- NEW!
by catydid
on November 18th, 2011
voted:
Yes
Selected by the asker, Kims_Babygirl. (What's this?)
On Answerbag, the member who originally submits a question can identify the answers that he or she finds most valuable. "Asker's Pick" answers show you which answers best addressed the question on the original submitter's mind.
by RC loves ice cream on January 22nd, 2010
Selected by the asker, Kims_Babygirl. (What's this?)
On Answerbag, the member who originally submits a question can identify the answers that he or she finds most valuable. "Asker's Pick" answers show you which answers best addressed the question on the original submitter's mind.
by iandme
on December 10th, 2009
voted:
Yes
ignorant
by lenalove on December 15th, 2009
you can get aids from being gay. and yes it is unnatural. it would be natural if men can poop out babys after a long night with their husband...but they cant so it IS unnatural.
by 13245649g on December 15th, 2009
Ill remember your comments Mr. Numbers next time I speak with my aunt who is infertile. I'm sure she'll be pleased to hear that you believe her having sex is unnatural since it cannot result in conception. ...and by the way, you can get aids from being heterosexual as well. Since the year 1998 as a matter of fact it has actually become more of a risk for heterosexuals, than homosexuals.
by Stepper on December 15th, 2009
being turned on by touching,and sucking the same genitalia as another is natural! You are nuts! and I guess aids is healthy?
by rockit2u on December 17th, 2009
AIDS isn't healthy, but neither is it isolated to homosexuals.
by Polar Aurorae on December 17th, 2009
Vaginas were the major source of the aids epidemic in Thailand in the late 80s/early 90s. Men do not have vaginas. Check your logic and try again please.
by Nutsy_Rail on December 17th, 2009
unnatural is a matter of opinion, if it happens in this world it is natural, unless it is forced. If you are straight you still can get AIDS, doesn't anyone study this stuff before they yap. Who cares if gays get married, unless of course you are afraid you are secretly gay, or may think you are and wont admit it lol....that's it, you are gay...it's OK my wife and I support you :)
by Weird Science on December 19th, 2009
"if it happens in this world it is natural" --- So is having sex with animals natural? Or rape? or incest? War? Murder? Just because this in this world happen does not mean it is natural.
by my2cents--Vote for Paul on January 17th, 2010
Being gay isnt natural but if you are happy together so be it
by cthrough on January 19th, 2010
Where's the proof of it being unnatural?
by Anonymous7721 on January 19th, 2010
I have to politely disagree. Being gay is unnatural and unhealthy.
by krerely on February 2nd, 2010
I agree we should all be allowed to marry each other at the same time, that way everyone gets the free healthcare that we've all been looking for. POLYGAMY FOR ALL!!!!
by Chad1983 on February 10th, 2010
i agree with you. everyone is entitled to what they believe in. everyone is different an our society does not understand that. being gay is just a unique character of someone and there is nothing wrong with that.
by creationsoflife on March 1st, 2010
homosexuality is unnatural,pointless and moraless whatelse does someone need to understand this. if everyone turned gay the human race would be non-existent in 80 or so years.allowing gays to do anything does society as a whole a disservice.being polite to gays . why? they are in your face with everything they do. they're nothing but deviants.saying we are homophobic; no the problem is their homosexual. this is the tail wagging the dog. their the top reason everyone is afraid to go to prison. look at massa, groping his workmates and trying to climb in bed with them. ha ha ha yeah right this is normal.also if gay is gay why does massa have a wife? just a deviant thats why!
by joegb on March 15th, 2010
I do not hate gays. I believe, like Elton John, that they should have civil unions, with rights mostly equal to marriage, but I do not agree with the term marriage being used. And like I said, Elton John agreed with me.
And here's why. In places where marriage has been redefined, gay couples have sued churches for discrimination because they were observing their religious beliefs. I believe that there are way more Christians then there are gays, so what about their rights? Should gays receive special treatment because they are a minority? That does not seem fair to me,and I think that gays who want marriage to be redefined are being selfish. Stop complaining about your rights and try to think about everyone elses.
by WishUponAStar on March 30th, 2010
I haven't heard an pro gay marriage argument that would place marriage requirements on the church.
I support Gay marriage, but also support a church's right to refuse to perform the union, or recognize it in any manner aside from legality.
by Stepper on April 3rd, 2010
I, like Elton John, support Civil Unions granting gays rights equal to marriage as long as church rights and protection is written into the bill. The judges nowadays are insanely corrupt, as far as not giving a rats butt about the first amendment as it relates to religious folk, so we need protection. There was the thing in New Jersey, and also the Catholic Adoption Agency in Massachussetts that shut down because they refused, on religious grounds, to adopt to a gay couple. Without legal protection, a few gays deciding to sue for 'discrimination can do some really serious harm.
And here is the reason gay marriage wont work. Because here in the United State, an overywhelming number of judges seem to be anti-god or at least anti-Christian. If we took a bill that reaffirmed the first amendment right of churches to worship without fear of the government punishing them and taking control, telling them what they have to believe, and giving gays the right to marry, a liberal judge will look at that and say the church protections are unconstitutional and toss them out.
You see, even though it's our first amendment right, Judges don't use the Constitution any more when making a decision, they use case law, and since there's no case law relating to the rights of churches/mosques/synagogues, and plenty relating to the rights of gays, they'd have plenty of excuses.
Here's the excuse. Even though such a bill would only be reaffirming our Constitutional Rights, judges will look at that and treat it as a new law and say it discriminates against gays.
But, if instead of calling it Marriage, you call it civil union, not the same as marriage, but having the same rights, then you can't call it discrimination.
I've tried explaining this to some others, but many of them seem to think that anyone who doesn't agree with them is a bigot, but in truth I don't want the rights of a few to take away the rights of many.
by WishUponAStar on April 3rd, 2010
You are right...being gay is natural, it doesn't hurt your health if you protect yourself, and it isn't dangerous....BUT it is sinful nature and shouldn't be promoted. I hate it how people who do wrong make up whatever excuses they can to make themselves feel better about what they are doing...just to ease their conscience. If women want to love women...fine. If men want to love men...okay. Live life in eachother's companionship. But what is with the perverted sexuality? Get your hormones under control...and stop trying to mate with anything. Man and man....and woman and woman...doesn't work. It doesn't make a baby...it's not rocket science people!
by nana101274 on May 27th, 2010
So are you saying that online marriages that produce children should be allowed? I guess we're going to have to ban marriages between straight couples who are impotent, want to adopt children, or don't want children at all. Because clearly producing more babies is the only thing that matters, not love.
Also, who cares if it's unnatural? You're wearing unnatural polyester clothing, eating unnatural genetically modified corn, and unnaturally communicating over the internet using computers that were designed and constructed in a lab somewhere. "Unnatural" doesn't mean "bad."
But I'm going to have to say that it is perfectly natural, since homosexuality has been observed in many species of animals other than humans.
by minneyar on June 27th, 2010
I couldnt have said it better myself
by sega256 on June 28th, 2010
i dont rub everything i do in homophobic peoples faces. everyone saying its wrong is saying its wrong to fall in love. im a girl i love my girlfriend. why is that so wrong? also most people who say there should not be gay marriage are usually christian. not everyone is christian. people should be able to marry who they want and if i wanna marry my gf why is that any one elses business? gay marriage is no ones business unless you are the one getting married.
by Kims_Babygirl on March 29th, 2011
To all of you saying being gay is wrong or unnatural. Please graduate from kindergarden before you post. anyone with even the smallest level of intelligence knows being gay is natural, and harmless, and that theres nothing wrong with being gay.
by sega256 on March 29th, 2011
by MrJosh
on December 10th, 2009
voted:
Yes
I agree. Same sex couples should be able to get married. It time for a change its almost 2010, its time to change. If you think same sex marriages are unnatural, then just don't have one. People need to realized times have changed and so have people turn-ons. Point-Said.
by ebonee23 on December 26th, 2009
same-sex marriage is an oxymoron. It completely goes against the purpose of marriage. Having said that, what is wrong with civil unions?
by One mans opinion on January 13th, 2010
What, in your opinion, is the purpose of marriage?
The problem with a "Civil Union" is that it is not the same. Even if it is different in name only, it is not the same. We tried "separate but equal" with race. It didn't work.
by MrJosh on January 13th, 2010
The gov needs to give everyone a civil union. Heterosexuals and homosexuals. Leave marriage to the church. Then no one is separate but equal in the eyes of the law we all have a civil union.
by my2cents--Vote for Paul on January 17th, 2010
That would be fine with me.
by MrJosh on January 17th, 2010
I do not hate gays. I believe, like Elton John, that they should have civil unions, with rights mostly equal to marriage, but I do not agree with the term marriage being used. And like I said, Elton John agreed with me.
And here's why. In places where marriage has been redefined, gay couples have sued churches for discrimination because they were observing their religious beliefs. I believe that there are way more Christians then there are gays, so what about their rights? Should gays receive special treatment because they are a minority? That does not seem fair to me,and I think that gays who want marriage to be redefined are being selfish. Stop complaining about your rights and try to think about everyone elses.
by WishUponAStar on March 30th, 2010
Interesting point. I hadn't thought about gay couples suing a church. I just can't imagine why you would want to have anything to do with a church that disagrees with your stance on that particular issue. Find a different church or get married by a judge.
by MrJosh on March 30th, 2010
No, you missed the point. They sued the church because they wouldn't let the couple rent the chapel, it was supposedly discrimination, they said. I don't think they were even members. The church made a moral decision, based on their religious beliefs, that they would not rent out the chapel for a gay couple to get married, and based on their religious belief they were sued. That is why I agree with Elton John, that gays can have civil unions, and heterosexual couples can have marriages.
by WishUponAStar on March 30th, 2010
I'm not just making it up. Here it is.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91486340
First important section
During the summers, Hoffman says, the pavilion is used for Bible studies, church services, gospel choir performances and, in the past at least, weddings. Heterosexual weddings.
When Bernstein and Paster asked to celebrate their civil union in the pavilion, the Methodist organization said they could marry on the boardwalk — anywhere but buildings used for religious purposes. In other words, not the pavilion. Hoffman says there was a theological principle at stake.
"The principle was a strongly held religious belief that a marriage is between a man and a woman," Hoffman says. "We're not casting any aspersions or making any judgments. It's just, that's where we stand, and we've always stood that way, and that's why we said no."
Second Important Section
So the couple filed a complaint with New Jersey's Division of Civil Rights, alleging the Methodists unlawfully discriminated against them based on sexual orientation. Attorney Lawrence Lustberg represents them.
"Our law against discrimination does not allow [the group] to use those personal preferences, no matter how deeply held, and no matter — even if they're religiously based — as a grounds to discriminate," Lustberg says. "Religion shouldn't be about violating the law."
The Methodist organization responded that it was their property, and the First Amendment protects their right to practice their faith without government intrusion. But Lustberg countered that the pavilion is open to everyone — and therefore the group could no more refuse to accommodate the lesbians than a restaurant owner could refuse to serve a black man. That argument carried the day. The state revoked the organization's tax exemption for the pavilion area. Hoffman figures they will lose $20,000.
Okay, I was mistaken about the chapel part, but it was church owned property used for Bible studies, church services, gospel choir performances and, in the past at least, weddings. Heterosexual weddings.
The important facts being that on nice summer days, they'd hold their services outside, in that pavillian, so in my mind that is an extention of their church and they were within their rights. I provided the link if you want to read the whole thing..
by WishUponAStar on March 30th, 2010
It seems to me that there is a very easy solution here: add a clause to the legislature that states that a church is free to decide which marriages it will perform and which it won't. You can't successfully sue someone who has laws backing them up. Right?
Personally I support the right of all churches to decide if they will perform gay marriages or not. But! That means they have the right to decide EITHER WAY. If a pastor or minster does want to perform gay marriages (and I know at least one personally who wants this), then it is an infringement of his freedom of religion to disallow it. Just like it would infringe on his religious freedom if he didn't want to do it, but was forced to.
I like Elton John, but I don't have to agree with him on this. He doesn't have moral authority over me, or anyone else.
by Wombat99 on May 2nd, 2010
by Questionbag
on December 11th, 2009
voted:
No
You believe in Adam and Eve? I guess that makes us cousins then?
by Reptar on December 12th, 2009
What does this have to do with the question asked?
by Gingerminx on December 12th, 2009
Wow, thanks for sharing Socrates.
by Nutsy_Rail on December 13th, 2009
Science has shown that marriage is not necessary for humans to reproduce.
by Moongrim on December 13th, 2009
Adam and Lilith, and she refused to take shit from him, then there was Eve.
by EvangelineOFire on December 13th, 2009
While you're thinking about that, here's something else to think about. Almost 99% of recorded wars have started over religious belief. And you're going to take their judgment?
by Anonymous on December 13th, 2009
I am for gays (and swingers and other nontreditionalists) having civil unions of a different title than marriage. against the degradation marriage has already endured (including the no fault divorce) and against gay "marriage" but this is an ignorant argument.
by TAPriceCTR s son is wearing his COAT on December 14th, 2009
Wow....people still use this silly expression?
by redcatt63 is around here somewhere...... on December 16th, 2009
that doesn't even make any sense.
by Mr.Troll_has_a_COAT! on December 19th, 2009
what is your opinion on Uganda's kill-the-gays bill?
by tastiger on December 21st, 2009
So when Adam and Eve had kids, they had two sons: Cain and Abel. Cain killed Abel. Adam's next child was a son, Seth.
So it may not have been Adam and Steve, but it was certainly Cain and Seth.
by eternal0void on December 31st, 2009
grow up
by DA BEN DAN yanggui zi on January 16th, 2010
Those who hate, never seem to be able to listen to reason and grow up, DBD. So very sad to wallow in such ignorance.
by redcatt63 is around here somewhere...... on January 17th, 2010
The only reason it wasn't Adam and Steve is because Moses lacked imagination: when I write a myth, it's much more inclusive.
by HasntBeen on January 18th, 2010
And where was your God while many children were stuck under rubble with crushed body parts, starving and in pain for days before finally dying after the Haiti quake?
by Don Gorgeous George on February 19th, 2010
good one Don Gorgeous George...but of course you no that they will say "that was God's will" :)---and what's really sad is that they will believe it
by DA BEN DAN yanggui zi on February 19th, 2010
oh lord
by wingdust is no longer on answerbag on February 19th, 2010
"DA BEN DAN"
you must not know what god will means understand it before you try to use it against people.
Theres alot that goes in this world that really sad but everytime something goes wrong
are you honestly going to blame God for it?
by iLOVEJESUS on February 26th, 2010
If God has the power to do anything without effort, than yes I blame Him for not protecting the innocent from the power of nature.
by Don Gorgeous George on February 27th, 2010
Do you call that an argument? I have a Newsflash, no one cares about your imaginary friend; this isn't fucking preschool.
by uhhu on February 27th, 2010
ever stop and think god only created adam and eve to make it easier to create adam jr. and evette?
ever stop and realize YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT GOD'S PLAN WAS?
I HATE this argument against gay marriage, it is ignorant and self-righteous.
by Lalapalooza on March 2nd, 2010
LOL
by Annonymous3580 on March 11th, 2010
Ever notice that Lot and his Daughters never got zinged by God?
by Moongrim on March 12th, 2010
In response to Don Gorgeous George & DA BEN DAN yanggui zi COAT comments -
"...they will say 'that was God's will' :)---and what's really sad is that they will believe it"
Not exactly. We DO trust God's will because we believe that the infinite, all-powerful, and all-knowing God who created the universe from nothing is also the One who has the best ultimate plan for us all. That's "really sad"?! I'd say really awesome! So why wouldn't this all-powerful being who is certainly capable, not simply intervene in such disasters?
2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slow in keeping His promise, as some understand slowness [At some point God will intervene and put an end to the suffering]. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.
"If God has the power to do anything without effort, than yes I blame Him for not protecting the innocent from the power of nature."
God ALLOWS such things to happen. In addition, natural disasters, just like man-made calamities, are the result of the sin of man. We are walking on DANGEROUS territory when we say that we "blame God".
Refer to the story of Job ("Count it all joy when you fall into various trials, knowing that the testing of your faith produces patience. But let patience have its perfect work, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking nothing.") ...or the story of Joseph ("You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives.")
Romans 8:18, 28 For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the GLORY which shall be revealed in us... And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose.
by luv2shootg on March 25th, 2010
If God keeps his promises then why won't god heal amputees?
by Moongrim on March 25th, 2010
@luv2shootg: I don't think the catechism is really needed here -- pretty much everyone is already aware of the way that believers explain or justify this phenomenon. That doesn't make it any less "sad".
What's sad about it? Specifically, believers sacrifice their personal responsibility for the world, as well as their cognitive clarity, in exchange for a warm-and-fuzzy feeling that God has it all under control. No doubt this reduces their anxiety and makes them feel better, but it also makes them less *useful* to the rest of the planet, which needs people who will step up and take responsibility for problems on a global scale -- people who hold *themselves* accountable for how the world is, rather than blaming the Devil or giving credit to God.
For most believers, their idea of public service is to recruit more believers. When the missionaries aren't doing that, they're often feeding poor uneducated people, so those people will sit and listen to the sermons and become poor uneducated *believers*, which is obviously a huge improvement.
The rest of the believers -- the ones who aren't missionaries -- are engaged in the dubious service of sharpening the divisions between cultures, so that we know... for example... that Muslims are evil and should be converted to Christianity or bombed back to the Stone Age. When they're not doing that, or if they're a bit more enlightened, they're busing singing songs of praise and trying to cheer everybody up, instead of rolling up their sleeves and getting to work on the long-term, intractable problems which threaten the stability of the world or cause chronic suffering.
So all that mythology does, in effect, is drug the believer into thinking that (a) it's all going to be OK and (b) I don't have to do anything to fix things or (c) recruiting more believers is "service" and/or (d) it's all supposed to be screwed up so Jesus can come back and save us.
All of that falls pretty far short of "responsible, courageous adults meeting the challenges of the modern world squarely". It is a bit sad.
by HasntBeen on March 25th, 2010
I was giving a Biblical response to Don Gorgeous George & DA BEN DAN yanggui zi COAT comments. Replying without such support would be senseless.
Since when is God a cop-out? If a believer takes no personal action in such matters because they claim it's all just God's will then I agree with you, that is very sad. Like I said in my last comment, God ALLOWS things to happen. In no way does that underrate the fact that our own choices and actions shape the outcomes. It should not deter from our desire to take genuine steps and work hard in addressing such problems. And I'm quite certain many believers do just that. You cannot ignore the millions of believers who are very much involved in the "long-term, intractable problems which threaten the stability of the world or cause chronic suffering". And when I say 'involved' I mean real hard-working service, not "recruiting more believers". It's the everyday people who step up that sometimes make the greatest impacts. I don't at all think most believers' idea of public service is recruiting more believers. You don't need to be a missionary to serve or to have an influence. "Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for men..."
by luv2shootg on March 26th, 2010
God is a cop out, when you put your words into his mouth.
by Moongrim on March 26th, 2010
When you say "involved" Are you refering to the missionaries in Africa who tell Gods believers (both young and old) that's it's wrong to use condoms?
by Reptar on March 26th, 2010
I was just wondering about the direction of the faith in such circumstances, what with the whole AIDS epidemic going on there and what not, but I guess God will stop this virus from spreading, right?
by Reptar on March 26th, 2010
@luv2shootg: I appreciate your response, really. If you're sitting where we sit, listen to zealots and nutjobs going off like broken alarm clocks every day on Answerbag, you get used to certain kinds of raving responses from believers. Of course they're not all like that, and I agree that some are engaged as you've described in meaningful service.
However, it is just the nature of belief systems that distortion is inherent in committing oneself to them: to take your mind and hitch it like a wagon to a horse, produces a kind of tunnel-vision: a filter which dictates what you will see and how you will interpret it. In any tunnel, some of the light gets blocked out. It's that obscurity which produces the bizarre and mutant creatures I described above... having abandoned their ability to think for themselves, they wander around in the Zombie Mists, believing without allowing any questions lest their delicate bubble be punctured. Of course there's a shallow pretense of "considering alternatives", but it's really just an exercise in demonstrating to themselves that they must be right.
But getting back to God: God is subject to morality, just as we all are. This is where the traditional religious view is just plain wrong (that God invented morality and can do as he pleases). So if God slaughters a boatload of innocent children, and morality is real, the consequences fall to him for an accounting. He is not exempt. To have infinite power confers infinite responsibility, you can't have one without the other. Infinite responsibility in a universe where morality transcends both God and man means that he is very much on the hook to explain himself where disasters occur and he offers no help -- just as I would have to give account if I allowed a child to be beaten up by bullies in my presence. I have a responsibility to act which comes with my power to do so.
by HasntBeen on March 26th, 2010
HasntBeen
What a conceited person you are. How dare you say that "God is on the hook to explain Himself"
I don't know weather to be angry at you, or pitty you. God does not owe you anything. If it wasn't, but, for The Grace of God, you would not even be alive.
by Lucy in the sky on March 28th, 2010
@luv2shootg: Now you see what I'm talking about.
@Anonymous: Thanks for demonstrating just in time.
by HasntBeen on March 28th, 2010
hasntBeen
You are very welcome! I don't think it will save you though.
by Lucy in the sky on March 28th, 2010
If God wants us to worship him, She is on the Hook to provide a good enough reason why, we gotta put up with all of the crap that comes with it.
by Moongrim on March 28th, 2010
Moongrim, as usual your comment is stupid.
by Lucy in the sky on March 28th, 2010
I don't think his comment is stupid. Would you blindly follow someone who said, " worship me, kill this man to prove your love of me and I will make you happy, after you die". Do you jump into all contracts without knowing what you are getting into or making the other party responsible for their end of the deal?
by Gingerminx on March 28th, 2010
@anonymous: you're so busy getting into a huff and being indignant that you're not actually engaging with the meaningful parts of the discussion. For example, what you didn't notice in your haste to try and shame me about calling God to account is that I don't think I'm actually calling God to account -- the point of my argument is that those stories of God doing vicious and angry things are most likely myths: because if there is a God, and he has the qualities attributed by believers, he could not possibly have ordered the sorts of mass murders we see in the OT, he would not endorse slavery, he would not suggest that homosexuals should be killed, etc. A real God with those qualities simply wouldn't do that stuff. Therefore the stories are mythical... or, the God you're worshiping isn't the lovely person you imagine. Take your pick, me no care.
But, if you're going to argue with random strangers on the Internet, it's wise to consider that trying to shame or intimidate rarely works. When I log off, you disappear. Poof! It's like the magic Idiot Evaporator. I love it.
by HasntBeen on March 28th, 2010
HastBeen
Hey, you said it, Poof! and your gone. lol
by Lucy in the sky on March 29th, 2010
Gingerminx
Poor old Gingerminx, is no one talking to you, boo hoo, or is it
Mr budd in?
Moongrim can answer his own questions, he doesn't need you. I'll meow, if I'm talking to you.
by Lucy in the sky on March 29th, 2010
Ahhh my mistake, I didn't realise I was talkign to a child. Have fun. I am not sure why you want Moongrim to answer his own question, especially when he didn't ask one but I was not answering his question. I was responding to your statement in an adult manner which you obviously could not understand.
by Gingerminx on March 29th, 2010
Gingerminx
Yep, it is your mistake, you should speak when you are spoken to.
by Lucy in the sky on March 29th, 2010
So if that's the case, why are you going around sending people nasty e-mails? Shouldn't you wait until you're spoken to?
by HasntBeen on March 29th, 2010
HasntBeen
Hey, I thought Poof! and the idiot was gone, you stated that its like the magic idiot evaporator, what are you still doing here? You should be evaporated!
by Lucy in the sky on March 29th, 2010
Perhaps you should try praying to your non-existent God Anonymous.
Maybe she'll listen to you for once.
by Moongrim on March 29th, 2010
Moongrim
True to form, another stupid comment.
by Lucy in the sky on March 29th, 2010
Yes you are quite good at making them.
by Moongrim on March 29th, 2010
Wow, this anonymous has all the debating powers of corrugated cardboard, and the personality to match.
@HasntBeen, again you amaze me with your patience and articulation.
@Moongrim, You rock
@Gingerminx, All good points as always.
.
I'm still left wondering why God hates gay people, and wishes his followers to treat them as sub-human, it seems so...un-Christian.
by Reptar on March 29th, 2010
Hehe. Thanks!
Our buddy Anonymous went to "U2U", a budget university where debate is taught using the Angry Toddler Model. It can be summarized like this:
Opponent: "Furthermore, with the rate of increase in enrollments, it will be less than 2 years before the university's endowment is depleted. Therefore we must cut costs by restricting all non-essential activities".
Anonymous: "Well you're a loudmouth jerk and I hate you!!"
Opponent: "Um... ok."
by HasntBeen on March 29th, 2010
Somehow I can't help thinking that if god exists he would wish anonymous was on the other side.
by Gingerminx on March 29th, 2010
If only the cleverness of this hadn't worn off a couple of decades ago. And if only it had a grain of truth.
by HasntBeen on March 29th, 2010
Gingerminx
Hasntbeen
Moongrim
Why do you guy's hang out on this Homosexual question? Always defending it, over and over and over again. You all make my laugh. I stired you all up and you all bit back. I am bored now, it is always the same old same old, with you blokes. Peeing in each others pockets.
HasntBeen, "You hate me" lol, pick up your bat and your ball and go home, then.
Except you Reptar, you did a good bit of sucking up, there. Why? Who knows? Disagree with these blokes on a subject, and they will turn on you.
by Lucy in the sky on March 29th, 2010
I didn't, "bite" I attempted to have a rational discussion with what turned out to be an irrational person. That is where it ended. Hasn'tBeen never said he hated you, he was postulating a humorous scenario. Perhaps you should go back to the sand box.
by Gingerminx on March 29th, 2010
Gingerminx
Answering for other people again.
HasntBeen posted: Anonymous: "You are a loud mouth jerk, and I hate you" Which part of that don't you understand. Back to pre school, with you, I think. lol
by Lucy in the sky on March 29th, 2010
What he posted was,
Our buddy Anonymous went to "U2U", a budget university where debate is taught using the Angry Toddler Model. It can be summarized like this:
Opponent: "Furthermore, with the rate of increase in enrollments, it will be less than 2 years before the university's endowment is depleted. Therefore we must cut costs by restricting all non-essential activities".
Anonymous: "Well you're a loudmouth jerk and I hate you!!"
Opponent: "Um... ok."
What part of that do you not understand???? Never mind, you haven't left pre school yet.
by Gingerminx on March 29th, 2010
Gingerminx
The whole comment is stupid?
I didn't read it all before, because hasntBeen's comments bore me, and this one is no exception.
I am going to leave you two buddies to continue your long long debate about homosexuals. I am moving on to a new topic.
by Lucy in the sky on March 30th, 2010
ab alerts deleted commentary
by Moongrim on March 30th, 2010
We continue to fight against the implacable hatred of ninnies.
by Moongrim on March 30th, 2010
@Moongrim: the comments weren't deleted -- that's what I thought too, but it appears to just be one of the glitches.
@Anonymous: I'm sorry you're bored, we'll try to keep it more interesting. Say, did you hear the one about the angry bigot with the IQ of a squash?
by HasntBeen on March 30th, 2010
I have always tried to give credit where credit is due. The members I have "sucked up" to have given valid points as to why they believe what they believe. I made sure to leave an opening so as you could state your opinion on the matter, which you chose to ignore in lue of more childish bullying tactics. The same tactics used by religious followers since the birth of your God.
I'm sure if I disagreed with any of these people about almost anyhting, we would have fun discussing our differences of opinions, and relish the opportunity to do so with people who are able to look at all side of an issue.
Again, I am still left wondering why Jesus wants his followers to treat these people as if they were sub-human.
by Reptar on March 30th, 2010
HasntBeen
No, I didn't know there was a joke circulating, about you.
by Lucy in the sky on March 30th, 2010
Reptar
I have never said that Jesus wants His followers to treat homosexuals as if they were subhuman. Jesus loves homosexuals just as He loves all other sinners. He is hoping they will repent from their sinful ways, and be saved.
If you took the time, to really read The Holy Bible, you would see that for yourself.
by Lucy in the sky on March 30th, 2010
anonymous
Thank you for wording it this way. So what you're saying is: We should give all sinners (we are all sinners) the benefit of the doubt, that the true judgement comes from God. So...They should have every right and privilege that any other human has until the day, when they come before the lord to receive said judgement.
by Reptar on March 30th, 2010
@Anonymous: what evidence do you have that Jesus considered homosexuality a sin, or that he wanted them to repent? He never mentioned it.
Also, your constant condescension, such as "If you took the time, to really read The Holy Bible..." is what earns you so many digs. Collectively, we have probably read far more of the Bible than you. I know I have.
by HasntBeen on March 30th, 2010
@Anonymous: what evidence do you have that Jesus considered homosexuality a sin, or that he wanted them to repent? He never mentioned it.
Also, your constant condescension, such as "If you took the time, to really read The Holy Bible..." is what earns you so many digs. Collectively, we have probably read far more of the Bible than you. I know I have.
by HasntBeen on March 30th, 2010
I do not hate gays. I believe, like Elton John, that they should have civil unions, with rights mostly equal to marriage, but I do not agree with the term marriage being used. And like I said, Elton John agreed with me.
And here's why. In places where marriage has been redefined, gay couples have sued churches for discrimination because they were observing their religious beliefs. I believe that there are way more Christians then there are gays, so what about their rights? Should gays receive special treatment because they are a minority? That does not seem fair to me,and I think that gays who want marriage to be redefined are being selfish. Stop complaining about your rights and try to think about everyone elses.
by WishUponAStar on March 30th, 2010
WishUponAStar, how do gays want marriage redefined? The ones I have heard talkign about it don't, they just want to be allowed to marry like anyone else. As to churches, frankly I do not beleive they should have to perform marriages if they don't want to, and I don't see anyone asking them to. Marriage can be performed by other officials. I got married in a country club to my husband, not a gay marriage but not a religious one either. As to, "Should gays receive special treatment because they are a minority?", no, they shouldn't, and I don't see them asking for that, only to receive the same rights as everyone else, that is, to be allowed to get married.
by Gingerminx on March 30th, 2010
Exactly: there is no reason to restrict legal marriage based on gender. If churches wish to exclude gay weddings from their property, of course that's their right, and no sensible person would argue otherwise.
Case closed.
by HasntBeen on March 30th, 2010
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91486340
Ah, but in New Jersey a church was already sued by a gay couple and lost tax exempt status. The rights of the gay couple usurped the right of the church to restrict where the wedding could be held. In this incident, the pavilion the women wanted to rent was used for Bible studies, church services, gospel choir performances and, in the past at least, weddings. Heterosexual weddings.
This church ownded the surrounding land and did not restrict the couple from getting married on the property, just not in the pavillian where they did hold church services. The full article is at that link if you want to check it our. So I ask again, what about the rights of the churches?
by WishUponAStar on March 30th, 2010
Marriage is defined in most states as a union between one man and one woman. In recent years, they've started trying to change the legal definition to include gay couples, but I fear if that happens, more churches, like this Methodist Church in New Jersey, will be targetted by law suits for their beliefs. Why shouls a majority be persecuted so a very small minority can use the word marriage? Elton John advocated for Civil Unions, saying that heterosexual couples could have marriages. Could it be that he could see the kind of complications that could come with marriage being redefined? Christians, Jews, and Muslims shouldn't have to give up rights so that gays can feel better about themselves.
by WishUponAStar on March 30th, 2010
You mention one incident which, as we have stated, we do not think should happen. Sorry, but the meanings of words change all the time and the church or the state do not own the word marriage. One case, in New Jersey, that the authorities should not have let through does not mean that all homosexuals should be punished for it. No one should have to give up their rights, and any homosexuals I have talked to certainly do not want that. One small thing which should not have happened and which can be stated in any law made should not prevent homosexuals from being given the same rights as other adults.
by Gingerminx on March 31st, 2010
The link you've posted is not really on point to your argument: the reason this particular case is contentious is because the pavilion was open to everyone: it wasn't really a "church" in the usual sense. It was more like a business that happened to be owned by the Methodists but was open to all. When they tried to "close" it just for this gay couple, the couple sued. That doesn't apply to situations where a church is used in the usual way.
Even so, I agree that the church should have been allowed to prevail. But it's not a good case to make your point.
You're also mistaken about the definition of marriage: in most states, it is not defined at all. Some states have passed laws *restricting* the definition in recent years, but that's a new trend.
No majority is being persecuted, that's absurd. Who has been persecuted specifically? Name one poor suffering soul! God, you're so dramatic. Take a chill pill.
The victims in this are all gay: there has not been a single heterosexual couple harmed by gay marriage, there have been many gay couples harmed by the interference from heterosexuals. Folks like you are the *aggressors* -- not the *victims*.
As for Elton John... well, the man is a good piano player. That does not make him a lawyer or expert on ethics or social philosophy.
by HasntBeen on March 31st, 2010
The pavilion was owned by the Ocean Grover Camp Meeting Association, somehow by the Methodists?
So, a religious organization partially influencing a secular group meeting place. Hasn't been is correct.
by Moongrim on March 31st, 2010
There ya go, not getting it. The Methodist Church owned the Pavillion, but that is not why they said no. It was because they do hold their services outside, in that very pavillion. Churches can choose to rent out their chapel for weddings, shouldn't the same be true for any 'meetingplace' where they gather and worship as long as they own the property? As for a law being made to prevent homosexuals from suing, that wont work because liberal judges are everywhere, and they'll just say it's unconstitutional and sue-happy homosexuals will start suing churches. There is no way for Homosexuals to gain the word marriage and protect the rights of the religious without the human race growing the hell up and trying to understand each others positions, and I do not see that happening.
by WishUponAStar on March 31st, 2010
Actually, you're the one who isn't "getting it": it is true, if a Church rents its facilities to the general public, then it is acting as a business owner for those purposes, and indeed it loses the right to discriminate. That's different than (for example) charging a usage fee to members of the church who wish to marry in the facility.
That's the way the U.S. works, that is our values: freedom, justice, equality... and in particular, protection of minority rights. When a church acts like a business, it does lose some of its isolation and protection -- that's as it should be, it's not a matter of "liberal judges", it's a matter of our long-standing history of trying to balance competing concerns in complex legal matters.
You should study the law a bit more before sounding off: you're really not up on the topic much.
by HasntBeen on March 31st, 2010
As a Mormon, my chruch does not rent out it's facilities at all, so my faith is not directly affected. Anyway, it was suggested to me that a gay marriage law could be passed with a law to proect religious rights, but liberal judges, who hate God, would just rule the faith protection as unconstitutional.
by WishUponAStar on March 31st, 2010
WishUponAStar, it sounds more like you are groping for a reason to be against homosexuals being allowed to marry. One isolated incident, which was under contention because it was not actually a church, does not mean that if you allow homosexuals the right to marry they will sue all the churches, that is very far fetched.
by Gingerminx on March 31st, 2010
If one does it, it's too many. I do not believe rights should be taken away from Churches. Here's an alternate idea. Make civil unions available to heterosexual couples and let the religious folk have marriages, since marriage started as a religious principal.
by WishUponAStar on March 31st, 2010
What right was taken away from a church? It wasn't a church but a pavilion they rented out, which means it was a business and business's are subject to laws. Marriage was around before religion. It is for all. I married my husband 25 years ago and it was not in a church nor was it religious but it was still a marriage and homosexuals should be allowed the same right.
by Gingerminx on March 31st, 2010
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...
The first amendment says government can't mandate what a religion can and cannot believe, making the ruling in the New Jersey case a violation of the first amendment. In other words, a church can't be punished for following it's beliefs.
But if you give gays the word marriage, that's exactly what will happen. Churches will either be forced to stop renting out their chapel, or the government will force them to do what goes against their beliefs, and if they resist and stick uop for their first amendment right, they'll be punished. Does everyone ignore the rights of religions now?
As for the Pavilion, they hold church servises in it sometimes, and choir practice is normally held there. Meaning it is an extention of their church subject to the same rights under the first amendment as the chapel itself.
by WishUponAStar on March 31st, 2010
They also hire it out to the public, any of whom may or may not be homosexual, pagan, atheist, all things that are seen as bad by their religion. Do they ask all people who use it what their sexual orientation is and ban all homosexuals? or just those who want to marry there? If it is an extension of their church and sacred why do they cheapen it by hiring it out?
by Gingerminx on March 31st, 2010
To make money. But don't take that the wrong way. Speaking religiously, they are supposed to turn around and use what money they can get to spead Gods love by example. That does not mean buying handcuffs and forcing people to come to church, lol. It means like running shelters, or food banks, or going to faraway places and helping after natural disasters.
by WishUponAStar on March 31st, 2010
Alright they hire out their hall/church to help others. Is homosexuals money somehow tainted? Does a refusal to marry a homosexual couple mean some starving child in Africa dies? Do they ask all who hire their churches if they are gay and refuse entry to all gays? or just those who want to marry? and, even if we say that churches do not have to marry anyone they don't want to, which I agree with, how does that give them the right to stop homosexual people from marrying?
by Gingerminx on March 31st, 2010
Your argument is so full of logical fallacies and leaps of faith that its hard to even know where to start. Nobody is "punishing" a church by not allowing it to discriminate in business matters: the church is subject to the same laws that all businesses are subject to. That's not punishment, any more than having to stop for a red light is punishment for the driver who is anxious to get home. It's just that applying laws equally works. It's fair.
But, now that you've admitted to being Mormon, you have earned an extra lashing: the Mormon church is largely responsible for an aggressive campaign against gay rights in California -- having gone to great lengths to encourage members to reach across state lines and fund the discriminatory Prop. 8. Indeed, the Mormon church has been leading the attack on gay rights, so any claim to being victims is silly and deceptive: y'all are most definitely the aggressors here, not the victims.
Get back into your corner, let the gay community mind their own lives... live and let live. Just because you lost the right to legal polygamy doesn't mean you get to punish others who want to marry.
by HasntBeen on March 31st, 2010
Hasntbeen, are you American? If you are, then you should know that piece by piece the government is trying to take away our rights. America was founded as a Christian country, just read the Constitution if you are a doubter, and count how many times God is mentioned. That being said, Churches are concerned with maintaining their own rights. They can't decide who is and is not eligible to marry, but under the first amendment they can decide who will and will not be married on their property. How can you not understand that?
Mormons were efficient, that's true, but the yes on 8 campaign still raised 6 Million dollars less then the No on 8 campaign did. But while individual Mormons did raise some money, it's unclear how much, and there were many donations from Muslims, Orthodox Jews, Catholics, and Protestants. I see no problem with that since they were defending their rights. Plus, as I said, the No on 8 campaign still raised more money.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uv72urCWJcU
Mormons were singled out because the bigoted supporters of No on 8 ignored the fact that Mormons only evened the odds a little bit. The 20 Million Protestents and Catholcs did a lot more then we did.
by WishUponAStar on March 31st, 2010
But you are not wanting to just decide who can marry in your church, you want to say that homosexuals can't marry at all.
by Gingerminx on March 31st, 2010
God you are being stubborn. Read carefully. Lets say that a law were passed, permitting gay marriage, but disallowing them from suing churches on religious grounds, for obeying their beliefs. The Liberals would just turn around and take away the church protections, calling it unconstitutional. But if you give them the same rights, but call it a civil union, and pace in that bill the protections for the churches, the liberals wont be able to take the protection away as easily, though they'd probably try. It would have to be worded carefully. Can't you get it through your head that I want to give them right, I just don't want the liberals to be able to use them to promote there anti-Christian agenda? I am saying my stance is based on a desire to preserve rights. Why must you argue from such a selfish stance? My position is good enough for Elton John.
by WishUponAStar on March 31st, 2010
That doesn't even make any sense.
by Gingerminx on March 31st, 2010
You are dishonest and uninformed at the same time: a dangerous combination. The Mormons were not "defending" any rights in Prop. 8, they were *attacking* the rights of others. No Mormon's rights were at stake. And the consensus accounting from unbiased sources is that the Mormon church collectively gave $20M, not $8M, and led all other donors -- remarkable in part because only a fraction of the Mormon population lives in California.
As for this being a "Christian" country, that has just enough truth to be dangerous -- the founders were particularly concerned with limiting the power of religion, having seen the devastating effect it had in their home European countries. The fact is that folks like Jefferson weren't Christian at all, they were Deist, and there is a lot of good reasons to believe that many of the "Christian" founders were not particularly devout.
In any case, all of that is irrelevant: Christianity has nothing whatsoever to do with the principles which underly our government... justice, equality, fairness: these are all things the Mormon church is adamantly opposed to when it comes to the groups they don't like. You could hardly get more un-American: traitors, the whole bunch o'ya.
by HasntBeen on March 31st, 2010
It's American Politics, Ginger, it barely makes sense to me and I've seen it all my life. Okay, basically if yougive gays the right to marry, but say in the bill thatthey can't sue churches for taking a stand for their beliefs, that just wont work. You see, political correctness comes into play. A liberal would say that a gay married couple was being discriminated against by the law, because a heterosexual married couple is not supject to the same restraints. and as theliberal judge in New Jersey proved, they are willing to ignore the churches first ammendment right..
And HasntBeen, those numbers seem exaggerated to me. I find it really hard to believe they raised that much when the entire Yes on Prop 8 campaign raised 32 million dollars and there were many other donors.Whoever made up those numbers was probably a liberal ignoring the truth and just trying to direct outrage at hated Mormons. Lord knows they don't care about the truth or anyone but themselves, hence why when we need more jobs they start attacking the fishing industry threatening to destroy more jobs.
by WishUponAStar on March 31st, 2010
Bullshit. Absolute bullshit.
Regardless of how much money the Mormons raised, the fact is that they collectively funded a pack of lies. The campaign for Prop. 8 consisted of a lot of TV ads and mailed literature that repeated lies over and over again -- things which the promoters KNEW were lies at the time they told them, but didn't care. The Mormons supported that without the slightest shred of conscience.
I actually used to be very supportive of Mormons in debates on Answerbag -- it seemed like they were being unfairly criticized. But as time goes by, and I've watched how they actually behave... and how hard they work to hide their own misdeeds... my views have changed. Y'all are a bunch of pretenders, I think -- you don't know true spirituality from strutting around and putting on false piety.
So I defend Mormon rights as much as any other rights. But I have little respect left for the actual believers.
by HasntBeen on April 1st, 2010
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-jc4ujp9Ok
Every commercial endorsed by Preservingmarriage.org is a proven fact.
Catholic Charities stuns state, ends adoptions
Gay issue stirred move by agency
By Patricia Wen, Globe Staff | March 11, 2006
In a stunning turn of events, Archbishop Sean P. O'Malley and leaders of Catholic Charities of Boston announced yesterday that the agency will end its adoption work, deciding to abandon its founding mission, rather than comply with state law requiring that gays be allowed to adopt children.
The Rev. J. Bryan Hehir, president of Catholic Charities of Boston, and Jeffrey Kaneb, chairman of the board, said that after much reflection and analysis, they could not reconcile church teaching that placement of children in gay homes is ''immoral" with Massachusetts law prohibiting discrimination against gays.
''This is a difficult and sad day for Catholic Charities," Hehir said. ''We have been doing adoptions for more than 100 years."
Catholic Charities of Boston began in 1903 as an adoption agency primarily serving Catholic children left by parents who died or abandoned them.
Officials in government, social services, and gay-rights groups expressed disappointment about the decision. Catholic Charities is widely respected among adoption providers and has handled more adoptions of foster children than any other private agency in the state.
Harry Spence, the state's commissioner of social services, said he was ''deeply saddened" to hear of Catholic Charities' withdrawal.
Lee Swislow, executive director of Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, said the outcome was ''very unfortunate."
Almost immediately after the announcement, Governor Mitt Romney, who was in Tennessee speaking to a Republican group, issued a statement saying he would file legislation to exempt religious organizations that provide adoption services from the state's antidiscrimination laws.
''I ask the Legislature to work with me on a bill that I will file to ensure that religious institutions are able to participate in the important work of adoption in a way that always respects and never forces them to compromise their firmly held beliefs," Romney said.
Lawmakers have said that Romney's bill has little chance of passage, and some Democrats derided it as a presidential election ploy by the governor.
State officials and other adoption agencies were still absorbing the news yesterday, but said they would work to fill the gap left by Catholic Charities. The agency was especially adept at finding homes for so-called ''special needs" adoptions, which include children who are older or who have significant physical or emotional disabilities.
Catholic Charities, the social services arm of the archdiocese, will shut down its adoption operation June 30, Hehir said. Adoptions underway will be completed, he said.
Hehir said he hoped the decision will end the tumult surrounding the gay adoption issue. The controversy began in October when the Globe reported that Catholic Charities had been quietly processing a small number of gay adoptions, despite Vatican statements condemning the practice. Over the last decades, the Globe reported, approximately 13 children had been placed by Catholic Charities in gay households, a fraction of the 720 children placed by the agency during that period.
Agency officials said they had been permitting gay adoptions to comply with the state's antidiscrimination laws. But after the story was published, the state's four bishops announced they would appoint a panel to examine whether the practice should continue. In December, the Catholic Charities board, which is dominated by lay people, voted unanimously to continue gay adoptions.
But, on Feb. 28, the four bishops announced a plan to seek an exemption from the antidiscrimination laws. Eight of the 42 board members quit in protest, saying the agency should welcome gays as adoptive parents.
That day, Hehir and O'Malley met with Romney in his State House
by WishUponAStar on April 1st, 2010
I dunno what to believe in that article, the Boston Globe is a far left leaning newspaper that distortsthe truth a lot. Maybe they did adopt to gays in the past, maybe they didn't. The fact of the matter is that the ruling from ROme was that they could not, so once they finally buckled down and started obeying their leadership, and siting religious grounds, that should have been the end of it. I thought I should clarify on that.
by WishUponAStar on April 1st, 2010
So you're saying that because the Catholics are also bigots, gays should not be allowed to adopt children? How bizarre.
I'm a CASA (Court Appointed Special Advocate for abused children). I can guarantee you that every one of the children growing up in group homes and overcrowded foster homes would be better off with a caring gay couple.
The Catholic Charities are sacrificing the welfare of the children for their misguided ancient prejudices. Absolutely a disgusting choice to make, but it's theirs to make.
At least they didn't give the children to their priests for molestation therapy.
by HasntBeen on April 1st, 2010
The point is that the order came from Rome.They had been ignoring the order out of political correctness, but once someone outed them, well, had they resisted the orders Rome probably would have replaced them with someone that would do as they were told. And you throw the word bigot around too easy, there was religious reasons for that.
by WishUponAStar on April 1st, 2010
Just because somethign has a religious reason doesn't mean that it is not a bigoted reason. Religion doesn't give you the right to do anything you please.
by Gingerminx on April 1st, 2010
It's not bigotry. The bible says Homosexual relations is a sin, therefore, from a religious standpoint, it's not exactly a good idea to put a child in that kind of situation. Obviously, they are concerned with the soulds of the children, so they take a religious stand that has mpthing to do with hate. This goes back to that principal that we are not supposed to condone the lifestyle as well.
by WishUponAStar on April 1st, 2010
Yes, there is a lot of bigotry that is condoned by religions.
by Gingerminx on April 1st, 2010
Go on preaching to the choir. It's not bigotry, but I can't make you understand. God knows I've tried, but you don't want to understand.
by WishUponAStar on April 1st, 2010
It is absolutely bigotry: it is judging someone without getting to know them based on a characteristic beyond their choice and control. That is bigotry, plain and simple. Whether you justify it with religion, or with "that's how I was raised", or whatever... is irrelevant. A bigot is a bigot is a bigot, it's not complicated.
The evidence is overwhelming that homosexuality is not a personal choice, there is no longer any question about that. In addition, there is absolutely no evidence that it is immoral (and no, "the Bible" is not *evidence*). Therefore discrimination against homosexuals is unethical, and those who justify it are bigots. As we've seen from your constant dodging and diversion-creating, you have no real basis for your discrimination -- it's all just what other people tell you.
The immorality on this topic lies entirely with the bigots: those who are depriving gays of their dignity and trying to deprive them of their freedom are guilty of a heinous crime against freedom and justice. You have a lot to answer for, and you're doing a lousy job of it. I could carve a better argument out of a banana.
by HasntBeen on April 2nd, 2010
I do not oppose gays having rights like marriage, just don't call it that. Besides, Marriage is a RELIGIOUS thing that government went and stuck their hand in. Wow, you know what I think? I think that people who throw the word bigot around too easily and refuse to try to comprehend another side are complete and utter idiots. We could go back to what it was before government got involved with marriage. I mean, gays still have options without attacking Christians who are doing as their faith directs. That couple in New Jersey could have found another place to hold the wedding, and the Catholic Adoption Agency wasn't the only one in Massachussettes. When they started obeying the orders from Rome, did gays need to target them? No they didn't, but still they did. They had other options, and because of that choice, rather then disobey rome again, they shut down, after being open over a hundred years. Gays and their supporters have targetted Christians. We have to protect OUR rights. You are apparently blinded by your hate for religious-folk. That's Bigotry. I have explained my side over and over again, and you refuse yo hear, and go on belittling region and calling me a bigot. I say that you are the one bigoted.
by WishUponAStar on April 2nd, 2010
@HasntBeen and Gingerminx
Thought you might like this tune, you also might enjoy his song "Creation science 101"
"Defenders of Marriage" by Roy Zimmerman
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bja2ttzGOFM&feature=channel
by Reptar on April 2nd, 2010
Hello Raptar. I watched that video. I didn't care for it. It's another ignotant man who thinks bigotry motivates Christians, and that's not so. I will grant you that he is spreading his message in a fun way, but still the message is wrong. The bible says that lifestyle is wrong, so it's wrong to condone that lifestyle. Love the sinner, not the sin. I kinda wish we could go back to the old system where only religious priests had authority to marry people, before the government butted in. It was so much less complicated then, and no one called you a bigot. But that wont happen. Anyway, if only priests did, I guess you'd be hardpressed to find someone to perform a civil union, so I confess there is problems with that logic, but so many people attack Christians.
It's the same thing as getting called racist because I didn't vote for Obama. Everyone jumps to conclusions and assumes the worst. I hope you will try to understand the other side. Certain parties here are too stuborn,k I can explain a hundred times and they'll still call me a bigot.
by WishUponAStar on April 2nd, 2010
@Wish: you have been repeatedly corrected on this point, and you've ignored the corrections -- marriage predates religion. So, it's not "a religious thing". Please stop saying that, it's not true and now you've been reminded (again).
2nd correction: I do not "throw the word bigot around". I reserve it strictly for people who have earned it, and you're way over the threshold on that measure. So stop saying that, it's a lie.
3rd correction: Gays who are "attacking Christians" (name one attack??) are surely doing so in reaction. The believer-bigots start the fight by telling them that they're sinners going to Hell, yadayada. So it is disingenous (see also: dishonest) to call their responses an "attack". They may become overzealous in defense of themselves, but that's another matter. So stop calling it "attack", it's false.
