AJC.com > Opinion > Woman to Woman > Archives > 2004 > October > 28 > Entry
What are the repercussions if the amendment to exclude same-sex marriage is passed in Georgia?
Diane Glass, a left-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, responds.
Diane Glass, a left-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, responds.
Commentary
If the amendment to prohibit same-sex marriage passes in Georgia, we?ll be one step closer to accepting Jesus as our Savior. Every one of us. Finally, evangelical values will win out and we can all move to suburbia, have 2.5 children and a well-trained dog. Don?t forget the white picket fence. We wouldn?t want any strangers having access to our manicured lawns.
Not that living a conventional life is so bad. It?s that a conventional life is the only sanctioned lifestyle. So what about the rest of us? Well, no doubt Shaunti will say that prohibiting same-sex marriage ?accepts different lifestyles,? but ?doesn?t condone them.? Thanks for the patronizing pat on the head ? suddenly I?m having visions of my mother pointing her finger at me. Yet recent rumor has it that many of us don?t define ourselves according to Bible teachings. The problem in American culture today is the insistence on conformity and sameness. We?re off starting wars on other cultures in the name of ?freedom? and ?democracy,? two of President Bush?s favorite code words for ?my way or the highway.? Or is it ?do or die?? Close call.
It will be no surprise that Georgia ? that bastion of liberal open-mindedness ? will flatly deny same-sex couples the rights of marriage. It?s just another step by the evangelical right to legislate their faith and values on the rest of us. Damn us heathens! Why don?t we just comply? Well, because we really don?t have to. Same-sex couples may be denied legal rights, but they can still form families.
Which leads us to the simple equation that, despite our low Georgia SAT scores, I?m sure you?ll comprehend: Lesbian woman + sperm bank = baby
An alternative equation is: Lesbian woman + gay man donor = baby
And another equation is probably the most frightening of all: (Single) * (heterosexual female) / (apathy for Evangelical values) + sperm bank = baby
And one more equation for theologians to ponder: (Evangelical values ? (diversity + apathy)) = null
This concludes our math lesson for this week, but in the future the compound effects of these ?unnatural? family units will proliferate despite religious protest. In which case, no doubt, legislative faith initiatives will surface that require parents to be licensed. A ?man and a woman? need only apply, and they should ?naturally? be joined in holy matrimony, along with their rising divorce rates.
The fact is that no scientific data suggest that same-sex couples make bad parents or influence their child?s sexual preference (unless, of course, the study was done by a religious group pretending to conduct “scientific” studies). Liberals do not have faith in religious science organizations that think “natural” science is all about heterosexual whoopee.
If same-sex couples forming families is so unnatural and only heterosexual unions so superior, why do those darn Christians keep getting divorced at higher rates than the rest of us? You?d think they would have learned to turn the other cheek by now.
Rebuttal
As in other states, Georgia?s proposed amendment defines marriage as between one man and one woman, and ensures that same-sex marriages entered into in other states aren?t recognized. As hard as this is for gay couples to understand, the intention is not to ?exclude,? judge, discriminate or force conformity on anyone. It is to avoid sanctioning a life choice that the majority considers unhealthy and even immoral.
I received an email from a gay couple this week, two men raising a beautiful little girl. They pleaded with me to reconsider my position, explaining that they were good parents, good citizens, who just wanted legal recognition of their union. They don?t have a choice in their sexual orientation, they assured me. Don?t judge us; we are all created in God?s image.
I get many such emails from people all over the country, and I always have to respond the same way: I understand. As a matter of emotion, I wish I could support you. I recognize that you are probably a productive citizen, a good parent, even a committed churchgoer. I wish that this issue didn?t have to be so hard. It is totally understandable that you feel your orientation is inborn and you deserve legal recognition as you raise your children.
The problem is that just because feelings are understandable, doesn?t mean that they are right. It is so hard to say in today?s ?anything-goes? culture, but acting on same-sex attraction is something that many of us believe is unhealthy and morally wrong.
It would be so much easier to say, ?Wow, you have adopted a beautiful child — your family does need legal protection.? Instead, I have to raise the hard point: you are the ones who chose to adopt, knowing from the start that you wouldn?t have that legal union and wouldn?t be able to give your child what all children ideally need: a mom and a dad.
Diane is wrong to imply that no credible science supports that notion. Almost every study of children?s social and emotional development demonstrates that the best environment is with a married mother and father. Other children simply are at greater risk.
And yes, of course heterosexual households can be unhealthy too. Most of the data in those studies, after all, is spawned because of good old traditional divorce. But just because the less-than-ideal exists doesn?t mean our government shouldn?t stand up for the ideal. I want our government to do more to support marriage, including making it harder to divorce.
In our free society, consenting adults are largely free to do what they want, which includes living in ways that may not be ideal. But the government does not have the luxury of condoning, paying for and supporting everything that everyone wants. The government must make hard decisions about what is right, what is wrong, and what is best for society. Protecting traditional marriage ? an institution that sociologists recognize as society?s foundation ? from the current calls for change is one hard responsibility that Georgia and other states must live up to.
Comments
Commenting is now closed for this entry.
