The Gay Marriage Thread (Page 5)

MichaeI
MichaeI: The homosexuals and lesbians have gained considerable political and social momentum in America. They have "come out" as the term goes, left their closets, and are knocking on the doors of your homes. Through TV, radio, newspapers, and magazines, they are preaching their doctrine of tolerance, equality, justice, and love. They do not want to be perceived as abnormal or dangerous. They want acceptance and they want you to welcome them with open, loving arms, approving of what they do.

In numerous states in America several bills have been introduced by the pro-homosexual politicians to ensure that the practice of homosexuality is a right protected by law. Included in these bills are statements affecting employers, renters, and schools. Churches could possibly be required to hire a quota of homosexuals, and "sensitivity" training courses would be "strongly urged" in various work places. There is even legislation that would force the state to pick up the tab for the defense of homosexual agendas in lawsuits while requiring the non-homosexual side to pay out of his/her pocket. Is this fair? Of course not. But fairness isn't the real issue here. It is social engineering. Think about it, the homosexual community wants legal protection for having intercourse with people of the same sex. And, if that weren't enough, it wants its views taught in schools, promoted over the airwaves, and codified in literature.

The Christian church, however, has not stood idly by. When it has spoken out against this political immorality, the cry of "separation of church and state" is shouted at the so-called "religious bigots." But when the homosexual community attempts to use political power to try and control the church and get its agenda taught in schools, no such cry of bigotry is heard from the sacred halls of the media. Why? Because it isn't politically correct to side with Christians.

Copied and pasted.
11 years ago Report
1
OCD_OCD
OCD_OCD: I do agree with the separation of church and state in schools. But it should be separate for anyone with an agenda, religious, political, sexual. No place in a public school. If your child is in a private school and that is what you wish to have taught, then that's as it should be and parents still have the right to raise their children the way they want to as long as they aren't hurt mentally or physically.

No government has the right to breach parents rights the way they have in public schools.
11 years ago Report
3
MichaeI
MichaeI: I just wonder where it stops. I'm not comparing the two by any means but where does it stop? Pedophiles could say that they were born to be attracted to minors and their rights should be protected. We don't as a country allow multiple marriages. So if you're for the rights and equality for all, then have it for all. The whole umbrella of sexual behavior. Just because it suits someone's agenda doesn't mean it should be accepted by society.

I'm just of the belief that we shouldn't have to make special laws for someone's sexual behavior. What about the Furries? Should they too have the right to marry their Fuzzy McBeans?

A lot of Christians oppose Gay Marriage because the Bible condemns it. Just the way they condemn other things the Bible condemns. For example, the Bible condemns murder. We can't pick and choose which one of God's commandments we want to follow just because it makes someone else "feel good."

My point to that is, a Christian will love and pray and treat everyone with kindness and respect because we are supposed to. Love the person hate the sin if you will. A Christian isn't really going to give a laundry list of why they oppose it and just because they can't come up with a fancy argument doesn't invalidate their beliefs or feelings. So to be called a bigot because you are following your Faith is ludicrous.

What I also find comical is that fact that Hillary Clinton made a video saying she supports Gay Marriage. Now here is a woman that just retired as Secretary of State. Who gives a rat's patootie if she is for it or not? Oh, I know. It's a pre-emptive strike to get votes for 2016. It's been documented that she has flip-flopped. Says she has evolved? Yeah, she evolved in realizing she can get about 9 million votes from the LGBT community. All people are in this country is a demographic and a vote. If you honestly think a politician gives a crap about who sleeps with who, you would be wrong. The Liberals are so transparent they are almost ghoul like. Even Conservatives are trying to get away from their core beliefs and abandoning the fundamentals of Conservatism. Why? To get votes. You mean to tell me now all the sudden they care about the Latino and LGBT community? Not bloody likely. I am deeply saddened the direction this country has taken. I sure as hell don't want Chris Matthews giving me a lecture on what is acceptable and what is not. He needs to be more focused on sanding those callouses down from giving the White House a hand job. That's what Anderson Cooper is for.

We are so saturated with political correctness it's hard to even breathe. A Major League Baseball player can't even show any emotion after hitting a game winning Grand Slam. Why? Because then he's a pompous jerk who only cares about himself and isn't humble and that makes others feel bad. It's time American's start having a sack and start standing up for what they actually believe in instead of worrying about if they will be labeled something and silenced for going against the norms of society. I will take my Faith and beliefs to the grave with me. I wouldn't care if I had to live in isolation.
11 years ago Report
1
CoIin
CoIin: @ - "A lot of Christians oppose Gay Marriage because the Bible condemns it. Just the way they condemn other things the Bible condemns. For example, the Bible condemns murder. We can't pick and choose which one of God's commandments we want to follow just because it makes someone else "feel good."