4th correction: I have no hate for religious folks. I'm just taking out the trash. If you practice your religion without being offensive to those who have done you no harm, we have no problem. So stop saying that you're being hated, it's a lie.
5th: Yes, you've stated your position, but you have not JUSTIFIED it. That is the whole point -- we have repeatedly, over and over again, challenged you to JUSTIFY your view on gay marriage, and you have failed to do so. So all the whining about how you're misunderstood and nobody listens yadayada is just whining. If you want to be taken seriously, say something that makes sense... stop hiding out behind the Bible and Faux News and news stories that you barely understand, and give us a good, sound, logical reason to believe that homosexuality or gay marriage is *immoral*. Until you can do that, you're just being a windbag.
6th correction: you said "the bible says that lifestyle is wrong". That's actually not what it says, you should try reading it. The OT says that men lying with other men is "an abomination", it says nothing about "lifestyle". Furthermore, it says homosexuals should be killed, pretty much on the spot. That is the viewpoint you're endorsing if you're going to use the Bible as your reference on this -- you will become a murderer, trying to end the "evil" of homosexuality. Is that really who you are and what you believe?
by HasntBeen on April 2nd, 2010
@Reptar: the video is hilarious, beautiful, creative, and truthful all at the same time, thanks! Too bad there's no Academy Award for "Best Short Subject that Penetrates to the Heart of Ancient Prejudice in 4 minutes or less"
by HasntBeen on April 2nd, 2010
You demonstrate your ignorance of Chriistianity again. That, or you are being deliberately misleading. Jesus fulfilled the old laws, meaning the laws of the New Testament take Priority, which is where love the sinner, but don't condone the sin comes from Nothing bigoted about that. And Ic have given specific examples in New Jersey, Massachusettes, and California of gays attacking the first amendment rights of religions, you just ignored them, I guess, being so stuborn and stuck in your ways.
by WishUponAStar on April 2nd, 2010
Furthermore, I suggested an alternative in which they got the same rights as marriage while protecting the rights of churches, mosques, and synagogues. What the heck are we arguing about? The word marriage? We're arguing about a word? Yup.
Shere idiocy.
by WishUponAStar on April 2nd, 2010
The word you're looking for is "sheer" idiocy, btw. A spell-checker might make you sound like less of a hillbilly.
I'm very familiar with Christianity -- and as you're aware, most of the Christian world isn't very enthusiastic about calling Mormons "Christian". But your take on Jesus' statements about the OT is incomplete and one-sided. There has always been debate about exactly what he meant, the argument goes back 2000 years.
However, for our purpose, it's irrelevant -- you have cited the Bible as your reason for believing homosexuality is immoral, but that isn't a moral argument. It's simply an unsupported claim to authority. The Bible is no more a moral authority than the Code of Hammurabi. To have moral authority, you have to have a coherent understanding of what morality IS, and what makes something moral or immoral. Merely citing a verse in the Bible accomplishes nothing in that regard, unless your opponent also recognizes the Bible as an authority. Obviously, I don't -- so, you have to prove that the Bible is a moral authority, which frankly just isn't possible.
Lacking that, you need to explain your idea of what morality is and why being gay is immoral. I think by now you would have done so if you were capable of thinking that clearly. But, I'm all for 2nd (and 3rd, and 43rd) chances. Go:
by HasntBeen on April 2nd, 2010
Thank you Reptar, that was funny, I bookmarked it to show my son.
WishUponAStar, I have to agree with HasntBeen here, the incident you cited, in New Jersey, was an isolated incident which was no reason to deny homosexuals the right to marry. You say we are arguing over a word, lets take that as a fact and I think it is more than that but lets say that, if that is the case then why are you so stubbornly refusing to allow the homosexuals to use it?
by Gingerminx on April 2nd, 2010
And if homosexuality is a sin, why should they be allowed to even live, let alone have civil unions (or whatever bone you're throwing them?). Surely all forms of homosexuality should be outlawed, yes? That's what Jesus wanted, no doubt, when he left that vague comment about 'fulfilling the law'.
by HasntBeen on April 2nd, 2010
I've explained this who knows how many times. Okay, once more. I want to protect the first amendment right of churches. In New Jersey and Massachussettes where it already passed, there were incidents, so New Jersey wasn't all alone. As a result of the federal government sticking it's head in where it doesn't belong, a Catholic Adoption Agency had to close business.Liberal politicians say they are Christians much of the time, but they always apoint god-hating judges. It's a very hostile legal system towards Christians. These judges seem to enjoy overlooking the first amendment, and we don't know how to stop them from doing it. If gays had 'marriage' it would be just another way for them to persecute Christians. If you make a gay marriage law and write in a reaffirmation of first amendment religious rights,Liberal judges would rule the church/mosque/synagogue protection is unconstitutional. They'll look for any excuse. But if it's not called marriage, even if it has the same privileges, Liberal judges can't compare the two and the reaffirmationof our rights cannot be removed easily. By the way, you might not know this Ginger, but the bill I mentioned, Proposition 8, was actually the second time it was voted on. There was an earlier election and 61% of Californians voted for it, but liberal judges in Sacramento overturned the peoples vote, and, against the will of Californians, started issuing gay couples marriage licenses. In my opinion, if they were going to overturn the peoples vote, they shouldn't have done anything that drastic that soon. It pist a lot of people off. They felt like their votes didn't count.
by WishUponAStar on April 2nd, 2010
Most of what you are talking about has no bearing on homosexuals being allowed to marry. Marriages can be performed anywhere and don't have to be performed in a church, mine wasn't. So how can that possibly harm religion? You site a case over a pavilion, not a church. I don't think a church should have to marry anyone in their church that they don't want to, but a public venue is different. Frankly it simply sounds like you think marriage belongs to churches and so homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to use the word and thats a whole different argument.
by Gingerminx on April 2nd, 2010
@Wish: Prop. 8 barely passed. It is true that the California Supreme Court struck down the anti-gay-marriage initiative, as it should have: that is the court's job, to protect the rights of the minority from the oppression of a majority. I see you're miffed that the majority rule wasn't sufficient, but majorities are often in the wrong when it comes to how they treat minorities -- you might recall a little mishap we had right around here called "slavery", in which the majority felt that blacks should be property. So "majority rule" does not always produce the right outcome, and our system is designed to protect against that by allowing judges to strike down unfair laws.
You can call them "liberal judges" and "god-haters", but the fact remains that all the hate in the Prop 8 case came from the Bible-thumpers trying to take a way a right that gays had -- the right to marry like everybody else. The judges did the right thing, and it took considerable courage to do so.
Then the Catholics and the Mormons came along, and pumped a bunch of money into a pack of lies (which you are claiming weren't lies, but absolutely they were lies), and convinced barely 50% of the population to vote for those lies. Now we're back where we started: government interfering in the lives of gays! You keep claiming you want government to stop interfering, but in fact that is exactly what they are doing by passing laws which outlaw gay marriage.
So basically, this is your hypocrisy all over again: you're all for ending government interference, unless the government is interfering with gay rights. You're all for protecting minority rights, as long as it's your minority. You're all for thumping the Old Testament, as long as it's just the verses you pick and not the other ones about killing people or holding slaves.
You see everything through a filter, and that filter keeps telling you you're right, regardless of how high is the pile of evidence that you're wrong. The pile is now large enough to justify questioning whether you ever had any interest in the truth at all.
by HasntBeen on April 2nd, 2010
"Those who believe in their truth -- the only ones whose imprint is retained by the memory of men -- leave the earth behind them strewn with corpses. Religions number in their ledgers more murders than the bloodiest tyrannies account for, and those whom humanity has called divine far surpass the most conscientious murderers in their thirst for slaughter." - E. M. Cioran
by Reptar on April 2nd, 2010
Dang, Ginger, how do I have to word it to make you understand. I've explained it over and over again. The gays, feeling a sense of entitlement, would start suing churches over every little thing. Not all of them, of course, but it will be a definite problem. You agreed that what happened in New Jersey and in Massachusettes was wrong, but it will happen over and over again.
And HasntBeen, I've watched the ads for Prop 8. The ones put put together by my church, at least. There were no lies at all. I don't know if other ads contained lies or not, but the ones I saw were all truthful.
Also, you are wrong. The judges not only struck down the bill, they took it upon themselves to start gay marriage, without giving the public a vote. You are all pist because some Catholics, Protestents, and Mormons donated money to a cause they believed in, AND THE NO ON PROP 8 CAMPAIGN STILL RAISED 6 MILLION DOLLARS MORE!!!!
The fact of the matter is, those judges went about it the wrong way. It's one thing to rule Prop 22 unconstitutional, and something different to authorize gay marriage without a vote.
So HasntBeen, get over it.
Now to BOTH OF YOU!
I BELIEVE GAYS ARE ENTITLED TO RIGHTS EQUAL TO MARRIAGE SO LONG AS IT IS NOT CALLED MARRIAGE AND THE RIGHTS OF RELIGIONS IS REAFFIRMED!!!!!!
I DO NOT WANT GAYS GETTING RIGHTS, JUST TO SUE RELIGIONS AND HAVE LIBERAL JUDGES IGNORE OUR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS AND TRY TO TELL CHURCHES WHAT THEY CAN AND CANNOT DO!!!!!!
IN NEW JERSEY WHEN A METHODIST CHURCH SAID THAT IT WOULD NOT RENT OUT ITS PROPERTY FOR A GAY WEDDING, THAT WAS IT'S FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT!!!!!!!
IN MASSACHUSSETTES, WHEN THE HAMMER CAME DOWN FROM ROME AND THAT CATHOLIC ADOPTION AGENCY REJECTED A GAY COUPLE, THAT WAS THEIR RIGHT UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT!!!!!
IN BOTH THESE CASES JUDGES IGNORED THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND RULES AGAINST THE CHURCHES!!!!!!!
by WishUponAStar on April 2nd, 2010
@WishUponAStar
I was a-boot to hop into some research, but decided to let you giver a try if you're interested? and to see what you come up with.
In Canada, same sex marriage has been legal nation wide since 2005, and in most provinces since 1999. What I was wondering was: How many lawsuits have been filed (and won) by the Gays against The Church since then?
by Reptar on April 2nd, 2010
I never mentioned anything about Massachusetts and what happened in New jersey was not their church but a pavilion. What do you mean the gays feeling a sense of entitlement? Isn't that the same mentality as those long ago slave owners who thought if they gave the black man an inch he would take a mile? So should we have not allowed them to be free? I am not pissed about anyone giving anyone money, I never mentioned money. Yelling at us doesn't mean we are suddenly going to agree with you. You have not given a good enough reason why gays should not be allowed to use the word marriage. You are willing to suppress gay rights just out of fear of what may happen to the churches rights? Again you sound like those long ago slave owners. It would have been had it been their church and not a pavilion, but even so, one case does not mean all homosexuals will sue, there are many homosexuals who have married where it is allowed and have not sued anyone. Actually, I would have thought the only reason to deny someone adopting was because they were unsuitable parents, I am not sure being gay is a distinction here but what does adoption have to do with marriage?
by Gingerminx on April 2nd, 2010
The difference, Reptar, is that I think in Canada the changeover was probably handled better. Here in the States liberals have spent years vilifying church folk to the gay community. Also, Canadians are by nature nicer and more polite, or at least most are. Perhaps it's easire to talk to the gays and their supporters there. Maybe they have more respect for the religious and try to be understanding. Those are just theorys.
But those two lawsuits really happened, and it should have been ruled in the Churches favor due to the First Amendment, but most of the judges that make these decisions are apponted to their positions, not elected. Meaning they don't have to answer to anyone most of the time.
All these things together make it impossible to preserve the rights of religions if gays get marriage, which is why I suggested Civil Union. It is practically the same as marriage, just they use a different word.
And Ginger. What ticks me off is HasntBeen essentually calling me a bigot, lying about my church and being all bitter about Prop 8 passing. It does not help at all that I am asked the same questions over and over again and I answer them every time. I mean, if it were different people in different places, that would be one thing, but the same people over and over and over again is not fun.
As for the Adoption thing. The Bible condemns gay behavior, says it's a sin. In old testament times, as has been pointed out, they would have been killed. Thankfully, that is no longer the case, but it's still a sin, and from a religioud dtandpoint you don't put a child into a household of sin.
That is a religious-based decision, protected by the first amendment. The United States is totally messed up.
by WishUponAStar on April 2nd, 2010
Why should your religion rule what every one else does?
by Gingerminx on April 2nd, 2010
It was handled quite nicely, the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government has sole responsibility to the definition of marriage, and not the Church.
Oh yeah, and I almost forgot...F$@K you, and your stereotypes, you dumb ass bigot!!!
I can be rude when the situation calls for it... ; )
by Reptar on April 3rd, 2010
@Wish: your paranoia and delusions run your life. You produce fallacies so fast nobody can even keep up. So I suggest you look at history: gay marriage is legal in a variety of places, the world has not ended. Furthermore, gay marriage isn't even a novelty historically -- it has existed in many cultures, including ancient Greece and Rome (see http://books.google.com/books?id=hR0_CoNj6GAC&pg=RA1-PA16&#v=onepage&q=&f=false)
The world has not ended. The Zombie Queers have not gone on a rampage suing churches. You're paranoid.
by HasntBeen on April 3rd, 2010
There are many folks who are afraid of gay marriage for one solid reason: they'd never get married if it (marriage) was NOT a strict Religious Duty.
by Moongrim on April 3rd, 2010
I had a couple theories, not stereotypes, so go to hell Reptar. You want to know about stereotypes? Stereotypes are where people lump all who disagree with them together and call them bigots. Congratulations on being an ununderstanding bigoted stereotyping fool. I posted here to encourage polite debate, not to be called names.
Ginger, Thank you for being just about the only one to not name-call, it seems. Even though you did talk in circles, at least you didn't resort to name-calling or labels. Or at least I don't remember if you did.
I have made my case here, and I don't have to take this treatment, so I will be withdrawing from this question.
by WishUponAStar on April 3rd, 2010
by Lucy in the sky on April 3rd, 2010
That's a nice way to characterize your participation here, Wish. Not very accurate, but nice. Have a nice day thinking nice little confused thoughts, and if you ever meet a gay couple, ask them if they've sued anybody lately.
by HasntBeen on April 3rd, 2010
Wow, I've missed a lot. That's what I get for being gone, eh? Haha, I read up a little bit but I aint got much time, I saw anonymous is still as childish as ever, and I guess I caught the end of an argument with WishUponAStar... anyone wanna catch me up, or should I just jump right back in with my old statements and try to guess what happened previously? =P
by Lalapalooza on April 20th, 2010
Lalapalooza
Your comment popped up in my in box, other wise I would not be reading this debate, anymore.
"I saw anonymous is as childish as ever" lol
Whose butt are you trying to kiss?
Catch you up!
No, just jump in the deep end, (don't forget to take a breath though), with your same old same old.
This debate is too boreing, there is no one here who can make an intelligent comment, now that "wish upon a star" has gone.
Keep up the butt kissing, it suits you.
by Lucy in the sky on April 20th, 2010
The good guys won about 50 comments ago, Lalapalooza. Now we're just sitting around waiting for the next loudmouth fool to step into Wish and Anonymous' shoes and play the same old goofy tricks we all know and love.
It's a bit like swatting nearly-dead flies: not terribly exciting, but at least you're keeping the place clean.
by HasntBeen on April 20th, 2010
HasntBeen
You break me up, you are such good value. I always get such a laugh out of you.
Oh, and thanks for acknowledging that Wish and I won 50 comments ago!
by Lucy in the sky on April 20th, 2010
*swattttt* (sings) Another one bites the dust.....another one bites the dust...
by Gingerminx on April 20th, 2010
Wish and anonymous won the doofus awards yes.
by Moongrim on April 21st, 2010
Moongrim
You never fail to out do yourself. lol
Who knows, one day, you may think of something cleaver to say.
Naaaa just kidding! you won't.
by Lucy in the sky on April 21st, 2010
Moongrim, Gingerminx, Hasntbeen
Curly Moe Larry
Are you three joined at the hips? Your like the three stoogers.
Who's on first, no who's second, then who's on third? Who?
no, who's on first.
You's kill me. lol
by Lucy in the sky on April 21st, 2010
The three stooges didn't do the "Who's on first" routine, I think it was Abbott and Costello.
by Reptar on April 21st, 2010
And even Abbott and Costello knew how to spell "stooges"! :)
by HasntBeen on April 21st, 2010
Anonymous,actually, all three of us were taking part in this thread before you even chimed in. It is interesting though that all you really have had to contribute is insults.
by Gingerminx on April 21st, 2010
What do you expect out of Religious Fanatics Ginger? Love is only allowed for the "True Believers".
by Moongrim on April 22nd, 2010
Thanks guys, although I figure the good guys will over power the overly religious and stupid types, this bill will (with LOTS of controversy) still be pushed threw, I'm sure.
And if you notice, anonymous never has anything contributing to say, rather just sits there and spouts pathetic insults whenever one of us says something that is completely logical and believable about this debate.
I don't know if anyone else had pointed that out yet, but I did just in case. =)
by Lalapalooza on May 2nd, 2010
Yes I did notice that Lala. But what can you expect from those who simply don't have anything concrete to stand on? It's always the same thing with them.
by Moongrim on May 3rd, 2010
why does adam n eve have 2 do with this!?:(
by :)smiles4rs on June 24th, 2010
Adam and Eve is the 'argument' god-gobbers pull out of their butts in an effort to justify their hatred of non-traditional marriage.
by Moongrim on June 25th, 2010
I wouldn't call it an argument so much as a cheerleading chant:
Yay for our team,
from the garden of Eden!
It was Adam and Eve,
not Adam and Steven!
I wonder if any of them look good in those little skirts, though.
Probably the pro-freedom-and-equal-rights camp should have their own chants too. How about:
Go back to your garden
and suck on your binkies
Its none of your beeswax
what we do with our winkies.
by HasntBeen on June 25th, 2010
Laughs
by Gingerminx on June 25th, 2010
Thumbs up.
by Moongrim on June 26th, 2010
Haha that was fantastic HasntBeen! I should- no, I AM adding that to any and all pages I have on the internet for ways to contact me. =)
And honestly HasntBeen and Moongrim, I couldn't have explained the reason for the "Adam and Eve" bit any better at all. =)
by Lalapalooza on June 27th, 2010
if i cant marry, you cant diveorce
by da5id on March 6th, 2012
without a religious stand against fornication you would have t obe insane to want marriage. it is nothing but a burden.
by TAPriceCTR s son is wearing his COAT on March 6th, 2012
I am an atheist, I have been married for 27 years, I have never seen it as a burden.
by Gingerminx on March 6th, 2012
had I merely been cohabitating with my ex I would not have had to give up my job because she would have qualified for assistance and her "medical" debts would not have applied to me.
by TAPriceCTR s son is wearing his COAT on March 6th, 2012
So you use your relationship as a base for everyone?
by Gingerminx on March 6th, 2012
I agree: gays should be allowed to marry so they can share the common bond of suffering that the rest of us endure! :)
by HasntBeen on March 7th, 2012
Lol.
by Gingerminx on March 7th, 2012
I think Heterosexually gay marriages are awesome....or something.
by Reptar on March 9th, 2012
LOL HB
by TAPriceCTR s son is wearing his COAT on March 10th, 2012
by Anonymous
on December 12th, 2009
voted:
No
No marriage is beneficial to anyone other than those getting married. How can that possibly be an argument against it?
by Gingerminx on December 12th, 2009
Marriage traditionally leads to offspring. Man + Man = No Babies Woman + Woman = No babies. Man + Woman = Babies. It is rather simple.
by Anonymous on December 12th, 2009
Gay marriage makes people happy, therefore it benefits mankind. Just because it doesn't benefit you doesn't mean that it doesn't benefit mankind.
by Nutsy_Rail on December 13th, 2009
If it is in no way beneficial to me, then how do I, as a straight male, get 50% of my successful advice from homosexuals?
by Anonymous on December 13th, 2009
Hitler was happy killing jews. That doesn't mean it was good for mankind. I never said homosexuals were bad people or that they were stupid and gave bad advice. So calm down. All I think is that the way of life they pursue is stupid and immoral. It is not natural and not good. Check out Uganda's little bill. I think it shouldn't be allowed for them to marry. See what those guys think should be done.
by Anonymous on December 14th, 2009
I dont plan on having children, my best chick friend is incapable of having children does this mean we shouldnt each get married [to men] because its unbeneficial for man kind?
by heybepop on December 14th, 2009
No. Especially if the two of you were in love. And before you start in on the "homos love too" Bullshit take a minute and read the bible. It defines love as something shared only between man and woman. Man shall not lay with man. Clear as day right there in the bible.
by Anonymous on December 15th, 2009
It isn't harming man-kind either...other than idiotic debates and stupid asumptions/conjured up facts with no relation to anything. (read my above comment to 10 reasons why americans think gay marraige is wrong.
by MasterDebater on December 17th, 2009
Medicine is also unnatural. Should we make that illegal too?
by Nutsy_Rail on December 17th, 2009
medicine saves lives. Homosexuality spreads disease. Thus taking lives.
by Anonymous on December 18th, 2009
your not beneficial for man-kind
by LittleMissKatie on December 21st, 2009
Really? Resulting to petty insults. If you actually want to discuss something instead of acting like a child then come back any time.
by Anonymous on December 21st, 2009
Resorting to not resulting to. Don't know what happened there.
by Anonymous on December 21st, 2009
You have yourself convinced and you stubbornly refuse to even try to see things from other people's perspectives. Ignorant by choice is still ignorant.
by Nutsy_Rail on December 26th, 2009
I stick by my morals. That is not ignorance. By the way if you intend to call someone stupid at least use the damn word correctly. Ignorance by choice is still ignorance. In your case ignorance isn't choice it was just thrust upon you, right?
by Anonymous on December 26th, 2009
So are you saying you're against all things unnatural?
If homosexual marriages are not "beneficial", do you think that two heterosexual people should not get married if they are unable to have children?
by Phrenia on January 17th, 2010
You cite your reasons as coming from the bible. Not everyone follows nor believes in your bible. Why then should you get to dictate what others do? You would force your morality on everyone, would it be alright then for me to force my morality on everyone?
by Gingerminx on January 17th, 2010
You see my morality and faith as oppression. It isn't. But you'll see I'm right on the day of the Lord. But this is not a discussion about my religious beliefs.
-
And now that I am done casting pearls before swine let's get back to the point of the discussion. I don't think it is right. That simple. Why do all of you feel you should dictate whether or not I believe it is right? My opinion, My faith. Your opinion, your brand of oppression through supposed tolerance.
by Anonymous on January 17th, 2010
I have no problem with you believing whatever you want to believe. I only have a problem with you telling others what is right for them. Your morality and faith become oppression when you want to force it on other people. I am not oppressing anyone. You have a right to your beliefs, you don't have a right to force them on someone else.
by Gingerminx on January 17th, 2010
I didn't force my beliefs on anyone. I simply stated and defended my beliefs. I don't care if gays want to live together but to dishonor the institution of marriage by saying that union is equal is wrong. It is not and never will be equal.
by Anonymous on January 18th, 2010
How does it dishonour the institution of marriage? Marriage is the union of two things, companies can form a marriage or partnership, how is allowing gay people the same rights dishonoring marriage?
by Gingerminx on January 18th, 2010
Marriage in the traditional sense pertaining to humans is a union between man and woman. Two dudes shacking up to play pirates is not a marriage. By your standards it seems that a man wanting to marry a f*cking duck is appropriate. Hey it is just a union of two things right? Admittedly comical example but you see my point.
by Anonymous on January 19th, 2010
Not really, a duck can not give informed consent. I see no reason why two people who can give informed consent should not be allowed to marry. There is not one single piece of evidence that would suggest there was any harm in doing so. You say it is not beneficial to man kind, but we do and allow many things which are not only not beneficial to man kind but are in fact harmful. As to natural, before marriage was even a consideration two people would live together and reproduce so that in fact would be the more natural state. Marriage was man made, not natural.
by Gingerminx on January 19th, 2010
Look at it as a game of cards. A marriage is a king and a queen. You can't have a marriage and have only kings or only queens. You will never convince me otherwise.
by Anonymous on January 20th, 2010
I am not trying to convince you of anything, I am trying to understand your reasoning and you just don't have anything other than you don't like it. Marriage is not a king and queen and that doesn't even make any sense.
by Gingerminx on January 20th, 2010
It does. A male and a female. Corresponding parts. That is the way it is. No ifs ands or buts about it. Man is meant to lay with woman not with other men.
by Anonymous on January 21st, 2010
What does that have to do with marriage? Of course, again this is your opinion, if you are talking nature then nature made them that way so it must be natural to them.
by Gingerminx on January 21st, 2010
The King and Queen is a cute idea, but if you consider them to be corresponding parts and because of that they should be allowed married, then you'd pretty much believe in gay marriage. There's some two hundred years where the Queen wasn't part of a suit. In her place was the "Deputy king". So technically, there are if ands and buts about it... ;)
by Phrenia on January 21st, 2010
Being gay is not natural. That is a load of bull-shit. That would serve no natural function whatsoever. It is like a little kid trying to get away with doing something he was told not to do by blaming something else. If anything it is psychological. You don't see two same-sex animals shacking up do you? No. Unless this is some f'd up form of evolution and men a gonna start popping out little gay-product babies then it is NOT nature's design.
by Anonymous on January 22nd, 2010
Actually, you do see homosexuality in animals..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sexual_behaviour#Homosexual_behaviour
by Phrenia on January 22nd, 2010
Yup, many animals display homosexual behaviour.
by Gingerminx on January 22nd, 2010
Animals To show domination. And Any man who can honestly say they find other men attractive is no man at all. They are nothing more than sick demented fuck ups. It is not natural. It defies nature, religion, sanitation, and overall it is just fucking gross. It is merely someone wanting to be something they are not. So To clarify this is fucking insane. Normally I would Unsubscribe but the dumbass mothers who designed this hell of an excuse for a once great website felt it was necessary to rid me of that option.
-
So end discussion. Roll the fuckers out straight.
Because I am fucking done with this.
Pearls before swine.
by Anonymous on January 23rd, 2010
Well, at least you finally admit to it being your own personal views and nothing to do with benefits to society. Oh, you do know that there are gay women as well right? I agree about the unsubscribe button, I have mentioned it a few times to them.
by Gingerminx on January 23rd, 2010
From chasing_victory - "medicine saves lives. Homosexuality spreads disease. Thus taking lives"
Well, if you really wanted to underscore your ignorance, there it is. STDs are spread through a variety of couplings. Unprotected anal intercourse without appropriate lubrication is an effective way to transmit the HIV virus (due to tissue tearing), hence (I guess) your claim that homosexuality spreads disease. In fact it's the fault of unprotected anal intercourse - thus a woman is just as likely to contract aids from an infected penis-wielding partner. A female engaging in sexual activity with another female (who could be wielding a strap-on, I guess), on the other hand is the LEAST likely candidate for HIV infection. Curious, cause last time I checked girl on girl WAS still considered homosexuality. Hope I haven't killed your porn fantasy.
by Waiting for Illumination on January 26th, 2010
Girl on girl is just as bad. When did I say it wasn't?
by Anonymous on January 26th, 2010
I imagine they got that idea from all your references to homosexuality as man on man and not once as two women, I could be wrong.
by Gingerminx on January 26th, 2010
I only did that because it wasn't fun having to type woman on woman and man on man every time. I just picked the shorter one.
by Anonymous on January 27th, 2010
You could just type person.
by Gingerminx on January 27th, 2010
Yeah but it seems a little bit vague. Saying person on person Isn't quite specific enough to make my point.
by Anonymous on January 28th, 2010
"And Any man who can honestly say they find other men attractive is no man at all. They are nothing more than sick demented fuck ups." You could have said, "any person who can honestly say they find people of the same gender attractive are not people at all". But your right, it doesn't make your point about men.
by Gingerminx on January 28th, 2010
Am I imagining, or have all the comments somehow disappeared from this "answer"?
by Waiting for Illumination on January 29th, 2010
Okay, they're back - weirdness.
Chasing - you are VERY selective about what you respond to. Read my comment, it's partly about your ignorance but it's also about your fixation about male homosexuality that comes out in almost ALL your comments, including the one about disease. It makes you sound like a classic homophobe who fears only his own desires.
by Waiting for Illumination on January 29th, 2010
Waiting, I just had a Doh! moment, I did not check their profile and didn't realise they were male, now I understand why their comments focused on men.
by Gingerminx on January 29th, 2010
Easier to relate too. I can't see it from a woman's point of view since I am not a woman. I am not a homophobe. I have friends who are gay. They know how I feel on the subject. I think they are a little off. Gay dudes and girls.
-
Waiting for Illumination
Why is it that anytime someone says something against you leftwingers you always claim ignorance? And did you call me gay? I am not gay in the least. I don't understand how any GUY could be. I mean look at girls. Those curves the hair the eyes the wonderful personalities. It just doesn't make sense to me how any guy could be gay. (My point of view keep that in mind)
by Anonymous on January 29th, 2010
Why is it you assume that if someone disagrees with you, you call them a left-winger? That's just nuts. I am not a social conservative, if that's what you mean, but I am most certainly not a "left-winger" by any stretch. Your ignorance is clear in the comment that I commented on - about homosexuality spreading disease. It's the most ignorant thing I have read in a long time. You are ignorant, I would say that even if we agreed. But the difference between you and I is that I inform my opinions through reading from a wide variety of sources. So even were I to argue against homosexuality, I would at least be using informed arguments. I choose not to, not because I am not aware, but because I am. You are using uninformed and factually incorrect arguments, hence you are ignorant.
by Waiting for Illumination on January 31st, 2010
It makes for great population control, my friend. And we need that right about now.
by Adz3r0 on February 26th, 2010
Guess I can't argue with that. Rednecks kill of the gays who can't have offspring. Really narrows it down.
by Anonymous on February 26th, 2010
Damn, that's harsh. Why does it bother you so much if people are doing it on their own?
by Adz3r0 on February 26th, 2010
I don't all that much care if they get married. I would prefer they didn't. At least they could call it something else. The term "Marriage" has traditional and religous connotations.
by Anonymous on February 26th, 2010
It has traditional and religious connotations to you. It was around before organised religion and traditions change.
by Gingerminx on February 26th, 2010
The world has always had f-ups. We all know that. But remember Sodom and Gomorrah? Shows how much of this bull-shit the world has always had. But the fact more and more of you are pushing for tolerance doesn't make it right.
by Anonymous on February 27th, 2010
Every conflict ever fought has always originated from within. Remember that as you continue to pursue a victory you'll never catch.
by Adz3r0 on February 27th, 2010
The exact same things said by people who objected to the end of slavery, to accepting coloured people as equal to white and entitled to the same rights.
by Gingerminx on February 27th, 2010
For more on Biblical marriage - and I encourage all you non-believers out there to see this ;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFkeKKszXTw
by Waiting for Illumination on February 27th, 2010
Actually, there is the theory that gay men and lesbians make great dedicated uncles and aunties, who help their siblings' children have access to more resources and support.
by wingdust is no longer on answerbag on February 27th, 2010
Actually, it is exactly the same Chasing.
by Gingerminx on February 27th, 2010
Waiting, that video was hilarious.
by Gingerminx on February 27th, 2010
I do not hate gays. I believe, like Elton John, that they should have civil unions, with rights mostly equal to marriage, but I do not agree with the term marriage being used. And like I said, Elton John agreed with me.
And here's why. In places where marriage has been redefined, gay couples have sued churches for discrimination because they were observing their religious beliefs. I believe that there are way more Christians then there are gays, so what about their rights? Should gays receive special treatment because they are a minority? That does not seem fair to me,and I think that gays who want marriage to be redefined are being selfish. Stop complaining about your rights and try to think about everyone elses.
by WishUponAStar on March 30th, 2010
WishUponAStar, how do gays want marriage redefined? The ones I have heard talkign about it don't, they just want to be allowed to marry like anyone else. As to churches, frankly I do not beleive they should have to perform marriages if they don't want to, and I don't see anyone asking them to. Marriage can be performed by other officials. I got married in a country club to my husband, not a gay marriage but not a religious one either. As to, "Should gays receive special treatment because they are a minority?", no, they shouldn't, and I don't see them asking for that, only to receive the same rights as everyone else, that is, to be allowed to get married.
by Gingerminx on March 30th, 2010
you go Gingerminx!
by wingdust is no longer on answerbag on March 30th, 2010
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91486340
Ah, but in New Jersey a church was already sued by a gay couple and lost tax exempt status. The rights of the gay couple usurped the right of the church to restrict where the wedding could be held. In this incident, the pavilion the women wanted to rent was used for Bible studies, church services, gospel choir performances and, in the past at least, weddings. Heterosexual weddings.
This church ownded the surrounding land and did not restrict the couple from getting married on the property, just not in the pavillian where they did hold church services. The full article is at that link if you want to check it our. So I ask again, what about the rights of the churches?
Marriage is defined in most states as a union between one man and one woman. In recent years, they've started trying to change the legal definition to include gay couples, but I fear if that happens, more churches, like this Methodist Church in New Jersey, will be targetted by law suits for their beliefs. Why shouls a majority be persecuted so a very small minority can use the word marriage? Elton John advocated for Civil Unions, saying that heterosexual couples could have marriages. Could it be that he could see the kind of complications that could come with marriage being redefined? Christians, Jews, and Muslims shouldn't have to give up rights so that gays can feel better about themselves.
So in order for gays to have the right to use the word marriage, the rights of Christians, Muslims, and Jews get taken away, how is that fair? I said that I, like Elton John, approve of Civil Unions with all the normal, federal rights, but without infringing on the rights of those religious folk to worship however they choose.
America is not about the majority being persecuted for something that is rather insignificant, if those who are gay can get all the same rights as a married heterosexual couple with a civil union, without infringing unnecessarily on the rights of others.
by WishUponAStar on March 30th, 2010
It is special treatment if for them to get it, others have to suffer. Government has no right to dictate what a church will believe, but that is the direction New Jersey is going, and I don't want that spreading. It is unjust. Remember, in this case it was a Methodith Church that was sued, but it could have just as eaily been a Muslim mosque or a Jewish Synagogue. I know a lot of political correctn ess people care more about them and hate Christians, but they hold the same religious belief against homosexuality.
by WishUponAStar on March 30th, 2010
Thank you Wingdust. WishUponAStar, You mention one incident which, as we have stated, we do not think should happen. Sorry, but the meanings of words change all the time and the church or the state do not own the word marriage. One case, in New Jersey, that the authorities should not have let through does not mean that all homosexuals should be punished for it. No one should have to give up their rights, and any homosexuals I have talked to certainly do not want that. One small thing which should not have happened and which can be stated in any law made should not prevent homosexuals from being given the same rights as other adults.What rights are being removed from christians, mulims and jews? What others suffer?
by Gingerminx on March 31st, 2010
The right to believe in and practice their religion without the government stepping in and telling them what to believe.
by WishUponAStar on March 31st, 2010
I did not see any cases where the government told them what to beleive. They can beleive what they want, but, they must follow the laws of the land as well. If a church set up that beleived it was right to sacrifice virgins would say they should be allowed to?
by Gingerminx on March 31st, 2010
By that logic Gingerminx we should allow rapists and polygamists to do whatever the fuck they want. Wishuponastar is right. Much more tolerant than me but right. They leave religion alone and we will leave them alone. They feel it is necessary to tell us we can't disagree with them. We all know how this will end though. Remember Sodom and Gomorrah? We allow this to keep up we will all be in trouble.
by Anonymous on March 31st, 2010
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...
The first amendment says government can't mandate what a religion can and cannot believe, making the ruling in the New Jersey case a violation of the first amendment. In other words, a church can't be punished for following it's beliefs.
But if you give gays the word marriage, that's exactly what will happen. Churches will either be forced to stop renting out their chapel, or the government will force them to do what goes against their beliefs, and if they resist and stick uop for their first amendment right, they'll be punished. Does everyone ignore the rights of religions now?
By the way, the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment protected religion to the extent that they don't practice Poligamy, human sacrafice, etcetera. They took a stand against poligamy, but otherwise said government cannot interfere in the worshipping of ones chosen religion.
by WishUponAStar on March 31st, 2010
So they took a stand, and laws change, so they can take another stand. Just as all laws are revised. I do not see how you can say that if you give gays the word marriage religions will be punished for following their beliefs? That doesn't even make sense, certianly not based on one case. Personally speaking, I am not sure what rights a church should have over anything else anyway. They should be treated the same as any club or community group is treated.
by Gingerminx on March 31st, 2010
Because you don't understand America's political environment.The majority of judges are liberals who hate God. Piece by piece they are trying to chip away at the Constitution until it's unrecognizable. Liberals are very often Christian hating bigots, and if we give them an inch, they'll take a mile. There is actually a Liberal movement now that is trying to repeal the First Amendment. Also included under The First Amendment are Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press. Do you really think that we should be going there?
by WishUponAStar on March 31st, 2010
The gavel has fallen, along with the rest.
Are we expected to settle for this?
Bring us the plague, lead us away.
Blacken tomorrow with ash of today.
Can't you see the fabric of our standards wearing thin?
See your world in its grave at the hands of the enslaved.
Won't bow to man. Won't bow to government.
Won't trust in a failed system of self-fulfilling lust.
Won't love a world where my God is mocked.
I defy.
Oh, a kiss on the serpent's head.
We walk in the line of deceit, the walking dead.
Can't you feel the ground of our discretion giving way?
Refusal of hope, solution demise.
Bury the truth in a mountain of lies.
Won't bow to man.
Won't bow to government.
Won't trust in a failed system of self-fulfilling lust.
Won't love a world where my God is mocked.
I defy.
This is what you try to sell me.
Subjective nothingness.
Pull your sickness from my throat.
Let me breathe the truth.
Let me breathe the truth.
Won't bow to man.
Won't bow to government.
Won't bow to greed.
Won't bow to false hope.
Won't bow to self.
Won't bow to modern code.
Won't sell my soul to a dead world. I defy.
-
The World Is A Thorn by Demon Hunter
by Anonymous on March 31st, 2010
Freedom of speech and freedom of press does not mean churches can dictate whether someone can marry or not. You cite your whole argument on one case in New Jersey, hardly a reason to ban all gay marriage.
by Gingerminx on March 31st, 2010
Corrupt Beaurocrats will take a mile if we give an inch. You don't live here, you have no idea ho horrible things are getting here.
by WishUponAStar on March 31st, 2010
Corrupt Beaurocrats will take a mile if we give an inch. You don't live here, you have no idea ho horrible things are getting here.
by WishUponAStar on March 31st, 2010
How sad that you feel so persecuted. Imagine how gay people feel when you don't even allow them the same rights that you have.
by Gingerminx on March 31st, 2010
Argh, how many times must I say it? I want them to have the same rights, as long as their rights don't interfere with the rights of the religious. The only way to protect our rights is to not call it marriage, because if you do call it marriage, even if you write into the law church protection, liberals will just turn around, label the protection unconstitutional, and take it away, then they'll wait for some gays to sue, and go on their anti-Christian Crusade. But if it's not calledMarriage, then a protection for churches CAN be written in and it shouldn't be labeled unconstitutional. They can have the rights of marriage in everything but name. It is the only way to pereserve the rights of all parties involved.
How can you niot see the sense in that? Are you so blind?
by WishUponAStar on March 31st, 2010
How does allowing them to marry interfere with your rights? You keep talkign about liberals well unless they are gay liberals they have nothign to do with the conversation. You are saying that the word marriage, which is not a religious word by the way but available to all, has the ability to allow a whole section of society to destroy religion, that is simply paranoia. No, I ma not blind, I am just not paranoid either.
by Gingerminx on March 31st, 2010
God, you are absolutely impossible! You just don't understand the things that are hapening over here. I can understand, from the outside looking in, how it might look like paranoia at first glance, but I'm talking about prudence here.
by WishUponAStar on March 31st, 2010
No, I am sorry but your talkign paranoia. I am not talking about being on the outside, I have been on the net for many years and talked to many different people, a large percentage of them from the US. No one has ever brought up or even thought of the ridiculous things you have stated just to prevent gays from marrying. And the sad thing is, you really beleive it.
by Gingerminx on March 31st, 2010
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znNb3wzyfdU&NR=1
Just watch this video. The government has defacated on the Constitution and betrayed the people.
by WishUponAStar on April 1st, 2010
Once again WishUponAStar is right. Gingerminx You would rather they violate the rights of the Gays Which are Minority over religions which are majority.
by Anonymous on April 1st, 2010
I would rather no one was violated which is why I am for same sex marriage. I am not sure where you decide I preferred them to violate gay rights over religious rights. I was supporting the gay position here. But perhaps paranoia runs rampant in the US.
by Gingerminx on April 1st, 2010
It's obvious that he misstated and said it backwards. You put the alleged rights of gays above the rights of everyone else. They can get the same rights under a different name, and that will make it easier to protect everyone's rights. If you can't see that then you are being too picky.
by WishUponAStar on April 1st, 2010
Calling it marriage or calling it a civil union would make no difference to any law that protects religious rights. You seem to think that calling it a civil union and not a marriage will somehow mean that people will not sue churches. That is ridiculous. You are prepared to give them the same rights under the law, then why not the same right to call it a marriage?
by Gingerminx on April 1st, 2010
I'v explained this already. Liberal judges here are retarded, if you don't spell it out for them in black and white they'll ignore the constitution. A law made to give gays marriage rights could not include church protection, because the liberals would just say it's unconstitutional and throw it out. But if it's not called marriage, the law can reaffirm the rights of the people to practice their religions.
by WishUponAStar on April 1st, 2010
You do know that that doesn't even make sense right? Using civil union instead of marriage would make no difference to laws.
by Gingerminx on April 1st, 2010
I'll try to explain it yet again. Okay, legally, the practicing of one's faith does not register as discrimination, under the first Amendment, but Liberal God-hating Judges are tring to get rid of the first amendment, so for me to support it, any bill to give gays these rights would have to reaffirm the rights of the churches to not be sued for the practicing of their faith. Now, if you make a bill, letting gays get married, and write in that reaffirmation, the corrupt judges will rule that it is unconstitutional for married gays to be subject to something that married heterosexuals are not.
Technically, it would only be a reaffirmation of the rights of religions, and not a law itself, but that's not how the judges will interpret it. By calling it a civil union, it doesn't have to be exactly the same as a marriage, and so the reaffirmation of our Constitutional rights could ne included without it being ruled unconstitutional.
by WishUponAStar on April 1st, 2010
Like I said, that doesn't even make sense. You can get married anywhere, not just churches. I also can not imagine a church marrying anyone not of their denomination anyway and people don't run around claiming discrimination over that. Seriously, you need to chill out and stop thinking everyone is out to get you.
by Gingerminx on April 1st, 2010
God, are you dense? There's more to marriage then just the person performing the ceremony. This is about not being forced to make a choice to stop renting out a churches chapel, or resting to gay couples. That is the choice it will come to if gays get marriage. The liberals will see to that.
by WishUponAStar on April 1st, 2010
No I am not dense. I understood what you said, but it made no sense. Like I said you make no sense. Many if not most gay people will probably not even want to marry in a church. You would refuse them the same right as you because you are afraid someone else, not even gay people, would take advantage if it, simply by calling it marriage. Can you not even see how nutty that sounds?
by Gingerminx on April 1st, 2010
Wishuponastar was right I posted that backwards. I meant you would rather violate the rights of religions in support of the gay minority.
by Anonymous on April 2nd, 2010
Thank you Chasing for clarifying, although no where did I say I wished to violate anyone's rights.
by Gingerminx on April 2nd, 2010
But it's what will happen. Marriage is a religious princeipal anyway, originating with the Jews thousands of years before Christ was born, so if the reluigious community objects to the word marriage being used, that should be enough. Government never should have put there hand into marriage.
by WishUponAStar on April 2nd, 2010
No, it is what you think will happen. Marriage does not and never did belong to religion. http://www.islandmix.com/backchat/f9/origin-marriage-50901/
by Gingerminx on April 2nd, 2010
Look at what Wishuponastar posted earlier about New Jersey. They are telling churches they can't deny Gays anything. They won't let churches teach it is wrong, they are not letting churches deny property to gays, they are restricting the churches right to deny gays. That simple, they are violating the rights of the religions.
by Anonymous on April 2nd, 2010
Ginger, it needs to be noted that that article refers to a roman emporer, who was not Christian, and I don't think he was Jewish either. Late in life he did convert to Judaism, but that did not stop him from persecuting the Christians. And it's not like the Jews could stop him, and at the time Christians were still uncommon and not powerful, and no matter what the Catholic Church tells you, there was no established church at the time. Also, the article guesses about the origin of marriage. Marriage has evolved over the years, but it's always been one man and one woman, and it's always been the domain of Priests to perform such ceremonies.
by WishUponAStar on April 2nd, 2010
Also the Catholic Orphonage in Massachussettes had to shut down because the state tried to order them to adopt to gays. I may not have commented that on this particular question.
by WishUponAStar on April 2nd, 2010
So Chasing are you saying that if the church wished to teach virgin sacrifices we should allow it? If the church wanted to teach that black people were bad we should allow it? Why should the church be allowed to discriminate but no one else? They did not tell the churches they can not deny gays anything , they said they can not deny gays the same rights as everyone else. Churches all over the place teach about homosexuality being wrong. I have no problem with a church not allowing gays to marry in their church, but in New Jersey it was not their church but a pavilion they hired out which is different.
So Wish you are saying because the person wasn't a christian it wasn't valid? It has not always been the domain of priests did you even read it? I am not sure what an orphanage has to do with gay marriage? You are bringing up red herrings and mass hysteria to try and prevent homosexual people having the same rights you do. You are happy for them to marry so long as they don't call it marriage, you are trying to claim marriage and it doesn't belong to you or the church but to the people.
by Gingerminx on April 2nd, 2010
The chruch was forced to allow a union they did not believe in on Chruch grounds. By your logic hookers should be allowed to stand on the church lawn and try to get customers. Keep the gays away from Church and religion.
by Anonymous on April 3rd, 2010
Chasing,you didn't answer everythign I said and your comparison is ridiculous. There is a difference between hiring a church pavilion that is open to the public and allowing someone else, hookers, to run their business form your grounds. Like I said, do they screen every group that hires that pavilion to make sure they do not have any gays in it? If not then it is simply hypocritical. I never said that the churches must allow homosexuals to get married in their churches, they do not, just as a catholic church shouldn't have to marry a protestant couple, the pavilion, however, was being run as a business and was not the church. But, even if we say that it is on church property and they should be able to say no, that still does not give any reason why homosexuals should not be allowed to marry. I have been married for 25 years and I never got married in a church.
by Gingerminx on April 3rd, 2010
But the human sacrifice thing was not ridiculous? It is property owned by the church they shouldn't have to allow gays if they didn't want to. Wishuponastar has explained this a hundred different times and so have I.
by Anonymous on April 3rd, 2010
They don't want to understand. They seem to have the everyone that disagrees with me is wrong attuitude, which is why I am walking away here. They'll just make you go in circles too, I fear. I don't think you'll get through to them, but try if you want.
by WishUponAStar on April 3rd, 2010
Chasing, no it wasn't, you were talkign about a religion being able to practice its religion with freedom, well what if that meant sacrificing virgins? Like I said, do they ask all the people attending the pavilion if they are gay and ban them? If not they are hypocrites. No, you keep giving the same rubbish wihtout actually answering anything.
by Gingerminx on April 3rd, 2010
Anyone can love whoever they want
by AKNA on September 26th, 2010
What they feel isn't really love.
by Anonymous on September 26th, 2010
How would you know what they feel? I do not presume to know what another person feels.
by Gingerminx on September 26th, 2010
by John Pacella
on December 11th, 2009
voted:
No
And I believe that religion has absolutly no place to decide civil rights. How would you like it if your rights were decided by people from another religion that says that yourl lifestyle is immoral? Think before type!
by Isaac on December 17th, 2009
Aren't you doing the same thing here? What gives you the right to decide what Marriage means? Why does it not affect my civil rights? Why don't you think a bit too.
by John Pacella on December 17th, 2009
This is a civil matter, god has no standing in the debate. We have, thus far, avoided being a theocracy, I hope it stays that way.
If your god says same sex couples can't marry, don't do it. What right do you have imposing your religion on the rest of us?
by Ron C on December 17th, 2009
I don't believe in god but even if it did exist how the hell would you know what it wants? I suppose you'll say "well the bible told me so". Yeah and the bible tells you to a stone a stubborn and rebellious child. But you wouldn't dare do that now would you?
by HumourMe on December 17th, 2009
What do you think about allowing a brother and sister to marry? or how about a 3 year old and a 54 year old? Or what about a Man and some animal? or... what about a Mom and her son? Do you think this not just a civil issue but a moral one?
by John Pacella on December 17th, 2009
Not everyone follows your religion of choice. So why should they follow your religious laws?
by Nutsy_Rail on December 17th, 2009
I am not forcing anybody to do anything... I am simply stating what I think is right... so a civil debate can take place here on answerbag. Part of debating, is the process of persuasion.
Do you think murder is wrong?... The Bible says that it is wrong. What about stealing?... The Bible says that is wrong as well. Do you following those "religious laws"?
by John Pacella on December 18th, 2009
Prove God exists and you will have your day but until then that is a dead argument.
by Weird Science on December 19th, 2009
God has proven himself to exist already... look around you... really just stop... and look around. Look outside, look at another human being, look at the stars. Then continue to look deeper into each of these areas... no Bible needed.
I already know he exists. Prove to me he does not.
by John Pacella on December 19th, 2009
"You see, I think love comes from God. And so, to turn away from love, real love, it could be argued, is to turn away from God." -Truth Dare or Promise
by fayewn on January 8th, 2010
John you are incorrect. Being alive and seeing the stars in the sky is not proof of god at all...that's quite laughable actually. Sorry mate but the burden of proof is on YOU to prove gods existence not US to disprove it. You're asking us to prove a negative. Come up with some better proof or shut the hell up.
by HumourMe on January 14th, 2010
I don't have to prove anything to you or anyone else to know that God exists. You can believe what you want... still doesn't make your belief any more wrong or right than mine. I know God exists... anything I say to this effect won't matter to you anyways.
I am going to keep talkin.. not going to shut up... sorry to hear that you try to scare folks into "shutting up" when they have opposing views to your own.
by John Pacella on January 14th, 2010
Add a comment...
by fayewn on January 21st, 2010
How many people on this site are speaking in the name of a being that nobody knows even exists?
by Anonymous on March 3rd, 2010
@TheEditor Too damn many.
by Isaac on March 3rd, 2010
Unfortunately.
by Anonymous on March 4th, 2010
Funny how all of them claim we impose our religous beliefs on them, yet they are not doing the same by imposing their beliefs on us. Ah the Hypocrisy abounds.
-
@John dude we can see God so clearly but they are blind. To me other human beings are the best way to see him. Being in love with a beautiful girl. Nature could never accidentally create a thing like that. Only a God, who is love, could let me feel that. What gays experience is not love. It is Satan's perversion of God's most sacred creation.
by Anonymous on March 31st, 2010
@chasing_victory
"Funny how all of them claim we impose our religous beliefs on them, yet they are not doing the same by imposing their beliefs on us.
