DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> Are gay rights, including gay marriage, evolving?
Pages:   ... [183] [184] [185] [186] [187] [188] [189] [190] [191] ... [266]
Showing posts 4651 - 4675 of 6629, (reverse)
AuthorThread
03/17/2010 12:39:40 PM · #4651
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

There. All better. I added /moral example so it perfectly matches what Jeb said. Happy?


...is that something they teach in Theology classes? Got a problem...can't explain discrepancies... not a problem, simply change the text to fit the gist of the argument.

Yep, methinks I finally understand exactly how the scriptures and the Bible evolved and just how one arrives at interpretations... yes indeed.

Ray
03/17/2010 01:02:45 PM · #4652
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

I said POLITICIANS. That's plural. I agree with the statements of both Palin AND Biden. It is all about definition. I acknowledged that. That's the only problem I have with gay marriage.

And yet AGAIN.....it's still not up to them to define it on their terms as it suits them.
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

And I never said anything about Palin being an example of family. Stop putting words in my mouth!

I didn't say you did, yet you offer them up as smart politicians, where the smartest thing Palin could have done was to keep her mouth shut and stay in Alaska.

Are you aware that 62% of the Republicans want her to run in the 2012 election? And 87% of the Democrats! LOL!!!
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

By the way. I'd also appreciate it if you stop telling me what I do and do not know about marriage. It's getting obnoxious.

I really don't care if you think it's obnoxious. Your woefully inadequate knowledge of marriage rears its head every time you speak of it. Get used to it as long as you make stupid comments about marriage. Let me be clear: By the comments you make, by the way you respond to others who actually have long term, committed relationships and marriages, and by the way that you think you have some sort of ownership of the "sanctity of marriage" as a Christian, YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT MARRIAGE!
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

EDIT: At any rate... what does Palin's family have to do with her level of intelligence? Do you seriously judge whether people are smart or not based on what their children do?

I didn't say, or imply, that Palin's family had anything to do with her level of intelligence. I just always thought it was funny that she was supposedly all about family values, and being a moral example when her influence on her own daughter was obnviiously NOT effective. I know you cannot control your kids, BUT......when you're a outspoken about the example you're supposedly setting, an unwed, teenage mother living in your house sure isn't the model that comes to my mind.

Surely you could have found a better example of someone who hates what the gays will do to "uin the institution of marriage"without having to scrape the barrel like that, couldn't you?
03/17/2010 01:21:43 PM · #4653
Originally posted by RayEthier:

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

There. All better. I added /moral example so it perfectly matches what Jeb said. Happy?


...is that something they teach in Theology classes? Got a problem...can't explain discrepancies... not a problem, simply change the text to fit the gist of the argument.

Yep, methinks I finally understand exactly how the scriptures and the Bible evolved and just how one arrives at interpretations... yes indeed.

Ray

Lol... of all the people that post in these forums, you are perhaps the most difficult to understand. I can never figure out just what kind of response you are trying to evoke, or what it is that you expect. You're all over the place! Jeb said I was using Palin as a family/moral example. I responded by saying that I was not using Palin as an example for a family example. Then you come along and say that I was putting words in Jeb's mouth because I only said "family" and not "family/moral". Uh... What? I merely responded to Jeb's accusation with a digest of the very thing that I he said. I essentially removed words from his mouth. I did not add or put anything in his mouth. I just condensed his statement. So, I gave in to your strange antics and added "/moral" so that my statement would be exactly the same as Jeb's. Then you come out of left field with this whole changing text to fit the argument garbage. I have no idea where you are trying to go with this, unless your objective is simply to nitpick everything I say in a weak attempt to make me look stupid.

Let's use a fairy tale and a Disney movie to clarify what just happened.

I said, "Simba is a Lion".
Jeb accused me of saying, "the princess kissed the frog and the frog turned into a prince".
I responded by saying, "I did not say that 'the frog turned into a prince' so don't put words in my mouth".
Ray said, "Johnny left out 'the princess kissed the frog' so now Johnny is putting words in Jeb's mouth".
I changed "the frog turned into a prince" to "the princess kissed the frog and the frog turned into a prince".
Ray said, "now you're changing what you said"
Ray also said, "You must have learned that in seminary, so that must mean that Bible scholars change what the Bible says to fit the argument".

