexuality)."
Wow. Just wow.
[citation needed] Go and and cough up some links there, buddy.
No I call you a bigot because you want to discriminate against a group of people--homosexuals. Your beliefs are what make you a bigot, not my opinions. You just don't like being called it, so you think I'm doing it capriciously. I'm not. I'm using the word correctly. You are using it as a knee-jerk reaction to try to deflect the reality that you are an ignorant, discriminatory boob.
Well I am a heterosexual. But it will make me happy to see my homosexual friends get married. I hope to go to their weddings.
I agree it is difficult to fight imaginary things.
Ah yes. Well enjoy that silly smug attitude. I could care less what your mystical magical desert hippy thinks about me.
Hey David, Thetruthteller; I gotta ask - Are you guys part of Hamas or the "Friends of Hamas" (haha) Because you sound an awful lot like the extremists that are in control of some places over there in the Middle East.
Unlike you, apparently, I understand that America is not a theocracy. I understand that America was founded on the notion that I could believe what I want, and still get equal rights because I'm an American. Not because I'm Christian, not because I'm Hindu. Because I'm a bloody American, and equal treatment in the eyes of the law IS. MY. RIGHT.
If YOU don't like the above, then maybe YOU GUYS are the ones living in the wrong country, because you obviously don't believe in the Tenets this country was founded on.
Ed-2990755---Thank you for pointing out to me how to be a good Christian, I feel relieved that you express all the things I have been doing wrong or right with terms such as extreme or crackpot as if the movement you support does not do the same thing. Your rant I mean speech is as extreme as the cause you are supporting. You like the Romans continue to cite your preference at the cost of others citing theirs. You see it is Ok to feed the Christians to the lions because they are of lesser quality. So what is it about your cognitive abilities that give you the right to decide for others? Prop 8 passed in California by voter majority and according to all the liberal rants about the Presidential election being a mandate then so to is Prop 8. The problem is it was not accepted by the few so time for the lawsuit, obviously the mandate only applies if you win.
The claim by the medical group states there is no effect from being raised in these conditions, well if that is the truth then how can the same group say it is applicable when raised in the home of a race hater, or redneck or the home of a pediphile. We are the product of our upbringing, yet only if it applies to unpopular subjects such as race or orientation. What a bunch of bullhockey. This article is propaganda at its worst and nothing more.
Trip*toe*fan: It's kind of ironic. You're not Gay, and I'm not Gay. I think most of the "Pro-Gay" voices in this thread are probably heterosexuals.
Yet the other side is incapable of understanding that we support the right for Gays to marry, not because we're Gay.
Just because it's right.
"Reality44060" ... I am curious how you could conclude that I am ..."sad."
In my 38-years of marriage to my college sweetheart, and making a home and raising our three children together (two of them adopted) who now all have children of their own, I cannot imagine being any happier than I am. I have known very few moments of sadness since meeting my wife.
I am also curious how my personal belief that all human beings are entitled to equal rights and equal protections makes me "ignorant" and "mentally ill" ?
Would you care to expound on these three conclusions which you have drawn?
What does your "natural law" argument have to do with determination of the Constitutional rights and protections of individuals. When you try to argue "natural law", you are in the wrong court. You are arguing in the court of opinion, not a court of justice.
Wait a minute, you just made a "natural law" argument in your previous statement, which is a subjective argument used to disagree with, or attempt to refute the written law or decisions of courts.
But now, in your very next statement you suggest that others who point to objective "absolute" interpretation of the written word of the U.S. constitution as guaranteeing the equal rights and equal protections of all citizens, exactly as stated by that document do not believe there are "absolutes."
You seem confused? And when you change direction in your arguments like that, it gets confusing for the rest of us, too.
No, as I pointed out above, you are doing an admirable job of refuting yourself.
I agree with you. That's the great thing about equal rights. You can believe what you wish, no one can make you believe otherwise, and we do not have the right to impose our beliefs upon others not deny them their equal rights and equal protections. That IS what you are arguing right?
Forgive me if I point out to you again, however, that your acknowledgment of YOUR free will and YOUR right to YOUR point of view regardless of what others think ....seems to argue, a priori, against the points you attempted to make in the beginning of your comment? Or are you saying that YOU have rights, but others do not?
Now you profess to know the heart and conscience of God?
I might at this point simply refer you to your own first line of your post, where you make reference to mental illness. "Pot, meet kettle."
Just sayin' ...
;-)
Well many on the far right spectrum can only understand a position when it affects them directly. I truly believe people on that extreme--not all conservatives, of course--have real social learning deficits. They seem incapable of extrapolating how another person would feel, putting themselves in another's shoes. Not exaggerating or poking fun here. I think there is something cognitively different about those folks that leads them to adopt such positions.
We already look like @!$%#s as a society for supporting gay marriage. Why is it as a country we have compromised our way of life, morals and beliefs for the screaming 2 % of the population on most matters. I am so sick of all this so called political correctness and watching our politicians from the county level up the the commander in chief miraculously change there core beliefs to get voted into office, what is more immoral than that. A bunch of power hungry fakes. I am not a hater of gays, I have a few gay friends, I don't believe in it and they know it (I am not a faker) I don't believe in gay marriage and it should be shot down but with everyone compromising themselves in washington and around this country it will probably go through.
Irvmani: Two things.
1. I make no effort to stop anyone from citing their preferences. I'm simply explaining my precieved consequences of your actions. See, I'm not posting lies about the Spread of AIDS. I'm not trying to keep a group of people from the same rights that the rest of us enjoy.
What you don't seem to understand is that I'm not for lessening your rights. Or anyone's rights. I'm about expanding rights. The fact that people like you can't seem to separate the two is one of your major problems, and why you look so out of touch.
You want to prove what you're saying right? Fine. Point out and quote ONE time where I spoke up for the lessening of the rights of ANYONE.
Go ahead. I'm waiting.
Also regarding the medical group and what they're saying, it's the same as above. Being gay is not the same as being a race hater or pedophile. You small minded people can't seem to get it through your skulls that, by and large, most Gays don't hate straight people. They couldn't care less whether others are straight or gay. They aren't going to sit around the house all day molesting their children or lecturing their children on how homosexuals are EVIL.
Being Gay != Pedophilia
Being Gay != Race Hating
Being Gay != Redneck (Where did that come from anyways?)
Call me old fashioned but I believe the term “marriage” should be reserved for the union between a man and a women. I do not oppose civil unions nor the rights guaranteed thereunder. I’m not familiar with California’s Proposition 8 but New Jersey’s civil union law provides benefits that are indistinguishable from marriage:
“A New Jersey civil union automatically includes you in the myriad legal rights and responsibilities under state law conferred on a married couple. In the words of the civil union legislation, a New Jersey civil union grants "all of the same benefits, protections and responsibilities under the law, whether they derive from statute, administrative or court rule, public policy, common law or any other source of civil law, as are granted to spouses in a marriage."
With regard to benefits, in New Jersey at least, the terms “marriage” and “civil unions” can be described as a distinction without a difference. In terms of benefits afforded children however they are different. I oppose the notion that civil unions should be deemed equivalent to traditional marriage which recognizes the importance of a man and a woman bonding in the rearing children. To decree that all things being equal, two men or two woman can provide the same nurturing to children as a man AND a women is preposterous. In an ideal world, children should have a father and a mother because men and women are DIFFERENT and most children need exposure to both in order to thrive. Mankind has prospered under that dynamic for centuries. I see not a reason to muddle that reality now.
Also Irvmani, I'm not telling you how to be a Christian. I'm simply telling you how people like you are causing Christianity to be perceived. If you're happy being perceived as a bunch of bigots who gleefully oppress people by using Holy Books, then so be it. You might find things more to your liking in the Middle East though - They're MUCH more in line with that line of thinking over there.
Timothy, Thank you for that post. Although I disagree with what you're saying, at least you're taking a logical stance on the matter.
The problem with a distinction without a difference (in the idea of Civil Union vs. Marriage) that fact that there needs to be a distinction at all is a little discriminatory.
Look at it this way. If a 7-11 put two drinking fountains outside of their establishment and labelled one "WHITES ONLY" and the other "BLACKS ONLY", but provided the same type of water at the same flow, etc... is that racist or discriminatory? Because they both get the same water.
In regards to your third paragraph - Allowing for Civil Unions results in children with same sex parents, defeating the whole point (muddling the reality)?
You see, the folks who don't appreciate the "gay agenda", but don't rant and rave about it (like myself), have no use for childish arguments and vulgarisms displayed on this "forum" on either side. All of you grow up, and try to act like adults every once in a while. No one is forcing anyone else to do anything.
The problem is separate but equal is not cool in this country. See segregated schools.
Look, churches don't have to marry homosexuals. No one is saying they should. All we're saying is the government should grant civil marriages to gays.
And you argument about gay parents vs straight ones is unfounded. There is no data one or the other that gay parents are less equipped to raise a child. Period. So leave that tired argument among the other old, dusty anti-gay marriage arguments.
No one is forcing anyone else to do anything.
Eh, one side is prohibiting people from doing something... which is exactly the same thing.
Actually, Ed Bighead, I confused you because I use these little things called FACTS, HISTORY, ARCHAEOLOGY, ART, and INTELLIGENCE to write my posts, things of which you would not touch with a 40 foot pole, so I can see why you WOULD be confused by my words. Also, as I said to ScubaGolfJim and to others that think like the both of you, Beavis and Butt-Head would be seen as MENSA candidates in comparison to you. Finally, I am not a conservative, liberal, moderate, or fringe person. In fact, I can and do tick them off (or anger them, if you prefer) in the same sentence were I in a discussion with them all at the same time. What I am, simply put, is a person that sees the future for what it is, for I base it upon the past actions of similar groups of people that have acted similarly throughout history, and then I let things play themselves out and then I say, "I told you so." I am a person that deals in true fairness, honesty, and justice, three things that a person like you (who would do well as a heel in a wrestling circuit due to how many tricks that you try to play on people) would be seen as your equivalent to garlic, crucifix, holy water, sunlight, and a Bible are to a vampire, namely, that they are things which are deadly to the touch of cultural vampires like you.
"Rush to the alter!" I knew Rush was gay. He acts" gay. Time for him to come out of the closet, that is, if he can get out, of the closet!
This is 2013. It's time for all of you, anti gay people, to let go of your out-of-loop ideas.
As a nurse for over forty years, I cannot think of one reason why a person would choose to be gay. The constant bullying? The constant beatings? The threat of death? Gays actually being murdered? No up side, for any of those reason.
So after all these years, there is only one plausible reason, for anyone to be gay. They are born gay. They do not choose that life style. And while I am talking about , "that life style," what two consenting adults, do behind closed doors is, their business.
For all you to profess, to be Christian, do you honestly believe Jesus would say and do hurtful things to gays? I was told Jesus loves me." Sang a song about it too. Jesus loves me this I know. He loves everyone, including gays. So how do you explain, not allowing gays to be a part of your religion? Or preventing gays to be boy scouts?
Lastly, for those of you mocking Hillary Clinton's support of gay marriage, where were you, when 'W' walked out, on the deck of a ship. He was dressed, in military garb with a banner unfurled behind him stating, "Mission Accomplished"
So here is my synopsis. You can be gay and be killed in a war, based on lies. But, you cannot be gay and be a member of any organization or go to school, without being threatened with abuse or death.
This tells me, there are a lot of hypocrites, who will not be going, through the Pearlie Gates but, will be sent back to humanity school. And just maybe they will be gay, the next time around. Maybe, these born again-gays, will understand and learn, we are all God's creatures. Everyone deserves respect and a chance to prove themselves worthy, without being prejudged. There is only one judge, that has a decision I care about and He/She is, not any one of you.
Gay used to mean happy. It should mean happy again. Gays should be left to live their lives, in happiness.
Lastly, gays not only should be allowed to marry legally, they should be allowed to have children. I cannot think of a better life, as a child, that to be raised by two adults who love and want you. I would have taken that option anytime.
Wow...okay you need to get back on your meds there honey. First of all, I have done nothing to break any laws that you claim I have broken by addressing your rambling comment. Secondly, the people I know who are homosexual are not people I have slept with because I am straight. Thirdly, I fail to see how I am a bigot considering I am fairly open-minded about people and what their civil rights should be. You make a lot of presumptions on a lot of things and it seems like you are on the edge of having some sort of paranoia breakdown. You can "claim" all the victories you want to, at least I'll be nowhere near as crazy or narrow-minded as you.
thetruthteller: Since you deal so much in facts, why don't you post some citations for some of the ridiculous crap you've posted.
Until you start backing up your WAY OUT THERE "facts" (or crackpot theories as normal people would call then) with facts, then you're just talking out of your rectum.
Provide some proof or stop bothering.
Also, thetruthteller: When the majority of people you talk to start to wonder if you're off your meds during your rants, you may want to seek some medical / psychological help.
Just sayin'
Guns are wrong & homosexuals are right..... any other questions about what wrong with today's society
people like you steve
There is living together and there is marriage. The two are different obviously or why would there be such a heated debate right now, right?
Marriage was created by God. It is unity of two people, before God, and according to God's rules. And God's rule clearly state marriage is the uniting of a man and a women. If you don't like this? Oh well. Don't be angry at me. I'm just telling you the truth you don't want to here.
And people trying to change the rules of God is about as funny as people thinking they have a say in who does and does not go to Heaven. This to is ENTIRELY up to God. Again, please don't be angry or vengeful. I'm simply stating the truth.
Now you can call me names. Bash on Me. Bash on God. Hold your breath. Stomp your feet. You can even trick the US Supreme Court into thinking they have the authority to determine if the rules of GOD are correct or not correct. But this changes nothing. You are still in direct violation of the rules of God if you participate in homosexuality. Does this mean God is going to send you to hell? I can't say for sure. I'm not God. But I do know what the Bible say- and that is the word of God. And according to the Bible, things aren't looking good for you.
You are all in my prayers.
Ah Steve, it's really sad that you can't realize that Liberals by and large don't want guns taken away. We just want to be responsible about them.
See, I'm a firm believer in the 2nd Amendment. I own guns and have plenty of friends that also own guns.
By some crazy Miracle, freak of nature, or crazy mutation, I ALSO believe that gays should be able to marry.
Crazy I know, right?
TheOriginalMac: You do realize that Marriage predates Christianity, right? You also realize that throughout history, there are many, MANY long stretches of time when it was strictly a civil union, right? Oldest recorded marriages are around 4000 years ago. You realize that predates any flavor of Christianity, yes?
t heweek.com/article/index/228541/how-marriage-has-changed-over-centuries
So now that you understand that Marriage isn't only a religious (and definetly not just a Christian) thing. Kinda' blows holes in that whole post.
So let's compare those two for a second, Steve and see what it says about you.
You think it is sickening that more and more people support the right of two people who love each other to get married. And it is especially worrisome because more and more people want to control people's access to weapons that can unload hundreds of bullets in seconds, inflicting massive amounts of harm in a couple blinks of an eye.
What that tells me is that Steve thinks protecting people's ability to kill others is more important than protecting their right to marry who they love.
In other words, it sounds like you are a messed up sicko, Steve.
Rob Portman changed is mind like Dick Cheney did when both their kids came out. So it became personal to them. Acceptance comes because parents want their kids to be happy and so they swallow their reservations about two people from the same sex having relations and getting married. THEY REALLY HAVE NO CHOICE, because out of love for their kids they are forced. This is why acceptance has grown, because more and more kids are coming out whereas before they remained silent.
Where I do draw that line of what I consider to be in the best interest of our society and future generations, is encouraging gays, which is one gender only, to have children by choice. Elton John said several months ago that he realized after the birth of his first son that his son will NEVER, EVER HAVE A MOM. Many gays have the advantage of having their moms, but if they have children they aren't as lucky. So Elton decided to have another child to fill the void for the sibling not wanting him to be alone. So now two boys will never know what it is like to have a mom. The same goes for a lesbian relationship that will never know what it is like to have a dad.
Two people deciding to marry, regardless of sex, is their choice. Children do not ask to be born and only get one parent. That being said, I know gays that would make great parents. The problem is they only represent one gender and that is the big problem. Again, many gays had both genders while growing up while that would not be the case if they chose to have kids.
Many households today here in the US are raised by one parent. As statistics we do not think this stat is a good one. For one it usually isn't because of finances, but also and certainly equally it robs the children of their mom or dad. Sad.
Also, TheOriginalMac: Howabout instead of prohibiting people from equal rights, if God's that upset about same sex marriages, He can judge them when they appear before Him, He doesn't need you to do it for Him.
Are you also for putting laws on the books against Adultery? Maybe some of the other commandments should be made into law too, eh?
Maybe we can just replace the Constitution (which is what's supposed to be the law of this land) with the Bible.
Then we can rename the country to Iraqica instead of America, because we wouldn't be much different. Just different Holy Books.
So let gay people marry already and share all the miseries that dissolving hetero couples endure... according to the stats, over 50% of marriages fail and many are drawn into nasty court fights, and there's no reason to believe that gay marriages would be any different.
Weaken the moral backbone, (which backbone)?, of this country even more with all this faggot stuff. Acceptance of these false unnatural values does not fit this country, what it stands for, and what it was made from. Too far left already and now add this nonsense on top of it.
Despicable!
Ed-2990755
Hey Walter, that's a great sentiment. Did you say the same thing to the minorities who pushed Civil Rights in the 50's and 60's?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No I didn't, they wanted a job, not stick their penis in poo for more bene's.
=======================================================
Howabout the women who pushed for Equal Rights?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
they wanted to vote, not munch carpet for bene's
===========================================
I hear a lot of crazy on this vine, but what I've yet to hear is a valid legal justification for not allowing gay people to marry.
From a strictly objective standpoint, if you want to maintain DOMA and the gay marriage ban, THAT would be the place to start. The rest, while incredibly entertaining, albeit slightly frightening, is nothing but smoke and mirrors.
Walter P Orielly Jr. proves my point again with such an eloquent, well-written argument.
Seriously, all of you on here opposed to gay marriage have bigger problems. You're borderline illiterate. And have possible psychiatric issues.
Look, it's clear you people are knuckle-dragging buffoons or loony tunes quacks. So just leave the whole what is best for society thinking to those of us who are better equipped to do so.
Thanks!
Walter: Reason doesn't matter. Your argument was that if I didn't like the laws of the country, I should get out. And that's what I was disputing, which you've obviously given up defending because it was a moronic statement to begin with.
And no Walter, the Blacks in the 50's and 60's did even worse. They wanted comparable wages to white people, they wanted to be INTEGRATED into WHITE society! THE NERVE! Back then the racists were screaming about how now it's possible a BLACK MAN could marry a WHITE WOMAN and how dirty and unclean that was.
Also Walter, why are you so concerned about where other people stick their penis? Are you the National Penis Monitor?
@KC - The prevalence is a major factor. Birth defects that limit reproductive capability (which homosexuality would be, if it were a disease) generally aren't very common. But something that has a benefit, like homosexuality does, become more prevalent. Very basic-level natural selection. The extra benefit that homosexuals hold is that unlike a birth defect that, say, makes a woman incapable of getting pregnant or surviving to adulthood, a gay person can still have kids if push comes to shove.
If there were no benefit to homosexuality, then it wouldn't be around as much because it would have been bred out.
And yes, on a basic level homosexuals make better aunts and uncles, consider families A and B:
Family A has 3 kids. The mother has a sister who also has 3 kids. Mother and Father of Family A dies and the sister has to take in the 3 kids. Now she has to care for 6. The resources are split in half.
Family B has 3 kids. The mother has a sister who is a lesbian and has no children. Mother and Father of family B dies and the sister has to take in the 3 kids. Now she only has to care for 3 and the kids are not losing access to resources.
Plus the lesbian sister generally has more resources from her and her wife to bring to give to the kids when the family is running low, and has more time to devote to child care when the parents need it. She caries on her genetic legacy by caring for her sister's offspring, giving them a much better chance to survive and reproduce on their own.
The Plauge on the other hand is something that reproduces on its own, was very successful AS AN ENTITY (rather than a state of birth), and behaves entirely different. It's not even an apples-to-oranges comparison here. It's like an apples to semitrailers comparison. They aren't even both plant products.
