| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/09/2005 02:20:41 PM · #76 |
...and I would say that just because people believe in the sanctity of marriage doesn't mean that they are homophobes or hateful. It means they have a set of values that go back for generations on what it means to be married - husband and wife. Mom and Dad - family.
Nothing personal laurie...I think you're a nice person and mighty fine photographer. ;^)
Originally posted by laurielblack:
Originally posted by SJCarter:
I thank GOD I don't live in Texas... :-) |
I promise, not ALL Texans are hateful, bigoted, narrow-minded homophobes...really! :) |
|
|
|
|
11/09/2005 02:24:00 PM · #77 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
Well, I can see the reason for concern in Texas. After all, we know what happens when homosexual marriage is allowed. |
Okay, any time I read ANYTHING on the Onion, I lose all control - ROFL!! Thanks for lightening the tone a little. |
|
|
|
11/09/2005 02:25:05 PM · #78 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Nothing personal laurie...I think you're a nice person and mighty fine photographer. ;^) |
Aww thanks...and I didn't know you were a Texan... ;)
(I was just trying to sway public opinion about Texas in general...not talking about you persay.)
|
|
|
|
11/09/2005 02:29:51 PM · #79 |
I knew it wasn't about me Laurie, and I'm not a Texan - however, I have visited there several times (Arlington) years ago on work related business. Now I do enjoy a country dance floor - have a few of those around don't you? ;^)
Originally posted by laurielblack:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Nothing personal laurie...I think you're a nice person and mighty fine photographer. ;^) |
Aww thanks...and I didn't know you were a Texan... ;)
(I was just trying to sway public opinion about Texas in general...not talking about you persay.) |
|
|
|
|
11/09/2005 02:30:50 PM · #80 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
...and I would say that just because people believe in the sanctity of marriage doesn't mean that they are homophobes or hateful. It means they have a set of values that go back for generations on what it means to be married - husband and wife. Mom and Dad - family. |
I wonder how many "Mom and Dad" families have produced homosexual children throughout the millenia?
I also figure the more gay dudes there are around....the more babes for me. Ready to ROCK! ;)
BTW I'm glad someone pointed out that "abusing children" and "drunk driving" weren't lifestyle choices. |
|
|
|
11/09/2005 02:31:00 PM · #81 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
I suppose the liberals in this forum are all in favor of removing God from the Pledge of Allegiance? |
As a matter of fact, I think the original version of the Pledge of Allegiance should be brought back. The original version did not contain the phrase "under God".
Message edited by author 2005-11-09 14:45:40. |
|
|
|
11/09/2005 02:32:55 PM · #82 |
Originally posted by res0m50r:
...This argument wouldn't even exist with out religion and religion wouldn't exist without a God and the Bible. |
I take exception to this statement: Christianity and monotheism are not the first nor the last religion in this world. So, please do not tie the two together. |
|
|
|
11/09/2005 02:36:30 PM · #83 |
Originally posted by res0m50r:
As glad2badad says look up the origins of marriage and you will have your answer. Marriage is a "religious" as you put it, ceremony not a civil one. The problem is not that someone else's religious beliefs are affecting someone else its that historical facts go against the institution of homosexual marriages.
On a side note I find it sort of humorous that so many people are upset that homosexual individuals can not engage in a religious ceremony. If they want to be joined in a civil union then create one for them and stop trying to change a historically proven ceremony into the definition that fits only for man and woman marriage. A quick search on the internet or in the Bible will give you all the history you need on the origins of marriage.
This argument wouldn't even exist with out religion and religion wouldn't exist without a God and the Bible. |
Interesting take on this argument when in fact we are discussing the LEGAL, GOVERNMENT ENDORSED aspect of "marriage" - essentially "civil union". NOT, the RELIGIOUS "marriage" definition. No one here is arguing that a church should or shouldn't endorse marriage between two members of the same gender. We are speaking wholly of the legal contract between two people and the rights that contract provides those two parties. Nothing else.
Pretty simple. And pretty sad, when you think about all the time, money, and energy that's been spent on this debate. Considering the fact that IF these unions were allowed, no one would be physically harmed, no governments would collapse, no neighboring communities would be "threatened", we could have spent this money on armor for our young men and women already in harms way, on our levees in Lousiana, our tired, hungry, poor, and unemployed.