By norman
November 1, 2004 07:15 AM | Link to this
While I oppose gay marriage I do love Diane’s comment about those damn Christians who divorce more than others and would like to turn this country into a theocracy. She went to a divinity school (God only knows why) and understands fully the pharisaical hypocrisy of these bible nuts. Reading the bible weakens the brain and prevents it from functioning rationally. It innoculates one from common sense and rational thought.
By Chris
November 1, 2004 07:25 AM | Link to this
I agree with Diane. Shaunti managed to skirt around virtually every point brought up by Diane. Also, like many others I have heard from, Shaunti managed to miss some major points. One of her statements says “you are the ones who chose to adopt”. So basically, she is saying that gays are morally wrong and should not be given government support - even if it’s something as simple as a tax break. I find underage pregnancies extremely more wrong than inborn sexual orientation. Yet, the government will continue to give money to so-called “families” of underage “mothers”. Why is it that gay families cannot gets breaks, yet sinful underage people can get handouts ? In case you haven’t noticed, gays are picking up those unfortunate children of your 13-year old daughters who had government assistance all through pregnancy, then turned around and gave the kid up for adoption. I for one 100% approve of same-sex marriages. The majority of America violate the original meaning of marriage anyways. The government should not be based on religious concepts, either. The “majority” is not what it appears to be and our “representatives” are rarely that.
By Brian Curtis
November 1, 2004 07:56 AM | Link to this
I especially liked the part where Shaunti declared, “the intention is not to judge or criticize… we simply don’t want to endorse a lifestyle choice we consider unhealthy and morally wrong.”
Gee… I wonder what judging would sound like.
It’s all a smokescreen to disguise rampant gay-hatred. If they were so concerned about the “sanctity of marriage,” they’d outlaw divorce. If they wanted to make sure every child had a mother and father, there would be no single parents, and their issue would be gay adoption, not gay marriage.
The agenda is clear: Gays must be vilified and attacked, not given equal rights. What’s really left to debate? Religion? (Sorry, forgot where I was; let the abortion flame-war continue!)
By James
November 1, 2004 08:03 AM | Link to this
Shaunti amazes me, like most of the bible nuts. They refuse to believe that God’s diversity is infinate. It says just that very thing in the bible. Sicentific fact has proven many times over that sexual orientation is developed so early that no one really has a choice. All the hatred of Gays comes from the Old Testament. Jesus never even bothered to mention it. This is the same place that says ‘Don’t eat unclean animals (pigs) and do not wear mixed fabrics. Also, you are allowed to sell your daughters into slavery. Funny, in Shaunti’s picture, she has on mixed fabrics! Is that bacon I smell? She should not be legally recognized as a human being. STONE HER!
Basically, we want the same rights as anyone else. If you believe marriage is only between a man and woman-fine. However, do not take away my ability to take care of another human being while in the hospital. I pay taxes at the same rate as all of you. I provide the same benefits to society as you. These same people used the bible to enslave an entire race of people until an ‘activist judge’ forced what we all now recognize is right. Do not let them continue to use a message of love as a tool of hate. VOTE NO!
By Mrs. Peggy Miller
November 1, 2004 08:16 AM | Link to this
You article was quite interesting. However, you are somewhat deceived in thinking that the Evangelicals, of which I am one, wants to force our belief on everyone. Acceptance of Christ is a personal and individual choice. We are mandated to introduce the world to Jesus Christ. It is then up to the individual to choose Him as their Lord and Saviour . Unlike the Homosexual movement that truly tries to force everyone to accept their lifestyle and to condone it has right and proper. If anyone is to be insulted or feel put upon I would think that it would be the Christians, not the Homosexual community. Mrs. Peggy P. Miller
By Tabatha
November 1, 2004 08:16 AM | Link to this
So if its not about judging, not about God’s law, not about the affects on the children, not about the long term affects on society, and definitly not about the sanctity of marriage then whats it about? It like alot of things today is about what we believe. Most of the us believes in God, while we as americans don’t go to church. We believe that we have rights but they dont protect us when murderers or vandals hit. We also believe that our government will do what is right for us, whether we are pro- or anti- gay marriage the law will work for us to protect us. There is no easy choice here. But I truly believe that we are a nation based on the BIBLE and its teachings and as my thirteen year old daughter would say once and abomination always an abomination. So God loves you either way, but its your choice smoking or non- smoking for eternity?
By Kevin
November 1, 2004 08:31 AM | Link to this
I think if we applied Shaunti’s attempt at posturing the health of children based on the presence of a mother and father in a home, the State would be compelled to remove children from any home in which one parent dies and would be prohibited from placing a child in the home of a single relative. Obviously, our legal and moral culture has never embraced that notion. But something else about her remarks bothers me - beyond the concept of constitutional provisions denying recognition for the existence of same-sex couples, Shaunti seems to believe that government play a much more active contractual role in EVERY marriage. While this embraces the typical rightwing attitude that individuals aren’t capable of making “appropriate” choices in their lives, it also asserts the idea that special rights be preserved for only those heterosexuals who meet Shaunti’s religious litmus test. Evangelicals increasingly have this habit of asserting the moral high ground, as if somehow their own selective interpretation of scripture has awarded them some special understanding of good and evil. This includes their insistence that seperation of church and state is a myth, that government exists to enforce their religious beliefs, and that people have an obligation to promote her lifestyle. Religion is not an immutable characteristic, and yet zealots love to contend that they need special exemptions from civil law, even though THEY have made a choice about their religious beliefs.