My sources: I have a degree in cultural anthropology and this comes up A LOT.
Ed & Toe,
Believe me, don't engage with Walter. It's akin to stabbing yourself in the forehead with an ice pick. It hurts like hell and gets you nowhere. He's already been banned once for trolling.
Sarah,
I think you should move. I think you should be neighbors with Mr. Fred Phelps.
Thanks for the heads up, Sarah.
Doesn't matter too much though, my work's done for the day so I'm just burning time. :)
MYOWN,
Somebody already bought the house next to his, and check out how they painted it. AWESOME!
http://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanhatesthis/someone-bought-the-house-next-to-westboro-baptist-church-and
Ok here's the thing, I personally find homosexuality pretty creepy and generally repulsive. I also feel exactly the same way about religion.
BUT! But, I also realize that, that is my own personal bigotry and MY problem.
If just one of you anti-gay nut jobs could come up with just one excuse that did not have its roots in superstition(gawd hates the gays!) or your own stupidity(next folks will want to marry dogs!) maybe, just maybe I could see your point but, as it stands, I think you are all just full of @!$%#!
I may find homosexuals and religious quacks equally distasteful but the gays are not the ones knocking on my door trying to convert me and they are not the ones trying to keep someone else from enjoying the same freedoms that they already take for granted.
So yeah, for now, I gotta back the gays.
The way I see it they are not taking anything away from anybody, they just want to be able to enjoy all the same freedoms that any other American citizen already does.
Christians just need to get over this thinking that they are better than everybody else bull@!$%#!
Personally - I am completely against hopelessly stupid people marrying and/or breeding. See prime example below. This guy obviously doesn't think that heterosexual couples could ever have a child that is homosexual. This argument just keeps getting sillier and sillier. One day we will all look back on these cretins and wonder how society ever coughed them up.
I know it's not right, but I would love to sterilize some of the morons on here. Not right. But would make me feel better about the future of society.
DAMN, thought I had a 'got ya' with that one. Maybe even a complete head spin.
I saw it in Huff'post 3/19, 'equality house'
But I will get you, and your lil' dog too.
Livinginthewoods:
Thanks. I'd like to point out that although I think finding Gays repugnant is rather silly, but whatever. Your opinion is your opinion and you're entitled to it.
To everyone else in this thread: See this guy? He personally finds something distasteful, but realizes that's his personal taste and doesn't feel the need to force everyone else to abide by it.
Craziness.
Simply Crazy.
At my straight wedding, when the guy said "you may now kiss the bride", I responded with: "Kiss her? I'm gonna DESTROY her!"
We then proceeded to be completely FILTHY and DISGUSTING on our honeymoon. Let me reassure you, there was nothing "holy" about any of it.
It all comes down to this, if you are so passionate about protecting marriage then lobby to ban divorce, I wonder why Republicans than those who want to protect traditional marriage have not done so?
Hypocrisy perhaps?
Sarah-3043284
Oh Sarah, you kill me.
Now it's time to clean this beer off of my desk. I hope I can do it without laughing.
ERIC......INCEST really that sounds like a bigoted remark.. Who are you or anyone else to tell those people who thay can love and marry? Does this hit too close to your home base of retoric ? You attempt to expell the truth of the plagues that the gay community continue to bring to us all and the healthcare cost.
One benefit if gays are allowed to marry. Insurance companies can then identify couples aa gay and raise thier rates accordingly becouse of the increased healthcare costs and shorter lifespan ( about 20 years shorter) so it becomes harder to recover those costs.
Many comments saying "the majority supports gay marriage." California, that far, far right wing state voted against it. What are the chances that the majority supports it elsewhere? I don't believe that flies.
The argument for stating that polygamy and incest should also be allowed IS valid. If you truly want equality, then you will also support those. Just because mother marries son doesn't mean they have to reproduce. Right? Incest (yuck) in this scenario should be equally supported as long as they don't procreate with one another.
Many arguments about who is the bigot, the pro-gay or pro-hetero. The answer is both or neither, not one or the other. Deal with it.
I tire of this phucking argument. While I find homosexuality absolutely disgusting, you can do whatever you want as long as it doesn't break my leg, nor pick my pocket. Before you comment on this one, read one point above.
You want marriage equality? Get the government the phuck out of approving or denying marriage altogether! It's not a government's decision to make!
Seriously, you people have lost, and the craziness on this vine is EXACTLY WHY, you've lost. Not one, and I mean not ONE of you can present any argument other than "ick" or "God". And I hate to break this to you, neither of those have any standing in our courts or our laws.
So seriously, if you don't like gay marriage, don't get gay married. And for all the young kids out there, trying to decide how to deal with being gay do not think for ONE SECOND, the idiocy on this vine is indicative of how the world feels about you. These are the desperate attempts of sore losers to deal with their own insufficiency's. I promise you, THEY are the problem NOT you.
The world is on YOUR side and IT GETS BETTER!
http://www.itgetsbetter.org/
State of Unawareness, I DID my medications back in the day...they were called Ritalin and, in comparison to THOSE days, I am a lot calmer NOT taking Ritalin than I AM taking Ritalin, so you can take those pills and you can shove them where the sun does not shine, okay, honey? Also, as for being crazy and narrow-minded, Pot, meet Kettle, okay, State of Unawareness? You will either conform to me or you will part like the Red Sea and never return to Newsvine under ANY ID were you a smart individual. I will continue to stand up for things and you will NEVER knock me down!
Ed Bighead, I did provide my proof but you and your historical revisionist buddies do not want it to be told. Also, speaking of Hamas, people like you are FAR more into terrorism than myself, okay? This is another reason why I do not get along well with Libertarians. The amount of proof that I could show you would already tax your already fragile and sub-atomic, sub-protozoan mind. Also, if anyone should move from this country, it should be you since, among my many family lineages, I have members of still existing Native American nations that flow through my lineage, so if anyone should leave, it should be bigots like you. Now get off of my land because you are on my property!
ScubaGolfJim:
"BTW, that's about all I read. Why? Just a glance confirmed how the hypocrisy rains down in copious amounts on this one."
Hypocrisy, like shutting down all dissenters not unlike the Communist, Socialist, and Fascist nations did to the people that knew what was really going on with people?
"First, and foremost of all, when you mention your buybull, or your gawd (however you wish to refer to it,) you show your true ignorance."
Calling a Bible a "buybull" really shows you that you have your own issues of ignorance to work out as well as the need for spell checking and a proper comprehension of the English language. It also tells me that you wish for me to buy the bull that is coming out of your mouth. I did once and it was called things like "The Humanist Manifesto," "The Communist Manifesto," and "On the Origin of the Human Species." They ended up being balances for a wobbly table three days later.
"It has absolutely no bearing in this conversation."
Oh really, and your own allegedly absolute viewpoint has every part of bearing on this conversation. Please tell me how open minded and tolerant you really are again. I just love to hear the sarcasm flow from your mouth when you say those words.
"You lose."
No, you lose when you tried to challenge me and when you thought that you were going to win and when I came on to Newsvine. Try again, trolltard.
"The Constitution of the United States of America guarantees my freedom from your religious idiocy."
It also guarantees me freedom to call your lack of religion as a religion according to both a 1961 SCOTUS ruling and a more recent federal ruling in 2005. According to those laws, you are on equal footing with me and, as such, you and your viewpoints are in violation of the mythical church and state clause that you claim that was in the First Amendment of the Constitution, yet was never so much as even MENTIONED in there. You are deliberately trying to insert a non-governmental set of papers that Thomas Jefferson had of HIS OWN OPINIONS as the rule of the land.
"You try to use that basis for your proposed discrimination and you lose."
You need to see the previous message. You lost when you came to fight me and if you use extortion and other crimes of intimidation to threaten, dissuade, libel, slander, or defame my name, then it will be coming back to you and, like I said, you will lose. I have my methods and people to ensure my victory, bucko. Try again.
"You call me bigoted and hate-mongering."
Yes I do call you as you are, sir. Do you have a problem with it, sir? IT DOES NOT MATTER IF YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT!
"Why do you project so much?"
Why do you project yourself, let alone protest when people have differing opinions to your own?
"Judgmental, arrogant, elitist, and intolerant?"
Yes you are so, sir. Now please give me something that is actually intelligent for a change.
"Like that mirror you're looking into?"
You mean the one that your big head is always looking into because it only sees you as the extent of your world? Yes, I do believe that you enjoy looking into that mirror a bit TOO much, sir.
"I do have an open mind."
No you do not. Your comments prove otherwise.
"You have a right to hate as much as you wish. Go ahead. But like you idiots always screw up with the Free Speech clause of the First Amendment, don't expect to not get backlash from the open minded when your vile hatred is spewed forth in public, or when you try to force you archaic beliefs onto others. You also believe that you should be able to say anything you want because of the First Amendment. But you think no one should be allowed to say anything negative in response. That's called... wait for it... hypocrisy."
...and yet you are the utter definition of the word hypocrite and idiot. Also, people like me preserve the Free Speech clause of the First Amendment while people like you want a global dictatorship that would make the Iron Curtain, Nazi Germany, Imperialist Japan, Fascist Italy and Spain, Islamo-Fascists, and other dictatorships seem tolerable by comparison.
"Your 'words' were rejected by me when I was ten or elevenyears old and could never get an answer to any questions referring to religion except: "It's why we call it 'faith'; "Gawd works in mysterious ways"; "Because the buybull says so."
Seriously, Spell-Check...can you use it? Also, I am sorry that your own ego is too big to view anything else besides yourself in your life.
"I grew up."
You grew up...hardly.
"I understood and understand the difference between reality and fantasy."
No, you never did and you just traded reality for a fantasy that poses as reality and that gets offended if you call it a fantasy, yet has no problems whatsoever with calling the real reality as a fantasy...talk about your hypocrisy! Trust me, I read your literature. Its rhetoric is filled with more holes than Swiss cheese.
"And also the lack of difference between 'faith' and fantasy."
Apparently, your lack of faith in anything besides yourself is a form of faith by default, regardless or whether you disagree or agree with my words. Your lack of a faith in anything is just another form of fantasy and they are one in the same and, like any other author of more conventional books, you just want people to buy the lies that you peddle. The difference is that the more typical fantasy authors tend to write far better material than your schlock that you dare to refer to as literature, let alone an anti-religious, anti-faith structure.
"Keep your moronic religious bull@!$%#. And keep it to yourself and your ilk. Otherwise you're just advertising to the world how moronic you can be."
No. If you were truly an advocate of free speech, then my words would be just as welcome in the political arena as yours but obviously you are a hypocrite as I said that you were earlier. I have a right to tell people about what I believe as do you and I have the right to go say to do the world a favor and never perpetuate your stupidity to the next generation unless you actually get a bigger brain than the current sub-atomic, sub-protozoan brain cell that you currently possess in your head. Your anti-religious male cow manure (which is just another form of false religion) only advertises the rest of the world your own egocentric stupidity and moronic attitude.
"You're welcome."
...and thank you for allowing me to show what kind of person that you really are in this world. I guess people like you, State of Unawareness, Ed Bighead, and others will crack and show your true colors after all, namely shades of the color yellow.
What doesn't fly is voting on civil rights. We're a Republic, we don't do that. In fact our whole system is set up to the contrary, to protect the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority.
Only if you ignore the reasonings as to why incest is illegal, which by the way is tied in no way to either homosexuality or marriage. That's why when we ceased to uphold "sodomy" laws incest didn't magically become legal. Find me ONE incestuous relationship such as mother/son as you suggest that DIDN'T originate in abuse, and @!$%# I'll go to their wedding.
But regardless, it's STILL not valid, because the slippery slope doesn't apply to expansion of rights, it applies to the contraction of rights. It's applicable to the government. Ergo, the legal and logical way to apply the slippery slope to THIS situation would be to say, "Allowing the GOVERNMENT the power to ban marriage based on gender, which is a PROTECTED CLASS, could lead to the GOVERNMENT claiming they have the power to ban marriage based on OTHER PROTECTED CLASSES, like RACE or RELIGION (which by the way is a CHOICE, just like I'm sure you're about to claim sexual orientation is)".
Sarah-
My argument is neither "ick" or "God." You avoided the entire argument altogether; well played.
You're right, well put. If my children turn out to be gay; I won't blame them. I will absolutely blame my or their mother's genes. After all, her genes caused their need for orthodontia. My bad genes caused their short stature.
Same old stupid arguments:
Oh I want to marry my dog.
Oh marriage is for making children.
Oh it demeans marriage.
Ok, one more time:
You can't marry your dog, it can't give consent.
I had a vasectomy after my 4th child was born 21 years ago. I can't have kids, but I can be married.
I don't care if the two people living next to me are married or not. It doesn't matter. I just want them to keep their place taken care of. IT DOESN'T AFFECT ME!!!
Atlas,
Did you not read post #1.146. Go try again.
Sarah-
I wasn't stating that I agree with voting on rights. I was stating that people who keep saying the majority supports it are wrong.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/21/us/ohio-woman-marries-father
http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/21/us/ohio-woman-marries-father
Bazinga! You're late for the wedding, he's dead.
Hence the reason I said get government out of marriage altogether.
I want to be a PROTECTED CLASS.
Atlas: Government has to deal with marriage because, in the end, it is a contract between two people. There are legal repercussions for entering into and leaving a marriage. That is why they regulate it.
I know...I know...people can do that on their own...the state shouldn't interfere...people are rational...Ayn Rand...the Fountainhead...the virtue of selfishness...
Look, some day you may come to the realization that Randian libertarianism is as naive and unrealistic as hippy dippy socialism. Neither extreme ideologies take into account the way people really are.
We can't. It DOES have a compelling interest there because the law is what organizes and decides things like surivorship, insurance, divorce, custody. Without laws governing those things can you imagine the chaos?
Marriage is a contract, hence LEGAL. We can't take the laws out of it, ergo we can't take the government totally out of it. What we can do is hold the government to the Constitutional standard of equal protection when applying those laws.
The only thing better than being a protected class is being a white man. Now bring on the angry, persecuted white dudes. In a three, two, one...
trip*toe*fan
Nope, a simple contract would take care of that filed with the courts would take care of that. "By signing below, the parties agree to blah, blah, blah." Government should interpret contracts between to parties. They should not determine what contract consenting parties agree to. Sounds a lot like marriage, huh? Marriage is a contract, but a contract is not necessarily marriage. In the end, there is a difference.
And some day you may come to the realization that you lived your life for another and you failed to enjoy it for you. I'm cool with it.
So true. Ugh. Since 2008, it has been a parade of angry white dudes crying and sobbing that they are downtrodden and abused in this country. Someone call them a whaaa-mublance.
Livinginthewoods, I would believe many are like us. Somewhere seeded inside us is this bigot that pokes its ugly head out every once in awhile. Hell!! While were being honest I still do a double take when I see a black in White together. I am not particular proud of that and I blame my dad for it.
However I think most people understand equality. Most people living their life in the U.S understand we strive to achieve equality. We have work to do and perhaps we will get there one day.
Thank you for your comments.
trip*toe*fan
Fail. Why would a marriage contract be any different than any other sort of contract?? No where else does the government intrude to this degree in what should be a contract between 2 (or more) people. There is no valid reason for the government to be in the marriage business whatsoever.
Clearly you have no clue what libertarianism is. I usually recommend that people limit their comments to things they actually understand.
If there were no government benefits and privileges assigned to marriage, I'd be closer to agreeing with you. But, for example, the tax code treats married and single people differently. So the gov't must regulate who signs the contract to prevent tax fraud.
"Then get rid of that part of the tax code or other laws that make such distinctions." Well good luck with that.
But even if we lived in such a world, there are still issues like "is it OK for an adult to marry a child?" "Is a child capable of consenting to such an arrangement?" Here the gov't must once again regulate to prevent possible exploitation.
Hahaha. Well played. I did lay down some smug eye rolling at you and you returned it. Can't fault ya.
But I suggest you go read up on some neuroscience, you'll find rationality is an ideal few of us actually ever reach or are capable of.
thetrutheteller: Did you just try and cop out of having to supply evidence by using the "My evidence is so good and true that you couldn't handle it, so I won't post it. YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH". Are you farking kidding me?
#1. You're no Jack Nicholson.
#2. That pathetic "you couldn't understand the evidence if I told you" is a crock. It's a cowards way of saying "I have no evidence".
You sir, are a coward, a bigot, and a liar.
Post some supporting evidence or stop bothering. Till you do, you're just a nutjob and will be treated as such.
I was the treasurer of my college's Objectivist club. I know all about Ayn Rand and libertarianism. I just grew up.
trip toe
Now, we're getting closer (at least you're getting closer to my way of thinking). A flat tax would fix that. Rand Paul has or will be proposing a new flat tax that will be 17% for everything above $50k. Below that, you pay nothing. No deductions, no exemptions.
Sarah-3043284
Contracts between individuals deal with those issues all the time. Only in regard to marriage does the government feel the need to insert itself and the FACT of the matter is that most of the government meddling has NOTHING to do with any of the things you mention. If the government would limit its involvement to the things you mention you'd have a point but they don't and we have no reason to believe they ever will. If the government limited itself to things like surivorship, insurance, divorce, and custody we wouldn't even be having this discussion.
Massive fail. It is a legally binding contract, the only laws that would be required would be in the area of enforcment of the contract.
Backcountry164, I would say wrong. I will give you three reason the government should be involved with marriage contracts.
1.Legal Permission's
2.Taxes
3. Property
Just to name a few. That coincide with government
Well I don't believe in a flat tax. And even if I did, I'd be deluding myself if I thought we'd ever have one, thus not alleviating one of the many practical problems with gov't not regulating the contract of marriage.
Consider this issue: Immigration. You marry a U.S. citizen, you have a fast track to citizenship. Hmm...maybe the gov't would like to regulate marriage to ensure people weren't gaming the system there.
See again and again your ideology works well in your head, but when you try to apply to the real world you run into real issues. It would be great if the gov't weren't involved in marriage beyond dealing with the fall out from the contract. We wouldn't need to listen to mouth-breathing christian freaks drone on and on about god's wrath for sodomy and whatever silliness they fantasize about because of repressed childhood trauma. But unfortunately there are practical issues we must consider.
So realizing that, our best option--if we are for freedom, and I'm including you in that "we"--is to legalize gay marriage.
Back,
We can discuss our philosophical differences regarding the role of government until we're blue in the face. It doesn't change the unconstitutional nature of DOMA.
It'd be an interesting conversation, but I have to take a midterm in about five minutes, so I don't have time.
There is living together and there is marriage. The two are different obviously or why would there be such a heated debate right now, right?
Marriage was created by God. It is unity of two people, before God, and according to God's rules. And God's rule clearly state marriage is the uniting of a man and a women. If you don't like this? Oh well. Don't be angry at me. I'm just telling you the truth you don't want to here.
And people trying to change the rules of God is about as funny as people thinking they have a say in who does and does not go to Heaven. This to is ENTIRELY up to God. Again, please don't be angry or vengeful. I'm simply stating the truth.
Now you can call me names. Bash on Me. Bash on God. Hold your breath. Stomp your feet. You can even trick the US Supreme Court into thinking they have the authority to determine if the rules of GOD are correct or not correct. But this changes nothing. You are still in direct violation of the rules of God if you participate in homosexuality. Does this mean God is going to send you to hell? I can't say for sure. I'm not God. But I do know what the Bible say- and that is the word of God. And according to the Bible, things aren't looking good for you.
You are all in my prayers.
Looks like the Hershey Highway is growing larger. 8 lanes divided, and then some.
Trip Toe-
A debate without name-calling. Nice.
Marriage to a US citizen does not automatically qualify you for citizenship, fast track, maybe. But in the course of a typical 2,000 page bill, Congress could easily modify both the tax code and immigration code to suit. So, the ideology is still working.
Funny that you said you were an objectivist in college and then grew up. I grew up into Libertarianism once I realized that our government is fully corrupt and entrenched.
Darthfrodo
Same old stupid arguments:
You can't marry your dog, it can't give consent.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dog's consent to be petted everyday and many species take only one partner in life.
If you don't like DOMA just leave.