If that doesn't make any sense... it's because it doesn't make any sense. My head is going to explode trying to figure out how a youtube video of a Palin-Biden debate became a suggestion that Palin is a good example, which somehow brought us to Bible interpretation.
03/17/2010 01:54:07 PM · #4654
Originally posted by NikonJeb:


And yet AGAIN.....it's still not up to them to define it on their terms as it suits them.

That's exactly my point. NOBODY should reinterpret marriage. Biden and Palin both agree that marriage should be defined as "a union between one man and one woman" and both agreed that they are not willing to change that definition. I agree with both of them. Don't change the definition!

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

And I never said anything about Palin being an example of family. Stop putting words in my mouth!

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

I didn't say you did, yet you offer them up as smart politicians, where the smartest thing Palin could have done was to keep her mouth shut and stay in Alaska.

Actually... you did say that.

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

You want to offer up this mother of an unwed teen mom as an example of family/moral example, right?

Let me get this straight. You don't like Sarah Palin, so that means she isn't a smart politician? So whoever you disagree with is an idiot. Right...

Originally posted by NikonJeb:


I really don't care if you think it's obnoxious. Your woefully inadequate knowledge of marriage rears its head every time you speak of it. Get used to it as long as you make stupid comments about marriage. Let me be clear: By the comments you make, by the way you respond to others who actually have long term, committed relationships and marriages, and by the way that you think you have some sort of ownership of the "sanctity of marriage" as a Christian, YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT MARRIAGE!

Wow Jeb. You really are out of your gourd aren't you? Just because I've been married for 3 years instead of 16, doesn't mean I know nothing about marriage. I'm still trying to understand why you keep taking a political discussion about marriage and making it personal. I don't believe that I have any ownership of the "sanctity of marriage". Marriage is special to me, but that doesn't mean I claim to own it. I feel bad for all those poor Catholics out there... For them marriage is much more than just a special ceremony. Marriage in Catholicism is a Holy Sacrament and a means of receiving God's grace. You might as well spit in a goblet and call it "Eucharist". What's sad to me is that you don't realize how offensive you are to religious people. Sure, they don't "own" marriage, but that doesn't mean it isn't special. You want to take something that is extremely offensive to some people, and then call it the same name that is used to describe something extremely sacred to those people. Gay unions are a bad thing to some people and you want to call them a marriage. You might as well campaign to have the word "wife" redefined as "whore". Sure, husbands don't "own" the word "wife", but they do have wives, and they will probably be offended if people start calling them whores.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

EDIT: At any rate... what does Palin's family have to do with her level of intelligence? Do you seriously judge whether people are smart or not based on what their children do?

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

I didn't say, or imply, that Palin's family had anything to do with her level of intelligence. I just always thought it was funny that she was supposedly all about family values, and being a moral example when her influence on her own daughter was obnviiously NOT effective. I know you cannot control your kids, BUT......when you're a outspoken about the example you're supposedly setting, an unwed, teenage mother living in your house sure isn't the model that comes to my mind.

Surely you could have found a better example of someone who hates what the gays will do to "uin the institution of marriage"without having to scrape the barrel like that, couldn't you?

You mean like Bill Clinton was outspoken about the example of an American family that he was setting and then HE (not his daughter) went ahead and desecrated the Oval Office. Pre-marital sex and teen pregnancy are so rampant in this country. It's not a parenting problem. It's a culture problem. Around 50% of American high school students have sex before marriage. Are you saying that 50% of American parents are bad parents? Or are you just saying that only the parents of sons and daughters that forgot birth control are bad?

ETA: By the way this is my last post in the forums. So respond to it if you'd like but you won't be hearing from me again. Enjoy your debating.

