- NEW!
by Anonymous on November 21st, 2008
Gay Marriage is Not an "Assault On Christian Values", but Seeking Equal Rights Guaranteed Under the Constitution for EVERY Citizen?
by mdGreg on January 8th, 2012
| 1 person likes this
Out of all the sins in the Bible, why is homosexuality scapegoated? Other sins aren't "better", so why act like it?
by A on March 30th, 2011
| 2 people like this
Do you support Gay marriage? Please explain why or why not, and what country you are from.(only if you feel comfortable though)
by Reizo_Valentine on May 14th, 2011
| 1 person likes this
If you had any one saying that guides your lifes principles..What would it be?
by CosmicWunderkind on October 15th, 2011
| 4 people like this
Assuming homosexuals are are born that way,is homosexual act ok for them,but only considered a "sin" when performed by straight people?
by mike_70 on December 26th, 2011
| 1 person likes this
You're reading Those opposing proposition 8 went on a rampage of vandalism, and defaming every religious person that voted yes. Don't religious people have "their rights" to follow "their religion" without this kind of harassment?
Your favorite Q&A site is on Facebook! Become a fan to connect with the ever-growing community of Answerbaggers, share your thoughts and find out what Answerbag's up to next!
Comments
Couldn't have said it better myself!
by Polar Aurorae on November 21st, 2008
They are just standing up for what is NORMAL and RIGHT! Perversion of any sort cannot be tolerated.
by Abbyguy on November 22nd, 2008
Abby: could you do us all a favor and define "Right" "Normal" and "Perversion". Thanks.
by Rude Bear Ready for Winter on November 25th, 2008
No. You know what it is, most people do.
by Abbyguy on November 25th, 2008
A characteristic is defined as normal when it is common the majority of a population of a particular culture. Some individuals take this to mean that what is normal is automatically right. That would also mean that anything abnormal is an instant perversion. It is ignorant black-and-white extremism at best.
by Polar Aurorae on November 25th, 2008
stop confusing a religious rite with a civil right. ask for civil unions and demand they have the same legal status as our civil unions (called marriage)... then again... why do civil unions have to be based on sex? any people who want to bind themselves to eachother for what ever reason should be allowed to
by TAPriceCTR s son is wearing his COAT on November 30th, 2008
Good answer Anonymous.
by Gingerminx on February 17th, 2009
tap You say for what ever reason, like a 12 year old and an adult? They do that in many countries, even your own...look at Warren Jeffs, Where does society draw the line?
by Abbyguy on February 18th, 2009
that is a tangent but there is a difference between slavery by education and a teen who wants to be with someone older. what warren jeffs does is not a teen choosing to unite with an adult, it is human trafficing, the girls are not allowed to learn other options. if they were and given the choice I would consider it tolerable. our society forgets that teens are adults by biological standards.
by TAPriceCTR s son is wearing his COAT on February 18th, 2009
You MUST be a tap dancer.
by Abbyguy on February 18th, 2009
There is a difference between being biologically an adult and being mentally an adult. They may have all the information to make an informed decision but do they have the mental capacity and life experience to make the decision?
by Gingerminx on February 18th, 2009
I had far better capacity at age 12 than my sister does at age 23... primarily because I chose NOT to and she doesn't even know how many partners she has in a given month. if they are old enough to choose to have sex they are old enough to choose who they have sex with. a 14 year old is deemed legaly competent enough to have an abortion without her parrents knowing... if they are capable of making this decision, they are capable of chosing who they have sex with. try telling mary K leterneaus husband that she victimized him. I (having waited till I was 23) honestly do not care what age we say someone is old enough to be responsible for their reproductive health... but it all falls under the same umbrella.
by TAPriceCTR s son is wearing his COAT on February 18th, 2009
I do not know who Mary K Leterneaus is Laughs. I think there is a difference between teenagers having sex with teenagers and teenagers having sex with adults. Someone twice or more their age has more life experience to call upon to get their own way.
by Gingerminx on February 18th, 2009
they also have more life experience to prevent problems. next time you are near a teen try telling them what to do... they have a will of their own. mary k leterneau is the teacher who slept with her 14 year old student, spent years in jail and now they are several years married and have kids of their own. and no... there is no difference between sex with someone your age and sex with someone older.
by TAPriceCTR s son is wearing his COAT on February 18th, 2009
They may do but that doesn't mean they use it. I hope she isn't teaching anymore. Laughs my husband is 7 years older than me, I know what it is like to have sex with someone older :P
by Gingerminx on February 18th, 2009
no, I agree with her loosing her teaching license, and her exhusband getting full custody (I think an affair being a breach of contract should be considered legaly harmful regardless of wether the male or female cheats.) but his age is the least of my worries, or his for that matter.