============================================================
No see it isn't, because they aren't doing that any time soon. To be practical, you have to look at the real world and ask, "what is reasonable to expect to happen." It is not reasonable to think Congress is going to seriously reform immigration tax and immigration policy such that the related marriage issues disappear. Sorry not going to happen.
So instead let's deal with what is going to happen--nothing--and ask well what can we do to ensure gay couples get equal rights under current law. The answer is legalize gay marriage.
In an ideal world, we can chat about how gov't should have nothing to do with marriage, etc etc. But we don't live in that world. Such discussions are fun times, but not actually useful.
I don't really give much time to ideas that sound like this: "If the government did X and allowed people to do Y, then we wouldn't have to have the gov't regulate social activity Z."
The more "if's" the less I'm going to listen. Sorry.
Every gov't is corrupt and entrenched. Why? Because people like to cheat and steal and pillage from people that are weaker than they are.
It's not because there are evil and good people out there. It's because people are people. And part of the behavior of Homo sapiens is to step on the weak around them.
It happens in every gov't. It happens when there isn't gov't. It happens when there is too much gov't. No ideology is going to stop it, because it is in our DNA.
But our DNA also makes us help people and form strong social connections. The best way to govern is to know that and find ways to encourage the latter traits and discourage the former ones. And no one set of ideologies cand o that.
As a Bigot, I just want to say, that if the door is going to be opened up to allow gays to marry legally then the door should be opened up to allow two adult male siblings to marry, an adult brother and sister to marry and have children, a father and an adult child to marry and have children, a mother and an adult son to marry, first cousins to marry etc. If you are going to change the natural order for gay's to marry then why discriminate against all these other consenting adults? It should be an adult brother and sister's choice to marry and have children if they want to, and not be told by some government that they are not allowed, right? This is the time to stand up for incest. The courts need to expand their decision to allow all consenting adults to marry, Right?? Not in my book, one is as bad as the other!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The Original Mac
Have you actually READ about heaven? I mean, honestly read how the bible describes it?
First, everything is gold... the roads, the buildings, everything. When you really think about it, that sounds really gaudy. It's like heaven has the same landscape architect as Donald Trump.
Then it states that the angels and everyone spend eternity SINGING the praises of god. Apparently god has an insecurity problem, because he created all these beings with the purpose of singing his praises for all eternity. Imagine if someone had a child, then forced that child to follow them around and sing how great their parent is ... for their entire life. "My Mom, is an awesome Mom, she reigns from the couch upstairs..." You would think that someone who creates the universe would have a little self-esteem.
On top of that, SINGING just sucks. Maybe it is just me, but spending all eternity singing sounds like a horrible existence. So heaven is basically a Christian Music version of American Idol, without the judges kicking out the bad singers. My ears hurt just thinking about that.
So let's recap... You exist in a place that looks like Donald Trumps bathroom, participating in Christian Music America Idol, singing to an insecure being, for ALL ETERNITY.
That may be heaven to you, but that sounds like the 7th level of HELL to me. I can understand why Muslims want to go to heaven, they get virgins. Christians get a horrible version of American Idol. F*** THAT!
Bogus. Government has no goddamn business snooping into private affairs. They work for us, remember, not the other way around.
Ed-2990755:
To point out that there is a distinction between homosexuality and heterosexuality is not discriminatory. All things being equal do you really believe that a homosexual couple is equally capable of raising children? Do you really believe there are no differences between men and women? Having been married to a woman and raising three children I can assure you there are.
Your 7-Eleven analogy is false. Let me offer you a more appropriate one. 7-Elevens offer both coke and pepsi. Is that discriminatory? No one forces the choice on anyone. Everyone is free to choose. So to continue with your analogy, not everyone gets the same water, because they DON’T WANT the same water.
The point of my third paragraph is to point out the obvious. Again, all things being equal, children do better being raised by parents of the opposite sex. If you have evidence to the contrary please share it. I think the history of mankind will support my point of view.
I have no ill will toward homosexuals. No one chooses to be a homosexual or heterosexual. I believe that is determined by our genes. If you believe in evolution, the fact that the majority of the world is heterosexual speaks for itself. That is not discrimination, it is fact. As I expressed in my earlier post, homosexual couples deserve the same rights as heterosexual couples. What they don’t deserve is to claim there is no difference.
" ... And my dog wants the security of knowing he can have my social security benefits if something is to happen. ... "
That would make your dog smarter the you.
DOH! Your dog already is. It's not afraid of Homosexual humans like you are.
Huh. Imagine that.
Trip toe duh! The problem with the general gay population is that they entirely fascinated and focused on their genitals and wants everyone to know about it AND approve of it. On one hand you want to be left alone and on the other you won't leave it alone. You DEMAND that we all see it your way. I don't want to see it your way. Have a civil union-it can be regulated,give you rights and not offend GOD and those that believe it is a sin by seeing it on every tv show, magazine, newspaper, internet. Maybe we originally thought live and let live and God will sort it out in the end, but you just can't leave the rest of us in peace by shutting your big mouths.
Atlas,
There is such a contract, it's called marriage.
You don't want it to be called marriage ? Why ? The only reason that come to mind is religion.
And you said your argument wasn't "god".
You're old fashioned in the same sense that the Jim Crow south was old fashioned.
MGUY478
No, but apparently you do.
You poor pathetic thing. I will pray for you. And I really do mean this.
You are so lost. I will pray you see the glory of God. And when you do you will sing his praise. Not because God ask you to but rather because you truly want to.
God Bless.
Oh isn't that sweet? thelieteller just can't stop deluding himself.
Well... seems to me your 'super intelligence' has yet to figure out how to actually use Newsvine, or paragraphs half the time. So we'll just let that one lie for a moment. But you know, someone pointing out how much of a bigot or close-minded someone else is does not make them a bigot or close-minded person. Just an observant one. I'm so scared. Especially since the Red Sea was never actually parted. Are we supposed to be scared of that 'intellect' that doesn't even know how to use the Quote operation of Newsvine?
Oh, expounding once again on an imagined intelligence. See? I used the Quote function again.
If that were true, I'd feel deeply sorrowful for the ancestors that would have cried tears knowing how idiotic their descendant had become. But since I, being 1/16th Cherokee do not believe you... Do the letters FO mean anything to you? No? How about GFY?
One, do you even know what the word hypocrisy means? It doesn't appear so. Second, exactly who is "shutting down all dissenters" here? You're trying to and then crying when you believe others are doing what you are doing. Now see, That's hypocrisy.
No spell-check needed. I added to my dictionary. (Do you know how to do that? You know, with your 'superior intelligence?') You also do not know the definition of the word "ignorance." I know what is in that book of fables. I've read it. Cover to cover. The fact that I don't believe that book of fables is in no way "ignorance." In fact, it's just the opposite. And since you obviously lack the skill set from Reading Comprehension 101, I'll explain. Buybull - It's a play on how you've "bought" the "bull@!$%#" in your book of fables.
Well, I'll let you attest to the first two, as I have no interest in them. But since the hypothesis presented in "On the Origin of the Species" (the correct title for the book by Charles Darwin, not the bastardized versions by the religious right) was actually accepted as fact beyond a reasonable doubt by Pope John Paul II in 1996. Hell, even Pope Pius XII acknowledged evolution as a "serious hypothesis" in 1950. Aren't you 'behind the times' a little there liar?
Okay, since I'm actually writing this, I am literally spelling it out for you. Your archaic religious beliefs have no bearing on whether or not a same sex couple can wed. You can have your archaic religious belief, but you cannot force them onto others. It's in the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America. (The First Ten are also known as the Bill of Rights, BTW, not the Bill of Denying Rights) Therefore, your religious beliefs are moot in the conversation. They Don't Matter. They're Not Relevant, according to LAW. See my statements are not on a religious belief. Yours are. Mine are relevant because of LAW. Yours are not relevant, because of LAW. You present a logical reason to deny same-sex marriage that is not based in your archaic religious fantasies and we'll discuss them. Until then, you've provided nothing.
And you lose again. You will never best a more intelligent person. And it appears that that is a large number of those on Newsvine, including myself. You lose again because you don't even know why you've lost. I don't have to try again. I've succeeded. Again.
Again... Reading Comprehension 101. It's there. If the Government were to allow you to impose your stupid archaic religious fantasies onto others, it would be the same as promoting a state religion. Know how many times THAT has been upheld by the SCOTUS? As for my 'non-religion' religion: "Secular Humanism" was cited as a religion by Hugo Black. It was mentioned in association with Buddhism and Taoism. The SCOTUS has 'corrected' itself in about 130 cases. Since there is no dogma or tenets associated with 'atheism' but rather an acknowledgement of no existing deity, that would likely be reversed as it was, like the changing of the POA and the US Motto, done during the "Red Scare" McCarthyism period of fear of those "godless" Communists.
OMFG!!! LOL!!! ROTFLOL!!! I'm SO SCARED!!! Not. I don't have to defame your name. You're doing that rather nicely on your own.
Problem? Nope. Just LAUGHING at you again. It's just that you're projecting so much. You DO KNOW that's really YOU you're seeing in that mirror, right?
I'm not the one projecting here moron. As I've stated earlier, you can have your opinion. You're entitled to state your opinion. But I'm entitled to respond to the utter stupidity which you spew out. Oh yeah. we did determine that you don't know what the word hypocrisy means, didn't we.
Projecting still, eh? I have. You were just too ignorant to recognize it.
Can't come up with your own ideas? And can't even understand the "mirror" and "projecting" metaphor? Jeez! Guess it's not in your buybull, huh?
No, they prove I do. But they also prove that I'll not stand idly by when some moron starts flinging bull@!$%#. An open mind and tolerance does not equate to blind acceptance or timidness. Look them up. You'll learn something, maybe. It's just like that inability for your ilk to not understand the Free Speech clause in the First Amendment.
Oh how @!$%#ing stupid are you? You're on par with the Middle East in your theological thinking and you want to compare my berating your bigotry and intolerance with fascism? Pretty damned stupid I'd say.
It's your buybull. Seriously, blockquote... can you use it? Newsvine even makes it work with a single click. And so what if I 'corrected' the word to describe it as well as name it? You gonna call the religious po-lice on me? Oh, damn. I'm scared again. Not.
Ooh. Good one. I don't know how to respond to such an intelligent comeback. /s/ - do I have to explain what the /s/ is also or can you 'superior intelligence' figure that one out by yourself?
OMFG that's soooooo funny. The universe and world and all in it created in seven days, a talking snake, living to be 900 years old, a talking burning bush, two of every animal on a single boat, living in a
whale, oh yeah, 'great fish' for three days, and a story of a virgin birth, healing the sick, resurrecting the dead, walking on water, rising from the dead three days after crucifixion that wasn't even an original story and had been around for over a thousand years is the 'reality' and this world is the fiction. And you say I'm the less intelligent one? Good fantasy. Keep telling yourself that if that's all that's keeping you from blowing your brains out to go see your gawd.Just re-read the above statement. It says it all, again. But you're getting better. I'll agree to that, to a point. You just provided the perfect example of Swiss cheese rhetoric. You've disproved yourself in the process, but... hey progress is progress.
Again.. Reading Comprehension 101. I'm sure they have a course at a nearby GED school for you. You can SAY your religious bull@!$%# all you want. I can reply to your religious bull@!$%# all I want. But when you try to force your religious bull@!$%# onto others in an effort to make them conform to your religious bull@!$%#, I'll shove your efforts straight up your ass.
Not yellow, and not pink polka-dots like you either. RED, WHITE, and BLUE.' Served my time, and bled while doing so, 'bucko.'
And FYI, just in case you can't comprehend this... when an atheist says the gawd references in the Pledge and the Motto should be removed (again you little christians were afraid of those 'godless' Communists in the 1950's) it's not promoting a 'religion' of atheism. It's neutrality. If there was an attempt by an atheist to 'promote atheism' it wouldn't be to remove the gawd references. It would be to change the POA to say "under no gawd" and the motto to be "There is no gawd to trust." The Official United States Motto was intended by our Founding Fathers to be, and should still be, E Pluribus Unum.
Oh, and just to remind you...
.
You Lose.
Ed-2990755
Do you realize God came before Christianity? That God came before anything? Obviously not
Do you realize you are giving God suggestion? Now that's funny!
Do you realize the US Constitution was created using the Bible as a guide? Apparently not.
Do you realize that all I was doing was stating the Word Of God and that it is you that is judging? Now you do.
God, please help Ed see how ridiculous he is being.
Well, you got that right. Which is why same sex couples should be allowed to marry. because it is different.
No, it wasn't created by your sky-santa. First, there is no sky-santa. Second, from where do you get your marriage license? Marriage was in places where relgion was not for hundreds of years. Also, I don't care about a 'truth' I don't want to "here," or 'there.'
Again, it there was a sky-santa, I might be worried, but since men wrote the buybull and filled it with fables beyond belief and from stories around for centuries... Yeah. I'm not worried.
Again... no sky-santa. But you have the right to believe it. But tell me... why is it that these religious folks believe that someone hearing gawd is only crazy when he's told them to drown their babies in the bathtub or some stupid @!$%# like that? Would a gawd that allows innocent children to suffer great pain and disease from birth until a horrible death really not tell someone to drown their own kids? Uhmmm, Abraham anyone?
And @!$%# you very much as well.
Do you realize you've been duped again? Funny! Oh, and @!$%# You Very Much As Well.
ScubaGolfJim
Scream, stomp, cuss, swear, yell. Do what ever you want to do.
You and I are here for a micro-second. God is here for ever.
Your like a leaf that denies the existence of trees.
I'll keep praying for the likes of you. And I mean that.
The Original Mac
ScubaGolfJim
Not trying to be a jerk but we can prove the existence of trees. Faith by its very nature is believing in something we can't prove. Even if you can't prove it, your belief is no less relevant to your life.
Repojam
We can, but can a leaf? That is to say, perhaps the leaf is as self righteous as tiny little man.
Open your mind.
And as far as my belief goes, I only wish you witness in life what I have witnessed. If you do you will eventually stop being just a leaf and expand your mind to see, after awhile, you don't need faith to believe in God. You know him to be, as sure as you know there are trees.
Grow in the Word of The Lord.
Mae,
Your entire premise is irrelevant because your "God" doesn't have jack @!$%# to do with our laws and you're confusing Holy Matrimony and marriage. You do realize Atheists and multitudes of people get married everyday without invoking any God, let alone yours, right?
Go pray for us, because we truly don't give a @!$%# about your religion and legally and logically you're going to lose this fight. We don't care about your "God" enough to bash it. We just want you to keep it out of our laws, that isn't "tricking" the SCOTUS, that's upholding the Constitutional right laid out in the first amendment. The fact that you can't tell the difference illustrates the level of your delusion.
The Original Mac
No, a leaf cannot prove the existence of anything. A leaf is not a sentient being.
What statement did I make that suggested it was closed?
I can go outside and touch a tree and confirm it is a tree. Matters of faith and spirituality are different. You are making a suggestion of my spirituality with this statement when you aren't even sure what religion I follow.
Hmm, after reading the certitude you expressed in your post, my wife and I just pulled out our wedding book and read our copy of our marriage license. We couldn't find ANY mention of "God"?
Do you think this was an oversight by the State of Oregon?
Do you think this means that after 42 years together and 38 years since our we aren't actually married?
This is going to come as a big shock to our 3 children and 8 grandchildren! How could the State of Oregon have been so negligent as to fail to change its documents to reflect your religious interpretation of marriage, and instead treat it as a secular and civil contract?
And here are the current requirements for marriage in Oregon. It appears the State has not corrected its grievous errors in the 38 intervening years since my wife and I obtained our license to marry; still no mention of God, no requirement of religious belief in God, no mention of God's law?
.
.
Obtaining a Marriage License in Oregon
ID Requirement: Drivers License or certified birth certificate or passport and his or her Social Security number.
Residency Requirement: Do not have to be a resident of Oregon.
If previously married: A license can be issued one day after the final date of a divorce. The final divorce date is required on the marriage license application.
Application Requirement: Both parties to a marriage should appear in person to obtain the license. Waiting Period: 3 days. There is a three day waiting period from the day the license is issued until it can be used. It may be possible to purchase a waiver for the 3 day waiting period.
Blood Tests: No test.
Under 18: Anyone not yet 17 years of age cannot be legally married in the State of Oregon. A seventeen year-old can be married if they have the parent's or guardian's consent. Parent and guardian consent forms are available from the County Recording Office.
If you are seventeen and have resided within Washington County for at least six months, and no parent or guardian resides in the State of Oregon, you may be married if you have an affidavit signed by someone other than the bride or groom stating these facts. Affidavit forms are available from the County Recording Office.
Legal age for marriage in the State of Oregon for both bride and groom is 18.
Name Change: Getting a marriage license with your new name on it does not mean your name has automatically changed. If you need to change your last name, you can use an on-line marriage name change kit.
Marriage Ceremony: Marriage ceremonies may be performed by the following: Judges; Justices of Peace; County Clerks or their Deputies within appointing county; Persons appointed to perform the ceremony by a congregation having regular meetings in the state (i.e., ministers, pastors, priests, rabbis).
Proxy Marriages: No. Both parties must be present.
Common Law Marriage: No.
Cousin Marriage: No.
Officiants: Ministers of any church organized, carrying on its work, and having congregations in this state may perform marriages in this state if authorized by their church to do so.
Valid: License is valid for 60 days. The license can only be used within the State of Oregon.
.
.
Hmm, seems pretty thorough, huh? And yet there is that pesky omission, no mention of God? Do you suppose that might have been intentional? Just sayin' ...
Your getting closer
Sarah-3043284
It is not a premise. It is simply true. as far as keeping God out of something? Your funny :)
Everything else you said is probably just frustration due to the fact you really do know what I'm saying is true. So I forgive you for using fowl language. Although some say that is a sign of being dim witted you know. And I don't want anyone to accuse you of being that. Of course, I will continue to pray for you. And I hope you do the same for me :) No one can have to many prayers said for them, right?!
Robert in Oregon
You have clearly shown how man has tried to take control of that which belongs to God.
Thanks for the help!!
Mae,
Holy @!$%# the denial is out of control! Seriously, no wonder you can't make a legal case because you can justify everything you say via your "god". Thank MY God, I'm free from your God, because he sounds like a real @!$%#.
Seriously, can you even attempt to make a case without your religion? If you can't or don't want to that's fine, JUST STOP TRYING TO TELL PEOPLE WHAT THEY LEGALLY CAN'T DO.
The only thing I'll be praying for is some antacid to help me swallow your tripe. You know, even if you ask someone to move to the back of the bus in the most sugary sweet, faux kindness way, it's still a @!$%#TY thing to do.
Seriously, you're shooting yourself in the foot here. Anyone with an iota of intelligence would in NO WAY ever want to say they agree with you. Thus, please continue.
Everyone Else,
Is there an emoticon for barfing?
Sarahf-3043284
Theres that potty mouth again
Legal case? By who's laws silly? Those of man or those of God?
Without my religion? Why would I want to do anything with out my religion? Or is it you think that if you can separate me from God you can defeat me? You maybe right about that. But you will not separate me from God. For if you did I would be as lost as you.
There are seats in the back of your theoretical bus for a reason. They are there for those who do not want to be near God.
P.S. I really did laugh out load when you started your cussing with the word Holly.
ok. These are responses to post #1.181 from The Original Mac.
Since your god does not exist, she could not have preceded anything, including faith.
And since you cannot speak for god, you are putting words in her mouth. That’s amazingly funny. It’s hilarious. The REAL god will burn your false god in a hell made especially for false gods – a godhell. I can hear the screams now.
Bullshirt. The Constitution was created to prevent the bible from ruling our country and destroying our freedom. The bible is anti-American and anti-freedom. It has no place in civil governance in the USA.
Since your god is a false and fraudulent being, her word has no truth. And if you think your false god judges anyone, it is YOU who are judging. That is punishable by 15 eternities in godhell
That's hilarious. The REAL god has already shown Ed how ridiculous YOU are being.
Nothing fails like prayer. Go ahead and try it – pray to your god to change my mind. Watch your prayer fail as I will never compromise my morality for you or your pitiful excuse for a god. Gay marriage is the morally correct thing to do. And if your god disagrees, she’ll burn in godhell for 777 eternities.