Message edited by author 2010-03-17 13:59:12.
03/17/2010 02:34:23 PM · #4655
For those opposed to gay marriage on the grounds it "desecrates" or otherwise lessens the sanctity of marriage, why are you not fighting for legislation to outlaw divorce? Divorce affects nearly 50% of marriages which is a whole helluva lot of people, whereas gay marriage affects a relatively miniscule portion of the population. And yet several religious organizations donated MILLIONS of dollars in California alone to "preserve the sanctity of marriage" by preventing gay marriage.

I don't get it.
03/17/2010 03:05:54 PM · #4656
Originally posted by Melethia:

I don't get it.

There's nothing to get. It's a naked attempt to justify homophobia and discrimination using whatever contorted excuse might sound plausible.
03/17/2010 04:25:09 PM · #4657
Sometimes, when I get excited about how much progress humanity DOES make, a person runs into a johnnyphoto and realizes just how much further we have to go.
03/17/2010 04:57:57 PM · #4658
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

I don't believe that I have any ownership of the "sanctity of marriage". Marriage is special to me, but that doesn't mean I claim to own it. I feel bad for all those poor Catholics out there... For them marriage is much more than just a special ceremony. Marriage in Catholicism is a Holy Sacrament and a means of receiving God's grace. You might as well spit in a goblet and call it "Eucharist". What's sad to me is that you don't realize how offensive you are to religious people. Sure, they don't "own" marriage, but that doesn't mean it isn't special. You want to take something that is extremely offensive to some people, and then call it the same name that is used to describe something extremely sacred to those people. Gay unions are a bad thing to some people and you want to call them a marriage. You might as well campaign to have the word "wife" redefined as "whore". Sure, husbands don't "own" the word "wife", but they do have wives, and they will probably be offended if people start calling them whores.


The bolded portion is the answer. Religion does not own the term 'marriage' and therefore has no right to determine what it means TO OTHERS. Yes, the term marriage IS special. Just like you, a gay couple want that special bond recognized... despite their relationship being different than the one you've chosen.

Ironic that your own words point out exactly what we have been saying. Yet sad, that when on the verge of realizing that truth you run away in confusion / anger / disbelief.
03/17/2010 06:26:24 PM · #4659
Johnny,

I see your message that you won't be responding to the forum anymore, and that is perfectly okay. However, I would hope that you at least read this.

1st - let me say, God Bless you. And in no way do I mean that derogatory. I truly mean it from the bottom of my heart.

When I was a kid, I accepted Jesus Christ as my Savior. As a child, I didn't really understand what that meant until I got older and graduated from high school and moved in with my Aunt and Uncle and attended a spirit-filled church where I again reconfirmed my relationship with God. All my life I knew that I was different than everyone else, but I tried to shove it to the background to please God, thinking that He wouldn't love me if I was a lesbian. I finally left the church and went my own way. I failed miserably at my life without God in it. I did things that I am not proud of.

John 3:16 - For God SO loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that WHOSOEVER believes in Him shall NOT parish but have everlasting life.

I have since gone back to my God. I love Him and I know He loves me. If being a Lesbian is a sin, then He and I will work that out when I meet Him in Heaven and bow at His feet. No one on this earth can tell me any different.

There are a lot of other words that can be used in the place of "marriage". Holy Union, Civil Union... etc. I personally don't care what you call it (there are some that are big on the word marriage and I don't argue with them), all I want is the same EQUAL rights that every "married" couple has. THE most important right that I want is the right to make decisions in the horrific case that, my beautiful partner of 10 1/2 years, might end up in the hospital where she is connected to life support. Right now, if that happened, I wouldn't be able to make those decisions legally (we have talked to our families and they know that we can make the decisions for each other, but LEGALLY they could yank that right away from us).

African Americans were second class citizens not that long ago and in some cases, to some people, they still are. There were scriptures touted about how slavery is okay. Black people are both men and women so your argument about marriage between one man and one woman didn't stand only a short while ago. A black man could not marry a white woman or vice versa.

The Bible is not a Heterosexual's only book. It was written for all mankind. I won't profess to be a biblical scholar, and I won't argue scriptures that have been misquoted and misunderstood by so many humans. We are ONLY human and the Bible is a great guide to live life by.