This is imposing our beliefs on you? When the law was changed to allow women to vote, was the imposing people's beliefs on the law? If so, then so be it.
"What gays experience is not love. It is Satan's perversion of God's most sacred creation."
Exposing your lack of knowledge of what homosexuality is won't get you far. Have you actually spoken to a homosexual before? Do you know anything about this topic at all? Do you know what homosexuality is?
by Isaac on April 1st, 2010
I have gay friends. They aren't bad people but they are...misguided and I still believe it isn't love they feel.
by Anonymous on April 1st, 2010
No, it's you that is misguided. It is love they feel just like everyone else feels. The only difference it the gender they are attracted to. Believe me, I know this as fact.
by Isaac on April 2nd, 2010
YOU KNOW WHATS PERVERTED. BREEDING. OVER POPULATING THE WORLD INTO CONSUMED RUIN. YOU FILTHY STRAIGHT BREEDERS SPITTING YOUR LOUD SMELLY KIDS EVERYWHERE NEVER TAKING ANY RESPONSIBILITY THAT YOU CREATED SOMETHING. HETEROSEXUALS ARE JUST VIAL ANIMALISTIC HEATHENS. YOU HEAR THE WAY HE TALKS ABOUT GOD AND SATAN LIKE THIS IS THE 15TH CENTURY ROMAN EMPIRE. SOMEONE WELCOME THIS SAVAGE INTO THE 21ST CENTURY WHERE AT TIMES THE WORLD IS A LITTLE TOO CROWDED. I THINK WE NEED TO START TYING YOU PROCREATORS TO THE BACK OF PICKUP TRUCKS AND GO FOR A RIDE. BRING YOU TO THE MIDDLE OF NO WHERE AND MAKE A SCARE CROW OUT OF YOU. AND I'LL BE AT YOUR FUNERAL PROTESTING HOW MUCH MY GOD HATES PEOPLE LIKE YOU. I MEAN REALLY WHATS TO STOP A MAN AND A WOMAN FROM HAVING A CHILD AND THEN HAVING SEX WITH THAT CHILD. THEN IT JUST KEEPS GOING ON AND ON INTO A NEVER ENDING SPIRAL OF ABOMINATION. BEFORE YOU KNOW IT THERE WILL BE 7 BILLION PEOPLE ON EARTH AND THEN WHERE WILL ANY ONE PARK. If you couldn't tell i'm reversing the conceptualized role and making a farce of your opinion by mirroring all your arguments. Seriously though dude, you have NO DAMN RIGHT TELLING ME WHO I CAN LOVE AND I'M A NORMAL GUY, THAT HAS NORMAL FEELINGS AND DESERVES TO BE TREATED NORMALLY JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE. MY GOD LOVES MORE AND TRUMPS YOUR GOD ANY DAY SO LET ME AND MY LOVER JOIN HIM IN MATRIMONY. YOU'RE A BIBLE BELT BIGOT AND IF I EVER GET THE OPPORTUNITY TO MEET YOU, I WILL BEAT THE SHIT OUT OF YOU AND GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF THE HATE WE HAVE TO PUT UP WITH JUST TO LOVE. GET YOUR DAMN GOD OUT OF MY GOVERNMENT AND GET YOUR BIBLE OUT OF MY CIVIL LIBERTIES. I HAVE HALF A MIND TO START BURNING DOWN CHURCHES, AND I WOULD MAKE SURE THEY WERE FULL BEFORE I DID. IGNORANT.
by Tandemdevil on April 9th, 2010
Tandemdevil...
You are representing your God well. You God loves more... but yet you hate me enough to want physically harm me... same with those that believe the way I do.
Anyways...
God loves all people... and because of that, so do I. That does NOT mean that I have to agree with everyone's lifestyle! God also gave us free will.
btw... you don't scare me, and can't scare me into stop discussing my beliefs and my Faith... you might want to get some love lessons from your God.
by John Pacella on April 9th, 2010
Tandemdevil bring it on! I may be a Christian but I am also a soldier. We have a job that is all about beating assholes like you. Bring it on. I would absolutely love it. Just so you know I am one of the top fighters in my platoon and I do LOVE a good fight.
by Anonymous on April 9th, 2010
This is not what we're here for. Letting your emotions get the better of you Tandem will only give the other side a reason to continue. They fed on your pain and your only giving them what they want.
by Isaac on April 9th, 2010
chasing_victory........you're giving Christians a bad name dude...lol..I love it keep up the anger. And I was a Soldier too, just ETS'd of 9 years. If you really want to learn how to fight it's not in the Army with your little PT sessions once a week, for 30 minutes because the rest of the time is stretching. Try doing it for 2 hours a day 5 days a week for 5 years, then maybe, just maybe someone might be scared. P##sy lol.....YAY!
by Weird Science on April 13th, 2010
John Pacella,
I don't have to prove God doesn't exists. If you are making a claim of something the proof lies on you. Proving God doesn't exists is like me telling you to prove Santa Claus doesn't exists. Oh, by the way I wouldn't waste my time trying to prove that, oh wait, neither would I.
by Weird Science on April 13th, 2010
God also says premarital sex and disobeying parents are things that are punishable by death (according to the bible). Funny how people pick and choose what to believe in the bible.
by WrenBird on May 30th, 2010
Ain't it, though?
by Anonymous on June 1st, 2010
Though I disagree with your opinion, I commend you for saying "I believe." You're not on some high horse claiming you're right. It's your belief, and I respect that.
by Andrew_C6734 on May 22nd, 2011
by Djinn
on December 12th, 2009
voted:
No
That is would I say. Gov needs its own thing. And stay out of marriage (religious institiution) Make everyone have to get a civil union from the gov. and get married from the church.
by my2cents--Vote for Paul on December 12th, 2009
Marriage was around before religion was.
by Gingerminx on December 12th, 2009
That's the most ridicules thing I've every heard. First off it you look up the history of the word marriage than you would see that originally you needed a priest’s permission no matter what the government had to say about if.
Now if you mean to say that something like marriage has been around before religion then you are still off base and I challenge you to back that up with proof because even ancient shamanism is religion and trying to say one came before the other to me is an opinion base chicken 7 egg argument which I wont entertain.
However it you have proof as in a verifiable ancient record for the entire world that clearly shows that people got married before any thought of a religion I'm more than happy to see it.
PS If this is some kinda nonsensical Adam & Eve where married by "god" before religion that's not proof or a fact so don't bother with weak conjecture like that.
by Djinn on December 12th, 2009
What I think Gingerminx meant to say is that marriage was not a religious institution in origin, and she's right. Religion may have existed at the time, but it was not an integral part of the marriage ritual. Instead, the joining of two people symbolized the union of two communities/tribes/families, creating new economic and family ties.
by Polar Aurorae on December 17th, 2009
That's part of the point Polar, some can't check on a government form that they are hand fasted they are forced to say they are married. The rituals you refer to where not called marriage, or weddings i.e. "marriage is religious".
If we used Gingerminx's logic then the bible wouldn't be religious either cause there where books just like it around before "religion". Just because two things create the same effect that doesn't mean that they are the same thing or that the existence of one can be used to redefine the other. i.e. covering one's eyes with hands and blindfolding someone are not the same thing and the fact that they are used for similar situations doesn't mean that you can apply the definition of one to the other.
by Djinn on December 18th, 2009
If we are to believe the history of the Christian Church, it wasn't until 110 C.E. that we learned from the bishop Ignatius of Antioch writing around 110 to bishop Polycarp of Smyrna that "[I]t becomes both men and women who marry, to form their union with the approval of the bishop, that their marriage may be according to God, and not after their own lust."
Prior to that Christian marriage was a private affair, as it was in other cultures at the time, without any requirement for government or religious approval.
Like Christians taking over December 25th as a "Jesus birth" holiday without any Scriptural backing, marriage as a religious institution developed 70 years after the creation of Christianity, not during and certainly not before.
Marriage was created long before governments or religions decided they needed to approve the agreement. Marriage is a secular agreement (in the past, usually related more to the business arrangement between the parents than any feelings between the spouses) to which religions sometimes apply a rubber stamp of approval.
by eternal0void on December 31st, 2009
Nice, so in your opinion 2 atheists are not considered legally married even if they are heterosexual couple. This probably sums up pretty much everything that's wrong with this country, religious bigotry.
by lbytesxk on January 15th, 2010
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage
by Gingerminx on January 23rd, 2010
@lbytesxk wth are you talking about?
@Gingerminx read your own link because it agrees with me that what people call marriage is actually civil union.
by Djinn on January 23rd, 2010
Perhaps you should try rereading it.
by Gingerminx on January 24th, 2010
There is but one God and He is our Father in heaven. His Son is Jesus Christ, Our Lord and Saviour. A man and woman are joined together in marriage in the sight of God. I don't think there is God in heaven,I KNOW THERE IS GOD IN HEAVEN AND HIS SON JESUS CHRIST. I pray that one day you will come to know and love Jesus as I do. God bless you Djinn. Jesus loves you.
by Account Closed on February 3rd, 2010
No, you don't know, you beleive, there is a difference, and I have no problem with your beliefs, but your beliefs should not rule my world.
by Gingerminx on February 3rd, 2010
gingerminx, AS I SAID" I KNOW THERE IS GOD IN HEAVEN. And I will never ever ever say that God does not exist, not for you or anyone else. I know the difference between believe and know. AND I KNOW AND LOVE JESUS CHRIST, THE SON OF GOD. If you or anyone else choose not to have Jesus in your lives, that is sad but it is your right, of cause just as it is my right to know Him.
by Account Closed on February 4th, 2010
The fact is that marriage is a thing of the government. To you it means something different. Sometimes one word has more than one meaning. If you are not okay with gay "marriage", then don't engage in one, but everyone has the right to choose their own path in life. Don't try to choose for them.
by Don Gorgeous George on February 19th, 2010
The question is "Should marriage for same sex couples be legal?" That is the question? I have answered it with my opinion, just as every one else has. Are we meant to debate or not?
by Account Closed on February 19th, 2010
"The fact is that marriage is a thing of the government." Marriage was here before gov. Did everyone have to remarry after we overthrown the English? As after all it was a new gov. Or was one of the first things that congress did was to pass a law stating that all previous marriages were still valid to this new gov. No and they never passed such legislation establishing marriage as a gov issue, actually what they did first was elect/appoint a chaplin to say morning prayer in congress every morning.
-
Gov needs to get its nose out of marriage. If it needs to redefine something then it needs to get something of its own as marriage was around long before the US gov. Leave marriage alone.
by my2cents--Vote for Paul on February 19th, 2010
Yes, a good answer.
by Account Closed on February 19th, 2010
Marriage was also around before the churches should they leave it alone as well?
by Gingerminx on February 19th, 2010
I do not hate gays. I believe, like Elton John, that they should have civil unions, with rights mostly equal to marriage, but I do not agree with the term marriage being used. And like I said, Elton John agreed with me.
And here's why. In places where marriage has been redefined, gay couples have sued churches for discrimination because they were observing their religious beliefs. I believe that there are way more Christians then there are gays, so what about their rights? Should gays receive special treatment because they are a minority? That does not seem fair to me,and I think that gays who want marriage to be redefined are being selfish. Stop complaining about your rights and try to think about everyone elses.
by WishUponAStar on March 30th, 2010
WishUponAStar, how do gays want marriage redefined? The ones I have heard talkign about it don't, they just want to be allowed to marry like anyone else. As to churches, frankly I do not beleive they should have to perform marriages if they don't want to, and I don't see anyone asking them to. Marriage can be performed by other officials. I got married in a country club to my husband, not a gay marriage but not a religious one either. As to, "Should gays receive special treatment because they are a minority?", no, they shouldn't, and I don't see them asking for that, only to receive the same rights as everyone else, that is, to be allowed to get married.
by Gingerminx on March 30th, 2010
The issue here is that the lesbien couple in New Jersey wanted to get married in a pavillion owned by a methodist church, and the church said no because they actually performed services there. They gave permission for the wedding to be performed on their property, just not in their chapel ot the pavillion, where they met to worship. Really, they didn't even have to give permission for the wedding to be on the property, but they did. That lesbien couple wasn't satisfied,. though, and sued the church, and a liberal judge partially took away the churches tax-exempt status. Doesn't the church have a right to not rent out it's property to a gay couples wedding on grounds of their religion? I think those two women were idiots and the judge too.
by WishUponAStar on March 30th, 2010
Like I said, the church should not have to marry anyone they don't want to. That was a matter of the law in that state not anything to do with homosexuals being allowed to marry. One case does not stand as a reason to refuse homosexuals equal rights.
by Gingerminx on March 31st, 2010
And churches should not be forced to rent out their religious meetingplaces, either. What's wrong with Civil Unions? They give all the same rights as marriage without taking away rights from others, so why must it go any farther then that?
by WishUponAStar on March 31st, 2010
How would a homosexual couple marrying take away anyone elses rights? Why should they not be allowed to marry? If the churches are running a business by hiring out their places then they are subject to the laws just like any other business.
by Gingerminx on March 31st, 2010
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...
The first amendment says government can't mandate what a religion can and cannot believe, making the ruling in the New Jersey case a violation of the first amendment. In other words, a church can't be punished for following it's beliefs.
But if you give gays the word marriage, that's exactly what will happen. Churches will either be forced to stop renting out their chapel, or the government will force them to do what goes against their beliefs, and if they resist and stick uop for their first amendment right, they'll be punished. Does everyone ignore the rights of religions now?
by WishUponAStar on March 31st, 2010
Well the first amendment is the US law not mine but, you are taking one small case and applying it to all homosexual couples who may want to marry. Would you like it if I said well one christian broke the law so we must ban all religions? No one even said what they could or could not believe, only that they could not discriminate against who they hired their hall to, their hall notice, not their church. So you are saying that no government should eb allowed to prohibit a religion from exercises its beliefs? What if said religion wanted to sacrifice virgins?
by Gingerminx on March 31st, 2010
As I already pointed out to you on another thread here, the Surpreme court ruled that in cases like that, the government can intervene. I believe it pertains to loss government being able to intervene where physical harm is inflicted. The government also outlaws poligamy. But beyond those two points the first Amendment protects non-violent religions to practice as they wish.
by WishUponAStar on March 31st, 2010
Well polygamy is non-violent. Obviously the government can and does say what religion can do.
by Gingerminx on March 31st, 2010
Well, the ruling against poligamy was, at the time, a form of Bigotry, meant to attack the 'Crazy Mormons'. It was in defiance of the first amendment, but by then the need for poligamy had past, so the practice was ended.
That leads to the history of the church. During the early years of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, the Mormons were persecuted in ways you cannot begin to imagine, they were treated as sub-human. To give you an idea, it was legal in Missouri to kill Mormons until June 25, 1976.
In the early years, men and boys were often murdered, women raped, just many horrible atrocities against them, so that the Mormon population started to become more female then male. And at the time, unmarried/widowed women could not claim property. So if the church practiced Monogamy at the time, the sexist laws of the day would have left a lot of women propertyless.
I think there was a little overuse of the principal of poligamy at the time, but there was a need at the time. Once they were settled in Utah, the need began to deminish. But anyway, The Surpreme Court ruled that it had authority to say no to poligamy AND to intervene in matters of physical violence, but beyond that the First Amendment protects religions.
by WishUponAStar on March 31st, 2010
The only law that should exist is do what you want so long as you are not harming others who don't deserve to be harmed. To make laws for others to live by just for the sake of honoring your pretend God is completely absurd. Mind your own business or die.
by Don Gorgeous George on March 31st, 2010
People have been persecuted for various things over the years including their religion or their lack of religion. That is nothign new. What it shows is that the law can be applied to non violent things. Besides, that really has little to do with homosexuals being allowed to marry. That in no way impinges on anyone elses rights, but allows them the same rights as others.
by Gingerminx on March 31st, 2010
Don Gorgeous George, good job on being just the sort of anti-Christian Bigot I was trying to tell Ginger about. He's exactly what I meant. If you budge an inch, they'll take a mile. He hates Christians and doesn't care if we lose the rights bestowed upon us by the founding fathers who wrote the Bill of Rights. How very unpatriotic I hope you realize that God is real someday, before you find yourself in eternal darkness.
As for persecution, in California after Proposition 8 passed, the gay community targetted my faith and protested andbroke into our churches and made death threats, despite the fact that weammouted to only 2.4% of the voters in the state, and not all of us voted, probably, and not all of us voted yes. What about the 20 Million Catholics and Protestents and Catholics? Did it make them feel tough picking on a minority?
by WishUponAStar on March 31st, 2010
What does that have to do with allowing homosexuals the same rights as other people?
by Gingerminx on March 31st, 2010
Oh, I was replying to Don Gorgeous George and forgot you had a post up there too, lol. Sorry. A lot of gays and their supporters do bash Christians a lot, and Mormons in particular. Every gay I've every met, except for one, has been a total nutjob when it came to politics, always like gimme, gimme, gimme, pity me, give me this, give me that, my rights are more important then yours. Then after Prop 8 past, who do they blame? The Mormonss. NEwWSFLASH, 35 Million people live in California and 20 Million of then are Catholic or Protestant,. Mormons make up a tiny 2.4 percent of the registered voters. Yet they protested us, broke into our chapels, vandelized them, and made death threats to member of my church.
And I've only met one gay guy that was more moderate, willing to talk and understand the other side. How can we trust them not to further push and further abuse our right? I think you have too much trust in them. I know that there are certainly many sensible gay people out there, but in my experience there are a lot of nuts too, that don't care about anyone but themselves.
by WishUponAStar on March 31st, 2010
I don't hate all Christians, but I do hate Christianity. Many Christians don't know a single thing about patriotism. They think that this is their country, when if fact we only put up with them because we allow freedom of religion and encourage the pursuit of happiness, something that Christians are trying to suppress by not allowing gays to legally marry. What a bunch of hypocrites. You think you own this country, you and your imaginary Christ, but really you are only working to take away our rights in the name of your false God. Mind your own business and be happy you don't have to put up with a bunch of jerks who are against your pursuit of happiness the way you Christians are towards gays. And you think of yourself as a patriot. LOL. Why don't you move to Israel and give praise to your false God instead of trying to force this country to adopt your silly ways.
by Don Gorgeous George on March 31st, 2010
I'll say it again, since you seem to have not read it. I am in agreement with Elton John, that gays should have Civil Unions with the same rights as married couples to the extent that their rights do not infringe on the rights of others. Last I heard he was gay and opposed gay marriage. He wants nationally recognized civil unions, and I do approve of that. It's called meeting halfway.
by WishUponAStar on March 31st, 2010
I know many gay people and none of them are nutjobs. I also know some transgender people and they are lovely. In fact, I find those who are persecuted are often very tolerant themselves. But, you wish to prevent gay people from marrying because you are afraid they will sue your church? That just seems so, well, sad, that you can think that about a group of people the majority of which you don't even know.
by Gingerminx on March 31st, 2010
Not just that they'll sue the church. That liberals will use it as an excuse to launch an all out assault on Christianity and the first amendment.
by WishUponAStar on March 31st, 2010
So you would deny gay people the same right to marry as you have simply because you are afraid another group of people will take advantage of them? Do you really know how that sounds?
by Gingerminx on March 31st, 2010
It sounds like reality. And for Gods sake, I said I want them to have rights equal to marriage, as long as the law it written in a way that it protects the religious. How many times must I repeat that? The only way to protect the rights of the religious is to give it another name, LIKE ELTON JOHN SUGGESTED. In that way it can be fair to ALL.
by WishUponAStar on March 31st, 2010
Stop quoting Elton John, simply because someone agrees with you doesn't make your opinion right. I do not see why they can not call it a marriage if it is a marriage in everythign but name, it makes absolutely no sense what so ever. You keep bringing conspiracy theories into ti when it is nothign to do with anything but gays being allowed to marry.
by Gingerminx on March 31st, 2010
And I keep saying that you don't live in America, you don't see what's going on here, so how can you judge?
by WishUponAStar on March 31st, 2010
The only way to "get government out of marriage" is to remove all the things a marriage license does for a couple. For example, everyone would have to be taxed at the higher single rate. Parents would no longer be required to take care of kids conceived in wedlock, as paternity would vanish. Society would CRUMBLE if "the government got its nose out of marriage." Teabaggers would suddenly flip-flop and demand that the government get back into marriage.
Government has been doing marriage contracts for millennia. It had to do them, because before religion finally got around to getting involved in marriage, marriage was an economic contract. He bought her for his own personal use and there was a nice legal contract making the whole thing official. Religion, which dealt with spirituality and tried to keep its hands off the "filthy lucre", wouldn't dirty its hands in marriage for centuries, at least not until marriage went from hawkers yelling "Young virgin brides, get em' while they're still hot!" to something less monetary in nature.
by eternal0void on April 16th, 2010
Where I live you do not get any tax benefits from being married and people are responsible for the children regardless of marriage.
by Gingerminx on April 16th, 2010
Christian's can be gay. And if you believe that god created the earth and everyone in it. And he made everyone be who they are then if god didn't like gays or gay marriages then why did he create them.
I am a Christian! I believe in gay marriages! And I'm only 15 years old. I'm part of the new generation that will have to work this out latter in life.
Gays should have the same rights as anyone else!
by UAHS on December 4th, 2010
UAHS
In replying to your comment, I have taken into consideration that you are only 15 years old, and you have alot to learn about life.
Regarding your comment that "Christians can be gay" and that, "you are a Christian, and beleive in gay marriage"
God did not make people homosexuals, it is a life style choice.
The Holy Bible is The Living Word of God.
And this is what The Lord God has said, in The Holy Bible, regarding homosexuality.
Leviticus: 18-22 "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womenkind, it is an abomination".
Leviticus: 20-13 " If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a women, both of them have committed an abomanination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them".
Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
So, as you can see, as a Christian, homsexuality is sinful, and infact, is an abomination to The Lord God.
by Account Closed on December 5th, 2010
If a deity exists he most certainly did make people homosexual, even if it was a life style choice, which it isn't, god made them choose it. If a god exists then free will does not. Interesting that a god would make someone homosexual and then want everyone to kill them for it, what a loving god you follow.
by Gingerminx on December 5th, 2010
Gingerminx
The Lord God Almighty does exist, and He did not make people homosexual.
God does not want people to kill homosexuals, anymore then He wants people to kill other sinners.
If that was the case, we would all be dead, because each and everyone of us are sinners, in some way.
The Lord Jesus has commanded that we do not kill.
I do not wish harm on homosexuals, I only stated what The Holy Bible says about that particular sin. I do not beleive that homosexuals should be harmed, at all.
by Account Closed on December 5th, 2010
Like I said, if a deity exists he certainly did make homosexuals and not only did he make them he also knew they woudl be shunned and persecuted by his followers. You are the one who quoted from the bible about killing homosexuals not me. How can you quote it and then say god never said it?
by Gingerminx on December 5th, 2010
Gingerminx
I should have realized that you, not being a Christian, would misunderstand The Bible verse, I quoted. Sorry.
What Jesus means is, not that homosexuals will be put to death, on the earth.
What He is saying, is that they will not have eternal life in heaven, that they will be dead, in hell. Not alive in heaven with Jesus and God The Father.As with all people who have not accepted that Jesus Christ is our Lord and Saviour.
Like I said, we are all sinners, me included. But sin is a choice we make, God does not make us sinners, we do it ourselves.
If homosexuals repent, and change from their sinful life styles, their sins will be forgiven.
by Account Closed on December 6th, 2010
I did not misunderstand it at all. How do you know what he means? Do you presume to speak for him? It says they shall be put to death, they only go to heaven once they are dead, or not in the case of homosexuals. It always amazes me that theists interpret the bible to suit there arguments. As I said, sin is a religious word. If a deity exists free will does not, ergo god knows exactly what people will do and how they are made, he did it.
by Gingerminx on December 6th, 2010
@Macavity the mystery cat
I don't understand all about the whole christianity thing but Homosexuals do NOT CHOOSE to be GAY it's who they are. They are born and created by God. You may believe differently but thats how it is from my point of view and my friend Ryan from church who is currently in a stable relationship with his boyfriend.:(
by UAHS on December 6th, 2010
Gays can do sins like sex before marriage because of the likely of them to be able to get married are very low because of people like you "Macavity the mystery cat". People like you are the reason why gay christians won't come out and be who they really are instead, they hide away and be someone their not. They are scared they might go to HELL because their gay. But it's not true Ryan's dad is perfectly fine with his only son being gay and his dad is the head paster at church.
by UAHS on December 6th, 2010
Gingerminx
No I would never presume to speak for God. I have only quoted what The Holy Bible says about homosexuals. I have not interpreted the Words of The Bible to suit my argument. I have only quoted from The Holy Bible, thats all. How do you interpret the verses I quoted? They speak for them selves really, NO interpretation needed.
When we sin, we sin against God, and we must repent, and accept The Lord Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour, if they want to be saved.
God does not course people to sin, He has given us all FREE WILL, it is our decision what we do with our FREE WILL.
We decide how to live our lives.
You, do not know God or His precious Son The Lord Jesus Christ. If you did, you would love and obey Him, as I do.
God did not make us, theives, adultators, fornicators, homosexuals, peadophiles, murderers, ect, we choose.
Do not blame God! He gave you life!
by Account Closed on December 7th, 2010
UAHS
I am not the reason some homosexuals hide their sins. Do not blame me. The Holy Bible says it is an abomination against The Lord God! NOT ME!!!
You said: "They hide away, scared they might go to hell". Well, that is true, unless they repent, stop their sinful life styles and accept The Lord Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour, they will go to hell. Again you say: "that is not true", well, that is not my opinion, that is The Words of God.
If the Pastor of your church does not obey The Word of God, I would find a new church.
You need to find a church where The Holy Bible is taught and obeyed. How your Pastor can stand in front of his congregation, in The Name of God, and yet, disobey what The Lord God has commanded, is frightening, so many people are being deceived. That is so very sad.
by Account Closed on December 7th, 2010
UAHS
You also said: "people like you are the reason gay Christians won't come out". There is no such thing as a "gay Christian".
A Christian is someone who has repented for their sins, and accepted The Lord Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour.
If a person has accepted Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour, they would not hurt Jesus, by living a life style that is sinful?
A person can not be homosexual and then, claim to be a Christian.
As for your Pastor? What kind of Pastor can claim to be a Christian, but disregard The Word of God?
As Christians, we can not accept the parts of The Holy Bible that suit us, and ignore the bits we do not like? The Holy Bible is
THE LIVING WORD OF GOD! We MUST obey the commands of God, we must never question God.
Your Pastor does not like the versers in The Holy Bible that say, homosexuality is a sin, an abomination to The Lord. But that does not give him the right to ignore it, or to mislead his parishioners.
As Christians we must all obey The Word of God.
by Account Closed on December 7th, 2010
Yes Maccavity, they speak for themselves, shall be put to death, and then you tried to say that wasn't what it meant, now you say it is what it meant. So which is it? If there is a god there is no free will. My parents gave me life.
by Gingerminx on December 7th, 2010
Gingerminx
The verse I quoted from The Bible, does not mean that homsexuals should be put to death, on the earth.
It says, that after the human body dies, (which we all will) their souls will not have eternal life in heaven, that they will be put to death, and spend eternity in hell.
God created your mother and father, and only through God, you were conceived. God gave you life, your parents were only the vessel He used, in order that they could be parents.
It is because of God, the creator of heaven and earth, that we have free will. The Lord God created us with a brain, and told us what is right and what is wrong. He then gave us the free will to decide for our selves, how we will live our lives.
by Account Closed on December 7th, 2010
"Leviticus: 20-13 " If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a women, both of them have committed an abomanination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them"."
No where in there does it mention after death or their soul. So either you are presuming to speak for god or your god does insist on killing them.
No , my grandparents created my mother and father. You may beleive in a deity, I see no evidence that one exists, so prefer to stick to facts.
If a deity exists there is no free will. If they are all knowing all seeing all powerful, then they know every decission we make, which means it is all set before we even make that decission.
by Gingerminx on December 7th, 2010
Gingerminx
I feel really sad for you. It is so sad that you do not know The Lord Jesus Christ. I pray that one day you will know and love Jesus as I do.
The Lord God almighty is the creator of heaven and earth, He is not a deity. His Son Jesus is our Lord and Saviour.
You must open your heart and mind, if you would like to know Jesus.
by Account Closed on December 8th, 2010
So another words you really have no answer to the question so will simply preach.
by Gingerminx on December 8th, 2010
Macavity the mystery cat
God created heaven, earth and everyone in it. God wants everyone treated equally EVEN gays. If opposite sex's can get married then there should be same sex marriages.
by UAHS on December 8th, 2010
UAHS
So what you are saying is that God is wrong! God has commanded, in The Holy Bible that "man shall not lay with man", He has said that to do so is an abomination to The Lord God.
BUT:
You are saying that it is fine for "man to lay with man"? that God is wrong!
So, you attend a Christian church, where the head Pastor, does not obey The Word of God.
You call yourself a Christian, but beleive that it is perfectly fine to tell God He is wrong, because you do not agree with His commands.
So very sad. We can not pick and choose which parts of The Holy Bible we will obey. We MUST obey all of The Lord God's commands.
by Account Closed on December 9th, 2010
UAHS
So what you are saying is that God is wrong! God has commanded, in The Holy Bible that "man shall not lay with man", He has said that to do so is an abomination to The Lord God.
BUT:
You are saying that it is fine for "man to lay with man"? that God is wrong!
So, you attend a Christian church, where the head Pastor, does not obey The Word of God.
You call yourself a Christian, but beleive that it is perfectly fine to tell God He is wrong, because you do not agree with His commands.
So very sad. We can not pick and choose which parts of The Holy Bible we will obey. We MUST obey all of The Lord God's commands.
by Account Closed on December 9th, 2010
Gingerminx
What is the question?
I know and love The Lord Jesus Christ.
You do not.
What else do you want?
by Account Closed on December 9th, 2010
"Leviticus: 20-13 " If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a women, both of them have committed an abomanination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them"."
How can you quote it and then say god never said it?
by Gingerminx on December 9th, 2010
Gingerminx
YES! God did say that. BUT... like I told you, God is saying that they will not know eternal life, their souls will be put to death, they will spend eternity in hell.
God is speaking about their souls. It is the same with everyone who dies, on this earth, and has not accepted that Jesus is Their Lord and Saviour, they will spend eternal death in hell.
It is hard for you to understand, because you do not know The Lord Jesus Christ.
by Account Closed on December 9th, 2010
Then you are presuming to speak for god since that passage never said anything of the kind and yet you say you would not talk for god, it can not be both. No, it is hard for you to stick to one story. I understand perfectly.
by Gingerminx on December 9th, 2010
by Anonymous
on December 11th, 2009
voted:
No
Not everyone believes in your bible. To legislate based on one person's religious beliefs is wrong. Imagine if a hindu tried to make their beliefs the law in your country. You would do everything to try and stop that, which is why secular intelligent humans will do everything to stop this hateful christian agenda.
by Isaac on December 11th, 2009
Wrong is Wrong, Bible or no Bible. Homosexuality is wrong.
by Anonymous on December 11th, 2009
It may be wrong for you, but not for somebody else.
by Phrenia on December 12th, 2009
Its wrong period.
by Anonymous on December 12th, 2009
Next thing you're going to tell me is that child molestation is OK. well its not. even if a child molester says its OK.
by Anonymous on December 12th, 2009
You keep stating it is wrong but you do not say why.
by Gingerminx on December 12th, 2009
Do I have to state why Child molestation is wrong or do you think thats OK too.
by Anonymous on December 12th, 2009
@Im for truth: Why do you think this has ANYTHING to do with child molestation whatsoever?? Please reply with reasons and logic and not just asserations, if that's possible for you.
by Isaac on December 12th, 2009
Homosexuality and Child molestation are both sexually perverse, those that are gay think there is nothing wrong with being gay and molesters think there is nothing wrong with what their doing.you may think you are being logical but I think you are being illogical.
by Anonymous on December 12th, 2009
Im for truth, I can't believe what you just wrote in your last comment there! I don't understand why someone would believe , let alone say something that insulting.
by Strength on December 12th, 2009
well believe it.
by Anonymous on December 12th, 2009
It is wrong in your perspective. Reality is not based on your perspective. I'm sorry if this is bad news for you.
by Nutsy_Rail on December 13th, 2009
Unfortunately for you by the time you find out I'm right it will be to late for you and others like you.
by Anonymous on December 13th, 2009
So what's so wrong then? You still haven't convinced me. Your religion must have very little tolerance for variety groups. Oh, and the children excuse doesn't work either, so skip that when you come up with a dumb retort.
by Anonymous on December 13th, 2009
I'm not trying to convince you of anything. If you don't like what I have to say don't read it.
by Anonymous on December 13th, 2009
Only a sicko would equate child molestation with homosexuality. A homosexual relationship is between 2 consenting adults. Child molestation is a crime perpetrated on someone who is unable to fight back, or at the very least too young to form an opinion or legally consent. It takes a sick mind to equate love with abusive exploitation.
by mother earth on December 15th, 2009
You are wrong. Both these things are Immoral acts. besides I could find alot of people that believe Homosexuaity is a sick perverted act, even if people with blinded eyes like yours don't see it.
by Anonymous on December 15th, 2009
You and people like you who don't think homosexuality is sick, you are the sicko's.
by Anonymous on December 15th, 2009
Just because you can find a lot of ignorant prejudiced people who think like you does not mean you're right. You've offered no reason as to why homosexuality is wrong other than your own malformed, childish opinion.
by Polar Aurorae on December 17th, 2009
Guess where you fall under. The group of people who just HAVE to shout out their opinions and can NEVER keep to themselves and just HAVE to be heard and can NEVER accept societal change in any form, for better, for worse, or a change that doesn't affect you in any way. All the bible predicted was a natural change in society that happens every couple hundred years. So ditch the bible and use some common sense and individuality. One reason why atheism/agnosticism rules over all.
by MasterDebater on December 17th, 2009
*edit* kudos to the guy above my last comment, you are one of the people that contains the last ounces of americas common sense and moral.
by MasterDebater on December 17th, 2009
*edit #2* same thing to you, mother earth, thank you.
by MasterDebater on December 17th, 2009
When all of you stand before God, which you will, the truth will be revealed and all of you will have to live with your decision to live a lie. and believe me, that will be a sad day indeed.
by Anonymous on December 17th, 2009
Prove God real, and i'd rather burn in hell than be in heaven with christians like you.
by Zenrean on December 19th, 2009
right on, there aint many sane people left like your self, im right behind you "im for the truth"OH hang on that sounds gay ahhh HELP me im turning into BRUNO!!!LOL
by -answerman- on January 4th, 2010
I'mforthetruth cannot see wrong from right and has still not told us why it is wrong to be homosexual.
Even if somebody is homosexual that is not a sin in itself.
That would be like calling a straigt person a sin.
But if a man and woman sleep together before marriage, that may be sinful.
The same goes here, if two men or women sleep together that is sinful. But being homosexual on it's own without doing anything, that is no sin!
You are being very ignorant and judging. I think you will find God has more compassion for somebody who is gay (who btw he made that way) than someone as judgmental and 'perfect' as yourself.
by Strength on January 14th, 2010
"When all of you stand before God, which you will, the truth will be revealed and all of you will have to live with your decision to live a lie. and believe me, that will be a sad day indeed."
This amuses me because it is you who will realize then that you are wrong (if such things do exist). Ironically, it wont be sad at all.
by Phrenia on January 14th, 2010
Im For Truth, your name is just so wrong for you. You are not for truth, you stand only for your own one eyed views. You have not given one reason at all why homosexuals should not marry. To equate homosexuals marrying to child abuse is frankly just sick on your part. There is no common ground between the two what so ever. I do not beleive in your god but doesn't the bible say that he loved all? Did he not say let he who is without sin cast the first stone? Are you without sin? You certainly show no compassion for your fellow man. I fear it is you who will stand before your god and have to answer for your sins.
by Gingerminx on January 14th, 2010
Hey superChristians, I think God (if he really exists) is pretty chill with gay people. Are you saying God discriminates based on orientation?
by Anonymous on January 14th, 2010
Only one person said that. :)
I'm cool with it too.
by Strength on January 15th, 2010
you are the one who is sick...get help....get with the 21st century...
by DA BEN DAN yanggui zi on January 16th, 2010
grow up and get a life..you sound like you have the IQ of a dead turtle.
by DA BEN DAN yanggui zi on January 16th, 2010
This world is screwed. Anything goes. Have sex with anyone, everywhere, anytime. Whatever makes you "happy."
There will be lawlessness (there already is)...so, none of this is a surprise.
by butterfly_45891 on January 18th, 2010
Actually, there are laws against having sex with minors, oh and against having sex in public places. As to anytime, sure, why not?
by Gingerminx on January 18th, 2010
Butterfly, I'm not sure where you're living, but that's not the world the rest of us are living in. Obviously not everyone gets whatever makes them happy (and they shouldn't), but what is so wrong about having equal rights for people who live within the laws? If the only reason people are rejecting homosexual marriages is because of their religious 'obligations' than there's no reason this shouldn't be legalized, especially in the so-called secular states of the world.
by Phrenia on January 18th, 2010
there is no such thing as right and wrong only what one perceives as right or wrong
by MrReason on February 13th, 2010
I perceive that we are all wrong ;-)
by Strength on February 13th, 2010
I'm not wrong.
by Isaac on February 13th, 2010
Did you miss the point of MrReasons comment? LOL
by Strength on February 13th, 2010
I am gay and have been married for 22 1/2 years to the same man in Canada...I think it's about time that the US caught up with the rest of the world....and please tell me how to unsubscribe from this question with its mostly homophobic childlike opinions.
by DA BEN DAN yanggui zi on February 13th, 2010
I am gay and have been married for 22 1/2 years to the same man in Canada...I think it's about time that the US caught up with the rest of the world....and please tell me how to unsubscribe from this question with its mostly homophobic childlike opinions.
by DA BEN DAN yanggui zi on February 13th, 2010
I am gay and have been married for 22 1/2 years to the same man in Canada...I think it's about time that the US caught up with the rest of the world....and please tell me how to unsubscribe from this question with its mostly homophobic childlike opinions.
by DA BEN DAN yanggui zi on February 13th, 2010
Da Ben, when you look at it as an alert at the bottom it has a small blue word, mute, click to unsubscribe.
by Gingerminx on February 13th, 2010
Amazingly, Anonymous, there are 10 fools who agree with you. I'm betting 9 of them can't string together a sentence of 20 words with fewer than 2 errors.
by HasntBeen on March 4th, 2010
Fools? Matthew 5:22 And whosoever shall say, Thou Fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
.
You're not a christian are you?
by Zenrean on March 5th, 2010
Of course not. Do I look like somebody who believes in ancient fantasies, superstitions, prejudices, and myths?
by HasntBeen on March 5th, 2010
I'm not a christian, and hence not a fool.
by Isaac on March 5th, 2010
Give me one reason what makes homosexuality wrong?
by Zenrean on March 6th, 2010
@Annoymous There isn't one.
by Isaac on March 6th, 2010
Yes, a good true answer.
by astimegosby on March 16th, 2010
Ya there is nothing wrong with homosexuality in a mixed up, confused, deviant society, but in a moral correct society it is wrong. All you have to do is look at the characteristics of the male and female anatomy to see it go's against nature. I'm sure to you're deviant perverted mind that's a terrible reason. what a surprise.
by Anonymous on March 16th, 2010
So anyone born with an arm missing or downs syndrome or with a club foot is goign against nature and we should shun them for it? Wow, I don't think I would want to live in your 'moral and correct' society.
by Gingerminx on March 16th, 2010
as always you twist things around. men or women who have clubbed feet or downs syndrome still have if male a penis and female a vagina. you hear what you want to hear and are like talking to a wall. I can't help but laugh at you, you're mind is so twisted. learn the English language and stop twisting words to fit you're twisted way of thinking.
by Anonymous on March 17th, 2010
You are the one who said it went against nature, so does the things I mentioned, either you are against them all or you are a hypocrite. Unlike you I will not resort to pathetic personal attacks.
by Gingerminx on March 17th, 2010
@Anonymous
Actually, it's perfectly natural, in every way. You must only look at the THOUSANDS of animal species who partake in this activity to see that it is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals
Maybe the correct definition you're looking for is "icky". As in "It's seems icky to me so I'm going to fight against it and resort to personal attacks if I must."
Remember Natural= Something observed in nature (eg. Homosexuality, breast feeding, sex, etc.) and Icky= something that makes you feel uncomfortable.
by Isaac on March 17th, 2010
@ Isaac. Perfect. There are plenty of homosexual animals out there, and it's not like their reproductive rate is slowing because of this.
by Anonymous on March 17th, 2010
(As always you twist things around. men or women who have clubbed feet or downs syndrome still have if male a penis and female a vagina...?)
.
.
.
Or,what about: Hermaphrodite?
by Zenrean on March 17th, 2010
Zenrean brings up a good point: part of the problem with the fundamentalist view of homosexuality is that it's based in a childishly simplistic view of what sexuality is. Being male or female is a relative concept: hermaphrodites do exist. The population isn't neatly divided up into boys and girls any more than the moral landscape is neatly divided up into "good sex" and "bad sex".
Simplistic thinking is the familiar road that takes fundamentalists to their favorite destinations over and over again, and prevents them from seeing any new sights.
by HasntBeen on March 17th, 2010
sicko's, perverts, all around fools, we've been over all this and you all are still deceived drones and puppets, I'm sorry you all chose hell. I will not waste any more time on any of you.
by Anonymous on March 17th, 2010
The response of someone who has no answers.
by Gingerminx on March 17th, 2010
I count 17 "goodbye's" so far. Not enough for a world record, but certainly an honorable mention.
by HasntBeen on March 17th, 2010
@Anonymous How can we choose a place that doesn't exist?
by Isaac on March 18th, 2010
@HasntBeen
There are ten fools
You told Anonymous that ten fools agree with her. I agree with Anonymous, and believe me I am no fool.
This is a debate. A debate is an argument, discussion, usually in a formal setting, often with more than two people, generally ending with a vote or other decision.
Because other people have a different point of view, to yours, you resort to calling them fools. That is not debating.
17 Goodbye's
You seem to be keen to count up and point out how many people have left the debate. Why is that?
The idea of a debate is not to see how many people are made to feel they should leave.
If you want to be a good debater, you will have to learn that, your opinion is not the only opinion. You will have to accept the fact that other people have different beliefs and views to yours, and not insist that your view on a subject, is the only view that is correct.
You have to be open minded, and discuss the subject objectively, without resorting to insulting people and their intellect.
by astimegosby on March 18th, 2010
@astimegoesby
"and believe me I am no fool." That's your own opinion of yourself, which is subject to bias because you're you.
"If you want to be a good debater, you will have to learn that, your opinion is not the only opinion." I don't think ANYONE here thinks their opinion is the ONLY one.
"You have to be open minded, and discuss the subject objectively, without resorting to insulting people and their intellect."
Tell that to the christians here! Specifically Anonymous who was the first one to resort to insults on 15 December on this thread: "You and people like you who don't think homosexuality is sick, you are the sicko's."
HasntBeen was only responding to those insults in terms Anonymous would understand, as logic is beyond him.
by Isaac on March 18th, 2010
@ Anonymous. How is choosing rights for others choosing Hell? If your God doesn't like gay people, why did he put them here in the first place?
by Anonymous on March 18th, 2010
And if he doesn't like gay people, why call him all loving!
by Zenrean on March 18th, 2010
@astimegoesby: you might be surprised to find I agree with you about a lot of what you're saying. Some minor corrections:
The '17 goodbyes' doesn't refer to the people who have left, it refers to the number of times on the thread that Anonymous has told us in one form or another that he's done with us deluded fools, that we'll get our uppance in Hell, etc.
As for people having differing opinions, of course I'm aware of that... I even agree that having a different opinion than mine, in and of itself, does not make someone a fool. However, Anonymous' answer, which you are saying you agree with, goes far beyond my "fools" comment in being insulting, arrogant, self-righteous, and narrow-minded. If you want to open up the minds and encourage lively discussion without rigid position-taking, you sure picked the wrong horse to back. This horse has nothing but a back-end.
by HasntBeen on March 19th, 2010
@Isaac
I am no fool
HasntBeen commented that nine out of the ten people who agree with Anonymous are fools. That is subject to bias too, because that is his own opinion. It is also quite an arrogant statement to make.
What he appears to be saying is, unless people agree with his side of the debate, they are fools. That is not a satisfactory comment to make in a debate.
Only responding to Anonymous
You have reinforced my statement about personal attacks. You have resorted to insult. You posted that "logic is beyound Anonymous's understanding". In an organized debate, one opponent can not make derogatory comments about the other. Doing so causes contention between the opponents.
The debate is: Should marriage for same sex-couples be legal.
There are two sides to the debate. For or against. It is a sensitive issue and people on both sides, have strong views regarding the question.
I strongly doubt that either side will change their opinion on the subject, but the idea is to state your opinion and then discuss reasons why you feel the way you do.
My opinion is. Same sex marriage should not be legal.
My reasoning behind my opinion is:
I feel by legalizing marriage of same sex coulpes, it is indorsing homosexuality.
I beleive homosexuality is morally wrong, and for a government to condone it, in any form, is sending a very detrimental message to our children.
I welcome comments that debate my opinion. If anyone chooses to affront me, personally, I will not acknowledge their post.
by astimegosby on March 19th, 2010
Astimegosby, the fact that you see endorsing homosexuality as wrong is just your opinion. The fact that you see it as morally wrong is again just your opinion. So that is backing opinion with opinion.
by Gingerminx on March 19th, 2010
@Gingermix
My opinion
Yes, Gingermix, that is my opinion, of course it is. That is what debating is, expressing your opinion. It would not serve much purpose, for me to express someone elses opinion, would it?
Who's opinion do you express, when you post a comment?
Backing opinion with opinion
Point one:
I said that legalizing same sex marriage, is indorsing homosexuality.
Point two:
I also said, I beleive that homosexuality is morally wrong and that for a government to condone it, in any form, is sending a detrimental message to our children.
It is called debating.
by astimegosby on March 19th, 2010
@HasntBeen
17 Goodbye's
I misunderstood your meaning.
Agreeing with Anonymous
I do not agree with alot of the comments Anonymous has posted.
What I am saying, is I am on the same side of the debate as Anonymous.
by astimegosby on March 20th, 2010
I am not sure how backing opinion with opinion is debating. But, I could simply say that legalising same sex marriage does not endorse homosexuality, and, I believe that homosexuality is morally correct and the government should condone it and we should teach our children to be tolerant of those who are different to themselves.
by Gingerminx on March 20th, 2010
@astimegoesby: you're on the same side of the debate as Anonymous, I understand. But the *types of arguments* you are making are hypocritical: you're tearing into the other side for insults and arrogance and failing to respect the opinions of opponents, but you're completely silent about much worse behavior of that type from the guy on your "side". So you only care about those issues when they're useful as a weapon against your opponents... that indicates you don't really care about them as principles: they're just cynical postures to take when you think you can rub some nasty in the face of the person you're arguing with.
'
If you look at the tone of the debate, Anonymous started right off with all the nasty stuff you're complaining about and more. Why aren't you correcting his style?? Obviously, because he's on your side!
That is the way fundamentalists see the world: "you're wid us, or you're agin us!". It's one big feud between the Hatfields and the McCoys, and really... underneath it all... it has nothing whatsoever to do with morality and everything to do with group loyalty and personal identity: people attack what they see as "not us" and defend what is "us". So gays are 'not you', and are fair game. Anonymous is 'you', and although his behavior in public here has been disgusting and reprehensible by your standards, you can only see clear to point those things out in his opponents.
So I call "bullshit" on the points you're making. What's worse, you've offered nothing but opinion to back up your view on homosexuality, and then obscured the matter by claiming that "debate is about opinions". It most certainly is not -- it's about what you can *demonstrate* by reason, evidence, and critical thinking.
You're all about opinion, and have in fact no basis for your moral view on the topic. You're a Hatfield.
by HasntBeen on March 20th, 2010
@astimegoes
" You have reinforced my statement about personal attacks. You have resorted to insult. You posted that "logic is beyound Anonymous's understanding". "
It wasn't my intention to resort to insults, and I didn't. On March 17th, Anonymous said :"sicko's, perverts, all around fools, we've been over all this and you all are still deceived drones and puppets, I'm sorry you all chose hell. I will not waste any more time on any of you." So quite clearly, "Logic is beyond Anonymous's understanding" isn't an insult, it's a fact, and if you can't accept that then that's your problem.
You said "I feel by legalizing marriage of same sex coulpes, it is indorsing homosexuality..."
A have a few questions to help you back up your opinion with more opinion: So what if letting other people have the same rights as the majority indorsing the minority?
What is so particularly wrong with homosexuality?
What "message" is it sending to the children and why is this message not ok?
by Isaac on March 20th, 2010
I wonder what ever happened to logic?
by Zenrean on March 20th, 2010
@Gingermix
Backing opinion with opinion
I don't know how you have come to that conclusion. I addressed two separate things. Homosexuality is one thing and same sex marriage is another.
Legalising same sex marriage
I beleive that by a government legalising something it is endorsing it.
Therefore, if a government legalises same sex marriage, it is telling people that same sex couples are excepted. It is telling our children that family values no longer exist, that to have a father and mother, and for the father and mother to have sex and the mother to give birth to a child, is no longer the normal way of life.
Teaching children to be tolerant
I agree, we should teach our children to be tolerant of different cultures, people with disabilities, people with different views to their own, and people who live immoral life styles.
But, having said that, it is also our responsibilty to teach our children, right from wrong. If we fail to tell them that, although homosexuality is excepted as being normal by alot of people in society, today, it is infact, not normal but immoral and sinful.
by astimegosby on March 20th, 2010
@HasntBeen
The guy on your side
I am not responsible for anything that Anonymous has said. In fact I told you that I do not agree with alot of the things Anonymous has said. So do not say that I am hypocritcal, because of what someone else has posted.
Why are you being so defensive? This is a simple debate, not a murder trial. Why are you saying such farcical things in your comment, like, "you are either wid us or against us"? You have posted this long winded comment to me, and really, you have said nothing at all that contributes to the debate.
So gays are not you and are fair game
This is a debate, not a hunting expedition.
I beleive homosexuality is unnatural, immoral and sinful, and that it is detrimental to society. Alot of homosexuals parade themselves down the streets in the gay mardi gras, every year. They show no modesty in their chose of clothing, flaunting their immoral life style, like it is something to embrace and be proud of. I feel it is a disgraceful thing to do, as it pulls us down as a decent, respectful society, and sends the wrong message to our children.
Do not presume to tell me that I should not watch it if I do not like it. I do neither attend it or watch it on TV, I have only seen it on the news.
It is obvious you have some problem dealing with another persons opinion, by the remarks you have made in your comment, to me.
"You call bull-shit to the points I'm making"? That is very poor debating. There is no need to resort to that sort of talk?