Cappy, so we get it but then again if you don't like guns then don't buy guns... do you get that? You have been pandering for gun bans yet you expect everyone to appreciate what is important to you right? Of course it's right. Hypocrite!
Ah, Sarah, I take your point, dear. And as always I am so appreciative of your gentle wisdom. And I SOOOOOOO want to believe that's true. I REALLY, REALLY do! (for entirely selfish reasons, of course). HA!
But I just posited your idea to my wife and our two daughters who are here visiting with us for the evening ...and all three have laughed at me and assured me that I am neither a "protected class" ... nor particularly special in any way, ... unless of course I get off the computer and finish emptying the dishwasher (in which case I will be allowed a piece of the delicious looking and smelling Peach Pie that our oldest brought fresh from her oven.) :-P
I really can't argue the wisdom or correctness of their evaluation; as I am old enough to realize that they are almost always right about these things. And even on those occasions when I am certain they are not, I find it is usually best to keep my counsel and agree to disagree (at least if I want a piece of Peach Pie, ... and I REALLY, REALLY do!)
Cheers!
Jim-3113262
Your one of those special projects I leave entirely in the hands of God. Tell her I said Hi.
Robert,
Enjoy your pie. :)
Good night everyone!!!
Mae,
How about the laws that MATTER, you know the ones that govern more than just YOU? The laws of our nation that are applicable to EVERYONE. Have you heard of those?
Because perhaps without your religion you might, MIGHT, be able to make a valid point pertaining to why gay marriage shouldn't be legal? Those laws of our land I already mentioned, they disqualify your religion as a means to tell the rest of us what to do.
I could give a rats ASS about defeating you anywhere except in the realm of applicable law, as the rest of it is ridiculous and irrelevant. The only reason I care about beating you are the multitudes of teenagers who are driven to suicide attempts because of the ridiculous tripe you and others spew and the legalized discrimination your bigotry and hate leads to. They need to see you for what you are, completely incapable of logically or legally defending your position.
And that's what it is. Bigotry and hate. You can dress a pig up in a silk dress and call it Lola, at the end of the day it's still a pig.
I agree that you need help, but you aren't going to find the kind of help you need in me.
What you have interpreted is your own opinion (which seems to be the entire thrust of every post you have made to this discussion thread); ignoring all relevancy of your opinions in relation to the laws of the State and Federal governments as pertain to the secular, civil contract of marriage.
I have read every word of the Bible. Taking your premise and expounding upon that: The Old Testament makes clear that when man has been adjudged by God to have overstepped to assert control of that which belongs to God, then God has dealt with those assertions.
Unless you believe that God is impotent, and unable to assert will, and remedy, and therefore you need to assert God's will, ... then you really should be minding your own business rather than imposing your beliefs -- and your certitude that you know the heart and conscience of God -- upon the relationships of other human beings. Otherwise, wouldn't YOU be "trying to take control of that which belongs to God"?
Just sayin' ...
Oh snap! My homeboy Robert is wicked smart! And now I'm seriously considering running to the store and buying a pie. Thanks.
Sarahf-3043284
Once again you are trying to take God out of the equation. Which of course is like trying to take the wet out of water.
I hope you don't think this makes you look educated.
Interesting. And then you go on to tool the poor souls who have committed suicide to future your agenda. Wow, you really do need prayers. And perhaps a good psychiatrist.
As far as hate? This seems to be something your well versed in.
Good Night.
Mae,
Once again, you're position is irrelevant until you leave your God out of it. Separation of church and state is a fairly easy concept to grasp. You should really have it by now.
Nope, I would leave that to the fact that I can make a case using legality including applicable precedent. You know, make my point without relying on "La la la la I told you so and my God and beat your God up".
Nice attempt at spin. Too bad it's about as transparent as your ridiculous, opinion based tripe of an argument.
Oh shucks you got me! I hate, hate and am bigoted against bigots. @!$%#.
Careful Mae, your thin veneer of faux kindness is starting to wear off.
Robert,
I hope your not getting pie on your key board.
No I don't think God is impotent. I also recognize when one is trying to deceptively put words in another ones mouth.
I have not over stepped anything. I am simply stating the word of God. Just as you are trying to silence the word of God.
So, what happened to spending time with the family?
Sorry it upsets you so much you had to put down your fork.
Sarahf-3043284
Gee, how does one respond to wit like that?
I still believe in God. I still believe homosexuality is a sin. I still believe my God is righteous and mighty.
I still will pray for you.
Hows that beating me thing coming along?
Keep working at it little trooper.
Really, I'm going to bed. But I promise to check back tomorrow and see what you wrote because I know how important it is to you that I do.
Night.
Still irrelevant. Still irrelevant. Still irrelevant. Good thing I'm not asking you to NOT do any of those things. I'm asking you to make a case WITHOUT those things, thereby making it applicable to ALL of us as opposed to merely you. You do realize that those aren't mutually exclusive right?
Knock yourself out.
I mean, it's so easy it's boring. You could at least give me an attempt at something applicable. There's only so many times I can tell you your @!$%#head of a God is irrelevant.
@ crappy,If there is a picture of me in forty years going against these fruits then at least people will know i stood for right and against perversion before this country turned completely into a sick @!$%# hole.
Hey sarah there is a emoticon for barfing. It's two homos kissing. To borrow your phrase, you made it to easy. You really get worked up over the pervert discussions don't you? Must be something close to you.
That's an interesting observation. And I have pondered a similar observation of my own.
I am one of five (5) siblings. We were each born about 2-years apart, all raised together in a very happy, very loving and stable middle class home by our two tolerant, liberal Democrat parents who taught us their loving and tolerant and charitable values. I am the middle child.
However whenever I am in the homes of any of my four siblings, the predominant thrust of the conversation which flows from my siblings and their spouses is judgmental intolerance and Right-wing to extreme Right-wing politics.
I love them all dearly, and I would give my life for any of them without hesitation. But despite our common upbringing I find that I have nothing of consequence in common with them, other than our blood relationship, since our parents have passed.
It is especially troubling to me when my siblings begin to spout their anti-gay and anti-same sex marriage rants, using popular catch phrases like "traditional marriage", "the sanctity of marriage", etc. Why troubling to me ... you may ask? Well ...
* All four of them have married and divorced, and remarried
* Two of the four have been married and divorced twice.
* Two of the four and their spouses effectively live separate lives, under the same roof. They share no apparent affection and have no intimacy in their marriages, and largely live in separate bedrooms and living areas of their homes.
* All four of them are registered Republicans.
* All four of them are fundamentalist Christians.
My wife and I are both left-of-center moderates, She a registered Democrat, I a registered Independent. We believe that same-sex marriage is of no consequence to our 38-year marriage or to the institution of marriage, and we have never questioned that we will be married until death do we part.
We both feel that all marriage is an affirmation of love, and recognition of the natural desire of two human beings to bond in love and build a life, and sometimes a family together. And we both believe that "their marriage" is not "our business."
By the preponderance of comments on these discussion threads, written by people with beliefs similar to those of my siblings, my wife and I are "those liberal types" who do not believe in traditional marriage, do not have family values, are without morality, etc. You've seen and read it, too. Go figure, huh?
.
"Hypocrisy perhaps", you asked. Well, I will not make that judgment of my siblings. I take to heart the words .... "Love is patient, love is kind",... "It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking",.... "it keeps no record of wrongs",.... "It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres."
However, it does not always appreciate, nor look the other way. Hypocrisy is not the word that I would use. But "lack of introspection" and "self-reflection" and "affirmation of humanity" are words that definitely come to mind.
Thanks for your post. ;-)
Not to worry. "Squeaky Clean" brand washable wireless keyboard and mouse. Pull the batteries and plop them right into the dishwasher.
Who, me? As I noted before you seem confused about what you know, and what you think you know (except as for your assertions that you know with absolute certitude what God thinks), and confused about what any of it does or does not have to do with the rights of two persons to enter into the secular, civil contract of marriage.
Who say's I'm not? Computer in the den, wife and two adult daughters in the den ... presently engaged in 'girl talk.' They know I'm here, ... I nod and smile from time to time as verification that I am still awake and have not fallen into a post-Peach-Pie-carbo-coma. Their conversation doesn't presently require, nor invite my contributions (and I am smart enough to know when to keep my own counsel).
But, here's my question to you: What business is it of yours; or do you also assert that my family life is your business to judge, just like you assert that the marriages of other people is your business to judge.
I have never gotten upset enough to put down a fork, ... or a spoon for that matter. Never gonna happen!
Robert in Oregon:
No so. All human slaves in the newly formed USA, were counted as 3/5 of a legal voting resident for Congressional representation - not for definition. The "3/5 rule" gave the states with adult slaves, more representatives in Congress. It had zero to do with their race.
Homer, your point is a distinction without a difference.
Defining a human being as less than a whole human being, for whatever purpose, and denying equal rights and protections based upon those cited or perceived differences of worth, stature or humanity IS EXACTLY the issue.
How can you possibly have missed that point?
Sartah....although you are correct I think that we should not be voting on civil rights issues the vote in California does send a message. In the MOST LIBERAL state in this country the majority of voters say gay marrigae is wrong. You can't simply ignore that little tid bit of perhaps the best poll possible. ALL other polls are slanted by the poll taker to reflect thier own opinion. When the public goe and votes the truth comes forward of what the majority REALLY think. For those here and other vines to continue to clamour that the majority of people support gay marrige is nothing but bunk.
Gay marriage and gay rights are two separate issues but the gay community is lumping them together to achieve thier goal of legally marrying thier partner. The purpose of this movement is to allow a "special" group of people be recognized as being equal to the traditional couple. I say traditional because for centuries marriage has been between an male and a female and that the marriage was consumated by "intercourse" if the marriage were not consumated then the marriage could be anulled. Now since gays can not truely have intercouse as we , once again for centuries have defined it, How then are these marriages to be consumated ? If you suggest that intercourse is not needed to show true love or commitment in a marriage and is not required then we should as a matter of fairness, allow mother son, father daughter and sister brother ,brother brother marriages as well. Incest afterall is intercourse between two people who are closly related. There are legal issues that allowing thse types of marriage to occure would clear up and benefits that "incestuous" coouples are your are refering too them, can't partake in but gay couples will. If we are to be truely equal we must also accept the none traditional marriges between closely related individuals who also only wish to be bound to someone they love.
Who doesn't want to feel comfortable? Including Heterosexual Couples defending their long-established "unique" sexual orientation not being undone and dismantled. It's called "Defense" of Marriage for a reason and herewith usher in the legitimate Constitutional "questioning" argument using the 14th Amendment for "Equal Protection Under the Law". Is that not also the point where the Constitutional tenent of "Equal Opportunity" to be "Unique" is Constitutionally spawned into existence? Is Equal Opportunity to be "Unique" Constitutionally found only in taking away the "Uniqueness" of the Other as is being predicated here, by the Gay Movement, to be the "only" duly constituted Constitutional legitimate basis? All arguments under Equal Protect/Equal Opportunity fail, except those in "Defense" of Marriage. "Defining" to defend Marriage is actually the only way that establishes the Protection and Equal Opportunity of the Uniqueness of the Other, rather than "undefining and dismantling" it, thusly also giving credence and legitimate Constitutional basis to the "unique" establishment, equalized where possible content and recognized and acknowledged utilization of "Civil Unions", for Gay Couples and Couple-ing. Gay Marriage in the States thusfar should be struck down and "Constitutionally reformed" to be reflected in Civil Unions in every State.
Verbatim, in the brief filed by the Lead Attorneys in their anti-Proposition 8 argument - "that marriage is a unique, venerable and essential institution. They simply want to be part of it." How about if "They" establish, embrace, be part of and live within their own protected "Opportunity for and of Uniqueness" instead of using inane semantics like "marriage equality" to take over Others' uniquessness to instead be their own.
Yes you can, because we don't vote on civil rights. There polls in the south that showed overwhelming support for segregation, perhaps you think we shouldn't have ignored those too?
Hate to burst your bubble, but they ARE equal to you.
That's none of your business. Answer me this, did some representative of the government show up on your honeymoon to make sure you and whoever you're married to were doing it properly???
I'm guessing not.
And, OH PLEASE, with the incest. You people never give up!...
Only if you ignore the reasonings as to why incest is illegal, which by the way is tied in no way to either homosexuality or marriage. That's why when we ceased to uphold "sodomy" laws incest didn't magically become legal. Find me ONE incestuous relationship such as mother/son as you suggest that DIDN'T originate in abuse, and @!$%# I'll go to their wedding.
But regardless, it's STILL not valid, because the slippery slope doesn't apply to expansion of rights, it applies to the contraction of rights. It's applicable to the government. Ergo, the legal and logical way to apply the slippery slope to THIS situation would be to say, "Allowing the GOVERNMENT the power to ban marriage based on gender, which is a PROTECTED CLASS, could lead to the GOVERNMENT claiming they have the power to ban marriage based on OTHER PROTECTED CLASSES, like RACE or RELIGION (which by the way is a CHOICE, just like I'm sure you're about to claim sexual orientation is)".
That just took "grasping at straws" to a whole new level.
Sarahp
Your the first person I ever come across with a key board stutter. Of course you have no idea how ridiculous you make your self look when you do that. and of course you will try some stellar come back, only to fail and resort to fowl language.
I told my friends about you. They all said they will pray for you as well.
Robert,
You type pretty good one handed.
Mac,
I'm still waiting for that relevant argument. Is it coming anytime in the near future? I'm willing to bet no, it won't and you'll continue to post your irrelevant, religious crap that nobody cares about.
Probably because you CAN'T. You're not capable of posting anything but your personal religion and opinion, which thank God, has no authority over us.
By the way, your prayers didn't work. But really, keep trying.
Thank you so much for the laugh. I would really like to see you get me off of Newsvine as I have broken no Code of Conduct or other rules for this site. And to quote Star Wars "I will never join you". To add to that, I was never looking to "knock you down", but show you that you are severely needing some help since Ritalin defintely wasn't doing it's job. But you are your own cup of crazy and you can never really connect with people who are that far gone. You are so out there that you can't even string together your thoughts and evidence to back yourself up. It's just defiance of how "we'll never beat you and you are the winner of some-such and we'll cower before your whatever". Threats over Newsvine mean absolutely squat.
Sarah-3043284:
What will be the major difference in 'Same Gender Marriage' and 'Civil Unions' or 'Common Law Marriage'? What about 'Holy Matrimony' and 'Marriage'?
Civil unions don't come with the 1,000+ benefits that marriages do. Nor are they recognized internationally or even between the states. Same goes for common law marriage. Not every state recognizes that. The difference between Holy Matrimony and marriage is simple. One's a sacrament or holy rite, the other is a legal contract. That's why Atheists and those who choose not to invoke any religion or God in their marriages are still married, and Holy Matrimony by itself isn't recognized by the state.
Sarah-3043284:
Thank you for the pleasant response.
I agree with your post except for the
I travel internationally a great amount and I know of very few countries that recognize 'Same Gender Unions/Marriage'. Any change in a current State Law and/or USA Law will NOT change that. Then what?
Sarah Sarah Sarah......you can NOT ignore that the majority of people are NOT in favor of gay marriage for what ever the reason is.
Gays also without fail proclaim that homosexual activity happens in nature therefore it is an natural thing. In reality there is no homosexual activity in nature amoung animals the resembles human homosexuality and what little there is that is similar is very brief not prolonged. Incest on the other hand is prevelent in nature and occurs ALL the time. If you were raised on a farm as i was you would know that if you don't already. So if the claim for one of the reasons to allow gay marriage is that it is natural . Incest is indeed MORE nature occuring that any homosexual activiy in animals.
One of the other sounding boards is that gays should be allowed to be with and marry the person they chose regarless. I simply use the very same logic but of course we can't have incest. You do know that incest is only present IF sexual activity takes place. Did I ever say that a mother would have sex with her son if she got married ? No you simply assumed it. Incest is no more vulgar that homosexuality.Yes there are laws agains incest. As you may be aware there are ALSO laws against gay marriage. Should the law that prohibit gay marriage be allowed and those that prohibit a mother and son from marriage not be simply because of public opinion? NO. Either boith or neither for the very reasons stated above. There is no differentce if the rights to m arry your chosen partner is blocked.
Actually, there is a very good reason: the US Constitution, which provides for equal rights to all citizens, and prohibits the tyranny of the majority over the minority. Besides, recent polls show the majority of people are in favor of gay marriage. So your point fails on two counts!
Cite your independent, peer reviewed study to back that claim up and discredit all other studies and observations to the contrary!
Nature aside, that is not the reason used to allow gay marriage.
If you want incest, ,you're free to advocate for it. But that is also a separate issue from gay marriage and a Strawman argument.
Not for much longer.
Avenger-2464988:
Your post makes extremely good points/positions. Homosexuality is a choice, as is Heterosexuality. Nothing happens until an action is made, which is a choice.
One suggestion: stop utilizing the word "Gay". Instead us the correct and proper term of Homosexual. The Homosexual Community high-jacked the term "gay" about 20 years ago because "Gay" means happy and homosexual sounds awful. Plus, they installed the term "straight" for Heterosexuals, which seems boring or square.
I fully support people in the USA living their life as they choose, so long as it is legal and does no harm to others. However, Democrats want the complete opposite.
You confuse behavior with orientation.
Until they were challenged and refuted!
Avenger,
Marriage is a legal contract, ergo it falls under the umbrella of equal protection.
First, there are certain "protected classes" laid out in the 14th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act. Two of them are race and gender. In the Supreme Court case Loving v Virginia, SCOTUS ruled that,
Now this case was based on race, BUT to support gay marriage, all you have to do is change race to GENDER, another protected class. PLUS, the 14th Amendment has a little something called the "Privileges and Immunities" clause. Which means, you can't deny the citizens, their privileges, or immunities, based on those classes. In this case, that'd be gender.
So, since marriage is a legal (that means law) contract, that comes with PRIVILEGES, you can't deny citizens, without a damn good, already been shown to exist, reason, from entering it based on gender, among other things. So, if the state can't prove a reason, to deny privileges to people based on gender, they can't make that particular law.Now, put it together. If two gay people want to enter a contract, and the state tells them they can't, because of the gender of one of the parties, THAT'S A BIG NO NO. And YES, this is about gender and not sexuality, that's why DOMA would allow a gay man and gay woman to marry, but not two straight men.
Also, the logic that gay people are free to marry, just as you are, i.e they're free to marry one of the opposite sex, is the EXACT same defense that Virginia used in their defense, again just turn gender to race.
The court ruled, AGAINST that logic.
Second, you have an implied right to privacy, mostly through the 9th and 4th Amendments. In a the SCOTUS case Lawrence v Texas, the court said this...
Third, AGAIN, marriage is a civil contract, that comes with over 1,000 benefits granted by the state. Most of these benefits deal with property, insurance, tax and probate law. Civil unions, do NOT grant equivalent benefits. In order to enter a legal contract, the parties have to have LEGAL CAPACITY FOR INFORMED CONSENT.
Furthermore, marriages are NOT religious, that's Holy Matrimony, which a church can NEVER be forced to perform against its dogma, due to protections in the 1st Amendment. This is why people can, and do, get married any day without ever stepping foot in a church.
Also, marriage has NOTHING to do with procreation. After all, we let people have kids OUTSIDE of marriage, and NOT have kids while married.
Finally, there are very few limited reasons for the government to discriminate in law, against one of these protected classes, and in order to do so, the government has to pass the test of strict scrutiny, which is that compelling state interest mentioned in Lawrence v Texas.
So....
The real question, those making the case for continuing the gender based discrimination of DOMA is, what is that compelling state interest? And before we start talking about marrying appliances, nephews, sheep, or dead people...
The reasonings as to why incest, beastiality, et. al are illegal is tied in no ay to either homosexuality or marriage. That's why when we ceased to uphold "sodomy" laws they didn't magically become legal.
