Help me understand: Why are people so threatened by gay marriage?

[Southern_girl29]

I just don't get it. Can someone help explain it to me? When I asked my mom why she was against it, she said that she doesn't care what other people do, she just didn't want it rubbed in her face. I told her she was being judgmental, and she said she wasn't. My husband, who is also against it, said it just isn't right. That's not a good enough answer for me.


Even if you believe gay marriage is wrong, how is it going to hurt you? It's not going to make your marriage any less meaningful. I just don't get it and would love to understand.

[greglondon]

Well, just the other day, this woman I knew said she left her husband because the state she lived in allowed gay marriages. She said if anyone could do it, it just wasn't special anymore, so why bother.

Plus, her husband was a lazy bum.

But she said it was gay marriage that pushed her over the edge.

(end sarcasm)

[greglondon]

Don't get your hopes up for a logical explanation for this one. Prejudice is a funny thing. And it sure aint logical.

[whistlelock]

Honestly, who wants to come home from a hard day of work to find out they've suddenly gotten married to a gay man?

I know I don't.

My wife steals the covers enough as it is, I don't wanna have to compete with a third person for the covers.

That's why I'm against it.

[Alan Yee]

I just don't get it either. Why are they babbling about "preserving the sanctity of marriage" when an increasing number of heterosexual couples are getting divorces while their kids are stuck in the middle?

Since I probably am gay, this is something that I always keep in mind, hoping we'll progress beyond we are now. I have no problem with choosing NOT to marry a partner I may have in the future. You don't have to marry someone to show how much you love them. What I do have a serious problem with is not having the option to marry them. I am a Christian, though I've taken heat from some people before for my viewpoints, which are different from those of most conservative, literalist Christians.

Even if you don't approve of gay marriage, I seriously think people should not have the right to tell us we can't marry whom we wish to marry. Since when is it your business what goes on in peoples' bedrooms? It doesn't make your marriage any less meaningful, so I don't see the big issue, besides people just being prejudiced and intolerant.

NOTE: "You" does not refer to any specific person.

[Southern_girl29]

Here's what I don't get. The Bible says sex outside of marriage is wrong, but Christians aren't trying to make laws to make it illegal. It's against the Bible to lie, but again, no real laws exist against this. There are many things considered sinful in the Bible, but Christians aren't trying to make laws against those things. Why this? Why is this "sin" supposed to be worse than any other?

[Alan Yee]

My wife steals the covers enough as it is, I don't wanna have to compete with a third person for the covers.

That's why I'm against it.

I'm not following this. So, gay marriage = competing with a third person? Even without gay marriage, there is cheating. I don't see how this says anything particular about gay marriage, rather than marriage in general.

[Bravo]

Here's what I don't get. The Bible says sex outside of marriage is wrong, but Christians aren't trying to make laws to make it illegal. It's against the Bible to lie, but again, no real laws exist against this. There are many things considered sinful in the Bible, but Christians aren't trying to make laws against those things. Why this? Why is this "sin" supposed to be worse than any other?

i think your missing something here.

no one is sanctioning sex before marriage or any of the other sins either. not as many ppl (prob only a few) want to have laws against homosexuals.

but they dont want to sanction them either.


maybe a nice compromise might be for the govt to get out of the religious aspect of this altogether and stick w secular civil unions for every1.

:Shrug:

[Opty]

Here's what I don't get. The Bible says sex outside of marriage is wrong, but Christians aren't trying to make laws to make it illegal. It's against the Bible to lie, but again, no real laws exist against this. There are many things considered sinful in the Bible, but Christians aren't trying to make laws against those things. Why this? Why is this "sin" supposed to be worse than any other?

It's a mischaracterization of this issue to paint it as a "Christian-only" agenda.

[billythrilly7th]

secular civil unions for every1.


Bravo, will you make me the happiest man in the world and secular civil union me?

[Bravo]

no.

we're done dating.

you need to read up on this, and leave me alone now:

http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=45730

[tiny]

I'm not following this. So, gay marriage = competing with a third person? Even without gay marriage, there is cheating. I don't see how this says anything particular about gay marriage, rather than marriage in general.



shhhhh, I think maybe whistle was kidding.

[billythrilly7th]

no.

we're done dating.

you need to read up on this, and leave me alone now:

http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=45730

:ROFL:

But we should be together, Slim.

[Southern_girl29]

I realize that it's not a Christian-only agenda, but I believe, and I could be wrong, that most people who are against gay marriage say they are against it because of their Christian views.

[Alan Yee]

shhhhh, whistle was kidding.

Damn. I always have that problem. If you don't put a smiley on it in a serious thread, I can never tell if you're kidding or not. But I guess it works both ways.

I think I'll shut up now and go get some sleep.

[billythrilly7th]

I realize that it's not a Christian-only agenda, but I believe, and I could be wrong, that most people who are against gay marriage say they are against it because of their Christian views.

I disagree.

I know many non-Christians. And I can say that many of them just don't think a man should be able to married a man. Nothing to do with religion. Maybe it's blatant homophobia or whatever. But Christianity doesn't have anything to do with it.

But maybe MOST people. I don't know. What's the percentage "most"

Over 50% technically but were you thinking higher?

[Southern_girl29]

I disagree.

I know many non-Christians. And I can say that many of them just don't think a man should be able to married a man. Nothing to do with religion. Maybe it's blatant homophobia or whatever. But Christianity doesn't have anything to do with it.

But maybe MOST people. I don't know. What's the percentage "most"

Over 50% technically but were you thinking higher?

Maybe I should have clarified that I think in my state that most people are against it because of their religious beliefs. Here, I would say it's probably 75 percent of the people are against it because of Christianity. And, I would say it's probably that way across most of the South.

[billythrilly7th]

Maybe I should have clarified that I think in my state that most people are against it because of their religious beliefs. Here, I would say it's probably 75 percent of the people are against it because of Christianity. And, I would say it's probably that way across most of the South.

I think that's probably a fair estimate and statement.

[dclary]

Maybe I should have clarified that I think in my state that most people are against it because of their religious beliefs. Here, I would say it's probably 75 percent of the people are against it because of Christianity. And, I would say it's probably that way across most of the South.

From what I understand, homosexuality is a genetic defect (more medical research indicates it's a biological thing, not a choice thing). As such, I am in favor of curing this defect to make the human species stronger. Therefore, I have no reason to support a union of a subset of humans that I hope will someday be cured of their affliction.

That, plus, I believe words have meanings. And to me, the definition of marriage = one man and one woman.

[alleycat]

I realize that it's not a Christian-only agenda, but I believe, and I could be wrong, that most people who are against gay marriage say they are against it because of their Christian views.
I think it's more universal than that. Here the vote so far is 81% to 19% in support of the amendment banning it. And, yes, I supported the amendment too.

[Southern_girl29]

I've got to go to bed. I'm getting so tired I can't think. I started work around 8:30 this morning didn't get home until after 9 p.m. I have to be up in the morning to have my daughter at preschool by 8:30 a.m., and will then head into the newsroom. I'll be the only one there for a few hours, so I'll respond more then.

[Opty]

Yeah, I was really kind of surprised that it got 81% here. I expected it to pass (although I don't really agree with it), but not by such an overwhelming margin.

If that vote hadn't been on the ballot, I doubt Corker would've won today.

[billythrilly7th]

"Vote Cork/Spork in 2008!"
Bringing the Ork back to the White House

[Opty]

Ugh.

Vote "Obama/Ford, Jr. 2008."

[billythrilly7th]

Ugh.

Vote "Obama/Ford, Jr. 2008."

Does Obama or Ford have any military experience?

[Opty]

Who cares?

[billythrilly7th]

Who cares?

Democrats, I thought.

For six years all I've heard about is how Bush, Cheney etc never served.

Please tell me that democrats won't all of a sudden forget that when it comes to Hillary, Obama etc..

That would be hypocritical, no?

Would that "should have served to send military into action" issue no longer apply?

I can't see sincere democrats who have mentioned that ad naseum for six years now backing off because their candidate doesn't have any military experience.

I can't see it.

I'd be shocked.

[Opty]

I dunno.

I'm not a democrat, so I'm probably not the person to ask.

[Scarlett_156]

People who are property and money hogs (not necessarily Christian) oppose gay marriage because if the gay partner of their family member can make a LEGAL claim to half of his or her spouse's property upon their divorce, or the death of their family member, it will make it that much more difficult for them to enrich themselves, or keep whatever property there is in the family.

Also: Families who had a hard time accepting the gay partnership of their family member (again, regardless of their religious beliefs) will have an even worse time accepting the decisions in a child custody dispute upon the legal breakup of a gay couple.

One of my clients that I have been doing divination and spellcasting for over these last few months is in such a relationship; her intended partner is in the process of divorce, and there is a 2-year-old child involved. If her lover's parents-- with whom the girlfriend and little kid are staying while the divorce is in process-- get any inkling that their daughter is involved in a gay relationship, they will crap a litter of lizards and cause all KINDS of hell. My client is outraged that she should have to disguise her feelings and intentions to placate her lover's parents-- and yet it must be done for the good of all.

If said parents expected to be dealing with the marriage of their daughter to another woman, with that woman gaining custody rights over their grandchild in the event of a breakup-- how many more lizards would they crap, do you think? I think: A whole lot more. There would be lizards all OVER the damned place.

Frankly I have never understood why ANYONE marries. But that's just me. If homos want to marry each other-- haha! why not? They deserve the right to be miserable like everybody else.

When you see people saying that they are opposed to some sort of social change for "ethical" "moral" or "religious" reasons-- follow the scent of money, rather than the stink of sanctity. It will always lead you to the answer you are seeking.

I hope this was helpful!

[billythrilly7th]

I dunno.

I'm not a democrat, so I'm probably not the person to ask.

Well, maybe one will come along and address that issue.

Or maybe.....

:wind blowing and tumbleweeds emoticon:

[RG570]

From what I understand, homosexuality is a genetic defect (more medical research indicates it's a biological thing, not a choice thing). As such, I am in favor of curing this defect to make the human species stronger. Therefore, I have no reason to support a union of a subset of humans that I hope will someday be cured of their affliction.

That, plus, I believe words have meanings. And to me, the definition of marriage = one man and one woman.

Bring out the gas chambers! Might as well throw in the mentally ill and "workshy" in there too.

Ah, biological determinism. A sickening pseudoscience. Terribly outdated too.

[dclary]

Everyone's entitled to an opinion as long as it's your own, eh?

[Opty]

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan

[SeanDSchaffer]

I just don't get it. Can someone help explain it to me? When I asked my mom why she was against it, she said that she doesn't care what other people do, she just didn't want it rubbed in her face. I told her she was being judgmental, and she said she wasn't. My husband, who is also against it, said it just isn't right. That's not a good enough answer for me.


Even if you believe gay marriage is wrong, how is it going to hurt you? It's not going to make your marriage any less meaningful. I just don't get it and would love to understand.


Some people have this idea that gay marriage will lead to worse things down the road. That if gays are allowed to marry members of the same gender, then other 'perversions', as some people call it, will be next in line.

There are also quite a few religious individuals throughout the world that think it is their job to force their viewpoints on everyone else. I think the three major monotheistic religions in the world, (Judaeism; Christianity; Islam) have their fair share of fanatics within their ranks who think that it is not only their job to follow their God's laws, but also to force everyone else to do the same thing. (Especially within Islam and Christianity).

I don't know about Judaeism or Islam, so far as what their teachings say. As for Christianity, which I personally hold to, Jesus never ever said, "Go into all the world and force other people to obey me". The closest He ever came to that, was the word 'Teach'. (as in "Teaching [Christ's disciples] to obey all that I have commanded [them]".)

[Dollywagon]

People in general like to be in comfort zones. They like to feel safe and unchallenged and resent anything that makes them feel there is anything "abnormal" about the society the majority have built for themselves.

True change represents a societal 'risk' to them, it is a threat, and they will say anything to subdue the threat (other than of course examine the circumstances empathetically or in detail)

Whatever you do don't step outside the box - our caring society will get you for it.


(Or tell them anything is their fault - they don't like that)

[KTC]

Everywhere you go you will find people who think it's okay to impose their will on others. I think some people feel threatened by the beautiful window treatments hiding these couples from the outside world. People should mind their own business when it comes to marriage between two consenting adults. The state has no business in the fabulously fashionable bedrooms of gay marriage.

[aadams73]

I'm with Kevin. If two men or two women want to get married, let them have at it! They're not poking around in my business and bedroom, so I'm not going to poke around in theirs. Plus I'm all for people finding someone they love. Real love is always good.

