| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/18/2009 04:13:22 PM · #2351 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Don't be the same kind of stereotypical person you don't like. |
He's being *funny*, Jeb... I kind of think he's aware of this juxtaposition...
R.
|
|
|
|
04/18/2009 05:24:33 PM · #2352 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Don't be the same kind of stereotypical person you don't like. |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
He's being *funny*, Jeb... I kind of think he's aware of this juxtaposition...
R. |
I *know* that!
I just don't very often get to say that 'round these here parts!......8>)
|
|
|
|
04/19/2009 02:37:25 PM · #2353 |
| The Bigots' Last Hurrah (NY Times Op-Ed article by Frank Rich) |
|
|
|
04/19/2009 10:45:58 PM · #2354 |
The colbert response on youtube if anyone is interested:
I <3 Colbert |
|
|
|
04/19/2009 10:47:14 PM · #2355 |
Also... 1.5 million dollars? For real? Why don't you go feed some starving people with that or maybe fund some schools or something f***heads!
|
|
|
|
04/19/2009 11:18:20 PM · #2356 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Also... 1.5 million dollars? For real? Why don't you go feed some starving people with that or maybe fund some schools or something f***heads! |
Oi vey. You kiss your mom with that mouth Monica? :P |
|
|
|
04/19/2009 11:27:04 PM · #2357 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Also... 1.5 million dollars? For real? Why don't you go feed some starving people with that or maybe fund some schools or something f***heads! |
Oi vey. You kiss your mom with that mouth Monica? :P |
No, just my girlfriend. Don't be gross! :P |
|
|
|
04/19/2009 11:27:10 PM · #2358 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Oi vey. You kiss your mom with that mouth Monica? :P |
Given that several letters were elided, I'd say we at least have sunstantial evidence as to how your mind works ... :-) |
|
|
|
04/19/2009 11:28:35 PM · #2359 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Oi vey. You kiss your mom with that mouth Monica? :P |
Given that several letters were elided, I'd say we at least have sunstantial evidence as to how your mind works ... :-) |
Yea. I meant to say... fart heads but you know... little eyes that are wandering around these gay rights threads and all..
;) |
|
|
|
04/20/2009 12:50:34 AM · #2360 |
Someone replied to a comment I made on some youtube video (I think it was Ted Haggard on Oprah) with this and I thought I'd share because I enjoyed this explanation:
"Here's what I believe:
God creates us all in His image...but not physically. He created us in His spiritual image...now, when you're truly in love with a person, I mean TRULY in love...you fall in love with that person's SPIRIT rather than their physical body. The body (whatever gender it is) is simply a physical presence that holds the spirit/the soul. It's not the gender or the body you're in love with, it's the spirit. And that is REAL love imo. Lust is the sin, be it homo or hetero."
(ETA: I don't agree with lust being a sin, for the record. Of course I don't believe in "sins" so that's a moot point)
Message edited by author 2009-04-20 00:51:56. |
|
|
|
04/20/2009 10:48:37 AM · #2361 |
Worth a read if you are interested in the arguments, for and against.
It is quite understandable that religiously motivated opposition to
same-sex civil marriage shapes the basis for legal opposition to same-sex
marriage, even if only indirectly. Religious objections to same-sex marriage
are supported by thousands of years of tradition and biblical
interpretation.30 The belief that the “sanctity of marriage” would be
undermined by the inclusion of gay and lesbian couples bears a striking
conceptual resemblance to the expressed secular rationale for maintaining
the tradition of marriage as a union between dual-gender couples, but better
identifies the source of the opposition. Whether expressly or impliedly,
much of society rejects same-sex marriage due to sincere, deeply ingrained—
even fundamental—religious belief.
Yet, such views are not the only religious views of marriage. As
demonstrated by amicus groups, other equally sincere groups and people in
Iowa and around the nation have strong religious views that yield the
opposite conclusion.
This contrast of opinions in our society largely explains the absence of
any religion-based rationale to test the constitutionality of Iowa’s same-sex
marriage ban. Our constitution does not permit any branch of government
to resolve these types of religious debates and entrusts to courts the task of
ensuring government avoids them. See Iowa Const. art. I, § 3 (“The general
assembly shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion . . . .”).
The statute at issue in this case does not prescribe a definition of marriage
for religious institutions. Instead, the statute declares, “Marriage is a civil
contract” and then regulates that civil contract. Iowa Code § 595A.1. Thus,
in pursuing our task in this case, we proceed as civil judges, far removed
from the theological debate of religious clerics, and focus only on the concept
of civil marriage and the state licensing system that identifies a limited class
of persons entitled to secular rights and benefits associated with civil
marriage.
[...]