But regardless, it's STILL not valid, because the slippery slope doesn't apply to expansion of rights, it applies to the contraction of rights. It's applicable to the government. Ergo, the legal and logical way to apply the slippery slope to THIS situation would be to say, "Allowing the GOVERNMENT the power to ban marriage based on gender, which is a PROTECTED CLASS, could lead to the GOVERNMENT claiming they have the power to ban marriage based on OTHER PROTECTED CLASSES, like RACE or RELIGION (which by the way is a CHOICE, just like I'm sure you're about to claim sexual orientation is)".
And then, ask yourself this...
Why doesn't STRAIGHT marriage lead to any of that?
And technically, the burden of proof is on those limiting rights, (the anti-marriage equality folks), so you all should really be making the case, not us.
Also, you have to look at the Full Faith and Credit clause in the Constitution. That says that the legal matters of one state must be upheld by other states. Right now, DOMA attempts to circumvent that and allows states to NOT acknowledge the marriage contracts of other states.
And NO, this isn't a states rights issue, that's why previous marriage cases, i.e Loving, made it to SCOTUS and was ruled on.
And OF COURSE, marriage isn't in the Constitution, because the Constitution doesn't govern the actions of citizens. It limits and enumerates the power of the government. The only time a constitutional amendment applied to the behavior of citizens was prohibition, and tell me how THAT worked out, please.
By the way, when we legalized homosexual activity via the Lawrence case why didn't incest magically become legal???
Because there is NO link. The reason incest is illegal HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HOMOSEXUALITY.
Homer,
Whether it's a choice or not is irrelevant, as we still have an implied right to privacy and the government needs a compelling reason to invade that right. Your choices are none of their business unless they infringe on the rights of others.
Sarah - Newsvine has gone to the crazies. It has become like a giant circle jerk of the stupid, religious fundamentalist, right-wing, gun toting wackos. It used to be interesting to actually have an exchange with people who had some intelligence even if they didn't agree with me. Now we only have idiots like Mac who can only rely on the bible and their god to substantiate their arguments. The brain has become a residual organ like tonsils and the appendix with the extreme right. Hope they aren't breeding.
Hate to break it to you, but if these people are anything they're "pro-birth". I'm SURE they're breeding.
Sarah,
I am sorry, but we can't accept anymore citing of legal opinions from you.
Your midterm results just came in........tsk,tsk.
Straight A's, I'm sure. :)
Sarah'
Obviously, guests are there, Welch's and grain alcohol are the only thing that make you this delusional. ;-)...
Hope your right. How tough?
Sarah so in reading your over stated and lengthy resonse you actually make the case that ther should not be any law prohibiting a mother and son and similar marriages. You did say that marriage has nothing to do with sex so if thses couples don't have sex then the matter that prohibits them form marriage ( birth defects primarily) is mute. You rattle on giving more and more creedence to my theory that there should be NO restrictions for any concenting adults regardless of relationship . the legal benefits should be afforded to them as well because many do not even though they are son and mother. The problem is you find the idea of this kind of marriage unsettleing and for me to suggest it as the same as homosexual marriage has caught you off guard and you have no defens for it. For you and other to continue to say that because you believe that Prop 8 was not an issue that should be voted on the results don't mean anything is bunk. The results ( even if prop 8 is rejected ) are that the majority DO NOT SUPPORT homosexual marriage. The numbers are still there. They are the result of people casting a ballot in a voting booth not answering a phone and a poll taker chosing not to count people who don't agree with them.
Avenger,
Seriously, you really just don't get it.
Except for the abuse issues. But STILL, REGARDLESS, this has nothing to do with homosexuality. Hey, if you want to fight for incestuous relationships being legalized, be my guest. That doesn't change the fact that it has nothing to do with gay marriage.
You do realize you're making a completely unrelated argument, right?
And you didn't answer my question...
The sex lives of straight people aren't regulated in THEIR marriages, so why than didn't THEY lead to incest?
Seriously, you STILL don't get it, we don't vote on civil rights.
You know, it doesn't matter how many times you post the same, defeated argument, it still doesn't make any sense nor is it correct, AS EVERY POSTER ON HERE AS SHOT DOWN EVERY POINT YOU'RE TRYING TO MAKE. You haven't countered or proven anything, you just keep posting the same thing over and over.
Now, find me some legal authority or precedent that supports your position. You know, something more than your opinion and conjecture, as that is OBVIOUSLY flawed.
MyOwn,
Not nearly as tough as trying to get Avenger to understand these relatively simple concepts. :)
Sarah,
Well, if you're done with that kindergarten level stuff.
Your next easy assignment, is to change your new neighbor's attitude. :-)
Sarah
,
Wow, talk about stalking. You are in violation of Newsvine COH from beginning to end. And I am reporting you to Taylor.
Sarah you amuse me....You simply refuse to accept the similarities of both issues ( homosexual marriage and what is termed incestual relationship) There not need be abuse for there to be a tight bond betwen a mother and her child. In fact many children live with thier parents all thier lives. Why then should thay too not be afforded the very legal benefits that a homosexual couple will if marriage is allowed for them? There is not difference of the two groups in respect to love of one another or the commitment to one another. In fact the love and commitment actually begins at birth for the parent child relationship. You can type till your fingers bleed but you will never beab le get past the similarities of these two groups. The problem this doesn't fit well with your agenda does it? Incestual relationships are thought to be sick, just as you think it must involve abuse. That is not always the case and there may not be ANT incestual behavior taking place for a parent and child to be fully committed to one another for life.
Climb down of your trone and look at the reality of the concept and you will see there is NO legal basis that the same rights and benefits should not be afforded to a mother and her child that may be afforded to a homosexual couple.
Mac,
You're cute. And way too sensitive. Your reporting me worked about as well as your prayers. Probably because your claim of my being in violation is about as logical as your arguments.
Avenger,
Find me the link in the law between them. Where's the precedent that homosexuality leads to incest? What exactly is the link?? Because the last time I checked, when we legalized homosexuality, when EVERY society legalized homosexuality, it NEVER lead to incest.
So, please find me some evidence besides your "assertion". You haven't shown me any reason as to why I should believe you. Like I said, posting the same assertion over and over and over, doesn't make it any more correct.
When sarah did i ever say that homosexuality would lead to incest. You see you are so sure of your opinion you aren't even reading the context of my comments. You coninue to mis the whole point I am making because , BECAUSE you are not will to accept that what I have demonstrated as the similarity between to people of the same sex proclaiming the love and care for each other and commit through a contract called "marriage, and that of a parent and child. There is no need of incest for a parent and a child to commit to love and care for the other but because you label this as incest it can't be legal. Your blinded by the labeling and have the same closed mid to the truths that you yourself accuse those of us who feel the same about homosexuality.
Mac - Who is Taylor?
In addition sarah you continue to dicaount the vote on Prop 8 as irrelavent however I will put a simple example out for you.
If 100 people vote for a proposal to not allow oh I don't know, kids to throw snowballs in hell and 85 vote against this mesure. The majority of people don't think kids should throw snowballs in hell.
When MORE people voted for prop 8 which was to prohibit homosexual marriage( throw snowballs in hell) than voted against it. That means the majority of people in California, the MOST liberal stat in the country don't agree with allowing homosexuals to marry. The result has absoluyly NOTHING to do with then legal aspects of it but does disprove yours and the homosexual community and MSN's attempt to tell us that the majority do approve of it.
Oh look! Another one that:
1. Actually believes in hell
2. Can't grasp the fact that Rights cannot be voted for or against by the "majority."
3. Ignores the fact that if #2 weren't true, there would still be slavery in the south.
This is the problem with America...and first an foremost the issue in Washington: Everyone wants to hop on the wagon after it is moving and take the rewards and credit, but no one wants to take the risk to start pushing to get it going.
Then how do you think the wagon got where it is today? Plenty of people have had their backs to that wheel for a long time. Besides, it's long been known that the people that get the most done are the people that don't care about who gets the credit.
By very few people who were public figures, until the last 5 to 10 years, because it would have ruined their career had they been seen seen pushing that cart.
The problem is when you start the band wagon, you are setting yourself to be shot by someone exercising what they believe is their second amendment right.
Let's not forget those that have died pushing this wagon. Some people fought for this with their lives.
How about marriage between 3 people?
If that, why not 4? of 5? or 6?
It's coming. Why stop at 2?
I'm for eliminating tax differences based on single/married status.
I also believe "marriage" is between a man and woman as they pro-create and I'm a Christian. But, if people want to loosen the definition, so be it. It shouldn't affect me.
TJefferson...Yep, break the dam and let all the water out. Problem is, once the flood starts, you can't tell the water where to go.
@TJefferson - you just proved your own point at the end...you are Christian and applying your narrow definition based on your religious beliefs on the rest of the nation. Well I am a Pastafarian and I believe that we should be allowed to marry whomever we want. I also believe that buildings with gold lower case t's on their roofs should be charged $10 million a year to stay open....this is a part of my religious belief and therefore should be the law of land. I assume you agree with me since you are using your religion to apply your specific beliefs to others not of your religion.
Every "wagon" has to start with one or more. Why would you limit it thereafter? Yes, some people jump on popular ideas, fads or beliefs just to "fit in". But those wagons surround us on a daily basis and perhaps you don't realize it. "Everyone has a smart-phone, so I need one." "Everyone is wearing bell-bottom jeans, so I gotta have 'em!" People's views and beliefs do change. I was very uncomfortable with gay people before I realized that one of my best friends for over 40yrs is gay. Talk about slapping myself in the face and waking up. Beliefs don't have to be set in stone. We just have to have open minds about others' beliefs and feelings and sometimes our views will change. A good friend or family member announcing his or her stand or lifestyle is the best way to set our minds free. I've been saying for years that every one of the closed minds in politics will open when they find out that a loved one is gay. It will keep happening and eventually will go unnoticed due to our acceptance and putting this behind us. Hate breeds hate.
TJefferson, that comment is as ignorant as the one about marrying a dog. There no moral problems with marrying lots of wives/husbands, but there are insurmountable legal problems, eg inheritance, survivor benefits and so on. Remember engage brain before operating mouth.
Marriage is a contract between two consenting adults. Not 3. Not NJSteve and a dog. A man and a woman, a man and a man, or a woman and a woman.
Bob,
Who gets to define "adult"?
TJefferson-6672202 - Christian or not, just stay out of people's lives and bdrms and quit worrying about how others live their lives. Don't like 'em, stay away. People marrying 1 or 100 people at the same time means nothing to me. I have no religion, but from what I've seen, I'd be embarrassed and ashamed to be associated with the Catholic church and its leaders. I do stay away because I want nothing to do with fables and fairy tales unless I'm telling them to my children. But they're free to believe and act as they want, as long as it's legal. You can bet that I won't be silent about them until they stop discriminating and covering up the abuses.
Lev.18.22 Lev20;13 1Cor. 6;9-10 Rom 1;26-28.27. This is the truth.
MFHPR:
So when are you going to speak out to the Homosexual community about the atrocities they commit while inside the church? Hmm? Afterall, when a person attacks someone of their own sex, they are part of the homosexual community. Why do you place the blame on religion rather on the person themselves? If the person was straight, would it not be his fault as well?
Perhaps it is because the media always depicts the homosexual community in a positive light that you fail equate the two and place the blame on something else.
mike-2598123
Hillary is pandering for her 2016 presidential run.. which shows she would sell her soul to become president !
Timothy1Mil
You're assuming gays will be around in 40 years. They're always just one generation from being extinct, like the dodo.
#1.3 - Thu Mar 21, 2013 2:44 PM EDT
Steve-452464
If your a frickin gay you won't have to worry about anything in 40 years you sick maggot cuz, you'll all be dead from aids.
Just a brief sampling of people so stupid that god must be helping them use a keyboard.
@KCBones. the state does that. It is assumed to be 18 years old and mentally competent to understand your actions.
I wouldn't have a problem with raising the age of marriage to 21 because I believe that people under the age of 21 aren't mature enough to make a decision of this magnitude. If they must be 21 to drink then they should be 21 to marry and join the military.
Are you aware that "marriage" is a State, civil institution and contract?
You may choose not to enter into the marriage contract at City Hall, and rather to make it a religious ceremony (and inject your personal religious beliefs into that ceremony) as a matter of your own personal choice. But your added religious symbology is irrelevant to the State.
The Church does not issue you your marriage license, and the minister, pastor, priest, etc., who performs your marriage is licensed to do so by the State, not by the Church.
The U.S. Supreme Court will evaluate "marriage" on the basis of Constitutional Law, not by translated passages from the old and new testament books in the Bible. But nice try.
And here's my prediction: The Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court will rule 9-to-0 in recognition of same-sex marriage rights under the equal protections clause of the U.S. Constitution
Well, some believe the Grimm's Household Tales have much more teachings of morality than your buybull. And That's the Truth drippy.
You're like the National Enquirer defending themselves in court by saying "But it's right Here! In Print! In the National Enquirer! It Must be true! It's Written!"
I don't think it will be unanimous, I've already written off Scalia as being on the wrong side of history. But I do believe it will be a majority ruling in favor of same-sex marriage, simply because the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment is very clear in it's wording:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
I'm fine with this. TJefferson is free to believe what he (or she?) likes, and is free to express that. However he (or she) states the obvious ... it doesn't affect him.
No, actually he isn't. Read CAREFULLY what he said. He stated HIS belief but did NOT state that everyone should follow it.
Read what he said ... he doesn't seem to be too worried about what you do.
It seems to me that a few of you are so interested in pushing your views, you are not reading other posts carefully. People are entitled to their beliefs, as long as they don't push them into the legal arena. If Jefferson as a Christian doesn't accept gay marriage, but doesn't object to it for others (as his post appears to indicate) then what is the problem? He is actually correct ... how does gay marriage affect anyone else but the couple concerned? The answer, it doesn't.
@ drp
Then also the truth (how many of them do YOU obey?)
1 Corinthians 14:34-35
Leviticus 11:7-8
Exodus 20:10
Leviticus_3:17
drp-587087 wrote:
drp-587087, Leviticus 20:13 translated from the ancient Hebrew passage "V'ish asher yishkav et zachar mishk'vei ishah to'evah asu shneihem mot yumatu d'meihem bam" roughly states: if a man lies down with another man on the bed of a woman they should both be put to death, and their blood will be on them.
Is this what you believe, that gay people should be put to death?
And if not, are you not reinterpreting "the truth" to suit the limits of your own beliefs?
If you do believe that gay people should be put to death, and that their blood is on them, how are we supposed to evaluate your own humanity ...as we ponder the question of the humanity and rights of gay people?
I find it kind of silly to be calling people, who have changed their views about allowing gays the right to marry - as HOPPING ON A BANDWAGON.
It's called evolving...and leave it to a conservative to consider that a bad thing, all the damn time.
Every white person today, who thinks black people are no longer 3/5ths human (but 100% human just like white people) - are just bandwagon people.
GOOD GRIEF, Yes, America clearly is dumber than a box of rocks.
hypocrisy1776, I wish I could give you 10 up arrows!
If anybody "thinks" about using the "holy babble" (leviticus) as "reasoning" for anti-gay posturing, let's not forget that in leviticus it also lists fornicators, adulterers, drunkards, shellfish eaters, those that wear mixed weaves, and ovulating women who go in public should be treated as "men who lie with men." This is the "short list," but I'd like to ask all these sinners to line up with the homosexuals for their justice: death by stoning. GET REAL!!
The United States of America is a SECULAR nation NOT christian or any other specific faith and was wisely designed as such by our forefathers to protect us from religious zealotry! Keep your "holy babble" in your pants and let all Americans be treated EQUALLY with Justice and Liberty (and marriage for consenting adults). When Brothers Grimm and Lewis Caroll get tired ya can always pull out the babble.
Beth - "People are entitled to their beliefs, as long as they don't push them into the legal arena"
which is exactly why conservative christians - en masse - passed gay marriage bans in nearly all states.
And I'd be willing to bet that T Jefferson cast his vote in favor of those gay marriage bans...
which isnt just "having a belief"...but putting that belief into the legal arena, as you say shouldnt happen.
How about you? Do you keep your beliefs to yourself, or have you voted against allowing gays to have equal rights in THE LAND OF THE FREE, AMERICA?
Jessica, I think if you will read again more carefully what Beth wrote, in the context of what she is responding to, you will find that you and Beth are largely making the same arguments.
And Beth is making the point that T.Jefferson is simply stating his personal opinion, based on his personal Christian beliefs, but is not imposing his beliefs on others nor stating that others should be denied equal rights because he personally disagrees. As Beth points out, he is in fact making the opposite argument.
I think we all need to step back from our first emotional responses to 'hot-button' questions like these and read and listen to what people actually write, and actually express rather than responding to what we think they really mean, and reinterpreting what they write as opposite of what they are actually expressing. As human beings, this is the least we owe to one another, right. It's the least we would ask of others when considering our own words, right?
;-)
Might this passage be interpreted to mean two men having sex with one woman, rather than with each other? I really don't know, but it seems that it could be a possibility.
Sin is still sin, doesn't matter who endorses it. It's still wrong.
Harry Sachs, are you sure that you are not making up your own babble and then trying to pass it off as the truth because you are having sour grapes that the majority of people do not care for what you think in this world? Also, never believe in the news polls because none of them will ever tell the truth, for the left, right, middle, and fringe have their own little propaganda machines to run. You can take that thing, you know, the part of your body that women that is referred to as your brain (well, it is down there as opposed to inside of your head) and you can politely stick it where the sun does not shine and I do not mean in your pocket, I mean in another place on your body where it does not shine.
Gays are incapable of conceiving without using someone of the opposite sex to do it. Idiots. Gays who have children are being selfish to "their" cause. Keep it in the closet.
I love how people like this honestly think anyone gives a good, god, damn about what they want. In response to this juvenile attempt at telling other people what to do, I will respond in an equally juvenile manner...
MAKE THEM.
So while we are at it, any plans you are discussing in doing with your significant other, children and any pictures of your other half at work should be removed and stopped. I mean, if you don't want to hear about what a gay person will be doing that weekend with their partner, like taking a day trip to the lake, you can keep your plans with your partner to yourself. Oh, and forget the fact that gay parents are another option to bring a child into a loving home. I know that is so selfish. Really. The nerve of them bringing in a child who would have otherwise have the system fail them and leave to live a life without understanding a parent's love and compassion.
This forum is pathetically scorned with hateful Homosexual who call people bigot when they are even bigger bigots then anyone. You are NOT the new black nor you should compare yourself to the African people.
In recent weeks, one would have thought the nation's first bi-racial president. Everyone from Oscar winner Dustin Lance Black and radio personality Rachel Maddow to Joe Solmonese, the president of Human Rights Campaign, the country's largest gay advocacy group, seem to be blasting Obama for everything from "don't ask don't tell" to Adam Lambert not winning American Idol.
In their minds, Obama is not moving fast enough on behalf of the GLBT community. The outcry is not completely without merit -- the Justice Department's unnerving brief on the Defense of Marriage Act immediately comes to mind. I was upset by some of the statements, but not surprised. (After the Tuskegee Syphilis Study, President Ronald Reagan's initial handling of AIDS and, more recently, Katrina, there is little that surprises me when it comes to the government and the treatment of its people.)
Still, rarely has criticism regarding Obama and the GLBT community come from the kind of person you would find standing in line at a spot like The Prop House, and there's a reason for that.
Despite the catchiness of the slogan, gay is not the new black.
Black is still black.
And if any group should know this, it's the gay community.
Bars such as The Prop House, or Bulldogs in Atlanta, Georgia, exist because a large number of gay blacks -- particularly those who date other blacks, and live in the black community -- do not feel a part of the larger gay movement. There are Gay Pride celebrations, and then there are Black Gay Prides.
There's a popular bar in the heart of the nation's capital that might as well rename itself Antebellum, because all of the white patrons tend to stay upstairs and the black patrons are on the first floor. Last year at the annual Human Rights Campaign national fundraiser in Washington, D.C. -- an event that lasted more than three hours -- the only black person to make it on stage was the entertainment.
Also, GLAAD is a joke to human rights since all they do is complain whenever someone is against same-sex marriage for which has no meaning.
Walter P Orielly Jr.via Facebook
Ed-2990755
Hey Walter, that's a great sentiment. Did you say the same thing to the minorities who pushed Civil Rights in the 50's and 60's?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No I didn't, they wanted a job, not stick their penis in poo for more bene's.