The sanctity of marriage has been ruined by so many Heterosexuals. Brittany Spears, Elizabeth Taylor, and countless other non-celebrity type people are perfect examples. My relationship has not been perfect, but I can imagine that yours hasn't either because we are human and make mistakes. I don't think God expects perfection just that we love one another and love Him.

I can only hope that one day we will all realize that the hatred that is in this world is a waste of everyone's time, money, and effort.

I am a child of God, a Mother, a Daughter, a loving life partner.. .I put my pants on one leg at a time, I help my son with his homework, I take out the trash, I go to work, I pay my taxes... Sound familiar? The only thing I do different than you is what goes on behind my closed door and frankly Johnny, I don't want to know what goes on behind your bedroom door just as much as you don't want to know what goes on behind mine.

Thanks for listening,
Kari


03/17/2010 08:08:20 PM · #4660
Originally posted by JokersSoul:

Kari quoted:
John 3:16 - For God SO loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that WHOSOEVER believes in Him shall NOT parish but have everlasting life.

Hmm...

It doesn't say "Whosoever, except gay people.", does it?
03/17/2010 08:30:58 PM · #4661
No, that is covered somewhere else, where we are told man is not to lay with man, or woman with woman.
03/17/2010 08:56:10 PM · #4662
Originally posted by David Ey:

No, that is covered somewhere else, where we are told man is not to lay with man, or woman with woman.


It also says that you should not wear blended clothing ...etc. Do you wear cotton polyester blend?
03/17/2010 09:00:11 PM · #4663
Originally posted by David Ey:

No, that is covered somewhere else, where we are told man is not to lay with man, or woman with woman.

Would that be around the same places where it's said that woman are to heed their husbands, that slaves are supposed to obey their masters, that it's okay to kill under certain circumstances, and pork is an abomination? Do you really want to go 'round and 'round with that selective adherence to a 2000 year old document?
03/17/2010 09:21:15 PM · #4664
Originally posted by David Ey:

No, that is covered somewhere else, where we are told man is not to lay with man, or woman with woman.

That would be Leviticus, which is chock full of important guidelines and information:

The eating of blood and fat are prohibited forever.
A woman who has a child, especially a female child, is unclean and purification rites are required.
Any clay or wood utensils that are touched by a person with a discharge are unclean and must be broken or washed.
Cattle must not be allowed to breed with a different kind.
After her flow stops, a woman who was menstruating must count off seven days before she is considered clean again. On the eighth day, she must present two birds to the priest for an atonement for having had a menstrual discharge.
A field must not be sown with more than one kind of seed.
A cloth garment made of two kinds of material must not be worn.
Tattoos and the like are prohibited.
Slavery is an everlasting institution.
A tithe, a tenth of everything, is to be given to the Lord (God needs money?).
There are winged creatures (birds or insects) that go around on all fours.
Rabbits chew their cud.
A medium or wizard is to be put to death.
God himself declares that a house or clothes can have leprosy, curable with incantations and bird blood.
As a punishment, the Lord will cause people to eat the flesh of their own sons and daughters and fathers and friends.


The worst thing anyone could possibly do for their faith is ask others to take this stuff seriously as a requirement of modern living.
03/18/2010 07:04:22 AM · #4665
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Just because I've been married for 3 years instead of 16, doesn't mean I know nothing about marriage.

I didn't say that you know nothing of marriage because of only having been married for threed years, I said it because you say things like this:

"Marriage", as it exists today, isn't much more than a contractual agreement between two people and the government.

And this:

I think the furore is partially because gay marriage is a strong reminder that in our society, marriage has been reduced to a meaningless agreement that gives two people additional rights.

And this:

Obviously the rights that have been attached to marriage are the whole reason (or at least most of the reason) why gay couples are struggling for the ability to get married.

When you make statements like these, you openly state that your views of why people get married are simply wrong. You claim that you know something of why people get married, and then you reduce the institution for anyone else other than those who fit in your narrow view to puppets in some kind of procedure, where the only goal is the legality of the details.

That's not what marriage is, it's not what two people who are committed to each other are looking for whewn they move towards making their relationship permanent in life.