Since churches provide none of the benefits of marriage, and in fact cannot perform legal ceremonies without state approval, it seems suspect that Shaunti so strongly believes that the ‘majority” should have the right to pass judgement on the highly individual choice of marriage. If any of us were required to pass referendum muster on each relationship, I daresay many marriages would be approved by the general public. Perhaps Shaunti would be much happier if the State would arrange all relationships, with approval of her church, of course.
By Aisha
November 1, 2004 08:32 AM | Link to this
While both Diane and Shaunti have made some thought-provoking points, I must bring up the fact that each are writing from their world view whether theistic or otherwise. The problem I have, as a bible NUT (as we have lovingly been called in a previous comment!) is that those who expect Christians to be tolerant are some of the most intolerant people I have ever heard.
We all must realize that everyone has a worldview from which springs our positions on issues and while we should respect the opinions of others we do not have to agree. The bottom line is, this entire world is a theocracy and one day everyone will bow to its Leader whether willingly or otherwise. So until then, we bible nuts will vote our morals, values and convictions while others vote theirs. Unfortunately, we get criticized for doing this while others do not. Why is that? So, with that said, I am a bible nut who asks, why are so many people not tolerant of Christians but expect us to be tolerant of their choices and lifestyles?
I just think we have to come to a consensus that this has to be a two-way street. The very thing of which Christians are being accused is what is being done to us. Let’s be adults and realize we will not all agree and you cannot point the finger at one group as the root of all the problems for your inability to experience a comfortable life. WAKE UP…Christians and non-Christians alike.
By Bob Swygert
November 1, 2004 08:33 AM | Link to this
I am a Christian who has made a personal choice to place my faith in Jesus Christ as my Lord and savior. I am a Baptist, a conservative Republican, Pro-Bush, Pro-life. I have completed a Master’s degree from Virginia Tech. That degree doesn’t make me the smartest person on the block, but I believe it effectively insulates me from the accusation that I’m some “uneducated country bumpkin.” On Tuesday, I will vote against the same-sex marriage ban. Here’s why… I believe that my personal religious convictions should not dictate whether a gay couple can get married and enjoy the same legal and economic protections as a married man and woman. That being said, I also believe that homosexuality is sinful behavior and I will continue to frown on gay marriages performed within the church. There is no contradiction here. Men and women can get married now in civil unions totally devoid of any religious ceremony, yet they are still married. I believe that same civil right should be extended to gay couples. However, Shaunti makes a good point that we simply do not know what the long term effects of gay marriage might have on children. Neither side can argue this point because we simply don’t have the conclusive evidence either way.
Furthermore, while agree with Diane’s basic premise I find her blatant anti-Christian bigotry (and the blatant bigotry of some of the posters to this forum) extremely tiresome. Fact is that if Diane made the same kind of comments about other religious or ethnic groups she would be out of a job.. and the grand poohbahs at the AJC know that’s true. Liberals wishing to resurrect the poorly-defined “hate speech” law need to realize that they may end up getting hanged on their own petards.
By Randy
November 1, 2004 08:40 AM | Link to this
I see we have another intelligent comment from Norman, he will never learn. I’m voting “YES” for the amendment.
By Mike
November 1, 2004 08:46 AM | Link to this
It sickens and saddens me to see such ignorance has a platform such as this, that allows Shaunti to express such shallow “views”. Shaunti, while you have your views, I have the truth. Because I am the one who is gay. I NEVER decided to be this way. A question for you…”when did you decide to be straight”? How can I make you understand? I can do nothing other than be open and honest with you, and if you “choose” not to listen and try not to believe that “hey, I might be wrong about this” then, you are even worse off than I thought. What is it like to be gay? Well, remember when you were a pre-pubesent child and began looking at the opposite sex? Well, I never felt that. You wish it would occur, but it doesn’t. So, you pretend…you laugh at the jokes, so nobody suspects. Most gay men can remember even further back being attracted to something, while knowing absolutely NOTHING about sexuality at that age. As is the case with most gay men, as you age into your teens and college years, you over achieve to take away from what you know is your orientation, for fear you will be looked down upon. Whether its grades, sports, interning for a US Senator (and by the way, there isn’t an office on Capitol Hill in DC without a gay man working in it…I know, I worked there). You pray to have feelings for the other sex, until your realize that you are who you are, and nobody can make you feel inferior, or that you are “different” if you don’t let them. It’s a lifetime sturggle and to have to listen to soemone else, like yourself, comment on you with untruths, doesn’t settle very well. Finally, stop all the lies about environment and upbringing. Everyone I know who’s gay has straight parents…and they aren’t families who’s fathers are distant or mothers are overbearing. Did you, and others, ever think how ridiculous those type of comments are when it comes to environment and parents? If that were the case, wouldnt all children in the same family be gay, as they come from the same parents and surroundings?!! I’ve never met any family that way. So for you, and every other bible thumping nutjob out there, we are telling you to STOP!! You are wrong, and your hateful spewing of misinformation only adds fuel to the fire to those who have serious violent intentions towards gays. Although I’ve rambled, I just finally want to say that until you can prove to me just how a gay civil union, or marriage, would effect your marriage, or any other straight marriage, I will be encouraging others to vote “NO” on the proposed Georgia ammendment. How can you not understand that? You want to commit yourself to who you are attracted to emotionally and physically. It wouldnt effect straight marriages one bit…other than make those who are opposed to it, over time, realize just how wrong they are!