=======================================================
Howabout the women who pushed for Equal Rights?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
they wanted to vote, not munch carpet for bene's
===========================================
Harry-3603195
If anybody "thinks" about using the "holy babble" (leviticus) as "reasoning" for anti-gay posturing, let's not forget that in leviticus it also lists fornicators, adulterers, drunkards, shellfish eaters, those that wear mixed weaves, and ovulating women who go in public should be treated as "men who lie with men." This is the "short list," but I'd like to ask all these sinners to line up with the homosexuals for their justice: death by stoning. GET REAL!!
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
There are gay soldiers who have died for your right to post your opinion. Their own salvation is their business just as yours is your business.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Not quite, the Bible teaches God punishes by nation not individual, and with laws like Lawrence vs Texas and Roe vs Wade, we are all in trouble in the US
e.g,. -Katrina, Iraq, etc.
========================================
The Bible was written by humans not God.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
As I have posted many times and I have yet to receive any answer:
Tell me how the Bible has so many prophecies?
e.g. - David predicting the coming of the messiah 900 years before it happened in the book of Kings.
Daniel predicting the rise and fall of the Babylonian, Medo-Persian, Greek and Roman empires in his book.
maybe you should surf to www.AboutBibleProphecy.com for 1000's of examples that mankind could not
possibly have written by humans alone, tell me about how these authors predicted the future, were they just good guessers?
OR did man possibly pen the scripture with the holy spirits guidance, maybe?
No human mind could have written the Bible without the Holy Spirits guidance, you cannot explain the
Bible existence without the Holy Spirits existence and therefore God's existence.
=========================================
It has been interpreted over and over again through the centuries.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
those interpretations are accurate, the Dead Sea Scrolls prove that, virtually all the Old Testament
was found and translated to within a few meaningless characters of modern scripture.
=======================================
How do you know it is fact? Because another human told you so?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No, because God told me so in the Bible, penned by humans with the Holy Spirits guidance.
========================================
God created us in His own image and that means gay, straight, married, single, black, white,
red, brown, fat, skinny, taxpayer, homewrecker, etc.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"YOU" make yourself Gay when "YOU" "CHOOSE" to commit the sin of homosexuality by
taking your pants off and have gay sex, period.
========================================
Now it's high time you come out of your spiritual coma and "REPENT and "OBEY" God before it's too late.
PRAISE GOD!
Matthew 5:17 "Don't misunderstand why I have come, I did not come to abolish the laws of Moses or
writings of the prophets, I came to fulfull them. I
assure you, until heaven and earth disappear, even the smallest of God's laws will remain until
it's purpose is acheived.
Is slavery and it't purpose acheived you ask, talk to God.
1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess
slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring
nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not
Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I may remind you of the "SERMON ON THE MOUNT"
Matthew 5:17 "Don't misunderstand why I have come, I did not come to abolish the laws of Moses
or writings of the prophets, I came to fulfill them. I
assure you, until heaven and earth disappear, even the smallest of God's laws will remain UNTIL
IT'S PURPOSE IS ACHIEVED.
Is slavery and it's purpose achieved you ask, talk to God.
========================================================
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery,
as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a
fair price for her?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I may remind you of the "SERMON ON THE MOUNT"
Matthew 5:17 "Don't misunderstand why I have come, I did not come to abolish the laws of
Moses or writings of the prophets, I came to fulfill them. I
assure you, until heaven and earth disappear, even the smallest of God's laws will remain
UNTIL IT'S PURPOSE IS ACHIEVED.
Is slavery and it's purpose achieved you ask, talk to God.
========================================================
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a
woman while she is in her period of Menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24.
The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I may remind you of the "SERMON ON THE MOUNT"
Ceremonial Law, as opposed to Civil Law, Study Matt. Chapter 5 and "PRAISE GOD!"
========================================================
4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice,
I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is, my
neighbours. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I may remind you of the "SERMON ON THE MOUNT"
More Ceremonial Law, as opposed to Civil Law, Study Matt. Chapter 5 and "PRAISE GOD!"
========================================================
5. I have a neighbour who insists on working on
the Sabbath.Exodus 35:2. Clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally
obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Neither yourself or the Police need worry, God will take care of the sinner as "ALL SIN IS PUNISHABLE BY DEATH" Now "READ THE BIBLE" and "PRAISE GOD!"
========================================================
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating
shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than
homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of
abomination?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
God needed to separate Jews for the Gentiles in the old testament, and shrimp being bottom
feeders and full of junk he forbid the Jews as that is what the
old testament referred to before the coming of Christ.
Read Matt 15:10 and in Mark and others:
"Listen to what I say and try to understand, you are not defiled by what you eat, but
by what you say and do, what defiles YOU is your evil heart and
thoughts, you know murder, adultery, "OTHER SEXUAL IMMORALITY", etc.
================================================================
7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the
altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear
reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle- room
here?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I may remind you of the "SERMON ON THE MOUNT"
More Ceremonial Law, as opposed to Civil Law, Study Matt. Chapter 5 and "PRAISE GOD!"
========================================================
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed,
including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly
forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
God didn't want his people resembling other PAGAN nations of the time thus the reason for this passage.
I may remind you of the "SERMON ON THE MOUNT"
More Ceremonial Law, as opposed to Civil Law, Study Matt. Chapter 5 and "PRAISE GOD!"
========================================================
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin
of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Pigs have no or very little sweat glands at all, thus everything they eat is stored in them for good,
thus the reason, and yes you may play football provided they workout the current labor strife their having
I may remind you of the "SERMON ON THE MOUNT"
More Ceremonial Law, as opposed to Civil Law, Study Matt. Chapter 5 and "PRAISE GOD!"
========================================================
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by
planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing
garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend).
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
come on I don't have to explain Pollination to you do I?
those mixed fabrics did not breathe right and everyone was breaking out in rashes.
Ed-2990755
Let me get a couple things out here.
1. To those who say allowing Gays to Marry will lead to people marrying children and dogs: You're idiots. To get married you have to PROVIDE CONSENT. As soon as your Dog can sign that Marriage certificate as a Legal Person, sure, go ahead. Marry it. Same for your kids.
So no, you ingrates. Allowing Gays to Marry has NOTHING TO DO with Marrying ANYTHING ELSE.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
yes it does, many species have only one partner for life,
IF I WANT TO MARRY MY HORSE, WHAT IS IT TO YOU.
" ... Lev.18.22 Lev20;13 1Cor. 6;9-10 Rom 1;26-28.27. This is the truth. ... "
Who's truth? Not mine. Not that of my wife. Yours? And where do these "truths" come from? Some fable? Some fairy tail? Some imaginary being?
No thank you. If I want to believe in an imaginary friend, I think I'd choose Harvey.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0042546/
He is much easier to believe in. And doesn't require one to fear and hate like yours does.
Jessica ... you are proving my point. I was remarking on how people JUST saw "Christian" and ASSUMED that TJefferson was imposing his view on others ... even though he flatly stated otherwise. You make that same assumption. Did not anyone ever teach you about making "assumptions"? This kind of reaction is one of the problems ... you even alienate the ones who support you (or, at the least, don't oppose you).
Actually I have stated on these boards many times that I favor gay marriage -- for several reasons, one being the same as TJefferson -- I can't see how it possibly affects me or my marriage in any way. Second, I have not had the opportunity to vote on the issue, so I can't answer that question. But I love the way you again ASSUME ... without even bothering to read my entire post (or the one RIGHT below it), or any of the numerous others I've posted ... that I oppose gay marriage.
@ Robert in Oregon -- Thank you. My point exactly.
JP,
I think you should study up on the difference between tolerance and passivity. We can tolerate your views, that doesn't mean we have to be passive in the face of what we consider wrong. No one is telling you that you have to like homosexuals, we're telling you that you can't uphold unconstitutional laws based on merely that dislike.
Apply the "but for" test. But for the advocacy of some of these posters for legalized discrimination, what would any of us have to say to them? What's their "but for"??? But for the sex lives of strangers which is none of their business and has zero effect on their lives and causes them zero harm???
Yeah, nice spin but nobody's buying it.
No matter how a society changes or immorality becomes accepted, God never changes and is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Therefore, no matter how much people want to believe homosexuality is ok, God's Word still condemns it. It is scary how people will bank on their eternity and try to change what God says or put Him down for their own convenience.
Avenger-2464988, thetruthteller-3478699, Term Limits-6788103 & The Original Mac, just a couple of my own personal opinions in regards to some of the statements in your assorted posts:
1. There are other factors that need to be considered before deciding that marriage should be restricted to people of the opposite sex and that homosexual couples should be restricted to civil unions, tax codes has already been mentioned, however one of the biggest question to ask is what about the designation of Next of Kin or legal family? Most medical facilities are restricted by Federal Law (HIPAA) regarding release of information, a partner in a civil union does not qualify under those standards.....this has not been mentioned in any of the arguments I have read in this comment thread.
2. If theology is going to be thrown around & statements are going to be made regarding people who are homosexual going against God's law, shouldn't it be up to God to decide who has and hasn't broken his laws? Is there not a passage in the Christian Bible that states that God is the only party with the right to judge people? I am not saying that we do not make judgments on a daily basis, we are all human and flawed, however it is not our right or responsibility.
The "Golden Rule" is a favorite of mine, remember it?
"Do unto others as you would have done unto you"
This to me is saying to treat others with the dignity and respect that you would like to receive. People do have their own personal beliefs, but that does not mean that they have the right to expect all other to live by those same beliefs.
3. There was a decision made by the founding fathers of this country to make a distinctive separation of Church and State, maybe I am not understanding this properly, but I would think that any religious or theological objections to marriage equality should not enter into discussion.
There was a point made that several public figures have changed their standing regarding marriage equality because of personal factors - such as finding out that a member of their own family is homosexual, and realizing that homosexuality does not change who a person is, just who they are attracted to as consenting adults. I have personal experience with watching a family member change his belief, my Grandfather (who is in his 90's) has very old fashioned views on many subjects supports marriage equality after being told that one of his grandchildren is homosexual, he stated that he thought that ALL of his grandchildren deserved the right to marry who they chose.
A person's sexual orientation is in my opinion a private matter, what happens between partners is their own business (abuse is not included in that statement). I really do not care what other people do in their own "bedrooms". The only adult that I can make moral decisions for is myself, even my husband is responsible for his own moral decisions.
Robert in Oregon with your list theory...you could also add in dogs, children, your sister, etc and get the same results. Your logic is flawed. I can make up a list of good things and bad things of just about any subject and insert different people and make it seem ok. When clearly its not. We can all agree(well I'm sure some won't agree) that an adult marrying a child, or mom/dad, sister/brother, an animal etc is gross and wrong, but with your logic it doesn't make it wrong....because they can be stable, have meaning, be loved, be happy etc etc...The reason many of us have a problem with "gay marriage" is because of the origin of marriage. God created and ordained marriage. He is the one who defined it....not man. I know you are a lot smarter than me, and I am sure you can come back with some clever response to make light of what I said...but what I said is true. The same One who created marriage is also the same one who put a conscience in us. He is the one who determines right and wrong. The problem is people's conscience are becoming seared because of their sin. There is such thing as absolute truth and right and wrong whether you or anyone else believes it or not. If no one in the world believed God existed, it wouldn't change the fact that He does exist.
Why do every atheist think that by using the bible against us they own us? Such hypocrisy and it's used over and over again. Why are they even trying? Secular religion has lost their argument in the cases that they do NOT believe in the bible nor they should it liberality yet they continue with this agenda to beat theistic religion. I'm sorry, my secular puppets, but you'll have to better then that. It's funny because it is sad and atheism still prove that they have true understanding of morality.
We don't really give a @!$%# about your Bible. We're just sick unto death of you trying to use it as legal authority.
Perhaps it's because you try to force everyone to abide by what is written in it. It's fine for YOU to believe and follow that. It's fine for ANYONE to believe and follow it. The caveat is you can't make OTHERS believe and follow it. If you would just remember that small little point, the world would be a much happier place.
It's also certainly logical that if YOU try to make a point using the Bible, that you have opened up its usage for others to make a counter point.
And finally, like many others, you confuse "religion" with "morality". They are not synonyms.
Jessica-1170252:
It seems you just proved that point....
Sarah-3043284:
You admit you have hate for the Christian book named the Bible? How do you "appear" to support the founding documents (Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, and The Constitution) of the USA, but admit to hate the basis (Natural Law) on which the country was founded?
@Samantha. The Bible is the word of man and it will remain to be the word of illiterate man until you can conclusively prove that your preferred deity has ever fact-checked it for accuracy. Theists cannot empirically prove that a god exists so why should I ever begin to consider the probability that a bunch of desert dwellers were able to properly write down their gods declarations.
How many times has the bible been edited for various reasons?
What did Jesus have to say about homosexuality?
Homer,
I don't hate the Bible, I don't care enough about it to hate it. And your premise that we're a "christian" nation is so wrong it's laughable...
First, quotes from the founding fathers are NOT governing documents or laws, ergo they have no standing over how we run our country.
But you were right, there are PLENTY...
There are also PLENTY of SCOTUS cases, which actually ARE law and govern us...
But here's the real test, if you're so sure that your Christianity governs us, walk into a court and try to use your Bible as a legal authority. Just make sure you video tape it, because I want to watch you get laughed right out of there.
Find me ONE, just ONE SCOTUS and/or statute case that allows for your religion to govern the populace as a whole.
I believe you confuse "Secular religion" with morality and truth. They are not synonyms as well.
Sarah, for once please stop using one line quote that you believe it support Atheism when it doesn't. BTW, Thomas made a mistake on the separation of Church and State because it does not support your religion.
“The constitutional separation of church and state” – a reference to the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights – is a phrase Americans hear literally every day from the news media, from legal organizations, from politicians and pundits, and especially from zealous attorneys and judges.
“Separation of church and state” was used by the ACLU to demand that a banner proclaiming “God bless America,” erected outside a school shortly after Sept. 11, 2001, to honor the 3,000 murdered Americans, must be taken down.
“Separation of church and state” was used to deny a little, handicapped girl the right to read her Bible on the bus on the long trip to school.
“Separation of church and state” was used to take Justice Roy Moore’s 10 Commandments monument out of the Alabama Judicial Building, and it is being used right now to challenge the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance.
The phrase is repeated so often and with such assurance, one would think it is the keystone phrase of the U.S. Constitution.
And yet – the words “separation,” “church,” or “state” are not found in the First Amendment, nor in any other founding document for that matter.
In fact, the entire “constitutional separation of church and state” is a recent fabrication of activist judges who have ignored the Constitution’s clear meaning.
Indeed, says U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist, in the stunning November issue of WND’s Whistleblower magazine, “There is simply no historical foundation for the proposition that the Framers intended to build the ‘wall of separation’ [between church and state].”
"To the corruptions of Christianity I am, indeed, opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense in which he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence."- Thomas Jefferson
PS don't use deism as a way to support your theory and your religion because it isn't going to help.
WND, really???? Tell me, how's "Friends of Hamas"???
http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/stories/2008/wndlawsuit2.html
Other than that I don't really know what your point is, as you didn't provide what I asked for...
Find me ONE, just ONE SCOTUS and/or statute case that allows for your religion to govern the populace as a whole. Articles from the most discredited website in the WORLD are ALSO not legal authority.
And the examples you gave, which by the way you didn't provide links to so who knows if you're even telling the truth, are off point, as this isn't about freedom to practice, you have that and if those cases are true the plaintiffs will win, this is about freedom FROM religion.
But seriously...
But here's the real test, if you're so sure that your Christianity governs us, walk into a court and try to use your Bible as a legal authority. Just make sure you video tape it, because I want to watch you get laughed right out of there.
I would but that be a protestant thing to do. I'm catholic which is different. You know should the difference between Catholic (the original Christian) and protestant (the man-made Christian) so maybe you should stop call every Christian.
Here's a good reason why I know atheism has not only doomed themselves but destroy morality. Let's look at this from a logical/scientific standpoint.
In short, belief in God/Supreme Being speaks to a deep need in the human psyche. It is vital to human beings to feel that they are not alone, that they have approval from authority figures, that it is not "us against them" in a world where "them" is getting progressively larger and life is getting more complex.
It is comforting to believe that the most powerful being in existence is guiding you, helping you, approving of you, and LOVES you. Denying the existence of a supreme being removes a layer of comfort from the individual's life and opens a person up to despair and hopelessness when things do not go as we planned or hoped.
So, IMO and that of many real scholars, atheism will never gain unbelievers in numbers that are comparable to the number of believers. This is because they have nothing to offer other than logic that has no answers and total belief in self - an idea that makes most people uncomfortable on a deep psychological level.
As a believer, myself, I feel that while belief in self is too often overlooked and, IMO, extremely important in order to be a truly productive member of society, belief in a supreme being is necessary, accurate, and essential to leading a meaningful life. At the end of our lives, we want to be able to look back on our lives as having been productive and, most of all, meaningful.
So, IMO, people need to believe in themselves as creatures of God who have a vital role in this life and work towards their goals - not simply pray and wait. One should pray and work. Pray for God's help so that our work will be successful and, even better, pray WHILE working towards our goals and believe that He has given us the wherewithal to succeed. And when our time is up, we will be able to rest knowing that not only has our lives been productive but they will have had meaning in God's Plan for us.
Plus, the morality on atheism is the opposite of a Christianity because it involves criticizing and false documenting theistic religion (aka Christianity).
Sarah pull your head out of the dirt and smell the air because these legal cases you post are a result of intolerates and lack of knowledge
JP,
It doesn't matter what religion you are. Take whatever Holy Book you desire, walk into a court room and tell the judge it's your legal authority.
Tell me how that goes for you.
Not at all. I was quite clear. Religion and morality are not synonymous ... no matter how you try to twist things with the currently popular "secular religion" catch phrase. "Secular religion" is simply what conservative Christians are trying to use to get around separation of church and state.
I also find it somewhat interesting that you consider Catholics to be the "original Christians". To start with, the "original Christians" were, gasp ... Jewish! A religious group that Catholics have had a great deal of, er, difficulty with. As Christianity developed there were many different sects. The one that is now Catholic was able to gain the most power and, after the Council of Nicaea. I will agree the Catholic church descended from that ... because it was declared that everything else was heretical and was destroyed.
Nope -- sorry. While I respect that YOU believe this, I can assure you that many people who are non-religious and yes, even atheist, are productive members of society and lead meaningful lives. Here are just a couple you may have heard of: Freud, Hemmingway, Billy Joel, John Lennon, Warren Buffett, Thomas Edison, Mark Twain, Andrew Carnegie, Helen Keller, Bob Geldof. A group of people who led (or are leading) meaningful and productive lives.
JPC45?
I always heard it as Jesus "H" Christ, not Jesus P.
Ok, where do I start? Thomas Edison? DEIST NOT ATHEIST because he wrote a letter to the editor saying that he is not an atheist and he disregard atheism. How in this earth could you get this wrong? Andrew Carnegie? NOT ATHEIST because he converted to Christianity when his view soften by his wife and brought the managerial system because of Christianity. Helen Keller? NOT ATHEIST because her letter talks about her christian belief.
Bob Geldof? Garbage. The head of an African AIDS charity has slammed campaigns by the likes of Bono and Bob Geldof, including Band Aid, Live Aid and Live 8, claiming that they actually increase problems in Africa.
Jobs Selasie, head of charity African Aid Action, claimed that such campaigns increase corruption and dependency on the continent.
Selasie explained that he believed that the western media had an obsession with political correctness which diverted from what he believes are the real causes of poverty in Africa.
The charity says since the original Band Aid campaign, the number of Africans living on handouts has increased by 500 per cent and African governments who used to rely on only 20 per cent of their annual budget from overseas aid are now dependent on a 70 per cent contribution. Nice try but no ciger.