The fact that this has to be said to you makes it easy to see that you do NOT understand what this whole issue is all about.
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

I don't believe that I have any ownership of the "sanctity of marriage". Marriage is special to me, but that doesn't mean I claim to own it.

Really??? Then it was someone else who said this?????

According to my worldview, gay marriage is a slap in the face of my God,

And this?

But I am also opposed to gay marriage because rather than simply providing equal rights, it also infringes on the institution that I cherish by claiming the same name.

It's abundantly clear by the wording of both these statements that you think you have some right to dictate who and how marriage should be conducted and allowed.

You don't, and that you think you do is offensive.
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

I feel bad for all those poor Catholics out there... For them marriage is much more than just a special ceremony. Marriage in Catholicism is a Holy Sacrament and a means of receiving God's grace. You might as well spit in a goblet and call it "Eucharist".

Okay.....and this has what to do with anyone else's marriage? You may feel free to celebrate marriage in any way you like. What would you feel like if the government all of a sudden deceided they'd had enough, and if you religious people couldn't get along, then church weddings were declared illegal?

Then you'd get a taste of your own poison, and I think you probably wouldn't much like it.

Spit in a goblet......yeah, okay. If you want to take someone else's relationship, and be offended by it, how is that anyone's problem other than your own? Someone else's relationship is none of your business. NONE!
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

What's sad to me is that you don't realize how offensive you are to religious people.

Again.....you don't own marriage, so don't get offended. Take your ridiculous points and go away. On no level is marriage about religion when you become discriminatory against other human beings, especially those within your society who have the same right to freedom of, and from, your destructive, homophobic, discriminatory religions.
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Sure, they don't "own" marriage, but that doesn't mean it isn't special. You want to take something that is extremely offensive to some people, and then call it the same name that is used to describe something extremely sacred to those people. Gay unions are a bad thing to some people and you want to call them a marriage.

And for the umpteenth time......

Put forth one rational, justified reason why it is that you can say that gay marriage is a bad thing.

You've expressed your displeasure, you've put forth your opinions, you've demonstrated your closed mind and interference in others' lives with no right or authority to do so, but you have YET to put forth one reason as to why two men getting marriage has any effect on your marriage whatsoever.
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

You might as well campaign to have the word "wife" redefined as "whore". Sure, husbands don't "own" the word "wife", but they do have wives, and they will probably be offended if people start calling them whores.

Hmm...

I predict with the way you can throw this around as an analogy that if your wife has anything going for her in the way of intelligence, she won't tolerate this kind of crap. Again, I'll have to say that your sense of humanity is pretty skewed.

Most of us that are out here in the real world understand that a marriage, and the relationship leading up to it is special, and magical, and that it's about two people who love each other and want to make a commitment to spend their lives together. It's not about contracts, and like it or not, though you may want to be married in a church for the ritual and whatever justification, it's NOT about religion. It's about two people.

If you understood that, then you'd know that it has nothing to do with anyone else, what they think, or what an organization seeks to define in their view.

Know this......I read what Mousie has to say.....I read Kari's post, and I get this warm fuzzy feeling because I know that they're describing the happiness that is produced in a happy, loving, caring relationship. I'm proud to think of them in the same light as Lisa and I, and that's as happily married couples. I feel close to them, and that I share with them the special bond that a loving marriage creates.

You represent something else again to me in the way you view it.......bitterness, selfishness, and hatred.

I want no parts of "your" worldview of marriage.
03/18/2010 07:21:25 AM · #4666
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

I am morally opposed to gay marriage, and the only way that will change is if I lose my faith. But I am also opposed to gay marriage because rather than simply providing equal rights, it also infringes on the institution that I cherish by claiming the same name.


Out of interest, in order not to offend your morals, what word should we use to refer to two people who have been "married" as part of a Hindu marriage ceremony? Presumably getting "married" in front of false gods (in direct contravention of several of the 10 commandments) is even worse than a gay wedding (prohibited in far less specific and reliable texts)?

Also, how should I refer to my own wedding? I was "married" in a civil service with no religious element. Presumably my "wife" should be my "civil partner"?