Sorry, to be a wet dishrag, but that's kinda how I feel about it. Yeah, I want the right to marry whomever I please. But, dammit is the "religious right" so scared of what they don't understand that they can't see the forest for the trees? I mean really, come' on people! There are bigger fish to fry.
Message edited by author 2005-11-09 14:38:28. |
|
|
|
11/09/2005 02:40:44 PM · #84 |
Originally posted by persimon:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
I suppose the liberals in this forum are all in favor of removing God from the Pledge of Allegiance? |
As a matteer of fact, I think the original version of the Pledge of Allegiance should be brought back. The original version did not contain the phrase "under God". |
The original pledge:
I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
|
|
11/09/2005 02:42:04 PM · #85 |
Originally posted by persimon:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
I suppose the liberals in this forum are all in favor of removing God from the Pledge of Allegiance? |
As a matteer of fact, I think the original version of the Pledge of Allegiance should be brought back. The original version did not contain the phrase "under God". |
And yes, I have to agree. But then I started thinking about it. Just because I was raised a Christian, grew up an acolyte in an Episcopal Church, president of the youth group, active in civil, church, political, & community affairs, didn't give me the right to proclaim the "my" God was the reason for our country's existence. The reason for our country's existence was a diversity of religious beliefs and a willingness to accept the fact that others had differing opinions. So, yes, I think that it should be removed. |
|
|
|
11/09/2005 02:52:36 PM · #86 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
i think it's really selfish for anyone to try and legislate their BELIEFS on either people.
i'm very frustrated right now, so forgive me if everything i say doesn't make sense.
let's assume for just one moment that gay people "choose" to be gay. (i don't believe it one bit, but i'll give people the benefit of the doubt.) let's say that's a personal choice made completely within one's own mind.
now let's look at someone who chooses to be presbyterian (many would argue that they are "born" into a church instead, but in the interest of fairness let's say religious following is a choice as well). that's a personal choice made completely within one's own mind.
what would happen if we tried to pass a law that said presbyterians could not get married. it's a ridiculous thought, right? it's completely out of the question.
so why, therefore, is it perfectly acceptable to ban someone else's marriage based solely on the context of a personal choice those people have made? that is the fundamental flaw in the argument.
|
Glad you asked. :)
I wholeheartedly agree with you. Neither gay people (whether by choice or by birth) nor presbyterians (whether by choice or by birth) should be denied the right to marry. And they aren't. Any man, whether gay or straight, presbyterian, catholic, jewish or atheist, must absolutely have the same rights in marriage. And they do now. Any man can marry a woman, of legal age, assuming they are not related (and maybe with a few other restrictions based on state and local ordinances). Likewise, no man can marry his sister, brother, mother, dog, a minor (though this varies by locale)... or another man.
They have exactly the same rights.
Originally posted by muckpond:
the constitution in this country does not put any restrictions on life or liberty. with the exception of slavery and prohibition, both of which have since been abolished, the constitution and the bill of rights -- the founding principles of the united states -- have been all about GRANTING rights to the citizens of this country. why should we turn that on its head now and start using those founding principles to restrict the rights of certain citizens? what gives people the right? |
So, following this logic, please explain how those founding fathers, in defining these founding principles, failed to account for same-sex marriage. Rather, the laws of the land, from then until now, have banned same-sex marriage (as well as many other "rights" that have been cooked up in recent times), and until recently were never considered a violation of the rights put forth in the bill of rights. If you want to stand on the founding principles, then you have to show some evidence that those who set forth those principles would support the idea of same-sex marriage. To the contrary, they created the laws that banned it.
More to the point, they primarily left the issue up to the states. And the states are taking matters into their own hands. As the founding prinicples of this country would have it. Go Texas. :)
Originally posted by muckpond:
so, coming back to my original point, what gives people the right to start legislating their belief systems in our democratic system that is supposed to be open to people of all beliefs and religions. |
The very constitution you lean on gives us that right. Everyone votes their belief system. What else would you vote to support than something you believe? Would you vote against same-sex marriage if you support it? Of course not. The double standard comes when your belief is based on anything remotely connected with God or a religious viewpoint. Then your belief is invalid and you're not allowed to follow your beliefs in voting.