[Perks]

From what I understand, homosexuality is a genetic defect (more medical research indicates it's a biological thing, not a choice thing). As such, I am in favor of curing this defect to make the human species stronger. Therefore, I have no reason to support a union of a subset of humans that I hope will someday be cured of their affliction.

That, plus, I believe words have meanings. And to me, the definition of marriage = one man and one woman.The only ramification of that defect is the inability to procreate within that arrangement. And since we're so short on human beings on this Big Blue Marble, I suppose I can see your concern.

[Susan Gable]

Here's what I don't get. The Bible says sex outside of marriage is wrong, but Christians aren't trying to make laws to make it illegal. ?

Actually, some states do still have adultery laws on the books.

Susan G.

[Forbidden Snowflake]

Well, I'm not opposed to gay marriage. But I once had it explained to me this way:

Many people, who are very religious, are against this because it's condemned in the Bible, and they feel it's morally wrong. So think of something you find morally wrong - incest, say. Imagine there's a society where this is not a taboo, the people aren't mentally harmed by it, and measures are taken to prevent pregnancies. So little Jane is molested by her father at a young age, and everyone's okay with it.

Sounds awful? Sounds like something you, personally, can't stomach? That's how people against gay marriage feel, all the time. Sorry doesn't work. Little Jane getting molested by her father hurts little Jane. Me getting married to my gf hurts absolutely no one. Next argument?

[Julie Worth]

Well, I'm not opposed to gay marriage. But I once had it explained to me this way:

Many people, who are very religious, are against this because it's condemned in the Bible, and they feel it's morally wrong. So think of something you find morally wrong - incest, say...

And yet, if you take the Bible literally, and you read Genesis, asking yourself who was sleeping with who, you soon realize that, without incest, there would be no human race.

[greglondon]

From what I understand, homosexuality is a genetic defect

Thank you, Doctor Mengele. Did you get that diagnosis out of a cracker jack box, or did you make it up all on your own?


As such, I am in favor of curing this defect to make the human species stronger.

From the man who has photoshopped his face onto a wish fullfillment character.


That, plus, I believe words have meanings. And to me, the definition of marriage = one man and one woman.

That would require that words have meaning outside of human influence. Did God hand your dictionary down from on high? The rest of us view words as something the people agree upon for mutual meaning. But that does mean that *ssh*l*s can hijack language and say crap like "separate but equal" and try to pawn it off as meaning something other than complete and utter bigotry.

[greglondon]

And we all know that Canada has devolved into mutants since they allowed gay marriages several years ago.

Oh wait. That didn't actually happen.

Someone's operating on a non-reality-based worldview. And it ain't me.

[David McAfee]

Personally, I couldn't care less if gay couples want to get married. It doesn't affect me or my marriage in any way. I say let 'em do it if they wanna. However, having said that, Amendment 1 passed in TN by 80%. It seems my state is strongly opposed to it, and since this is a democracy, I guess the majority has had its say.

[David McAfee]

Actually, some states do still have adultery laws on the books.

Susan G.

In the military, a soldier who is caught committing adultery can still be booted out of the service.

[dclary]

The only ramification of that defect is the inability to procreate within that arrangement. And since we're so short on human beings on this Big Blue Marble, I suppose I can see your concern.


Boobsie and I debated this over on DD once. She made the point that since science (through surrogacy etc.) had overcome the biological procreation problem, the need to eugenically solve this problem had been eliminated.

It was a compelling argument that I conceded the point to. I still would like to see all genetic defects eliminated someday, but you're right. There's no reason why this one should be targeted above any other.

[Sheryl Nantus]

And we all know that Canada has devolved into mutants since they allowed gay marriages several years ago.

Oh wait. That didn't actually happen.

Someone's operating on a non-reality-based worldview. And it ain't me.

hush, now... you've giving away Canadian state secrets!

actually, it's part of our plan to eventually tax everyone to death. One or another, we're gonna get your money!

(but seriously - Canada's doing just fine with gay marriages. We've even had gay divorces!)

:D

[SC Harrison]

People in general like to be in comfort zones. They like to feel safe and unchallenged and resent anything that makes them feel there is anything "abnormal" about the society the majority have built for themselves.

True change represents a societal 'risk' to them, it is a threat, and they will say anything to subdue the threat (other than of course examine the circumstances empathetically or in detail)

Whatever you do don't step outside the box - our caring society will get you for it.


(Or tell them anything is their fault - they don't like that)

I agree totally. There are all kinds of irrational thoughts percolating below the surface of the average person's ego. How society is structured, where we fit in to the pecking order, how we can improve our status, etc.

Marriage is one of the most recognized achievements in this struggle for acceptance, which is one reason people are willing to spend tens of thousands on a showcase wedding.

It's not about the sanctity of marriage that has them worried, it's about legitimacy and pride of ownership.

[janetbellinger]

I don't see why it should be banned. Whatever makes people happy, as long as they aren't exploiting or hurting themselves or other people or animals.
I would think people would be glad to see gay people settling down and getting married, becoming members of the community, instead of being marginalized and driven to gay bars and bathhouses, where they contact AIDS. After all, at least in Canada, even if you don't care about the rights of gay people, you have to realize that the taxpayers are the ones who will pay for AIDS treatment and so it's easier on our pocketbooks if gay people remain in monogamous relationships via marriage.

[Dollywagon]

I too, have heard that homosexuality is genetically based. What I haven't seen proven however, is that it is a "defect."

Maybe, somehow, homosexuality is actually part of our inherent genetic make-up? Maybe, it is actually natural for a certain proportion of our species, and only our culture has defined it as a 'defect?'

I just can't keep this lid on the box I was supposed to live in.

[Sheryl Nantus]

but yet... at the same time society has pretty well dissolved the concept of marriage by accepting common-law couples, when you think about it.

I can stay with someone for a few years, never even get a marriage license and suddenly I'm considered to be the equivilent of married. No muss, no fuss and I get half the money when I leave! (depending on the State, of course.)

it would seem to me that those upset about gay marriage should first reconsider their position on common-law marriages, since they started the trend to *not* get married and just wait on time to declare your maritial status to be changed.

*shrugs*

[Southern_girl29]

I'm not sure why this is such a hot button for me, except that I do have a cousin who is gay and several friends. I just don't understand. For me, I don't understand it like I don't understand how someone can be a racist.

On other issues, like abortion and stem cell research, I can understand how someone can have the opinion they do. And, I know everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but this one just seems so wrong.

[Bravo]

I would think people would be glad to see gay people settling down and getting married, becoming members of the community, instead of being marginalized and driven to gay bars and bathhouses, where they contact AIDS. After all, at least in Canada, even if you don't care about the rights of gay people, you have to realize that the taxpayers are the ones who will pay for AIDS treatment and so it's easier on our pocketbooks if gay people remain in monogamous relationships via marriage.

i fail to see how being denied marriage is causing AIDS to spread.

[Southern_girl29]

Democrats, I thought.

For six years all I've heard about is how Bush, Cheney etc never served.

Please tell me that democrats won't all of a sudden forget that when it comes to Hillary, Obama etc..

That would be hypocritical, no?

Would that "should have served to send military into action" issue no longer apply?

I can't see sincere democrats who have mentioned that ad naseum for six years now backing off because their candidate doesn't have any military experience.

I can't see it.

I'd be shocked.

I'm a Democrat and I could care less if someone has military experience or not. That's about the last qualification I seek in a president, and I come from a military family.

[Bravo]

I'm not sure why this is such a hot button for me, except that I do have a cousin who is gay and several friends. I just don't understand. For me, I don't understand it like I don't understand how someone can be a racist.

On other issues, like abortion and stem cell research, I can understand how someone can have the opinion they do. And, I know everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but this one just seems so wrong.

ask yourself how you feel about 2 adults trying to sanctify an incestous relationship and then you might understand how those who oppose gay marriage feel.




(and just for the record, i wouldnt stop any adult from living out his life as he sees fit.)

[Joe Unidos]

The biggest threat to marriage is divorce. If someone want to preserve the sanctity of marriage, they should be trying to outlaw divorce. They're not. Why? Because it has nothing to do with the sanctity of marriage. Folks are opposed to gay marriage for the same reason folks were opposed to inter-racial marriage: ignorance and fear. And it's that same ignorance and fear that has been the GOP's bread and butter for at least half a century.

[Dollywagon]

I know why it's such a hot potato for me. Cos, I'm sick to death of 'normal' society viewing me as some kind of flu virus waiting to contaminate the rest of the world - and I'm not gay!!!

I've lived alone for about 8 years now. Out of choice. It's an oddball sort of rustic life. Not much money, not many material goods, and - heaven forbid - I'm happy with my own company.

I attract abuse from the nice, normal people more than you would ever believe. They just can't fit me into a slot, you see!!! I just won't go!

It took me a long time to realise that it's their own insecurities and unhappiness that causes this reaction. It's their own fears.

Sorry - guess I'm having a bad day, but that target on my back is getting pretty tiresome and I'm sick to death of people who constantly take lifes 'safe' route, having a pop of those that actually want to live out their existence in a different manner.

[WriterInChains]

The biggest threat to marriage is divorce. If someone want to preserve the sanctity of marriage, they should be trying to outlaw divorce. They're not. Why? Because it has nothing to do with the sanctity of marriage. Folks are opposed to gay marriage for the same reason folks were opposed to inter-racial marriage: ignorance and fear. And it's that same ignorance and fear that has been the GOP's bread and butter for at least half a century.

I just felt this should be said again.

[dclary]

I'm a Democrat and I could care less if someone has military experience or not. That's about the last qualification I seek in a president, and I come from a military family.

That's how most normal people are, SG. But there's a LOT of demmie Bush-haters who love passing around a little sheet that says "look at all the republican leaders with no military experience. Aren't they bastards for taking us to war?!!??!"

Billy just wants to know if these same folks are going to update that sheet and keep passing it around now that they're in control.

[aghast]

i wonder what britney spears thinks about gay marraige- oooh baby baby, let them be as miserable as i am

[Bravo]

That's how most normal people are, SG. But there's a LOT of demmie Bush-haters who love passing around a little sheet that says "look at all the republican leaders with no military experience. Aren't they bastards for taking us to war?!!??!"


the issue can be raised when a dem w/ no military experience calls for a preemptive strike on another nation.

[aghast]

ask yourself how you feel about 2 adults trying to sanctify an incestous relationship and then you might understand how those who oppose gay marriage feel,,

i know youre justifying how peopel feel about gay marriage (yuk, eck, gross) but i seriously hope youre not comparing gay people to incest

[Kate Thornton]

I think consenting adults should be able to marry other consenting adults. It does not diminish me or my choice of marriage in any way. It does not threaten my life or my marriage or my view of marriage as a partnership of equals or my view of who should get property rights, insurance and tax benefits.

It simply does not have any impact on my life - except that people who want to make a formal and legal committment to a life together should be able to do so. How can someone else's happiness ever diminish my own?

[dclary]

the issue can be raised when a dem w/ no military experience calls for a preemptive strike on another nation.

Exactly. Like, invading Somalia maybe. Or cruise missiling a sovereign nation because terrorists are there.

[Bravo]

i know youre justifying how peopel feel about gay marriage (yuk, eck, gross) but i seriously hope youre not comparing gay people to incest

your visceral reaction, just proved my point.

[aghast]

That's how most normal people are, SG. But there's a LOT of demmie Bush-haters who love passing around a little sheet that says "look at all the republican leaders with no military experience. Aren't they bastards for taking us to war?!!??!

youre missing the point about bush, after all clinton didnt serve either and people loved him - and no one has a problem with mccain or powell for being military men - the problem people have with bush is that he criticizes those who have served (kerry) and flaunts his military records and refuses to answer questions about his awol, etc. (cheney wiggled out of vietnam as well) bush calls himself a military guy but he never served, and now he plunged us in a useless war and at the same time takes away veteran benefits - its hypocritical

[Joe Unidos]

That's how most normal people are, SG. But there's a LOT of demmie Bush-haters who love passing around a little sheet that says "look at all the republican leaders with no military experience. Aren't they bastards for taking us to war?!!??!"

Billy just wants to know if these same folks are going to update that sheet and keep passing it around now that they're in control.

The issue is not strictly "military service or not," as you well know --the issue is that Mr Bush and Mr Cheney used their family's clout to wiggle out of going to Vietnam, unlike Mr Kerry and Mr McCain. But you already knew that and are just spinning. Mr Clinton at least used his own smarts and hard work to wiggle out.

The "list" you complain about has to do with men who managed to dodge the draft, not men who simply didn't serve. But, again, you already knew that and are just spinning.