In the final analysis, we give respect to the views of all Iowans on the
issue of same-sex marriage—religious or otherwise—by giving respect to our
constitutional principles. These principles require that the state recognize
both opposite-sex and same-sex civil marriage. Religious doctrine and views
contrary to this principle of law are unaffected, and people can continue to
associate with the religion that best reflects their views. A religious
denomination can still define marriage as a union between a man and a
woman, and a marriage ceremony performed by a minister, priest, rabbi, or
other person ordained or designated as a leader of the person’s religious
faith does not lose its meaning as a sacrament or other religious institution.
The sanctity of all religious marriages celebrated in the future will have the
same meaning as those celebrated in the past. The only difference is civil
marriage will now take on a new meaning that reflects a more complete
understanding of equal protection of the law. This result is what our
constitution requires.
So - there already is a distinguishing term - a civil marriage or a religious marriage.
Message edited by author 2009-04-20 10:55:11. |
|
|
|
04/20/2009 11:29:50 AM · #2362 |
I heard a radio commercial this morning from a group trying to reverse Connecticut's recent approval of gay marriage. They claimed that the new law will lead to teaching homosexual lifestyles in school and forcing churches to perform marriages against their own faith. Oy, how can people be so openly clueless and prejudiced? I'll be contacting my legislators as a result of the commercial, but not as they intended. Unfortunately, I stopped to help a disabled motorist a few minutes later and forgot who sponsored the radio spot as a result of the distraction. Weird morning. :-/
Ugh, I just got the same message as a banner ad on Mail2web. It's from the "National Organization for Marriage."
Message edited by author 2009-04-20 12:02:14. |
|
|
|
04/20/2009 12:31:20 PM · #2363 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
I heard a radio commercial this morning from a group trying to reverse Connecticut's recent approval of gay marriage. They claimed that the new law will lead to teaching homosexual lifestyles in school and forcing churches to perform marriages against their own faith. Oy, how can people be so openly clueless and prejudiced? I'll be contacting my legislators as a result of the commercial, but not as they intended. Unfortunately, I stopped to help a disabled motorist a few minutes later and forgot who sponsored the radio spot as a result of the distraction. Weird morning. :-/
Ugh, I just got the same message as a banner ad on Mail2web. It's from the "National Organization for Marriage." |
Yeah......they'd be the perpetrators of the Storm spew.....
|
|
|
|
04/20/2009 12:40:47 PM · #2364 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by scalvert:
I heard a radio commercial this morning from a group trying to reverse Connecticut's recent approval of gay marriage. They claimed that the new law will lead to teaching homosexual lifestyles in school and forcing churches to perform marriages against their own faith. Oy, how can people be so openly clueless and prejudiced? I'll be contacting my legislators as a result of the commercial, but not as they intended. Unfortunately, I stopped to help a disabled motorist a few minutes later and forgot who sponsored the radio spot as a result of the distraction. Weird morning. :-/
Ugh, I just got the same message as a banner ad on Mail2web. It's from the "National Organization for Marriage." |
Yeah......they'd be the perpetrators of the Storm spew..... |
Perhaps they were making reference to these...Talking Points... See item 4.
Ray
Message edited by author 2009-04-20 12:41:27. |
|
|
|
04/20/2009 12:52:44 PM · #2365 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Perhaps they were making reference to these...Talking Points... See item 4. |
Yep. You could parallel their words with defining marriage as a union of two white people or two black people, and it would be the exact same argument. And yes, it IS racist and bigoted. |
|
|
|
04/20/2009 01:55:57 PM · #2366 |
| That link should come with a warning. Ewww. |
|
|
|
04/20/2009 02:00:31 PM · #2367 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
That link should come with a warning. Ewww. |
Yeah, but ya gotta love that Times editorial!
A Great Perspective
|
|
|
|
04/20/2009 02:07:07 PM · #2368 |
Let me clarify a bit - I am probably very politically naive. It's not the rhetoric itself that shocked me, it's the concept of providing talking points for a 3x5 card. Huh? That really floored me. I would think if someone felt strongly about an issue, they could do their own talking. Talking points for a 3x5 card??
Oh, as based on those talking points, my sister and her husband should not have been allowed to be married either. They cannot have children and knew that going in. And kind of a slam on single parents, who obviously can't be both mommy and daddy but sure they heck try to do what they can.
But still... talking points? 3x5 cards? I'm crawling back under the Ignorance Rock. Nicer there. |
|
|
|
04/20/2009 02:17:36 PM · #2369 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
Let me clarify a bit - I am probably very politically naive. It's not the rhetoric itself that shocked me, it's the concept of providing talking points for a 3x5 card. Huh? That really floored me. I would think if someone felt strongly about an issue, they could do their own talking. Talking points for a 3x5 card??