by TAPriceCTR s son is wearing his COAT on February 19th, 2009
Nooo you are not supposed to agree with me, I am supposed to agree with you remember? :P
by Gingerminx on February 19th, 2009
LOL, TG4 isn't here so we're safe... besides, I disagree with the jail time she got... I consider that time the state stole from she and her husband.
by TAPriceCTR s son is wearing his COAT on February 19th, 2009
She knew the risks in sleeping with a minor. :P
by Gingerminx on February 19th, 2009
something being the law does not make the law correct. lollypops are illegal in washintong state (unenforced, but still illegal), seatbelts are mandatory nation wide, until the 1970s illinois law indicated that mormons were to be shot on sight.
by TAPriceCTR s son is wearing his COAT on February 19th, 2009
Yup, but thats what lobby is for, to change laws. You don't change them by breaking them, that just gets you arrested.
by Gingerminx on February 19th, 2009
true
by TAPriceCTR s son is wearing his COAT on February 19th, 2009
Great answer.
by HasntBeen on February 23rd, 2009
Lobbyists just like making noise to hear the sound of their own voices and to pad their pocket books. If they make enough racket they get some attention...the squeaky wheel theory...it doen't mean they are right, they are just good at what they do. Prop 8 is a good thing, the people have spoken and those that don't like can stamp their feet all they want but it is law now and tuff toenails to anyone who doesn't like it. It was a fair vote.
by Abbyguy on February 23rd, 2009
I agree the people have spoken, but the fact remains that the majority has often banded together to bully a minority, that's why we have a thing called "civil rights" -- principles which protect a minority from the bigotry or bias of the majority.
Unlike an unruly mob, America is founded on certain abstract principles which are considered to be more fundamental than even "the majority rules". That's why, for example, the majority cannot vote that blacks have to sit at the back of the bus: a court will overturn any such law.
Prop 8 is without a doubt a violation of the rights of gays. In time, this will get straightened out -- but not until much more suffering is meted out to these unfortunate citizens. The day is coming when America will be ashamed of the evil committed by these kinds of laws. Of course, by then many who voted may be dead of old age. Justice moves slowly sometimes.
by HasntBeen on February 23rd, 2009
Good response HasntBeen.
by Gingerminx on February 23rd, 2009
think it is funny that so many straight people these days say marriage is just a worthless piece of paper... yet if you ask the gay movement not getting married is, to quote HB, "suffering".
by TAPriceCTR s son is wearing his COAT on February 23rd, 2009
That's not much of a counter-argument: the people who are suffering are the ones who want to get married to the person they love. That has nothing whatsoever to do with straight people who don't consider marriage important.
by HasntBeen on February 23rd, 2009
did I say it is a supporting argument? no, I just noticed the irony. the only argument is wether marriage is a civil right or a religious rite. those who say it is absolutly clear one way or another between those 2 are unable to effectively argue because a valid debate requires an open mind and the ability to see the opposing view.
by TAPriceCTR s son is wearing his COAT on February 23rd, 2009
Well I agree that an open mind and the ability to see the other view is important, but that does not mean one cannot see clearly on this issue. We live in a "free society", i.e. the basic principle is that the government can LIMIT your rights only for a compelling reason. That's different than, for example, Communist China, where "everything is forbidden except what is permitted".
In America, everything is permitted except what is forbidden, and the government needs compelling justification to forbid something. There is no compelling justification to forbid gay marriage, therefore it's a right -- just like I have a right to arrange things in my refrigerator as I see fit.
This is not at all a complex issue. What makes it difficult is the heavy weight of religious-based prejudice left over from ancient times.
by HasntBeen on February 23rd, 2009
Yeah, but there is SUPPOSED to be a seperation of church and state. Christians are stupid anyways. The ONLY logical reason they oppose gay marriage is out of spite. That is all. They dont agree with someone's sexuality so the best thing they can do is deny basic relationsship rights.
by Raem on July 9th, 2009
Raem: Someone as ignorant as you deserves NO rights. You make comments without support and use emotion as your torch. Grow up and look at the facts.
by Abbyguy on July 17th, 2009
Oh my, our resident sock-puppet master is back to ride the Moral High Horse! How fun.
by HasntBeen on July 17th, 2009
raem. your argument is flawed in so many ways. A: spite is not a logical reason. B: most people do not oppose gays being allowed to have their relationships, they oppose calling it marriage because they believe marriage is a sacred rite.