[aghast]

your visceral reaction, just proved my point.

prove what point? btw i dont really care if you have sex with your sister - its not my place to judge you, so if you want to marry your sister, go ahead and propose - my point is gay and incest are two very different things - but i guess you just dont get it

[Bravo]

Exactly. Like, invading Somalia maybe. Or cruise missiling a sovereign nation because terrorists are there.

are you really having a discussion like this in a gay marriage thread? :ROFL:

1) it wasnt an "invasion" of somalia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mogadishu). nice try suga.

2) cruise missiles were launched at the nation that was hiding the terrorists who attacked. not a random nation that might somehow possibly collude w the terrorists. ;)

now back to the regular programming.

[Lyra Jean]

Here's what I don't get. The Bible says sex outside of marriage is wrong, but Christians aren't trying to make laws to make it illegal. It's against the Bible to lie, but again, no real laws exist against this. There are many things considered sinful in the Bible, but Christians aren't trying to make laws against those things. Why this? Why is this "sin" supposed to be worse than any other?

It's not worse than any other sin. To God sin is sin is sin. So a little white lie is the same as killing someone or being gay. People have to categorize everything. Now I'm not saying that a person who says a little white lie should have the same punishment as a killer or that a killer should not be punished at all. Just to God all sin is equal.

Why people are holding homosexuality to a higher standard than other sins is beyond me. I don't care. It won't ruin my marriage when I get married unless my husband is still in the closet then comes out afterward. Then I'll be madder than a hornet and take him for everything he's worth.

If you are homosexual or think you might be homosexual don't get married to the opposite and then years later say, "Oh honey, I'm gay and have been since before we were married. Sorry I'm going to go live my life now." Not only is this cruel to the person you married it's being a coward.

This is wholly my own opinion and I speak for no one but myself.

[Bravo]

prove what point? btw i dont really care if you have sex with your sister - its not my place to judge you, so if you want to marry your sister, go ahead and propose - my point is gay and incest are two very different things - but i guess you just dont get it

actually i do "get it".

sexuality is complex. heterosexuality, homosexuality, these are new concepts and terms ppl are trying to understand just in the last decade really.

while there were homosexuals in the past, and ppl had homosexual relations, the idea that ppl are born gay or straight, is modern.

so, not too long ago, most of society viewed homosexual acts in the same way they view incestual acts: as something repugnant.

now, homosexual acts has moved out of that category for most ppl, b/c they view it as a biological trait.

but for the rest of society, that still views it as a lifestyle, it's still in the same category as incest.

and the reaction some1 makes when you ask them to support incestual relations is the same rxn anti-gay rights ppl have.

[merper]

Visceral reactions have nothing to do with making points. In a free society, people should be able to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else.

I mean, I get a visceral reaction of disgust whenver I see an evangelical spout idiocy like this(though it is offset by massive bouts of laughter):

http://thereallygoodnews.blogspot.com/2006/11/bananas-atheists-nightmare.html

But that doesn't mean they should be banned from making ridiculous TV shows, cause all I have to do is change the channel.

You prove to me how two people doing what they want to each other when no one's looking remotely approaches hurting someone else and then you've got an argument.

You can look down on people because they're gay all you want, but denying them rights is a whole different issue.

[SeanDSchaffer]

I know why it's such a hot potato for me. Cos, I'm sick to death of 'normal' society viewing me as some kind of flu virus waiting to contaminate the rest of the world - and I'm not gay!!!

I've lived alone for about 8 years now. Out of choice. It's an oddball sort of rustic life. Not much money, not many material goods, and - heaven forbid - I'm happy with my own company.

I attract abuse from the nice, normal people more than you would ever believe. They just can't fit me into a slot, you see!!! I just won't go!

It took me a long time to realise that it's their own insecurities and unhappiness that causes this reaction. It's their own fears.

Sorry - guess I'm having a bad day, but that target on my back is getting pretty tiresome and I'm sick to death of people who constantly take lifes 'safe' route, having a pop of those that actually want to live out their existence in a different manner.


I hear you. I still get junk treatment from people who are threatened by my very existence because I'm mentally ill. I either get "Oh, just snap out of it" remarks, or "I am better than you because I'm not mentally ill" tirades from people around me.

Then they walk off supremely confident that they did their good deed for the day.

This is one of the reasons I don't oppose Gay Marriage. Too many people think that Gays and other so-called "abnormal" people (and what is a normal human being, anyway, seeing that we're all different?) are a threat to their security as human beings....to the point they're willing, in some cases, to beat the living hell out of a person or even kill them, because of this so-called abnormality.

What makes me sick about this whole situation is when people who impose their will on others to "Make them normal" try to say "I'm a good Christian man or woman who loves the Lord". I think that is the one thing that burns me up the most, because Christ said that hating someone without cause was the same thing as murdering that person.

[Wordworm]

hush, now... you've giving away Canadian state secrets!

actually, it's part of our plan to eventually tax everyone to death. One or another, we're gonna get your money!

(but seriously - Canada's doing just fine with gay marriages. We've even had gay divorces!)

:D

Actually, I think we Canadians settled this question almost forty years ago.

"There's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation."
~Pierre Elliot Trudeau, Dec 21, 1967
http://archives.cbc.ca/IDC-1-73-538-2671/politics_economy/omnibus/clip1

I'm with Southerngirl. Why is everybody so afraid?

[Bravo]

Visceral reactions have nothing to do with making points. In a free society, people should be able to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else.

i completely agree.

but the thread title is: "why are ppl so threatened by gay marriage?"

i tried to show why there's such an emotional rxn to it.

thank you.

[greglondon]

are you really having a discussion like this in a gay marriage thread?

that would be the neocon club for absolute write. put on your hip waders and grab a shovel. It's gonna get deep in here.

[Bravo]

that would be the neocon club for absolute write. put on your hip waders and grab a shovel. It's gonna get deep in here.

nah.

they know everything i have to say on the neocon agenda. been there a 100 times w/ them.

gotta run.

have fun.

:)

[dclary]

are you really having a discussion like this in a gay marriage thread? :ROFL:

now back to the regular programming.

Agreed. It's amazing how easily these threads derail. Congress should do something about that.

[aghast]

Visceral reactions have nothing to do with making points. In a free society, people should be able to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else.

absolutely - i dont have to like what you do - heck i dont even like some heterosexual stuff like bsdm, there is a lot of kinky stuff going on regardless of your sexual orientation but i for one am not going to judge someone based on my own viceral reactions to something i dont undrstand or practice - gay marraige is not about whether you like gay sex or not, its about basic civil right - two people who are not related to each other love each other and they want to marry and form a family - that was the same argument 50 years ago about interracial marraige and its the same now about gay marriage - incest is a different thing because it involves biological issues and children with defects, etc but if all things being equal, i personally dont see why i have any place to judge two consenting adults

[WriterInChains]

If you are homosexual or think you might be homosexual don't get married to the opposite and then years later say, "Oh honey, I'm gay and have been since before we were married. Sorry I'm going to go live my life now." Not only is this cruel to the person you married it's being a coward.
And when it's no longer dangerous to be gay in our society, I doubt this will happen anymore. If heterosexuals were afraid of being the victim of an act of violence or of being marginalized every day of their lives just for being heterosexual, some of them might try to suppress their true selves also. It's called a self-preservation instinct. We all have it; it was more useful before humans took over the top slot in the food chain, but we still have it.

I'm not saying it's OK to lie, or marry someone if you're not serious about staying with them for the rest of your life (also not attacking you, rosemerry :)), but it's too easy to say staying in the closet is cowardly. It's not. Everyone has things they don't parade in public, and that's OK.

[greglondon]

The thing is that some people have visceral reactions to some particular behaviour, and then they insist that their reaction overrides any form of reasonable approach to deciding what should be legal.

So, the folks who have gag reflex to gay marriage think that's the basis for good law. Try hashing out some principles behind that, and it falls apart. "Marriage is between a man and a woman" is not a principle, its a dogma. The idea that what two consenting adults do in their bedroom is none of the governments business is a principle extended from more basic principles like "All people are created equal" and "All people have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happieness". Because if some bible thumper says they have the "right" definition of happiness and it doesn't allow for homosexuals, then that violates the "all people are created equal" principle. They're saying some people are more equal than others. And they're saying some people get to define what is happiness and liberty for others.

It's bigotry and prejudice, and those aren't to be confused with higher principles like equality and liberty.

[whistlelock]

shhhhh, I think maybe whistle was kidding. I thought so too. Apparently I was wrong and it was just a set of sentences instead.



And I might add, not a single rep point for it either. ah well. I guess not every one of my witty remarks can be showered with rep points.

[aghast]

back to the original quesiton - the answer is simple if you only need to look at interracial marriage just 50 years ago - people object to something because they dont underestand it and because of whatever reason including reliigous (the way they interpret the scriptures) - many people today still feel interracial marriage is wrong and you can argue with them till your face is blue and you cant change their minds - but society on the whole is moving forward and it may take another 20 or 40 years before people will accept gay marraiage but you cant stop progress - the rest of developed world already has and its up to the us to accept its challenge and realize we cant be champions of civil and human rights if we dont practice what we preach

just 10 years ago you would be hard pressed to see gay people on regular tv but now they are everywhere and we understand they are just regular people with quirks, and we have tv shows like parent control where the parents actually sets up blind dates for their gay and lesbian children - now that is progress and 10 years ago if you asked me if that would happen i would say, are you nuts? so yes, people are still afraid of homosexuality because they simply dont undrstand it and it complicates matters if the person himself/herself feels homosexual attractions and in this hostile society it could be very frightening - but things iwll change - education and acceptance is the key and 10 years ago we wouldnt be having this conversation on a bulletin board but now we are so its another progress and i hope 10 years from now we wont even argue about this anymore because it would be a given like 'tiger wood just married a white girl - cool!' and 'elton john celebrated his 20th wedding anniversary - good for them!'

[greglondon]

been there a 100 times w/ them.

Oh, man, that is depressing.

[SeanDSchaffer]

back to the original quesiton - the answer is simple if you only need to look at interracial marriage just 50 years ago - people object to something because they dont underestand it and because of whatever reason including reliigous (the way they interpret the scriptures) - many people today still feel interracial marriage is wrong and you can argue with them till your face is blue and you cant change their minds - but society on the whole is moving forward and it may take another 20 or 40 years before people will accept gay marraiage but you cant stop progress - the rest of developed world already has and its up to the us to accept its challenge and realize we cant be champions of civil and human rights if we dont practice what we preach

just 10 years ago you would be hard pressed to see gay people on regular tv but now they are everywhere and we understand they are just regular people with quirks, and we have tv shows like parent control where the parents actually sets up blind dates for their gay and lesbian children - now that is progress and 10 years ago if you asked me if that would happen i would say, are you nuts? so yes, people are still afraid of homosexuality because they simply dont undrstand it and it complicates matters if the person himself/herself feels homosexual attractions and in this hostile society it could be very frightening - but things iwll change


Good point. When I was a child, the issues of interracial marriage and even interracial neighborhoods, were hot topics that really pushed the envelope on TV. A common thing back in the early 70's, was the issue of black folk moving into a 'white' neighborhood. On one episode of All In the Family, I believe, people in Archie Bunker's neighborhood were selling their homes and leaving because of a black family moving in to a vacant house up the street.

That was a subject you didn't dare discuss on, of all things, television. I don't know how Norman Lear got away with it, but I'm glad he did.

Ironically, I still know people who tell me to my face that interracial marriage is a sin. It just goes to show how ignorance and fear can hinder the progress of compassion, tolerance, and love for other people. It might not make sense, but some people still hold to their ignorance and their fear with greater intensity than they do to tolerance of those who are different than they are.

[Lyra Jean]

And when it's no longer dangerous to be gay in our society, I doubt this will happen anymore. If heterosexuals were afraid of being the victim of an act of violence or of being marginalized every day of their lives just for being heterosexual, some of them might try to suppress their true selves also. It's called a self-preservation instinct. We all have it; it was more useful before humans took over the top slot in the food chain, but we still have it.

I'm not saying it's OK to lie, or marry someone if you're not serious about staying with them for the rest of your life (also not attacking you, rosemerry :)), but it's too easy to say staying in the closet is cowardly. It's not. Everyone has things they don't parade in public, and that's OK.

I wasn't saying that staying in the closet was cowardly. Sorry if it came out that way. But to marry someone especially if you know that you are not attracted to them and then come out later knowing that you are going to hurt that other persom whom you claimed to love for the rest of your natural is cowardly. Whether you're homosexual, marrying for money, or whatever that person excuse is and then tossing them to the side when they are no longer useful or you don't need them anymore.