Oh, as based on those talking points, my sister and her husband should not have been allowed to be married either. They cannot have children and knew that going in. And kind of a slam on single parents, who obviously can't be both mommy and daddy but sure they heck try to do what they can.
But still... talking points? 3x5 cards? I'm crawling back under the Ignorance Rock. Nicer there. |
Ugh!
Just read that.....can't wait to get home tonite to write those folks and see if they want some realistic answers to those skewed points from a 53 y.o. man with a wife and daughter who believes in equal rights and that gay marriage is NOT the end of civilization as we know it.
Those people are an embarrassment to decent caring married people everywhere.
|
|
|
|
04/20/2009 02:28:15 PM · #2370 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
But still... talking points? 3x5 cards? I'm crawling back under the Ignorance Rock. Nicer there. |
The sole function of this "defense of marriage" group is political action. People who believe in "defending marriage" are being painted as bigots these days. The purpose of the "talking points" is to educate their members as to what are the most effective rebuttals against these charges of bigotry. Look at it this way: just about EVERY politician has "handlers", and these handlers provide the politician with "talking points" on every conceivable issue s/he might be asked to take a stance on. Nothing worries a political handler more than a politician who thinks for himself.
:-)
R.
Message edited by author 2009-04-20 14:28:39.
|
|
|
|
04/20/2009 02:33:18 PM · #2371 |
“When the idea that children need moms and dads get legally stigmatized as bigotry, the job of parents and faith communities trying to transmit a marriage culture to their kids is going to get a lot harder.”
HAHAHAHAHAHA. The hilarity. legally stigmatized as bigotry? HUH???
That's like saying... don't promote civil rights or I'll look like the bad guy for being racist! Oh no!!!!!!!!! POOOOOORR MEEE!!! THE HORROR!!!!
|
|
|
|
04/20/2009 02:37:05 PM · #2372 |
5. Why do you want to interfere with love?
A: “Love is a great thing. But marriage isn’t just any kind of love; it’s the special love of husband and wife for each other and their children.”
See Doc, maybe this isn't your view but this is what I was talking with the "in your face" banter of previous posts. This is what it really comes down to.
We aren't more special? WHAT! That can't be! Oh my!
A coalition coming together in love... to say we are the only ones that love each other the right way. We are specialllll!!!! Waaahhh!!! |
|
|
|
04/20/2009 02:41:25 PM · #2373 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
The colbert response on youtube if anyone is interested:
I <3 Colbert |
NOM's response to Colbert:
(Princeton, NJ) - “I’ve always thought Stephen Colbert was a double-agent, pretending to pretend to be a conservative, to pull one over Hollywood. Now I’m sure," said Maggie Gallagher, President of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM).
“Thank you Stephen for playing our ad in full on national television—for free. HRC eat your heart out. Plus we all had a great chuckle, too!" said Brian Brown, NOM’s Executive Director. "Where can I make a donation to the National Organization for Colbert?"
Oh man. That is some seriously delusional thinking. But what's new? |
|
|
|
04/20/2009 02:50:32 PM · #2374 |
Yeah, Robert, I realize it's a political thing - hence my comment about being politically naive. I guess I just didn't realize how ... I don't know what word I'm looking for here... Anyway, struck me as quite shocking.
And I firmly support NOM's right to express their beliefs, even on 3x5 cards. I do think, however, that if their goal is the sanctity of marriage, they might best spend a bit more of their time and money on dealing with divorce and the issues that result from that particular threat. I'm thinking (without facts or 3x5 cards to back it up) that divorce is more prevalent, percentage wise, than gay marriage.
Edit - I went back to that site. As far as I can tell, their whole "defense of marriage" pertains solely to preventing legislation allowing same-sex marriage. Am I missing something?
Message edited by author 2009-04-20 15:08:52. |
|
|
|
04/20/2009 02:59:44 PM · #2375 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
Yeah, Robert, I realize it's a political thing - hence my comment about being politically naive. I guess I just didn't realize how ... I don't know what word I'm looking for here... Anyway, struck me as quite shocking.
And I firmly support NOM's right to express their beliefs, even on 3x5 cards. I do think, however, that if their goal is the sanctity of marriage, they might best spend a bit more of their time and money on dealing with divorce and the issues that result from that particular threat. I'm thinking (without facts or 3x5 cards to back it up) that divorce is more prevalent, percentage wise, than gay marriage. |
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more.
That's because as we all know, its not about marriage protection. That's the sugar they put on their heaping pile of anti-gay propaganda. And for anyone that can see past the thin sugar coating (which is most anyone with half a brain and the motivation to use it), they can see it's absolute bull. |
|
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: 08/09/2025 10:20:48 AM EDT.