The rest is not worth talking about their charity is for same-sex marriage and other charity not worth mentioning about. Why do you think you can outsource me with history you know nothing of? I'm a catholic and poor but I did a hell lot more then these so-called "Moral" atheist could. Sure atheist can make a donation and I see no problem in that but when it comes to charity that's where everything falls apart. As for the original christians comes from were not Judean. In fact, the very first followers of Jesus were called the Nazoreans. This was a general name for the Gentile followers of Christ.
Now we know why the both have a $hit eating grin on their faces.
Many heterosexuals like anal sex and oral anal as well.
Well I triple posted.
Triple post, sorry, not my intention.
That makes a threesome Eric.
Hey Eric, I'll bet I know what's up with Deerhunterbow1. He's probably embarrassed because he gets so much of a secret thrill when he gets his annual prostate exam that he has an "annual" by sixteen different doctors.
Hey christians, did you forget about the prostate during your typical "a man has a penis and a woman has a vagina argument?" What about the "just-in-case" prostate? And since most women say a man can't tell a clitoris from a doughnut, it must be a "just-in-case" for the women also. See? Your gawd did take homosexuals into account during creation.
Lev.18.22 Lev20;13 1 Cor.6;9-10 Rom.1;26-29.27. This is the truth.
durp, what makes you think you know what truth is?
@DRP587087. Are you aware of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution and what is means?
BTW When did your deity ever fact-checked any of those supposed inspirations that are credited to him? What did Jesus have to say about homosexuality?
Well Obviously because his gawd told him so. His gawd even gave drippy a book that this gawd, being an all-powerful and all-knowing deity was unable to write himself.
well, thanks to msNBC: FILTH & PERVERSION are on the march again.
And they just keep on letting you do it, day in and day out. Well, this may be a bit presumptuous, but on behalf of NBC, "You're welcome freddy. And keep on marching!"
ScubaGolfJim
Hey Eric, I'll bet I know what's up with Deerhunterbow1. He's probably embarrassed because he gets so much of a secret thrill when he gets his annual prostate exam that he has an "annual" by sixteen different doctors.
No not really. I'm about to turn 56 & had my prostate removed 5 years ago due to prostate cancer. Had 39 Radiation treatments last year. I never have to have the finger wave again for the rest of my life. I guess my Prostate got worn out with STRAIGHT sex. Been married to the same beautiful woman for over 30 years. I have never had another man inside my body & have never "entered" another man. The only man to enter my body , did so after cutting through my abdomen & removing all my guts to get to the good parts. You know, you queers should really try a vagina sometime. Looks better, feels better & smells a lot better than a rectum. Clean up is a lot easier also.
So? I'll bet you did enjoy those non-existent prostate exams that found your "cancer." Either that or homo-erotic dreams tend to be big influences to the degree of homophobia in people.
Yeah, and I'll bet you think that everyone that supported the Civil Rights Movement in the 60's was black, right? And we heterosexuals enjoy sex in many ways and not all of us are so homophobic that we're unwilling to experiment with our equally heterosexual partners. Sorry for your 'sheltered' lifestyle there Deer. But please enlighten me... exactly how would you know it "feels better?"
BTW, if you were worried about "clean up" being easier, you weren't doing it right.
#3.13, Scuba,
You need to talk with an RN about which is easier to clean & clear, IF you can accept reality.
Many of them have filed formal briefs with the court.
I had to do a double take on that. The first time I saw it, I wondered what they were filling their drawers with? When it comes to these "Gay" stories, you never know.
So is the one guy holding the roses the catcher? aka Bride?
Deerhunterbow1 - this is really for adult discussion. Time for your nap, then you can have milk and a cookie.
when you see a straight couple walking down the aisle, do you start fantasizing about the sexual positions they might take that night?
Yep, the one with the bouquet has to be the bride. Its hard to tell without the flower designation.
Why, are you cruisin' for a piece of ass?
Lev. 18.22 Lev.20 ;13 1Cor.6;9-10 Rom 1;26-28.27.The truth will set you free.
That's nice...but don't you have your own salvation to worry about?
I don't have time to worry about anyone else's...mine is a full-time gig.
well, thanks to msNBC: FILTH & PERVERSION are on the march again.
drp-Ex-Lax will set you free. It's the Truth!
Where is all the love?
Romans 13:8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.
:9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
:10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.
so many christian on here and other articles about their gay brothers and sisters today, and almost none of them following the word of Jesus, you all should find another label for yourselves because you give real christians (people who believe jesus was the son of god and attempt to live their lives by his examples of loving your fellow man.) a bad name.
I think "bigots of the church of hate" fits nicely!
Why, are you cruisin' for a piece of ass?
I guess you Queers have to ask it that way. At least straights can call it some pussy. You should try it some time. Clean up is a snap.
@hypnoticfreedom
Maybe take a lesson from The Most Reverend Justin Welby, the new Archbishop of Canterbury. He supports the church's opposition to performing same-sex marriage and the church's opposition to the ordaining homosexual clergy but stated outright that homophobia has no place in the church.
No man may serve two masters...that's what Christ taught in the Sermon on the Mount. He said this as it pertains to money...or if you will, greed...that man may not serve both God and greed. I submit to that man also may not serve both God and fear or God and hate.
"Beloved, let us love one another for love is of God and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. Those that do not love do not know God for God is love." - 1 John 4: 7-8
...and then she can go make you a sandwich like she's supposed to, right?
"Queers"???
Feel free to join us in 2013.
Dirty picture in the title!
Yes...two men arm-in-arm...THE HORROR!!!
Deerhunterbow1 - I am afraid for the human race to know that folks like you inhabit the planet. What a disgusting, bottom feeder you must be.
On the subject itself and not the politicians: America is about tolerance. You do not have to like or agree with people's views, opinions, religion etc. It is allowed provided it does not interfere with others freedoms and you must tolerate it. I have friends and coworkers who are gay..BUT...
The only trouble I have had with the "movement" is that it has been forced down our throats by public opinion, pressure , and discrimination tactics. Tolerating and accepting is required, agreeing with it or supporting is optional. Everyone should have the right to personally object to gay marriage just as they have the right to support it.
This is especially the case if the laws effect the cost of my heath care or taxes, since the legal ramifications of marriage are a government issue, not a religious or moral one, that does effect the lives of others.
Glen-even if gay marriage did have some impact on "the cost of your health care or taxes" that wouldn't be an ethically or legally valid reason for opposing it. The costs are irrelevant to the equality argument. You would have to show why gays are not entitled to imposing the same costs on your health care and taxes as straights are.
Put another way, it would be like trying argue that providing equal educational opportunity to African Americans was simply too expensive and they should be relegated to their second-rate schools because to do otherwise would have too big an impact on your taxes. I think we all know what the court said about that in Brown v Board of Ed.
What you fail to understand is the institution of marriage was fundamentally never created on ethics, but practicality. I did not make this up, it was made thousands of years before you, me or modern government at a time where there was no state care or resources or medicine to deal with the consequences of polygamy without legal obligations. The majority of what we call socially acceptable ethics and religion are all based on practicality and what is required at the time to keep society functioning. The fact is, at this moment in history, we feel that it is ethically allowable: BTW The Spartans felt that way also for practical purposes, and history proved it in part may have lead to their demise. We may or may not follow this route.
And the same argument goes (was used) for slavery before industrialization took hold.
Glen, you have an, umm, interesting grasp on history. I've never read anything connecting Sparta's fall to gay marriage. Rather, it had to do with the unsustainability of it's military-social model with it's authoritarian bent and unwillingness to pursue development in other areas of society (agriculture, economics, etc.) In short words, it picked fights with all it's neighbors and never learned to do anything else. But please, enlighten us with out Sparta's gay tolerance lead to it's downfall. I'd love to learn something new today.
As to your thoughs on the the history of marriage, first, let's note that the separation of ethical from the practical isn't as clear cut as you would imply for most models of ethics. Frequently, ethics define what is practical by defining limits to what is social acceptable and therefore making that which is not ethical impractical by the social response it attracts.
Further, the function of marriage has always been tied to ethics, determining ethical sexual boundaries, determining the scope of familial relationships to which one has a heightened ethical duty, etc.
But to the extent that the practical and ethical collide, the entire idea behind ethical thinking is to compel someone to do the ethical (right) thing even when practical difficulties present themselves. You even concede as much with your fictions about the Spartans, implying they did the "wrong" thing by tolerating gay relationships because they thought it to be practical, and in doing the "wrong" somehow lead to their demise.
Basically, your positions are a mishmash of incoherent philosophical thinking and historical fictions.
So Glen, who's STOPPING you from expressing your "right to personally object to gay marriage"?
What you fail to understand is the institution of marriage was fundamentally never created on practicality, but on necessity. It was created as an attempt to prevent the increasing number and severity of birth defects by procreation with close family members. It was not created by religions.
Glen-if marriage was made thousands of years before you, how do you know what it was created from? You weren't there to witness what marriage was created from, therefore you don't need to be speaking about it "factually". Marriage has it's own meaning to everyone. If you can't respect what it means to someone who is in love with someone of their own gender, then you just need to keep you're mouth shut. Put it this way, if someone were to discriminate on your belief in marriage, wouldn't you be offended? Think about that next time you discriminate on someone else's belief or views on who should and shouldn't be together, ok?
Let's assume for a moment that being gay is a matter of genetics. I'm only 5'5' tall and there's nothing I can do about it. I can't drive most motorcycles because my feet don't reach the ground. I have an impossible time finding pants to fit, and I will never make it in pro basketball. I have accepted the limitations that my gene pool have presented me and live with them.
Marriage is like being short - live with the limitations and don't tell people to get over it when you try to change the rules to fit your needs.
Tom-
Here's where your analogy fails--There is no law telling motorcycle makers can't make motorcycles for short people. There is no law that says that short people can't play basketball. There is no law that says that stores can't sell pants sized for short people.
You are confusing dealing with physical reality, which is immutable, with dealing with THE LAW, which can be changed.
Marriage has always been about money and power, who has it, and who gets it later (after debt, after dissolution). It stipulates responsibilities and obligations outside the realm of religion. Religion is just the coating on top to make the whole "sordid" money and power thing more palatable (its all smoke and mirrors really).
Lev.18.22 Lev20;13 1cor6;9-10 Rom1;26-28.27. the truth.
You taxes/costs go up all the time due to other people's actions. For example, I'm not married, therefore anyone getting a married tax break at all costs me. I could use that same argument to state that no marriage should be allowed as about half of them result in divorce but still had the tax breaks and still create a burden for me and others who are not married.
No married couple should get a form of tax break until children enter the mix either through the usual route of procreation, adoption, or artificial insemination.
ACTUALLY, SINGLES have been discriminated against by paying for married couples and their offspring for decades in the form of tax breaks/incentives. Getting married carries more than 1,000 tax breaks and incentives for couples with or without children and all this without a single word from the majority of the population - the singles. Wouldn't it be nice to reverse this ridiculous policy and see our population problems reverse considerably. Enhance benefits for singles that do not have children until the age of 30 or something like that. Tax breaks for ADOPTIVE parents for a few years and we will could see an incredible improvement for many children and a correction to the unfairness of benefits flowing to marrieds for the sake of being married or having children. Having children should be a privelege and financial responsibility should be accountable by potential parents... gay or straight. Hows' that?
Doggysaywhat, Now you took the conversation a different direction but the answer is simple.
Tax regulation is something that changes constantly. You may be able to persuade law makers to change tax deduction only to couples with children. BUT! and that's the BIG but! fair is equality would include hetro as well as homosexual couples. See not so hard
If thats what you want call your legislator and if you get enough support you could change that tax reg.
Sarah, I agree with your sentiments but your logic is dreadful: If you don't like gay marriage, then don't marry someone of your sex. Change that to: If you don't like murder, then don't kill anyone. Feel the same way?
For Darn, that logic is even worse because you're trying to associate murder (an action that has arguably the largest effect possible on someone else outside of torturing and then murdering them) to gay marriage (an action which has little to no effect on anyone outside of the marriage). That's why you can't really change one statement into the next and have it make any sense at all.
For Deebo. My response was to Glen in his initial post regarding how marriage of two people can affect someone outside of the marriage. He's hinting that allowing such things as gay marriage will possibly cause his taxes to go up. I'm pointing out that this already happens and I can use a similar argument against any marriage as it can cause my unmarried taxes to go up. I never argued that a gay couple shouldn't be allowed to marry and take advantage of the similar tax status as hetero married couples. I argued that all couples should only receive a tax break when children are involved as that is one of the primary reasons for having a tax break. This tax break would apply to any type of couple regardless of their sexuality as long as they were the primary care givers of the children.
More political rubbish with public figures showing their disingenuous support for something they could care less about otherwise in order to gain something. The sodomite attack on morality continues dragging our country into a new dark age while our leaders ignore the real issues facing society
Are you arguing against Freedom?
yeah, "pro freedom" has a sense of humor. :)
@dave - Of course he's arguing against freedom. Peckerwoods like him believe that "freedom" means he does whatever he wants - and so does everybody else. That's a very common theme among the "values" crowd, whose members think the law should reflect their superstitions, their paranoia, and their hatreds.
If they would call it anything But Marriage the American people would not have a problems with 2 queers or lesbians being joined in a civil union. I don't condone a perverted lifestyle.Most citizens voted for DOMA and marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman. This is not a "rights issue", it is a morality issue.
Yes, because two consenting adults in love is so immoral.
Politicians are prostitutes. Even after this tiny segment of the population.
I totally agree that politicians chase votes and don't worry about the right or wrong of an issue.
We get your bigoted position on the matter. You don't need to keep posting repeated comments Deerhunterbow1.
Lloyd is right, this is potentially the last great civil rights issue for this country and it is well past time to address it in the courts, just as women's rights an racial rights have been addressed.
I wouldn't go so far as to say "last". Major, yes, incredibly so. But research into genetics is going to create some massive battles in a few decades. Clones, "designer babies", and resurrected Neanderthals are all going to have their day in court in the future.
Well, I wouldn't call this the last great civil rights issue. All throughout history there have been groups shunned by the majority in some way or fashion and the average person is very susceptible to the idea that they're better than a particular group. Happened with Pols, Jews, Hispanics, Muslims, Gays, Blacks, Irish, women, etc. Pick a time period in history and you will find a group that was looked down upon in some way. So, we will see more of this. It's just a matter of predicting which group will be next.
I would also argue that many people are currently supporting it publicly because it's become somewhat of a fad for them. Polls are shifting in one direction so they're shifting accordingly. This is why you see a reversal from only supporting civil unions to full support of gay marriage. I highly doubt everyone currently supporting it had some sort of revelation. They supported civil unions because it was more popular and now they support gay marriage because it's becoming more popular.
While it is good that a particular right may finally be given to a minority group, I also find it somewhat disappointing that it requires popular support to shift before a basic wrong is corrected. Every time I read about this, I recall a quote from Wendell Phillips. "Governments exist to protect the rights of minorities. The loved and the rich need no protection: they have many friends and few enemies." I also think this quote from the Supreme Court is rather appropriate. "Constitutional rights may not be infringed simply because the majority of the people choose that they be."
Well obviously that can't be entirely true. Yes the parents won't turn the gay if the child is attracted to the opposite sex, but all aspects of nurturing affect kids, so why would this one not?
honest - you made me think of something. Since most gay people are raised by heterosexual parents, does that mean that heterosexuals are unfit to raise kids, since statistically they produce the most homosexual children?
Well my theory is, do you really think it is a coincidence that Cher's kid turned out to be a tranny? Is tranny right there? Oh hell, I don't care.
But so anyhow, I do believe that nurturing does have an affect on development, I'd like to see some scientific evidence proving me wrong.
I have no doubt nurturing does affect development..but is there any evidence that the gender of the parents doing the nurturing is bad or good? The AAP seems to be saying it doesn't matter, as long as there are two loving, nurturing parents.
so, yes the statement COULD be "entirely true" in a statistical sense.
If you'd like to make the opposite case, feel fre to post scientific evidence proving yourself correct.
and as far as cher's kid..who knows? who cares? one example proves nothing, and there was probably nothing typical about how he was raised.
Well, I certainly hope it does. A nurturing family is the most fundamentally important aspect to raising a child. Which is why it is desperately important to allow for the formal recognition of gay marriage. Gay people have been, are, and will continue to raise children, with the same level of success and failure as straight people. Don't they deserve to get all the support we can provide? Or are children not worth that?
I believe the article says that the American Academy of Pediatrics claims that the sexual orientation of parents' does not determine the sexual orientation of their children.
I'm sure they have all the scientific evidence for which you're looking.
You mean like an association of doctors and scientists stating "all evidence points to the conclusion that [you're wrong]"? How about six different trusted medical associations?
The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, and the American College of Nursing have all reviewed the evidence and published their conclusions. But I'm sure you could look it over and see where they went wrong, no?
Then maybe use Google to look up the study a year or so back that showed that the children of lesbian women, coupled or single, were on par with "straight-parented" kids in developmental and social behavior, and were generally superior to those same kids in self-esteem and confidence.
Go to Google and try < Study Lesbian Children > It's really not that hard.
I'm wrong that nurturing matters? Oh I'm sorry, you and some above insinuated what you wanted into what I said, you all did your liberal spin job and turned what I said into "nurturing will make the kid gay". Now can any of you please quote where I said that?
It's impossible to have a discussion with liberals, all of you just put words in people's mouths just so you can make an argument that wasn't there.
first why dont't you find your own scientific evidence to support your claims instead of telling people they need to find evidence to prove you wrong first?
and second i do believe (my opinion) that nurturing does have an affect on development (look up nature VS nurture think that helps your point you are trying to make). My question is; how do you gay nurture or straight nurture? Were the parents of gay people practicing only this gay nurture thing, and if so wouldn't that make them gay? then if they were gay how did they have a kid to gay nurture?
Way to go hypnotic, you proved my point that most of the people on this board are idiots.
Wrong honest, you are now attempting to back away from what you said.
Wrong shellie, I am backing away from what all the knee-jerk liberals (like you) are saying I said.
honestdebate
I put up a way to find it yourself, but you obviously ignore it. Is that your idea of honest debate? So again we have a moniker that fails to live up to it's claim as miserably as the cons' claim that "same-sex marriage will destroy the institution of marriage." Seems to me like we heterosexuals screwed that pooch all by ourselves many, many years ago.
Hey scuba, not everyone is as concerned as making everything about gays as you are. Reread, or L2R the original quote I put up, then show me where I said anythign about gays turning kids gay.
Honest: Nurturing DOES matter! What DOES NOT matter is the GENDER of the nurturer. As human beings we are all capable of love, kindness, concern, caring, supporting etc......
honestdebate depends on facts. The fact is that homosexuality is wired in. Your argument is like saying nurturing affects the size of your feet.
Actually I made no argument about turning gay or not. But are you saying there is not one gay person on the planet that didn't turn gay? Or a gay person that didn't turn straight? Betcha you're wrong.
Where did I write one damn thing about gays turning kids gay? Why not READ what I wrote. Here. I'll save you the trouble since you're obviously incapable of following your own advice. I wrote about development, social interaction skills, self-esteem, and confidence comparisons of kids raised by lesbians and those raised in "straight" homes. I even told you how to look it up for yourself so you could choose from the 66,100,000 results available via Google. Boo-Yah!
Chew on THAT for a while corruptscreamer.
WTF does that even mean you tool?
Go boo-yah yourself you dope, all I ever said was that every aspect of development is influenced by nurture, when did I say anything about gays? I quoted the article and stated that what they said was obviously misleading because everything affects a child's development...idiot.
All you idiots turned it into a gay vs straight comment, you all need to get over yourselves you fools.
It means you're dishonest even with yourself by your grossly incorrect moniker. You don't want debate. You want to scream about your beliefs and belittle any who disagree. And you're FAR from being honest. Therefore, you are corrupt.
In case you can't remember, and you obviously can't, your original post:
And yet:
Either you're referencing the difference in "nurturing" between gay and straight parents, or you've copied and pasted the wrong information. AND the part that you quoted from the article is EXACTLY what the report I suggested you look up on your own via Google. I even gave you the keywords to use.
Now who's an Idiot? Not me. BOO-YAH Bitch.
Do yourself a favor. Go back to school and re-take Reading Comprehension and Composition.
What ahve I screamed about and who have I belittled? Please stop projecting yourself onto others.