So I guess my complaint is more against individual actions than against homosexuality specifically.

[Bravo]

Oh, man, that is depressing.

it wouldve been if my intention was to change their minds.

but i think i gave some ppl in the middle some more info on these topics and im the kind of guy who enjoys arguing.

so it's all good.

like i said, have fun.

:)

[robeiae]

Personally, I think people should be allowed to define who they are and how they live their lives, so I don't object at all to the idea of gay marriage.

However, I also don't think marriage should be viewed as some sort of right, not should it be a pathway to government-defined benefits. And I'm also not sure why everyone is hung up on the terminology, aside from the attachment of arbitrary benefits that can be realized. Cut those benefits away and I suspect things would sort themselves out just fine.

[greglondon]

the problem is that there are a lot of laws that define advantages in terms of whom you are married to.

Inheritance laws. payouts from insurance. visiting hours at hospitals. being able to make medical decisions for a spouse in a coma. whether your employee benefits such as medical insurance also cover your spouse.

They aren't government benefits, per se, but they do define how people must interact, which benefits people who fit the legal definition of "married".

[Perks]

gay marriage is not about whether you like gay sex or notI submit that for people vehemently against gay marriage, it's all about getting squidgey with oogies over who's inserting what brand of tab A into which variety of slot B.

But, if they'd stop finger-gagging themselves long enough to think about it, they should be all for it. I mean honestly, in our culture, how many people get married to have more sex?

We could drastically reduce the amount of homosexual sex going on if we'd only allow them to get married.

[robeiae]

the problem is that there are a lot of laws that define advantages in terms of whom you are married to.

Inheritance laws. payouts from insurance. visiting hours at hospitals. being able to make medical decisions for a spouse in a coma. whether your employee benefits such as medical insurance also cover your spouse.

They aren't government benefits, per se, but they do define how people must interact, which benefits people who fit the legal definition of "married".Passing on property is a necassary evil, so the government does have to be involved.

But let's look at health insurance. From my perspective, if a company wants to offer its employees insurance, the range of coverage should be clearly stated, though it can also be limited. So if your coverage includes you and your household, meaning your children and (traditionally) your spouse, I think it would be completely fair to limit coverage along the lines of "Household, including all dependent children and up to one additional adult." So gay couples could be covered togehter, as could unmarried couples residing together, as could mere roomates. Of course, insurance companies would resist this, as would the companies overing the benefits. But the problem lies with allowing "marriage" to be used as a defining concept for the benefits. If it wasn't, the market would adjust to this, imo, and corrections would be made in order to retain and attract employees. But as long as a marriage can be used to limit benefits, it will be.

I recognize this is pure fantasy at this point in time, but I believe it is fair.

[robeiae]

We could drastically reduce the amount of homosexual sex going on if we'd only allow them to get married.
:ROFL:

[dclary]

:ROFL:

Better attribute that to your source, Perks, or Sppoky will get on you for stealing jokes.

http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=895796&postcount=191

[Bravo]

perks is hotter.

[billythrilly7th]

I miss Casper.
:(

He was one of the great messageboarders.

But he was like a shooting star. Blink and you miss him.

Sad.

[Perks]

Better attribute that to your source, Perks, or Sppoky will get on you for stealing jokes.

http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=895796&postcount=191Lol! That's funny. I didn't know she'd said that. That particular thought came to me all on my own. Who knew I was a comedienne? You at least have to give me my arrangement of the sentiment.

And Bravo, thanks. Doesn't put me in elite company, but thanks just the same. (And you just like me for the Aston Martin porn I sent you.)

[dclary]

Lol! That's funny. I didn't know she'd said that. That particular thought came to me all on my own. Who knew I was a comedienne? You at least have to give me my arrangement of the sentiment.

And Bravo, thanks. Doesn't put me in elite company, but thanks just the same. (And you just like me for the Aston Martin porn I sent you.)

It's like Conan and Letterman making the same joke: it's so obvious it's a perfect punchline. You've got chops!

[robeiae]

Pork chops? Yum.

The thought of Perks walking around with a plate of chops is giving me ideas...is there applesauce, too?

[dclary]

Pork chops? Yum.

The thought of Perks walking around with a plate of chops is giving me ideas...is there applesauce, too?

Perk chops and Apple sauce!

[Perks]

What's wrong with you?

[robeiae]

Yeah, Dave...what's wrong with you?

[Perks]

The both of you. Perk chops. Actually, that's pretty funny. As long as it's cinnamon applesauce.

[dclary]

:|

[Jongfan]

I just don't get it. Can someone help explain it to me? When I asked my mom why she was against it, she said that she doesn't care what other people do, she just didn't want it rubbed in her face. I told her she was being judgmental, and she said she wasn't. My husband, who is also against it, said it just isn't right. That's not a good enough answer for me.


Even if you believe gay marriage is wrong, how is it going to hurt you? It's not going to make your marriage any less meaningful. I just don't get it and would love to understand.


Gay marriage opposers are just one group of people against something that will never concern or affect them. Our world allows for this. The gay marriage debate is the new interracial marriage of yesterday. As for an explanation, you will never get a reasonable one. The opposers are those who believe that homosexuality is a "Choice" or a "Lifestyle"...........It is said we fear what we do not understand. As long as people "choose" to be ignorant and not informed, this debate will continue until the next one comes along.

[aghast]

However, I also don't think marriage should be viewed as some sort of right, not should it be a pathway to government-defined benefits...Cut those benefits away and I suspect things would sort themselves out just fine.

i happen to agree with that and thats the problem - visitation rights, tax beneifts, inheritance, custody, adoption - in this world marriage gives you rights that singles or gays cant have so its saying you people are not as good as we are because youre not married - and you bet many people marry just to get these rights, but good luck taking it away - so if we cant take them away...too late... then the only logical alternative is to give everyone equal rights or proportional responsibilities

[billythrilly7th]

The opposers are those who believe that homosexuality is a "Choice" or a "Lifestyle"..........

BUZZZ!!!!

WRONG.

People need to learn how to use the words "many" and "a lot of" or "a majority."

Thank you, sarajb, for teaching me this important lesson and I hope to pay it forward in your honor.

[SpookyWriter]

Since I probably am gay....Uh, correct me if I'm wrong but just how can you probably be gay? Either you are or not (unless you're bi-sexual which is still wishy-washy gay).

Thank you

ETA: Should we be discussing these issues with minors? Hmmm...

[Alan Yee]

Uh, correct me if I'm wrong but just how can you probably be gay? Either you are or not (unless you're bi-sexual which is still wishy-washy gay).

Thank you

ETA: Should we be discussing these issues with minors? Hmmm...

Because I'm told by some people that it might just be jacked-up hormones. At this point I think I am gay, but it'll be easier to pinpoint my exact orientation when I'm a little older.

[SpookyWriter]

Because I'm told by some people that it might just be jacked-up hormones. At this point I think I am gay, but it'll be easier to pinpoint my exact orientation when I'm a little older.That's possible I guess, but I'd think you'd know if your gay or not by now. Either way, I don't mind talking about gay issues but am leery when it comes to minors unless it's my children or immediate family.

As for my opinion to gay marriage, I think the union between two people is perfectly acceptable. I believe America needs more tolerance when it comes to how people live their lives or who they choose to be with in a relationship. Europe is much more tolerant when it comes to partners of the same sex.

[WackAMole]

Uh, correct me if I'm wrong but just how can you probably be gay? Either you are or not (unless you're bi-sexual which is still wishy-washy gay).

Thank you

ETA: Should we be discussing these issues with minors? Hmmm...

I was married for 13 years. After my divorce, I happened to meet a woman. Things happened I never planned on. I don't like to be called gay simply because I choose to love someone for "who they are" not "what they are". I dont consider myself wishy washy gay (I refuse to be a man hater) and frankly, who's to say if things went wrong which way I would go? I do not love someone because of their gender, I love them because of who they are to me. So call me "accidentally gay" if you wish, but NEVER wishy washy :P

[SpookyWriter]

I was married for 13 years. After my divorce, I happened to meet a woman. Things happened I never planned on. I don't like to be called gay simply because I choose to love someone for "who they are" not "what they are". I dont consider myself wishy washy gay (I refuse to be a man hater) and frankly, who's to say if things went wrong which way I would go? I do not love someone because of their gender, I love them because of who they are to me. So call me "accidentally gay" if you wish, but NEVER wishy washy :POh please, I never said anything about you personally. But bi-sexuality is blurred between one or the other sexual orientation. I don't know what else you'd call it, but you pick the terminology and I'll go with it.

Thank you

[dclary]

To what spooky's saying: most of the folks who are gay are just wired that way, and they pretty much know. If you're playing both sides of the fence, you're just a freakin' horndog.

[Perks]

Spooky, it's probaby easier to stick to labelling and signifying our own experiences. It's always dangerous ground to quantify other people in their most personal facets.

If you want to make evaluations, just be prepared to have them tossed back in your face. Fact is, you simply don't know what you're talking about. Neither do I.

ETA - Dave, here's a dose for you, too.

[SpookyWriter]

To what spooky's saying: most of the folks who are gay are just wired that way, and they pretty much know. If you're playing both sides of the fence, you're just a freakin' horndog.Dave always manages to say what I want so succinctly. Good job...

[SpookyWriter]

Spooky, it's probaby easier to stick to labelling and signifying our own experiences. It's always dangerous ground to quantify other people in their most personal facets.

If you want to make evaluations, just be prepared to have them tossed back in your face. Fact is, you simply don't know what you're talking about. Neither do I.

ETA - Dave, here's a dose for you, too.I have no clue what you're saying, Perks. What don't I know? How do you know I'm not gay? Hmmm...

[WackAMole]

Oh please, I never said anything about you personally. But bi-sexuality is blurred between one or the other sexual orientation. I don't know what else you'd call it, but you pick the terminology and I'll go with it.

Thank you

I was joking..trying to be a bit silly about it..I know what you meant..just trying to keep it light

[Perks]

It wouldn't matter if you were. My point is, that you can say what you are, but when you state boldly what other's are... well, you know...

[billythrilly7th]

"accidentally gay"

One of my favorite Counting Crows songs by the way.

[SpookyWriter]

It wouldn't matter if you were. My point is, that you can say what you are, but when you state boldly what other's are... well, you know...Confusion again, sorry. But where did I state anyone is gay or not? I simple said to Allen that he should probably know by now. Everything I mentioned so far is generic.

But my position is that folks should be allowed to choose who they want to live with and love. So I'll stand by my statement.

Thank you

[Perks]

Nevermind, Spooky. You seem to have gotten over the burr in your butt after Wackamole took exception to bisexuals being referred to as wishy-washy. glad to hear it.

[Scarlett_156]

...follow the scent of money, rather than the stink of sanctity. It will always lead you to the answer you are seeking.

I quote myself.

[WackAMole]

Nevermind, Spooky. You seem to have gotten over the burr in your butt after Wackamole took exception to bisexuals being referred to as wishy-washy. glad to hear it.

LOL hey!!! dont get anyone mad at me ffs!!! Im trying to polish my tarnished reputation

[SpookyWriter]

Nevermind, Spooky. You seem to have gotten over the burr in your butt after Wackamole took exception to bisexuals being referred to as wishy-washy. glad to hear it.Now that sounds down right kinky. :D

[Perks]

I'm kinky and you're exhausting.

[Perks]

LOL hey!!! dont get anyone mad at me ffs!!! Im trying to polish my tarnished reputationNot you! Spooky was driving me bonkers. I was meant to be defending you.

I need a nap.

[WackAMole]

Not you! Spooky was driving me bonkers. I was meant to be defending you.

I need a nap.

LOL i know! Thanks :Hug2:

I just wanted Spooky to know I wasnt offended by the comment she made..I was just being goofy ..and err..as usual i gotta remember how things can come across in typing!

so Spooky heres a :Hug2: for you too...totally platonic i swear...as i am only accidentally gay and not at all a hornball :tongue

[Perks]

as i am only accidentally gay and not at all a hornball :tongueThat will be a disappointment to those of whatever plumbing that cross your path.

[WackAMole]

That will be a disappointment to those of whatever plumbing that cross your path.

:roll:

[dclary]

i am only accidentally gay and not at all a hornball :tongue

Uh huh.

;)

[Opty]

"ghey?"

[billythrilly7th]

:roll:

Bird of Prey is here.

Joe Unidos, Bird of Prey... I wonder if anyone else will show up today out of the "blue."

Weird.

But hilarious.

Oh, humans. Lord help us.

[dclary]

Ghey is so ghey.


Hey BoP. Good to see ya. You missed the voting-day festivities.