I agree with Michael. Good moral Christians must not cherry-pick which of God's commandments to obey and which to ignore. In for a penny, in for a pound.

So while I heartily endorse the hatred, malice, spite, vitriol, invective, and (when circumstances are particularly propitious) violence directed towards homosexuals by the more righteous, sanctimonious and supercilious among my Christian brethren - all of which is firmly and circularly grounded on the principle that the divine will is revealed through holy scripture and holy scripture is infallible due to its divine provenance - I feel compelled to express my dismay at the cavalier neglect of certain other divine injunctions. Here's just a tantalizingly brief sample to begin with:-

All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense. (Leviticus 20:9 NLT)

Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15 NAB)

You should not let a sorceress live. (Exodus 22:17 NAB)

Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)

If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10 NLT)

The LORD then gave these further instructions to Moses: 'Tell the people of Israel to keep my Sabbath day, for the Sabbath is a sign of the covenant between me and you forever. It helps you to remember that I am the LORD, who makes you holy. Yes, keep the Sabbath day, for it is holy. Anyone who desecrates it must die; anyone who works on that day will be cut off from the community. Work six days only, but the seventh day must be a day of total rest. I repeat: Because the LORD considers it a holy day, anyone who works on the Sabbath must be put to death.' (Exodus 31:12-15 NLT)

Anyone who blasphemes the LORD's name must be stoned to death by the whole community of Israel. Any Israelite or foreigner among you who blasphemes the LORD's name will surely die. (Leviticus 24:10-16 NLT)

If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst. (Deuteronomy 13:7-12 NAB)

But if this charge is true (that she wasn't a virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father's house. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst. (Deuteronomy 22:20-21 NAB)

They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)



So what are we waiting for? Tally ho! Let's get started right away.

Oh, and @ "Love the person hate the sin if you will"

Yes, I concur. I love thieves but I hate theft. I wish they would stop stealing. But then they wouldn't be thieves anymore. And then I'd love them for being what they're not. Which makes me wonder if I wasn't contradicting myself to begin with

(cf. Love the black dude. Hate his black skin if you will )
(Edited by CoIin)
11 years ago Report
4
MichaeI
MichaeI: You are quoting the Old Testament. That's how it was before Jesus Christ was sent to die for all of our sins so that we didn't have to. Now we are saved by Grace. I appreciate the effort though.
11 years ago Report
1
CoIin
CoIin: Hmm, I wonder why God gave us all that bad advice then

Maybe it was just a wee April Fool's Day prank . These witches don't feel pain anyway.
11 years ago Report
1
MichaeI
MichaeI: It's not bad advice at all. Matter of fact, it wasn't any kind of advice. Those were his laws seeing as he's like God and all. I will go ahead and save you the time. Anything you say will not change my point of view nor am I expecting to change yours.
11 years ago Report
0
CoIin
CoIin: Yes, you're right. It's imperative that deeply entrenched beliefs be protected from the pernicious influence of new evidence, critical analysis and intellectual growth. Anything less would be to risk admitting fallibility.

Our hearts and minds shall remain closed books
(Edited by CoIin)
11 years ago Report
3
MichaeI
MichaeI: Choosing to stick by your beliefs isn't closing off your mind. It's not allowing your mind to complicate something that isn't all that complicated. KISS= Keep it simple stupid.
11 years ago Report
1
CoIin
CoIin: Yes, for every complex problem there is a simple answer - and it's wrong

Anyway, I gotta go sacrifice a goat. Been nice chatting. See ya
(Edited by CoIin)
11 years ago Report
2
MichaeI
MichaeI: The pleasure was all yours.
11 years ago Report
0
CoIin
CoIin:

Try not to burn anyone while I'm away. It's not nice, pal., no matter what some ole book might say.
11 years ago Report
1
MichaeI
MichaeI: That's not my job. I'll leave that to The Big Guy. I just work here. Enjoy your
11 years ago Report
0
lori100
(Post deleted by lori100 11 years ago)
RAUM1
RAUM1: I don't believe a person is born Gay, but i do believe Transgenders are. I think you are taught when you are very young by a mate or childhood friend. Young children are very vulnerable and innocent when it comes to sex and practice with each other sometimes, boy w/boy or girl w/girl " if it feels good ", they will experiment with sex. That's just what I think, and yes i myself was with a childhood friend at age 11, him being same age. we thought nothing of it. I am 61 years old now and a bisexual myself. Its all about the way your brought up . From experimenting or being molested by an Adult. Let a person live there life the way they want to live. I am split on Gay marriage , because of my belief in the Bible.
10 years ago Report
0
Periwinkle Pixie
Periwinkle Pixie: The Minnesota Senate gave final approval on Monday to a bill that will make the state the 12th in the United States to allow same-sex couples to marry and only the second in the Midwest.
10 years ago Report
0
JennaeOfficalFilmFan
JennaeOfficalFilmFan: Off-Course they should be allowed to marry in the states what's it to everyone else they'll carry on with there lives and be happy in love, so why don't the same rules apply to same-sex couples, anyways im so glad for my freinds that they can get married in the uk. god bless that. The States shud be legal 2. People are born gay They dont turn lol if they did they cud turn back which they can't, Hopefully they'll legalize in the US Too for people who are in love At the end day we all human beings. x
10 years ago Report
0
MichaeI
10 years ago Report
0
Sir  Dysphemistic
Sir Dysphemistic:
Let us keep in mind that homosexuality isn't accepted based solely on the 'we are born this way' slogan. It is 'accepted' because the two persons involved are adults and pose no threat to society.

Will pedophilia now be 'accepted' in the modern society? -No, because we know the danger it has towards children and will protect our children against it.

Will bestiality now be made legal in this society? -No, because we know the disadvantage posed on the animal.

Is the fact that a penis is shaped to fit into a vagina the basis for not allowing homosexual marriage? - Seems illogical since as a heterosexual I engage in other adventurous sexual positions. What others do in their bedroom is the least of my concerns.

Will the fact that it is against religion make a good argument? -If we are to follow the religious teaching of each religion and base our laws on them I think we'll need a steady supply of stones and torches. Laws are passed for the majority or for the interest/protection of people in society, not for a religion (unless you live in another country outside of the major Western countries which base their laws on their religious teachings)

If the church wants to be taken seriously and taken as it claims to be, some pinnacle of holiness, then it should look a bit inwardly and clear up the mess it has created. Action speaks louder than words. But perhaps it is much too late to clean out that closet.

Society tends to change and ideologies along with it. In previous cultures 'homosexuality' was the norm. In others stoning a homosexual was the norm. Even in present cultures. Some ideologies are good, others not so good. I have read of cases where lesbians are raped by gangs of men in order to turn the woman back.

If someone can present a logical argument against homosexuality that will not include the words: 'because God says so', then it will be great. I'll be very interested if it can be presented in a sensibly way as to how homosexuals will be a detriment to the rest of us.

I don't like extremes: feminist burning barbie dolls, homosexuals pressing for it to be taught in schools or to teach/encourage little kids (keep in mind heterosexuality isn't taught, cept biological classes when a person is advance in schooling), anti-homosexuals pressing for a suppression or a 'cleansing'. I'm very secure of my heterosexuality and attraction to my female lover, to suddenly be influence to change into a homosexual because of some rainbow parade.

The sooner the 'imposing of extreme ideologies' on any side stops, the easier this might be settled. Christians should remember Christ 'taught' not 'impose'.
10 years ago Report
1
the real slim DEEPy
the real slim DEEPy: well, i dont really have much to say about right and wrong. gods the one who seems to have aproblem with homosexuality, and i cant make heads or tails of it. i see pros, and i see cons, but nothing worthy of eternal hellfire.

i am not here to say what and why is right or wrong. if you lean towards the existence of a god, take it up with him, and, if you dont regard any significant higher power(s), then chalk the entire faith-based argument on superstition, and just ignore the "endless, mindless rhetoric."

if you wish to be married, do be cognizant of the ironic nature of seeking a judeo/christian sacrament to bless your partnership, despite the disapproval of homosexuality portrayed in the laws of moses and premonitions of the apostle paul. why would any homosexual choose to be married in a christian church- considering the strong language in their texts against homosexual partnerships.