Demonstrate
HasntBeen, mate, please demonstrate, by reason, evidence, and critical thinking, why you consider "same sex marriage" should be legalised.
by astimegosby on March 20th, 2010
@astimegoesby
"Therefore, if a government legalises same sex marriage, it is telling people that same sex couples are excepted."
Why wouldn't they be expected if it was legalized? And I don't get why that would be a bad thing. And these "Family Values" aren't going to be non-existent, they will extend to more people, which would be wonderful.
"that to have a father and mother, and for the father and mother to have sex and the mother to give birth to a child, is no longer the normal way of life."
Of it will still be normal, but abnormal doesn't necessarily bad. I wish the xenophobic people of the world would realize that.
"I agree, we should teach our children to be tolerant of different cultures, people with disabilities, people with different views to their own, and people who live immoral life styles."
Stop right there, "Immoral life styles"? Sounds you like you a taste of those teachings yourself!
"If we fail to tell them that, although homosexuality is excepted as being normal by alot of people in society, today, it is infact, not normal but immoral and sinful."
Only in countries drowned by religious zealots. In more progressive countries like Norway and Canada, same-sex marriage is "endorsed" by your definition, and what consequences have these "immoral and sinful" countries suffered? None at all! In fact same-sex marriage has helped those countries! So the whole mindset that homosexuality and same-sex marriage is in some way evil, is nothing more than a mindset of a xenophobic homophobic person who clearly doesn't understand what love between two homosexuals is, which doesn't have a basis in reality.
by Isaac on March 20th, 2010
@astimegoesby: the burden of proof here is on you, not us. You are the one saying that homosexuality is wrong -- that's an accusation against all homosexuals. You are obliged to back that up, in service of the truth.
So far, all I can tell in your viewpoint is that you feel it's icky and unnatural. That is not a moral argument, that's just telling us how you have been conditioned in childhood.
Some Asian cultures eat dogmeat. In the West, we find that icky and unnatural and cruel. They think it's completely normal. That is cultural conditioning. If an American eats dogmeat, they may react so violently that they'll throw up and do a month's worth of soul-searching: but that is not *moral thinking*. Moral thinking is about general principles of right and wrong, and so far you've said nothing which indicates that you understand the difference.
Your sense of ickyness does not give you the right to condemn others.
As for the government "legalizing" something to legitimize it, that's bass-ackwards: we live in a free society -- everything which is not expressly forbidden is permitted. The government does not need to legalize anything to make it legitimate... it's the other way around -- the government needs to JUSTIFY making something illegal, because doing so deprives individuals of freedom: a core value in our culture.
Our core values demand that gays be allowed to marry -- unless someone can explain why it should be forbidden, and that involves moral argument. So far, I have been in this debate for years, and have not heard a single logical moral argument from the other side. I'm pretty convinced that's because there isn't one, but if you think you have some new thing up your sleeve, please share it with us.
by HasntBeen on March 20th, 2010
@Astimegoesby, You did not address two things, you used your opinions on homosexuality to back your opinion of same sex marriage. But here is where I have a problem with your reasons. They are all your moral point of view, mine is different, why should yours rule? You say same sex marriage shouldn't be allowed because of the message we send our children, well considering the message we are sending them now with the climbing divorce rate, wouldn't it be great for them to see so many more people getting married? After all, are you saying you prefer your children to see all of these homosexuals livign in sin? You have no real logical reason for disallowing same gender marriage than your moral point of view. In the old days that same moral point of view was responsible for slavery, persecution of so called witches, and any number of other things which society has realised was illogical and irrational thinking.
by Gingerminx on March 20th, 2010
Like she said: why should your viewpoint rule?
Morality is not about opinion. Of course, everybody is entitled to an opinion -- so what? That isn't even the issue here. The question is "is it wrong?", and the question presupposes a non-personal way to understand right and wrong.
So your opinion isn't the basis of morality, nor is your feeling of ickyness, nor is your big old scripture books -- an appeal to authority fallacy is one of the first fallacies you'll find on any decent list. So... what DO you have that's substantive? What? Anything? Please say you have more to go on than "I think its unnatural and gross", because people who share your viewpoint are collectively screwing up the lives of millions of others. The cost is high, you damn well better have a good justification.
by HasntBeen on March 20th, 2010
@HasntBeen
The burden of proof is on you
Why is that? There are two sides to the debate.
"Should marriage of same sex couples be legal?"
I have said NO:
You have said Yes:
So how have you come to the conclusion that the onus is on me to proove my opinion, and not on you?
I have stated previously, I beleive that to do so would be wrong, on the grounds that in my view, it would send the wrong message to our children, it is unnatural and immoral.
I have never used the word gross.
And, I have never typed the letters "icky" that is not a word.
Your turn now. What do you have that is substantive? What? Anything? Please say more than it is a "Free Society"
The question is - "is it wrong"?
That is not correct, the question is
"Should marriage of same sex couples be legal?"
Conditioned Childhood
Homosexuals were never mentioned when I was a child. I did not even know homosexuality existed, until I was an adult.
(that is a strange thing to conclude)
I have been in this debate for years
Why? What is your fixation with homosexuality?
Your sense of "ickyness"
That does not merit a reply.
Right to condemn others
You stated that it is a Free Society, that if something is legal, it is permitted. Freedom of speech! that is my right.
Justify making something legal
Is it your opinion that if something is not illegal, then it is permissible to do. If that is the case then it is exceptable
To run Cults, To perform witchcraft, To commit adultery,
To commit homosexual acts, pornography, the list gos on.
On the other side
"The cost is high, you damn well better have good justification.
I do not take kindly to threats. And no one should feel the need to resort to them, in a debate.
HasntBeen mate, it is only a debate, calm down, take a deep breath.
by astimegosby on March 21st, 2010
@Gingerminx
I did address two separate things, I think I am in a better position to know what I did then you are. No doubt your friends on AB will back you up, though.
Why should your's rule
I am stating my view on the subject, thats all. You are stating your view. Where did I say that my view rules? IT IS A DEBATE - TWO SIDES.
Climbing divorce rate
What has the divorce rate got to do with the subject, at hand?
Would I rather children see homosexuals living in sin
Committing Homosexual acts, is a sin in itself. That is my point, we should protect our children from sinful lifestyles.
I am glad you acknowledge that the act of homosexuality is a sin.
Disallowing same gender marriage
Yes, I have stated that I beleive it to be immoral.
What are your reasons why it should be legal?
Same moral point of views
Your point has nothing to do with homsexuality. Slavery, witches, ect. You have concluded that because I do not endorse same gender marriage, I beleive witches should be burned at the stake. That is a ludicrous statement.
If you can not make perceivable comments, I will conclude you have nothing more to add to this debate.
by astimegosby on March 21st, 2010
@Isaac
Alot of your comment is only going over the same old ground, and sentences are mixed up. So I will not bother to reply to all of it.
I do have one question though
Would you please substantiate, how same sex marriage has helped some countries?
by astimegosby on March 21st, 2010
@astimegoeson
You said to HasntBeen: "Is it your opinion that if something is not illegal, then it is permissible to do. If that is the case then it is exceptable
To run Cults, To perform witchcraft, To commit adultery,
To commit homosexual acts, pornography, the list gos on."
Yes, all those things are acceptable and practised. What's wrong with that? Should it be illegal to run cults? Freedom of religion applies to everyone's religion, not just your own, if any.
You said to me: "Alot of your comment is only going over the same old ground" Yes, because you don't bother to properly rebut it, so it's still valid.
"Would you please substantiate, how same sex marriage has helped some countries?"
A peer-reviewed study done in USA - http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/118/1/349
So remind me, what is so particularly wrong with homosexuality?
by Isaac on March 21st, 2010
Exactly: you're just plain flat-out wrong on this point, @astimegoes by: it is a FUNDAMENTAL principle of free society that EVERYTHING is legal except that which is forbidden for specific reasons. So the burden of proof is ALWAYS on those who wish to outlaw something.
What you're talking about is fascist or old-school Communist: "everything is forbidden except what the government specifically allows". Millions of brave people in the free world have fought and died for this difference in world view... if you don't agree that their sacrifice was well spent, you should move to Communist China for a while and try living your dream philosophy there -- they don't put up with anything they find icky.
So as Isaac said -- the things you've listed are legal. And the reason they're legal is because nobody has been able to make coherent arguments for why they should be outlawed. That's what life is like in a free society: you get to have your opinion, regardless of how confused it is, because nobody can come up with a good enough reason to outlaw it.
Welcome to freedom. Now get with the program and welcome it for others as well.
by HasntBeen on March 21st, 2010
@HasntBeen
Free Society
I already know that everything is legal except that which is forbidden for specific reasons.
I have given my reasoning why I believe "Same sex marriage should not be legal".
But you, either will not or can not give any reason why you believe "Same sex marriage should be legal.
This is a DEBATE, we are NOT petitioning for a government to out law
"Same sex marriage".
If you choose to debate, ( for years) then you should give your
inference.
Old school Communist
Because I am claiming that immoral practices should not be legalized. Because I believe it is our responsibilty, and right, as people of a free society, to stand up for our chidren's right to be given every opportunity to grow up in a moral society. Because of that, you have implied that I endorse Communism, and that I am a socialist.
Some of your previous comments have came across as being quite pretentious, but, this one is down right derogatory.
I should move to Communist China and live my dream philosophy.
That is an arrogant, disrespectful comment. You obviously have not the slightest idea what you are talking about.
I know millions of people fought and died for our freedom. My own father fought in World War two, in
"The Royal Australian Air Force". At seventeen years of age, he was over seas fighting for Australia's freedom. Sadly, the rest of his life was effected by the war and he died at age 55 years, due to war injuries.
My grandfather fought in World War One, in "The Australian Army" for our Freedom. He also died due to war injuries.
So do not preach the right of freedom, to me.
You dare insinuate that I advocate Communism.
As Isaac said -
That's what life is like in a free society: you have the right to state your opinion.
Well, I stated my opinion and because I have, you have implied that I am a socialist! Where did my freedom of speech go? HasntBeen.
Welcome to freedom
I thank my dad, pop and their comrades, every day for the freedom we all enjoy in this beautiful country of ours, Australia!
How about you, getting with the program, HasntBeen.
by astimegosby on March 22nd, 2010
@Isaac
Acceptable practises
Yes, I believe cults and witch craft should be illegal. I believe they are extremely dangerous practises.
Wrong with homosexuality
At the risk of repeating myself, and answering the question again: I believe that to legalize same sex marriage, the government would be endorsing homosexuality, and that it would send a poor message to our children. I believe the act of homsexualality is immoral, sinful and unnatural.
Going over the same old ground
I have lost count of how many times I have stated my reasoning, why I believe, same sex marriage to be wrong. And I have just stated it again. Which bit don't you get?
Substantiate how some sex marriage has helped countries
I asked YOU to answer the question, after all, you made the statement. This is supposed to be a debate, do not refer me to a Web Site. If I wanted that, I would Google it!
So remind me again, why do you support same sex marriage?
by astimegosby on March 22nd, 2010
Spend less time puffing up your ego and defending your dignity, and more time THINKING about the matter clearly. That will serve you much better. I couldn't care less whether you feel your honor has been slighted -- the fact is that your arguments are unresponsive and long-winded to boot.
You have not given a coherent argument for why homosexuality is wrong -- all you've said is that you think it's "unnatural". That has nothing to do with morality, as I've pointed out many times. My conclusion is that you don't actually understand what morality is, and therefore are incapable of realizing that "unnatural" is not a quality that can be used to determine whether or not something is moral.
If homosexuality isn't wrong, then the argument about "sending a message to our children" is utter nonsense. You have to first demonstrate that it's wrong in order to establish that this would be a "wrong message". What you're doing is circular logic:
1- Homosexuality is wrong because it sends the wrong message to our children.
2- The message being sent is wrong because homosexuality is wrong.
- Repeat #1 until bored.
It's about right and wrong, that's all there is to it. What makes homosexuality morally wrong? It's not a complicated question. Stop dancing around and trying to divert attention... just answer the question.
by HasntBeen on March 22nd, 2010
@HasntBeen
Your years of obsession with homosexuality is taking its toll on you. You are in way over your head, and you do not know how to defend your commends.
You just commented that I am dancing around and trying to divert attention...
Sad for you, but you are the one that is diverting from the subject at hand. It is not a compilcated question. Why can't you answer it, subjectively, without always trying to put the other party down?
Right or wrong
That is all there is to it. What makes Same sex marriage right?
I have given my reason as to why I disagree with same sex marriage, several times.
You, on the other hand, avoid giving your answer by dancing around the question.
I do not have to "puff up my ego" I am a humble person, and I live my life modestly. I do not have an ego, at all. I was only defending myself.
In my last comment, I was defending the fact that you implied I supported communism. You know very well that you were out of line to insinuate such a derogatory thing about some one. But, rather then apologize to me, you have decided to try and divert the attention from your moronic comment, and turn it back on me.
That tactic will not work, in this case.
Fortunately, most AB readers are intelligent enough to see through what you are trying to accomplish. I realize that one or two of your friends on AB will back you up, and that is fine by me, but the majority of AB readers will see the mistake you have made.
Like I said, it appears you have gotten in way over your head, and now you do not know what to do.
My advise to you, would be to not make such long winded comments. Just stick to the suject at hand, state your reasoning behind your opinion and do not resort to insulting other people because they have a different opinion to you.
Morality
I understand exactly what morality is, My family and I live a good moral life style.
HasntBeen mate, just try not to be so judgemental of other folks, and you should be fine.
by astimegosby on March 22nd, 2010
@astimegoesby
"Yes, I believe cults and witch craft should be illegal."
You want freedom of religion for yourself but NOT for others? You hypocrite! Freedom of religion (and FROM religion) must apply to EVERYONE or else it will REALLY be dangerous.
"I believe that to legalize same sex marriage, the government would be endorsing homosexuality, and that it would send a poor message to our children. I believe the act of homsexualality is immoral, sinful and unnatural."
You have confused the meaning of "endorsing" and "accepting". Enforcing is "to impose upon a person" (which wouldn't be done because no-one is forcing anyone to have a same-sex marriage) and accepting means "to regard as suitable" (which is just what we want).
What is that message btw? "Homosexuality is ok"? What's wrong with that message?
"I believe the act of homsexualality is immoral, sinful and unnatural"? Ok... but why?! Oh and it's not unnatural if it's observed in nature, and it's observed in nature all the time, not just with humans.
"I asked YOU to answer the question, after all, you made the statement. This is supposed to be a debate, do not refer me to a Web Site. If I wanted that, I would Google it!"
You asked how it helps, I directed you to a study. What's wrong with that? It gets the point I wanted to make.
"So remind me again, why do you support same sex marriage?" Equal rights for all, not just those of one particular sexuality.
by Isaac on March 22nd, 2010
You are a liar, astimegoesby -- I don't know how else to put it. You have not stated your reasons why homosexuality is immoral, other than to say you think it's unnatural and that it sends the wrong message to children. The latter is circular logic, and the former is irrelevant.
That leaves you with nothing. The same thing you started with, only now you've polluted the Internet with thousands of distracting words to avoid noticing that your Emporer has no clothes.
Set. Match. You lost.
by HasntBeen on March 22nd, 2010
And a big "haha" to your comment about being judgmental! That's hilarious, given that you're here precisely to judge all homosexuals. What a jackass!
by HasntBeen on March 22nd, 2010
Guess who's back. Isaac you keep making false statements. You name one Animal that sucks another animals penis. name one animal that sticks his penis in another animals Butt. there is none. you keep showing your stupity. just keep talking so everybody can see what a idiot you are.
by Anonymous on March 22nd, 2010
@ Anonymous. You're wrong. Try this link, I hope it works.
http://www.jessefrancis.com/images_antiwar/02/animal_homosexual_behavior_judah_christian_school_1.jpg
by Anonymous on March 22nd, 2010
@Anonymous
Name one? Only one? I can name dozens. Amazon Dolphin, american Bison, Bonobo, Bottlenose Dolphins, Elephants, Giraffes, Humans, Japanese macaque, Lions, Polecat, Sheep and Spotted Hyena. And those are just the mammals! We also have Lizards, Fruitflies, Penguins, Vultures and many many more.
The prime example is the Bonobo ape in Central Africa, a species witch is fully bisexual, these animals alone prove that homosexual behaviour is a purely natural phenomena.
"just keep talking so everybody can see what a idiot you are" Indeed(!)
by Isaac on March 22nd, 2010
Even if animals do pratice homosexuality, that just tells me that homosexuality is animalistic. that also tells me that homosexuals are nothing more than animals practicing animalistic acts.
by Anonymous on March 22nd, 2010
What do you think humans are? We are animals practicing animal acts.
by Gingerminx on March 22nd, 2010
some animals kill their children, some animals kill just for the sport of it. so killing your own children or murdering someone is Ok? animals do it. that arguement is ridiculous.
by Anonymous on March 22nd, 2010
I didn't use that argument. You used the argument that homosexuality was nothign more than animals practicing animal acts, I merely informed you that we are animals doing the same thing.
by Gingerminx on March 22nd, 2010
"Even if animals do pratice homosexuality, that just tells me that homosexuality is animalistic. that also tells me that homosexuals are nothing more than animals practicing animalistic acts"
- Winner, 2009 "Stupidest Mangling of Logic for an Anonymous User in the Homosexuality Category" award. Congratulations!! Where would you like us to ship your case of goat milk?
Truly, a comment of such breathtaking idiocy deserves it's own entry in the Museum of the Moronic. To whit:
- Humans ARE animals
- Sex IS an "animalistic" behavior, for all living things which engage in it, regardless of gender preference.
- There is no logical way to conclude that homosexual behavior is somehow less "human" just because it's also practiced by animals. Both animals and humans do both kinds... so what? That tells us nothing about the character of homosexual humans.
by HasntBeen on March 22nd, 2010
talk to to Isaac, he brought up the arguement. I did'nt mangle anything, you're simple mind cannot comprehend real logic. Isaac said that homosexuality was natural because animals do it. animals do alot of things that humans would never do. How are you going to get the goat milk from you're house to mine and why are you giving awards that you won away.
by Anonymous on March 22nd, 2010
Anonymous, other animals do do things that humans don't do, how does that negate Issacs statement that it is not unnatural because it is found in nature? You called him stupid and told him to prove and he did so you go off on a tangent.
by Gingerminx on March 22nd, 2010
You really like twisting things around don't you. We are not animals. We are humans. I guess I should expect people with twisted minds to twist things. I never said unnatural,astimegosby said unnatural and besides what is natural for animals(which we are not)is not natural for humans(which we are.) I said animals do a lot of things that humans would never do. I found out that animals do do those thimgs and then my logical comment was then because animals do it does not mean it normal for humans. go ahead and twist, I know you will.
by Anonymous on March 22nd, 2010
Humans are animals, we are from the family of mammals, check out a science book. I never said you said it was unnatural, you called Issac names and demanded he show you proof it was natural in the animal world, of which we are part, and he did. I twisted nothing. Never mind, this is rather a pointless waste of my time. A dolphin would probably give me a more intelligent conversation.
by Gingerminx on March 22nd, 2010
Jeez, Gingerminx... the man has the mind of a squash. I'm gonna wait for Mr. Puffed with Pride to return, that was at least mildly entertaining. Critiquing this guy's comments is like swatting flies that are already half-dead: there's no challenge and you still have to clean up the mess.
by HasntBeen on March 22nd, 2010
Laughs, so true.
by Gingerminx on March 22nd, 2010
@Anonymous
"Even if animals do pratice homosexuality, that just tells me that homosexuality is animalistic. that also tells me that homosexuals are nothing more than animals practicing animalistic acts"
Humans are animals. All humans, even you. Sex is animalistic, weather heterosexual or homosexual. It's intuitively grained into you to act on sexual desires as it is with any animal.
And do you know what else is animalistic? Caring for your young and finding food to live. So "animalistic" doesn't make it a bad thing.
by Isaac on March 23rd, 2010
Keep deceiving yourselves.
by Anonymous on March 23rd, 2010
We're fine. If we were listening to you, we'd be deceived. Fortunately, we have the ability to think for ourselves which keeps us out of your quagmire of confusion.
by HasntBeen on March 23rd, 2010
@HasntBeen
You are a liar astimegosby
I have stated my reasoning for being against Same sex marriage several times. You, on the other hand have not managed to give one astute comment, regarding the question.
Why are you still dancing around the debate, instead of participating in it?
I am not judging homosexuals, I am trying to have an intelligent adult debate, but it is not working out, because you keep posting unintelligent comments, and I would suggest, that would be the reason why we do not have alot more people, joining in on the debate. We need intelligent debaters.
You are the one who is judgemental, if someone disagrees with you, you start calling them names, like a child would. Example:
Because I have a different opinion on the subject, to you, you have called me a liar, a jack ass, and implied that I support communism.
Because you have debated this same topic for so many years, one would have to hypothesize, that you have a fetish for homosexuals. That is why you appear to be way in over your head, and are lost for anything astute to say. That would also, account for your need to try and insult your opponent rather then debate them in an intelligent manner.
Thousands of distracting words
You are now stating that I have polluted the internet with thousands of distracting words. That statement just reinforces what I previously said, that you are way in over your head.
I can not help it if you are only conversant with basic words in the English language.
I know you prefer to type things, like "icky" and ickyness", ect, but they are not even words.
I would have to conclude that, it is that type of foolishness which pollutes the internet, not the English language.
Set. match. you lost
Are you trying to intimidate me, so I will leave the debate? I have not lost. If you feel you are defeated, then you may leave the debate, if you choose to. I intend staying for a while longer, in the hope that some more bright people might join the debate.
HasntBeen mate. At this point, it appears that you are the Emporer!
by astimegosby on March 23rd, 2010
@ Anonymous How? How is anyone here deceiving themselves?
by Anonymous on March 23rd, 2010
You have a real knack for imitation, @astimegoesby. Seems like every time I say something, you manage to repeat it back to me as if you thought of it! That's cute. I have a baby that can do that sometimes, but he's not as verbose as you.
Thank God.
Anyway, I can't see much point in bothering with you. You're lying about my position and what I've said, you're lying about what you've said, as far as I can tell you lack the character to engage in honest discussion. So what's the point?
Bottom line: repeated again, in your face -- as you sit here lying by claiming I've not stated my reasoning:
"Gay marriage should be legal because EVERYTHING should be legal unless there is a sound reason to outlaw it. Since there is no sound reason to outlaw it, it should be legal".
You seem to think that the simplicity of this argument is somehow insufficient -- or rather, you wish it were insufficient because it makes the nonsense you're spouting so obviously dim-witted.
I have pointed out the precise fallacies in your position, you have ignored those points. That makes you dishonest as well. Instead of responding to those challenges, you keep telling me that I haven't expressed my view. That is a lie, and you know it. You are a liar.
A liar cannot engage in intelligent debate, because they're too busy covering their tracks to think about the actual topic.
by HasntBeen on March 23rd, 2010
@Anonymous
You're deceiving yourself more than anyone. I give you clear evidence as to why your points are wrong, and not only do you not acknowledge your previous points as invalid, but move on to different points altogether, or just resort to calling us deceived.
Can you please acknowledge that your previous point are invalid? Or if you're still inclined to prove yourself correct, can you offer any more vaguely-related vaguely-logical rebuttals? I've got plenty of logic and reason to go around.
by Isaac on March 23rd, 2010
@astimegoesby
I know this thread is getting cluttered, but my latest response to you was on the 22nd March.
by Isaac on March 23rd, 2010
The Devil has all of you deceiving into believing a lie. I can only hope that all of you one day will see the truth. I know that none of you believe in God or the Devil but one day you will believe. I know that it would be a waste of time to try and convince you of anything so I won't try anymore to convince you. if any of you are brave enough to read the Bible all the way through you will find that the prophesies in the Bible have come to pass. hopefully at least one of you will come to know the truth. Good Bye and farewell.
by Anonymous on March 23rd, 2010
@Anonymous
Ran out of vaguely logical arguments already? Resorting to the devil so soon? Unfortunately for you I can't accept this reason either because there is no evidence for this entity either. And as for the bible, it's not very good for basing your life on, especially as it is so accepting of meaningless murder and permitted rape (permitted by god, that is).
See you in a few hours.
by Isaac on March 23rd, 2010
@ Anonymous
What is the truth?
What is the lie?
Why don't you want to continue this argument that I and others are supporting with reason rather than faith?
If your God "Oh-so-supported" you on your idea, where is he, your backup?
WHERE IS YOUR GOD NOW?
by Anonymous on March 23rd, 2010
At one time they said the Earth wasn't the center of the universe, and the believers called them heretics and locked them in jail. Later they said the Earth wasn't really created in 6 days, and believers scolded them from the pulpits and claimed the Devil had taken over their minds. When the evidence piled too high, the believers said "well, the days were really millions of years long".
When the believers wanted to keep their slaves, they found the lovely verses in the Bible that talk about how to treat slaves properly. When the believers wanted to oppress their wives and beat their children, they found verses for that.
When they wanted to isolate and hate the gays, they found verses for that.
Pretty much no matter what foulness takes over the believer's hearts, they find a verse to make it cool. And thus it shall always be.
by HasntBeen on March 23rd, 2010
Amen!
by Gingerminx on March 23rd, 2010
And now, we'll all sing hymn #342 from the Hypocrite's Hymnal, "I've Whitewashed My Sins By Screaming About the Sinners".
Lets just do the first 12 verses, I'm sure we don't want to miss the stoning of the heretic.
by HasntBeen on March 23rd, 2010
*Puts on the fake beard and grabs some stones*
by Gingerminx on March 23rd, 2010
@isaac
Thanks for pointing that out to me. Yes, I have not replied to your last comment as yet, I am sorry.
Between my employment and attending university, I sometimes lack spare time. I will put a couple on minutes aside, when I return home tonight, to relpy to your comment.
by astimegosby on March 23rd, 2010
Hey, HasntBeen, Gingerminx, astimegosby, and Isaac, did any of you get messages from anonymous? This guy is laughable!
by Anonymous on March 23rd, 2010
Not me.
by Gingerminx on March 23rd, 2010
@The Editor: Not me.
by Isaac on March 24th, 2010
In my 3.5 years on Answerbag, I've encountered many fools that exceeded even his level of foolery. Once I was "stalked" by a guy who claimed he was in prison and was going to kill me when he got out -- I disagreed with his views about the economy or something, I don't recall.
I have received unsolicited mail from about 60 AB users over that time, and a few were 'anonymous'. So could be... :)
Anyway, what he lacks in clarity of mind is made up in stubborn persistence, so I'm sure there's a place in the wacky ecosystem of human mutations for that.
by HasntBeen on March 24th, 2010
@Isaac
Sorry, I forgot what your comment was, I just read it again.
Hypocrite
Nice, name calling seems to be what you do, but then, you are still in school, I will make an allowance for you, because you are so young.
Actually, I do not accept freedom of every religion. As a decent, responsible person, I can not accept cults, that hold children against their will, abuse and brain wash them. Nor, can I accept witchcraft, because it is satanism.
The message Same sex marriage would send to children.
I know the different meanings of Endorse and Accept.
If same sex marriage is made legal, children will be hoodwinked into beleiving that it is right. That would be an atrocious and deceptive message to send our children. It would be a totally irresponsible government who legalized same sex marriage.
Same sex marriage has helped some countries
It is obvious, you can not explain that comment you posted.
I will let you go to do your homework, now.
by astimegosby on March 24th, 2010
@HasntBeen
No one in interested in your life story. Boring!
by astimegosby on March 24th, 2010
@HasntBeen
Knack for imitation
You make such intelligent statements, I just can not resist copying them. Maybe you could sue me for plagiarism! I mean, The Emporer has no clothes! How do you do it? Yes, I would want everyone to think I thought of it. We are all so impressed by your unique style. lol
Liar
You have stated that I have lied about what you have commented and also lied about what I have commented. Your comments are becoming more foolish with every post.
Try hard, to think this out, I will state it as basiclly as I can, and type slowly for you, so you might be able to understand it.
It is impossible for me to lie about what you or I have posted. HELLO, it is all here for everyone to read!
How can I cover my tracks, with every comment I have made, clearly there for everyone to read. Sadly, you have lost the plot.
Anyway, I can't see any point in bothering with you any longer!
Yessssss! That is great, you have admitted defeat! I have defeated the great legend in his own mind.
Everyone knows that you are only a wind bag of insulting words. That is the only way you can hide your stupidity.
You know me
we have met before
your insulting words
I would read no more
I am smiling behind
my pretty face
do you know now?
can you guess?
Thats right
Don't mess
with
Eliza Beth
Post what you will in your reply, but know I will not be back to read it. You are obviously not very bright, but that isn't a crime!
Game Match Over
Bye bye, Hasbeen.
by astimegosby on March 24th, 2010
@astimegoesby
Calling you a hypocrite isn't an opinion of mine, it's a fact since a hypocrite is "a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess". Now since you must belief in freedom of religion for your own religion, but NOT freedom of religion for certain other religions, this makes you a hypocrite. Name-calling is justified if you, by fact, are the thing I'm calling you.
"If same sex marriage is made legal, children will be hoodwinked into beleiving that it is right. That would be an atrocious and deceptive message to send our children. It would be a totally irresponsible government who legalized same sex marriage."
So the message is "Homosexuality is ok", which you seem to think is a bad message. I don't understand why it's a bad message. What is wrong with homosexuality?
by Isaac on March 24th, 2010
What a bunch of cowards, anyone who doesn't agree you, you attack. just by the insults and attacks you have directed at @asthetimegoesby who just tried to debate with you shows that you have no morals and just proves thats your side is wrong. I have never encountered a more evil bunch. thanks for helping us to prove you all are wrong. anybody with common sense knows why homosexuality is wrong. obviously none of you have common sense.
by Anonymous on March 24th, 2010
@Anonymous
I haven't attacked anyone. I have only reasoned with them, but because reason is hazardous to your belief system, it's easy for you to get the two confused. Perhaps you are the one who is attacking, and by extension (by your logic) wrong. Allow me to quote you:
December 15th: "You and people like you who don't think homosexuality is sick, you are the sicko's."
March 16th: "I'm sure to you're deviant perverted mind that's a terrible reason. what a surprise."
March 17th: "I can't help but laugh at you, you're mind is so twisted. learn the English language and stop twisting words to fit you're twisted way of thinking."
March 22nd: "you keep showing your stupity. just keep talking so everybody can see what a idiot you are."
March 22nd: "you're simple mind cannot comprehend real logic"
2 Hours ago: "I have never encountered a more evil bunch"
And that's just by a quick scan through of this thread. So think about what you type before you type it, it just might be self-contradictory to your point. Also stop trying to insult us, you're just making yourself (and your religion) look bad.
by Isaac on March 24th, 2010
@ Anonymous
Well! My favorite victim is back!
All I have to say is, what common sense is there that homosexuality is wrong? Why is it wrong? Can you and your "morals" answer that?
by Anonymous on March 25th, 2010
That question, or some form of it, has been asked about 30 times on this thread. None of the opponents of gay marriage have formulated anything more substantial than "the Bible says" or "it's unnatural". I am fairly confident that we could argue until Noah's ark is discovered and nothing more substantial would ever be suggested. What could it be? There's no logical connection between homosexuality and morality, there's no way to get from point A to point B on that road. So all that anyone can do, no matter how good a debater they might be, is keep trying to fill the air with noise or wear people down or wave their hands a lot trying to cover up the lack of connection in the logic.
That's the story of this thread. It's the story of all threads on this topic. The only thing that changes is the names of the participants.
by HasntBeen on March 25th, 2010
Yes, and I think marriage has been around a little longer than religion.
So, basically, I can't win this argument. It's like going up against a donkey: Stubborn jackass who doesn't quit even though it isn't correct.
by Anonymous on March 25th, 2010
Don't be so hard on yourself Editor. You keep refering to christianity as a religion. God has been around forever so your comment is invalid. you can't win the arguement because you are wrong. you don't decide what morality, God does. You could tell me you have a brother or sister. Just because I have never met them does not mean you don't have a brother or sister. even though you have never met God that does not mean He doesn't exist. you will meet Him one day believe me, all of you will.
by Anonymous on March 25th, 2010
Does it make you feel less powerless to threaten everyone that your Big Invisible Friend is going to beat us all up for not respecting you?
by HasntBeen on March 25th, 2010
Christianity is a religion, and he can prove he has a brother or sister by introducing you to them, the same can not be said of god. Morals were around long before your god was invented.
by Gingerminx on March 25th, 2010
God was not invented. God loves you and if He didn't you would have been dead long ago. God made morals, not you,GOD. I would love to introduce you to God, but you have no interest in meeting God, but believe me you will tremble at His feet begging for forgiveness but by then it will be too late. Every knee shall bow and every tongue will confess that He is Lord. That includes you. Read the Bible if you dare, all the way through. I've seen things that you have never seen, right in my church. Tumors disappearing right before my eyes, skin rashes healed right before my eyes. so believe it or not God exists. one day you will see.
by Anonymous on March 26th, 2010
@Anonymous
"I would love to introduce you to God, but you have no interest in meeting God"
Why wouldn't we? I'd love to met this god. He/she has a lot to explain for.
"Tumors disappearing right before my eyes, skin rashes healed right before my eyes."
That is a testable claim. Whenever religion makes a testable claim it always fails, but if you're so certain that this is the real deal, then go to the hospital and start saving lives. Isn't that what jesus would do?
by Isaac on March 26th, 2010
I have read the bible right through, in several different versions many times over. Ever heard of mass hysteria? I agree with Isaac.
by Gingerminx on March 26th, 2010
Anonymous, you're wrong about the source of morality, God did not invent it. Morality refers to "making choices which respect the interconnectedness of life". Because we are human and can feel pain and suffering, and because life is based in cause-and-effect, this is a meaningful term. It's much like the value of pi: it's an inherent property of a circle, nobody "created" it. Morality is an inherent property of human life, it comes with the conditions that make us human.
That you don't understand this, and imagine that an all-powerful invisible being must have *created* morality indicates a complete lack of clarity about morality in general. If God were to slaughter a group of innocent children, he would be guilty of an immoral act -- he can't invent his own kind of morality which bypasses the principles that are inherent in it. Therefore God cannot possibly be the source of morality. If he existed, that is, which is dubious in the first place.
by HasntBeen on March 26th, 2010
@ Anonymous
Then prove God exists.
by Anonymous on March 26th, 2010
Bye everybody, this time I am really am making my last statement because I will no longer have internet. You all keep saying prove God exists. It is not my job to prove God exists, its just to tell you about Jesus. Jesus loves you and I will be praying for you, even if you don't believe He ever existed. I pray that you find out about Him and will give your hearts to Him. Bye Bye.
by Anonymous on March 26th, 2010
@Anonymous
So your leaving instead of answering our queries? Typical christian, when the debate gets tough and they have no more non-arguments left, they disappear.
by Isaac on March 26th, 2010
Any time a windbag loses Internet connectivity, a dead puppy comes back to life.
by HasntBeen on March 26th, 2010
@Anonymous
I don't care for what I don't know, I care for what I know now.
by Anonymous on March 29th, 2010
I do not hate gays. I believe, like Elton John, that they should have civil unions, with rights mostly equal to marriage, but I do not agree with the term marriage being used. And like I said, Elton John agreed with me.
And here's why. In places where marriage has been redefined, gay couples have sued churches for discrimination because they were observing their religious beliefs. I believe that there are way more Christians then there are gays, so what about their rights? Should gays receive special treatment because they are a minority? That does not seem fair to me,and I think that gays who want marriage to be redefined are being selfish. Stop complaining about your rights and try to think about everyone elses.
by WishUponAStar on March 30th, 2010
WishUponAStar, how do gays want marriage redefined? The ones I have heard talkign about it don't, they just want to be allowed to marry like anyone else. As to churches, frankly I do not beleive they should have to perform marriages if they don't want to, and I don't see anyone asking them to. Marriage can be performed by other officials. I got married in a country club to my husband, not a gay marriage but not a religious one either. As to, "Should gays receive special treatment because they are a minority?", no, they shouldn't, and I don't see them asking for that, only to receive the same rights as everyone else, that is, to be allowed to get married.
by Gingerminx on March 30th, 2010
when I posted in the top ten places here, I expected to talk to different peoplle on each post, lol. Directs you to one of my other answers here.
by WishUponAStar on March 30th, 2010
when I posted in the top ten places here, I expected to talk to different peoplle on each post, lol. Directs you to one of my other answers here.
by WishUponAStar on March 30th, 2010
You posted on all the threads I was a part of with the same answer.
by Gingerminx on March 31st, 2010
lol, sorry, I just got bored of responding to the same post, lol. I posted that way intentding to get into 10 different conversations and debating others. You know? And not all of them at once, lol.
by WishUponAStar on March 31st, 2010
We're defending victims of discrimination. That takes a certain persistence and commitment if you're going to take it seriously.
You should meet some gay couples, spend some time with them, etc. One of the main reasons the church is able to keep up its anti-gay-rights oppression is that the people in the church keep their distance from the people they're oppressing: by not really getting to know them as people, it's easier to think of them in abstract and theoretical terms... "those people out there, they're not like us and they're a problem".
Ironically, this is almost the exact opposite of the spirit of Jesus' teachings, which was all about universal love and inclusion. A REAL Christian would not be opposing gay rights, they would be welcoming gays into the congregation and ministering to their spiritual needs. So the folks who are going on about this in the church are not real Christians, IMHO. They're hypocrites and bigots.
by HasntBeen on March 31st, 2010
I have a gay friend where I used to live, but we didn't keep in touch after I moved away, so I'm not a bigot. Gays should have rights similar to marriage, as far as government goes, as long as their rights don't infringe on the rights of others. From a theological standpoint, most Christians believe they should love gays, but should not endorse the behavior. You're hung up on calling them bigots and not seeing that it has nothing to do with bigotry, just not endorsing an action that is wrong. Remember what God did to the City of Sodom, from which comes the word Sodomy? Jesus teaches us to love the sinner, not the sin. I was not going to put it so bluntly, but you forced my hand by saying what a 'REAL' Christian should believe.
by WishUponAStar on March 31st, 2010
WishUponAStar, I respect your right to your beliefs, I just don't think your beliefs should make the laws or rule others lives. Marriage can be carried out by an official almost anywhere these days, it does not have to be in churches. Marriage is not a religious rite, but a human right.
by Gingerminx on March 31st, 2010
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...
First Amendment. Government has no right to say what a Church can and cannot believe, and cannot punish a church for following their beliefs. The problem is, the government and so many people nowadays forget that. Like that New Jersey case. The ruling was a violation of the First Amendment, but liberals don't care. Do you care?
by WishUponAStar on March 31st, 2010
by Ron C
on December 14th, 2009
voted:
Yes
??????? stupid
by rockit2u on December 17th, 2009
It is just as stupid to tell two people they can't marry after all it is a legal contract. How can anything a same sex couple do affect you? The way I see it, it's none of my business. What is stupid is other people interfering in stranger's lives.
by Ron C on December 17th, 2009
Damn straight. Specifically if they are using the excuse that homosexual marriages will "ruin" the values of marriage. I couldn't agree more.
by Phrenia on January 14th, 2010
by Uniden
on December 10th, 2009
voted:
No
I made a typo :P . "Marriage in my opinion is for men and women only, it's how we were made to be on this planet." **
by Uniden on December 10th, 2009
Tradion over rights desn't work. It was once 'tradition' not to let women vote.
by Isaac on December 11th, 2009
How is marriage "how we were made to be on this planet"? If "Man + Woman = survival of the human race," wouldn't that mean sex is how we were made to be on this planet?
by Who? on December 12th, 2009
Science has shown that marriage is not necessary for humans to reproduce.
by Moongrim on December 13th, 2009
Our reason for being on this planet is not known to us. If u base this solely on nature then u know that marriage boes not produce children..sex and sometimes science...
by nikkidascorpio on December 15th, 2009
So Uniden you are saying that we would not survive if there was gay marriage, I think the world is over populated in many countries as it is, so maybe this would be a good thing lol....oh plus I know many people with kids and are not married. :)
by Weird Science on December 19th, 2009
So your point is that "people who cannot have children together should not be allowed to get married"?
How very interesting. No doubt you are constantly writing your Congresscritters, demanding that they add a national "fertility test" to the marriage laws so that all those sterile heterosexuals, and heterosexuals who insist that they will never have children, can be prevented from marrying.
What? You think that heterosexuals who will not have kids should still be allowed to marry? Kinda puts the lie to your claim that "marriage should be for the survival of the human race"...
...UNLESS the human race depends on more than mere reproduction for survival, in which case gay couples, who can still adopt and raise kids just like sterile heterosexual couples, will help promote the survival of the human race quite nicely.
by eternal0void on December 31st, 2009
Your opinion is your opinion. Now contend with the several other billion people who support gay marriage.
by Anonymous on March 3rd, 2010
Exactly eternal.
by Moongrim on March 4th, 2010
I do not hate gays. I believe, like Elton John, that they should have civil unions, with rights mostly equal to marriage, but I do not agree with the term marriage being used. And like I said, Elton John agreed with me.
And here's why. In places where marriage has been redefined, gay couples have sued churches for discrimination because they were observing their religious beliefs. I believe that there are way more Christians then there are gays, so what about their rights? Should gays receive special treatment because they are a minority? That does not seem fair to me,and I think that gays who want marriage to be redefined are being selfish. Stop complaining about your rights and try to think about everyone elses.
by WishUponAStar on March 30th, 2010
I think being at 7 billion people the human species is doing ok
by Tandemdevil on April 9th, 2010
Well, wishuponastar, although I totally support gay marriage, I have to admit you are right on this subject. Churches should be allowed to operate as they believe, and it is simply not right for us to throw their beliefs out the window. The most the gay community can do is try to convince them.
by Anonymous on April 12th, 2010
by CANON007 on December 10th, 2009
Why is love an 'unatural abomination'??
by Isaac on December 11th, 2009
http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-gay-christian
by Phrenia on December 12th, 2009
Right. Because marriage is absolutely natural.
by Who? on December 12th, 2009
Your god created this 'unnatural abomination', why would he stop it?
by Gingerminx on December 12th, 2009
Almost forgot to prove that marriage is natural so here is a link to an article that proves it.
http://uwnews.washington.edu/ni/article.asp?articleID=2344
(I hope you understand that I am being sarcastic.)
by Who? on December 12th, 2009
It is an abonomination in your perspective. Reality is not based on your perspective.
by Nutsy_Rail on December 13th, 2009
Yes let us stop the unnatural abomination called: Pious Hypocrisy.
by Moongrim on December 13th, 2009
Sorry buddy, praying will not help lol.....there is no God :)
by Weird Science on December 19th, 2009
Indeed, the real abomination is bigotry and people who can't think for themselves getting their rigid ideas of morality from an ancient book. If it tells you that the Earth is 6,000 years old, despite all evidence to the contrary, of course you should believe. If it tells you homosexuality is an abomination, of course you should believe. If it tells you not to mix the fibers of your clothing...
by HasntBeen on December 20th, 2009
grow up...you sound so pathetic
by DA BEN DAN yanggui zi on January 16th, 2010
Unnatural.... like glasses, polyester, and birth control?
by Phrenia on January 17th, 2010
The scary thing is, so far 8 people like this answer.
by Gingerminx on January 17th, 2010
i HOPE ALL YOU GAY LOVERS ENJOY THE LAKE OF FIRE
by Anonymous on February 20th, 2010
Lake of fire?
by Gingerminx on February 20th, 2010
Oh, how it will break your heart when you find out otherwise.
by Phrenia on February 20th, 2010
NO IT WILL BREAK MY HEART WHEN IT DOES HAPPEN.
by Anonymous on February 20th, 2010
If you think your god is so impudent to persecute homosexuals in such a way, than none of us really have a chance. Since when did love become punishable by Hell?
by Phrenia on February 21st, 2010
I'm sorry I get angry but if people go to hell simply because their love for a certain gender while the intolerant against this love go to heaven, then I don't want to go to heaven and I don't see why anyone would.
by Phrenia on February 21st, 2010
If God doesn't like homosexuals then why does God keep creating them?
by Moongrim on February 21st, 2010
God does'nt create homosexuals. thats what comes when man is left alone to his own devices. I think its funny when people who claim God does not exist, blame Him for things like homosexuality.
by Anonymous on February 21st, 2010
@Anonymous We don't really blame him, we don't "blame" anyone as homosexuality isn't a problem for the unbrainwashed. We're simply using something within your own belief system to make you think about your flawed stance.
by Isaac on February 21st, 2010
Nice Anonymous, you wish that we dwell in a lake of fire? And this is what your god teaches you is acceptable behaviour? And you wonder why people do not beleive in it.
by Gingerminx on February 21st, 2010
Arguing with a fundamentalist is one of the fastest ways to bury a conversation in mythology and hysteria. The proper way to treat them is with gentle whooshing sounds and Paxil.
by HasntBeen on February 21st, 2010
Laughs
by Gingerminx on February 21st, 2010
Arguing with a fundie can be most entertaining.
They use their god to justify their own hatreds.
by Moongrim on February 22nd, 2010
moongrim, you're a hypocrit. you will say anything to sound right. some times you say there is no God, other times you accuse him of creating something. anyone on here that listens to anything you say should'nt. as far as i am concerned you are a joke,HAHAHAHAHAHAHA I am one person and anything I say about homosexuality is my opinion and I am entitled to it, but I am done talking about this issue. I have already voiced my opinion and there is no more for me to say about it.
by Anonymous on February 22nd, 2010
{{{gentle whooshing sound}}} -- Here, have a Paxil(tm)!
by HasntBeen on February 22nd, 2010
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Anonymous on February 22nd, 2010
So in other words anonymous you simply are trying to justify your irrational hatred of gay folks by invoking the name of your god?
Oh and for the point- I ask about your "god" because I keep trying to gauge questions in such a way that your small and feeble mind can comprehend it.
Obviously my efforts to do so, have been in vain.
by Moongrim on February 23rd, 2010
I hate the act of homosexuality, not those that are homosexuals. and you dodge everything I say. so if you choose to ignore what I say, why should I pay any attention to what you say? Do you believe in God or not; you can't seem to stop contradicting yourself. one time you say God don't exist, the next time you blame God for things that come from the mind of man not God. so who's mind is feeble? I say you're mind is feeble..
by Anonymous on February 23rd, 2010
If your god exists then did he not make man? Therefore is he not responsible for whatever man does?
by Gingerminx on February 23rd, 2010
No He is not. When young people turn 18, they sometimes leave home and move out because they no longer want to live by their parents rules. when they move out, the parents no longer have control over that child's life. When people decide to do what they want, they tell God they no longer want to live by His rules; therefore God no longer has control over what they do. when a child leaves the protection of their parents they are given over to the dangers of this life and to the people who would want to corrupt them. same with a person that turns their back on God are given over to the devil who in turn corrupts that person.
by Anonymous on February 23rd, 2010
So then god is not all powerful? How then can he be a god?
by Gingerminx on February 23rd, 2010
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?"
- Epicurus
by Moongrim on February 24th, 2010
MOOOOOOOON-GRIM!!!MOOOOOOOON-GRIM!!!MOOOOOOOON-GRIM!!!MOOOOOOOON-GRIM!!!
by Adz3r0 on February 24th, 2010
All questions will be answered when we die, until then I will believe what I believe and all of you will believe what you believe.
by Anonymous on February 24th, 2010
That comment wins the "Obvious but Pointless" award. Of course everybody is entitled to believe whatever they want to believe, yadayada. So what? The question is -- is it TRUE. The evidence for your beliefs does not add up very well, and you're using them to justify making offensive judgments of others -- judgments which are not supportable by moral reasoning. In other words, you're being a troll.
by HasntBeen on February 24th, 2010
The problem anonymous, is that you 'believe' that you've got a right to dictate to everyone else what kind of sex they can have, based solely on a book of fairy tales, that you've not read in it's entirety.
by Moongrim on February 25th, 2010
It would appear, Moongrim, good sense isn't always as common as people care to believe.
by Adz3r0 on February 25th, 2010
All questions will be answered when we die, until then I will believe what I believe, and all of you will believe what you believe.
by Anonymous on February 25th, 2010
Your record is skipping. Are you sure that's all the thinking you have left?
by HasntBeen on February 25th, 2010
All questions will be answered when we die, until then I will believe what I believe, and all of you will believe what you believe.
by Anonymous on February 26th, 2010
So we're all clear - Anonymous is a loser with no real defense, and he's a miserable person who's passably contempt with spreading his misery onto others as he awaits the sweet release of death. So why should decent folk continue to argue with the likes of him?
by Adz3r0 on February 26th, 2010
All questions will be answered when we die, until then I will believe what I believe, and all of you will believe what you believe.
by Anonymous on February 26th, 2010
If that is all you are going to say Anonymous isn't it rather pointless?
by Gingerminx on February 26th, 2010
All questions will be answered when we die, until then I will believe what I believe, and all of you will believe what you believe.
by Anonymous on February 26th, 2010
Setting yourself up for disappointment.
by Adz3r0 on February 26th, 2010
All questions will be answered when we die, until then I will believe what I believe, and all of you will believe what you believe.
by Anonymous on February 26th, 2010
Hehe. That's clever! Instead of doing any critical thinking, discussion, or responding to challenges, just keep repeating the same cliche like a robot! That will win people over! You're a genius!
I have a 5-year-old nephew who has that method patented. You owe him $25.
by HasntBeen on February 26th, 2010
ALL QUESTIONS WILL BE ANSWERED WHEN WE DIE, UNTIL THEN I WILL BELIEVE WHAT I BELIEVE, AND ALL OF YOU WILL BELIEVE WHAT YOU BELIEVE.
by Anonymous on February 26th, 2010
You know, yelling at us doesn't make any difference.
by Gingerminx on February 26th, 2010
Better question: Why is everyone else feeding into his stupidity?
by Adz3r0 on February 26th, 2010
All questions will be answered when we die, until then I will believe what I believe and all of you will believe what you believe.
by Anonymous on February 26th, 2010
I suppose I am kind of curious as to how long he will spend typing in the same lines.
by Gingerminx on February 26th, 2010
All questions will be answered when we die, until then I will believe what I believe and you all will believe what you believe.
by Anonymous on February 26th, 2010
I think his record is stuck.
by Gingerminx on February 26th, 2010
I think that all questions will be answered when we die, until then I will believe what I believe and you all will believe what you believe.
by Anonymous on February 26th, 2010
AMEN! anonymous
For the record I like Gays their nice im cool with anyone
But i dont have to like what they do if that were the case id be gay to lol
by iLOVEJESUS on February 26th, 2010
Accepting gay people doesn't mean you become gay yourself, what kind of weird idea is that?
by Gingerminx on February 26th, 2010
All questions will be answered when we die, until then I will believe what I believe as others like me will, and you will believe what you believe.
by Anonymous on February 26th, 2010
I'm sorry Anonymous, are you feeling unheard? Or are you unable to say anything else?
by Gingerminx on February 26th, 2010
Don't be sorry. All questions will be answered when we die, until then I will believe what I believe and all of you will believe what you believe.
by Anonymous on February 27th, 2010
:P If you start adding words to your message people will think you are taking notice.
by Gingerminx on February 27th, 2010
All questions will be answered when we die, until then I will believe what I believe and all of you will believe what you believe.
by Anonymous on February 27th, 2010
All morons will continue repeating themselves indefinitely, until then the curious will poke and prod them to see if their brain death is complete.
by HasntBeen on February 27th, 2010
And that's the gist of it all Anonymous- only when we die.