[SpookyWriter]

LOL i know! Thanks :Hug2:

I just wanted Spooky to know I wasnt offended by the comment she made..I was just being goofy ..and err..as usual i gotta remember how things can come across in typing!

so Spooky heres a :Hug2: for you too...totally platonic i swear...as i am only accidentally gay and not at all a hornball :tongueHa! I am a lesbian trapped in a man's body. :roll:

[SpookyWriter]

Gay. Who came up with that, anyway? He's gay. She's gay. What is that? I could probably come up with something better. I'll have to give it some thought.Just don't go into details tomorrow if you plan sleeping on it.

[billythrilly7th]

You missed the voting-day festivities.

He's been hiding under his desk with Joe Unidos, while Gaffer has been doing all the heavy lifting, but like a true patriot, they've waited for the smoke to clear, jumped out and are here to enjoy the celebration.."We won! Holla!" Hilarious.
;)

Still, good to see you B.O.P.
:)

[dclary]

Ha! I am a lesbian trapped in a man's body. :roll:

"Meet my biological symbiote strap-on, biyotch!"

[Alan Yee]

Gay. Who came up with that, anyway? He's gay. She's gay. What is that? I could probably come up with something better. I'll have to give it some thought.

Oh good, you're still here. I thought you joined Blackheart and deleted yourself from here.

I kind of agree with you, though. What's even worse, lots of kids use the word "gay" as a synonym for stupid or something negative.

[WackAMole]

Ha! I am a lesbian trapped in a man's body. :roll:

Ooops! Hah! Why did I think you were a woman? :Shrug:

(sorry in advance for any of the comments that are soon to follow this post!)

[SpookyWriter]

Canadians prefer the term queer. Is this true?

[SpookyWriter]

Ooops! Hah! Why did I think you were a woman? :Shrug:

Maybe because I'm sensitive and understand what makes a woman happy? ;)

[Rolling Thunder]

Maybe because I'm sensitive and understand what makes a woman happy? ;)

:ROFL:

[Bravo]

I'm kinky and you're exhausting.

youre sexier than a slippery aston martin, perks.

[billythrilly7th]

You and Billy've been in rare form.

Hi Billy. Good to see you, too. What can I say? All us "liberal" cockroaches crawl out from under when there's Rumsfeld crumbs to feed on.

"Holla!"

A. Thank you.
B. At least like Joe Mayo you admit it. Enjoy! Holla!

:)

[Bravo]

I've got better lines than that, qazadic.

thank God i dont need lines then.

:ROFL:


but im sure perks appreciates this one. she sent me some aston martin pix to excite me once, and....

wait. TMI.

that was a private moment w her...

....

um it's great to see you though BoP! stick around.

phew.

[Opty]

What's even worse, lots of kids use the word "gay" as a synonym for stupid or something negative.

Most homosexuals I know sometimes use it to mean that, too.

[nicegrrl]

because if gay people can marry, then what stops animals from marrying their daughters? What stops goats from having a bestial orgy with 10 dolphins under the bannar of holy wedlock?

slippery slope, you see.

[aghast]

because if gay people can marry, then what stops animals from marrying their daughters? What stops goats from having a bestial orgy with 10 dolphins under the bannar of holy wedlock?

yip, just ask rick santorum, soon to be ex-senator

[SpookyWriter]

Welcome back, BoP. Nice to see you haven't departed for long.

[billythrilly7th]

But to tell you the truth, I was shocked about Rumsfeld. 'Never blamed him much for Iraq - given his parameters. I don't think there's much he could have done differently.


Rummy is the fall guy.

It's not like he's calling the shots by himself. Plenty of blame to go around. But he's the Secretary of Defense. He had to take the fall.

We still love ya, Rummy!

"Thanks for doing your best even though your best hasn't seemed to be good enough, so here we are back where we were before."
Last American Virgin

[greglondon]

That coming from a fish?

Roy? Roy Batty? Is that you? It's me, Alf. We were in the genetic transmutation tank together back in the offworld colony, remember?

The genes worked out a lot better for you....

[Perks]

youre sexier than a slippery aston martin, perks.Nothing's sexier than that, Bravoman. But thanks for the thought... now I need a moment alone.

[SC Harrison]

Welcome back, BoP. Nice to see you haven't departed for long.

Let me second that "welcome back" by saying...um, welcome back, Bird.

note: I thought I had something rather grand to say percolating in my head, but it must have been my imagination. Or lack of. Whatever.

Wait...it had the words "thoughtful" and "discourse" in there, and...dang it. I lost it again.

[veinglory]

Most homosexuals I know sometimes use it to mean that, too.

I hear black people use the n-word, but I don't think that makes it okay for me.

[SpookyWriter]

I hear black people use the n-word, but I don't think that makes it okay for me.I suppose if you were a white person it would be awkward. But then again if a white guy called me a cracker I wouldn't be too upset.

[robeiae]

I'm not a big fan of limiting language usage, based on skin color, religion, sexual preference, and what not. I'm not sure why this bothers me...

[SeanDSchaffer]

Gay marriage opposers are just one group of people against something that will never concern or affect them. Our world allows for this. The gay marriage debate is the new interracial marriage of yesterday. As for an explanation, you will never get a reasonable one. The opposers are those who believe that homosexuality is a "Choice" or a "Lifestyle"...........It is said we fear what we do not understand. As long as people "choose" to be ignorant and not informed, this debate will continue until the next one comes along.


Underline Mine.

I have a bit of a beef with the underlined statement. You post this as though all people who oppose Gay Marriage are automatically those who believe it is a choice or a lifestyle. This is, in fact, not true. Like Thrilly said, the key words here are 'Some', 'Most', or 'A vast majority'. But saying that all people who think homosexuality is a choice are automatically opposed to Gay Marriage, is quite a stretch.

[robeiae]

I'm not sure I have the slightest idea what you're talking about, Rob. . . which is making me feel right at home.Hi BoP!

I'm talking about the idea that it's somehow okay for a black person to call another black person the n-word, but it's taboo for everyone else.

[dclary]

I'm with Robeiaie on this. As a writer, I reserve the right to use any word I want. I also acknowledge that I have the responsibility to use it sensibly, but I will never cede my right to use any word. That includes charged, potentially offensive epitaths.

[billythrilly7th]

I'd like to see someone use the word "isthmus" in a sentence.

Thanks.

[aghast]

you can always use the n-word in literature - you may just have to think about the consequences depending on how you use it

[dclary]

I'd like to see someone use the word "isthmus" in a sentence.

Thanks.

"We wish you a merry isthmus, we wish you a merry isthmus, we wish you a merry isthmus, whatever that is."

[billythrilly7th]

"We wish you a merry isthmus, we wish you a merry isthmus, we wish you a merry isthmus, whatever that is."

lol..not bad.

My personal favorite was uttered by the immortal Stymie or the immortal Buckweat. I can't remember.

"Isthmus be my lucky day."

[SC Harrison]

"We wish you a merry isthmus, we wish you a merry isthmus, we wish you a merry isthmus, whatever that is."

Dang it, Deek. I hate when somebody hits a good pun before me. Here's mine:

"The Isthmus of Panama lasts for a little over a month, beginning with the day after Inksgiving and continuing until the day after Isthmus, when some say the best bargains are to be found."

[aghast]

funny yet unintentional... on cnn.com's front page: gays in the middle east.... try it free

[dclary]

"The Isthmus of Panama lasts for a little over a month, beginning with the day after Inksgiving and continuing until the day after Isthmus, when some say the best bargains are to be found."

Isthmus be the best isthmus pun I've heard in a long time.

[JennaGlatzer]

You know what? When someone flounces, with ridiculous parting shots about knowing the host better than she knows herself and condescending remarks about her pregnancy, I think it should be customary to UNFLOUNCE with an apology, BoP.

Our policies haven't changed. The owner has, but rest assured we were always in agreement over the policies here anyway. If you hated them so much a month ago, why come back now?

[Medievalist]

Hi BoP!

I'm talking about the idea that it's somehow okay for a black person to call another black person the n-word, but it's taboo for everyone else.

There's a name for this, it's a cross-cultural linguistic practice, and I should know the name of it, dang it, but it's just not coming to me . . .

[robeiae]

Inferred group rights? No, wait...that's an ideologically derived label, correct though it may be.

[astonwest]

Hopefully everyone who is in support of gay marriage will contact their Senators and Representatives, and campaign for the abolishment of those pesky bigamy laws...

Papa needs a few more tax deductions...

[Rolling Thunder]

Hopefully everyone who is in support of gay marriage will contact their Senators and Representatives, and campaign for the abolishment of those pesky bigamy laws...

Papa needs a few more tax deductions...

Yeah, that way they can be miserable like every other married couple.:D

[veinglory]

It probably relates to 'jocular abuse' the general tendency for friends to abuse each other without insult asa form of bonding. Or as John Wayne would say: "Smile when you call me that, pilgrim."

[astonwest]

I also think that marrying an animal (and no, not implying bestiality, since we all know that marriage is the end of that sort of thing) should be legalized...

I mean, if I find a dog that loves me and I love that dog, who should stand in the way of that?

(plus, if it ever came to a divorce, no need for alimony)

[robeiae]

But who keeps the puppies?

[astonwest]

But who keeps the puppies?

I would imagine I would let her keep them...of course, it could be a boy dog, but only if gay animal marriages were legal.

And then, what happens if I want to marry some of those puppies, and they happen to be boy dogs?
Incestual gay animal marriages?
Yikes, the possibilities are endless...as would be the tax return...woo hoo.

[veinglory]

There would need to be some bigamy to produce puppies.

also the argument about the plausibility of ethically correct consentual bestiality has been made by a rather respected philosopher by the name of Peter Singer.

[astonwest]

There would need to be some bigamy to produce puppies.I already covered that one a few posts up...

Hopefully everyone who is in support of gay marriage will contact their Senators and Representatives, and campaign for the abolishment of those pesky bigamy laws...

Papa needs a few more tax deductions...

Strangely, no one has stepped up to the plate and voiced their support of such a move...

[MacAllister]

Frankly, I don't think you can logically equate two consenting adults making a commitment to one another with polygamy. But if three or four consenting adults want to marry each other, it doesn't bother me a bit.

Where it's a problem is when women are exchanged between men, like so many cows or horses or dollars.

as for this:
I also think that marrying an animal (and no, not implying bestiality, since we all know that marriage is the end of that sort of thing) should be legalized...

I mean, if I find a dog that loves me and I love that dog, who should stand in the way of that? I'm going to take for granted that you aren't really equating one adult in love with and wanting to marry another adult with a dog, just because they're the same sex.

I'm going to take that for granted, Aston, because I like you--and I'm choosing not to be deeply insulted by the rhetorical implication that gay people are the social and legal equivalent of dogs or other animals, in Aston's World.

[veinglory]

I do think the slippery slope argument goes both ways. If gay people can't marry because it doesn't meet a Christian norm, what is to stop marraiage from being denied to atheists and other non-Christians?

[astonwest]

Frankly, I don't think you can logically equate two consenting adults making a commitment to one another with polygamy. But if three or four consenting adults want to marry each other, it doesn't bother me a bit.

Where it's a problem is when women are exchanged between men, like so many cows or horses or dollars.

Then you'll take up the banner and campaign for the removal of bigamy laws?

Indeed, such a situation as you describe, where women are exchanged between men, should not be allowed.

My point (then and now) is that in general, there are certain lines that everyone considers taboo. Whether it be gay marriage (or gay sex), incest (between two consenting adults...to avoid the "who gets hurt" escape clause), or any of a number of other taboo topics, there's always going to be something that sets a person on edge. Throughout history, a civilization's laws (when said civilization has some form of representative government) have been created based on the taboos of that society.

In some cases, taboos change and laws change with them...
In the case of gay marriage, I imagine the taboos haven't changed enough to create a widespread change in the laws.

I'm going to take for granted that you aren't really equating one adult in love with and wanting to marry another adult with a dog, just because they're the same sex.

No, as mentioned earlier, my point was that there are certain lines everyone considers taboo. I'm certain there are some individuals out there who would consider marriage to an animal equal to marriage to a human. Should we then consider that person to have the right to do so because they believe they do? Again, if we don't, then we're establishing a boundary based on our own (or the majority's belief) standards...

So, when I hear so many people chastise those who would impose their beliefs (read, taboos) on others in the form of laws, I feel the need to point that point out (that there are certain lines everyone considers taboo).

Er, *almost* everyone...just to keep Billy happy... :)

I'm going to take that for granted, Aston, because I like you--and I'm choosing not to be deeply insulted by the rhetorical implication that gay people are the social and legal equivalent of dogs or other animals, in Aston's World.
If we extend that rhetorical implication a little farther, I also imply that straight people are the social and legal equivalent of dogs or other animals...