By Akeya W.
November 1, 2004 09:10 AM | Link to this
Oh man, this is a hard topic. So much misunderstanding on both parts. But, here goes…
The first issue I want to address is the part in Shaunti’s rebuttal which states:
“Diane is wrong to imply that no credible science supports that notion. Almost every study of children’s social and emotional development demonstrates that the best environment is with a married mother and father. Other children simply are at greater risk.”
My problem with this is that there are so many Christians who state that science separated us from the Lord because it implies that we are descendants of animals and not created by God. Why is it okay to use science to your advantage when you want to prove something, but cast it aside when it goes against something in which you believe?
I believe that if there was solid evidence that being homosexual is natural, Shaunti, along with others of her ilk, would not hesitate to point out that science is evil and cannot be used to determine such things. (also, I’m not saying that there is no evidence. I’m not sure if there is or not)
But, I digress.
This issue confuses me because I cannot understand why people think that they have the right to control the lives of others.
WHY IS THIS EVEN SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE TO VOTE ON?
Why are we allowing the government to decide how we can have sex and with whom we can have sex?
Why are we allowing the government to tell us who we can and cannot marry? Were there not laws against miscegenation? And I’m sure that someone will whip out the old “Good Book” to find passages that condemn mixed partnerships/marriages.
Why is it that my neighbors, coworkers, and someone who works at the Waffle House are allowed to decide if I can or cannot marry someone I love?
Why do we have to vote on this amendment? Why is the government involved in this?
There are so many different religions and it would be UNJUST to FORCE everyone to live according to the beliefs of one religion.
America is full of people from EVERYWHERE!!! We cannot and should not force everyone to live by the same Bible (no pun intended).
What are the repurcussions?
We will basically be saying the following things: 1)If you are different and we don’t like it, screw you!
2)We ( “we” meaning the government or nice Mrs. McKinney across the street who bakes you cookies and is really sweet to you, your gay partner, and your child(ren), but just voted “yes” on the amendment)can decide who you can and cannot have as a life partner.
3)We do not care of you have been together for 50 years, you cannot have healthcare benefits nor enjoy the beauty of sharing your lives in a legal union
4)You will bow down to our beliefs and our religion, whether you like it or not (this just SMACKS of Orwell)
And the HOMOSEXUAL MOVEMENT!!!! Yeah, because there are homosexuals knocking on my door every Saturday handing out Daily Words and Watchtowers to convince me to “come over to the other side.”
Yeah, just look at all of the billboards stating “Come on down to the Church O’ Homosexuals and see what we have to offer!!!Condemnation, possible violence against you, losing your family-you know, the people who are supposed to love you unconditionally! Whheeeee doggy!!! We’re waiting for you-hey there’s cookies and juice in it for ya!!!”
Who someone else marries should not even be the business of those not involved. If someone does not like homosexuality or agree with it, that’s okay! BUt they SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO DICTATE THE LIVES OF SOMEONE ELSE TO PROMOTE THEIR OWN BELIEFS.
It’s not right.
Why are we a nation intent on having our privacy violated?
By Akeya W
November 1, 2004 09:19 AM | Link to this
Also, we’re talking about a state that repeatedly places children in homes of low income/no income, single parent homes simply because the child is related by blood to the guardian.
I’m really tired of seeing these children be placed with relatives who can give them no better life than if they were placed in a loving and legitimate foster home.
Now there’s a REAL topic!!
Should children be placed in the homes of relatives simply because they are related by blood.
By DMones
November 1, 2004 09:19 AM | Link to this
Lets understand, either way that you feel, that getting married is NOT a right.So when Diane writes ” will flatly deny same-sex couples the rights of marriage” that is incorrect. We have a right to bear arms, the right to an attorney, and other rights but marriage is not one of them. To keep it short and simple the problem most likely developed when Government got involved. Marriage has been around since before Government was even established and thus once Government got involved it caused the whole problem. Last time I checked Government can not discriminate because of race, sex, creed, or color. So once two people go to a government place to get a government issued marriage license that is when the problem arises. We should just leave marriage approvals within the church, a private institution, and if they decline to marry gays then there would be nothing they could do about it.