If you believe that same-sex marriage should be a federally protected right, then get the constitution ammended. Otherwise, let the states make their own decisions.
Originally posted by muckpond:
what makes your god so much more fundamentally sound than any other? what makes your god fundamentally sound at all? it's something that you BELIEVE in, which is absolutely your right. |
God is that He is. He doesn't need me to defend Him. Whether you choose to believe or not is certainly a matter of faith, which is part of the beauty and the mystery of God.
Originally posted by muckpond:
i think it's truly unfortunate that individuals are willing to completely write people off based on one small facet of their being. |
I write noone off. In fact, I would contend that allowing people to do whatever they want, regardless of the consequences (physically, morally or spiritually) is "writing them off". |
|
|
|
11/09/2005 02:58:49 PM · #87 |
IMO if you had gay friends then this wouldnt be a problem. If I were gay and I read this, I wouldnt want a friend like you.
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by muckpond:
... i'm so glad i CHOSE to be gay so that idiots who listen to rush limbaugh and drool over ann coulter can tell me what a bad person i am.  |
My employment has exposed me to many people of various walks of life. I can include people of many nationalities, and races as friends and yes, I've even had some gay and lesbian people I would include in that list. |
|
|
|
|
11/09/2005 02:59:24 PM · #88 |
Originally posted by hokie:
Originally posted by Riponlady:
If the two homosexuals who wish to marry are religious and want a religious ceremony then there is a problem. otherwise I can't see why it is illegal!
P |
It is only "illegal" because we have the Christian jihadist's in America forcing it on us. |
So same-sex marriage was legal until the year 2001? Wow, that's news to me. Oh, or are you calling George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, John Kennedy, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton Christian jihadists, since same-sex marriage was illegal under all their "regimes"?
BTW, Christian jihadist is such a moronic misuse of either word that it really reflects poorly on your arguement. Such intolerant bigotry as expressed in your post is truly sad. |
|
|
|
11/09/2005 03:06:06 PM · #89 |
Originally posted by srdanz:
Originally posted by res0m50r:
...This argument wouldn't even exist with out religion and religion wouldn't exist without a God and the Bible. |
I take exception to this statement: Christianity and monotheism are not the first nor the last religion in this world. So, please do not tie the two together. |
I said God and the Bible, not Christianity. Yes, to get this overwith, my argument is based totally off the FACTS given to us by the Word of God, the Bible.
|
|
|
|
11/09/2005 03:06:35 PM · #90 |
Originally posted by queanbeez:
... If I were gay and I read this, I wouldnt want a friend like you. |
I'm sorry you would feel this way. I'll leave the door open in case you change your mind - otherwise, have a nice life. ;^)
|
|
|
|
11/09/2005 03:14:58 PM · #91 |
Originally posted by SJCarter:
Interesting take on this argument when in fact we are discussing the LEGAL, GOVERNMENT ENDORSED aspect of "marriage" - essentially "civil union". NOT, the RELIGIOUS "marriage" definition. No one here is arguing that a church should or shouldn't endorse marriage between two members of the same gender. We are speaking wholly of the legal contract between two people and the rights that contract provides those two parties. Nothing else. |
I wasn't aware that "civil union" was the only thing we were discussing, given all the radical right jihadist comments I must of assumed that we were discussing marriage entirely.
Originally posted by SJCarter:
Pretty simple. And pretty sad, when you think about all the time, money, and energy that's been spent on this debate. Considering the fact that IF these unions were allowed, no one would be physically harmed, no governments would collapse, no neighboring communities would be "threatened", we could have spent this money on armor for our young men and women already in harms way, on our levees in Lousiana, our tired, hungry, poor, and unemployed.
Sorry, to be a wet dishrag, but that's kinda how I feel about it. Yeah, I want the right to marry whomever I please. But, dammit is the "religious right" so scared of what they don't understand that they can't see the forest for the trees? I mean really, come' on people! There are bigger fish to fry. |
I am not sure if I consider myself the "religious right". What do you think they are scared of and what are they suppose to be seeing?