It wasn't meant as a slight against anyone, just as a point to be made and debated.

[veinglory]

I think it's a stretch though. Extending marraige to all people makes sense because all standard adult people have some understanding of marraige (no matter how disputed) -- no dogs do.

[astonwest]

I think it's a stretch though. Extending marraige to all people makes sense because all standard adult people have some understanding of marraige (no matter how disputed) -- no dogs do.Do we then make understanding marriage a requirement of being married? Because I would beg to differ that most adults understand marriage...given the divorce rate.

But that's rather far off my original point.

Perhaps another thread later, about the numbers of other laws (totally unrelated to marriage, gay or otherwise) that should be eliminated based on current taboos...
At the moment, it's time for bed. Despite the weekend, work beckons in the morning...

[veinglory]

I think the right to marraige must logically depend upon the ability to understand what marraige is (it is a contract entered into). And given that marraige is innately really only one thing, reciprocal, all individuals entering a marraige must meet that requirement. Ergo, any marraige between hunmans is arguable, no marraige with animals or objects is.

You can only limit marraige within humans by giving it other qualities such as being heterosexual, relating to only two people, being religious etc I do not accept that being perminant or lifelong is part of the widely understood nature of modern marraige although it is still an ideal.

[SeanDSchaffer]

I do think the slippery slope argument goes both ways. If gay people can't marry because it doesn't meet a Christian norm, what is to stop marraiage from being denied to atheists and other non-Christians?


Good point. Since when is the United States run solely by Christians? It is run by a diversity of peoples with a diversity of beliefs. Some Christians like to point out a Supreme Court decision that said that the U.S.A. was a 'Christian Nation'. They neglect to mention that the decision was made in the 1890's. This is more than a century later. Things change, as do people's opinions of what laws should be upheld and what laws should be abolished.

I am glad to see that a secular country is less and less run by religious law, and more and more by common sense law. I think it means we're making progress as a country, because it gives "The People" more meaning than just "The Christians within our borders".

I speak this as a Christian: using Biblical ordinances to run everyone's life within a nation is wrong. If a person believes that something is a sin, let them preach it or practice what they believe; but don't force other people to preach or practice the same thing. A forced conversion is not a real conversion. It has to be from the heart, or there will be nothing but fear of retribution driving the said conversion. That fear is the wrong reason to believe any certain way.

[blacbird]

From what I understand, homosexuality is a genetic defect (more medical research indicates it's a biological thing, not a choice thing). As such, I am in favor of curing this defect to make the human species stronger. Therefore, I have no reason to support a union of a subset of humans that I hope will someday be cured of their affliction.

Utter nonsense. It's a civil rights issue. It doesn't matter rat spit whether a person is congenitally predisposed to interest in others of the same sex or whether it's a simple matter of choice. The government has no right to interfere with the matter.

caw

[Lyra Jean]

Oh good, you're still here. I thought you joined Blackheart and deleted yourself from here.

I kind of agree with you, though. What's even worse, lots of kids use the word "gay" as a synonym for stupid or something negative.

I thought gay meant happy. No wonder I can't get a boyfriend.

[veinglory]

One person's defect is another's diversity.

[Alan Yee]

I thought gay meant happy. No wonder I can't get a boyfriend.

It does mean happy, though I do wonder why we ended up with that name.

[SpookyWriter]

It does mean happy, though I do wonder why we ended up with that name.I thought your name was Alan? :Shrug: Am I supposed to start calling you Gay Yee?

[Scarlett_156]

I thought I was pregnant once. Thank all the gods it wasn't so.

[Alan Yee]

Am I supposed to start calling you Gay Yee?

Um, no thanks. Forget I said that. *HIDES*

[MacAllister]

:e2smack:

[Robert Toy]

Okay – Toy enters with a really stupid question: :e2shrug:

Exactly who in this society will get hurt if gay marriages are legalized?

I am not speaking of religious moral indignation or personal feelings, but from a pure legal viewpoint (i.e. I can sue you for damages or harm caused).

Toy leaves: :gone:

[dclary]

Frisco Bath Houses?

[Godfather]

hmmm, can i say something as regards the churches teachings on homosexuality?

the reason the church condemn homosexuality is simple. its the school of thought that has developed over time, involving sex. firstly, the churches teaching was that sex is always sinful. that developed into 'if it fosters the relationship, then it's ok, but you gotta have babies' and it's since developed into 'it's alright for pleasure, but you must be open to having babies'.

that's why the church don't condone homosexuality. if you have contracepted sex, you're commiting the same crime as homosexuality. if the church ever condone contracepted sex, then they'll have to condone homosexual sex.

[dclary]

hmmm, can i say something as regards the churches teachings on homosexuality?

the reason the church condemn homosexuality is simple. its the school of thought that has developed over time, involving sex. firstly, the churches teaching was that sex is always sinful. that developed into 'if it fosters the relationship, then it's ok, but you gotta have babies' and it's since developed into 'it's alright for pleasure, but you must be open to having babies'.

that's why the church don't condone homosexuality. if you have contracepted sex, you're commiting the same crime as homosexuality. if the church ever condone contracepted sex, then they'll have to condone homosexual sex.

They probably oughta have removed Song of Solomon from the canon before deciding sex was bad. Hell, I used that book to convince the wife that oral sex was Biblical.

[Ol' Fashioned Girl]

Biblical or not, D, that practice generally goes out the window right after the wedding reception. . . . Just informing the gay and straight alike.

I assume you're speakin' for your own union, BoP. That's certainly not true in my 28 year experience. :D

[MacAllister]

Dont' feel alone.

...

Just sayin'.

[aghast]

One person's defect is another's diversity.

dimples are technically defects, and so is red hair, freckles, and the ability to sing and fart at the same time, the government has a lot of work to do....

[aadams73]

I assume you're speakin' for your own union, BoP. That's certainly not true in my 28 year experience. :D

Ditto. In fact I think more people would be happier and more relaxed if they had more of it! More oral sex for everyone!

(I don't think any kind of sex is bad or dirty between consenting adults.)

[aadams73]

Actually I'm currently a gerbil.

[robeiae]

Ditto. In fact I think more people would be happier and more relaxed if they had more of it! More oral sex for everyone!Thanks for stepping up to the plate. I'll PM you my address.

[aadams73]

*snort* I wasn't volunteering.

[robeiae]

*snort* I wasn't volunteering.Ha! How do you know I wasn't offering?

[aghast]

actually mr robaeaaa wanted lemmiwinks

[aadams73]

Oh. Well that's different.

It is if you're Richard Gere.

[aadams73]

Ha! How do you know I wasn't offering?

Alas, I have no clever and witty comeback for that.

[aghast]

i have nothing against consent adult and gerbils

[robeiae]

Make him pony up a picture of himself, then you won't need one. A moment of silence will be the only appropriate response.Here ya go (http://www.macarthurchambers.com.au/247venue_images/620-2005115-SexyFireman.jpg), but I was having a bad hair day...

[aghast]

make it a bad pose day - looks like hes constipated

[aghast]

i guess asking you to unplug him is out of the qestion

[SeanDSchaffer]

hmmm, can i say something as regards the churches teachings on homosexuality?

the reason the church condemn homosexuality is simple. its the school of thought that has developed over time, involving sex. firstly, the churches teaching was that sex is always sinful. that developed into 'if it fosters the relationship, then it's ok, but you gotta have babies' and it's since developed into 'it's alright for pleasure, but you must be open to having babies'.

that's why the church don't condone homosexuality. if you have contracepted sex, you're commiting the same crime as homosexuality. if the church ever condone contracepted sex, then they'll have to condone homosexual sex.


Quickly here, I have a question.

When you say 'The church', are you speaking of the Catholic one or of another denomination? Or are you lumping all churches together?

I'm not trying to imply anything; it's just a question, because some churches do not have such stringent standards on what kind of sex is sinful versus what is not. I'm just basically curious.

[DeniseK]

From what I understand, homosexuality is a genetic defect (more medical research indicates it's a biological thing, not a choice thing). As such, I am in favor of curing this defect to make the human species stronger. Therefore, I have no reason to support a union of a subset of humans that I hope will someday be cured of their affliction.

That, plus, I believe words have meanings. And to me, the definition of marriage = one man and one woman.

This has finally convinced me that you say stuff just to get a rise out of people, dclary. I'd rather believe that than believe you could honestly be this ignorant. :Shrug:

[SeanDSchaffer]

This has finally convinced me that you say stuff just to get a rise out of people, dclary. I'd rather believe that than believe you could honestly be this ignorant. :Shrug:


I don't think it's necessarily just written to get a rise. Some people do honestly believe that homosexuality is a genetic defect. Whether this is true or no, I couldn't say. But I don't think Dclary's post was intended to get a rise out of others; I really do think that he meant what he said.

[Forbidden Snowflake]

Well, you're preaching to the choir here, for one. But incest is a common issue of "morality," and for many people homosexuality is also an issue of "morality." That's why I included that it's an imaginary society in which incest is acceptable and has no perceived ramifications on the mental state. Make it adult Jane and Old Pops then, instead of Little Jane.

I have no problems with homosexuality. But for some people, they are wrestling with a moral issue which produces a visceral reaction in them, and no amount of intellectual knowledge - such as contemplating this imaginary society - allows them to reconcile what they know with what they feel.

Do I feel this is right? No. One of my best friends was raised by his two moms, and they deserved to be married. Any consenting adults deserve to be married. I'm just pointing out that for some people, it's not JUST a matter of rationale and intellectual discussion.

Well if adult Jane and Old Pops want to do that then be my guests. But if they should end up having children they will again hurt someone because this will end up causing serious health problems?

So, we're still at hurting someone. I with my gf still aren't. ;)

And I know it's not about being rational. But it should be.

[Godfather]

Quickly here, I have a question.

When you say 'The church', are you speaking of the Catholic one or of another denomination? Or are you lumping all churches together?

I'm not trying to imply anything; it's just a question, because some churches do not have such stringent standards on what kind of sex is sinful versus what is not. I'm just basically curious.

hmmm.... probably catholicism.

i don't know much about any religions, but i know this much. and i think it just applys to catholicism, but i can't guarantee that.

[astonwest]

I think the right to marraige must logically depend upon the ability to understand what marraige is (it is a contract entered into). And given that marraige is innately really only one thing, reciprocal, all individuals entering a marraige must meet that requirement. Ergo, any marraige between hunmans is arguable, no marraige with animals or objects is.

You start out okay, but by the end of almost every sentence, you lose me.

"...marraige is innately really only one thing, reciprocal..."

Reciprocal in which way?

"...all individuals entering a marraige must meet that requirement."

What requirement?

"...any marraige between hunmans is arguable..."

Arguable?

You can only limit marraige within humans by giving it other qualities such as being heterosexual, relating to only two people, being religious etc...

But the point was that you shouldn't limit marriage...correct?

I do not accept that being perminant or lifelong is part of the widely understood nature of modern marraige although it is still an ideal.
If marriage is indeed a contract, it should be considered binding for life.

the reason the church condemn homosexuality is simple. its the school of thought that has developed over time, involving sex. Spoken as someone who has never bothered researching why the Christian faith considers homosexuality a sin...

Instead, most denominations condemn homosexual behavior because of what they read in the Bible.

Romans 1:18-32 is always a good one...

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse; 21 for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles.
24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.
28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct. 29 They were filled with all manner of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity, they are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Though they know God's decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them.

Changes in particular (mostly Protestant) denominations' beliefs on the matter generally come from these denominations desiring to increase membership and potential funding.

[SeanDSchaffer]

Romans 1:18-32 is always a good one...



Changes in particular (mostly Protestant) denominations' beliefs on the matter generally come from these denominations desiring to increase membership and potential funding.


You know? I always look at verses like that, quoted the way they are, and I cringe because the very next verse tells us that no man has the right to judge another....including those that do such things.

I'm sorry I don't have an RSV with me, so I'll quote the next verse from the KJV, which states:

Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things. -- Romans 2:1

So taking this Scripture into account, why is it again that so many Protestant denominations insist that they have the right judge other people? According to Scripture, we Christians do the same things as unbelievers do. We are no more righteous in that respect than they are.

This is one of the main reasons Christ told His People, "Judge not, that ye be not judged".

==========

BTW, thanks to you, Godfather, for presenting the information I requested. I appreciate it highly.

[jbal]

Romans 10:12
Don't have a Bible handy, but it's something to the order of: "there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek, for the same God over all is rich unto all who call upon him"

Just thought I'd throw that in.