If the gay movement wanted the rights associated with marriage rather to pretend they are not different they would have them already. swingers should also use civil unions and marriage vows should be considered legal binding as though there was a prenup making them binding. marriage is a contract without a prenup.
by TAPriceCTR s son is wearing his COAT on July 17th, 2009
That's a bizarre argument, it doesn't even make any sense.
by HasntBeen on July 17th, 2009
pull your your closed minded head out of butt and you will see the sense it makes. wether or not you agree with the argument does not determine wether or not it makes sense.
allow me to spell it out. I support giving gays (or ANYONE to even include eunichs) civil unions with all the legal standing marriage has. I could even support the law not even using the word marriage. however I believe marriage is a sacred rite and will oppose calling something which outwardly violates what I believe marriage to be using the term.
by TAPriceCTR s son is wearing his COAT on July 17th, 2009
I've forgotten my freak index, sorry... remind me again whose sock puppet are you?
by HasntBeen on July 17th, 2009
disculpe me... interesting accusation. because I disagree with you I am clearly a sock puppet. that is some extreme arrogance... you do not even try refuting the claim, you just fall back to ad hominem attacks... that is the same tactic the green movement uses "all legitimate scientists agree with our hypothesys of man made global climate disaster because anyone who disagrees is not a legitimate scientist based on the fact that they disagree with our consensus."
by TAPriceCTR s son is wearing his COAT on July 17th, 2009
97% of research climatologists do agree. Every time someone challenges that, I show them the report. Then they either shut up (if they're smart) or they start arguing conspiracy (if they're stupid). It gets rather dull after a while. Anyway, sorry I mistook you for a sock puppet... your writing style and lack of critical thinking ability confused me for a moment, there's another guy I was mistaking you for.
As for your bullshit whining about ad-hominems: read backwards. You're the one who suggested I pull my head out of my butt. All I did was counter with something less adolescent.
by HasntBeen on July 18th, 2009
an ad hominem attack is an attempt to discredit a claim without touching the claim. basicaly rather than refuting what was said an ad hominem attack will try saying the person in not qualified to make the statment. telling you to pull your head out was in response to your previous statment which was the equivilant of sticking your fingers in your ears and chanting "I'm right you're wrong" my arguments were sound and did make sense but they conflicted with your paradigm they can't be percieved. critical thinking ability does not mean buying everything al gore (who's "carbon footprint" is way above average) says.
I will believe that 97% of climatologists agree that the climate is changing... the climate is always changing. in fact we less than a hundred years ago finished recovering from the little ice age. we have just barely reached the temperatures of the mideaval warm period. and the evidence is that as the planet warms the entire biosphere will benefit.
by TAPriceCTR s son is wearing his COAT on July 18th, 2009
the ozone will thicken for 2 reasons... more lightning strikes which is how ozone is naruraly generated, and less of the ozone depleeting gas clouds which can not form above -80 degrees.
plant life will thrive better because more CO2 gives them more to build with and most plants do better with more heat.
warmer air will hold more water granting more rainfall
antarctica will get more snow fall because it will spend less time being "too cold to snow" and that will thicken the ice.
because plants would thrive better the animals which feed on them would thrive better and on up the food chain.
by TAPriceCTR s son is wearing his COAT on July 18th, 2009
Well, then the US needs to abandon using the term marriage in state sanctified unions, and just leave the name to the discretion of the individuals. Straight couples can call it marriage, and gay couples can say whatever they want. So instead of just gay and straight marriage, they just need to call all of them "unions" so no one will get hurt or be obliged to bitch about it.
But then again, there are those who will oppose this out of spite. because they KNOW everyone will be happy, and they dont want that for some people.
by Raem on July 18th, 2009
@TAPriceCTR: all of your global warming claims have been thoroughly discredited, and your lack of knowledge about the consensus among climatologists is characteristic of most deniers -- they either have not kept pace with the news, or have deliberately chosen sources which support their existing beliefs to obtain all of their information.
Here is an introduction to the study conducted by the University of Chicago which cites the 97% number -- it most definitely does not say what you're claiming. Research climatologists agree that the Earth is getting warmer as a result of human activity, and that serious risks are associated with those "changes". You're trying to dumb the subject down by citing nonsensical pseudo-science in response: http://esciencenews.com/articles/2009/01/19/survey.scientists.agree.human.induced.global.warming.real
BTW, your arguments would be slightly less suspicious if you could spell and write clearly. Those are generally signs of education.
by HasntBeen on July 18th, 2009
pseudoscience? the fact that lightning occurs more frequently in warmer storms was once proposed as a way to track global temperatures by the globalwarming fanatics. Ozone IS generated by lightning strikes. the gas clouds which generate the Ozone hold over antarctice do not form above -80 degrees. ALL SCIENTIFIC FACTS. science is based on facts. pseudo science is based on authority. stop whining that I am wrong and start pointing out WHY I am wrong using facts, not opinions of al gores pupets. see the difference between you and I is I site factual claims, you site authoritative opinions.
those are signs of excelence in english.... guess what, english is not a science, it is a language. but again, rather than attempt to discredit a factual claim as invalid, you focus on the validity of the speaker.... that is a political tactic, not a scientific one.
by TAPriceCTR s son is wearing his COAT on July 18th, 2009
Nobody is questioning the issue of lightning and ozone -- the problem is the conclusions you're drawing. You are well aware of this already, so I don't bother refuting when it's obvious to both of us that you are stretching a fact into a false conclusion.