By Mara
November 1, 2004 09:23 AM | Link to this
Interestingly, no one has questioned gender in this arguement. What exactly makes one male or female? Is it just a matter of plumbing? If that is so, then the thousands of infants born with ambiguous genitalia shouldn’t be allowed to eventually marry. Most are assigned a gender by the parents and doctor and then are surgically altered to physically conform. Is it genetic, with the X and Y chromasomes? Even there you have exceptions. What about transgendered folk? Should a man who becomes a woman have to marry only a woman, since he started out as a man? (Kinda messes with that same-sex marriage thing, huh) Or should it be a man, since she now has bosoms? Never let them marry? Nature and science don’t always fit into ones neat little pigeon holes. Personally, I think that love is love and whether your soul mate is plumbed the same way you are shouldn’t have any bearing on whether you get to publically and legally commit your lives to each other.
By Carlton Wyatt
November 1, 2004 09:29 AM | Link to this
If ignorance is truly bliss, the State of Georgia will prove itself to be the happiest place on Earth Nov. 2.
By Ted Burnham
November 1, 2004 09:32 AM | Link to this
Wow! Yet another textbook example of a straw man argument from Diane. Very appropriate for Autumn! Why not talk about the facts surrounding this issue instead of spewing the typical vitriol towards Christians? Why is it that the liberal ethic of “tolerance” never applies towards Christians?
Let’s make one thing clear about Christianity- we don’t ask you to look at our perfect lives. That’s because they do not exist. I would expect someone who is so highly educated in religion to know such a basic tenant of the world’s most popular religion!
People who believe in Jesus as their Lord and Savior would ask you to look at Christ’s life, which was perfect in every way.
So who is pushing their minority morality on whom? Is it a matter of principle? Whose principle? The homosexual agenda and elitist liberal causes?
By John Hays
November 1, 2004 09:32 AM | Link to this
As a straight, married, Republican, Christian man, I am very strongly opinionated on this issue. Clearly, anyone who would vote in favor of the oppressive, nazi-like marriage amendment isn’t living in reality. Science and religion cannot be separated into two independent, non-related entities. The idea that God would use the framework of scientific principles to exert his influence on the world he created is perfectly reasonable to me. The scientific fact is that homosexuals do not choose to be homosexual. If you believe in God, you must also beleive that God doesn’t make mistakes, and in the ultimate loving nature of God. If God doesn’t make mistakes, and homosexuality has been proven to be an inborn trait, how can you condemn people for being who they are. Also, could someone please quote some scripture for me that specifically condemns homosexuality? I have read the bible and never saw any. If I missed it, please let me know the book, chapter and verse. I find it incredibly difficult to believe that my God would condone the kind of hatred directed at homosexuals. I also find it difficult to hear much of the anti-Christian rhetoric that has been thrown about on this blog, but I understand where it comes from. Too many Christians think it is our job to demand others follow our teachings. In reality, our job is to present our teachings, and allow others to make their own decisions. The most central and important idea in Christianity is free will, yet most Christians choose to ignore that fact when it doesn’t suit their agenda. You cannot legislate Christian beliefs, because in doing so you have removed free will. The fact is that while the bible does not expicitly condemn homosexuality, it does expressly state that there are two sets of laws in the world, secular law and God’s law. God’s law is for those who believe to follow. It is not followed by those who do not believe for the simple reason that they don’t believe. The bible also clearly states that it is not our job to enforce God’s law. To do so is actually in direct violation of the teachings of Christ. I also find the arguments about the welfare of children in a homosexual home laughable. I have never seen a homosexual couple that had children, act in any way that was detrimental to their child. However, everyday I am confronted by the depravity and harm inflicted on children by heterosexual parents. It pains me to think that a loving, caring homosexual parent could lose all rights to their child if some tragedy befell their partner. That would be the true detriment to a child. So please, really think before voting on Tuesday. The marriage amendment helps no one, but harms many.
By Lyrazel
November 1, 2004 09:34 AM | Link to this
Why do people constantly hide their eyes to the economic and financial concequences brought if gays got legal civil unions? Within both columns there was no mention of IRS, (especially SSI/Medicare/Medicaid) HMOs and other businesses who would stand to loose money if the gay marraige amendment passes. Omitting this is as ludicrous as dragging this issue into an I-am-more-moral-than-thou cesspol. After months of debate—why is the economic side of this issue never heard? Broadly omitted in America—To me, this is just another sign of hidden interests paying off government officials(=lobbyists) to get legislation passed for their special interests. Just another sign of who is actually in control of both Party politicians.
Take a couple: Bill and Will want to be wed so they can build a life of togetherness. They do not have children nor want children. They both enjoy a house in the city, both drive cars, both work jobs. As singles both men pay their share of taxes—yet, singles always pay more tax for for being unmarried. Bill and Will pay more with double health insurance premiums (two different policies), two car notes and Bill and Will also pay double(=two singles) for local school tax, hospitals and the extra expences living in Anytown, USA by filing their mandatory SINGLE tax forms.
If Bill & Will have a higher income, they will pay significantly more tax. The more a single person’s income goes up the more the tax they pay—and without deductions they are taxed double what a family of 3 pays yet the family of 3 uses more public services. (Think school tax, etc). Bill & Will frequently do spend more time at work filling in for them with sick kids and carpooling soccer parents, so they frequently do have more disposable income, so can contribute more $ to 401Ks, stocks and other investments highly taxable. They do not get $2600 spouse deduction even if they have lived together 20 years. Thus by allowing gays to wed our government stands to loose a lot of revenue—$2600/gay couple married without kids (and why no one mentions this baffles me.)