Not beforehand, when we can do something about it, only afterwards, and when we discover that it was the retard in the corner who worshipped a ball of cheese was correct.
by Moongrim on February 27th, 2010
All questions will be answered when we die, until then I will believe what I believe and all of you will believe what you believe.
by Anonymous on February 27th, 2010
Thats not strictly true Anonymous, peoples views change over time so you may not beleive what you beleive now when you die.
by Gingerminx on February 27th, 2010
I'm not gonna be in any position to be answered. I'm gonna be dead.
So if there is anything, anything at all, it's all gravy.
by Moongrim on February 27th, 2010
UNTIL THEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
by Anonymous on February 27th, 2010
Anonymous, I got tired of reading the ridiculous arguments against gay marriage cuz, well honestly, I got bored. I've heard them all before because I've had this argument before, many times, and I'm gunna hear it again because I'm doing a research report on it, and believe it or not, I'm going for yes.
I DID read that someone said "god doesn't create gays"
... he doesn't?
wow, I thought god created everything.
I got a good argument for you here, god created everything, the people, the earth, even their thought processes, right?
Ah, well, he also created people with brain problems that turn them insane and drive them to kill.
OH, but killing is wrong, right?
So, why would he create someone with that brain problem that would cause him to kill, if IN THE BIBLE, it says killing is wrong?
Now, I fix it to address our problem here.
Why would god WILLINGLY create someone with the thought process of man on man action, or woman on woman action, even though IN THE BIBLE it says being gay is wrong?
And just to, you know, add a little side burn to this comment, something I've said a million times before, God influenced the bible, absolutely right, I'm all for it. But GOD DIDN'T WRITE IT. Man did, man held the pen, man took God's influence and had the opportunity to twist it to his will and shape the thought processes of MILLIONS to believe in what he believed. And that was that gays are an abomination, as was one of the big beliefs back then.
Now, you might tell me, "The man listening to God while writing the bible wouldn't do that! He's all good and stuff!"
So, he was perfect then? Because, we all know, God makes those perfect men who don't strive for world domination, power, and those things, right?
Thrive on these thoughts, provide me with more arguments, and I'll do the same. =)
by Lalapalooza on March 2nd, 2010
I'm personally done with this topic, but I will say this; God created the person who is gay, He did not make them gay. He also said that he would give them over to their lusts and desires because He would not force them to serve Him. when they chose to live in sin, they opened the door for satan to have his way with their thoughts. When satan rules a persons thoughts long enough he will have complete control of their thoughts.
by Anonymous on March 2nd, 2010
You can believe what you want about the Bible, God gave you that choice, but I will say the same thing I have been saying: All questions will be answered when we die until then believe what you want, I will always believe what I believe.
by Anonymous on March 2nd, 2010
That would be fine as a philosophy -- if the people who believed it weren't oppressing others as they go about their business. As we have seen in numerous gay-rights battles over the years, believers with a bigoted bent on this topic are happy to get out and march or give money to twist the public debate, so as to deprive others of their rights. So it's not just a matter of "you believe what you believe and I believe what I believe", it's a matter of right and wrong: you're wrong, and you're doing harm with those views. It's active, and morally reprehensible.
by HasntBeen on March 2nd, 2010
Beat a dead horse all you want,I'm done with this.
by Anonymous on March 2nd, 2010
Beat a dead horse all you want,I'm done with this.
by Anonymous on March 2nd, 2010
In other words Anonymous, no need to confuse you with the facts, your mind is made up.
by Moongrim on March 3rd, 2010
I think he's saying he's the dead horse.
by HasntBeen on March 3rd, 2010
All questions will answered when we die, until then all of you will be deceived and can argue with one another.
by Anonymous on March 3rd, 2010
For a guy who keeps repeating how "done" he is, you sure seem to be seeking that perfect closing quip.
by HasntBeen on March 3rd, 2010
You're the one that can't move on. Puppet
by Anonymous on March 3rd, 2010
He isn't the one who said he was going to move on, you were.
by Gingerminx on March 3rd, 2010
I agree with HasntBeen, Gingerminx, and Moongrim, you aren't 'moving on' very well Anonymous.
And some children are born gay, Anonymous, you'd know that if you paid attention.
by Lalapalooza on March 3rd, 2010
puppets
by Anonymous on March 3rd, 2010
Look dude -- you'd be much better off just admitting that you haven't got a clue, got in over your head in arguments with people who do, and now don't know how to get out. You've combined the stubbornness of a jackass, the repetitiveness of a broken record, and the dull-wittedness of a sheep and tried to parley them into a campaign to convince others that homosexuals should be treated as second-class citizens.
In fact, what you've accomplished is simply to remind the rest of us why we shouldn't listen to repetitive jackasses with the brain of a sheep.
by HasntBeen on March 3rd, 2010
How would you feel if you were ganged up by a bunch of people? nobody can have a conversation with so many people. I've simply been trying to say That we don't agree with one another. neither one of us is going to change each others minds, so lets let it rest. that's all. I'm not trying to argue, all of you are. if none of you can talk one on one then just end it.
by Anonymous on March 3rd, 2010
How would you feel if your natural sexual orientation rendered you as an outcast -- oppressed, beaten sometimes, at risk of being killed in some parts of the world, disrespected, and perhaps as bad -- being told repeatedly that you're somehow invalid as a person in the eyes of God?
YOU are the problem. People who think like you are the problem. People who have been sucked into believing ancient prejudices are modern moral principles -- THAT is the problem. What you believe leads to evil. It is not innocent, it is not "everybody is entitled to their beliefs". What you believe is WRONG, and your attempts to promote it are WRONG, and you are doing HARM. How thick-headed does one have to be to ignore that?
What difference does it make how many people gang up on you? The fact is that you're committed to your ego so persistently that no amount of evidence or argument or seeing yourself in the mirror will break it. So do I care about your feelings? Not really -- you brought this on yourself in your disrespecting of others.
by HasntBeen on March 3rd, 2010
I'm not even going to waste time reading what you say. When there is sick twisted people like you in this world, I would rather believe in a loving God. Bye Puppet.
by Anonymous on March 3rd, 2010
all the things you say that happened to gay people. Christians in other countries have been killed just because they have a Bible. and have been put in prison and tortured just in recent years. when I die if there is no God than I have nothing to lose because there will be nothing, but when you die and you find out there is a God you will be thrown into the lake of fire Forever so you better hope there is no God,
by Anonymous on March 4th, 2010
Actually I'd be more afraid of going to a Heaven filled with pompous and self-righteous jerks. Thank goodness it doesn't exist.
by HasntBeen on March 4th, 2010
Anonymous is the fine example of why so many christians are killed: They're a bunch of self righteous windbags who get overly obnoxious when they're challenged, and try to hide behind their holy book when they get called out onto the carpet.
If you want to change the world Anonymous Windbag, you're gonna have to put up with the world resisting it.
You hate Homosexuals, and you wonder why no one likes you? Stop hating.
by Moongrim on March 4th, 2010
You guys are like Dog crap that I can't seem to get out from the cracks of my shoes. you keep talking but all I hear is Blah Blah Blah. I don't hate Homosexual's, you guys are the one who have the hate in your hearts.
by Anonymous on March 4th, 2010
@Anonymous You can't have hate in your heart. Hate is an emotion, and emotions only happen in the brain. The heart is for pumping blood around the body. Have you not learned basic human biology?
by Isaac on March 4th, 2010
Despite your attempts to paint Christians as the victims here, the fact is that believers are the aggressors and gays are the victims... with regard to this topic. It's a load of crap to talk about how oppressed you are when you're in the process of oppressing others.
So... hypocrisy is what you're actually communicating, regardless of what you think is coming out of your mouth.
by HasntBeen on March 4th, 2010
good bye
by Anonymous on March 4th, 2010
@Anonymous There is no defending your position, is there?
by Isaac on March 5th, 2010
yes there is, just not to people with deaf ears. Good Bye Isaac. Believe it or not I hope the best for you. you are deceived hatred comes from your Heart. Biblical definition of heart; Mind,will and emotions. To you HasntBeen, you have no Idea what I have been trying to communicate because you have been hearing what you want to hear, not what I have been saying. to moongrim, you are very much the wind bag, you never shut up nor do you truly listen because of your high opinion of yourself. you are a wounded man who lashes out because you don't know what else to do. say what you want but I know it is true and so do you.
by Anonymous on March 5th, 2010
Somewhere around your 42nd "goodbye", we're going to rent you a lounge chair so you'll be more comfortable. Just a gift from the guys to someone who's having a hard time :)
by HasntBeen on March 5th, 2010
@Anonymou Heart = Mind will and emotions? These 3 completely seperate things? If your going to use mind, why not say "you have hatred in your brain"? If your goign to use "Will", why not say "you have hatred in your soul"? And I guess the phrase "you have hatred in your emotions" makes too much sense for you.
I have no hared for anyone in this discussion, and have not displayed any hatred here. You only say I do because you think that will make your position look superior, but it doesn't because my position is never diluted with emotions, only logic. Emotions blind people into taking unreasonable claims. I do however have pity and love; pity for one person in this discussion, and unlike homophobes like yourself, I have love for my homosexual friends who deserve equal rights.
100 years ago people like you were fighting women's equal rights, 50 years ago people like you were fighting the black community's rights, and now you're just moving on to the next group that will inevitability get equal rights. As much as it tries, religion only decelerates the progress of mankind, it will never stop it.
Note: No hatred was felt in the writing of this message.
by Isaac on March 5th, 2010
cannon007, yes, you are right, we should pray to God to stop this abomination. When Jesus returns to the earth, we will all stand before God, and have to account for our sins and be judged.
by Account Closed on March 12th, 2010
The only abomination here are the Christians obsessing with everyone else's sex lives.
by Moongrim on March 12th, 2010
Hi Moongrim, I am not obsessing about anyones sexlife. I am fearful
for the children growing up in the world today. If we as adults, do not teach them right from wrong, and teach them to have good moral values. Who Will?
by Account Closed on March 12th, 2010
The trouble, Eliza Beth, is "who decides what are good values"? If you scan this comment thread, you may notice that there's some pretty strong disagreement about where the "good" lies here. To people like myself, the good has nothing whatsoever to do with banning homosexuality or gay marriage -- it has much more to do with freedom, equality, justice, and individual rights. Those who are "praying to God to stop this abomination" are, in fact, adamantly opposed to these values: at least when applied to those they disapprove of.
You've gotten your values from an ancient book that sponsors slavery, endorses the oppression of women, advocates violence against outsiders, and generally violates most widely-accepted concepts of morality in many places. What good is it as a guide to morality? If anything, it's a guide to maintaining the status quo, regardless of how oppressive or unethical that may be.
So yeah, we want our kids to know right from wrong. We just don't think you're qualified to know the difference.
by HasntBeen on March 12th, 2010
Well put HasntBeen.
by Gingerminx on March 12th, 2010
HasntBeen, Not qualified to know right from wrong? A person does not need a uni degree to know right from wrong. God has built that qualification into each and every one of us.
The thing is, some people ignore the God given gut feeling, The Good Lord has given them, because it suits them to do so.
Homosexuality is wrong, and to make marriage of homosexuals legal, is letting down our future generations.
We must teach our children good morals, good family values that will take them through life.
by Account Closed on March 12th, 2010
I agree Eliza, we should teach our children good morals, how is your teaching them prejudice and hatred good morals?
by Gingerminx on March 12th, 2010
Anonymous, You and I know that there is God. We know that one day everyone will have to stand before Him and account for how we lived our lives, and we WILL be judged.
I love The Lord Jesus Christ and I know He wants us all to be saved. But, some people just will never open their hearts and mind to Him, they are lost. You and I know that homsexuality is wrong, but some people just can not see. God bless you for trying to help these people.
by Account Closed on March 12th, 2010
Gingerminx, I do not teach children prejudice and hatred. I do not teach my children to hate homosexuals. I teach them good morals and good family values. I have taught them how wrong homsexuality is, just like I have taught them about other sins. I have taught them that sinning is wrong, (as we all sin) but I have not taught them to hate sinners.
by Account Closed on March 12th, 2010
I feel sorry for your children and I hope that none of them are homosexual because their lives will be hell.
by Gingerminx on March 12th, 2010
Don't feel sorry for my children, they have grown into lovely, caring, well adjusted and happy adults, with happy children of their own.
Of course, neither of them are homosexual. As I said to you before, I raised them with good moral values, they would never sin like that.
by Account Closed on March 12th, 2010
I won't argue with you, your religion has you so brain washed that common sense and logic are beyond your comprehension.
by Gingerminx on March 12th, 2010
Gingerminx, I don't belong to ANY RELIGION! I am just an ordinary person, with good morals, who knows right from wrong.
Don't tell me I'm brain washed with no commom sense, just because you and I do not agree on something.
What, if I agreed with you, then would I be as smart as you?
by Account Closed on March 12th, 2010
Eliza Beth, you're mistaking your childhood conditioning for "knowledge built in by God". Every culture teaches its children certain things -- things they are not born with. Your parents taught you to fear or not understand homosexuality: that happened at an early age, you did not realize that you were being programmed. So now, the reaction is automatic -- your stomach tightens up, you feel disgust at the idea, etc.
In effect, you're a bit of a robot. You think this is God's pre-ordained knowledge of right and wrong, telling you what is what. But of course, it's no such thing: a child can be programmed to react to almost anything, and many are. Some kids feel guilty if they tell their abusive fathers that it hurts when they're beaten.
So that's the level of moral thinking you're doing -- and here's the proof: you don't have a coherent REASON to explain why it's wrong. True morality is based in a sound understanding of how we harm each other. You can't justify your viewpoint on that basis... that's how I know it's just conditioning.
by HasntBeen on March 12th, 2010
Laughs, you say it so much better than I HasntBeen. I am too stunned by the fact that someone can be that blinded.
by Gingerminx on March 13th, 2010
Well I do think it's a topic that doesn't get enough attention. A lot of what passes for "common sense" or "what is obvious to all" is really just childhood conditioning: tapes playing back by themselves with no critical thinking going on.
Unfortunately religious fundamentalists have refined this kind of programming into a brutal hammer applied to every child.
by HasntBeen on March 13th, 2010
HasntBeen, I have had no childhood conditioning about homosexuals. When I was a child, it was never even mentioned to me. I imagine the reason for that was because the homosexuals, did not make their sinful life style made known publicly.
But of cause now, as it is written in The Holy Bible, "one of the signs that will occur, before Jesus returns to the earth is"
"MAN WILL LAY WITH MAN AND NOT WITH WOMAN". Now, we all know that homosexuality has been around for many many years, but never has it been so in peoples faces, as it is now. They are making themselves known every where, gay mardi gras, out in the streets, even on TV and in movies. Homosexuals, like all of us, will have to stand before God, and account for our life styles, one day, and be judged.
If they don't repent, before Jesus returns, they will not be saved. You will never change my view, just as I will never change yours.
by Account Closed on March 13th, 2010
Gingerminx, Funny thing, I am stunned that someone can be so blinded, too.
by Account Closed on March 13th, 2010
@Eliza Beth
Eliza Beth 5 hours ago: "Gingerminx, I don't belong to ANY RELIGION!"
Eliza Beth 5 minutes ago: "If they don't repent, before Jesus returns, they will not be saved. You will never change my view, just as I will never change yours."
Hmm.... notice something odd?
by Isaac on March 13th, 2010
Isaac, No, nothing is odd at all. I said I don't belong to any religion, and I DON'T.
I am A born Again Christian! I live by The Holy Bible, The Lord's Living Word.
I AM NO RELIGION AT ALL.
by Account Closed on March 13th, 2010
Do you eat shellfish Elizabeth?
If so then you're an abomination.
by Moongrim on March 13th, 2010
@Eliza Beth
Explain to me how Christianity is not a religion. Every source I have come across differs from this, including christian sources. Results for Christianity include:
Dictionary.com: the Christian religion.
Wikipedia.org: Christianity is a monotheistic religion.
The Bible, James 1:27: Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.
Or maybe your definition of "religion" needs a refresh:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Religion
by Isaac on March 13th, 2010
Apparently it's now fashionable among some Christians to claim that Christianity is not a religion. Hey, as long as fashions are shifting, how about having bigotry and homophobia go out of fashion?
Anyway, your claim that you were not programmed as a child rings hollow: you were programmed for *something*, although it may not be direct conditioning about homosexuality. If, for example, you were conditioned to feel that sex in general is "dirty", that is easily morphed into an adult fear of homosexuality, which is seen as "abnormal".
In any case, you think you're holy, when you're actually just a bigot. Everybody can see it but you.
by HasntBeen on March 13th, 2010
moongrim, No, I do not eat shellfish.
by Account Closed on March 13th, 2010
Hasntbeen, What is it with you and programming?
Why do I have to be programmed? in your opinion. You must have some sort of hang up from your childhood. Hey, maybe you were programmed as a child to believe that everyone else is programed! lol
You have it wrong, I DO NOT believe that I am holy. ONLY THE LORD JESUS IS HOLY. I am a sinner, and I humble myself before The Lord.
Wrong agin, I believe that sex between a husband and wife (as in a Man and Woman) is a beautiful natural thing.
Men having sex with men and women having sex with women is "abnormal". Oh, maybe the homsexuals were programmed as children to believe it is right!
by Account Closed on March 13th, 2010
isaac, What I mean is, I don't belong to any religion, meaning, Baptist, Catholic, ect.
If you don't believe in The Lord Jesus, why do you quote from The Holy Bible and believe it to be true?
I wish you could make up your mind.
by Account Closed on March 13th, 2010
You belong to the religion called Christianity. This isn't complicated, please remember it -- it may be on the test :)
The reason I think you're programmed is because you're obviously not thinking for yourself -- you get your opinions from the Bible (or actually, from other believers, who have chosen the verses they liked and handed them to you on a platter). Everything you have to say is cliche, used-up, overwrought. You try to substitute SHOUTING for reason and good sense. You're just not very bright, I would say. Of course, that's not a crime, but being a bigot should be.
Love is life. Commitment between two people is life. People expressing their true selves is life. Justice and freedom and diversity are all life. You are anti-life: oppressive, repetitive, seeped in ancient prejudices and spouting them off like a parrot, blithely unaware that you sound like every finger-wagging preacher who ever tried to make themselves holier-than-thou by banging on the pulpit.
If there's a Devil, he loves your kind.
by HasntBeen on March 13th, 2010
Eliza you belong to a religion you just don't belong to any religious organisation. You may not like homosexuality,but what right do you have to stop consenting homosexual adults from getting married if they choose?
by Gingerminx on March 13th, 2010
HasntBeen, There is a devil, his name is satan, and you will find him hanging out at the gay mardi gras. He loves that kind of thing!
You say, "I am not just very bright", WRONG AGAIN! you have underestimated me. You just can't seem to get it right. Maybe you were programmed wrong.
Your last comment was so ordinary, your insults were so bland. You just do not get it, do you? There is nothing you, or anyone else can say, that will stir me up or make me bend.
Who are you to me? no one, just some guy spouting off. I would have to wonder, which one of us is not real bright? ummmm. Not that its a crime, of course.
I walk with The Lord Jesus, I am strong. I draw my strength from Him, knowing He loves me. He loves you too, but you turn your back on Him. Jesus is coming back to the earth, and "every eye will see and every knee will bend".
I am ready for that wonderful day.
Are you?
by Account Closed on March 13th, 2010
Nobody is thinking you can bend, we're aware of your brittleness of course. You are the one doing the manipulation -- trying to threaten everyone into seeing the world through your twisted framework... seeking self-justification by accumulating more members.
I have no threats for you: you are already your own form of Hell, just being you is punishment enough. However, when you inflict it on others (gays, in this case) anyone who cares about equality and freedom is obliged to speak up.
by HasntBeen on March 13th, 2010
Gingerminx, I am not stopping homosexuals from getting married. I am not the one who decides that.
I know homosexuality is wrong, as is all sin, but I can't stop it.
God will put an end to all our sinful ways, when Jesus returns to the earth.
by Account Closed on March 13th, 2010
Actually all that will happen is that you'll die without ever having really lived, and while trying to rob others of their vitality too.
When it's not offensive, it's just sad.
by HasntBeen on March 13th, 2010
Eliza Beth I'm Catholic and I would just like to say that you are terrible at debating. The more you talk the stupider you sound.
P.S. I believe that gay marriage is fine.
by GoatFetisher on March 13th, 2010
GoatFetisher, I love your comment, you are funny, you made me laugh.
You just told every one here that you are a catholic, as in christian? And in the next breath, you tell every one that you condone sin. okkkk
You say you are catholic, but you go against The Lord's commands.
Hey, you had better run to your priest and confess.
The more you talk the stupider you sound, you jump in on a debate, you don't debate, you just tell me I'm stupid and a terrible debater. lol
Like I care what you think or say. Your opinion means nothing to me.
Jesus says in The Holy Bible that He would rather us be Hot or Cold, but not warm. We, as christians, are either with Jesus, and follow His Word, or against Him. You can't just sit on the fence.
by Account Closed on March 14th, 2010
Sure you can, its called being agnostic.
by Gingerminx on March 14th, 2010
Eliza Beth, there are over 30,000 different "Christian" denominations. In most cases, each one considers themselves to be the only true and sincere readers of the scriptures -- they're tolerant of some other sects, but intolerant of many more. Like a confused lot of blind men with the elephant, each believes he is the only true visionary.
Your "confidence" in your faith is what's laughable -- you haven't actually READ the book you're claiming to guide you. How about this: the Bible is the primary and only religious text of significance which endorses slavery... listing the kinds of purchase transactions that can be made, how to treat Hebrew slaves vs. non-Hebrew slaves, what should happen if the master has a child by a slave, etc. That's your moral guidance... but you don't really read that part, you just skim over it and think to yourself "well, that was in the old days..."
Well guess what? Right next to that, a few pages away, is your moral source on homosexuality too. These were ancient barbaric people who took their social conventions and made them into "laws of God". They were killers, they had a vicious attitude toward other tribes, and the laws made them slightly less vicious but in no way represented an intelligent moral code.
You've hitched your wagon to a drunken donkey, and now that you're out of control you're cheering about how clever you are.
by HasntBeen on March 14th, 2010
HasntBeen, There you go again, you just don't get it, do you?
I couldn't care less what you say about me, I don't know you, you are nobody to me.
This is how I work, its like I have a PIN number to my heart, and only I know the number. So, I only let people who I love, into my heart, and only the people who are in my heart can hurt me. (because I care about them). Now, you on the other hand are not in my heart, so you can not hurt me, no matter what you say, because I don't even know you.
Now you are accusing me of threatening people? Why would you say that? Do you feel threatened by me?
So, the way I see it, is that you think you are entitled to your opinion, but unless another person agrees with you, they are not entitled to their opinion.
And that is equality and freedom of speech, to you?
So far, in your comments, you have said that I am, Twisted, a bigot, brittle, manipulative, threatening, sad, my own form of hell, the devil loves me, programmed, not bright, anti life, oppressive, repetitive, a parrot, holier-than-thou, self justifying and a robot. Why do you feel you have to resort to calling me names? And why do you say that you are speaking for everybody? Like your comment "nobody is thinking you" and "we're aware of your". Who are you talking about? You should learn to stand up and speak for yourself.
I suppose I should be angry with you, for all the nasty things you have said to me, but I'm not. You can get out your dictionary, and look up some more nasty things to call me in your next comment. lol
by Account Closed on March 14th, 2010
@Eliza Beth
"isaac, What I mean is, I don't belong to any religion, meaning, Baptist, Catholic, ect."
You belong to christianity. That is a religion. What you mentioned are sects of religion.
"If you don't believe in The Lord Jesus, why do you quote from The Holy Bible and believe it to be true? I wish you could make up your mind."
I'm using from your own belief system to show you that even if the bible was true, you would still be wrong. It's a debating tactic, something you wouldn't know anything about.
And take it from everyone in this thread who can think: You are a bad debater. Sad but it's true, repeating blanket claims without evidence and the same invalid argument countered a thousand times is considered bad debating.
by Isaac on March 14th, 2010
Eliza Beth, I forgot and left out "hypocrite" from the list. Here is how you introduced yourself to the group:
"yes, you are right, we should pray to God to stop this abomination. When Jesus returns to the earth, we will all stand before God, and have to account for our sins and be judged"
So you are calling all homosexuals sinners, and saying that they are an "abomination". That's your lead-in. You think that's not aggressive? You think that's not bigoted? Fine, I accept that you have whitewashed yourself and can't imagine how others would find that offensive. Just sweet little Eliza Beth, trolling around on the Internet and telling us who is a sinner and who is not. You almost want to knit her a doily!
You're what we call "passive aggressive" -- you hide out behind a sweet little smile, but inwardly you're seething hate. That's why you have to lock your heart into a little vault and be careful who you let in, because you know that if they saw through that mask you wear it would be very uncomfortable.
So yes, I've called you a lot of names. I say they're all justified. But I'm well aware of your layers of armor: that's why you're brittle, dried-up, half-dead. That's why talk about how you're not really living won't touch you -- you have insulated yourself from others and from life, you're not really here at all.
Of course lots of people do this to protect themselves: it's a sign of weakness. Who would go to all the trouble of protecting themselves unless they felt particularly vulnerable? Why are you so vulnerable? Who did what to you to make you run into your little shell, where you can point out the sinners from behind your smug and complacent smile?
by HasntBeen on March 14th, 2010
HasntBeen, I see you took my advice and got your dictionary out.lol
by Account Closed on March 14th, 2010
Isaac, Good night and God bless you.
by Account Closed on March 14th, 2010
It's the afternoon and your religious expressions mean nothing to me.
by Isaac on March 14th, 2010
Good bye Isaac.
by Account Closed on March 14th, 2010
Good bye HasntBeen
by Account Closed on March 14th, 2010
If you don't eat shellfish then why aren't you protesting everyone else doing so?
by Moongrim on March 14th, 2010
The legacy of the Old Testament is a grim scar on the history of mankind. Homophobia is the latest news item in this tragic drama, but any number of previously-oppressed groups can locate their tormenter's justifications in the pages of the Bible.
Really, we cannot blame the individuals who believe this crap and then use it to justify marginalizing or punishing others -- they are, in their own way, victims too: victims of a culture that allows children to grow up without learning to think for themselves. Victims of the sad but inevitable rule of life that "any jackass can have children", and raise them as they see fit.
Since so many people around the world still see fit to raise their kids in some kind of fundamentalist shit-soup, whether Muslim or Christian or otherwise, we don't need an advanced degree to see that it will be many generations before this kind of hatred is purged from the world.
So I'm patient, Eliza Beth. I don't expect to see progress from you, or even your children if you have them. But someday, the truth will erode the last bits of this nonsense and sweep the dust into history where it belongs. A world free of racism, discrimination, and bigotry -- it's worth the wait.
by HasntBeen on March 14th, 2010
Wait, Eliza Beth is now calling HERself, nowhereMAN?
by Gingerminx on March 14th, 2010
"Just sees what he wants to see..."
by HasntBeen on March 14th, 2010
I do not hate gays. I believe, like Elton John, that they should have civil unions, with rights mostly equal to marriage, but I do not agree with the term marriage being used. And like I said, Elton John agreed with me.
And here's why. In places where marriage has been redefined, gay couples have sued churches for discrimination because they were observing their religious beliefs. I believe that there are way more Christians then there are gays, so what about their rights? Should gays receive special treatment because they are a minority? That does not seem fair to me,and I think that gays who want marriage to be redefined are being selfish. Stop complaining about your rights and try to think about everyone elses.
by WishUponAStar on March 30th, 2010
Is gayness biological or something obtained??????? ......
by CANON007 on March 30th, 2010
Anyways I am sorry if i hurt anyones feelings or made anyone angry. Please don't hate me. So i am very very very sorry. I didn't realize this was an extremely sensitive topic. Thankuuuu. ... Forgive me. pleeeeasee.
by CANON007 on March 30th, 2010
Personally gay stuff is wierd to me, and I don't personnally agree with the lifestyle, but I respect that they deserve some rights. Just not to the word marriage. Chrtistians deserve to be able to practice their faith without being sued because they wont let a gay couple use their chapel for a wedding on religeous grounds. As I mentioned, in places where the definition has been changed, gays have already sued churches, and I think that intrudes on the rights of Christians to worship as therir beliefs dictate.
by WishUponAStar on March 30th, 2010
WishUponAStar, how do gays want marriage redefined? The ones I have heard talkign about it don't, they just want to be allowed to marry like anyone else. As to churches, frankly I do not beleive they should have to perform marriages if they don't want to, and I don't see anyone asking them to. Marriage can be performed by other officials. I got married in a country club to my husband, not a gay marriage but not a religious one either. As to, "Should gays receive special treatment because they are a minority?", no, they shouldn't, and I don't see them asking for that, only to receive the same rights as everyone else, that is, to be allowed to get married.Marriage does not belong to Christians, it was around before that and is even used to describe the union between two companies.Besides, I got married and it wasn't a religious ceremony.
by Gingerminx on March 30th, 2010
@WishUponAStar
"Should gays receive special treatment because they are a minority?"
No, and they're not asking for it either. They're just asking for the same rights as everyone else. This includes the right to sue the church when it discriminates against gays. Would you not sue the church when they don't let you marry for a petty reason? If the right to discriminate against gays is so important to you, then I suggest you move to Northern Africa, where homosexuals are sentenced to death.
"Personally gay stuff is wierd to me, and I don't personnally agree with the lifestyle"
So it's "icky" to you. Understandable, we all have things that are repulsive to us, and that's fine. Though I don't see how love is repulsive. Love is a beautiful thing and should be embraced by all.
"Just not to the word marriage."
Why can they not have the word marriage? That seems discriminatory to me.
"I think that intrudes on the rights of Christians to worship as therir beliefs dictate."
You mean the right to be discriminatory? 100 years ago the religious demanded the right to be discriminatory against women, and 50 years ago it was the black community. Now it is the gays, and the same will pass. The right to discriminate is diminishing, and this is not a bad thing. Accepting people who aren't like us one of the best ways we learn about other cultures.
by Isaac on March 30th, 2010
@CANON007
It's a genetic trait, like eye colour, except a lot more complex. There is no one "gay gene". Sexual preferences are based on a series of genes which when combined in a particular fashion, cause homosexual tendencies. Not everything is known yet, genetics is a tough topic, but science will get us progressing!
Homosexuality is NOT a choice. That must be made clear.
by Isaac on March 30th, 2010
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91486340
Ah, but in New Jersey a church was already sued by a gay couple and lost tax exempt status. The rights of the gay couple usurped the right of the church to restrict where the wedding could be held. In this incident, the pavilion the women wanted to rent was used for Bible studies, church services, gospel choir performances and, in the past at least, weddings. Heterosexual weddings.
This church ownded the surrounding land and did not restrict the couple from getting married on the property, just not in the pavillian where they did hold church services. The full article is at that link if you want to check it our. So I ask again, what about the rights of the churches?
Marriage is defined in most states as a union between one man and one woman. In recent years, they've started trying to change the legal definition to include gay couples, but I fear if that happens, more churches, like this Methodist Church in New Jersey, will be targetted by law suits for their beliefs. Why shouls a majority be persecuted so a very small minority can use the word marriage? Elton John advocated for Civil Unions, saying that heterosexual couples could have marriages. Could it be that he could see the kind of complications that could come with marriage being redefined? Christians, Jews, and Muslims shouldn't have to give up rights so that gays can feel better about themselves.
So in order for gays to have the right to use the word marriage, the rights of Christians, Muslims, and Jews get taken away, how is that fair? I said that I, like Elton John, approve of Civil Unions with all the normal, federal rights, but without infringing on the rights of those religious folk to worship however they choose.
America is not about the majority being persecuted for something that is rather insignificant, if those who are gay can get all the same rights as a married heterosexual couple with a civil union, without infringing unnecessarily on the rights of others.
by WishUponAStar on March 30th, 2010
@WishUponAStar
You keep referring to the "rights" the religious have being "taken away". Only one right is being taken away: The right to discriminate against people of another sexuality, and that shouldn't have been a right in the first place.
You also mentioned Elton John four times in this thread. You can stop doing that now. I get what he meant, but just because he made popular music doesn't mean he's correct on political issues.
"Why shouls a majority be persecuted so a very small minority can use the word marriage?"
The only people being quote-unquote "persecuted" are the ones that deserve to be; the ones being discriminatory. And just because this is a small minority doesn't mean you can treat them unfavourably, to put it nicely.
by Isaac on March 30th, 2010
WishUponAStar, You mention one incident which, as we have stated, we do not think should happen. Sorry, but the meanings of words change all the time and the church or the state do not own the word marriage. One case, in New Jersey, that the authorities should not have let through does not mean that all homosexuals should be punished for it. No one should have to give up their rights, and any homosexuals I have talked to certainly do not want that. One small thing which should not have happened and which can be stated in any law made should not prevent homosexuals from being given the same rights as other adults.What rights are christians, muslims and jews losing???
by Gingerminx on March 31st, 2010
I just talked to Elton. He said you're taking his name in vain, and that you should return his flamingo suit.
by HasntBeen on March 31st, 2010
The right they are losing is the riight to make a moral judgment. To say they do not believe that gay marriage is right, and therefore, that they don'twant it brought into their meetingplaces. That is not discrimination. Christians, in particular, do not hate gays, they just don't agree with the lifestyle, as is there right. If this passes, Churches wont be able to rent out their chapels any more for weddings. You'll get a situation where they only allow members to get married there. That will be the only way to prevent themselves from being sued. My church already does this, only marrying members of our faith, but for other churches their primary income is from renting their facilities out.
by WishUponAStar on March 31st, 2010
You got it: that's completely right. If a church is operating a business in order to support itself, it's subject to the same constraints as any other business owner, including the constraints about discrimination. So what? It is welcome to go on being a "normal" church and avoiding commercial activities, if the membership is strong and committed there will be sufficient financial support from within.
If a church were to operate a car-rental agency, would it be allowed to discriminate against people of color? Of course not. This is common sense.
Churches are required to pay employees minimum wage, and maintain safe working conditions, and they're prohibited from dumping toxic waste on their own property. Being a church doesn't come with a blank check permission to ignore the laws and values of the society. Nobody is saying they have to admit gay members... just don't rent out your facilities to the general public unless you want to be treated as a business by the law.
by HasntBeen on March 31st, 2010
@WishUponAStar
"The right they are losing is the riight to make a moral judgment. To say they do not believe that gay marriage is right, and therefore, that they don'twant it brought into their meetingplaces. That is not discrimination."
Actually it is. You could parody your writing style to make a racist statement: "The right they are losing is the right to make a moral judgement. To say they do not believe that interracial marriage is right, and therefore, that they don't want it brought into their meeting places. That is not discrimination." If you can see why this statement is racist, you should see why your statement is homophobic.
If this passes, Churches wont be able to rent out their chapels any more for weddings. You'll get a situation where they only allow members to get married there. That will be the only way to prevent themselves from being sued. My church already does this, only marrying members of our faith, but for other churches their primary income is from renting their facilities out."
So your churches would rather be bankrupt than accepting of others? Jesus would be proud(!)
by Isaac on March 31st, 2010
In my view, they have a right to determine how their meetingplaces are used, in the sense that they don't have to rent their building out for events and such contradictory to their religion. As I said, though, I am a Mormon and my faith does not rent out our chapels at all, so we're safe. I am more debating for the rights of others.
by WishUponAStar on March 31st, 2010
@WishUponAStar
"In my view, they have a right to determine how their meetingplaces are used"
Ok, so if I owned a gas station that prohibited all christians from buying fuel for their cars just because they're christian, that would be ok because I have the right to be discriminatory?
by Isaac on March 31st, 2010
Now your really going out there. Theres a difference between not choosing to rent out your property for a purpose which is contrary to your religon, and discrimination. Jesus taught us to love the sinner, not the sin. Muslims, Jews, and Christians all see gay relationships as a sin, so they should be able to say no, we will not condone this behavior.
by WishUponAStar on March 31st, 2010
Just because you don't like this behaviour because of your religion doesn't mean there should be laws against it. What is the secular reasoning, if any, behind the homophobic movement?
by Isaac on March 31st, 2010
Jesus teaches us to love the sinner, not the sin. So while we should love all men and women, regardless of their lifestyle, we are not supposed to endorse that lifestyle.
by WishUponAStar on March 31st, 2010
Not asking you to endorse it, asking you to accept it, or at least stop endorsing hatred against it.
by Isaac on March 31st, 2010
Christians are not supposed to endorse hatred against it. Individual Christians might be mislead and become blinded by hatred, but on the whole that is just not the case. They just don't believe it belongs in their churches. However, there are more liberal churches who might allow it. Meaning gays might be inconvenienced by having to look for such a church, but what's a little inconvenience compared to the first amendment rights of churches?
by WishUponAStar on March 31st, 2010
If the churches are running themselves as a business then they should be subject to the same laws as all business's. If they do not wish to allow homosexuals to marry in their churches then they should not rent out their churches. It seems odd that they would be happy for say, atheists, which they disagree with, or pagans, which they disagree with, to marry in their churches so long as they are not gay. Doesn't that go against their gods teachings as well? They seem happy to take the money from others without knowing anything about their faith. Are they only worried about the gender of people as that may look bad?
by Gingerminx on March 31st, 2010
Again, my church does not rent out it's chapel, but others do. Anyway, as for Athiests and pagans, that's different. Marriage between a man and a woman is a godly thing. They are not condoning a sin by renting out their chapel's to Athiests or Pagans. Christians treat their churches with reverence, so the idea of a sin being allowed to happen there is unwelcome.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...
Recognize that? It's our first amendment. Thew government has no right to prohibit the free exercise of religion. It is unconstitutional to take away a churches tax exempt status because they are following their religious beliefs and the government doesn't like it.
Do you care about the constitutional rights of Churches at all? Do you want government-controlled religion?
by WishUponAStar on March 31st, 2010
@WishUponAStar
"Marriage between a man and a woman is a godly thing."
No, it's not. No gods are required for a marriage, nor is it anything to do with marriage unless the couple want it to be.
by Isaac on March 31st, 2010
Well the church did consider pagans witches and burned them at the stake at one point in time so to allow them to marry in their churches seems odd. The place in question was not their church but a pavilion. Your first amendment, not mine, I am not from the US. Actually the government do, as you pointed out they can stop churches from sacrificing virgins. If that belief goes against the governments laws then it has that right. As Issac rightly pointed out, marriage is only a godly thing if the couple involved involve their god. I was married and god was certainly not involved.
by Gingerminx on March 31st, 2010
I already told you that the Surpreme Court ruled that the First Amendment does not protect faiths pertainin
g to physical violence and poligamy. All other aspects of faith cannot be dictated by the government under the first amendment.
by WishUponAStar on March 31st, 2010
There is no difference between polygamy or homosexual marriage, if they can regulate one they can regulate another. Evey thing is subject to change.
by Gingerminx on March 31st, 2010
You don't get it. They weren't supposed to screw with poligamy, bigoted men ignored the first amendment and did it anyway. The need to practice it has passed, though, long ago, so we're not complaining about that, but we aren't about to give up our rights to worship freely. We wont let the first amendment be twisted by corrupt beauracrats. That is why we want gays to think about it and respect our rights.
by WishUponAStar on March 31st, 2010
You don't get it. They weren't supposed to screw with poligamy, bigoted men ignored the first amendment and did it anyway. The need to practice it has passed, though, long ago, so we're not complaining about that, but we aren't about to give up our rights to worship freely. We wont let the first amendment be twisted by corrupt beauracrats. That is why we want gays to think about it and respect our rights.
by WishUponAStar on March 31st, 2010
You're also just plain wrong about the First Amendment: it has never been interpreted as allowing any and all behavior from churches. There are many, many things a church is not allowed to do -- basically, anything that's illegal for non-churches is illegal for churches too.
Your freedom of speech is not being infringed, your freedom of religion is not being infringed. This is all bullshit, it's a red-herring to try to find some justification for discriminating against gays. Really, it's disgusting -- these people are not harming you, indeed it's completely the other way around. You should be ashamed of yourself and your church. What a bunch of bigots!
by HasntBeen on March 31st, 2010
I am tending to agree with HasntBeen here, I have seen nothign that implies gay people wish to harm your rights, they don't, they merely wish the same rights.
by Gingerminx on March 31st, 2010
I am not a bigot. I am often the target of bigotry. If gay marriage is passed, selfish gays will get sue happy and government will try to control our beliefs, which is against our Constitution, but we all know democrats don't care about our Constitution. They want to move away from being a republic and towards socialism.
by WishUponAStar on March 31st, 2010
You base this one one case? How can you think it is alright to restrict the rights of a minority group because of your fear?
by Gingerminx on March 31st, 2010
Because the American Government is presently anti-Christian and looking for any excuse to go after Christians and rip out our throats.The Bill of Rights establishes us as a Rebublic, and they resent it. They are trying to move away from the nation of our founders towards socialism. Christians, being fiercely patriotic for the most part, are the most fierce opponents of such a change, so the liberals absolutely hate us. So we have to be careful and can't give them the chance to further amend our Constitution. It would only take one or two gays suing churches for Liberals to 'take up the cause'. Liberals are enciting them, encouraging them to be angry, making them feel entitled. That is a dangerous attitude.
The fact of the matter is, Liberals are using gays to advance their Anti-Christian agenda.
by WishUponAStar on March 31st, 2010
You sound extremely paranoid to me. The majority of gay people could care less, they just want the same rights as you have. You feel it is acceptable to deny them that simply because you are afraid of your government?
by Gingerminx on March 31st, 2010
Maybe the majority are sensible, I'm not disagreeing witb you there, but the fact of the matter is that the liberrals are enciting them. They do want to take God out of our daily lives, they are in denile, or else they just don't care about ourorigin's. We want to preserve the right of more then half the country. I don't remember the percentage, but I think it was more then half the people in the country consider themselves Christian. Anyway, that's not really the point. The point is that it only takes one or two gays to give the liberals the ammunition to attack Christianity, and the liberals have already brainwashed enough gays to where they are fanatical in their senses of self-entitlement. In other words, while many are sensible, the few that are not would give the liberals what they really want.
The rights of all who prescribe to a faith are being attacked, not just Christians, but liberals only seem to hate Christians. You might think it's paranoia, but you don't live here, you're not seeing the things I am, so I don't think you can judge.
by WishUponAStar on March 31st, 2010
You are prepared to deny a whole section of society the same rights as you simply because you are afraid, I call that paranoia.
by Gingerminx on March 31st, 2010
You don't live here. The liberals have hi-jacked the government and are in the process of remaking it into a Marxist/Socialist country, against the withes of the people. Seventy-three percent of the country was opposed to that health care bill that the liberals pushed through anyway, ignoring the will of the people. Democrats were complaining about George W. Bush putting us 500 million dollars in debt, and in this one bill Obama put us another 3 trillion dollars in debt, six times the debt Bush acrued during his entire presidency.
People are seeing through them, now, but they can do a lot of harm with this ignore the will of the people attitude. And many of these people hate christians and want nothing more then to remove all hints of God from the country. These are the kind of people that get offended if you say Merry Christmas.
If I'm paranoid, then it's because the liberals are giving me damn good reason. Also, Barack Obama, by Presidential decree, is attacking the fishing industry institute. He's created some group to put together rules or something, regulating, or perhaps closing, fishing in the United States, the article is writtentoo complicated for me, mostly due to me being tired, I'm sure. But if he closes down fishing, he'll put at least a mnillion people out of work at a time when he's supposed to be creating more jobs.
by WishUponAStar on March 31st, 2010
WOWWWW! MY ONE COMMENT HAS RESULTED IN 186 COMMENTS. IS THIS A WORLD RECORD OR SOMETHING???
by CANON007 on March 31st, 2010
I feel like I'm explaining myself in circles and no one is listening. It's nice to see someone not all demanding, lol. 187 now
by WishUponAStar on March 31st, 2010
AB alerts deleted commentary
by Moongrim on April 1st, 2010
Perhaps Wish you used facts as opposed to your Standard Fux News Fairy Tales....?
by Moongrim on April 1st, 2010
@WishUponAStar -- you need professional help, man. You're paranoid, delusional, and completely self-involved. Nobody is out to get you, the U.S. government is not waging a war on Christianity -- indeed, if a politician doesn't at least claim to be Christian he will have a very difficult time getting elected.
Most of your claims are so absurd they don't even merit a counter-argument. You're an endless sea of fallacies and delusions.
Take a chill pill.
@CANON007: This thread, with its impressive comment count, isn't even on the scale with the longest threads ever on AB.
by HasntBeen on April 1st, 2010
It may not still be true, but for a long time this thread was definitely the longest ever: http://www.answerbag.com/a_view/820337
At the moment, there are 1,077 comments.
by HasntBeen on April 1st, 2010
You know nothing. Keep on living in your delusions while the government destroys our republic piece by piece. It is as bad as I say it is. Fox News is the only one that'll talk about it, the other news channels pretend everything in just fine, but armed militias are on the rise here, expecting a new American Revolution. I pray it doesn't have to come to bloodshed, but I understand where they are coming from. And you know what? Many in the United States Military have started to drift to the same reasoning. The government is disenfranchizing people and ignoring the will of the people. The government has betrayed the Constitution.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znNb3wzyfdU&NR=1
The second ammendment, the right to keep and bear arms, was not just about hunting and owning guns. LIberals try to hide the fact that as part of our Constitution, we were given the right to, if it came to it, overthrow a tyrannical government. And you know what? In the last year, that is exactly what we've had. We've slowly drifted towards tyranny for the last 100 years or so, probably closer to 90, but in the last year, Obama and the Liberals have made great strides in that direction. And many of theAmerican people are finally seseing through them.
by WishUponAStar on April 1st, 2010
Lol. I love it every time an ignorant fool quotes Faux Nes as if it were a real news source.
Here's a fun bit from yesterday, just one of their many missteps -- which they never acknowledge: http://www.indecisionforever.com/2010/03/30/fox-nation-punks-itself-with-global-warming-news-story/
Everybody who has more than a 9th grade education knows that Fox News is entirely a political arm of the far right, with no concern whatsoever for the truth. Now you've bought their tripe hook, line, and sinker, and you're parroting whatever they say.
Want a cracker?
by HasntBeen on April 1st, 2010
Just in case you're too lazy or nervous to read that link, I'll tell you what it says: it's about the fact that Fox News published a story on 3/29 about a global warming activist who froze to death visiting Antarctica. The published it as if it were real news, reveling in the ironic twist of a deluded scientist discovering that Antarctica was pretty cold after all.
Only... it turns out the story is a satire pulled from another site -- 2 years old. The scientist never existed, the whole story was a fabrication for humor. But Fox was fooled, did absolutely no fact checking, and quoted it as if it were true. Then, when they were called on it, they just deleted the story from their site, but never acknowledged the mistake (like a REAL news org would do).
The original Fox page is still shown in Google's cache though, so everybody knows that Fox when fishing for trash on global warming, came up with junk, failed to recognize it as false, published it as true with no fact checking, and then pretended they never did it by deleting the page.
They are nothing but a batch of soulless liars. Somewhat like the Mormon church, I would say.
by HasntBeen on April 1st, 2010
Someone else lied, I don't see how that is Fox's fault. Anyway, Fox News is not far right. Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly have a history of going against democrats and Republicans. If you watched it, rather then taking the word of extreme leftests who believe everyone that doesn't agree with them is extreme rightist, then you'd be able to see that. Try to think on your own.
by WishUponAStar on April 1st, 2010
Thats the pot calling the kettle black.
by Gingerminx on April 1st, 2010
I just said that he sited an incident where someone else spread a bogus story and Fox News picked it up. Accidents happen. It's not like the far left and their out-right lies. Referring to Dan Rather as a prime example.
by WishUponAStar on April 1st, 2010
Of course it is a lie if they didn't bother to tell their audience they were wrong.
by Gingerminx on April 1st, 2010
They may have retracted. We do not know that they didn't. They erased it off their website, as he said, so they may have retracted on TV, and that was that. HasntBeen is a leftest who doesn't watch Fox News, so how would he know? He's biased, so I can't judge. He hasn't proven anything, though.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HuNyhdVPs8
by WishUponAStar on April 1st, 2010
Sooo i was wondering. Is gayness biological or something by choice? I really don't get how a man can like another man or women like another women. EWWWWWWWWwwwwWW! 1 man 1 women =)
by CANON007 on April 1st, 2010
@WishUponAStar: the original story wasn't a LIE, it was a SATIRE. How stupid are you?? It was on a site which publishes satires. The only way Fox could have encountered this story is if they went to the site looking for "news".
Reputable news organizations check their facts with multiple sources. Some satire web site does not qualify as a news source -- no real news organization would take something like that and just reprint it as if it were true.
And an "accident"? These kinds of things happen at Fox all the time, it's documented all over the Internet. If you had made even a slight effort to research, you would find that out. But you have your happy little world-view, and one must not let facts make a mess of it.
by HasntBeen on April 1st, 2010
Canon it is not a choice, can you honestly beleive that someone would set themselves up for all the persecution on purpose?
by Gingerminx on April 1st, 2010
I don't trust any media, that includes Fox. I do, however, trust individual newscasters, namely Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck, who, despite claims to the contrary by liberals, are moderates. The libs have just gone so far left that it's nuts.
by WishUponAStar on April 1st, 2010
@CANON007
I already told you on March 30th. Perhaps if you read what everyone was saying you'd have a better grasp on what homosexuality is (and if you don't know what it is then why are you fighting it?)
Here's what I said on March 30th:
"It's a genetic trait, like eye colour, except a lot more complex. There is no one "gay gene". Sexual preferences are based on a series of genes which when combined in a particular fashion, cause homosexual tendencies. Not everything is known yet, genetics is a tough topic, but science will get us progressing!
Homosexuality is NOT a choice. That must be made clear."
by Isaac on April 2nd, 2010
@WishUponAStar
Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Back are not newcasters. They're opinion-casters, casting their warped loud opinion on the media.
by Isaac on April 2nd, 2010
@Wish: it's hilarious that you think O'Reilly and Beck are moderates. It's screaming, jump-up-and-down, knee-slapping, start-a-food-fight hilarious. You must be the only person in your trailer park who thinks that! Wow. Just wow. At least I don't have to ask if the mothership wants you to end your mission early so you can write a book on political science for the pod-people back home. Little graces and all that.
Interesting that now you "don't trust the media", after having proclaimed within the last few frames that Fox is the only outlet who will talk about the massive liberal conspiracy to be a free country with equal rights and justice for all. Dang, how that Fox has fallen so quickly in your estimation.