Yes there is always going to be a bigger problem in someone elses opinion that we should be worrying, spending money on and doing something about. I am not saying this is the biggest issue in my world today, but dismissing this debate on the basis of its not the "biggest" issue is utterly pointless. Should we really stop supporting everything, debating everything that is not disaster and war related? Don't answer my question is just as absurd as the comment that spurred it.
|
|
|
|
11/09/2005 03:17:18 PM · #92 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Oh so many ways to state things...
If you're gay and happy great. Good for you. If you want to be "married"...sorry, don't believe it's correct since (I repeat) I believe a marriage is between a man and a woman. Can't state it any clearer. It's an opinion - MY opinion. |
Sorry, if your opinion is politically incorrect, then you're not allowed to hold it, express it, or act on it. Welcome to the new America. (BTW, just for clarity, I'm on your side.) :) |
|
|
|
11/09/2005 03:18:25 PM · #93 |
Things I'm thankful for:
The freedom to practice my own religious and political beliefs as I see fit.
The ability to post my opinions in an open public forum such as this.
The luxury of reading other people's opinions freely and without censorship.
The option of deciding for myself what beliefs and tenets I'd like to live my life by.
Things I'd like to have:
The freedom to hold my partner's hand in public without the fear of being beaten to death by a gaybasher.
The authority to see my partner in the hospital and make medical decisions on his behalf if he were to become gravely ill.
The recognition that my love and life relationship is just as valid as my mother & father's.
Protection from discrimination based upon my sexual identity. (equal treatment under the law)
I personally don't think that those things are too much to ask.
Message edited by author 2005-11-09 15:21:03. |
|
|
|
11/09/2005 03:19:31 PM · #94 |
For the history lovers: //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_civil_marriage_in_the_U.S.
What a wonderful history of progressive tolerance! I hope it continues.
|
|
|
|
11/09/2005 03:19:35 PM · #95 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
I don't care if you're gay or straight personally. |
You don't care if someone is gay or straight...
Originally posted by glad2badad:
I can include people of many nationalities, and races as friends and yes, I've even had some gay and lesbian people I would include in that list. |
You've had friends that were gay and lesbian....
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Think maybe I'll move to Texas...sounds like people with good sound values. Hooray for people with real courage! |
But you don't think someone with a different sexual preference than you has good values, or courage....
What if your children grow up to be gay?
Will they no longer have values?
Will you still be glad to be a dad then?
Message edited by author 2005-11-09 15:20:23.
|
|
|
|
11/09/2005 03:30:19 PM · #96 |
ok well didnt say i was gay, but since i think your narrow minded and YES i HAVE gay friends...you can close the door, lock it, and stick the key up....
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by queanbeez:
... If I were gay and I read this, I wouldnt want a friend like you. |
I'm sorry you would feel this way. I'll leave the door open in case you change your mind - otherwise, have a nice life. ;^) |
|
|
|
|
11/09/2005 03:32:41 PM · #97 |
Originally posted by queanbeez:
IMO if you had gay friends then this wouldnt be a problem. If I were gay and I read this, I wouldnt want a friend like you. |
So that means if someone is opposed to gay marriages then they can over come it by being friends with a gay? Does the same work for murders? If I'm friends with a murder does it make his murdering acts any better or more right? That doesn't make a lot of sense.
------------------------------
If you don't want to hear my religious point on this, skip this part and go on to my personal views below...
God designed marriage to be between a man and woman and if it wants to be between a man and a man or woman and woman then it should not be considered a marriage. Whether you believe in God is your choice but not partially your own business, Christians are supposed to love each other and show the love of God for His creation by that love. As God does, we aren't to hate the sinners but hate the sin. If we hated the sinners no one would get to heaven and it would be counter productive. There is also the belief by many that society changes and this means the old rules don't apply anymore. God also doesn't change His mind or rules just because society changes, heck we'd never be able to keep up with His rules if this was the case. He knew/knows what was right for us when he created these rules long before our society existed.
If you are being alienated because of your desire to be with a member of the same sex than some of the problem is with the people doing the alienating. There are religious people that belive their spiritual gift is to change everyone that is not a christian in to one (not a spiritual gift by the way) at all cost and if you don't convert there is no hope for you. Most of the time this does more damage than good.
Homesexualism is against the rules set by God but that doesn't mean that person is not loved by God or cannot be accepted by God.