So saying that parents nurturing their kid to be gay may influence the kid to be gay is wrong? Then I used the perfect example to prove my point. But I never said that gay parents will make the kid gay, which is what you are implying, so now who is the idiot? Boo-...yea I'm not 15.
you are the only one implying anything here and we are calling you out over it. Why would straight parents nurture their child to be gay? with your first sentence you are IMPLYING that a gay couple would nurture their kid to be gay, thus through this make believe gay nurturing the kid would be gay. Then you turn around and say you never said gay parents will make a kid gay.... damn slow down girl your spinning too fast while contradicting yourself, dont be a starburst.
how do you nuture a kid to be gay?
Remember this one?
And we now continue with the regularly scheduled corrections:
Not projection. You've taken that to a whole new level. Just honest observation to which you still deny.
Who says that gay parents are "nurturing their kid to be gay?" How moronic can you be? A gay parent would be much more likely to let a kid decide for themselves how they want to live their life. Not like the idiotic "straight" parents that disown their kids if the kid turns out to be gay. You're delusional at best.
What "perfect example?" Chaz Bono? So Cher is "gay"now? Chastity-Chaz Bono made decisions on how he wanted to live his life. He wasn't "turned" if that's what you're afraid of. It's how he, and many others, are born.
Well, you are, obviously. I never said you stated that gay parents would turn a kid gay. And I never implied such. I wrote, again, specifically about development, social skills, self-esteem, and confidence. But you're obviously too dumb to realize that simple fact. But you did say you believe that "gay parents are nurturing their kids to be gay?" Or are your Composition skills as sorely lacking as your Reading Comprehension skills?
Remember that one? On your LAST post?
Yeah, well let me know when you get there. Maybe you'll have been better educated by then.
.
.
And,
.
.
.
Yeah...
.
.
.
BOO-YAH!
Wow, I ran into the two most childish defenders of gays ever. You'd think someone here had attacked gays, but no one had. All that happened was two uber-defensive twits decided they needed to get upset about any comment that didn't look pro-gay. Kudos, you two are idiots...booyah
Wow. In what universe do you reside? Not the real one obviously. Take your OWN @!$%#ing "advice" and read my original post to you. You're so stuck on yourself it's pathetic. You've been proven wrong. You were shown how to research it for yourself. No attack on you. Just facts and ways to find the facts yourself. Then you attack people and claim they attack you. Now That's Childish behavior. (More proof you haven't reached 15 yet?)
I could not care less about you or what you think. You're an ignorant moron. That's how you will stay. When someone provides the access to answers, that's not attacking you. That's trying to help you, especially when that is what you requested. You're so upset about being proven wrong you can't handle it, so you attack those proving you wrong.
Learn to deal with it. You said you wanted to "debate" and you lied. I offered the chance. You asked for info. I provided. You could have read that and come back with questions or comments on the study. No. You start claiming I stated things I did not. I look at the "Golden Rule" both ways. I'll treat you as I would like to be treated, and I did. Then you obviously treated me the way you wanted to be treated. So I did. I do not turn the other cheek but once. In your ignorance, you just tried to keep slapping away. Except your slaps were nothing but lies. I DARE you to go back and re-read these posts. If you're anywhere near an honest person, you'd have to admit you're wrong about who attacked whom. You attacked. I retaliated, with vengeance.
You're the childish idiotic twit here.
I hope all you queer bas-ards and bit--es catch aids and die a horrible screaming in pain death...
No, really...HepatitisFreedumb and ScrewyGaffeJim -- You really DO look like jacka*ses all "across the board" (meaning every comment in the discussion) Man, some of you self-righteous Lib jerkoffs sure do amuse yourself. Can only imagine what the bottom of your computer desk looks like after your smiley "session" where you get such a rise out of your own dumba*s comments that seem so right...in your OWN heads.
You must really hate yourself. Berate yourself in your own moniker. Sweet. And no knowledge either. Going for the trifecta now?
Most of the 1.2 billion Catholics are against Gay anything. Over a billion Muslims are against it. Most of the planet is against gay anything. New what does that tell you ? Gays and lesbians will call them all bigots among other things. There is a long way to go for Gay and Lesbian rights.
argument ad populum. Fun fallacy, but absolutely meaningless.
Ray...if you truly believe in democracy, then there is a problem.
It tells me that it is being accomplished by political pressure in this country.
Glen-1484791, And who puts on that political pressure. Virtually a hand full of people.
Catholics, Muslims...
in other words...religion is against it.
Who cares? The constitution guarantees my freedom to reject your religion if I choose to...and I do.
I don't have to be a muslim or a catholic, or live according to their rules.
Since when does 58% of the American Public constitute "a handfull (sic) of people)?
Ray - Did you forget that this is the land of the free? And that discrimination based on ones gender, sexual orientation, color, religion, etc is illegal? I don't think they have that long to go :)
If only there were a distinction between law and morality...a separation of church and state if you will, to determine what is actually illegal as opposed to what is considered immoral based on the religion you choose to follow. Anyway, if we are letting religion dictate law...then why is ham legal?
@Ray219. I guess that Catholics and Muslims wont be taking part in any GLBT marriages. The Catholic Church also prohibits divorce but that is very legal in America.
BTW, Your argument is known as a popularity fallacy. I'll let you look up what that means. When you are researching popularity fallacy you should also spend some time learning what tyranny of the majority is and why it is unconstitutional for the majority to determine what rights a minority has by popular vote when that same majority already enjoys the very same right.
The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government from enforcing any religious law or enforcing one religions view over that of others or even non-believers. I assume that you can see how this applies to your argument about Islam and Catholicism's opposition to GLBT marriage.
Marriage is a secular contract between 2 consenting adults and the state. Unlike matrimony that is a religion sacrament whose rules are determined by the religion in question.
We do not live in a pure democracy. We live in a constitutional republic with a Bill of Rights that protects everyone equally.
Boat Guy- answering an online poll does not equal political pressure. Those numbers are meaningless anyway, because many people are afraid to say what they really think, lest they be labeled homophobe, etc. Or they just don't answer. It's not a proper scientific study.
Well, Ray, billions of people are against the US constitution. Billions plus you. It does guarantee all citizens equal protection under the law, you know. Or are you suggesting that gays should not be granted citizenship?
Oh Yeah! That's Right! I'm afraid of marking an answer that might label me a homophobe or something on an anonymous Internet poll or even a robo-call initiated phone poll where no one knows to whom they're speaking. And those "press this number" polls over the phone must label me every time.
And did you take notes? It's YEAH RIGHT. Not YEA RIGHT. Damn! You can't even get your own freakin' name right.
Since it has been, and continues to be, the religions of the world that promote the shunning, torture, and execution of homosexuals, perhaps the real problem is with the religions.
azjoel, Read the Bible, That's just what God said sinners would do, Blame religion. So you will be killing us off so you think you can live a sinners life. But your wrong, You can't kill us or Gods word, Were his for ever, And yours is death for ever. So come get us. Do you think the world will be a better place were there is no God and just the queers and the like. God said the day would come and here it is. Lev.18;22 Lev 20-13 1 Cor. 6;9-10 Rom.1;26-28.27 When you love the world more then God and his laws, Then you will have no trouble with your new master, The master of sin.
re: the statement "
"“The cases rely to some extent on the notion that homosexuals face widespread discrimination and hostility,” he told NBC News in an email. “The fact that the country is coming around so fast ironically could hurt their cause in court.” - Tom Goldstein
Currently, 29 states can fire you just because you are gay - no other reason need to exist beyond their suspicion of who you love (since there is no test for who is gay, suspicion is enough). So yea, the "notion" that discrimination is a bit more than just that --- its' an awful, ugly, hateful, hurtful reality. I have faith in the 9 justices to know this much - even if Tom Goldstein does not.
....minus the two idealogues, Scalia and Thomas, who aren't really concercned too much with the constitution.
So we need 5 out of the remaining 7.
Oakland-Mike
You had me up until the statement:
I have to agree with sam-298381 on this aspect.
oakland mike
What a bunch of hogwash.whatever you are smoking, try something less hallucinatory.
Wow, the same group of backwards f*cktar*s all over the MiSiNformationBS discussion boards all the time, backing up all the wrong in the World just to say they "fought for something", and all the while things are going to sh*t right in front of their face, but they're distracted watching the clown make balloon animals in the background [mentally slow and rationally twisted, to be literal]. The same people who "would give their life" (or are sure of people that have) for "the cause" and are HORrified by the persecution/discrimination because of "suspicion" of a lifestyle; are, most likely and so hypocritically (but VERy understandably), the same sheepish a*sclowns that have NO problem or aren't even aware of the looming right of our own gov't to (if they so choose, in the near future) blow your a*s away by theoretically unethical means of NOW legal un-manned spyplanes because of SUSPICION, and THIS b.s. about people pushing each others sh*t in or munching carpet is more of a "worthy cause" to you. (F'ing Democrap/Libtard twits)
This is like racism. Publicly they support gay relationships and privately they say things that would land them in jail.
Ask any Republican because they are 47%'ers like romnesia.
Tooty Fruitys make me sick too!!!!!
mikey sez
"privately they say things that would land them in jail."
Please give me an example of what these "things" would be.
Waiting......
I truly couldn't care less. I just hope that if the Supreme Court ok's it, we can go days if not weeks without yet another "gay" story at the top of the page.
Did someome make you read it? Then comment?
Actually, I couldn't agree more, and I'm gay and in a very healthy 25 yr committed relationship. It should be as much a non issue as civil rights for African Americans or women. So, lets make it so and be done with it. It is nice to have the public support though ;-)
They call it gay, We call it queer. Tell it like it is.
derp, They call you human. We call you cretin. Tell it like it is.
Jim queer, You said it ,We are not the same kind of people, And lizzie and you are what you are queer, AunGodly people that sink to all time lows to be unGodly.
edgarhalcyon
great come back!!!!
Thank you Senator Portman, Hillary, Bill and all of the others for finally opening your eyes to a modern day civil rights issues! It is time to end the discrimination!
Rick,queer There just out for the money and power queers will give them. Or there just queer as will. I think both. Those people in government are all a pack of sale outs. Soon no one will have any say about any thing but the unGodly, This is there world not Gods people. Lev.18.22 Lev20;13 1Cor.6;9-10 Rom1;26-28.27.
@driiip
Tyranny of the majority is unconstitutional - for the majority to determine what rights a minority has by popular vote when that same majority already enjoys the very same right.
The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government from enforcing any religious law or enforcing one religions view over that of others or even non-believers. I assume that you can see how this applies to your argument about Islam and Catholicism's opposition to GLBT marriage.
Marriage is a secular contract between 2 consenting adults and the state. Unlike matrimony that is a religion sacrament whose rules are determined by the religion in question.
We do not live in a pure democracy. We live in a constitutional republic with a Bill of Rights that protects everyone equally.
Leviticus also listed shellfish eaters, mixed cloth wearers, drunkards, fornicators and adulterers (short list) as well. Judge ye not lest ye be judged! Ye without sin shall cast the first stone... so get in line and why don't YOU, oh holy one begin stoning all these sinners to death... along with "men lying with men?" I'll tell you why... Because America is a SECULAR nation NOT christian or any other specific religion and our founding fathers listened to Thomas Jefferson who made the case that many left their countries because of religious persecution and that WE THE PEOPLE DID NOT WANT another country like that.... and they agreed... thank the gods! Why don't you try to preach "LOVE ONE ANOTHER?" Do you know how many times Jesus mentioned homosexuality? ZERO. Go read "Alice In Wonderland" and enjoy something entertaining without all the rape, sex, and murder like your little black book. Oh, that's right, you "know the truth" and it shall "set you free." wheeeee I hope it's soon.
drp... is that short for "drip"? Please spare us all your rants. God says you may post again when you learn how to spell, and perhaps, write.
az joel,queer, You get my point and i do as i please, Spare me yours. is that az short for ass i know your kind like names like that. Like but buddy's and all.
One of the things that I find most interesting about folks who are so opposed to gay marriage is that their argument is that marriage is this special arrangement between a man and a woman and that they take these "sacred vows" that only one man and one women should have the right to have. It is interesting that over HALF of these men/women do not take their vows seriously and wind up divorced. Maybe they should be more concerned about those people who don't take their marriage seriously. What we should have are two forms of unions, that being marriage and domestic unions. Both provide the same security, but a marriage, being it is so serious a relationship to some should be for life....NO DIVORCE for anyone (a life sentence). However, for those choosing the domestic union it is more a contract that can be nullified. Wouldn't that be fair to all?
If the Supreme Court puts this issue to rest what are the gays going to do to get attention?
maybe nothing. If you have a problem with their behavior after they have equal rights, get back to us. :)
In the meantime, feel free not to invent future "problems" that haven't even happened yet. :)
They'll protest one of my favorite restaurants, Chick Filet.
If the Supreme Court puts this issue to rest what are the "christians" going to do to get attention?
There is no restaurant called "Chick Filet".
Population control - works for me. It's my opinion that we do away with all incentives for being married and/or having children. Then it doesn't matter and the baby producers who have made producing illegitimate children a business, will stop breeding for welfare.
Don't speak about this too loudly or the Duggar Clan will attack you!
Anyone who is "producing children as a business", is making a rather shortsighted decision, since the lifetime limit on welfare benefits is only five years and is a pathetically small amount of money anyway. Five years, that's it. In some states, it's four years.
And in fact, I doubt there are any such people.
how this is going to be defeated is real simple, everyone is going to have to agree across the board the marriage applies to all, poligamy, sisters, brothers, mothers sons, otherwise it will all be discriminationatory, the ussp will send it back to the states saying that it will be up to the states, and that will be that, but they will rule that the peoples vote count
If that was the way it worked, then Jim Crow would still be alive in the South.
False equivalency. For example, there are very good reasons to ban blood-relatives from marrying, if for no other reason than to prevent the passing on of hereditary genetic defects (see just about every European monarchy from the past several centuries for evidence of how intermarriage can adversely affect blood-lines).
Polygamy (sic) is another matter entirely, since it has gone into and out of practice over the centuries, albeit almost exclusively of the "one man, many women" variety. Certainly in the past, it was not only tolerated, but considered perfectly acceptable; the numerous Old Testament citations, particularly in Genesis, Exodus, and I Samuel, provide more than enough evidence to that effect. So, technically there is no reason why Polygamy couldn't someday once again become an accepted practice, but that current cultural standards, in the West at least, do not deem it acceptable.
@disgusted, Why are you worried? Afraid that your wife will leave you for a badger?
There have been studies of conservatives who believe this "slippery slope" hypothesis. The studies show that conservatives who fear and oppose gay marriage are afraid that, if gay marriage is legalized, their women folk will start having sex with frogs and porcupines.
One of the key factors why polygamy will not be accepted in this day and age is all the legal matters that come with it. Meaning who gets what benefits if one of the spouses dies. That is a whole new realm of legal and financial issues the government is not capable of handling as our system is set up to handle legal and financial matters for two people (male/male, male/female, female/female).
Dr. Man - Yeah, heaven forbid Gays go for centuries living double lives never speaking openly. Now we have to put up with a few months of finally being in the news to get civil rights.
you cant make rules for one aspect of society and not the other, therefore because most are against the rest you are also being discrimintory will most gays are
disgusted, when you learn to type coherent sentences, get back to us.
So now the Supreme court is granted the power to overturn things that the population has voted on?!?!?! I don't care what you think about what gay people do with one another, this is the beginning of a very terrible thing people.
read Marbury v Madison, decided in 1803. That's when the principle of judicial review was established at the Supreme Court, granting them to power to overturn laws which contradict the constitution. So if by "now" you mean in just the past 210 years, then yes, now the supreme court has that power.
uh, that's how scotus has worked for a long long time. In fact, that's one of their jobs, to overrule votes that violate the constitution.
Next thing you know the Supreme Court will rule that blacks are more than 3/5 ths of a man.
@Dinsmo,
What you are describing (things that the population have voted on) is tyranny of the majority is unconstitutional because it allows the majority to determine the rights of a minority, when the majority already enjoys that same right. That idea is the very reason that we have a Bill of Rights.
We do not live in a pure democracy, and marriage has been determined by the Supreme Court to be a right.
Take a remedial civics class. Seriously.
that's right, in accordance with the US Constitution. Are you against the Constitution?
Feel free to explain how.
*GASP* Surely you jest?? LOL
Why bother. Just give him an automatic "F" and be done with it.
and I also could give a rotten two s.....t what stars and idiot money grubbing politicians think, pull lobbying away and all this goes away
Take away the "d", and replace with an "ing" in your handle.
Sodom and Gomorrah supported homosexuality and look what happened there.
People who have no moral compass change their opinions based on the political correctness and popularity.
If you want to live a sinful lifestyle, live it and accept God's eventual judgement. Just don't try to get me to justify and say it is normal.
What happens next if gay marriage is approved? Will polygamy be next? Will polyamory/group marriages be after? Can three gay men marry? Where do you draw the line? They all love each other, right?
since the current legal argument is about 2 consenting adults, that's how you can "draw the line".
gay marriage has no effect on whether we have marriages with more than 2 people.
XD Shooter ... you are exactly right. Beastiality is on their list ... people marrying their dog or horse or whatever.
I think instead of making it legal they ought to just make these people wear a sign in public that the back door is "open for business" ...
Sodom and Gomorrah? Isn't that the story where Lot offers up his young daughters to a crowd? Guess that pedophilia is okay in your book.
don - bestiality is on "their" list? whose list? yours? lol.
why do the anti-gay people seem so fascinated with sex and children/animals/incest/etc? kinda creepy... :)
It is a sexual orientation not a choice or a behavior.
Jesus never said one word in the new testament about homosexuality. For those who say that the next thing is polygamy, dogs as partners etc. is pure ignorance. In my lifetime this will be found to be entirely biological and you all will feel shameful for being so unfairly judgemental.
Who in their right mind would choose this? It is not a "lifestyle" (RV-ing is a lifestyle) this is as much a part of me as my hair color. I work as a mental health therapist and have helped to save thousands of straight marriages and can tell you that the heterosexuals have plenty of their own issues with marriage. There have always been Gays and always will be, this is just the next civil rights issue of our time.
God will only reframe for so long before taking action against this!
Oh, XD...You say "People who have no moral compass change their opinions based on the political correctness and popularity." How sad.
You think a "moral compass" only exists in Christianity?
I was raised as a Southern Baptist in AL and GA, and let me tell you, the drunkenness and infidelity that everyone seemed to know about but forgot on Sunday, was widespread.
A "moral compass" comes from within and is found around the world without benefit (or the constraints) of clergy - any of whom are riddled with lust and greed and addiction anyway.
It's immoral to force everyone around you to live according to your belief structure. It wasn't so long ago in this country that religious people felt justified to own other people. And after these same people made it against the law for people of color to marry whites.
Bigotry falls away - but some still look back at "the good old days". Too bad that the likes of you will be outraged, but most Americans want the law to give every citizen the same rights.
It's immoral to do otherwise.
I'd say the major difference between gay marriage and bestiality, et. al. is the ability to consent. The only other example you offer where all parties are willing to consent is the issue of polygamy. And given the long history of parts of the Mormon church with the idea of multiple partners, I doubt allowing homosexuals to marry would have any bearing on the current status of polygamy.
Isn't it funny how offended the Christians get over gay and lesbian marriage? Even though over half of the woman-man marriages end in divorce due to not abiding by their own oh so sacred vows? Or cheating in most cases...Yeah because most of you Christians are soooooooo good and don't sin...HA!! There is no such thing as never comitting a sin, we all do it. So what makes you Christians and Catholics and religious people so different? What makes you so much better? F*cking hipocrits. At least the gays and lesbians can be honest to themselves and their loved ones. What do you have to offer except ignorance? Tell me how discriminating against them is ok but for others to discriminate against YOUR belief is wrong? I believe there are true Christians who let God judge others HIMSELF before criticizing others. And for you religious followers out there who want to place judgement on others before God, well have fun in hell :)
The fact is Jamie that Christianity is the only place left where there is any moral compass. It's you stinking liberals that have ruined this country. This the truth whether obummer and his big mouth wife like it or not.