@CANON007: Your gut reaction ("Ewwww...") is what is really driving all the homophobia in the world. At least you're honest enough to admit it, as opposed to folks like @Wish who bury their true feelings under mountains of sloppy logic and shouting rhetoric. That feeling is a conditioned response -- you were programmed, as we all were during childhood, to think in certain ways about love and sex. Things which diverge from that programming elicit a visceral response from very old tapes recorded when you were a child.
That's "conditioning". Just as Westerners will react with disgust if a Chinese family is eating dog for dinner, we react with disgust at the idea of two men or two women having sex. But that has nothing whatsoever to do with *morality*, it's just a violation of what we've come to expect as "normal".
Those who can't think this through, and think that their childhood conditioning is equivalent to a moral code, are attempting to take their gut reactions and attribute them to God as moral law. In the process, they are depriving gays of their freedom and dignity. It's a triumph of ignorance over values.
by HasntBeen on April 2nd, 2010
I do not oppose gays having rights like marriage, just don't call it that. Besides, Marriage is a RELIGIOUS thing that government went and stuck their hand in. Wow, you know what I think? I think that people who throw the word bigot around too easily and refuse to try to comprehend another side are complete and utter idiots. We could go back to what it was before government got involved with marriage. I mean, gays still have options without attacking Christians who are doing as their faith directs. That couple in New Jersey could have found another place to hold the wedding, and the Catholic Adoption Agency wasn't the only one in Massachussettes. When they started obeying the orders from Rome, did gays need to target them? No they didn't, but still they did. They had other options, and because of that choice, rather then disobey rome again, they shut down, after being open over a hundred years. Gays and their supporters have targetted Christians. We have to protect OUR rights. You are apparently blinded by your hate for religious-folk. That's Bigotry. I have explained my side over and over again, and you refuse yo hear, and go on belittling region and calling me a bigot. I say that you are the one bigoted.
Also, I do not get FOX news where I live, I used to listen to O'Reilly on the radio, and despite what liberals thought, he was an equal-opportunity attacker. When the Republicans did something wrong, he'd say so too. Also, Glenn Beck I've watched online recently, and he is actively attacking the republicans too, but I don't know what Bill O'Reilly is up to now, I just know whathe was doing a couple years ago.
And, on the subject of politics, I am more inclined to believe FOR then other stations, that is true, but that doesn't mean I'm not sceptical even of FOX. Everyone has an agenda. FOX may lean to the right, but it's a lot closer to being moderate then every other left-leaning station out there.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LeaRJfvJokU
This is a good example of liberal lies. There are no swastikas, no voilence like every news agency except FOX keep telling the American people. That is an out-right light. They are peacefully protesting.
by WishUponAStar on April 2nd, 2010
@Issac: Its not proven that its biological or even conditioned. No one really knows. Its very mind boggling. This debate if its biological or conditioned been going on for hundreds of years. & No one has come with the answer. Both cases are still theories.
Well I would like to thank you guys for opening up my mind....I look at things at a new angle now. I respect everyone no matter their sexuality, views, and beliefs. There Is No Experience None Other Than Like Life.
by CANON007 on April 2nd, 2010
If only the others would listen and try to understand my opinion, rather then being stuck up and calling me a bigot because they want to throw away the first amendment.
by WishUponAStar on April 2nd, 2010
WishUponAStar,. marriage is not a religious rite but the right of any adult, including homosexuals. You are so hung up on giving them the same rights as other except the term marriage as if you own it, you do not.
by Gingerminx on April 2nd, 2010
@CANON007: If it's not a choice and not a genetic trait, then what could it be? If it's not related by genetics then how come an identical twin is 70% more likely to be homosexual if their twin is?
As long as you know know it's not an unnatural abomination as you've called it, that's a start.
by Isaac on April 2nd, 2010
Bible-based faiths
In the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament)
The Hebrew Bible (Christian Old Testament) describes a number of marriages, including those of Isaac,[Gen 24:49-67] Jacob,[Gen 29:27] and Samson.[Judg 14:7-12] Polygamy, or men having multiple wives at once, is one of the most common martial arrangements represented in the Hebrew Bible, yet scholars doubt that it was commom among average Israelites because of the wealth needed to practice it.
Betrothal (erusin), which is merely a binding promise to get married, is distinct from marriage itself (nissu'in), with the time between these events varying substantially. Since a wife was regarded as property in those days, the betrothal (erusin) was effected simply by purchasing her from her father (or guardian); the girl’s consent is not explicitly required by any biblical law. Like the adjacent Arabic culture (in the pre-Islamic period), the act of marriage appears mainly to have consisted of the groom fetching the bride, although among the Israelites (unlike the Arabs) the procession was a festive occasion, accompanied by music, dancing, and lights. To celebrate the marriage, week-long feasts were sometimes held.
In biblical times, a wife was regarded as chattel, belonging to her husband; the descriptions of the bible suggest that she would be expected to perform tasks such as spinning, sewing, weaving, manufacture of clothing, fetching of water, baking of bread, and animal husbandry. However, wives were usually looked after with care, and bigamous men were expected to ensure that they give their first wife food, clothing, and sexual activity.[Ex 21:10]
Since a wife was regarded as property, her husband was originally free to divorce her for any reason, at any time. A divorced couple were permitted to get back together, unless the wife had married someone else after her divorce.[Deut 24:2-4]
Christianity
Main article: Christian views of marriage
Christians believe that marriage is a gift from God, one that should not be taken for granted. They variously regard it as a sacrament, a contract, a sacred institution, or a covenant. From the very beginning of the Christian Church, marriage law and theology have been a major matter. The foundation of the Western tradition of Christian marriages have been the teachings of Jesus Christ and the Apostle Paul.
Christians often marry for religious reasons ranging from following the biblical injunction for a "man to leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife, and the two shall become one,"[Gen. 2:24] to obeying Canon Law stating marriage between baptized persons is a sacrament.
Divorce is not encouraged. Most Protestant churches allow people to marry again after a divorce. In the Roman Catholic Church, marriage can only be ended by an annulment where the Church for special reasons regards it as never having taken place.
In short. Biblical marriage was around thousands or years before Christ, and was in fact established in the old Testament, so it DID come from the religious community. Stop saying otherwise.
by WishUponAStar on April 2nd, 2010
Now you are talking biblical marriage and not marriage itself, I didn't ask for homosexuals to be allowed biblical marriages, IE in the church. http://www.islandmix.com/backchat/f9/origin-marriage-50901/
by Gingerminx on April 2nd, 2010
Ginger, it needs to be noted that that article refers to a roman emporer, who was not Christian, and I don't think he was Jewish either. Late in life he did convert to Judaism, but that did not stop him from persecuting the Christians. And it's not like the Jews could stop him, and at the time Christians were still uncommon and not powerful, and no matter what the Catholic Church tells you, there was no established church at the time. Also, the article guesses about the origin of marriage. Marriage has evolved over the years, but it's always been one man and one woman, and it's always been the domain of Priests to perform such ceremonies.
by WishUponAStar on April 2nd, 2010
@Wish: you're ignorance of world history is your undoing. Christianity and Judaism are not the oldest known religions with a written history -- that honor belongs to Hinduism. In addition, there are archaeological finds from early man which predate all written scriptures and religious texts and show rituals that are clearly marriage-like. So not only did the Bible not invent marriage, those societies weren't even around when it was invented.
Mankind has been on the planet for approximately 200,000 years. The Biblical stories date back no more than about 6,000 years. You can damn well bet that human beings were latching on to each other to create families and lasting relationships long before anybody came up with the idea of formal theological explanations and writing everything down and making everybody believe in those explanations.
The notion that religion is the source of marriage is, in fact, absurd beyond measure.
by HasntBeen on April 2nd, 2010
That is scientist speculation, not proven. What is known is that marriage has been connected to Judaism for as long as recorded history goes back. Go on guessing and believing what you want.
The fact of the matter is you are bitter because your side lost. Maybe the outcome would have been different if those judges had handled things differently and didn't defy the voters and then spit in their faces. As you pointed out, the vote was close. How many voted yes just because those judges were jerks?
If those judges had just declared the measure unconstitutional, you could have written up a bill for Civil Unions and that would have almost certainly past. Because of what those four judges did, though, the only option was to define marriage as a union of one man and one woman.
by WishUponAStar on April 2nd, 2010
@WishUponAStar
Common Sense and Equality lost that time, yes, but we do win in better, more progressive countries such as Norway and Canada. It shouldn't come as a surprise that the Equality isn't doing so well in USA. The religious are anti-progress and do everything in their power to slow down the progression of their country.
by Isaac on April 3rd, 2010
There is no speculation about the fact that the age of mankind (and the history of marriage) predates both Judaism and all known written history. That is not speculation, it is well established fact.
But your relationship with facts is so broken that there really is no point in arguing with you: you live in a pool of your own fears, surrounded by fools telling you lies to keep you ignorant and afraid, and trying to dispel the fear by screaming at others. I feel sorry for you, when it's all said and done: this could happen to anybody who refuses to think for themselves.
by HasntBeen on April 3rd, 2010
In a 4 to 3 vote, the judges shouldn't have done anothing that extreme. It should have been taken to the voters. Also, what you and the democrats call progressive is actually socialism. They are trying to remake America and get rid of that pesky little thing called the CONSTITUTION. We do not oppose progress. We oppose this butchery of the Constition. Example. In law schools, they don't even teach about the Constitution as the founders intended. They focus on 'case-law' and be doing so, they've been able to gradually redefine things that suit their interests.
I have made my case here, so I will be withdrawing from this question. I have betterthings to do then go around in circles chasing my tail, which I don't even have.
by WishUponAStar on April 3rd, 2010
Constitution:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America
So, how does allowing someone to marry someone else they want to marry; take away from the General Welfare?
by Moongrim on April 3rd, 2010
so here's my two cents(be aware that I have not taken the time to read EVERY single comment so don't feel it neccesary to point out what's already been said)
1. I am a christian. I won't argue with you on why I think God exists so don't look for that. All I can offer for evidence are my personal experiences, well that's not all I can offer but I'll leave that to someone better prepared than I.
2. I am embarrassed by some so-called christians on this page. To use word and phrases like "fag" is so not christian like at all. Jesus came in love not hate. You may believe that homosexuality is right but what benefit is it to hate homosexuals or to wish they burn in the lake of fire? We all fall short of the grace of God. So to my "christians" out there if you're gonna hate homosexuals then you must also hate fornicators and liars among many others, but you don't. You jump the fence and say "fags" are so terrible but jump right back over and have lunch with a liar. sin is sin and God hates it all but that doesn't give you the right to behave in such hatred. I have plenty of homosexual friends but I don't tell them they're going to hell just like I don't tell all of my other friends that they're going to hell for having sex before marraige.
I try to live a life for God and I pray that my light shines in such a way that those who are still lost around me may want to follow my lead.
3. you may not like it or agree but homosexuality is a sin. There is simply no way to misinterpret that in the bible but it's a sin like any other. Being a christian of course I don't believe in same sex marraige but I understand that I live in America so if it becomes nationally legal I won't be throwing a huge fit about it. This country is all about equal rights so it makes sense but that doesn't make it right. we won't be in better or worse off for it.
by mtsub on November 1st, 2010
Sin is merely a religious concept, it maybe a sin to you but that is all.
by Gingerminx on November 1st, 2010
I support believer's right to believe whatever they like. But, from my perspective, it is still very much a bunch of superstition. The fact that so many believe it is a sin, without a single individual being able to form a coherent explanation for why it's wrong, is an example of this. That's what superstition is: as Stevie Wonder said, "when you believe in things that you don't understand".
Morality is not rocket science: there should be no mysteries in a coherent moral understanding. There is no need for "God's will" in morality -- it's something humans can work out quite well with sincere effort and a willingness to learn from life. Morality makes sense, and moral rules which don't make sense aren't really morality, they're superstitions.
Beliefs based in "personal revelation" are likewise superstitions. Real things have real effects, you can observe or measure them, or observe or measure the things they affect. Superstitions aren't like that, they just pop into the mind from nowhere, and can't be traced to anything or validated.
So believers are entitled to their beliefs, and I am happy to defend that right. But they're still completely wrong.
by HasntBeen on November 1st, 2010
Eating shellfish is an abomination.
Yet these selfsame Religious wackos pick and choose which sins they allow.
by Moongrim on November 2nd, 2010
eating shellfish was extremely dangerous back then and it caused a terrible disease of which I can't remember the name. anyways the jewish people followed all kinds of ridiculous laws that were supposed to keep them holy, but when Jesus came on the scene it was no longer neccessary to keep those laws, that was almost the entire reason. when reading the bible it's imoportant to put scripture back in context and understand the time period. but I do agree that a lot of christians pick and choose which rules or commandments they'll follow. and btw I don't eat shellfish bc I don't like it lol
by mtsub on November 2nd, 2010
So if Jesus came along and did away with the old ways, wouldn't that include the "Gay Sex" admonition too?
by Moongrim on November 2nd, 2010
homosexuality was described as a sin, not just a jewish law. also I believe it is mentioned in both the old and new testament whereas if I'm not mistaken the shellfish was only mentioned in Lev with alot of other laws
by mtsub on November 2nd, 2010
•Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."1
•Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them"
•1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."
•Rom. 1:26-28, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."
by mtsub on November 2nd, 2010
Yes, we're aware that people can cite passages from ancient books of distant and idiosyncratic cultures in support of their superstitions. Some people swear that their Aunt Millie is a witch because everybody she knows has been sick at least once. That's not really illuminating anything.
If you want to argue morality, argue right and wrong, not "my favorite book says so".
by HasntBeen on November 3rd, 2010
Must be nice retranslating the bible you want it to.
No mtsub, you're wrong, dead wrong.
by Moongrim on November 3rd, 2010
Considering you don't believe in God, I'm not really arguing morality with you because I hold myself to different standards, it wouldn't make sense on my part. the point of my first statement was to say that I don't think it matters if gay marriage is legalized or not. I understand that I live in America and it is not the governements job to enforce MY religion.
by mtsub on November 3rd, 2010
I only quoted those scriptures to show the difference between the shellfish scripture and the homosexuality scripture not to convince you homosexuality is wrong (but in all fairness I probably should have posted the shellfish scripture too)If I was gonna retraanslate the bible, it would be alot different trust me. where did I retranslate?
by mtsub on November 3rd, 2010
The problem mtsub, is that folks have many interpretations of it.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh5.htm
It's not as cut and dried as folks would have us think.
by Moongrim on November 3rd, 2010
by Gingerminx
on December 10th, 2009
voted:
Yes
Thank you Gingerminx, I agree and since no one is really debating anything yet, I thought I would tell you so. Reverse debate?
by Reptar on December 11th, 2009
Laughs yes, it is kind of hard to have a debate over somethign people agree on. Personally I just can not see where the problem lies. Allowing gay people to marry doesn't affect anyone else at all.
by Gingerminx on December 11th, 2009
Why "of course"?
by skeptic on December 12th, 2009
It is everyones right to be with the person they love. To say this person can marry but this one can not is just as bad as saying this white person can drink in this bar but that black person can not.
by Gingerminx on December 12th, 2009
Gingerminx, God did not create homosexuality. People choose to commit this sin, just the same way as people choose to commit other sins. God did not create murder, stealing, adultery, child molesting, cruelity to animals ect, people choose to do these wrong things. Don't blame God. He set the rules on how to live our lives, but humans are sinful, we all sin. But God will forgive our sins if we ask Him from our hearts and repent from our sinful ways.
by Account Closed on February 3rd, 2010
God does not exist and sins are religions way of controlling its people. But, if your god did exist then he certainly created everythign didn't he? And if he is all powerful and all knowing then he knew exactly how things would play out and how persecuted these people would be for being born the way they are, so that kind of makes him a rather mean and vindictive god. But I still see no reason why your belief system should rule other peoples lives.
by Gingerminx on February 3rd, 2010
A very sad answer gingerminx. God created everything including man and woman, but He also gave man and woman a brain to decide what is right and what is wrong. He did not create murder, stealing, adultery, child molestation ect, people choose to do these things. Just as homosexuals choose to be homosexual, God did not creat them like that.
by Account Closed on February 4th, 2010
Gingerminx,You say you don't see a reason why my belief system should rule other peoples lives? I am not trying to rule other peoples lives. I am giving my opinion, and I have just as much right to do that as you do, and YOU DO.
by Account Closed on February 4th, 2010
@ Eliza Beth..Your God condones rape and murder in the Bible..this is just one of many many examples:
Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT
"If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her."
What Kind of monster would make a rape victim merry her attacker...oh yeah..God would!
by Reptar on February 4th, 2010
If you would like more examples on how the Bible is evil and should never hold any sway in any civil argument let alone in deciding what's best for a nation I will be happy to show you more.
by Reptar on February 4th, 2010
You brought your god into it Eliza, not me.
by Gingerminx on February 4th, 2010
I guess she didn't want any more examples.
by Reptar on February 5th, 2010
Reptar, you can send as many (so called) examples as you want. But don't just pick a small verse from the bible and quote it. If you want to spread the word of God it is best to quote the whole chapter and then people can put the verse in context.
by Account Closed on February 5th, 2010
Gingermix, He is everybodies God, not just mine and He loves you.
by Account Closed on February 5th, 2010
Actually, he isn't, not everybody believes a god exists and many people beleive in different gods, so as I said, you brought your god into it, not me.
by Gingerminx on February 5th, 2010
gingerminx, I know not everyone beleives in the one and only God. Yes, I did bring God into it. I know alot of people beleive in faulse gods. But there is only one God, the creater of heaven and earth. We can debate this over and over, but in the end we will have to wait and see, when Jesus returns to the earth, The only Son of God, "Every eye will see and Every knee will bend". I am ready for His return, non beleivers will not be.
by Account Closed on February 5th, 2010
gingerminx, I love cats too, they are so beautiful to have as pets, I have always had at least one cat since I was a child. We agree on that, so that is good.
by Account Closed on February 5th, 2010
I have two cats at the moment, they are my sons but when he moved out he couldn't take them with him. I would have missed them anyway. They are litter brothers and are like chalk and cheese. Yes we can agree on that.
by Gingerminx on February 5th, 2010
@ Eliza Beth...Just for my info...Where did Jesus say that Gay people shouldn't get married?
I have a cat as well. His name is Hobo, we took him of the streets and gave him a loving home.
by Reptar on February 7th, 2010
Laughs, cute, I love the name, Reptar.
by Gingerminx on February 7th, 2010
Reptar, 1 Corinthians 6:9 Do you not know that the wickard will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes NOW HOMOSEXUAL OFFENDERS nor the greedy nor the drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kindom of God.
1 Corintians 7:1 Now for the matters you wrote about: it is good for a man not to marry. But since there is so much immorality, EACH MAN SHOULD HAVE HIS OWN WIFE, AND EACH WOMAN HER OWN HUSBAND.
Having quoted these passages I would also like to add that because a person has sinned does not mean the person is condemned to hell. NO, WE ARE ALL SINNERS, if we repent and except Jesus as our Lord and Saviour, He will forgive us our sins. I am not judging anyone, I am a sinner too, everyone is, except Jesus.
by Account Closed on February 7th, 2010
reptar. it should read NOR HOMOSEXUALS, not NOW HOMSEXUALS. sorry
a typo.
by Account Closed on February 7th, 2010
Sorry Eliza Beth, it's pretty much saying to me that they'll be going to hell.
"HOMOSEXUAL OFFENDERS" LOl!!!! This only proves to me that Jesus was not only a zombie but a bigot as well. Thanks for the info though, I'm copying and pasting the quotes into my "The Bible is evil" folder.
I understand that you're love for your god is strong, I will mention this no more unless you bring it up.
Have a great day.
by Reptar on February 8th, 2010
I do not hate gays. I believe, like Elton John, that they should have civil unions, with rights mostly equal to marriage, but I do not agree with the term marriage being used. And like I said, Elton John agreed with me.
And here's why. In places where marriage has been redefined, gay couples have sued churches for discrimination because they were observing their religious beliefs. I believe that there are way more Christians then there are gays, so what about their rights? Should gays receive special treatment because they are a minority? That does not seem fair to me,and I think that gays who want marriage to be redefined are being selfish. Stop complaining about your rights and try to think about everyone elses.
by WishUponAStar on March 30th, 2010
WishUponAStar, how do gays want marriage redefined? The ones I have heard talkign about it don't, they just want to be allowed to marry like anyone else. As to churches, frankly I do not beleive they should have to perform marriages if they don't want to, and I don't see anyone asking them to. Marriage can be performed by other officials. I got married in a country club to my husband, not a gay marriage but not a religious one either. As to, "Should gays receive special treatment because they are a minority?", no, they shouldn't, and I don't see them asking for that, only to receive the same rights as everyone else, that is, to be allowed to get married.
by Gingerminx on March 30th, 2010
I'm not just making it up. Here it is.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91486340
First important section
During the summers, Hoffman says, the pavilion is used for Bible studies, church services, gospel choir performances and, in the past at least, weddings. Heterosexual weddings.
When Bernstein and Paster asked to celebrate their civil union in the pavilion, the Methodist organization said they could marry on the boardwalk — anywhere but buildings used for religious purposes. In other words, not the pavilion. Hoffman says there was a theological principle at stake.
"The principle was a strongly held religious belief that a marriage is between a man and a woman," Hoffman says. "We're not casting any aspersions or making any judgments. It's just, that's where we stand, and we've always stood that way, and that's why we said no."
Second Important Section
So the couple filed a complaint with New Jersey's Division of Civil Rights, alleging the Methodists unlawfully discriminated against them based on sexual orientation. Attorney Lawrence Lustberg represents them.
"Our law against discrimination does not allow [the group] to use those personal preferences, no matter how deeply held, and no matter — even if they're religiously based — as a grounds to discriminate," Lustberg says. "Religion shouldn't be about violating the law."
The Methodist organization responded that it was their property, and the First Amendment protects their right to practice their faith without government intrusion. But Lustberg countered that the pavilion is open to everyone — and therefore the group could no more refuse to accommodate the lesbians than a restaurant owner could refuse to serve a black man. That argument carried the day. The state revoked the organization's tax exemption for the pavilion area. Hoffman figures they will lose $20,000.
It was church owned property used for Bible studies, church services, gospel choir performances and, in the past at least, weddings. Heterosexual weddings.
The important facts being that they'd hold their services outside, in that pavillian, so in my mind that is an extention of their chapel, and sacred ground to them, and they were within their rights. I provided the link if you want to read the whole thing.
As for how it would be redefined. In most states it is a union between one man and one woman. Since stupid liberal judges will ignore the rights of Christians, Muslims, and Jews, redefining actual marriage to include gays would open these institutions up to being sued, and as with this Methodist Church in New Jersey, losing their tax exempt statis. Therefore the only way to protect the rights of Christians, Muslims, and Jews, is to not use the word marriage. You could pass laws of civil unions, and load them up with the same rights as a married couple, without taking the rights away from others to worship as they wish, so isn't this alright? Can't gays see that their convenience would take away rights from others? Isn't that selfish? Even Elton John said that gays could have civil unions and heterosexual couples would have marriages. Could it be he had enough sense to know that asking for marriage was too much and would damage the rights of others?
by WishUponAStar on March 30th, 2010
I'm not just making it up. Here it is.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91486340
First important section
During the summers, Hoffman says, the pavilion is used for Bible studies, church services, gospel choir performances and, in the past at least, weddings. Heterosexual weddings.
When Bernstein and Paster asked to celebrate their civil union in the pavilion, the Methodist organization said they could marry on the boardwalk — anywhere but buildings used for religious purposes. In other words, not the pavilion. Hoffman says there was a theological principle at stake.
"The principle was a strongly held religious belief that a marriage is between a man and a woman," Hoffman says. "We're not casting any aspersions or making any judgments. It's just, that's where we stand, and we've always stood that way, and that's why we said no."
Second Important Section
So the couple filed a complaint with New Jersey's Division of Civil Rights, alleging the Methodists unlawfully discriminated against them based on sexual orientation. Attorney Lawrence Lustberg represents them.
"Our law against discrimination does not allow [the group] to use those personal preferences, no matter how deeply held, and no matter — even if they're religiously based — as a grounds to discriminate," Lustberg says. "Religion shouldn't be about violating the law."
The Methodist organization responded that it was their property, and the First Amendment protects their right to practice their faith without government intrusion. But Lustberg countered that the pavilion is open to everyone — and therefore the group could no more refuse to accommodate the lesbians than a restaurant owner could refuse to serve a black man. That argument carried the day. The state revoked the organization's tax exemption for the pavilion area. Hoffman figures they will lose $20,000.
It was church owned property used for Bible studies, church services, gospel choir performances and, in the past at least, weddings. Heterosexual weddings.
The important facts being that they'd hold their services outside, in that pavillian, so in my mind that is an extention of their chapel, and sacred ground to them, and they were within their rights. I provided the link if you want to read the whole thing.
As for how it would be redefined. In most states it is a union between one man and one woman. Since stupid liberal judges will ignore the rights of Christians, Muslims, and Jews, redefining actual marriage to include gays would open these institutions up to being sued, and as with this Methodist Church in New Jersey, losing their tax exempt statis. Therefore the only way to protect the rights of Christians, Muslims, and Jews, is to not use the word marriage. You could pass laws of civil unions, and load them up with the same rights as a married couple, without taking the rights away from others to worship as they wish, so isn't this alright? Can't gays see that their convenience would take away rights from others? Isn't that selfish? Even Elton John said that gays could have civil unions and heterosexual couples would have marriages. Could it be he had enough sense to know that asking for marriage was too much and would damage the rights of others?
by WishUponAStar on March 30th, 2010
Yes, this would open wide the discrimination of the church, and it's about time. All churches should loose their tax exempt status, they should have to pay like any other institution out there. Enough is enough! No one is ignoring the rights of the church, we're just tired of all the special treatment it receives for brain washing people into believing in mythical beings and archaic practices.
by Reptar on March 30th, 2010
WishUponAStar, You mention one incident which, as we have stated, we do not think should happen. Sorry, but the meanings of words change all the time and the church or the state do not own the word marriage. One case, in New Jersey, that the authorities should not have let through does not mean that all homosexuals should be punished for it. No one should have to give up their rights, and any homosexuals I have talked to certainly do not want that. One small thing which should not have happened and which can be stated in any law made should not prevent homosexuals from being given the same rights as other adults.
by Gingerminx on March 31st, 2010
I'm Mormon, so my church would be safe because we don't rent out our chapels at all. We can't be sued for discrimination, lol. But if you take away their tax-exempt status you'll bankrupt just about every other major faith in the country. So while my church woulsd stand to gain a lot from being the figurative last-man-standing, that does not make me want this to happen. I still feel it's wrongat this time in a sue-happy world.
by WishUponAStar on March 31st, 2010
Well that says a lot to me. If they are no longer tax exempt then they do not have enough of a following to stay afloat? If they are running a business they should be subject to the same laws as any other business. Religion should not be a business.
by Gingerminx on March 31st, 2010
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...
The first amendment says government can't mandate what a religion can and cannot believe, making the ruling in the New Jersey case a violation of the first amendment. In other words, a church can't be punished for following it's beliefs.
But if you give gays the word marriage, that's exactly what will happen. Churches will either be forced to stop renting out their chapel, or the government will force them to do what goes against their beliefs, and if they resist and stick uop for their first amendment right, they'll be punished. Does everyone ignore the rights of religions now?
Sure, my religion is safe, but the constitution is important to me. I don't like us moving further and further away from it.
by WishUponAStar on March 31st, 2010
by HumourMe
on December 11th, 2009
voted:
Yes
Your pathetic to think that butt fuckers should be married in a church'
I'm not relgious but it's simply not right,give them all the rights as a married couple, why is that not fair enough?,NOT In A CHURCH SETTING
by rockit2u on December 17th, 2009
Who says it has to be in a church?
by Polar Aurorae on December 17th, 2009
rockit2u Get the hell over it. You probably butt fuck your girlfriend.
by HumourMe on December 17th, 2009
by 23Skidoo
on December 11th, 2009
voted:
Yes
by anonymous
on December 11th, 2009
voted:
Yes
No marriage is a religious institution that the gov. has stuck its nose into. Gov needs to have its own union that applies to everyone. Marriage is for the church.
by my2cents--Vote for Paul on December 12th, 2009
Civil rights: class of rights and freedoms that protect individuals from unwarranted government action and ensure one's ability to participate in the civil and political life of the state without discrimination or repression.
Marriage: the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law.
Same sex marriage: the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage.
(Same sex marriage is not recognized by any law, nor is it a guaranteed right in the constitution.)
Seems that the terms are different. So if there is a gender identity issue in people and they wish to believe they are of another gender does that mean the rest of the people who can see they are not that gender should allow them to decide what gender is? Same sex marriage is different. If gays want marriage they can't have it. They can only have same sex marriage. New thing, completely different law. See the definition of the word marriage has been altered through time. When marriage laws were constructed this whole same sex concept wasn't even an issue. Today definitions change interpretations. If same sex marriage becomes a right then ok, but if it is placed uner the blanket of marriage that goes against others right to freedom of religion. Which is also protected. Marriage is a religious practice, that a group of individuals want to adopt. The same sex marriage protocol may not be any differnet than the protocol for marriage, but you can't call it marriage on the books. Same sex coulpes can call each other married and all that, because it will be obvious that they are same sex married.
by Chad1983 on December 17th, 2009
you know where I stand:)
by DA BEN DAN yanggui zi on January 16th, 2010
Law needs to catch up with the times.
by Shania on March 5th, 2010
by Symbeline
on December 10th, 2009
voted:
Yes
It shouldn't matter what people think any 'god' wants. It's about what is right for us, since we're the ones that actually exist on this plane of reality.
by Isaac on December 11th, 2009
hell is full of gays god does not want gay i mean if he did he would of made two adams not an adam and an eve
by 13245649g on December 15th, 2009
Gtfo fag.
by Symbeline on December 16th, 2009
God created them gay - now what?
by Shania on March 5th, 2010
God did not create them to be gay - they became gay... for whatever reason, they're not contented with what God gave them in the first place.
by d3mur3 on March 29th, 2010
by Reptar
on December 10th, 2009
voted:
Yes
Agreed. In New Zealand they can have a civil union which grants them the same rights as a marriage but it is still not the same as being allowed to marry. Its that little 'lets keep them separate' mentality.
by Gingerminx on December 12th, 2009
america would give all the same rights. gays could have had civil unions with the same legal standing as marriage LONG ago had the community not been dogmatic about demanding the use of the word marriage. if it were about the rights that go along with marriage they would have accepted the civil unions which most americans would happily agree, but clearly it is more important to make a political statment than it is to have the rights. I feel sorry for the gays who do actualy want those rights because the louder part of their community are delaying it for them.
by TAPriceCTR s son is wearing his COAT on December 14th, 2009
Yes I agree ,Fags and dikes are subhuman sexually
by rockit2u on December 17th, 2009
The U.S. government has been slipping. We were once the leader in Democracy and economics. We are now a regressive debtor nation. The fact that gay people want to marry shouldn't even be news worthy. If should have been a natural outcome for a secular democratic nation.
by Ron C on December 17th, 2009
by lenalove
on December 15th, 2009
voted:
No
But it is against discrimination. No one is stopping anyone from having a family. No one is stopping anyone from having a sacred belief. And please tell me how a couple being gay interferes with the sacred beliefs of millions, (or even one)?
by mother earth on December 15th, 2009
Yes, as long as "Keeping family values" means spiltting up families that don't fit into your narrow view on marriage(!)
by Isaac on December 15th, 2009
Sacred beliefs of priests that have to perform the marriage are being over turned it was a case when the priest was arreted for refusing to perform the marriage ritual. Millions-meaning those who actually believe it homosexuality is wrong. See it will be taught to our children that it is acceptable when we believe it isnt. You have to understand the values and beliefs to understand. I just know that no one is being hurt because their isnt gay marriage. Plus im glad here in Australia its not even an issue civil unions are okay.
by lenalove on December 15th, 2009
Voting rights were a big issue, getting counted as a citizen, that was a big issue, getting the same education, big issue, being free to walk where you please and go where you please, both big issues. Slavery, big issue. Gay marriage, not so much. Fight for civil unions. Leave marriage to the peole who invented it. Gays coming in telling the people who created it, what it should be, is just stupid. It is another example of a minority interest group trying to overthrow the majority. That is criminal. Besides sexual orientation is not protected under the constitution, which is what we look to when trying to figure these things out, you know being a constitutional republic and all. You may say put it to a vote, well it has, and people came out and said don't put it on the ballot. What I don't get is that it can be shot down 1 million times, but if it gets passed once it is there forever. Just doesn't make sense, unless your making money off of the fight. Then I would allow for a system such as this one. Marriage is a religious institution, civil unions are not. Fight for civil unions, quit trying to tell the religious people what marriage is, they invented it, I think they know better than gays what marriage is. Americans are just stupid...stupid, stupid, stupid people, regardless of sexual orientation. Proud, biased, egocentric, greedy, lazy, stupid people pushing and shoving their way to the front of the line only to wait for something they don't even understand. Just stupid. Covetous hordes of stupid people marching in circles in this consumer hell. This whole discussion is just ignorant. What all of us want doesn't matter, the corporations that own the country will decide after they run the numbers. The swine in charge look after their pocket books and bellies before anything is decided. If gays want to be monetarily bound to one another, get civil unions and start calling each other husbands and wives while you live together. That is marriage. Love and all of that abstract BS will either conquer the issues that arise or it won't. Relationships succeed or fail because of the actions of the people involved, and how their rationalizations based on those actions allow them to feel. This causes happiness, pain, sadness, apathy, and a host of other emotions, marriage or civil unions do not change anything except how money is viewed when the dramatic events in a relationship arise. That is the difference, how we view money in relation to the other person. Do we love them or the money we have more? Hmmmm. Well for some it is the love of money that causes them to stay with their partner. That isn't love at all, that is fear. Should marriage be coveted because of the element of fear it brings to a relationship? Being financially bound to another, that is what marriage is. Gays want more money and benefits. People who will not have offspring, unless they adopt or pay someone to have their love child, want more. People who just take and consume for their own enjoyment want more, what a surprise. This is the argument against them. People say it is about love, BS, it is about money, they want more money. Insurance benefits, tax exemptions, government assistance programs, and a stronger lobby to secure more. Love, it has nothing to do with love. It may be about love for the ignorant individual that doesn't see what the organization is doing, but for the brain trust it is all for the power and money. Just like every other lobby in America. This whole issue is being distorted so the powerful gays and gay supporters get more power and money. They want more, more, more, they are just greedy American swine, nothing else. Yet we get inundated with this peace, love, and harmony BS from the 60s, which led to the 80s and got us to where we are today. Overrrun by yuppies looking to make as much money as they can off of us while they kill us and the planet to do it. If this is the result of peace and love, I am really skepitical of groups that use th
by Chad1983 on December 17th, 2009
hell yes you are so right on this one. These idiots equating immoral unions to suffering for hundeds of years. This is just about a bunch of losers who couldn't get someone of the opposite sex. So now they claim it is nature's fault and religion for not being tolerant. "It is a tale told by an idiot full of sound and fury signifying nothing."-Macbeth.
Perfect description of this whole stupid topic.
by Anonymous on December 26th, 2009
Wow, I am so glad I do not live where you ignorant and close minded people live, please never leave your country.
by Gingerminx on January 18th, 2010
Ginger,
I don't see the ignorance. I don't see the closed minds, I see idiots. Idiots that act like sheep. It is okay to disagree with people. We all shouldn't agree. As I have said before we have a constitution, we should use it. Same-sex marriage defined as such and allowed the same privilages as marriage would end all of this. Marriage is marriage and same-sex marriage would be it's own thing. Both groups happy, right? That darn Bible that makes people docile and philanthropic can sure make people dislike gays. The Devil concept strikes again. The old, "if there is good ut there must be evil too, and we gotta kill it before it kills us!" When Christians lose an evil to focus on they start turning on themselves, so they try to stay active looking for things to campaign against. Placing the word "devil" next to something makes these people unite against things and topple them with their numbers. At the turn of the century marijuana was the DEVIL, AHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!! The after effects of that rediculousness are still around today. Scientific study after scientific study has found marijuana to be healthier than both alcohol and tobacco. But that devil propaganda of the 20s, 30s, 40s, and 50s has left the anti marijuana mentality ingrained in the people for the most part. People don't care about the data, if it's The Devil, it's The Devil and that is that. What does that sound like? ounds like sheep being controlled by a shepard, but who is the shepard? They think the shepard is Jesus and he is calling the shots. Is he? The Bible says he is, so it must be true, look in the Bible it's all there. Are Kiwis very religious people? A better book for us to discuss may be Plato's Republic because it discusses justice. What is just and what is unjust, that book implies that justice is what is advantageous for the stronger. Is that just?
by Chad1983 on January 28th, 2010
Well we have religion and religious people and even a few fanatics who are blinded by it, but on the whole I think we are fairly tolerant people.
by Gingerminx on January 28th, 2010
Chad1983
-
Dude I have no problem with people smoking pot. Honestly I don't care if gays get married. If it is up to me I would rather they didn't. But you know what that is between them and God. And you realize that reason we say some things are evil is because it says so in the Bible right? Admittedly the guys that came up with dancing and drinking being evil are idiots. But dude you see yourself as a great american don't you? You know absolutly fucking nothing. Doom on you Chad.
by Anonymous on January 28th, 2010
I do know one thing, it is Christians like you that give them all a bad name, GOD BLESS YOU!! I said that because the hate that comes out of you people is like a sneeze, I don't think you can control it. Which means in order to overcome it you may need to speak with the same aforementioned being that the gays need to. I don't see myself as a great American. I would call myself an American, not a great American, not yet, I haven't influenced you to stop being such a hypocritical Christian yet. And God seems to be in control around here, your hex carries little meaning for me. And if you are praying for my doom remember God is a just God, and your self-righteousness along with your pride will receive justice. You don't know me, you don't know my relationship to God and what my purpose is. If you go back and read your first 2 statements, we agree. My anti-American rhetoric is due to American's historical lack of intelligence when decision making. We consistantly believe the propaganda and support big business while they strip us of liberties and money, as well as control the government through campaign finances and a shadow government. You want to discuss how we are mostly an enlightened people that are compassionate and caring with a thorough understanding of the bureaucracy that controls us? Well, go right ahead and start giving some examples, because right now, you are just supporting my claim that we are a nation of idiots. Can't wait to hear your reply and take a look at your examples. Because I don't think you will be able to come up with any. And while your trying to come up with intelligent things, remember death is never a good idea.
by Chad1983 on January 28th, 2010
Isn't it scary to think that they actually allow this man to have weapons?
by Gingerminx on January 29th, 2010
You agree with me about everything. You say I am wrong though? Wrong about what? The doom thing? I was in the Air Force, scored too high on the asvab to get into the Army, they said I was asking too many intelligent questions anyway. Like what is "stop loss" force retention and who qualifies? Or what is the standard of living in the Army, how are you treated? These sorts of questions get Army recruiters excited because it presents a challenge. They have to figure out a way to paint a picture that makes the Army look like it is the best most caring branch with a more important job than all of the other branches combined. But being one who has facilities that are equal to the recruiter, the lies were quite obvious, becuse army recruiters are like you, they have this aggressiveness that overrides their rational mind and causes them to try to attack your masculinity and get you to just join the Army already, unless your not man enough. Didn't work on me. The Air Force recruiter on the other hand was open, honest, and forthcoming about all of what I asked, except tech school, but he did tell me the success rate for those in my career field.
I can tell you right now if you are in the Army you are at the behest of the bureaucracy, you are the bureaucrat's lap dog. Generals set goals for their specific command, they give recomendations to the CINC, the CINC then decides what to do based on the recomendations of the Sec. Def and the various commanders of the different commands. You see this whole country is led by officials elected by the people. Poiticians. The Army is led by men that decide what troops should be utilized for what, where, and when. After getting some experience they move up, they go to war college and learn how to be better more effective Generals. I am glad you are a motivated soldier, you should be, but you need to remember what country you are fighting for and how it is set up. The UCMJ is not a part of the civilian world. When you signed that contract you elected to follow a stricter life than the rest of the populace. After a 9 week boot camp you were reprogramed to follow this new lifestyle. A militant lifestyle. Our people are militant enough, the last thing we need is a military leader to rule over us and encourage the people to be more militant. Besides how would they indoctrinate everyone, what would need to happen?
And dude you merely pointed out that you agree with me about everything I said. Here I will quote for you, "And hell I'll admit the nation is run by idiots." My argument was we are a nation of idiots, which sparked this first response where you said, "Dude I have no problem with people smoking pot. Honestly I don't care if gays get married." These were my words you were agreeing with again here. But you still had the nerve to say, " And dude we don't hate we merely point out when someone is wrong. And God knows you hate that." As well as, "You know absolutly fucking nothing." Do you see why it is hard for me to take anything you say seriously? You contradict yourself, you say I am an ignorant fool, then you agree with me, what is that? Do you realize that just because you are in the Army and may or may not have been in the sand, that it doesn't make you any different than anyone else? You made a sacrifice for this nation, good for you, thank you, but nobody made you, it doesn't give you the right to walk around and act like you are better and more informed than anyone else. Being in the Army just allows you to hear the propaganda and lies first. You have the burden of doing what the bureaucrats decide the nation needs to do. You are that "do" part of the equation. Not the why, not the where, not the when, just the "do". It sucks, I lived it. Still you have not said what you are arguing for or against. You just say things that make it sound like you disagree. PLEASE CLARIFY YOUR DISSENT. We already covered the ""doom" thing, so other than that...
by Chad1983 on January 29th, 2010
Ginger,
The reason they gave him weapons is due to him being like this. During the interview process for the job they ask you if you want to kill someone. If you say yes they put you in harms way and give you a weapon. Just backwards isn't it?
by Chad1983 on January 29th, 2010
Yikes! Very much so. Funny, if someone goes out and kills another person on their own they lock them up and call it murder.
by Gingerminx on January 29th, 2010
Ironic, very ironic.
"The precise definition of murder varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Under the Common Law, or law made by courts, murder was the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. The term malice aforethought did not necessarily mean that the killer planned or premeditated on the killing, or that he or she felt malice toward the victim. Generally, malice aforethought referred to a level of intent or reck-lessness that separated murder from other killings and warranted stiffer punishment.
The definition of murder has evolved over several centuries. Under most modern statutes in the United States, murder comes in four varieties: (1) intentional murder; (2) a killing that resulted from the intent to do serious bodily injury; (3) a killing that resulted from a depraved heart or extreme recklessness; and (4) murder committed by an Accomplice during the commission of, attempt of, or flight from certain felonies."
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/murder
Yeah, what the US government does doesn't resemble any of this does it!? PSHHH!!!
by Chad1983 on January 29th, 2010
Laughs
by Gingerminx on January 29th, 2010
Ah...look the air fuck and the bleeding heart are getting all buddy buddy! I'll kill anyone who fucks with America or the people I care about. They'll bleed. I am not so much a coward as to sit on my ass while real men fight. I don't give a shit whether or not little mister raghead has a family. He had better stay home or it is doom on him.
-
Seeing as you were unable to stick to the original discussion without having to resort to insults. I would Say I am the Clear Victor.
So once again
DOOM ON YOU!
HOOAH!
by Anonymous on January 30th, 2010
You are a scary little person and it is sad that your government allows you to have a weapon. Being a racist and able to shoot people doesn't make you a man.
by Gingerminx on January 30th, 2010
Chasing_Bigotry,
Hey tough guy, what job in the Army do you have? Why do you have access to a computer every day, shouldn't you be filling sandbags or escorting civilian contractors around some base in the desert, or are you some admin that talks like he is infantry? Or worse, a 13 year old on his dad's account while he is deployed?
Insult you? How can that happen? You would need to be able to understand what Ginger and I are saying first and you obviously don't have the capacity to do that or you would stop. I suggest you put the whole using words to do your fighting thing up, and just dedicate your time to developing your manual dexterity. (Clearing throat)
The prentices are trying to indicate that while utilizing the internet you should stick to playing with yourself and watching porn. It also implies that a person with your IQ should have a low voice too. I don't think you would have caught that if I hadn't spelled it out for you. But that is the way it is with you, I write, you don't read or understand, you say we are going off topic and insulting, then repeat yourself. You still have not clarified what you are arguing for, you just continue to reassert your idiocy and keep the negative stereotypes associated with both the Army and America alive. Good job.
You are a winner and if you could see me now I am holding up number 1 just for you.
Ginger,
Judging by the old saying, "What you don't know can't hurt you," he's practically invulnerable.
by Chad1983 on January 30th, 2010
Chasing_Bigotry,
Not that you would understand or care, but it's "Parenthesis", not "prentices". Sorry about that, spell check doesn't always give you the one you want, guess I should pay closer attention. lol! This is more for me than anyone else.
by Chad1983 on January 30th, 2010
by InTune
on December 11th, 2009
voted:
No
So the old, infertile and crippled should also be banned from marriage, as they cannot reproduce? Makes sense!
by randomness - is now a Maestro on December 12th, 2009
You can reproduce without benefit of a piece of paper and lets face it, gay people can and do reproduce as well. This makes no sense to me.
by Gingerminx on December 12th, 2009
Weak. Does this mean Viagra should go out of business?
by Anonymous on December 13th, 2009
Marriage is not natural. It is an institution created by men. People bonded and procreated and lived together long before marriage was invented (and they still do with nary a church in sight). OH mY! ;-p
by mother earth on December 15th, 2009
Two men can not procreate? I say yes they can. They can give a child that got neglected from their real parents a second chance to have a family. How is this bad? This would consider to fit in the balance of nature. I mean another good comment to make would be over population. This is a current issue, gays don't have parts in this since they can't have babies. I mean who says it's a threat? it hasn't even been given a chance, just been denied right away. I think everyone who is against it are scared because this has never been placed on the table, just give it a try and see what happens. I like how people say it will effect other's, well everyone has the right to a decision. Gay's don't force it upon people and it's not a CHOICE. It's known at birth. My brother is gay so I know about it because I listen to him, I debate with him all the time and what he says makes complete sense. If we are to follow the constitution here ladies and gentlemen, what they are doing here is going against it. Read up on it.
by AnoNyMouSs on December 21st, 2009
Not every gay couple is Christian so stop putting your religion into their marriages!
by fayewn on January 8th, 2010
Wow your inane argument falls apart once you even begin to realize what natural is. In case you haven't noticed WE ARE A PART OF NATURE. Everything we do becomes natural. Banning marriages, sends a message to our "impressionable youth" that we value some bronze age myths more than we value the rights of human beings. Do us a favor and don't procreate.
by uhhu on February 27th, 2010
I agree with you InTune.
by d3mur3 on March 30th, 2010
So I suppose that women post-menopause should also be denied marriage since they can't procreate.
by quack is whack on March 30th, 2010
by my2cents--Vote for Paul
on December 11th, 2009
voted:
No
Civil marriage has nothing to do with religion. And that's the government part.
Any particular religion can make up it's own rules - but no religion has the right to make everyone else live by it's standards.
by 23Skidoo on December 11th, 2009
Marriage has nothing to do with religion, unless you want it to be. They would be fine to go to city hall and get married non-religiously.
by Isaac on December 11th, 2009
It will not show me comments!! Tells me I have them in profile but I cannot see them!!!!!
by my2cents--Vote for Paul on December 11th, 2009
Our government redefined the legal definition of marriage to suit the needs of it's people, because we believe in equal rights for all citizens. The government can not force the church to marry people though, so it does not infringe on religion at all. Church's discretion.
by Reptar on December 11th, 2009
Then like I said make everyone have to get a civil union from the gov. Marriage only from the church.
by my2cents--Vote for Paul on December 12th, 2009
marriage was around before religion and belongs to no one. I got married, it is legal, it is the same as any other marriage, but it was not in any church or under any religion.
by Gingerminx on December 12th, 2009
Marriage started with Adam and Eve...certainly a religious institution. And by not means a gov. institution. In fact in the US the first marriage liciense was issued in April 1856--80 years after US became a nation I am sure those people were still getting married in the church during those 80 years.
by my2cents--Vote for Paul on December 13th, 2009
If you were not married by the church then if gov. did not have its nose stuck into religion then what you have would be a civil union not marriage.
by my2cents--Vote for Paul on December 13th, 2009
So if marriage is a religious institution, why does one have to get a marriage license to legally be considered married?
by Anonymous on December 13th, 2009
Because the gov. has stuck it nose into an already established religious instition.
by my2cents--Vote for Paul on December 14th, 2009
Marriage was around before christianity.
.
And opinion does not equal fact.
by Zenrean on April 10th, 2012
Marriage was around much longer than anyone believed in Adam and Eve.
And today it occurs among people who never heard of them.
It has 3 main elements:
1. Financial - there are usually contracts about merging assets, often there are large "gifts" or transactions, and often even today, dowries paid by one family to the other.
2. Legal - the joining of two people previously un or distantly related people and sometimes families into one legally defined one and establishing legal responsibility for any future (and sometimes - already extant) kids.
3. Religious - in much of the world, an optional components to make the union holy in the eyes of whatever god(s) happen to be important in the area or community.
The fact that you seem to want everyone to accepts the same definition, mythology and history of "marriage" as you is one reason freedom of religion and... hence, civil marriage is so important.
:-)
by 23Skidoo on April 10th, 2012
But all religions have a different concept of marriage.
by Zenrean on April 10th, 2012
All cultures do. I was responding to 2cents
:-)
by 23Skidoo on April 10th, 2012
marriage started as a business contract, hence the fact that two companies merging is called a marriage. I understand that some religions claim it as their own, but they also took over many pagan holidays and made them their own as well. That doesn't mean that they are religious nor that they were made by religions. It was purely business. People would sell off their daughters.
Reading the bible, I don't see anywhere where it says Adam and Eve were married. God simply made Eve for Adam.
by Gingerminx on April 10th, 2012
Two companies merging is called a "merger" or "corportate/industry consolidation" not a "marriage".
And who performed this "contract"?----the priest, pastor, witch doctor etc. (The leader of the church)
Who did they have to get permission from to marry?----The fathers and the church.
When they started keeping records--who kept the records?---the churches.
Then came government to put their nose in and issue liciense and collect fees.
by my2cents--Vote for Paul on April 10th, 2012
Actually, yes it can be called a marriage, check a dictionary. No, actually it was often a simple thing done between families with a chief or elder, not necessarily anythign to do with a church. They didn't have to get permission from anyone, as I said, it was a business arrangement. Churches kept their own records, that is irrelevant.
by Gingerminx on April 10th, 2012
Either way it was not the government. And for at least a millinium historically is has indeed been a religious ceremony. Only in the last few centuries has the gov intruded upon it. And that was for the purpose of denying permission (blacks and white marriage) and for collection of fees.
by my2cents--Vote for Paul on April 13th, 2012
No, my2. That's what we have been telling you. It's not religion that came first. It was culture - family, local tradition and law, property and inheritance... all those things that were first.
You are enjoying Religious Faith Over Fact Syndrome (RFOFS).