And if you don't like the words "under God" in the pledge than why not skip it? It's like saying "your taking away my right to NOT believe in God or religion" as your taking away my right TO believe in God or religion by removing it.
-------------------------
Personal views here....
Marriage under religious terms should be kept as a union between a man and a woman. As suggested, if it is anything other than religious pretense than find a different term and rules for it. They can't just give the "perks" of being married to anyone, heck I'm sure we already have too many frauds pulling the wool over the systems eyes now, imagine what it would be like if they lighted up the rules nothing would be considered a perk or advantagous...maybe that's the true was it should be done anyway, not sure.
|
|
|
|
11/09/2005 03:33:06 PM · #98 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by muckpond:
... i'm so glad i CHOSE to be gay so that idiots who listen to rush limbaugh and drool over ann coulter can tell me what a bad person i am. |
I don't care if you're gay or straight personally. My opinion (and that's just what it is) is I believe strongly in a marriage being that of a man and woman - period. |
OK, understandable based on your beliefs. Now, taking the word "marriage" out of the situation, what do you have against "Civil Unions"? Not an attack, just a question.
And on another note, does one really think that the fate of the human race will crash and burn if gays are allowed to marry?? Honestly?? I think there is more then enough procreating going on, and more than enough parentless children that need warm, loveing, understanding homes that we can rest assure that we will be around for a very long time, or at least until we run this planet and it's resources into the ground.
And lastly, I really do hope that none of your children (not directed at anyone in particular responding to this thread, just people in general that believe being gay is a choice) will someday find themselves in a situation that they will have to come out to you. Chances are they won't and will live a life of secrets and lies just to keep you happy and stay in your good graces. The last thing a child would want would be for their parents to look down on them in any way. Why anyone would "Choose" a lifestyle that would cause them to be discriminated against in such a way is really unfathomable to me.
Just my 2-cents...
|
|
|
|
11/09/2005 03:35:12 PM · #99 |
Hi Again. ;^)
Originally posted by ericlimon:
But you don't think someone with a different sexual preference than you has good values, or courage.... |
I suppose you could see it written that way...not the way it was intended. I am glad to see the people (loosely used for you Texans) of Texas standing up for what I believe to be the true definition of marriage (yes, that's been debated heavily here). And the courage to do so in a day and age when pressure is being exerted to do the opposite by left-leaning liberals (have fun with that one).
Originally posted by ericlimon:
What if your children grow up to be gay? |
Lord I pray they don't. Can't answer that question from where I stand today - I'm quite certain it's something that has to be experienced to grasp how it would really feel.
Originally posted by ericlimon:
Will they no longer have values? |
See my answer to the first question/statement.
Originally posted by ericlimon:
Will you still be glad to be a dad then? |
I'm SO thankful to be a dad. I thank God every day for the joy and happiness they bring to my life. I can't ever imagine not being thankful for them. It's hard to imagine the scenario you suggest...hard to answer truthfully without being in those shoes.
You do like to make this personal don't you? Can't believe I'm actually replying...must be a kumbaya day for me. ;^)
|
|
|
|
11/09/2005 03:36:51 PM · #100 |
Right! (not politically!)
Can I please sort out a few points before I scream!
I may be confused because of the difference in law in USA & UK and they makes me feel I am talking in circles!
1. Is there a civil service ( ie non-religious) in the USA?
2. Does a religious wedding require legal documentation before it is legal in the USA?
3. Therefore is a marriage not recognised if it is purely religious without legal documentation?
Marriage - union in presence of God between man & woman in religious circles.
Marriage - contract between two people( presently man & woman) in government/legal circles
But if a man & woman who are not religious wish to go through the civil service and not the religious one they can? Am I right so far?
The reason homosexual marriages are thought of as wrong is for moral religious reasons.
So why should they be banned in both legal AND religious circles?
If you follow my logic and disagree please put me right because I cannot see why there is this problem!
P
Oh yes Need this answered as well
If marriage is the union of man & woman in the presense of God for the purpose of procreation, are people who marry in church and never intend to have children by choice, breaking their vows and therefore making their marriage not "legal" in religious terms?
P
Message edited by author 2005-11-09 15:41:21.
|
|