I focus a bit of attention on your inability to express yourself clearly, because that is indeed indicative of what is going on between the ears.
by HasntBeen on July 18th, 2009
the streach is the claim that sea levels will rise. antarctica will need a 20-40 degree increase before it sees any appreciable melt and as it warms the anual precipitation on the biggest desert in the world will increase thickening it's ice.
FACT at present Mt St Hellens in releasing more CO2 and other toxic gasses than all of humanity in Washington state combined.
FACT regardless of wether humanity or nature are causing the climate change the fossile record inticates that biodiversity is strongest when the planet is warmer
FACT el nino causes warming of the western hemisphere causing increased rainfall which is good for life, just inconvienient for man.
FACT a high percentage of the land mass of asia and north america are low on biodiversity and inhospitable to most life forms because of how COLD they are.
FACT the tropics which are warm have more biodiversity than temperate climates
now, why is global warming going to be horrible?
by TAPriceCTR s son is wearing his COAT on July 18th, 2009
You want to talk about hate? Lets look at the response of media and gays to the passage of Prop 8
1. Mormons make up less than 2% of the population of California . There are approximately 800,000 LDS out of a total population of approximately 34 million, yet media and the No on 8 people targeted this minority.
2. Mormon voters were less than 5% of the yes vote. If one estimates that 250,000 LDS are registered voters (the rest being children), then LDS voters made up 4.6% of the Yes vote and 2.4% of the total Proposition 8 vote.
3. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) donated no money to the Yes on 8 campaign. Individual members of the Church were encouraged to support the Yes on 8 efforts and, exercising their constitutional right to free speech, donated whatever they felt like donating.
4. The No on 8 campaign raised more money than the Yes on 8 campaign. Unofficial estimates put No on 8 at $38 million and Yes on 8 at $32 million, making it the most expensive non-presidential election in the country.
5. Advertising messages for the Yes on 8 campaign are based on case law and real-life situations. The No on 8 supporters have insisted that the Yes on 8 messaging is based on lies. Every Yes on 8 claim is supported.
6. The majority of California voted Yes on 8. Los Angeles County voted in favor of Yes on 8. Ventura County voted in favor of Yes on 8.
7. African Americans overwhelmingly supported Yes on 8. Exit polls show that 70% of Black voters chose Yes on 8. This was interesting because the majority of these voters voted for President-elect Obama. No on 8 supporters had assumed that Obama voters would vote No on 8.
8. The majority of Latino voters voted Yes on 8. Exit polls show that the majority of Latinos supported Yes on 8 and cited religious beliefs (assumed to be primarily Catholic). So target Mormons? Huh?
9. The Yes on 8 coalition was a broad spectrum of religious organizations. Catholics, Evangelicals, Protestants, Orthodox Jews, Muslims all supported Yes on 8. It is estimated that there are 10 million Catholics and 10 million Protestants in California . Mormons were a tiny fraction of the population represented by Yes on 8 coalition members.
10. Not all Mormons voted in favor of Proposition 8. Our faith accords that each person be allowed to choose for him or her self. Church leaders have asked members to treat other members with "civility, respect and love," despite their differing views.
11. The Church did not violate the principal of separation of church and state. This principle is derived from the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ." The phrase "separation of church and state", which does not appear in the Constitution itself, is generally traced to an 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson, although it has since been quoted in several opinions handed down by the United States Supreme Court in recent years. The LDS Church is under no obligation to refrain from participating in the political process, to the extent permitted by law. U.S. election law is very clear that Churches may not endorse candidates, but may support issues. The Church as always been very careful on this matter and occasionally (not often) chooses to support causes that it feels to be of a moral nature.
12. Supporters of Proposition 8 did exactly what the Constitution provides for all citizens: they exercised their First Amendment rights to speak out on an issue that concerned them, make contributions to a cause that they support, and then vote in the regular electoral process. For the most part, this seems to have been done in an open, fair, and civil way. Opponents of 8 have accused supporters of being bigots, liars, and worse. The fact is, they simply did what Americans do they spoke up, they campaigned, and they voted.
Compared to 20 Million Catholics and Protestents, Mormo
by WishUponAStar on March 31st, 2010
Compared to 20 Million Catholics and Protestents, Mormons were a very small percentage of the vate, yet they were singled out, protests happened, churches were broken into, death threats were made. I counter your question with one of my own. Why did the No on 8 campaign feel they had to go to such extremes against a minority?
I don't doubt that they went after other Christians too, but it seems like most of them focused their anger on California's smallest Christian population, including death threats.
by WishUponAStar on March 31st, 2010