Governments, in any modern sense, have only existed a couple centuries so of course they have been involved in marriage for only that amount of time. Prior to that the nobility and the Church were what passed for law and THEY led the prohibition, tax collection and First Night privileges. Prior to that it was the tribe / community that dealt with family, local tradition and law, property and inheritance... all those things.
But I suspect RFOFS is, in your case, terminal.
by 23Skidoo on April 13th, 2012
Agreed Skidoo.
by Gingerminx on April 13th, 2012
So you believe there was no government until the last couple of centuries???? Really????
And I am supposed to be the one ignoring facts???
by my2cents--Vote for Paul on April 13th, 2012
Yes by all means lets ignore those four little words, "in any modern sense". It makes it so much easier to feel self righteous.
by Gingerminx on April 13th, 2012
Anything that is thousands of years old would not qualify as "in the modern sense". That is what modern means.
Of Course many of the European Parliaments have been around since the 1200's. In the 1700's British Parliament passed a law saying in order for marriage to be legal it must be performed in a parish church or chapel of the Church of England. (But maybe that is not "modern sense" enough for you) The first marriage liciense issued by the USA gov was in 1856. (I guess no one got married before that??? Or is that not modern enough either?)
by my2cents--Vote for Paul on April 15th, 2012
You do ignore what you don't like, don't you, My2?
Please reread. When you catch up and show proficiency in what I have been saying I will happily continue. I have no desire to repeat myself ad nausem and listen you you rant about your own cherry picked version.
Later.
And thanks ginger :-)
by 23Skidoo on April 15th, 2012
You're welcome Skidoo :)
by Gingerminx on April 15th, 2012
Skidoo "Governments, in any modern sense, have only existed a couple centuries so of course they have been involved in marriage for only that amount of time.
Prior to that the nobility and the Church were what passed for law and THEY led the prohibition, tax collection and First Night privileges."
Are you saying that there was no gov involvement in marriage prior to the "modern governments"????
You said nobilty and the church were the only law. I am not cherry picking, I am quoting YOU. So either as I said for thousands of years marriage was a religious institution not a gov. or it was a gov institution. You want to say it was a gov first but then say it was the church that passed the laws so which is it?
by my2cents--Vote for Paul on April 15th, 2012
by Hypocrisy_Central
on December 11th, 2009
voted:
No
Why not? People live in poly relationships now why not allow them to make it legal?
by Gingerminx on December 12th, 2009
Because,Ginger,,that is the start of chaos.I think in time we will all see this type of behavior as detrimental to social behaviors.
by mtndewman44 on December 15th, 2009
Isn't that what they said about women fighting for the right to vote?
by mother earth on December 15th, 2009
And they should. This isn't Nazi Germany.
by uhhu on February 27th, 2010
Neither is "socirty" ready for correct and "normal" spelling, apparently.
by Anonymous on March 23rd, 2010
by mgreene
on December 10th, 2009
voted:
No
I think ALL marriages should be changed to legal unions! If every 10 or 15 years the union was either renewed or canceled out, then we would have "marriages" that either last with love or dissolve cause of a lack thereof!! Of course there is a renewal fee.
by ethicalbro on December 10th, 2009
"Gay" had a quite different definition not so many years ago. Definitions change with time.
.
The US should just do as most of the world does - separate civil and religious marriage. To be legal, you have to get married by a government official. If you want, you can then have it blessed by your religious official.
by 23Skidoo on December 11th, 2009
That's why our government changed the legle definition of marriage...problem solved. It ruled the the church has no sway in defining the rules for all the people of our country. Problem solved.
by Reptar on December 11th, 2009
Yes the definition of marriage is two people entering a legal contract, how does that exclude gays?
by Gingerminx on December 12th, 2009
The problem with this is that civil unions DO NOT GRANT THE SAME LEGAL RIGHTS AS MARRIAGES.
by Siyanor on December 15th, 2009
Marriage:: the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law.
That is the definition of marriage, now there is another different definition, but it is not the definition of "marriage", it is "Same sex marriage", not just "marriage". Nice try though Ginger.
by Chad1983 on December 17th, 2009
Back before 1967 marriage was defined as "between a man and a woman **of the same race**."
Clearly the definition of marriage is open to change, at least in the U.S.A.
by eternal0void on December 31st, 2009
Pluto's definition used to be the planet, now it also means to kick out. Definitions can change.
by fayewn on January 8th, 2010
@Chad, Marriage also means the union of two companies merging. Definitions can be fluidic, especially when the original meaning discriminates against race, sex etc, as in the case of marriage. Nice try though Chad.
by Gingerminx on January 8th, 2010
Chad - "a person" might cover marriages in the US but in other countries even today there are others. And that's the point - change the definition ti include any consenting adults.
Why would anyone care anyway? What consenting adults do with other consenting adults really is no one's business but those involved.
by 23Skidoo on January 9th, 2010
23Skidoo,
I don't think this issue has to do with what happens between consenting adults in the bedroom, I think it has to do with what happens between adults in a court room. Ginger there wants to change the definition to include companies or devices. I think that would be interesting, a man could actually marry his job, or in the fluidic sense, his penis pump. ;) Just because a word has multiple meanings due to the evolution of a common language, it doesn't change the initial definition. It simply adds another alternate meaning. In the legal sense "Same-sex marriage" is different from "marriage" in that it isn't "marriage".
Notice the "same-sex" portion of "same-sex marriage" it clearly defines marriage to be between members of the same sex. This is different from "marriage"(Ref. my comment from a month ago). Hopefully now you can see the cause of the dilemma.
by Chad1983 on January 26th, 2010
Ginger,
I am so glad you brought up what we can't discriminate against. The one that should have come after race is religion. Polygamists are people too, so are Atheists, the greedy, the selfish, the hateful, and the lazy. Everyone's interests should be kept in mind. Same sex marriage could be the crack that lets the polygamists through. I am all for it. Polygamists are just as discriminated against as gays, if not more so. Polygamists cannot even be free enough to say they are polygamists. At least gays can have a parade. If polygamists come out and start parading down the street they get arrested. Sounds to me like they have it harder. I could go on. I will later...
by Chad1983 on January 26th, 2010
If homosexual marriage is legalized, certainly polygamy should be legalized. However, just like with homosexual marriage, it would complicate certain legal matters but that's still no reason to discriminate.
by Felix on January 26th, 2010
Will this new concept of marriage make us evolve or degrade? Will it do anything to our culture at all? It will, it will show everyone regardless of age, race, gender, religion, or anything else that we have choices as free Americans. I don't fear that gay marriage will lead to a jump in homosexuality in the youth.
Interesting site here, http://www.trueorigin.org/gaygene01.asp
by Chad1983 on January 26th, 2010
I am not sure what your point is Chad. I do not have a problem with polygamy. So long as they are all consenting adults.
by Gingerminx on January 26th, 2010
Seems that those supporting gay marriage would support polygamy. This is a real big issue for the bible toting section of our nation. Legalize same sex marriage and polygamy, I could care less, but there is a huge opposing force to this concept. We are a constitutional republic with democratic values, which means we can vote for or against something as long as the result is constitutional. My point is there is a lot more to this issue than equality for gays. It has to do with the preservation of traditional marriage, while providing equality to all under the protections of the constitution, as well as being an example of freedom and democracy for the rest of the world to follow. How we choose to handle this issue as a nation will be the standard for the rest of the Christian world. I believe something like 6 countries in the world recognize same-sex marriage. The US is a militant force in many countries opposed to homosexuality, and legalization of same-sex marriage would fuel some hatred. Still that is not a good reason to keep it away. You don't have convince me to support gay marriage, you need to convince the people who are religiously opposed to it. The Bible can make people do/say some stupid things. It is those people you need to focus on. Gays will get their rights, it will happen, many people will hate it, a small minority will love it. This will open the doorway for all sorts of discrimination lawsuits, hate speech legislation, and a new branch to be added to the bureaucracy. The hate speech thing is what has me worried. If we lose freedom of speech because gays are too sensative about the words people they don't respect use to define them, I feel, we all will lose out and become the victims of self-interest via a minority group. The gay community has an agenda, they are a political group. By giving them acknowledgement the existing political parties relinquish some power and grant it to an opposing force. This is why it is met with such hard scrutiny. We can go here and there with this topic, which is why it is such a long debate. The biggest reason people won't support it? They don't know where it is heading. "What is next after this?" Does the gay community just want same-sex marriage rights? If they just want to get married then get married. But they don't, they want more money. That is what all of this boils down to, how gay people can protect their money. Property rights, insurence coverage, death benefits, and tax benefits. Money, money, money, and money. People say this issue is about love and overcoming hate, looks to me like it is about money. This group wants more money so they can have a louder voice. Being gay is somewhat taboo, let's go to imagination land for a moment, what if gays ran commercials looking to get campaign contributions for their cause? In these commercials gay people would be everywhere, they would be holding hands, kissing each other and hugging. There would be children. Children of gay parents would speak out about how they are normal. The overall message would be how it isn't fair and equal just yet, because gays don't have the power to control. This would be on primetime television, people morally opposed to homosexuality would have to shelter their children from TV(you know these people they just watch Jesus TV) because for them human sexuality isn't someting children should discuss until they are old enough to understand it. The commercialization of homosexuality in the mainstream media will only garner support for their causes, it will become less and less taboo, until it is accepted as normal. I know I said let's go to imagination land for a moment, but in reality what has happened over the last 30 years? There has been slow and gradual indoctrination underway. The corporations control markets. Pop culture influences thoughts. Music opens minds. Who started this gender blurring? Who was a popular homosexual or bi-sexual in the late 60s to early 70s? Andy Warhol, which led to Da
by Chad1983 on January 26th, 2010
Andy Warhol, which led to David Bowie. Bowie started the confusion, he was young, rich, talented, and Bi. Americans saw him with women, they doubted he was gay, but he was Bi. This guy paved the way for hair bands. Freddie Mercury had a legion of fans, still does, but lost some when he came out. Next, Boy george. This gender bender made being seemingly gay cool. Then the 90s hit. Gay movies: The Birdcage, Chasing Amy, Velvet Goldmine, and Philadelphia just to name a few. Madonna stuck around and kept her Bi ways up, we kept watching. The 2000s had Gays everywhere. MTV put them all over the place. Britney kisses Madonna, Selma Blair makes out with Sara Michelle Gellar, and Jake Gyllenhaal makes out with Heath Ledger. And most recently Adam Lambert shocks the AMA's by kissing a dude keyboardist dressed like a chick. Rosie, Ellen... Mainstream media indoctrinates us. Science doesn't know if it is nature that causes homosexuality or if it is the experiences and stimuli of life that does, or if it is a combination of the two. Until we do, this issue will remain a controversial one because of the fears it places in a society that needs more and more consumers to grow the economy and the culture. More consumers means people need to produce offspring. I will stop for now.
by Chad1983 on January 26th, 2010
Your comments do not seem to make sense to me. There is always people having children, more than the world seems comfortable supporting. Also, there are gay people having children as well. Where will it stop you ask, well, the same questions were asked when coloured people were allowed to be free, when coloured people were given the same rights as white people, when coloured people were allowed to marry white people, when women were given the vote, where it leads is to change and equal rights for all humans. I do not see that as a bad thing.
As to the money side of things, I beleive in the US that is different to where I live because being married hasn't granted me any more money than being single did. The only benefit I get is that when my husband is sick or incapable of giving consent to medical needs I can have a say because I am his wife, but thats not monetary and can be done with a power of attorney. As to seeing gay people on TV, its there already, and has been for some time. They would no more have to shelter their children than people today have to already and lets face it, it is a parents job to be aware of what our children view and to give them a good grounding so they can make their own choices about it.
I do not see gay rights as any more political than any other minority group that had to fight for the same rights as everyone else.
I think your last statement hit the nail on the head, it all comes down to fears, just as the idea of setting the slaves free came down to fears, but should we allow fear to rule society?
by Gingerminx on January 26th, 2010
I am not really pro or anti on this one. I was trying to display how pop culture alters our opinions. The gradual introduction of homosexuality into the mainstream has done more for the cause than anything else. That was the point of my rant. When I make statements without my rationale attached it usually doesn't go well. Fears hold us back. Pop culture addresses those fears through entertainment. We believe what we see. I don't like it when people compare the emacipation of slaves to same sex marriage rights. There are no where near the same league issues. I find it rather disturbing actually. 99 times out of 100 the person that makes that comparison is white. Not that being white is bad, but the point you make helps to illustrate disconnect between two groups. In your case, your disconnect from slaves and what had to be endured to grant them personhood is similar to the disconnect the anti-same-sex marriage group has from the pro-same-sex marriage. The anti community has no idea what the struggles are, they are struggling enough as it is. Imagine the sense of betrayl some of these peole must feel from their government. But we must also imagine the lack of compassion homosexuals must feel from the government and their neighbors. As far as gays being on TV already, I think I pointed that out with several examples. I was trying to show how the fantasy world I constructed is in fact the our real waking enviroment. The introduction of homosexuals into our mainstream media is what has driven this issue to the fore. Without the support of TV and the corporations none of this would have been possible. And your example of a medical emergency relating to your husband is the one benefit that is not tied directly to money. Outside of it though... Fears, yes fear is what keeps same-sex marriage from getting placed into practice. We can agree on that. As a woman I don't see how you can compare women's sufferage to this either. And you are correct people will have kids after this, gays will have kids, that isn't what I was saying would cease, I was trying to show you what the fears are in the anti mind. I don't share their views, I just listen to them. Their opinions are worth hearig, they are people. For me personally, as soon as homosexuality can be determined through genetics same-sex marriage should be legal. Until then it is a choice. We all have sexual urges. Whether we act on them is another question.
by Chad1983 on January 26th, 2010
If they identified a rape gene in people we wouldn't allow those people to just go around feeding their sexual urges. We expect them reform and resist raping people. This is comparable to homosexuality in that both have to do with sociatal norms and accepted sexual activity. Rapist are imprisoned when they are caught. Homosexuals are not. They used to be. Not anymore. Sexual urges are an interesting discussion to get into. Until genetic evidence is provided to support a predisposition toward sexual feelings I don't see this debate ending anytime soon. I think we are all capable of sex with either gender in the right situation. If I am right it boils down to choice and external factors, if gays are right it is in the DNA. It will be interesting to see who is right about this one.
by Chad1983 on January 26th, 2010
Okay, I understand what you are saying a little better now. I compared homosexuality with slaves and womens suffrage only in respect of all of them having to fight to be allowed the rights everyone else takes for granted, not comparing which may have suffered the most. So you will assume it is a choice until there is proof that satisfies you? I am not sure why it should matter anyway. I know other peoples views, I have listened to them, they are based on fear as you say and not really valid.
by Gingerminx on January 26th, 2010
I tl;dred most of your ridiculous and unnecessary argument, but...
Chad, being "capable of sex" has nothing whatsoever to do with sexuality. Homosexual does NOT mean "I can have sex with the same sex," it means "I'm psychologically attracted to the same sex."
Also, it's very difficult to determine genetic evidence for this, since sexual arousal in general has no visible biological basis. As far as we can see with the brain, sexual arousal is biologically exactly the same as every other emotion.
by Siyanor on January 27th, 2010
I will not vote on this if it comes up. I have only made two arguments, 1. Pop culture and the media are largely responsible for the exposure same-sex marriage and the LBGT community are receiving, and 2. Fear is the the culprit that keeps same-sex marriage away. Other than that I don't really make arguments. If you believe pop culture and the media are not resposible for the attention this issue is receiving, then prove it or back up your statements along with some sort of an opinion. Same thing goes for the other. Sexuality has to do with what sexual experiences one is willing to engage in to understand their own sexual needs and desires. I will try to illustrate my point. If a woman finds women attractive but does not wish to live a gay lifestyle and would rather be with a man, who she is also attracted to, and live as a heterosexual what is she. She lives her whole life without ever acting on her desires. She is happy with her life and has children, then when she is old and grey her husband dies and she is free to do as she wishes, so she remains single until her own death. In her lifetime she never engaged in homosexual activity although she had homosexual urges. Is she a homosexual? Is she bi-sexual? Is she heterosexual? People say it is whatever you identify yourself as. This woman identifies herself as heterosexual even though she has homosexual urges. Because those urges never found outward expression she never knew what being with another woman would be like or if she would in fact like it more than wth a man. She only thought about it. Let's say she masterbated to lesbian porn, does this count as homosexuality. All of this is to show how we are all in a society that places pressures upon us and causes us to do things or think a certain way, that we may not entirely agree with, but the pressures control our decision making from time to time. What if it was flipped? What if she was best friends with a few lesbians and they pressured her to go to a gay bar, where she became intoxicated and ended up going home and having sex with another woman, this is her first sexual experience and she will never have sex with a man. This woman then continues to date women and she tells everyone she knows she has a girlfriend. The hetero community now labels her as gay. Men won't touch her and her friends support her struggle to be gay in a hetero world and try to keep her in their community because it is small, and there are not ready replacements to fill her void if she were to leave the social circle. Same woman that was married to a man in another life, now only sleeps with women. But both instances show how pressures and external circumstances/influences can alter our perceptions. Would this woman be happy if she couldn't be with a woman? In both scenerios she gave into the culture she was in. Some women date women for years, then leave them all behind and marry a man. This is true of men too, this seems to show we have wavering sexual desires. We have things happen that change us. What is that? Are these people bisexual? They never in their life had sex with both genders at the same time in their life. What are they? I believe these people were gay once, but then became hetero. Some would say they are gay because they had sex one time with a person of the same sex. Others would call them bi. But none of that matters, because the person gets to say what they are. This shows choice. Just because people feel one way about something now, it doesn't mean they will feel that way forever. Ever met a gay woman that was unattractive and had horrible experiences with men, she was treated like shit and abused, then after a few times of going through that she developed fears about men. She didn't trust them and did not want to hurt anymore, yet she had a need for companionship. Then all of the sudden this hetero woman is gay. She goes out and finds a woman who shared similar experiences with men and the two get together and feel safe. Trust
by Chad1983 on January 27th, 2010
Who they trust and who makes them feel good is who they stay with. I have met women like this. They don't trust me, they don't want to know me, they don't like me. I did nothing to them, but I am a threat to their happiness because I am a man. Would my "friend" be this way if she hadn't had such horrible experiences in her youth? Probably not, but maybe. Scenerios like these are what give the anti community clout. Sure we can look at gay people who are gay at 4, but how much of that is them and how much of it is society? A feminine male child is thought to be gay if we treat them as gay and assumethey are, we place expectations upon them, whether we intended to or not. Our judgemental eyes are cmmunicating non-verbally, our body languange, everything will influence how a youth views an adult. Locating a gay gene would end all of the debate about wether or not it is natural or learned, or a combination. It would be interesting to see if our DNA mutates when people engage in sexual activity, or if other physiological changes occur, this would be freaky. More than anything the reason I would like DNA evidence is because you really can't argue with it. You can argue with people, you can't really argue with concrete reproducible scientific data. People like exceptions though, people constantly look for loopholes, so we can assume that even with DNA evidence people will still fight this. For me, that will end the debate. Without it, it appears experience coupled with desire dictates action. Which means the things that happen when we feel a certain way about something cause us to do and act as we do.
by Chad1983 on January 27th, 2010
In which case you can make the same claim about heterosexuals. Yet they are allowed to marry. I do understand what you are saying and I am not trying to change your point of view.
by Gingerminx on January 27th, 2010
What I need to validate homosexuality, as a person who will not vote on the legalization of same-sex marriage, is DNA evidence just because that would take away doubt in my mind. For others DNA evidence means nothing. Personally I have always thought it was BS gays and polygamists can't marry. All of my responses are due to my habit of observing and reporting. People should be free to do what makes them happy. I feel like the Bible has a little too much power over this nation, but at the same time it has gotten us to here. I am a spectator on this issue, I watch from the sidelines and wait for a decree. It is all I can do. I have no idea what legislation is proposed. Who am I anyway?
by Chad1983 on January 27th, 2010
Someone with a voice and a vote.
by Gingerminx on January 27th, 2010
Can gay Kiwis marry?
by Chad1983 on January 28th, 2010
Ginger,
I looked it up, here is a map you might be interested in, scroll down and look at the Key so you can look at how horrible it is in some countries. America isn't that bad.
by Chad1983 on January 28th, 2010
I should probably give you a link, huh?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_homosexuality_laws.svg
by Chad1983 on January 28th, 2010
Laughs it would help. I will bookmark i as I am heading to bed right now. They can not marry but can have a civil union which grants them all the same rights as a marriage.
by Gingerminx on January 28th, 2010
Wait..what? A civil union grants the same rights as a marriage in NZ?
Why the hell can't the US do this, then?
by Siyanor on January 28th, 2010
Apparently it does from what I have read on our government site. I still don't see why they can't call it marriage. That was an interesting link Chad.
by Gingerminx on January 28th, 2010
1) Religious marriage is a religious institution, civil marriage is a state institution.
2) "Marriage is a social, religious, spiritual, or legal union of individuals."
"Marriage is an institution in which interpersonal relationships (usually intimate and sexual) are acknowledged by the state or by religious authority. It is often viewed as a contract. Civil marriage is the legal concept of marriage as a governmental institution, in accordance with marriage laws of the jurisdiction."
"A marriage is usually formalised at a wedding or marriage ceremony. The ceremony may be officiated either by a religious official, by a government official or by a state approved celebrant. In many European and some Latin American countries, any religious ceremony must be held separately from the required civil ceremony. Some countries – such as Belgium, Bulgaria, the Netherlands and Turkey – require that a civil ceremony take place before any religious one. In some countries – notably the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland, Norway and Spain – both ceremonies can be held together; the officiant at the religious and civil ceremony also serving as agent of the state to perform the civil ceremony. To avoid any implication that the state is "recognizing" a religious marriage (which is prohibited in some countries) – the "civil" ceremony is said to be taking place at the same time as the religious ceremony. Often this involves simply signing a register during the religious ceremony. If the civil element of the religious ceremony is omitted, the marriage is not recognised by government under the law."
"Despite a marriage ceremony being conducted by a religious or civil official, most religious traditions maintain that the marriage itself is the act of the individuals themselves, either as a form of contract or as an exchange of vows, with the guests acting as witnesses"
Not that fuck-hard to understand.
by uhhu on February 27th, 2010
by user deleted
on December 16th, 2009
voted:
No
See to the Beam in your own eye.
http://www.republicanoffenders.com/
by Moongrim on January 18th, 2010
How can you compare those two things together?
Raping is wrong because the child/adult is being attacked and forced to do things beyond his/her will but a gay couple consent to sex the same as a straight couple.
Being gay is the same as being straight the only difference is the sex the person is attracted to.
by ratcliffe on January 19th, 2010
He secretly WANTS to be able to do the things that Gay folks want. He's just not man enough to admit to it Ratcliffe.
by Moongrim on January 19th, 2010
EarthDragon - you are either a moron or a troll
by Waiting for Illumination on January 25th, 2010
Earthdragon is just another Republican, he's probably a Log Cabin Republican wannabe.
by Moongrim on January 25th, 2010
Personally, I prefer the choices I gave him, since there are Republicans out there who actually make some sense - they don't wear drool cups and can pass for human beings. This guy is just either colossally stupid (hence, "moron") or a troll.
by Waiting for Illumination on January 25th, 2010
Why does gay sex equal rape? How is that even comparable?
by Chad1983 on February 21st, 2010
So... gay is rape? WOW. You know, I'm sure that there are plenty of heterosexual couples out there who have anal sex that is just as intense as gays do it.
by Anonymous on March 23rd, 2010
How could you possibly compare homosexuals to the rape of children? THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH GAY PEOPLE!!!!!!
by KavaMai on April 10th, 2010
It is the nature of demagogues to demonise their opponents.
by Moongrim on April 10th, 2010
but... they are just like us... inlove ok? they just love each other. :(
by :)smiles4rs on June 24th, 2010
Hmmm...I'm gay. I don't rape children....
by Andrew_C6734 on May 22nd, 2011
There is a difference of consenting to forcing on another.
.
And the bible condones rape.
by Zenrean on April 10th, 2012
by Sodapop
on December 16th, 2009
voted:
Yes
tell them!! cause you are right we should be more worried about how this country is in debt and how we can't even pay places like china their money but we can buy things we dont need. try any talk about ways to help the economy and ourselves. leave it alone.
by rperry20 on February 10th, 2010
Good answer
by Chad1983 on February 28th, 2010
by Stu B in his light spring COAT
on December 10th, 2009
voted:
Yes
i love my dog, should i be able to marry it?
by Questionbag on December 11th, 2009
Hopefully more people will think like this in the near future. End the hate!
by Nutsy_Rail on December 13th, 2009
If you have romantic feelings for your dog I would seek psychiatric attention instead of hating homosexuals. This is not your answer.
by Nutsy_Rail on December 13th, 2009
Your answer is premised on an impossible logical fallacy. State recognition of marriage only exists because the state dictates who can marry. If the state eliminates state sponsored marriage, it is dictating that nobody can marry. If the state sass anyone can marry, it is likewise dictating you can marry.
…
Put simply: since state sponsored marriage is created (or not created) by the state, the state will always dictate who can marry.
by OhLook - IamNoLongerAnonymous on December 14th, 2009
"End the hate." What a slogan. Why do you hate traditional marriage? "Live and let live." Another good one. If you want to let things live and allow others to live their own way, why doesn't the same sex community leave traditional marriage alone and come up with their own marriage practice that doesn't kill traditional marriage. Seems hypocritical to me. "If you have romantic feelings for your dog I would seek psychiatric attention instead of hating homosexuals." Why do you think people that engage in beastiality are crazy? People said that about gays you know. It was a psychological disorder, I can't believe you hate people who love their dogs. People have been engaging in beastiality forever. People are just born that way, get over it, stop the hate. If people want to marry their dog you should let them, live and let live. End the hate. The same sex crew uses whatever is convenient for them to make others look as though they hate, we can all do this. You hate the idea that marriage is between a man and a woman, so you seek to change it. Hate is hate, just because you hate something doesn't mean others hate you. They just love what marriage is, wouldn't you defend what you love? Get your own marriage practice, quit trying to change what people love, thus making them fight you. Ask for same-sex marriage or civil unions. Don'task to change the definition of marriage, that isn't fair, and it certainly isn't a "live and let live" mentality, it is a kill and let live mentality disguised as "live and let live", because the old definition will die, and a new one will be put in it's place. Your just a hypocrite. Many people are, I am at times, but it is the job of the strong willed topoint out our ingnorance from time to time and show us the error of our ways. Ask for something different, because gays are different, they are gay. That is ok, people can be different, difference is a good thing, quit fighting to get everyone lumped into one category. That is unhealthy.
by Chad1983 on December 17th, 2009
by Slythyr
on December 17th, 2009
voted:
Yes
it's not that simple. marriage is not what they want. they have civil unions that will do the same thing. what they are trying to force us to say is that it is normal and it is not. if they receive the don't ask don't tell in the military. don't you know that on friday night after coming in off patrol or being in a defensive position, everyone gets showered up and two guys go and put on tight leather pants with the butt out and lip stick. then when everyone is stumbling back to the barracks at three in the morning. there is this guy in bed with another guy drunk. how are you gonna respect that on monday and who do you think is gonna want to share a little pup tent with him. now multiply that number times a hundred thousand
by joegb on March 15th, 2010
by Don Gorgeous George
on December 14th, 2009
voted:
Yes
Baddabing! He's got it. This is the history of america. People who think something is not right rallying against it even though it's perfectly alright and not harming them. Selfishness is the core of American "values" no matter how you rephrase it.
by MasterDebater on December 15th, 2009
by afeninelson on December 12th, 2009
I'm america that should be irrelavent, but ther was a time when blacks could not marry and that was due to religon as well.
by nikkidascorpio on December 15th, 2009
Why does an imaginary god get a huge say, but the people who are primarily going to be affected by this (the homosexuals themselves) only get a minor say in this?
by Isaac on December 18th, 2009
Prove God exists, then I will agree...oh wait you can't...aaahhhh, sorry don't agree lol.
by Weird Science on December 19th, 2009
People are born gay so how do you know that's what God intended? Maybe God just wants ppl to love him and be good ppl and wants his ppl to be happy.
by Funkycherry on January 3rd, 2010
Then why did the Catholic church perform gay marriages?
by Moongrim on January 18th, 2010
You first would have to prove your god real.
by Zenrean on April 10th, 2012
by Aristocles
on December 11th, 2009
voted:
Yes
by Isaac
on December 11th, 2009
voted:
Yes
god blessed America, NOT gays
by 13245649g on December 15th, 2009
By "god", which god do you mean? The christian god? He neevr mentioned anything about america at all in his supposed bibical texts so how could he "bless" a place he never mentioned? Plus, there's no valid evidence to show he exists.
By "America" do you mean USA, or the continent of America? If you mean USA then say so. You probably do, most homophobes come from there.
by "NOT gays", then assuming that god exists, and you're reffering to the christian god, AND assuming the bibical texts are accurate in the right places, then you would be correct, god is a homophobic bigot, who recommended the death pelenty for thought crimes, insignifigant crimes that aren't defined as "cimres" today, and a lot of other so-called "sins". That begin said, there's the same amount of evidence showing that god exists that the floating invisible squid that I just made up exists: none at all.
by Isaac on December 18th, 2009
I wonder why the american bigots say "god bless america", and not any of the other countries that WEREN'T mentioned at all in the bible. Did he not bless France? The UK? Why only USA? Why would god bless one country, but not another? Why would god possibly "bless" (whatever THAT does) the USA but not UK?
How do you know god "blessed" america? He didn't say he did, that's just a saying the american theists made up, so it has no meaning in reality whatsoever.
by Isaac on December 18th, 2009
Maybe I've just misinterpreted everyone since I was young, but I think the actual phrase is "God bless America" which I think implies one asking God to bless America.
I agree with you though, Isaac, on all your points.
by inspiredartist on January 12th, 2010
Yes, that is the phrase, although I didn't think it was a demand, not that that would make any more sense.
by Isaac on January 12th, 2010
by OhLook - IamNoLongerAnonymous
on December 11th, 2009
voted:
No
What is that purpose?
by Reptar on December 11th, 2009
To facilitate procreation and the best interest of children. This is why the inability to procreate is grounds for an annulment. This is why incestuous marriages are illegal. This is why married couples with grossly disparate income get a tax break.
by OhLook - IamNoLongerAnonymous on December 11th, 2009
You're wrong. Inability to procreate is not grounds for annulment where I live. Marriage is not to facilitate procreation because people can reproduce outside of marriage. It merely gives a legal standing to the marriage. This should be for all.
by Gingerminx on December 12th, 2009
First, if you live in America, it is grounds for annulment. Inability to procreate is grounds for annulment in every state in America. What state are you in?
…
Second, your argument that “people can reproduce outside of marriage” is true, but irrelevant to this conversation. When we analyze a law, we look for legislative intent (i.e. why did the legislature create a right or prohibit an act). In the case of marriage, that reason was to promote the nuclear family in order to decrease the harm that results from unsupported children.
…
Yes, state sponsored marriage gives legal standing to marriage. But the government has no place regulating marriage unless it prevents harms or furthers some public policy. So do you have any evidence (not just an agenda) that supports your viewpoints on marriage?
by OhLook - IamNoLongerAnonymous on December 13th, 2009
So, when a women reaches menopause its grounds for annulment? Hog-wash
by Closed Account on December 15th, 2009
Of course not. You can try to argue any logical fallacy you want, but you are still relying on a logical fallacy. In every law there are people who will be included that do not narrowly fit the purpose of the law. This is because lawmakers make systemic policy.
…
Look, I am a lawyer by trade. I do not reach conclusions based on some personal agenda. My viewpoint is based in the legislative intent of the law. If you disagree with my conclusions, then why not make a meritorious argument supporting your view?
…
For example, if marriage is not about children, why does the law in every state say that a marriage may be voided if one of the spouses has an inability to engage in coitus? There is absolutely no requirement that you love your spouse, or even like your spouse, but you have to be able to engage in intercourse capable of producing a child. Similarly, every state bans marriage between closely related relatives because children created through such a union have a high likelihood of birth defects. If marriage is about love, and not about protecting children, why do we have such laws?
by OhLook - IamNoLongerAnonymous on December 15th, 2009
So people who are infertile should not be allowed to marry? And perhaps you're not aware but there have been plenty of scientific advances that allow gay couples to procreate. And if you look at multiple studies which have been done, children of homosexuals are no more likely than the children of heterosexuals to have issues with their sexual identity, personal development areas other than sexual identity, or be abused by their parents or friends of their parents. Look at the facts, eh? I sure hope you never have to represent me in court.
by inspiredartist on January 12th, 2010
I love it when people end comments with “Look at the facts, eh,” yet their comments are comprised of fabricated information. You are only going to fool ignorant people by making facts to support an agenda.
“And perhaps you're not aware but there have been plenty of scientific advances that allow gay couples to procreate.” Really. Can you cite a single example of a child alive today whose DNA is derived from two people of the same sex? Although this may be possible someday, today it is not.
“And if you look at multiple studies which have been done, children of homosexuals are no more likely than the children of heterosexuals to have issues….” I would suggest you actually read these studies. Every study ever conducted on the subject of whether being raised by BOTH BIOLOGICAL PARENTS is better for the child than being raised by one or both non-biological parents have concluded that the best interest of the child is being raised by BOTH BIOLOGICAL parents.
“So people who are infertile should not be allowed to marry?” Generally, no. Again, the purpose of marriage law is to encourage procreation within a union well equipped to care for the child. People generally do not learn about infertility until after they try to procreate, but are unable to conceive. Thus, if someone’s permanent infertility was readily apparent, then the answer is yes. But in all other cases (which is the vast majority of cases), the answer is no.
So I would suggest you “Look at the facts, eh.”
by OhLook - IamNoLongerAnonymous on January 12th, 2010
And I love comments like this: “I sure hope you never have to represent me in court.” Do you really think that this comment does anything to support your view? Moreover, do you really think I care if you would want me to represent you or not?
The reality is that most attorneys probably would not want to represent you. I personally prefer institutional clients because they are logical and rational. Everyone who consults an attorney feels they have been wronged in some way. However, most of the time, they have not been wronged.
In fact, when I was in law school trying to figure out what area of law I wanted to practice, the only thing I knew for sure was I did not want to practice family law. Family law is the one area of law that rarely has logical litigants on each side. This whole conversation is a perfect example of this. In your head you have a perception of what state recognized marriage is, and based on that perception, you are arguing for what you think is right. The problem is that your perception is not based on legal facts.
This is no different from the wife who seeks a divorce because the husband cheated and wants to keep all the property for punishment against the husband. It does not matter to the wife that the law calls for an equal distribution of the property, because in her mind the “right” thing to do is to punish the cheating husband.
by OhLook - IamNoLongerAnonymous on January 12th, 2010
I was not implying that the scientific advances meant that a couple of the same sex could procreate together, but there is a such thing as artifical insemination, through which process one of them could procreate and have a child. If it's two men, they could have a surrogate, for two women, they could even be the surrogate for the other one's offspring! There are plenty of options. How about all the gay couples who adopt children? Is it so wrong of them to give a child a second chance and a loving home? Who are you to say they don't deserve the benefits of marriage?
And I actually have read some of those studies, because I wrote my college Psychology final on nature and nurture in sexual orientation.
So it's not "fabricated information." And I already know how screwed up the courts and their systems are from firsthand experience, and I don't give a crap about the legal facts. The fact is that it is unequal treatment and discrimination of an entire community of people. Not so long ago, women were discriminated against, and pretty much every race that wasn't white. The LGBTQ community is in the same position now, so who's to say that it's not gonna change for them too?
It was out of place for me to comment on your representation abilities, and I apologize for that. However, you're getting just as personal and are on the exact same level by implying that I am not logical or rational.
And this is different in many aspects from the pissy wife situation that you give. This is about equality for people who deserve it.
by inspiredartist on January 12th, 2010
@ Ohlook, I do not live in the states, I come from New Zealand and the only grounds for divorce here is irreconcilable differences, and to prove it you have to live apart for two years before you can divorce.
by Gingerminx on January 12th, 2010
“but there is a such thing as artifical insemination, through which process one of them could procreate and have a child.” This is the exact thing the law seeks to avoid. Yes, a gay person (or a straight person) could have a child and rip that child away from one of its biological parents. Moreover, the government cannot ban this activity. However, what the government can do is pass laws that encourage people to only bring children into the world where it will be raised by both parents.
“How about all the gay couples who adopt children?” What about them? Marriage does not define parental rights.
“Is it so wrong of them to give a child a second chance and a loving home?”
Not at all. But again, marriage does not define parental rights.
“And I actually have read some of those studies, because I wrote my college Psychology final on nature and nurture in sexual orientation.” I believe that you read them, just not very carefully (or perhaps you are just trying to spin the results in order to fit your agenda). The issue at hand is what is in the best interest of the child: 1) the biological parents, or 2) gay parents where one parent may or may not be a biological parent. And every study on this question comes out the same way.
My guess is you are relying on studies that compared two sets of adoptive parents: one being gay, and the other not. These studies are certainly relevant to the question of whether gays should be allowed to adopt, but irrelevant to the legislative intent behind marriage law.
“and I don't give a crap about the legal facts.” I understand that, be will live in a civilized society with laws.
“The fact is that it is unequal treatment and discrimination of an entire community of people.” It is unequal treatment, but what is wrong with that? Does it upset you that men and women have different bathrooms? That is unequal treatment, too. Does it upset you that insurance companies pay more for women, on average, then men, because they pay for prenatal care that men do not incur? This is unequal treatment, too?
“The LGBTQ community is in the same position now, so who's to say that it's not gonna change for them too?” First, they are not in the same position. Second, someday it may change. But the topic of discussion is should it change (in regards to marriage).
“However, you're getting just as personal and are on the exact same level by implying that I am not logical or rational.” That is not true at all. I realize that you may feel personally attacked by me pointing out logical fallacies, but these are not personal attacks. You will never see me making an ad hominem attack. Whether or not something is logical is a factual matter. If I attack your argument based on logic, that is nothing more than a refute to your argument.
For example, suppose that I said A+A=4, A+B=5, and B+B=8 (using the same base 10 number system we all know). You could respond in many ways. One way would be to say that I am an idiot. Of course, this would be an illogical personal attack (i.e. argumentum ad hominem) because it does not address the merits of what I said. In other words, even if I am an idiot, my answer could still be right. Alternatively, you could say that my assertion is illogical. In this case you would be right. If A+A=4, and A+B=5, B+B cannot logically equal 8. Although I may be offended that you said my assertion was illogical, your comment would still be meritorious because it directly refutes my assertion.
“And this is different in many aspects from the pissy wife situation that you give.” But it is not. The bottom line is that you want to ignore the law to support an agenda, just as the pissy wife wants the court to ignore the law to fulfill her agenda of punishing the husband.
by OhLook - IamNoLongerAnonymous on January 12th, 2010
Ginger: How it is in New Zealand is generally how it is in most states in America. Although, most states only require you be seperatd for 6 months.
by OhLook - IamNoLongerAnonymous on January 12th, 2010
If that is the case OhLook then how can you state that not being able to have children is a case for annulment?
by Gingerminx on January 12th, 2010
Artificial insemination does not necessarily require the child to be ripped from one of it's biological parents. The biological parent who donated (either egg or sperm) can still be a part of that child's life in many ways, but that is up to the biological parents and the significant other to decide together.
I understand that marriage does not define parental rights, but what's so wrong with a loving, caring couple being able to take pride in being together for X amount of years and have that be recognized by the same government who recognizes heterosexual marriages?
To my knowledge, I am not spinning the results of those studies in any way. Would you like the links to a few of them? Perhaps my interpretation of them is just incorrect, but I'm not intentionally doing or saying anything to make it sound better for my argument.
Actually, the bathroom situation does bother me. I understand the premise behind separating men and women's bathrooms, but it's not exactly a priority for me to attempt changing. As for the insurance, I'm not in any way knowledgable about that so I don't have an answer for you until I understand what you're talking about completely enough to make a decision on my opinion.
What I meant by the LGBTQ community being in the same position is that it's a similar situation. They are discriminated against (as many races still are, and women used to be) and do not deserve that discrimination. It will change someday, and I understand the discussion is should it. To my understanding, marriage of a gay couple isn't going to negatively affect their children or their ability to procreate. That's the only argument I see you using, so I'm not going to get into the whole debate of what ignorant people think it's going to negatively affect. You say that marriage does not define parental rights, so what difference does it make to YOU if they can marry or not, if the children and procreation are the only thing you're worried about? I honestly do want to know because I really can't understand this argument, though I will admit it is more of a logical argument than some of the other ones that people throw around.
In that situation I probably would call you an idiot for lack of a better word, but only an idiot because those equations are illogical. And I freely use the word idiot for many descriptions.
It's not that I want to ignore the law to support an agenda, I want the law to be changed to support an agenda. I do think that the pissy wife is illogical, though.
by inspiredartist on January 12th, 2010
Ginger: Annulment and divorce are two separate things. Divorce is the procedure to end a valid marriage. Annulment is the procedure to have a marriage voided because it was invalid from the start.
by OhLook - IamNoLongerAnonymous on January 12th, 2010
“Artificial insemination does not necessarily require the child to be ripped from one of it's biological parents.” It does in the case of gay parents. Yes, the biological parent could still be part of the child’s life (although usually this is not the case), but that is no substitute to being raised by the biological parents.
“I understand that marriage does not define parental rights, but what's so wrong with a loving, caring couple being able to take pride in being together for X amount of years and have that be recognized by the same government who recognizes heterosexual marriages? “ Well, because recognizing same sex marriage would defeat the whole purpose for marriage law. The whole point is to encourage children to be born into a situation in which they will be raised and supported by the biological parents, or conversely, discouraging people from having children outside of that union. Allowing gay people to marry would encourage gay people to bring children into the world that will be stripped from at least one of its biological parents.
“To my knowledge, I am not spinning the results of those studies in any way.“ If you know of a study that found no difference between children raised by BOTH BIOLOGICAL PARENTS and gay step parents (or even straight step parents for that matter), please cite it.
“They are discriminated against (as many races still are, and women used to be) and do not deserve that discrimination.” Yes, they are discriminated against. However, the issue is not about deserving discrimination, the issue is whether or not there is a rational basis for that discrimination. Everyone likes to think of discrimination as a bad thing, but the reality is that we all discriminate every day. When you hire someone because they have better grades, or more work experience, that is discrimination. We allow, and expect, discrimination when the discrimination is not arbitrary.
Let me give you a perfect example. In the 1980s Congress passed a law that gave reparations to Japanese Americans who were placed in internment camps during WWII. These reparations were paid out until about 1993. Should I be entitled to collect reparations (note: I am white and was not even alive during WWII)? Congress is discriminating by only giving reparations to Japanese Americans who were held in internment camps, and discrimination is wrong. We should all be treated equally, right? Thus, I should be entitled to reparations.
Of course, the answer is I should not be entitled to the reparations because the purpose of the law (i.e. compensate people placed in internment camps against their civil rights) does not apply to me. Similarly, most marriage laws do not apply to gay couples.
“You say that marriage does not define parental rights, so what difference does it make to YOU if they can marry or not, if the children and procreation are the only thing you're worried about?” Again, because marriage encourages procreation, and it is in the best interest of the child to be raised by his or her biological parents. People do not marry because they are in love. Rather, they marry to create a new family unit.
“In that situation I probably would call you an idiot for lack of a better word, but only an idiot because those equations are illogical.” This is my point. Calling someone an idiot in response to an argument is, by definition, a logical fallacy. Even idiots are right some of the time.
“I want the law to be changed to support an agenda.” There is nothing wrong with that. However, in order to convince those who disagree with you, you need to couch your agenda into a valid criterion for regulation.
For example, the government has no place regulating love. So everyone who argues in favor of gay marriage on the basis that gay people love each other just as straight people do is making an irrelevant argument. Similarly, the ban on gay marriage in many st
by OhLook - IamNoLongerAnonymous on January 12th, 2010
@OhLook, they are about the same here and not being able to have children is not a reason for an annulment or divorce.
by Gingerminx on January 12th, 2010
Argue? Naw, I have better things to do.
by Closed Account on January 12th, 2010
Than waste my time with someone that enjoys harassing others.
by Closed Account on January 12th, 2010
Then American (and English) law varies from New Zealand. Out of curiousity, do you know why New Zealand regulates marriage?
by OhLook - IamNoLongerAnonymous on January 12th, 2010
http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/parenting.aspx
Starting on page 4 and concluding on page 7. That's mainly what I'm basing my statements that children of lesbian and gay parents do not have any more developmental problems or stigmatisms than those of heterosexual parents.
by inspiredartist on January 12th, 2010
@Black-Warrior. I don't quite understand who you are implying is harassing anyone else. We are simply discussing the topic in what I view as a relatively quiet debate. I will admit it started a little more argumentative, but not so much anymore. Both sides are entitled to our own opinions and we seem to have respected that quite well.
by inspiredartist on January 12th, 2010
As I expected, you are relying on irrelevant data to make your point. The sources you cite do not compare being raised by biological parents as opposed to step parents. The fact that there are no ill affects (which we will assume to be true) of a child being raised by non-biologically related step parents as compared to gay step parents only supports the conclusion that gay couples should be allowed to adopt. Marriage, however, is about promoting the conception of children only when the children will be raised by both biological parents. Marriage law has this goal because the government has deemed that being raised by both biological parents is in the best interest of children.
Is the government’s conclusion about being raised by biological parents correct? Well, there is not a single study that disagrees with its findings.
“Children growing up with stepparents also have lower levels of well-being than children growing up with biological parents.5 Thus, it is not simply the presence of two parents, as some have assumed, but the presence of two biological parents that seems to support children’s development.”
“research clearly demonstrates that family structure matters for children, and the family structure that helps children the most is a family headed by two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage. Children in single-parent families, children born to unmarried mothers, and children in stepfamilies or cohabiting relationships face higher risks of poor outcomes than do children in intact families headed by two biological parents.”
http://www.childtrends.org/files/MarriageRB602.pdf
The report I just cited (and quoted from) is a good read because it is not based on the debate we are having. It is not based on a person or organization for or against gay marriage. Not everything in the report is relevant to our discussion (e.g. kids being raised by single parents), but the facts regarding being raised by biological verses step parents is completely applicable.
I also suggest you read the actual studies cited in this report. Again, there has never been a study conducted that, all else being equal, concluded that step parents (gay or otherwise) are as good for the child as both biological parents.
by OhLook - IamNoLongerAnonymous on January 12th, 2010
@ OhLook, nope, really can not say why they regulate it. I imagine simply because they always have and we did start out as a colony of England and so therefore took on their laws. Perhaps it is merely for the legal aspects of child custody and medical and financial decisions a partner gets to make. I feel it is all rather a mute point considering that a civil union carries the same legal aspects and even if you have lived together for 3 years you get the same rights. I wonder if there is still some kind of religious influence as well.
by Gingerminx on January 12th, 2010
If your laws are based on English law, then the purpose of marriage in New Zealand is the same as the U.S.
“I feel it is all rather a mute point considering that a civil union carries the same legal aspects and even if you have lived together for 3 years you get the same rights.” In California, a civil union carries the same legal aspects as marriage as well.
Of course, this brings up another legal point that we have not addresses yet. So far we have been talking a bout “marriage law” as if it is a single law. However, the reality is that marriage law is actually hundreds or thousands of laws passed over time. Many of those laws are simply a line in the sand, and are not specific to heterosexual relationships. And accordingly, should apply to gay couples. Of course, this is why it is important to recognize civil unions as well as marriage.
by OhLook - IamNoLongerAnonymous on January 12th, 2010
I don't quite understand how the information in those pages is irrelevant data. To my understanding, when gay and lesbian couples are being compared to heterosexual couples it would include heterosexual couples of both biological and adoptive parents. It seems like the studies you present say that biological parents are the best for a child to be raised by, and mine say that homosexual couples are just as likely as heterosexual couples to provide an environment in which their children will be raised just as well. Which makes this discussion rather pointless because we're going to keep going back and forth citing studies and/or articles which refute the other's points. I think that your logic of looking at it is a hell of a lot better than any of the other arguments of seen, but my opinion remains the same. I'm a lesbian, and I plan on having kids someday and raise them better than plenty of hetersexual couples do.
by inspiredartist on January 12th, 2010
Therein lies your error. Most of the organizations that published studies on this subject did not collect their own data. Rather, they rely on the APA study (which did collect the data). The APA study clearly indicates that it compared children raised by homosexual parents with children raised in foster or step-parent arrangements.
“It seems like the studies you present say that biological parents are the best for a child to be raised by, and mine say that homosexual couples are just as likely as heterosexual couples to provide an environment in which their children will be raised just as well.”
This is correct. Now read what you wrote very carefully. My studies compare biological parents with non-biological parents. Your studies compare homosexual parents verses heterosexual (non-biological) parents. Again, if this discussion were about whether or not gay couples should be allowed to adopt, your studies would be on point. Again, you err in your assumption that heterosexual parents means biological parents.
“I'm a lesbian, and I plan on having kids someday and raise them better than plenty of hetersexual couples do.” This is the exact reason why we should not legalize gay marriage. It is rather selfish of you to have a child, by design, which will be ripped from its biological father.
by OhLook - IamNoLongerAnonymous on January 12th, 2010
Thanks for that. Thanks a whole fucking lot.
by inspiredartist on January 12th, 2010
Like it or not, the best interest of a child is to be raised by both of his or her biological parents. As much as you want to ignore the interests of the child in order to advance your interests, luckily there are still people in this world who will fight for the rights of those who do not have a voice.
by OhLook - IamNoLongerAnonymous on January 12th, 2010
@ OhLook, You say that in the US it is to have children, there is nothign in our laws that mention children as part of marriage at all. I think to tell Inspiredartist that they should not have a child as they would be ripping it from its biological father is a little mean spirited. She may be considering a donor or even having the biological father involved. As a child of divorced parents, I would have to say I would have preferred those options than what we went through.
by Gingerminx on January 13th, 2010
Ginger: Telling someone the law, or that the law does not apply to them, is not mean spirited. I realize that we are living in a time where most people wants people to candy coat everything, but at the end of the day we must all face the realities of life.
If a gay person wants to adopt a child and give that child a better life than they would have living in various foster homes or group homes, then more power to that person. In this situation you are helping a problem. However, if you are going to bring a child into this world with the intent of ripping that child from one or both of its parents, you are contributing to the problem and putting your desires in front of the best interest of the child. That is the reality. There is no way to candy coat it.
by OhLook - IamNoLongerAnonymous on January 13th, 2010
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-cap14-2010jan14,0,7348058,full.column
by inspiredartist on January 13th, 2010
@OhLook, you didn't tell her the law, you judged her and called her selfish wihtout even knowing what her plans were. There are many different family dynamics these days and many children who not only have loving parents, even if they are not together, but also have loving step parents and other adults in their lives. As I said, as a product of divorce I would much have preferred that.
by Gingerminx on January 13th, 2010
Inspired: Do you actually read the sources you cite? I suggest you read the article in its entirety, but let me point out some important points:
First, the author clearly states: “Not being a psychologist, anthropologist, cleric or attorney, I'm a little out of my league here. I'm merely a hack columnist … And admittedly I didn't pay much attention to the Proposition 8.”