[veinglory]

You think every legally binding contract is for life? I'm glad my publishers don't.

[Alan Yee]

Just as a side note, not all Christians believe homosexuality is a sin. I'm one of them. There are also a number of gay Christians, though they are generally not treated kindly. I don't take the Bible 100 percent literally, and I'm not conservative in my beliefs.

For one thing, to take it literally, I would have to say that I am sinning for simply being who I naturally am. I can't accept that. I also can't accept that Jesus would approve of how horrible many people are to gays. I don't believe my God / Jesus Christ would approve of all these legal battles trying to approve state constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage, the hate, the violence, and everything.

I believe people shouldn't try to restrict rights for a minority group that isn't harming anybody or making their marriages somehow less meaningful. I think we should just allow marriage between any two consenting adults. If some people want to "preserve the sanctity marriage," then they should stop bitching about gay marriage and look at all the divorce.

Sometimes I wonder if the people who oppose gay marriage the most have even met a gay person in their life. It's sad how we have to fight for these rights. It's like the interracial marriage commotion all over again.

[SeanDSchaffer]

It's sad how we have to fight for these rights. It's like the interracial marriage commotion all over again.


I agree with most everything in your post, with the possible exception of the part I quoted above.

My reason for this, Alan, is that when a person has a right handed down to them on a silver platter, without any struggle, I don't think they really appreciate it as much as when they have to fight for their rights. Like the old saying goes, "Freedom does not come free". It is good that this is a hot topic right now, IMO, because it not only gives gays the chance to present their grievances, but it also gives others the chance to see gays as real people, instead of as a group of 'weirdos' or 'troublemakers'.

So I think the fact the homosexuals of the United States have to fight for their rights will give them an appreciation--when they do gain the freedom they so crave--for the said freedom, that they just would not have if there were no struggle involved.

[jbal]

Alan, the Bible does specifically refer to homosexual sex as "abomination". Take it or leave it. I don't think Christianity and homosexuality are necessarily mutually exclusive, but if you take the Bible as truth, you have to take that part along with it, no?

[astonwest]

Just remember, there's a difference between judging a behavior and not condoning a behavior...saying that a particular behavior is a sin and should not be allowed is not the same as saying a person who commits that behavior is destined for hell if they do not repent (the latter is a judgement, which like you said, is something a Christian is directed not to do).

Unfortunately, many have distorted the "judge not" statements as meaning no one should consider sin to be sin, which is truly sad.

But equally unfortunately, many do violate the "judge not" statements as they're supposed to be implemented. Again, sad.

By the way, the next verse (Romans 2:2) states: "We know that the judgment of God rightly falls upon those who do such things."

God will judge without the need for the rest of us to do so. But that does not mean Christians should condone the behavior as acceptable.

You know? I always look at verses like that, quoted the way they are, and I cringe because the very next verse tells us that no man has the right to judge another....including those that do such things.

I'm sorry I don't have an RSV with me, so I'll quote the next verse from the KJV, which states:

Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things. -- Romans 2:1

So taking this Scripture into account, why is it again that so many Protestant denominations insist that they have the right judge other people? According to Scripture, we Christians do the same things as unbelievers do. We are no more righteous in that respect than they are.

This is one of the main reasons Christ told His People, "Judge not, that ye be not judged".

==========

BTW, thanks to you, Godfather, for presenting the information I requested. I appreciate it highly.

[astonwest]

You think every legally binding contract is for life? I'm glad my publishers don't.

Unless the contract specifies a length (whether through a time limit, or a condition), I would imagine it would be legally binding for life...

[veinglory]

Contracts tend to specify things. Otherwise handshakes would do.

[SeanDSchaffer]

Just remember, there's a difference between judging a behavior and not condoning a behavior...saying that a particular behavior is a sin and should not be allowed is not the same as saying a person who commits that behavior is destined for hell if they do not repent (the latter is a judgement, which like you said, is something a Christian is directed not to do).

First and foremost, I agree with the basic sentiment, with the exception that human beings are not to force other human beings not to do something that we detest. Or that God detests. Remember the story of the adulterous woman? The Pharisees (the religious leaders of the day) brought a woman who was caught in the act of adultery to Jesus, and they said, "Moses said we should stone this woman". Shortly thereafter, Jesus gave the person who "Has no sin" the right to throw the first stone.

Now of course, you might say, "Yes, but Jesus also said 'Go and sin no more'." But the fact remains that Jesus is God in the Christian viewpoint. We His followers are not God and we are not to make the rules for people who are not believers.

Unfortunately, many have distorted the "judge not" statements as meaning no one should consider sin to be sin, which is truly sad.

I didn't say the Bible didn't call it a sin. I simply said it is not your or my place as Christians, to decide what actions other people should be allowed to take.

But equally unfortunately, many do violate the "judge not" statements as they're supposed to be implemented. Again, sad.

Yes, indeed. That it is.

By the way, the next verse (Romans 2:2) states: "We know that the judgment of God rightly falls upon those who do such things."

The judgment of God, my friend. Not the judgment of Man. Man is not here to put someone to death for sin. That's God's job, not ours.

God will judge without the need for the rest of us to do so. But that does not mean Christians should condone the behavior as acceptable.

Whether we condone the behavior or not is irrelevant to this conversation. I do not believe it is right, but I am not in a position as one of Christ's followers, to force unbelievers to follow His commandments. It is my job personally to make sure that I personally follow His laws; it is not my job--nor any Christian's, I might add--to force other people to obey His laws.

One more thing: Romans 2:3 and 4, state further against those who try to force others to obey Christ. It states:

3. And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?
4. Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forebearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance? (KJV)

If you want people to believe the way you do, you're not going to get them to do it by legislating God's Word. You have to live it first, and not just say, "Oh, well, it's my job to make everyone act just like Christ." I might remind you that it's the heart that God tries, not the outward appearance. Forcing someone else to follow a religious law, the God of which they might not even believe in, is not what Christ called His people to do. He told us many things, but to force other people to follow His commandments, was never one of them.

[Alan Yee]

Alan, the Bible does specifically refer to homosexual sex as "abomination". Take it or leave it. I don't think Christianity and homosexuality are necessarily mutually exclusive, but if you take the Bible as truth, you have to take that part along with it, no?

We've been over this before, many, many times. Not all Christian denominations believe homosexuality is wrong. I've started to lose passion for arguing this point over and over again.

In case you didn't know, I'm almost certainly gay. For me to believe that I'm committing an abomination for being this way is to believe that I wasn't born this way and I can simply choose not to be gay. I don't believe that.

And I thought that all you had to believe to be a Christian was to believe in Jesus Christ as savior and follow his teachings. I wasn't aware that believing that homosexuality is an abomination was another requirement for being a Christian. I just get the impression that you're saying I have to believe I'm doing wrong by being gay in order to be an actual Christian.

[astonwest]

First and foremost, I agree with the basic sentiment, with the exception that human beings are not to force other human beings not to do something that we detest. Or that God detests.

Ah, but when offered the choice between allowing gay marriage and not allowing it (via legislation), voting to allow it would in fact be condoning the behavior.

Remember the story of the adulterous woman? The Pharisees (the religious leaders of the day) brought a woman who was caught in the act of adultery to Jesus, and they said, "Moses said we should stone this woman". Shortly thereafter, Jesus gave the person who "Has no sin" the right to throw the first stone.

Indeed, exacting punishment on the woman for her sin would in fact be a problem.

The trouble comes in when you extrapolate your theory into other fields. Should we not imprison those who commit murder? That, in effect, is judging a person for their sin...

We His followers are not God and we are not to make the rules for people who are not believers.The rules have already been made. We are not to judge, but we are also not to condone.

I didn't say the Bible didn't call it a sin. I simply said it is not your or my place as Christians, to decide what actions other people should be allowed to take.
See my first statement about condonement.

The judgment of God, my friend. Not the judgment of Man. Man is not here to put someone to death for sin. That's God's job, not ours.I don't think anyone said we were putting homosexuals to death here...

Whether we condone the behavior or not is irrelevant to this conversation.

No, it really isn't. But unfortunately, we're not going to get past this sticking point. Unfortunately, dinner is ready, so I must be going. Hopefully I'll be able to get back on later.

If you want people to believe the way you do, you're not going to get them to do it by legislating God's Word.

God wants them to believe that way. I don't particularly care what they believe, because their eternal afterlife is not my responsibility.

Dinnertime!

[SeanDSchaffer]

BTW, I am going to quickly repost the RSV passage that Astonwest posted earlier, just in order to point something very important out:


Originally Posted by RSV
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse; 21 for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles.
24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.
28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct. 29 They were filled with all manner of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity, they are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Though they know God's decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them.





The parts I bolded include things that people do every day, whether homosexual or not. Things such as covetousness, malice, envy, strife, malignity, gossip, slander, insolence, haughtiness, boasting, disobedient to parents, foolishness, faithlessness, heartlessness, ruthlessness, are all according to this Scripture worthy of death.

Homosexuality is mentioned, yes, but so are a host of other things that people do every day in the Name of Christ, in an effort to force other people to follow His Commandments.

Think about it for a moment. How many Christians are willing to bring strife into the world over this issue. How many gossip? Or slander those who we disagree with? How many Christians have I known who are haughty and arrogant in their self-righteousness? I know quite a few.

Or those who boast, or have been disobedient to their parents. I don't know about you, but I've done that on numerous occasions. Being heartless is a sin worthy of death according to this Scripture. Being ruthless in anything, according to this Scripture, is a sin worthy of death. How many Christians ruthlessly pursue the taking away of other people's rights because they're not what we Christians would call 'godly' people?

No, using a Scripture like this only to point out one sin, and not focusing on anything else in that passage, is wrong. It is completely misrepresentative of what the Apostle is saying here. Virtually every human being who has ever lived has done one or more of the things involved in that passage of Scripture. Homosexuality is not singled out here; it is merely included in a much broader list of things that the Bible says are worthy of death.

Like I said before, this is why Jesus said, "Judge not, that ye be not judged." No Christian has the right to force someone else to obey the laws of God. That is between that person and God Himself.

[jbal]

We've been over this before, many, many times. Not all Christian denominations believe homosexuality is wrong. I've started to lose passion for arguing this point over and over again.

In case you didn't know, I'm almost certainly gay. For me to believe that I'm committing an abomination for being this way is to believe that I wasn't born this way and I can simply choose not to be gay. I don't believe that.

And I thought that all you had to believe to be a Christian was to believe in Jesus Christ as savior and follow his teachings. I wasn't aware that believing that homosexuality is an abomination was another requirement for being a Christian. I just get the impression that you're saying I have to believe I'm doing wrong by being gay in order to be an actual Christian.
Alan, I didn't say that. I just said it was in the Bible. I also said I didn't think they were mutually exclusive, meaning that gay people can be Christian as well. Also, we've never been over this, although you may have posted about it in the past. I didn't know you were gay until your previous post. Doesn't make any difference to me, I still think you're the greatest. Sorry if you took offense at what I posted, I certainly wasn't trying to offend you, just curious what you thought. I've always wondered what Catholics think of Matthew chapter 6 for the same reason.(I still don't have a Bible in front of me but it's something to the effect of:"do not pray by rote and repetition as the heathens do, for they think they will be heard for their much speaking."), exactly the way prayers are performed in a mass.
Oh boy, probably shouldn't have brought that up.

[Alan Yee]

Alan, I didn't say that. I just said it was in the Bible. I also said I didn't think they were mutually exclusive, meaning that gay people can be Christian as well. Also, we've never been over this, although you may have posted about it in the past. I didn't know you were gay until your previous post. Doesn't make any difference to me, I still think you're the greatest. Sorry if you took offense at what I posted, I certainly wasn't trying to offend you, just curious what you thought. I've always wondered what Catholics think of Matthew chapter 6 for the same reason.(I still don't have a Bible in front of me but it's something to the effect of:"do not pray by rote and repetition as the heathens do, for they think they will be heard for their much speaking."), exactly the way prayers are performed in a mass.
Oh boy, probably shouldn't have brought that up.

I'm okay now. I just felt like ranting. I wasn't totally sure of what you meant by your question, about whether it was an honest question or an attack on my beliefs. I understand now. I think you're the greatest, too.
Except now I think I should stop talking about this stuff for a little while.

[SeanDSchaffer]

Ah, but when offered the choice between allowing gay marriage and not allowing it (via legislation), voting to allow it would in fact be condoning the behavior.

No, in fact, Sir, you're wrong. Voting to allow something is not the same thing as condoning it. I can allow someone to get drunk on alcohol without condoning them getting drunk on alcohol. Voting against a measure that does not allow someone to drink--such as the prohibition law of the 1920's--is simply showing my support for other people to choose for themselves what they think is a sin and what is not.