Given that 70% of the world is not Christian, is it fair for Christians to demand that the English word "marriage" (and presumably any translation of it) is only used to refer to the Christian concept of marriage?

Who is behind this massive insecurity around the use of a word - the Christian God or his Christian followers?
03/18/2010 09:31:17 AM · #4667
Originally posted by Matthew:


Who is behind this massive insecurity around the use of a word - the Christian God or his Christian followers?


Good one Matthew!! I am pretty sure it is humanity that has messed everything up. *smile*

Thanks for your post!
03/18/2010 10:17:08 AM · #4668
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

I don't really care if the government allows gay marriage because I believe that a Christian heterosexual marriage is different from a gay marriage, or a Christian gay marriage, or a secular heterosexual marriage, etc... Marriage is just a word. All Christians should accept that just because the government or secular society calls something "marriage", that doesn't change the definition or meaning of Christian marriage.

So... Christians shouldn't get their undies in a bundle about gay marriage because gay marriage and any government cannot change God's mind about marriage, and everyone else should stop bashing Christians and complaining that Christians don't like homosexuals.


Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

I am morally opposed to gay marriage, and the only way that will change is if I lose my faith. But I am also opposed to gay marriage because rather than simply providing equal rights, it also infringes on the institution that I cherish by claiming the same name.

From first post to last, the true colors are revealed.
03/18/2010 10:18:54 AM · #4669
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

I don't really care if the government allows gay marriage because I believe that a Christian heterosexual marriage is different from a gay marriage, or a Christian gay marriage, or a secular heterosexual marriage, etc... Marriage is just a word. All Christians should accept that just because the government or secular society calls something "marriage", that doesn't change the definition or meaning of Christian marriage.

So... Christians shouldn't get their undies in a bundle about gay marriage because gay marriage and any government cannot change God's mind about marriage, and everyone else should stop bashing Christians and complaining that Christians don't like homosexuals.


Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

I am morally opposed to gay marriage, and the only way that will change is if I lose my faith. But I am also opposed to gay marriage because rather than simply providing equal rights, it also infringes on the institution that I cherish by claiming the same name.

From first post to last, the true colors are revealed.


When you put it like that, it's pretty stunning...

R.
03/18/2010 10:42:44 AM · #4670
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

When you put it like that, it's pretty stunning...

Given his original stance, such a complete turnaround surprised me. It's like a marriage of irony and split personality... but of course we can't call it that because it would mean redefining the word and could offend the fragile sensitivities of the insecure. So I guess it's like a civil union of irony and split personality.
03/18/2010 12:01:44 PM · #4671
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

When you put it like that, it's pretty stunning...

Given his original stance, such a complete turnaround surprised me. It's like a marriage of irony and split personality... but of course we can't call it that because it would mean redefining the word and could offend the fragile sensitivities of the insecure. So I guess it's like a civil union of irony and split personality.


HAHAHA!! Good one scalvert!
03/18/2010 01:49:50 PM · #4672
Also quite revealing:

'Marriage' is to 'gay marriage' as 'wife' is to 'whore'.

Or, rephrased:

'Straight' is to 'gay' as 'wife' is to 'whore'.

That's a value judgment, plain and simple. One that I find rather offensive, since I don't see myself as the 'whore' to johnnyphoto's 'wife', and strive to be a both a good man and good husband. I feel this comparison he's drawn is obviously about johnnyphoto's personal distaste for homosexuality, which he then post-justifies using the Bible, (assumed) tradition, or an appeal to semantics. If he were Muslim, he'd do it with the Koran. He basically states flat out... he doesn't want his awesome, righteous marriage confused with mine because, god forbid, some government worker might accidentally think he's a fag and ask if he has a husband at the border crossing. We can't have that!

Too bad he's not contributing anymore, or I'd ask him to reconcile the fact that many Christians do not see gay marriage as a 'slap in the face' to their god, like he does. It's the same god, right? If even Christians (of which I am not) can't agree about what constitutes a slap in the face to their own god, why should I listen to their opinions on this matter, let alone bow to it? Particularly when I think/feel/know their god simply does not apply to me, just like the Buddhists.