i just dont see civilized point to marriage, unless your religious... and how committed to your religion can you be, if you declare natural what your sacred texts condemn, and attempt to sanctify thru sacrament, what is likely, according to the bible, an abomination. If the religion condemns you, you should change yourself, or change your religion, bot to expect the religion to change to fit your orientation- to force a religion to change to fit your preferrences, instead of either fully accepting, or rejecting the religion in which you were born. it is no disparagement to create "civil unions", as "marriages" have religious implications, implications that create irony- a religious institution being used to "sanctify" a seemingly abominable practice (according to the beliefs of said religion)

marriage is of religion, and should have no federal legal standing, benefits, or other differential treatments accompanying it. civil unions rise above the religious undertones of marriage- civil unions are not lesser partnerships as marriage, moreso, the VERY scope of marriage is overinflated, by expanding the religious sacrament of marriage into a legal partnership, and providing a different set of federal punishments, privileges and rewards for couples and singles- a clear violation of equal protection. it seems that "civil unions" could be recognized, but, since they are a v.2.0 marriage, perhaps, they can escape the temptation of those in favor of such to attaching preferential government treatment to the now less-than-religious partnership.

what i wouldreall see as optimal would be for marriages to be relegated to the churches, and lowse all preferrential government treatment
no marriages or civil unions on the federal level, perhaps not even on the state level, but in churches, with no legal benefits or ramifications, no legal recognition, at all.
10 years ago Report
0
CoIin
CoIin: "Love the homosexual; hate homosexuality"

Digressing a little from the issue of gay marriage, I'd like to say a few words on the oft-heard maxim, "Love the sinner; hate the sin" which I'm sure is familiar to most of us, and, at least for me personally, conjures up ghastly images of televangelists grinning hideously. Without some careful thought, the maxim might not seem immediately offensive, and may even be taken as an expression of compassion or charity, but I'll try below to expose its insidiously malevolent, as well as its self-contradictory, nature.

The maxim comes in various versions, sometimes in a more muted but equally invidious form such as - "Don't hate the players; hate the game", "Love the person; hate the sin", etc, the latter of which was articulated by another poster earlier in this thread. And before going any further, I'd like to make clear that nothing I've seen in that poster's other comments throughout the WireClub Forums leads me to think he's anything other than a regular, decent person; I do feel however that he has not carefully thought through the pernicious nature of the dictum in question.

The person espousing such a maxim, if challenged, might shrug his shoulders and tell us it's just like saying:-

"Love the patient; hate the cancer" (1)

I will argue that it's nothing like (1). It is, rather, analogous to:-

"Love the black man; hate his black skin" (2)

I'm sure none of you will be at all disturbed by (1). In fact, it's really a silly thing to say inasmuch as we have no reason not to love the cancer patient. Why wouldn't we love him? For most of us in this day and age, cancer, or any other disease, does not reflect on a person's character, although regrettably in certain redoubts of ignorance and superstition around the world - "this is God's punishment on the wicked " - is still the order of the day.

I guess all of us here would prefer that Jones did not have the cancer. Jones would be "better off" without the cancer. Jones would be healthier without the cancer. But I doubt any of us would claim that Jones would be a "better" person in the sense of "more virtuous" or "morally improved" without the cancer.

You probably find (2) shocking. I certainly do. This is an expression of racism. (2) differs from (1) in a critical respect; it tells us that we have reason to hate the person, but should not. We should love him EVEN THOUGH he is black. Having black skin, thus construed, is not an aesthetic judgement (E.g. some men prefer redheads), nor an expression of solicitude ( "get well soon" ), but rather a value-loaded moral judgement. The implication is that the black man is morally inferior to those of some other skin color; the black man would be a better (i.e. superior) person without his black skin, and by extension the world would be a better place.

The malevolence of the remark should be obvious. And at this point the stupidity of the advice, its INCONSISTENCY, might also be apparent to you. According to the claimant, who claims to love black people, the black man would be more virtuous without his black skin. But what is a black person without black skin? Black skin is the defining feature- the ESSENCE - of a black person. A black person without black skin IS NOT A BLACK PERSON.

So to those who tell me that they love black people, but hate their blackness, I say you contradict yourself. I say you are a sanctimonious hypocrite. If you claim to love black people, but wish they were all white, then YOU DO NOT LOVE BLACK PEOPLE!

Now if you think about it, you'll see that "love the homosexual; hate the homosexuality" is analogous to (2) but not (1). Why should we hate the cancer? - because it's unhealthy. Why are we exhorted to hate the black skin or homosexuality? - because it's WRONG!