Indeed, exacting punishment on the woman for her sin would in fact be a problem.

The trouble comes in when you extrapolate your theory into other fields. Should we not imprison those who commit murder? That, in effect, is judging a person for their sin...

Ah! But a murderer has killed someone. They've hurt another human being. Who gets hurt when two loving people marry each other?

The rules have already been made. We are not to judge, but we are also not to condone.

One thing I don't think you realize, Aston, is that the word 'Judge' does not mean, in the Scripture, what many Christians think it means. It refers to 'governing', not to 'forming an opinion about something.'

Try to remember that the KJV Bible, from which the Christian community still gets many of its fancy theological terms, is written in a language that is archaic in our society.

According to The Merriam Webster Collegiate Dictionary, Fifth Edition, the Archaic meaning of the word 'Judge' is "To Govern". This fits more closely with what Jesus was saying than "Don't form an opinion". Taken in the context of what Jesus said in the Gospels concerning judging, it's talking about legislating, not merely forming an opinion.

I don't think anyone said we were putting homosexuals to death here...

You're right, we didn't say that....yet. But if we are to truly follow the OT example in legislating what is right and what is wrong, then the next logical step would be a punishment fitting the crime as prescribed by Scripture. If I remember correctly, the OT punishment for homosexuality was to have the guilty parties stoned to death.

So if we do follow Biblical example, we should round up all homosexuals in the nation and stone them to death, if we are to follow God's righteous commandments to the letter.

Such legislation is obviously unacceptable; so why do we forbid people to marry?

No, it really isn't. But unfortunately, we're not going to get past this sticking point. Unfortunately, dinner is ready, so I must be going. Hopefully I'll be able to get back on later.

The only reason people will not get past this sticking point, is that they don't want to admit they have done sins worthy of death as well as those they disagree with. There is no commandment by Christ to condone a behavior, but there is also no commandment to forbid unbelievers from following their own lusts.

God wants them to believe that way. I don't particularly care what they believe, because their eternal afterlife is not my responsibility.

Nor is how they live on this earth.



Dinnertime!

Enjoy your meal.
:)

[aghast]

Ah, but when offered the choice between allowing gay marriage and not allowing it (via legislation), voting to allow it would in fact be condoning the behavior.

what exactly are you condoning? marriage? or gay sex? or homosexuality? to me, if you vote yes on gay marriage you are condoning commitment between two consenting adults who love each other, and nothing more, and if you do want to drag the bible into this all the ot said was gay sex is an abomination and thats a very loose interpretation - we wont get into this because i am sure its been argued ad nauseum already - but anyway to get back to the point these legislations, to my knowledge, are not 'condoning' gay marriage but instead they are trying to 'ban' gay marraige ... the constitutional ban part to me is 'throwing the first stone' and not just merely a judgment but a condemnation - 'you freaks can never get married and have a family' ... remember these votes are not for 'permitting gay marriage' but rather 'ban all same-sex marriage and civil unions, including heterosexual ones' which are two different things, just like a law or consitution amendment to 'promote drinking until you puke' vs. one to 'ban all drinking' - very different things

[Bartholomew]

[Insert over-used lesbian joke.]

But seriously,

[Insert common sense about why Gay-Marriage should be allowed.]

[Relate this to the opening lesbian joke.]

#

I honestly think that people who don't want gays to marry hold this opinion because they believe it to be icky.

[astonwest]

The parts I bolded include things that people do every day, whether homosexual or not. Things such as covetousness, malice, envy, strife, malignity, gossip, slander, insolence, haughtiness, boasting, disobedient to parents, foolishness, faithlessness, heartlessness, ruthlessness, are all according to this Scripture worthy of death.

Indeed, many people (even Christians) commit the sins listed above. It doesn't mean we should, but we do.

No, using a Scripture like this only to point out one sin, and not focusing on anything else in that passage, is wrong.

Maybe, but we weren't discussing the other sins listed. I'm certain if someone wanted to start a thread on being disobedient to one's parents, this verse could be used (though I imagine most would point out the instructions from the original Ten Commandments).

No, in fact, Sir, you're wrong. Voting to allow something is not the same thing as condoning it.

I believe it to be so. You don't. I don't imagine we're going to get past that distinction. But if you re-read verse 32 from the passage quoted upthread, it may give more insight into why I believe it to be so.

According to The Merriam Webster Collegiate Dictionary, Fifth Edition, the Archaic meaning of the word 'Judge' is "To Govern".

I'd prefer someone find the original Hebrew translation of the verse and find out what the word means from that, but I'm not well-versed on my Hebrew...

If I remember correctly, the OT punishment for homosexuality was to have the guilty parties stoned to death.
But through the NT, the punishment changes, as does the method in which we escape that punishment.

what exactly are you condoning? marriage? or gay sex? or homosexuality?
By voting to allow gay marriage, I would be condoning homosexuality.

Just some points of clarification, though.
Do I think homosexuals are bad people? No.
Do I think homosexuality is a sin? Yes.
Do I have the right to believe homosexuality is a sin? Yes.
Do I have the right to tell a homosexual they're going to hell for their sin? No.

It may be tough for people to understand, but I do count people as my friends who happen to be homosexual. Just like I have friends who drink heavily, yet I believe drinking is a sin...

And now I must take my leave from this thread. As much fun as debating my faith is, I've promised some folks I'd have a final draft ready for them this month, and I still have half the book to edit...

[WackAMole]

What's wrong with legally calling it a Civil Union? What's the matter with that? I mean, ideally, in a country that separates church and state, all unions should all be dubbed Civil Unions, meaning gay, straight, whatever.

Look, if two gay people want to call it a marriage: fine. They can call it whatever they want. Why so insistent on "forcing" people to say their "married." WTF?

I've never understood the big deal about this issue. I mean: marriage. Is that an important word or something? With the divorce rate over 50 percent , it doesn't look like a lot of folks respect their "vows" anyway. And look at the amount of kids born out of "wedlock," not that there's a lock on anybody once their wed. So, what's with the sacred word: marriage?

Sorry, but to me, this isn't about civil rights, it's about forcing something down somebody else's throat. If Joe Blow doesn't want to call two gay people: married, he shouldn't have to. Who cares? As long as the two gay people have the same rights under the law as two technically "married" people: fine. Sheeze.

I meant sheesh.

I understand your point about civil unions, and if my circumstances were different i would agree with you. My situation, however, has brought to light some issues with the civil union theory. I'll try to explain..

I was brought up a christian, best thing my parents ever gave me. When I became involved with a woman, I gave up my spirituality because of what id been taught. I didnt think the two could go together. I missed it so painfully much, my relationship with christ. At some point I came to realize that the bible indeed does make it clear that NO ONE SIN is any greater than any other, and there is only ONE thing that is going to keep you from heaven..and that is not knowing christ as your personal saviour. That being said..ill explain about the reason civil unions wont work for some of us...

Ive been with my girlfriend for 3 years. She is swedish. Every other month or so, we purchase a plane ticket for around 1200 dollars, we split the cost between us. She comes and stays for 3 months at a time. Thank god her situation allows for that or we would not be able to see each other as much as we do. Its very expensive and its very hard to have to say goodbye that many times in one year. This person is my absolute soulmate..and unfortunately, there is nothing in current "immigration laws" that is covered by a "civil union". Just marriage. I think the thing people miss is that there are many laws in place (just like the immigration laws) that you probably arent even aware of, that prohibit you from taking part in/or enjoying the benefits of some laws. Though at this point I think civil unions would be a great step forward...its not going to solve all our problems..unless we customize all the laws in the books that require "marriage" as a stipulation (ie...immigration and im sure some others)

One last comment on religion versus the gay issue:

If I can still talk to christ daily, what gives any "earthly human being" the right to make me feel badly for walking into a church because im gay? In all honesty, in a congregation of people, I think you would find that there are lots of other issues going on right under your noses.

Sin is sin is sin. Though I am not at all certain that I believe what I feel for this person is actually sinful, I am going to just base my closing on what many christians believe to be true..that homosexuality is a sin.

Putting laws in place that are truly very religious in nature..such as laws banning homosexuality, causes more hatred than anything else. Shaming gays for attending church and constantly harassing them and confronting them about their lifestyle does nothing but keep them away from church.

I dont believe in flaunting it, as I am very sensitive to the people in my family around me who dont believe in what i do. My mother, god bless her, still believes its wrong, but she loves my girlfriend and she doesnt let it come between our relationship..and I have such deep respect for that. THAT is unconditional love...THAT is what christ taught.

[Robert Toy]

Beautifully said, personally I don’t believe in a vengeful God just vengeful people hiding behind God’s name.

[English Dave]

The problem with Gay Marriage is that a lot of hetrosexuals have a problem distinguishing love, procreation and anal sex.

Just the way it is.

[Robert Toy]

The problem with Gay Marriage is that a lot of hetrosexuals have a problem distinguishing love, procreation and anal sex.

Just the way it is.
Huh?

[jbal]

I wanted to throw in one other Bible verse to this discussion. At the Last Supper, Jesus gave only one directive to his disciples. This is New Testament now, scrap the ten commandments of the old covenant and this is what Jesus wants of us: John 15:12 "This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you." If people seriously tried to live by this, the world would be a very different place. Sad that prominent Christians are so judgmental. This is a digression, I know.

[English Dave]

Huh?

Forget the Bible crap. I don't like men in a sexual way. Others do. Do I care? No. Why should I? At the same time I don't actively promote homosexual relationships. Why should I? You click or you don't. Gender, race and religion are irrelevant.

Though any horny woman would be gratefully recieved.

[SeanDSchaffer]

I wanted to throw in one other Bible verse to this discussion. At the Last Supper, Jesus gave only one directive to his disciples. This is New Testament now, scrap the ten commandments of the old covenant and this is what Jesus wants of us: John 15:12 "This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you." If people seriously tried to live by this, the world would be a very different place. Sad that prominent Christians are so judgmental. This is a digression, I know.


I don't think it's a digression, Jbal. I personally think it's a good point. Jesus said the two greatest commandments in all the OT, were "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, with all thy soul, with all thy mind, and with all thy strength." Then he said the second was 'like unto it', which states, "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself."

Jesus added that "upon these two laws hang all the Law and the Prophets".

Yet so many Christians are willing to decide for others what those people are going to do. I think it is sickening to Christ, because so many of us have taken His words completely out of context to mean what we personally want them to mean.

It's sad, but it is the way so many Christians work. We forget about the love that Christ showed to the world, and instead work on judging the world.

[English Dave]

I don't think it's a digression, Jbal. I personally think it's a good point. Jesus said the two greatest commandments in all the OT, were "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, with all thy soul, with all thy mind, and with all thy strength." Then he said the second was 'like unto it', which states, "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself."



I wank off my neighbor. Then I stone him.

Isn't there a separate Religious bvllshit thread?

[Robert Toy]

Forget the Bible crap. I don't like men in a sexual way. Others do. Do I care? No. Why should I? At the same time I don't actively promote homosexual relationships. Why should I? You click or you don't. Gender, race and religion are irrelevant.

Though any horny woman would be gratefully recieved.
I don't believe anyone was trying to get you to promote homosexual relationships, male or female. At the same time I don’t believe you should universally condemn something you personally don’t agree with, not caring is good.

BTW - On your horny woman statement - Adultery is frown upon in many societies. ;)

[English Dave]

I don't believe anyone was trying to get you to promote homosexual relationships, male or female. At the same time I don’t believe you should universally condemn something you personally don’t agree with, not caring is good.

BTW - On your horny woman statement - Adultery is frown upon in many societies. ;)


It wouldn't be adultery. Just wishful thinking.

[Robert Toy]

It wouldn't be adultery. Just wishful thinking.
A Jimmy Carter moment - lusting in your mind, or was it his heart? In some circles you would be condemned as well, so you may as well do it! ;)

[English Dave]

A Jimmy Carter moment - lusting in your mind, or was it his heart? In some circles you would be condemned as well, so you may as well do it! ;)


Well.. no. I don't fancy guys. Some males do. Good luck to them. They have a better sex life than I do.

[Robert Toy]

Well.. no. I don't fancy guys. Some males do. Good luck to them. They have a better sex life than I do.
The Jimmy Carter moment was in reference to an interview with Playboy magazine and the unclad ladies, not men. :D

[English Dave]

The Jimmy Carter moment was in reference to an interview with Playboy magazine and the unclad ladies, not men. :D

Dammit! :D

I stand by my position that lust is lust

[janetbellinger]

A lot of people feel threatened by change so they oppose it.