Who also stands to loose money if gays can wed: insurance companies, auto, home & health, businesses that insure workers. SSI would have to pay out spouse benefits if a partner dies if they have been wed over 10 years. SSI includes Medicare (and if you want to see HMO/Pharmacutical control over government policy look there and expose a minefield of special interest.) If you look at the current state of SSI you will really understand why the government cannot afford gays despite the fact both persons have paid into the system their lifetime.
While I wont argue with the truth that some gays make great parents I will argue the fact fewer gay couples become parents. So isnt the REAL conclusion the government seems hell-bent to interfere with someone’s right to pay less in taxes? MORE than it is a morality issue? Again, the facts are: Being married can be a civil performance or a religious one IF you make it one—but in truth all religious marriages must be civil-recognized, so even unions of faith—come to stand in line at the Marriage Licience bureau. So right there, faith based unions are for show of faith—but NOT legal until certified by government.
When our government decides to regulate one aspect of society by using the disguise of ‘santity of marriage’ in a country who’s divorce rate is 45% one has to choke on truth and face fact: Government has its hand in a lucrative racket and doesnt want to let go.
By John
November 1, 2004 09:36 AM | Link to this
As a right-wing, Christian, conservative, straight, happily married person, it’s pretty rare that I would agree with Diane, but I do on this one. I find it ironic that some of the “saved-again” bible bomb throwers condemn the gay lifestyle and wish to deny them civil and legal rights, yet have no problem rationalizing their positions as adulterers. Adulterers, you say? Well, the scripture is pretty plain that when two people divorce then re-marry, they are commiting adultery. That’s breaking one of the ten commandments. Homosexualty isn’t. The divorce rate among born again Christians is greater than among atheists.
By norman
November 1, 2004 09:46 AM | Link to this
It’s so interesting that people on both sides of this question are nevertheless quoting the bible left and right. When will you folks realize that a piece of ancient semitic superstition is not the foundation for 21st century rational thought and action? The bible has enslaved your minds.
I think perhaps the Bible should be burned and banned.
By Cat
November 1, 2004 09:53 AM | Link to this
All of you Christians who whine that gay people aren’t being “tolerant” of you are forgetting what “tolerance” means. It does mean that you accept someone else’s right to live as they choose, as long as they don’t interfere with your right to do the same. It does NOT mean that they have to “tolerate” (i.e. give in to) your efforts to force them to live according to your moral precepts. Are you “intolerant” of Muslims or Jews, if you are willing to allow them to worship as they please, but want to retain the right yourself to, say, eat pork or worship Jesus as a God? No one is telling you you can’t be Christian, live by Christian values, and worship as you please. No one is telling you that you can’t exclude gays from your religious marriage rituals or from your church. What they ARE telling you is that, in a free society, you cannot insist that secular rights and secular marriage be controlled by your particular religious rules, with no secular justification therefore. (Yes, there are some secular laws that coincide with Christian laws, like theft and murder - but there are independent secular justifications for these, not just “God said not to.”) If you can bar someone else from living as they choose, from marrying as they choose, and from building a family as they choose, because you, for religious reasons, believe them to be “unhealthy and morally wrong”, why do you retain the right to protest when Muslims in Muslim countries do the same thing, for the same reason, to Christians?
By Chris
November 1, 2004 10:44 AM | Link to this
Homosexuals do not seek to force their lifestyle on the rest of the world. They do not attempt to make people live a “gay” lifestyle. They only want the right to be able to make choices for themselves.
Evangelical Christians DO seek to force their lifestyle on the rest of the world. They say I don’t believe in it so YOU can’t do it. What if the popular belief was that Christian’s shouldn’t be able to live the livestyle they choose for themselves? How p** off would they be? …and they would be right to be p** off!
Live and let live.
By Zack
November 1, 2004 11:16 AM | Link to this
ISN’T IT AMAZING how if you tolerate every vile act that occurs and live life with no foundation whatsoever for your beliefs, that’s perfectly acceptable in the eyes of the world, but if you do believe in absolute truth, stand for what’s right, oppose what’s wrong, and try to make positive changes in your world, you’re attacked.
Actually, while it’s amazing, it’s also perfectly consistent. After all, this is the devil’s world.
Is the divorce rate high? Yes, unfortunately. The answer, however, is to return to closeness with God, NOT to attack the institution of marriage by legalizing gay marriage.
When I was growing up in the Cobb County school system, my teacher would pray a Christian prayer before lunch every day. This was a very fine school system and a very fine area. After I moved, this became disallowed. It was no time before the area went downhill in a hurry.
Years ago, schools would pray for God to bless us in many ways, one of which was a request for Him to bless our families. After this prayer was disallowed, it wasn’t long thereafter that the divorce rate skyrocketed.
God created us. To think we can succeed without His help is incredibly wrong. To think we should not acknowledge Him is incredibly unappreciative and disrespectful. To think we should go through life and not seek His help is unreasonable, to say the least.