Here, the discerning reader might wonder what could possibly be wrong or immoral with having black skin. What REASON could there possibly be for this judgement? Well, don't look at me . As far as I can see, it's just as inane, spiteful and arbitrary as ordaining homosexuality to be sinful. And, as Sir Dysphemistic noted above, if the only justification the homophobe can adduce is a proscription in some ancient text, then he is as intellectually and morally bankrupt as any other bigot, racist, or brainwashed soldier who dutifully opens fire on children when commanded. If a command is all the justification you need, then you're halfway to perdition already.

In effect, what the specious supplicant is saying is "We should love that which shouldn't be loved" or "You are contemptible, but I love you" or "You are despicable but I don't despise you". If the contradiction is not obvious yet, next time you're a guest for dinner in someone's home, try regaling your host with "This casserole you made is disgusting, but I like it" and see how impressed she is with your magnanimity.

This form of hate-mongering disguised as compassion is manifest in the demagogue who sows the seeds of resentment in the masses, and then washes his hands with a holier-than-thou sigh, feigned resignation and barely concealed glee as the angry mob lynches the object of his disgust.

" I can't help it if the thick thousands despise people like that . I love them myself "
(Edited by CoIin)
10 years ago Report
2
MichaeI
MichaeI: 1) I don't really see or understand your analogy about black skin and a sexual behavior.

2) I don't see why we need laws in the land to recognize sexual behavior. People say homosexuality is a choice, that's fine, no problem, but don't force it on others who oppose it for whatever reason they may have. Just because someone doesn't have the ability to articulate an argument doesn't make their opinion invalid.

3) Calling someone a bigot just because they don't agree with something is just trying to disarm someone and trying to exclude them from the discussion. Under that way of thinking, all atheists are bigots because they don't subscribe to religion. Do I believe that to be true? Of course not. Having a disagreement doesn't make you a bigot and in this case, a homophobe. Those terms are thrown around loosely to try and control the narrative. To me, a homophobe is someone who is scared of homosexuality. I personally am not scared with anything about it. Just don't agree with it and I don't have to go on some long spiel to try to convince or justify why I feel that way.

4) Even the Supreme court admitted that this is a new idea about making gay marriage legal and shouldn't be rushed into like Roe V. Wade was. The Supreme court back then rushed to judgment on that when in fact, it should be a state decision. Not everyone in society believes in abortion but yet it's being crammed down our throat because of a National law. Let the states decide.

5) When you have a society, different people want different things and to choose to live in a certain life-style. That's why I say in this case, gay marriage should be a state issue. If some in the society feel that is acceptable, then they can live where it's acceptable. If someone doesn't find it acceptable, then they can live elsewhere. There's no rule that says we have to all live as one big happy family and approve of each others choices.

6) If you self-admittedly say that marriage is a Religious tradition and a Religious institution, then why would someone want to force their ideals and beliefs on that if you don't subscribe to it? If it's about the legal ramifications, then Civil Unions should be acceptable so that they can get the same rights as people in a Marriage Union. People who subscribe to a religious belief shouldn't be demonized just because they don't write a thesis on why they oppose gay marriage. It says in the Bible that it's an abomination so Christians or whoever pretty much leave it at that. It's like trying to have your cake and eat it too. No, I don't subscribe to any religious teachings but yet I want to be under the same umbrella because it suits my own personal situation.
10 years ago Report
0
the real slim DEEPy
the real slim DEEPy: "hate the sin, love the sinner" ok--- so, the pope says that gays are welcome and receive equal eatment as straights, but, the pope says that sodomy and fellation are sins.

the SIN is not HES GAY, the pope loves gays, as long as they abstain from "sin", which is not being homosexual, but it is preforming those outlawed fornicative, and "perverse" acts of sodomy and fellatio.

again, its not love the gay man, hate that hes gay, its love the gay man, but hate sodomy and fellatio, which is considered a sin, whether you are straight or gay.

it would be most analagous to "love the black man, hate his sodomy and fellatio...:" not "hate his black skin..." there is NOTHING wrong with black skin, but, according to the pope, there is something wrong with sodomy and fellatio, and its banned for both gay and straight couples, so, in no way, is it singling out gays
10 years ago Report
1
the real slim DEEPy
the real slim DEEPy: is this the correct apporach? well, is it a better approach then the westburo baptist church.
10 years ago Report
0
MichaeI
MichaeI: As with anything, each religion has its fanatics. I reject anything that Westboro Baptist church has to say.
10 years ago Report
0