Don't you think that if gay marriage were off the table, and if people like johnnyphoto were still talking, they'd call homosexuality itself a slap in the face to god? An affront to nature? Against the order of things? Yep. We've heard it all before.

Message edited by author 2010-03-18 14:35:59.
03/18/2010 01:56:10 PM · #4673
Originally posted by Mousie:

Too bad he's not contributing anymore, or I'd ask him to reconcile the fact that many Christians do not see gay marriage as a 'slap in the face' to their god, like he does. It's the same god, right?

No. Johnny's is the right god. The others are the wrong god, or worse, the devil himself.

Originally posted by Mousie:

Don't you think that if gay marriage were off the table, and if people like johnnyphoto were still talking, they'd call homosexuality itself a slap in the face to god?

I think that's implied. He has never said otherwise, and it fits perfectly with his ethos. (Even if he has said otherwise, he's been shown to be duplicitous, so only his negative characterizations can be assumed to be authentic.)
03/18/2010 01:59:09 PM · #4674
Originally posted by Mousie:

Don't you think that if gay marriage were off the table, and if people like johnnyphoto were still talking, they'd call homosexuality itself a slap in the face to god? An affront to nature? Against the order of things? Yep. We've heard it all before.


I quite agree with everything you're saying before this part, Mousie. There's a lot of hypocrisy at work there for sure. But I don't think the above statement necessarily follows. Reason: to a Christian, when s/he gets married in the church, that's a *sacrament*, a specific, sacred covenant entered into with God. There are lots of behaviors a Christian doesn't believe in yet will tolerate, but this issue of (in their eyes) messing with a sacrament will really get them wound up.

Of course, "marriage" isn't a Christian concept, they just have their own way of doing it, so that's all very illogical to any reasonable person, but logic has never gone hand-in-hand with zealotry very well...

R.
03/18/2010 02:31:04 PM · #4675
I'd like to revisit this bit:

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

One hundred years from now I don't want the border police to ask me, "is your husband traveling with you?" just because my passport says, "Marital Status: Married".


This strikes right at what I feel is actually behind the whole damn issue. Male sexual insecurity. The insecure male's desperate need to prove himself to his peers. To Be A Man. The idea that someone else might question the foundation of his manhood is simply too much to bear and must be rebuked! You see it in the rage-driven beat downs some men hand out when hit on by another guy, even though they shamelessly letch on women themselves. You see it in a father's horror that the seed of his own loins might grow up queer. "No son of MINE will be gay!" It's really about the father's manhood, not the son's homosexuality.

I'm not a threat to marriage. I'm a threat to all the bullshit hazing and rites of passage that these men endure to prove themselves. When a gay guy minces through, not buying into it all and living by his own standards of masculinity, implicitly pointing out how absurd that macho crap really is... I can see why they'd be threatened... they're so invested. I screw up their standards. I demonstrate, by merely existing, that there are other standards. Other standards that someone might confuse them as holding. If there were no gays around messing up the game, nobody could think that they could be gay!

My feeling is that a bit of this is even driven by jealously... I never really had to live up those standards myself... crushing, oppressive standards. I simply opted out. I got a gay/geek pass. I get to do what I want, wear what I want, express myself the way I want, without constantly second guessing my own masculinity. I'll wear pink striped socks to a party if I damn well please. There are men, tough, macho men, that would blanch at the very thought of wearing pink of any kind in public. Sucks to be them!

I honestly think this whole issue could be driven out of spite, in response to insecure men feeling both threatened and jealous. The pressure To Be A Man is very real. I, somehow, avoided most of it. I just am a man, although I'm sure others would claim I'm not a 'real' man. In a lot of ways, being gay has made my life easier, but these jerks want to make it hard again. Perhaps it appeals to their twisted sense of fairness.

Of course, a woman can buy into Being A Man as well, and many do, but I don't see roving packs of teenage girls out on the prowl to beat up a fag to prove what real men they are.
Pages:   ... [183] [184] [185] [186] [187] [188] [189] [190] [191] ... [266]
Current Server Time: 08/04/2025 09:09:57 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/04/2025 09:09:57 AM EDT.