I’m tired of the “anything goes but Christianity” mentality that’s so prevalent. We’ve lived by the Biblical principles that this country was founded upon and have succeeded. We unfortunately moved away from these principles and have failed. How much more failing will take place before we’re ready to succeed again?
By AllaboutMe
November 1, 2004 11:23 AM | Link to this
…come on…dont ya think its kind of twisted we can allow assault weapons to be sold and re-sold on the streets..putting thousands of cops in danger…making thousands of people victim to more and more crime…aiding terrorists by easy resale of said weaponry….but Homos are going to destroy the moral fiber of civilization…
By AllaboutME
November 1, 2004 11:32 AM | Link to this
…show me a gay terrorist…
By Cat
November 1, 2004 11:52 AM | Link to this
“I’m tired of the “anything goes but Christianityâ€? mentality that’s so prevalent.” Whine, whine, whine. You’re still the majority religion. You may still worship as you please, believe as you please, and you have the same civil rights as anyone else. Christianity is not banned, not discouraged, and not disadvantaged with respect to other religions. (Yes, children and teachers in public schools may still pray. They don’t have to, that’s all - and they can choose to pray to a different deity or in a different fashion.) But because you can no longer force public school children who don’t belong to your faith to pray to your god, somehow you’re persecuted. Because you can no longer force other people, of different faiths, to shape their personal lives around your idea of morality, you’re abused and beat up on. Get a GRIP. You’re trying to break up other people’s marriages, and to force other people’s children to pray as you would have them. You want to interfere with the most personal and intimate choices a person can make, including the religious education of one’s own children and the choice of one’s own SPOUSE. And if we don’t let you do this, WE’RE persecuting and attacking YOU? I do have a foundation for my beliefs, thank you very much. I believe that it is more important to encourage marriage and committed, loving family life than to worry about the chromosomes of the participants. I believe in religious freedom, and in the right of every person to make their own personal choices, as long as they do not interfere with others’ right to do so. I believe in love, and in a loving Deity who rejoices in love.
By Ber
November 1, 2004 11:55 AM | Link to this
First off let me say that I am totally against same sex marriage. Morally I feel it is wrong. God mad man and saw that he was lonely and he did not make another man for his companionship, he made a female. When Adam saw her he said WO-man, hence woman. Anyways, I feel that christians have set back and let everyone force their view on them. It is time for christians to stand up for what they believe. We let them take prayer out of our schools, lets not let them impose their immorality on us and our children to jusify their lifestyle.
By Ann
November 1, 2004 12:13 PM | Link to this
Shaunti’s only real argument is that Georgia should outlaw gay marriage because some Georgians consider it healthy and immoral. The same argument was made a hundred years ago for the prohibition of interracial marriages. Georgia’s constitution was not created to spare its citizens from things that they might consider icky - it was created to protect the rights of all Georgians. Even the gay ones, Shaunti.
And I’m so sorry, Evangelicals, that you feel put-upon. That must be unpleasant. I know that every Wednesday and Friday afternoon when the lesbians come to my door and insist that I join their ranks and live my life by their teachings, I say, “Why can’t you just be tolerant of my heterosexuality? My lifestyle isn’t bothering you; why won’t you leave me alone?” But they just won’t. They say that I’m wrong and unnatual.
The US Constitution mandates a separation of church and state because civil issues can’t be dictated by anyone’s bible. Even marriage has two components two it, civil and religious. A couple can easily get married by a Justice of the Peace and live a perfectly legal marriage that is unrecognized by any church. Similarly, a couple can have a lovely church wedding that, absent a marriage license, is unrecognized by the state. All of you Christians out there who disapprove of homosexuality, feel free not to let them get married in your church. But your church doesn’t get to tell my government what to do.
By BigMouth
November 1, 2004 12:23 PM | Link to this
It boils down to what one believes the purpose of marriage is.
I think the amendment should be passed, but I believe gays will get their way in the future (at least during my lifetime) and have their marriages legally recognized whether or not this amendment passes tomorrow. I do think, however, that when gays are allowed to marry that our divorce courts will become even more clogged and strained. I also think it will be interesting to see if the gays are better at marriage than the straights who’s selfish immaturity leads to only a 50% chance of sticking with the spouse they promised to stay with for life. I hope that when the gays are allowed to marry that they will do better than the straights…maybe give the straights a role model to follow or a kick in the selfish bum? one can hope…….