Second, the author clearly states that his conclusions are based on various anecdotal points about why some people choose to get married, and he provides absolutely no analysis on legislative intent.
The reality is that most people who are against gay marriage, are against it because they think it is unnatural, or they are against it for religious reasons. But regardless of the reasons why any individual is for or against a law, the courts (and lawyers) jobs are to argue the law (i.e. legislative intent).
Third, Proposition 8, from a legal perspective, had nothing to do with marriage law. Proposition 8 was all about the right (or lack thereof) for California to amend its constitution by popular vote.
by OhLook - IamNoLongerAnonymous on January 13th, 2010
Ginger: I did tell her the law. We had numerous posts discussing the law. Moreover, my conclusion that she was selfish was based on the application of her facts to the law.
by OhLook - IamNoLongerAnonymous on January 13th, 2010
I'm still shocked that the land of the "free" has yet to set the stander for equal rights for all of its citizens. WTF is up with that?
by Reptar on January 14th, 2010
America does have equal rights for all its citizens. Every person who wants to marry into a relationship capable of producing children may marry. The law does not care if you are gay. The law does not care if you love the person you marry. Everyone is treated exactly the same.
by OhLook - IamNoLongerAnonymous on January 14th, 2010
"Every person who wants to marry into a relationship capable of producing children may marry" and the "gays" are left with??? Stop hiding behind your outdated laws....I expect that from some nations....but not yours.
by Reptar on January 14th, 2010
OhLook, can you show us where in your laws it states it must be a relationship able to produce children?
by Gingerminx on January 14th, 2010
Does it matter Gingerminx? If there is a law it's archaic and should be changed. if their isn't then it's all bull shit anyways. It's all about the legal definition of the word "Marriage". Their federal government hasn't got around to changing it yet it seems...which is sad really.
by Reptar on January 14th, 2010
It only to matters to me in that I would be interested in seeing the law OhLook says exists, and it maybe useful for those in the US to know the law so they can appeal it.
by Gingerminx on January 14th, 2010
Just because you do not agree with a law does not mean it is outdated. America has a strong interest in promoting strong nuclear families. A child raised by both of his or her biological parents in a stable household is far less likely to commit crimes or become dependent on welfare programs, and is far more likely to get an education and be a productive member of society.
…
Ginger: In America, marriage law varies by states, and is comprised of hundreds of thousand of laws. Thus, I cannot cite every law that makes this point. However, there are many law review articles that summarize laws across states, and provides the information you want. Here is the cite to one such article (7 Temp. Pol. & Civ. Rts. L. Rev. 285), I will provide you with some quotes from various articles at a later time (I don’t have time right t now to collect them).
And just to clarify, as my terminology was not precise in my last comment. It does not have to be “a relationship ACTUALLY able to produce children.” Rather, it has to be a relationship among which a offspring are theoretically possible.” As discussed earlier, this is because the law seeks to encourage people to avoid activities that could result in procreation until after marriage.
by OhLook - IamNoLongerAnonymous on January 14th, 2010
Reptar: Marriage law is exclusively state law. Congress can pass laws that recognize, or refuse to recognize marriage. However, Congress cannot legalize, or ban, gay marriage.
by OhLook - IamNoLongerAnonymous on January 14th, 2010
It's not that I agree or disagree with said law..the fact remains that it is out dated and should be changed. Thank you for the information about congress though...I always assumed the federal government could "veto" unjust laws of the state. So..is slavery still legal anywhere there?...Can you guys still legally beat your wifes? No..those "laws" were changed as it became apparent that to be a civilized there had to be equal right all around. The "nuclear" family you mentioned is a myth. The same was said 50 years ago about mixed race families. The USA is supposed to be the land of the free yet what your telling me is that your only free to marry if you have the ability to produce offspring...and that your government actually wants people to merry before they have had sex...(big mistake that) ..as if it's any of there business anyways. I was honestly shocked to hear that Gay marriage was not already excepted and endorsed by your Government. I knew you still kill people in the name of Justice...but I wasn't aware your nation still encourages bigotry. WTF? I am open to trying to understand why this is....but I don't think anyhting you say can ever make me believe that excluding people from same right as other rights is a good thing.
by Reptar on January 14th, 2010
Thank you OhLook. It would be useful if you can cite more or link to the laws as finding them maybe hard for me. I do not see how saying marriage requires the ability to procreate would stop people from having children anyway, it hasn't so far.
by Gingerminx on January 14th, 2010
What makes it outdated? An outdated law is a law that exists for a now moot purpose. However, the purpose of marriage is far from moot. Today we have more children than ever being born outside of a stable married relationship.
“So..is slavery still legal anywhere there?...Can you guys still legally beat your wifes? No..those "laws" were changed as it became apparent that to be a civilized there had to be equal right all around.” Your conclusion is inaccurate. The laws have changed because it is apparent that arbitrary discrimination is incompatible with a civilized society. Society recognizes, and expects, discrimination when there is a valid purpose for the discrimination. For example, I am allowed to practice law and you are not. The law discriminates in favor of me due to the fact that I have a law license. Of course, we allow this discrimination because the purpose of it is to ensure people are afforded competent representation.
“The USA is supposed to be the land of the free yet what your telling me is that your only free to marry if you have the ability to produce offspring...and that your government actually wants people to merry before they have had sex…..as if it's any of there business anyways.” Being a free country does not mean you don’t have laws and regulations. Government encourages activities and policies that result in a more civilized society. Children born in an environment that is less able to care for them, or educate them, or nurture them, results in higher governmental welfare, support, and law enforcement costs. Thus, it is there business.
America does not encourage bigotry. And again, America does not discriminate. Everyone is allowed to marry a person of the opposite sex. Nobody is excluded from this.
by OhLook - IamNoLongerAnonymous on January 14th, 2010
OhLook, marriage does not automatically mean a stable relationship, in fact, many are far from stable. The divorce rate is an indication of that. Marriage does not protect children.
by Gingerminx on January 14th, 2010
Ginger: I think you have a misunderstanding about how laws are written in Amerca. With the exception of federal laws, which have to indicate where the authority came to pass the law in order to protect against a Constitutional challenge, laws generally do not define their purpose.
You have to look at other sources to figure out what the legislative intent was.
“I do not see how saying marriage requires the ability to procreate would stop people from having children anyway, it hasn't so far.” It won’t stop everyone from procreating outside of marriage, but it does stop most.
Why do people get married? Gay marriage advocates like to say “because they are in love,” but that is simply not the case. Most people want to be in love before they marry, but being in love is not what drives them to marriage. Rather, the most common reason for a person to marry is because of the perception that you should be married before having kids. This is also why the vast majority of adults (although not teens) will rush to get married before birth if they accidentally get pregnant.
In fact, this point is reiterated at gay marriage rallies across the country. Even many gay couples argue that they want to marry because someday they want to have kids as well.
by OhLook - IamNoLongerAnonymous on January 14th, 2010
“ marriage does not automatically mean a stable relationship”
Nobody is arguing otherwise. But married relations are more stable far more often than unmarried relationships. Read the report I posted yesterday, it covers all of this.
This is another illogical argument. Just because a law or policy does not prevent (or cause) 100% of what the policy was intended to prevent (or cause), does not mean the policy does not help.
by OhLook - IamNoLongerAnonymous on January 14th, 2010
"Everyone is allowed to marry a person of the opposite sex. Nobody is excluded from this." ...and so you prove my point. I respect the fact that you have your own opinion of the matter....But if you support the above statement or more correctly the fact that it excludes same sex marriage...You're a bigot. Which really sucks because You seem like an otherwise intelligent human. This topic should not be a debate, same sex marriage should already be legal in your county...the fact that it's not is sign that you are unable to evolve as a nation in the face of change. I am not discriminated against...I can practice law if I chose to study it...Just like a gay couple should be able to wed if they so chose to. The fact that you say everyone has equal rights at the same time as stating that "Everyone is allowed to marry a person of the opposite sex. Nobody is excluded from this." is pure allusion. Have fun with your views..just note that they are planted in a bed bigotry.
by Reptar on January 14th, 2010
Ohlook, I disagree, it certainly does not stop most from having children outside of marriage. There are many many people who have children out of wedlock, not to mention the many who have abortions. In the past it certainly was the reason a lot of people got married, the stigma of being an unwed mother, but these days that stigma is not as present and many people have children out of wedlock. I disagree again, I know many people who live together in very happy relationships without marriage, and I again cite the divorce rate as an indication of happy marriages. I do not see how the policy helps.
by Gingerminx on January 14th, 2010
Reptar: A bigot is someone who is intolerant based on some prejudice. It is not bigotry to oppose someone advocating for special treatment, which is exactly hat you are doing. Marriage is an institution designed to promote a particular purpose, which purpose only applies to a man/woman relationship based on biology.
…
A person is more of a bigot for advocating that a law that does not apply to them should be applied to them, then the person advocating for actual equality.
…
“…the fact that it's not is sign that you are unable to evolve as a nation in the face of change.” This is an illogical conclusion. Your position is nothing more than you whining because gays are not giving special treatment above and beyond everyone else.
…
“I am not discriminated against...I can practice law if I chose to study it...” Perhaps you don’t understand what the word “discrimination” means. If you treat two people differently, that is discrimination. If I hire the “A” student over the “C” student I am discriminating. If I only hire people who went to my alma mater, I am discriminating. If I only allow people who have passed a bar exam to practice law, I am discriminating.
Here is another example: we discriminate against blind people by not letting them get a drivers license. This is discrimination. Is it a sign that you we are unable to evolve as a nation in the face of change because we don’t allow blind people to drive cars?
“Just like a gay couple should be able to wed if they so chose to.” This is a non-sequiter The law does not say that straight couples can marry and gay couples cannot. In fact, the law does not even regulate couples at all. Rather, all the law says is that a man may marry a woman and a woman may marry a man. Whether you are a gay man, or a straight man, you are still a man. Thus, the law is applied equally.
Similarly, the law only allows a person to marry one other. Is this discrimination? Yes. However, the purpose of state sponsored marriage is incompatible with polygamy, thus, this discrimination is justified.
by OhLook - IamNoLongerAnonymous on January 14th, 2010
You disagree based on what? Again, read the study that I linked to.
“In the early 1960s, less than 1 percent of children lived with a parent who had never married. By 2000, nearly one in ten children lived with a never-married parent.”
You can believe anything you want, but the actual data all points to one thing: state sponsored marriage encourages nearly 90% of people to not have children before marriage, and if people do get pregnant before marriage, it encourages them to quickly become married.
“…not to mention the many who have abortions.” Let’s mention those people. The number one reason people get an abortion is because they are not married, and not yet able to provide for that child. Unplanned pregnancies among married couples is the least likely scenario to result in an abortion.
“In the past it certainly was the reason a lot of people got married, the stigma of being an unwed mother, but these days that stigma is not as present and many people have children out of wedlock.” Yes, they do, which is exactly why this law is needed. Again, you are focusing on the wrong entity. Government recognizes marriage to promote a public policy.
“I disagree again, I know many people who live together in very happy relationships without marriage, and I again cite the divorce rate as an indication of happy marriages.” Perhaps your biggest problem is solely relying on anecdotal evidence. There are a multitude of studies that can provide you with some actual data. You should read some of them.
Moreover, you keep relying on the same logical fallacy. That is, you are assuming that just because a policy does not result in 100% compliance, the policy should be abandoned. Rape is illegal, yet people still rape, so should we just legalize rape? There is no doubt that traditional family values have been eroded over the last few deceased, which has resulted in huge burdens on society. This is exactly why government needs to, more than ever, promote policies that result in the smallest impact on society.
by OhLook - IamNoLongerAnonymous on January 14th, 2010
You lost me, why is the law needed? Because people are happily having children out of wedlock? That really doesn't make any sense. I do not assume that it should have 100% compliance, but at least 50% would be good and there is no evidence suggesting that it even has that. I saw your link on child trends but it was done in 2002 and rather out of date.
by Gingerminx on January 14th, 2010
Ginger: You are now arguing purely on agenda without any data to support your view.
What evidence do you have that more than 50% of births are out of wedlock? The census disagrees with you. Every study on the subject disagrees with you.
And besides, you are using a logical fallacy again. Again, the purpose of marriage law is to promote children being raised by a biological mother and biological father. Children who are born into a married relationship have a 70% of living their entire childhood with both parents. Children born to cohabiting, non-married, couples only have a 36% chance. (See Berthoud, R. and Gershuny, J., Seven Years in the Lives of British Families, London: The Policy Press, 2000). Children born to a gay parent have a 0% chance.
You are free to play ignorant all you want, but if you simply bothered to look at any of the empirical data available, it ALL points to one conclusion. Children whose parents are married are more likely to be raised by both biological parents than children whose parents are unmarried. Moreover, the majority of people who have children will PLAN to do so after they are married, and if an unplanned pregnancy occurs, most people will rush to get married before the birth, or shortly thereafter.
by OhLook - IamNoLongerAnonymous on January 15th, 2010
I never said 50% of children were born out of wedlock, I was asking for the proof that insisting on marriage for the purposes of having children meant that the children were born in wedlock. Just saying that more are born in wedlock doesn't prove it is because of that law. Sorry, not law, you said intent behind the law which I haven't seen yet. You are citing a study done on British families from 2000, a little out dated and irrelevant. I am ignorant? You are using out dated studies to try to prove somethign that is in fact unprovable. None of what you say proves that having a law stating that marriage is for procreation, which you yourself said actually wasn't the law but intent, means that people will have their children in wedlock. Simply because more people may have their children after marriage doesn't prove this law or intent is responsible for that.
by Gingerminx on January 15th, 2010
Just thought I'd jump in here since this is relevant. In the last few days there has been a trial going on in San Francisco, CA concerning Prop 8. They did not allow cameras to film inside, but there are two people who are using Twitter to discuss exactly what is going on, here are their links:
http://twitter.com/Chris_Stoll
http://twitter.com/NCLRights
The two sides are basically the same two you have got going on here, about the whole procreation debate and the kids being raised better by biological parents, which the plaintiffs are refuting very well. Today was the main start of the arguments concerning this, so you might have to go back pretty far to read from the beginning, but the defense (or however you refer to those who aren't the plaintiffs) took 2 times as long to do their cross as it took for the direct, and did not have anything at all for their side.
@OhLook, the study and facts cited by inspiredartist are nearly the exact same ones the plaintiffs are using, and not only are yours outdated, but are they peer-reviewed? Because the defense in that case has absolutely nothing to go on. Maybe you should give them some pointers since you're just so knowledgable about it!
(And I'm not sure if plaintiffs is the correct word in this situation either, so I apologize if I've used the term incorrectly.)
by Anonymous7721 on January 15th, 2010
“I never said 50% of children were born out of wedlock….”
Yeah you did. Allow me to quote: “Because people are happily having children out of wedlock? … I do not assume that it should have 100% compliance, but at least 50% would be good and there is no evidence suggesting that it even has that.”
“You are using out dated studies to try to prove somethign that is in fact unprovable.” Huh? How is it not provable? The U.S., and every other industrialized country, collects statistics on all aspects of their citizens lives. Moreover, there are thousands of expert organizations that use this data (and their own studies) to make conclusions. Just because you choose not to read any of this data does not mean it does not exist, nor that it is not provable.
“None of what you say proves that having a law stating that marriage is for procreation, which you yourself said actually wasn't the law but intent…” Again, perhaps you should pay attention to actual data, as opposed to blindly arguing your agenda. A law tells a person what they can or cannot do. For example, the law in California (and most states) states that a man can only marry a woman, and a woman can only marry a man.
The current debate is whether or not the law requiring that a person only marry someone of the opposite sex is discriminatory, or whether there is a rational basis for limiting marriage based on gender. To answer this question, we (or the courts) have to figure out what the intent of the legislature was in passing the law.
The way that we figure out “legislative intent” is to look at any evidence that indicates as much (e.g. legislature transcripts, other parts of the law that gives clues to the intent, etc.) . For example, you have probably heard people cite the Federalist Papers when arguing about the founding fathers intent behind the Bill of Rights. The Federalist Papers are not part of the law, but they were written founding father to explain (i.e. propagandize) the Constitution. Thus, is a good clue as to what the founding fathers intended for certain parts of the Constitution.
Of course, we also look at other complimentary laws, when deciding what a specific law means. For example, if Congress used the term “Gross Revenue” in two different statutes in the Tax Code, but only defines the term in one of the statutes, how do we figure out what was meant by the term in the other statute? Well, if we have two statues dealing with the same subject (taxation), both using the same term, it is a logical assumption that Congress meant them to mean the same thing.
Of course, when we look at the evidence regarding the origins of state sponsored marriage, we know that the legislature intended that marriage be a tool to promote the family unit by allowing for children.
Of course, we do not even need to determine the original purpose of marriage law. The reality is that we can change laws whenever we want, but the original inquiry stays the same. That is, is there a rational basis to limit he right to marry based on gender. If so, there is no discrimination. If not, then extending the right to marry only to heterosexual couples is unconstitutional.
“Simply because more people may have their children after marriage doesn't prove this law or intent is responsible for that.” You are right, which is why I never said it did. But the numerous studies that have studied the reason why people marry, and concluded that the primary reason is to create a new family unit in order to have kids, does prove it.
Look, if you disagree with any of my data, why not provide counter evidence. No matter how many studies I cite to you, I am willing to bet you will continue to argue your agenda despite having no data to the contrary. You are entitled to have any opinion you want, but many people in America (like me) prefer to make public policy decisions based on empirical data, not simply an agenda.
by OhLook - IamNoLongerAnonymous on January 15th, 2010
Anonymous7721: The issue in the case you are referring to boils down to the narrow issue I cited above. That is, is there a rational basis to treat genders differently in marriage.
Personally, I disagree with many of the arguments being made by the gay marriage opponents (those against gay marriage). Being gay is not a choice, so being raised by a gay couple won’t turn you gay. But even though most of the arguments are wrong, a few of them are right (primarily the ones I have argued above).
by OhLook - IamNoLongerAnonymous on January 15th, 2010
That was my whole. The only evidence you have given is a couple of out dated and irrelevant studies.
by Gingerminx on January 15th, 2010
Just because you proclaim them to be outdated and irrelevant does not make them so. But I notice that you have been unable to cite any study that supports your view. Again, some of us like to make policy decisions based on actual facts and data, rather than just an agenda.
by OhLook - IamNoLongerAnonymous on January 17th, 2010
The dates on your studies make them outdated not me. Show me the facts and data you base your decision on. I was merely doing as you were, stating the opposite with no evidence.
by Gingerminx on January 17th, 2010
I see you are still arguing with no facts, and only an agenda. Do you have any evidence tio support your assertion that the facts provided in my study are inaccurate. And FYI: the U.S. Census' 2009 data supports my assertion. But let me guess, 2009 data is outdates since it is now 2010, right?
...
But who needs facts when you have an agenda, right?
by OhLook - IamNoLongerAnonymous on January 18th, 2010
I have no agenda. Nice of you to assume though. Please link to the US 2009 Census as it is the first time you have mentioned it. I am guessing then you are arguing your case for the US only?
by Gingerminx on January 18th, 2010
It was my impression that the link inspiredartist posted was supportive of Gingerminx's side as well, or perhaps I am mistaken? Just thought I would point that out.
by Anonymous7721 on January 18th, 2010
Anonymous: The link was not supportive at all. The link referred to a study that compared homosexual step parents to heterosexual step parents. The issue at hand is whether or not there is any difference between biological parents verses non-biological parents.
by OhLook - IamNoLongerAnonymous on January 18th, 2010
The specific topic we are now talking about is whether people are compelled to marry before having children, or if a couple will be compelled to quickly marry as a result of getting pregnant unexpectedly.
…
Ginger, of course, has provided absolutely no evidence to support her contention that people are not compelled to marry before having children (but don’t confuse that with her having an agenda).
…
I, of course, cited a 2000 and 2002 study which directly contradicts Ginger’s agenda. Her response was merely that the study I cited is “outdated,” yet she is unable to cite any authority that would indicate that trends have changed in the last 7.5 years; nor can she cite any study that supports her view.
…
Now that you are up to speed, do you have any evidence to suggest that people are generally not compelled to marry before having children?
by OhLook - IamNoLongerAnonymous on January 18th, 2010
But since gay marriage has not been legal at all really (I know it was for awhile but not exactly enough time to complete any studies of their parenting) then how is studies of bio parents and/or non bio parents even relevant? Without any studies as of yet, it is impossible to say whether or not a married gay couple could raise children just as well, correct?
by Anonymous7721 on January 18th, 2010
Incorrect. There have been numerous studies that compared children raised by biological parents to non-biological parents, and 100% of the studies concluded that the best interest of the child is being raised by both biological parents. A gay couple, married or not, will never contain both biological parents.
by OhLook - IamNoLongerAnonymous on January 18th, 2010
OhLook, I have no agenda, as I said, I merely posed the opposite view citing as much to support it as you did. Again you are telling Anon that 100% of studies support your views on parenting, where is the evidence? Where is the link to the US 2009 Census you claim supports your view? They are not forth coming and so I must conclude you don't have them. All you can do is try to discredit me by continuing to claim I have an agenda.
by Gingerminx on January 19th, 2010
"All you can do is try to discredit me by continuing to claim I have an agenda."
No, I discredited you by citing a 2000 study, and a 2002 study, both of which you reject, but have failed to provide any evidence to support your rejection. I will happily engage in an intelligent debate with any one who wishes to have an intelligent debate. This, of course, requires opposing views based on actual evidence.
Now, if you have any evidence that contradicts the 2000 or 2002 study, or in the alternative, have any evidence that indicates the data presented in those studies are no longer accurate, then go ahead and cite your sources. However, if you are going to simply reject any evidence that I cite based on nothing more than your agenda, then there is no point in discussing this matter with you.
And FYI: The U.S. Census is publicly available and can be viewed by going to the U.S. Census website.
by OhLook - IamNoLongerAnonymous on January 19th, 2010
But there have been no studies of married gay parents, so it is impossible to know for sure that the outcome would be the same- with or without the parents being biological or not. We could logically make that assumption, but there is no way to absolutely know for sure. There could be differences in the way gay parents raise their children which also put the best interest of the child first- but there cannot be any studies to find out this information as of now.
by Anonymous7721 on January 19th, 2010
“There could be differences in the way gay parents raise their children which also put the best interest of the child first- but there cannot be any studies to find out this information as of now.”
This has already been studied. You are trying to conflate two separate issues. Being married is not relevant to the equation of whether being raised by biological parents have an advantage over non-biological parents. And again, gay parents will never be biological parents.
It has already been scientifically proven that being raised by both biological parents is advantageous to being raised by step-parents. Being gay and married does not make you a biological parent.
It is theoretically possible that gay parents could raise children differently in a way that is advantageous to a child compared to heterosexual parents, but this has already been studied as well (this is the APA study cited above), and no advantage was found.
I don’t know if you are simply trying to rationalize to support an agenda, or you truly believe this argument. But your argument indicates a misunderstanding of the scientific method. When scientists study cause and effect, what they do is isolate variables to determine actual cause. The advantage that comes from being raised by biological parents derives from the fact that they are raised by biological parents. If there was a separate advantage of being raised by gay parents, those advantages would have been identified when studies (like the APA study) were conducted.
by OhLook - IamNoLongerAnonymous on January 19th, 2010
My, everyone who disagrees with you or finds your evidence lacking must obviously have an agenda. I was going to look for the US census and check out what it said, then reread your links and see if I could find more recent studies, but frankly, I would probably just be told I had an agenda so I shall let it all pass.
by Gingerminx on January 19th, 2010
But what about the advantages to children who are adopted by gay couples? It has also been proven that children who are adopted by heterosexual couples who are married are better off that those who are stuck in the system. So for the many adoptive gay parents there are, would it not be beneficial to the children who are adopted to have married parents, even if they are gay? In my eyes (not an agenda!) if the marriage of gays could be beneficial to even ONE child, why not? Who are we to deny the rights of children to be able to say their parents are married- because that is beneficial to both the children and the parents in many ways, as opposed to being able to say something like "my parents are domestic parters", children don't even know what domestic partners are! And even if children with bio, married parents might be proven to be "more advanageous" to the child or children, I sincerely doubt that 100% of families in such studies had better dynamics than those that could be found in families with gay, married parents. Even if 100% of studies found the same thing, not EVERY family is perfect and better than the families that gay parents could provide for a child.
Since it's been proven children of gays and lesbians see less physical, verbal, and sexual abuse by their parents compared to heterosexual parents, children would have higher advantages there, would they not? As well as other areas with similar statistics.
I'm not trying to change your opinion or anything, but I would like to understand your thinking on this because I can't understand how, without knowing the way children would be raised under married gay couples, it is possible to know that gay couples couldn't be just as good parents as heterosexual couples (bio or not). Not only that, but there are tons of biological parents who get divorced, separated, and other aspects of their family which negatively affect their children, more so than the negative affects that might possibly occur in children of married gay parents.
by Anonymous7721 on January 19th, 2010
“But what about the advantages to children who are adopted by gay couples?”
There is no evidence that there are any advantages. At best, we have studies that show no adverse affects of being raised by gay adoptive parents as compared to straight adoptive parents.
“It has also been proven that children who are adopted by heterosexual couples who are married are better off that those who are stuck in the system. So for the many adoptive gay parents there are, would it not be beneficial to the children who are adopted to have married parents, even if they are gay?”
First, although every state except Florida allows gays to adopt, only 4 states allow unrestricted adoptions for homosexuals. Second, the majority of homosexual adoptions that take place in those states without restrictions are adoptions by a gay persons partner of the other partners biological child. This, of course, is one of the exact things that marriage is trying to prevent.
Ultimately, the answer to your question depends on whether the harm that would result from allowing gay’s to marry (i.e. an increase in conception by gay couples) will outweigh the benefit to adopted children of gay couples.
The studies that find that children are better off being raised by married parents generally reach that conclusion on the basis that married couples are less likely to face financial difficulties, and are more likely to remain together. Of course, these are the exact things that are screened for before a person (or couple) are allowed to adopt.
Moreover, it makes no sense to encourage tens of thousands of children to be born in a situation where, by design, they will be ripped from one biological parent, just so a few thousand children each year can have married adoptive parents.
“In my eyes (not an agenda!) if the marriage of gays could be beneficial to even ONE child, why not?” Because public policy dictates that we weigh the good with the bad. If one child benefits, yet hundreds of children are harmed, then public policy dictates that we deprive the one child of the benefit for the befit of hundreds of others.
“Even if 100% of studies found the same thing, not EVERY family is perfect and better than the families that gay parents could provide for a child.”
This argument is wholly illogical. There is no doubt that a child with biological parents who is abused is far worse than a child with gay parents who is not abused. However, even gay parents will abuse children.
“Since it's been proven children of gays and lesbians see less physical, verbal, and sexual abuse by their parents compared to heterosexual parents, children would have higher advantages there, would they not?”
If this is ever proven, then you would have to weigh the equities to determine which has the higher advantage.
“because I can't understand how, without knowing the way children would be raised under married gay couples, it is possible to know that gay couples couldn't be just as good parents as heterosexual couples (bio or not).”
I never said that gay couples cannot be just as good parents as non-biological heterosexual parents. However, we know conclusively that children being raised by bio-parents are at an advantage to children raised by non-biological parents, and we know conclusively that a gay couple will never raise a child that is biological related to both parents.
“Not only that, but there are tons of biological parents who get divorced, separated, and other aspects of their family which negatively affect their children, more so than the negative affects that might possibly occur in children of married gay parents.”
First, this is a conclusion. Do you have any evidence to support this conclusion? Second, even if this is true, it suffers from the same logical fallacy as above. Gay people, if allowed to marry, will divorce as well. Moreover, since children of gay couples will always be non-biologically r
by OhLook - IamNoLongerAnonymous on January 19th, 2010
"Generally, no. Again, the purpose of marriage law is to encourage procreation within a union well equipped to care for the child. People generally do not learn about infertility until after they try to procreate, but are unable to conceive. Thus, if someone’s permanent infertility was readily apparent, then the answer is yes. But in all other cases (which is the vast majority of cases), the answer is no."
.
So people who have no intention of procreating but are fertile shouldn't be allowed to marry?
by Brian on January 20th, 2010
“So people who have no intention of procreating but are fertile shouldn't be allowed to marry?”
No, they should be allowed to marry. The only people who did not fit within the purpose of state sponsored marriage are people 100% unable to procreate.
The question you raise relies on a common logical fallacy. That is, it is based on the erroneous presumption that the purpose of marriage is only achieved if the people getting married are capable and intends to procreate. The following examples demonstrate why the presumption is erroneous:
1) People who do not intend to procreate still tend to have sex, and that intent does not stop people from getting pregnant. Thus, the state has an interest in ensuring even people who do not intend to procreate, but might procreate, to marry.
2) Even if one party in a relationship is infertile, the other party may still procreate. For example, a man can still get a woman pregnant even if his wife is infertile. Since marriage discourages people from having intercourse with people other than their spouse, marriage furthers the purpose for which it was intended even if that relationship is unable to procreate.
by OhLook - IamNoLongerAnonymous on January 20th, 2010
OhLook, you really make me laugh if you actually beleive that marriage discourages people from sleeping around. You only have to look at all of the "my partner cheated on me" questions on here to see what crap that is.
by Gingerminx on January 20th, 2010
Ginger: We are talking about public policy, which by definition means we are talking about systemic policy. Other than a few anecdotal references on AB, do you have any evidence that suggests that marriage does not discourage people from sleeping around? This is another area in which every study conducted on the issue disagrees with your anecdotal view.
Your fallacy is best understood with an analogy. Larceny is illegal, yet many people steal. Does that mean that the laws banning larceny do not discourage theft? Of course not. No law is ever going to get 100% compliance. However, that does not mean that the law fails to have a discouraging affect.
by OhLook - IamNoLongerAnonymous on January 20th, 2010
You have given no evidence that in anyway suggests that marriage prevents people from cheating. Please don't treat me as an idiot, you continue to say I have no evidence to suggest what you are saying is wrong, well you have no evidence to suggest what you say is right.
by Gingerminx on January 20th, 2010
“You have given no evidence that in anyway suggests that marriage prevents people from cheating.”
And you have given no evidence whatsoever that it doesn’t. I merely pointed out the rationale behind the law. I happened to know that numerous studies support the rationale. But again, I merely pointed out the rationale behind the law.
If you think that the rationale is faulty, and therefore the law should be changed, then you should provide evidence to support your contention. But as it stands, the legislature thought that marriage discourages messing around. You forget: you are the one advocating a change in the law.
And FYI: I have personally read hundreds of studies addressing all of the points I have discussed. I will happily cite studies if you ever actually want to engage in an intelligent conversation on this issue. But I am not going to waste my time pulling up these studies if your sole purpose is to rationalize your agenda.
by OhLook - IamNoLongerAnonymous on January 20th, 2010
Not me, that is not a law where I live. Again you talk of an agenda, I never had and do not have one, all I have ever asked for is your evidence, even the law that you claim states this would be nice, but none has been forth coming. I got a couple of outdated studies, a reference to what I assume is a law which I can not find and the 2009 US census. None of which shows me any evidence here. Never mind, you obviously have nothing, my views are my own and I really haven't given them, I was merely interested in the US law you talked about but you don't seem to have anything.
by Gingerminx on January 20th, 2010
“Not me, that is not a law where I live.”
That is fine. I live in California where gay marriage is illegal. If you think that California’s (or most of America’s) law should be changed, then you need to provide a rational basis that would justify the change. It was my understanding that you thought America has no basis banning gay marriage. So to clarify: you don’t think the law in California (and most or America) should be changed in regards to banning gay marriage, right?
“all I have ever asked for is your evidence, even the law that you claim states this would be nice, but none has been forth coming.”
First, I cited you a law review article days ago that provides the law for you. Just because you choose to ignore the evidence does not mean it was not provided. Second, I provided a couple studies, which you rejected without evidence. People who reject an objective source without evidence are people with an agenda.
“I got a couple of outdated studies, a reference to what I assume is a law which I can not find and the 2009 US census.”
Again, what evidence do you have that they are outdated? Or in the alternative, what evidence do you have that the data in the studies is faulty?
by OhLook - IamNoLongerAnonymous on January 20th, 2010
Actually, I never said one way or the other what the US should or should not do. I don't live there. I was trying to understand the laws you stated and the reasoning behind them. As I said, the law reference you gave me I couldn't find anywhere, if you have a link I will be glad to check it out. I did not reject them without evidence, I said they were out dated, not my assumption but the dates on the studies themselves.
by Gingerminx on January 20th, 2010
“Actually, I never said one way or the other what the US should or should not do.”
You have been advocating that there is no reason why gay marriage should be banned. Or inversely, that gay marriage should be legal. Thus, even if you were not directing your comments specifically at U.S. law, how can you say that your comments do not apply to the U.S.?
“I was trying to understand the laws you stated and the reasoning behind them.”
This may be so, but you were also arguing an agenda. If you were simply looking to understand, you would not have rejected a study that did not fit within your viewpoint without any evidence to the contrary.
“As I said, the law reference you gave me I couldn't find anywhere, if you have a link I will be glad to check it out.”
It is a law review article. I don’t have a link that is available to the public, but you could possible get a copy from the school that published it.
“I did not reject them without evidence, I said they were out dated, not my assumption but the dates on the studies themselves.”
Outdated means that the data is inaccurate. Do you have any evidence to suggest the data is inaccurate? This is how it is so easy to see you are arguing an agenda. A mere objective observer may have some doubts about a source because of when it was published, but you cannot reject (i.e. declare it invalid) unless you actually have evidence that the data is faulty. A person with an agenda, on the other hand, will simply find any reason to reject data sources that disagree with their view. So again, do you have any evidence that family dynamics have changed in any significant way in the last 7.5 years?
Sociological trends do not change much from decade to decade without some direct impetus. Yet, we are talking about a study that is less than a decade old. So, again, what evidence do you have that a study completed 7.5 years ago is no longer accurate?
by OhLook - IamNoLongerAnonymous on January 21st, 2010
If you reread my comments I have no where advocated that there is no reason why gay marriage should be banned. I spent this entire silly argument trying to find your evidence for the claims you were making. I never rejected any study, I merely said they were outdated, which they are. Also I found it interesting you linked to a British study when you are arguing US law. Personally, I was just interested in that law and how it was interpreted, but since you can not supply me with it and I do not have the resources to search it out myself, it is a mute point anyway.
by Gingerminx on January 21st, 2010
“If you reread my comments I have no where advocated that there is no reason why gay marriage should be banned. I spent this entire silly argument trying to find your evidence for the claims you were making.”
Really, you stated: “It only to matters to me in that I would be interested in seeing the law OhLook says exists, and it maybe useful for those in the US to know the law so they can appeal it.”
So you are advocating that U.S. laws banning gay marriage be appealed, but claim to have no agenda, and rather are just looking for information?
“I never rejected any study, I merely said they were outdated, which they are. “
And how is that not rejecting the study? So which is it: you now accept the data as accurate, or do you reject the studies?
“Also I found it interesting you linked to a British study when you are arguing US law.”
Why is that interesting? The topic at hand, to which I cited the study, had to do with the affect of marriage, not U.S. law. Moreover, an perhaps you did not realize this, but U.S. marriage law (like many of our laws) came from England.
“Personally, I was just interested in that law and how it was interpreted, but since you can not supply me with it and I do not have the resources to search it out myself, it is a mute point anyway.”
Again, people who are just interested in information do not advocate that laws be appealed, or reject studies with no evidence. You can pretend you do not have an agenda all you want, but the fact that you continually rationalize and make counter arguments clearly indicate your agenda.
I have cited you a law review article the explains the rationale of the law. I have cited you studies that support the rationale for having the law. If you disagree with any of the information I have provided, then cite some authority that makes the information inaccurate. Or if you cannot provide any evidence that refutes the information, then accept the data as accurate.
But I suspect you will do neither. I suspect what you will continue to do is argue your agenda, despite having no evidence to support that agenda.
by OhLook - IamNoLongerAnonymous on January 21st, 2010
Nope, I wasn't advocating it, I was saying that those who oppose that law maybe interested in it so they can appeal it, nothing to do with me as I don't live there and since you say it is the law then I am sure those that are all for it aren't interested appealing it. I say they are out dated, they may have been accurate at the time they were done, I don't know what conditions were used so really can't say, but whether they stand is unknown. Many of our laws come from England as well, especially since we were an English colony, our laws do not have the same things as yours so yes it was interesting. Just because your laws may have come from England that doesn't mean that an English study covers the US. Which is where you were talking about. Like I said, you gave me a law which I can not find, and a couple of out dated studies, one from England which can not support US law. Nope, I have no agenda, I was interested in your laws and the intent behind them, but you have only supplied the one reference which as I said, I can not find. I do not need to refute your claims, I didn't make them. But since you are not forth coming with any of the laws this is a pointless exercise and I shall move on.
by Gingerminx on January 21st, 2010
“Nope, I wasn't advocating it, ….”
You can back peddle, and rationalize all you want, but your words speak for themselves.
“I say they are out dated … but whether they stand is unknown.”
If you are going to contradict yourself, you should at least make the contradiction in a separate sentence. So you say they are outdated, but you don’t know if they are actually outdated? Silly me for not understanding!
“Just because your laws may have come from England that doesn't mean that an English study covers the US.”
I never said that it did. Allow me to quote what I said (you should actually read it, as opposed to simply rationalizing to support your agenda): “The topic at hand, to which I cited the study, had to do with the affect of marriage, not U.S. law.”
“Nope, I have no agenda, I was interested in your laws and the intent behind them….” Yet you reject anything I cite that goes against gay marriage without a basis for that rejection. Again, how silly of me to think you have an agenda!
“I do not need to refute your claims, I didn't make them.”
You are right, you are entitled to have an agenda. But if you actually want to engage in an intelligent conversation, than you need to support the claims that you make. You have claimed that the studies I have made are “outdated.” Can you support that claim? Do you have any evidence whatsoever that the studies are no longer accurate?
by OhLook - IamNoLongerAnonymous on January 21st, 2010
I gave it some thought and wondered if I had treated you unfairly. I was going to go over this whole conversation, re-look at the couple of links you gave and reassess things. Then I reread the question and your original answer. The question asked 'Should marriage for same sex couples be legal?", Your vote was no, then you went on to explain the law in the US which had nothing to do with the question. So the conversation itself was rather irrelevant and it was not my agenda but yours. Cheers!
by Gingerminx on January 23rd, 2010
The question asked 'Should marriage for same sex couples be legal?", Your vote was no, then you went on to explain the law in the US which had nothing to do with the question.
The question is should marriage for same sex couples be legal. AB is an AMERICAN site. “Legal” means it is pertaining to law. Law is specific to jurisdiction (in this case America).
Again, if you ever want to have an intelligent conversation, let me know. Good luck with your crusade!
by OhLook - IamNoLongerAnonymous on January 25th, 2010
AB is run by an American company and is multinational, IE not just meaning American law. Again, the law had nothing to do with the question. Nice try though.
by Gingerminx on January 25th, 2010
If the question is not about law, then what is it about? Gay marriage is only permitted or banned because a LAW says it is permitted or banned. But I understand that the law gets in the way of your agenda, so it is in your best interest to rationalize that the question is not about law.
So hey, keep rationalizing. You are not going to convince anyone else, but at least it may make you feel better about your position.
by OhLook - IamNoLongerAnonymous on January 25th, 2010
by Penny The Wise
on December 11th, 2009
voted:
Yes
by That_BI_Guy
on December 16th, 2009
voted:
Yes
Gays can get married. There just isn't an acknowledgment by the US government. As one citizen suing another for losses, gays have the same rights as others. What this is about is money. Insurance companies don't want gay marriage because straight people like me would use it to get insurence from my buddy that has good benefits. We would be able to file taxes together and get more money. It would be great. We all could be married. It would be awesome. I hope it gets passed so I can get better health coverage. Maybe I will even qualify for government assistance programs. Maybe being gay will get me more from life than being straight because I will be a recognized minority. I could get scholorships and preferential placement based on my sexuality, it would be great, all the years of oppression my people have suffered will be paid back to me. Except I won't really be gay, I will just be married to a dude so I qualify. Because if its legal I should be able to do it as a free man. Unless you want to discriminate against me because I am straight and I want to marry a man for the monetary benefits it would bring. Which is just hate. Women marry men for money all the time. Gay men marry women to uphold an image in the community. They get these benefits. Why shouldn't I? If I am free and this cause is about equality then I should be able to use it for myself regardless of my sexuality. The government should just let me do as I wish. It should let everyone do as they wish. Insurance companies should have to pay for me just because I am married to another man. The government should give me food and housing assistance as well as educational benefits, while I get tax breaks. If I get divorced from him I should get alimony. It would be great. I could go around looking for wealthy dudes just like women do, then drain him dry. All legal of course. Then sit on my ass and never aspire to be anything but a leech. What a world it would become. I mean why work when you can just take from rich people who do? I got it, when I am young I could find some lonely rich old gay man and say I love him, then marry him and wait for him to die, then bam I am rich. Men should be given that option too, women shouldn't be the only one's, this gay marriage thing is sounding better and better.
by Chad1983 on December 17th, 2009
Bi-guy, I think your answer is exactly correct. People in committed relationships are happier, safer, and probably live longer. I noticed that some people here said that if a same-sex couple adopted a child, the child would be "infected with gayness". That's ridiculous but I think that is a real fear with homophobes.
by Ron C on December 17th, 2009
Rights should not be given based on sexual preference.
by John Pacella on December 18th, 2009
I hear your argument, but let me help you understand something. Gay marriage is not the only union most of society is against. Think about it; from personal experience I can tell you there are a couple of men/women relationships that are forbidden. How many of us have been in love with our sibling's spouse or a cousin or parent, a teacher or a therapist, tell me something if two siblings sister and brother are in love is it alright for them to marry, not by law but by morals and ethics?, and the same question applys to the other forbidden relationships.
by PrimeFactor on December 19th, 2009
u know? u just said a very helpful message 2 them! u understand... thanks, also i am gonna tell u this. my mom is gay and she is going 2 get married. her fiance is very nice 2 me. and i love them the way they r! so, i spoke the gay secret of my mom!!! thx 4 understanding. (:
by :)smiles4rs on July 3rd, 2010
by redcatt63 is around here somewhere......
on December 15th, 2009
voted:
Yes
If you are going to express an opinion, you should try to avoid contradicting yourself. So please explain the following:
…
You state: “If a[n] … unrelated couple in a committed, monogamous relationship wants to marry … It should be legal.” So what makes your discrimination okay? Why does a couple have to be unrelated? Why do they have to be in a monogamous relationship?
by OhLook - IamNoLongerAnonymous on December 17th, 2009
Nitpicking a bit, aren't you? I stated it in that way because of how so many folks like to compare homosexuality with incest, pedophilia, bestiality, etc. Also, MOST (not all, but most folks) want to get married BECAUSE they are in a monogamous relationship. Sure, I know plenty of folks that get married and fool around or have "open" relationships (most of them are straight), but couple usually get married because they are committed to each other.
I try to clarify myself by wording it that way, and still get my answer picked apart. Whatever....
by redcatt63 is around here somewhere...... on December 17th, 2009
I grow weary right along with you....I am so disappointed in the US for its lack of progressive thinking.
by DA BEN DAN yanggui zi on January 16th, 2010
Yes, DBD, especially when people get nit-picky and try to turn your own words against you. Ridiculous! And when they go to the automatic comparisons to bestiality, incest and pedophilia. That's just complete ignorance.
by redcatt63 is around here somewhere...... on January 17th, 2010
Yes, I get nit-picky when someone directly contradicts themselves and makes a wholly illogical argument in order to support an agenda.
Right now everyone is treated equally. Every man (gay or straight) has the right to marry a woman, and vice versa.
“I stated it in that way because of how so many folks like to compare homosexuality with incest, pedophilia, bestiality, etc.”
So why should gay people get special treatment, but those that want to marry family members should not?
by OhLook - IamNoLongerAnonymous on January 17th, 2010
agreed!
by DA BEN DAN yanggui zi on January 17th, 2010
"Right now everyone is treated equally. Every man (gay or straight) has the right to marry a woman, and vice versa."
Wrong- anyone who wants to marry someone of the same gender is not allowed to in most states, therefore they're not being treated equally.
by Brian on March 2nd, 2010
Brian: Can you name a single state in which my statement is "wrong"? Just because you don't get special treatement does not mean you are treated unequally. Again, right now everyone is treated equally. Every man (gay or straight) has the right to marry a woman, and vice versa. The law does not discriminate based on sexual orientation.
by OhLook - IamNoLongerAnonymous on March 2nd, 2010
@OhLook
by Shania on March 5th, 2010
Shania: So you could not come up with a single state, so instead you chose to avoid the issue!!! You should keep blindly adhering to your agenda, and leave teh logical debating to those of us who can actually address an issue on its merits.
by OhLook - IamNoLongerAnonymous on March 5th, 2010
Debate, your full of bullshit, don't hide, we can read it.
by Shania on March 5th, 2010
I see you still can't come up with a single fact to support your agenda, so keep up with the ad hominem attacks. I am sure it helps you feel right.
by OhLook - IamNoLongerAnonymous on March 6th, 2010
by Yttyka
on December 14th, 2009
voted:
Yes
you flat sound either gay or mega ignorant! so because plastic and manufactured items are unnatural then society should should alow all unnatural things. lets see . . . sex with animals. . . sex with children. . . incest and homosexuality. now we already know this stuff goes on in the world.you want us to make it legal. well we did the homosexual part. now you are trying to ake us say it's normal. it's because of this that i think gays should be placed back on the mentally ill list.
by joegb on March 15th, 2010
by Persky Bunkermeister
on December 11th, 2009
voted:
Yes
Which is why the gov. needs to have its own civil union for everyone. And stay out of marriage it is a religious institution.
by my2cents--Vote for Paul on December 12th, 2009
Unfortunately, it is now both -- a religious institution *and* a gov't institution. My preference is that gov't change their language and make everybody require a civil union -- that way if people *choose* to be married, they can go to a church and do that too. But even within the christian community (and other faiths), people are becoming more tolerant and less judgmental towards others -- and homosexuals are being accepted, as I think they should be -- even if it were a "sin" -- who's to say it's any worse than any other sin -- Jesus was very democratic about this -- everybody equally "sinful" -- so what is the basis to judge anybody but yourself?
This is how it works in the Netherlands.
by Persky Bunkermeister on December 12th, 2009
oops -- meant to say -- the dual civil union/religious marriage is the system that the Netherlands uses.
by Persky Bunkermeister on December 12th, 2009
by ThatGuyTed
on December 15th, 2009
voted:
Yes
by Zack
on December 15th, 2009
voted:
Yes
by slave hecate
on December 15th, 2009
voted:
Yes
by HOUSTONLONELY
on December 12th, 2009
voted:
Yes
by harlekkin
on January 16th, 2010
voted:
Yes
by hmmcclish
on January 13th, 2010
voted:
Yes
by ClassyCee
on January 8th, 2010
voted:
Yes
by Suzieblue
on January 8th, 2010
voted:
Yes
Susieblue
Where will I find that article?
by Lucy in the sky on June 4th, 2010
by dadude
on January 3rd, 2010
voted:
Yes
by .:happy.girl:.
on December 31st, 2009
voted:
Yes
by Renee
on December 29th, 2009
voted:
Yes
Let The Bible Speak!
1:8 But we know that the law is good, if anyone uses it lawfully. 1:9 Knowing this, that law is not laid down for a righteous one, but for the lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 1:10 for fornicators, for homosexuals, for kidnappers, for liars, for false swearers and if any other thing that is antagonizing to the sound teaching; 1:11 according to the gospel of the glory of the blessed God, with which I was entrusted. 1st Timothy he Modern Literal Version
6:9 Or do you* not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be misled: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor perverts, nor homosexuals, 6:10 nor covetous, nor thieves, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, will inherit the kingdom of God. 6:11 And these were some of you*: but you* were bathed, but you* were sanctified, but you* were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God. 1 Corinthians 6 The Modern Literal Version
The Book of Romans
1:18 God shows his anger from heaven. It is against all the godless and evil things people do. They are so evil that they say no to the truth. 1:19 The truth about God is plain to them. God has made it plain.
1:24 So God let them go. He allowed them to do what their sinful hearts wanted to. He let them commit sexual sins. They polluted one another's bodies by what they did.
1:26 So God let them go. They were filled with shameful longings. Their women committed sexual acts that were not natural. 27 In the same way, the men turned away from their natural love for women. They burned with sexual longing for each other. Men did shameful things with other men. They suffered in their bodies for all the twisted things they did. 28 They didn't think it was important to know God. So God let them go. He allowed them to have dirty minds. They did things they shouldn't do. 29 They are full of every kind of sin, evil and ungodliness. They want more than they need. They commit murder. They want what belongs to other people. They fight and cheat. They hate others. They say mean things about other people. 30 They tell lies about them. They hate God. They are rude and proud. They brag. They think of new ways to do evil. They don't obey their parents. 31 They are foolish. They can't be trusted. They are not loving and kind. 32 They know that God's commands are right. They know that those who do evil things should die. But they continue to do those very things. They also approve of others who do them.
by freegift37 on January 18th, 2010
What does that have to do with the persons answer?
by Gingerminx on January 23rd, 2010
I don't understand the relevance to the answer either.
by zyrblue on May 21st, 2010
by Anonymous on December 28th, 2009
by Mike81069
on December 16th, 2009
voted:
Yes
you are nuts. they jus got off the criminals list then the mentally ill list. they were on those lists because thats what they were and are. what they do is unnatural,pointless and damaging to society.we know it they know it and they know we know it! guess we should take rapists and pedophiles of the bad list and allow them to marry whoever they want too. i also think that with all this in your face activity, they are creating a backlash that is gonna have no sympathy for them what so ever.
by joegb on March 15th, 2010
Rapists and pedophiles are not with consenting adults so to compare them with consenting adult same sex couples is (using your word) "nuts"
by Mike81069 on March 15th, 2010
If a child\'s money is used to pay for the mortgage, does the child own any part of the home?
by ManC on May 11th, 2012
| 1 person likes this
I took a lawn chair I needed as I was passing by a house sitting by the trash but still on the lawn and was broken do you think I was right?
by CosmicWunderkind on May 10th, 2012
| 1 person likes this
Do you keep a GUN in/atop (or near) your bedside nightstand, where you can quickly grasp it in an emergency situation?
by Scorpio7 on May 12th, 2012
| 9 people like this
Where can i find a good legal advisor?
by sharonlawrence on May 15th, 2012
| 1 person likes this
When a Website's terms of use, are in conflict with the law, who reigns supreme ? the terms of use, or the law, if the user complains?
by Andy81186 on May 13th, 2012
| 1 person likes this
You're reading Do you think gay marriage should be legal? Why or why not?
- which can also be phrased in the following ways:
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