By Boscoe Roads
November 1, 2004 12:38 PM | Link to this
You pray to have feelings for the other sex, until your realize that you are who you are, and nobody can make you feel inferior, or that you are “differentâ€? if you don’t let them. From the point of view of perfection, there is, next to pride, no greater obstacle to spiritual growth than the vice of impurity. When it is question of solitary acts or of faults committed with others, it is not long before tyrannical habits are formed which thwart every impulse towards perfection, and incline the will towards debasing pleasures. Relish for prayer disappears, as does love for austere virtue, while noble and unselfish aspirations vanish. The soul becomes a prey to selfishness. The love once borne to parents and friends gradually dies out; there is but the desire which becomes a real obsession to indulge at any cost in evil pleasures. The balance of the faculties is destroyed: it is the body, it is lust that takes command; the will becomes the slave of this shameful passion and soon rebels against God, Who forbids and punishes these unholy pleasures. The sad effects of this surrender of the will are soon apparent: the mind becomes dull and weak because the vital forces are used up by the senses: taste for serious studies is lost; the imagination gravitates towards lower things; the heart gradually withers, hardens, and is attracted only by degrading pleasures. In some cases the physical frame itself is deeply affected: the nervous system, over-excited by such abuses, becomes irritated, weakened, and incapable of fulfilling its mission of regulation and defence; the various bodily organs function but imperfectly; nutrition is improperly accomplished, strength is undermined and the danger of consumption threatens. Evidently, a soul that has thus lost its balance, no longer thinks of perfection. It recedes from it daily, considering itself fortunate if it can gain control over itself. “I have been extraordinarily fortunate to have met many people who have emerged from the gay life. When I see the personal difficulties they have squarely faced, the sheer courage they have displayed not only in facing these difficulties but also in confronting a culture that uses every possible means to deny the validity of their values, goals, and experiences, I truly stand back in wonder… It is these people — former homosexuals and those who are still struggling, all across America and aboard — who stand for me as a model of everything good and possible in a world that takes the human heart, and the God of that heart, seriously. In my various explorations within the worlds of psychoanalysis, psychotherapy, and psychiatry, I have simply never before seen such profound healing.” Jeffrey Satinover, MD and Ph.D., has written of his extensive experience with patients experiencing same-sex attraction. Those who wish to be free from same-sex attractions frequently turn first to the Church. There is every reason to hope that every person experiencing same-sex attraction who seeks help from the Church can find freedom from homosexual behavior and many will find much more. Four reasons why homosexual acts are the most detestable ones: They are born from an ardent frenzy; they are disgustingly foul; those who become addicted to them are seldom freed from that vice; they are as contagious as disease, passing quickly from one person to another. It is not the intention of homosexual activists simply to make it possible for homosexuals and lesbians to partake of conventional married life. By their own admission they aim to change the essential character of marriage, removing precisely the aspects of fidelity and chastity that promote stability in the relationship and the home. VOTE YES!
By Boscoe Roads
November 1, 2004 12:44 PM | Link to this
John Hayes The idea that God would use the framework of scientific principles to exert his influence on the world he created is perfectly reasonable to me. The scientific fact is that homosexuals do not choose to be homosexual.Also, could someone please quote some scripture for me that specifically condemns homosexuality? A number of researchers have sought to find a biological cause for same-sexual attraction. The media has promoted the idea that a “gay gene” has already been discovered (Burr 1996[3]), but in spite of several attempts none of the much publicized studies (Hamer 1993[4]; LeVay 1991[5]) has been scientifically replicated. (Gadd 1998) A number of authors have carefully reviewed these studies and found that they not only do not prove a genetic basis for same-sex attraction, they do not even claim to have scientific evidence for such a claim. (Byrne 1963[6]; Crewdson 1995[7]; Goldberg 1992; Horgan 1995[8]; McGuire 1995[9]; Porter 1996; Rice 1999[10]) If same-sex attraction were genetically determined, then one would expect identical twins to be identical in their sexual attractions. There are, however, numerous reports of identical twins who are not identical in their sexual attractions. (Bailey 1991[11]; Eckert 1986; Friedman 1976; Green 1974; Heston 1968; McConaghy 1980; Rainer 1960; Zuger 1976) Case histories frequently reveal environmental factors which account for the development of different sexual attraction patterns in genetically identical children, supporting the theory that same-sex attraction is a product of the interplay of a variety of environmental factors. (Parker 1964[12]) There are, however, ongoing attempts to convince the public that same-sex attraction is genetically based. (Marmor 1975[13]) Such attempts may be politically motivated because people are more likely to respond positively to demands for changes in laws and religious teaching when they believe sexual attraction to be genetically determined and unchangeable. (Emulf 1989[14]; Piskur 1992[15]) Others have sought to prove a genetic basis for same-sex attraction so that they could appeal to the courts for rights based on the “immutability”. (Green 1988[16]) The first reference to homosexuality in Scripture is in the infamous account of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 19. The wickedness of the men of that city is obvious and is of such a severe nature that it brought divine destruction upon the entire city. Both Peter and Jude make reference to it and describe the sin of homosexuality as ” ungodly, lawless, unnatural and extreme immorality” (see 2 Peter 2:6, 8; Jude 7). In Leviticus 18:22 and 24 homosexuality is described as an “abomination” and “defiling.” It is reprehensible and unclean. In Leviticus 20:13 it is again described as an “abomination.” Deuteronomy 23:17 forbade the presence of a “sodomite” in the land of Israel. An incident similar to that of Sodom and Gomorrah is seen again in Judges 19. Again the sin of homosexuality is described as “wickedness.” In 1 Kings 14, 15, and 22 the removal of male prostitutes from the land of Israel is viewed as a sign of much-needed spiritual reformation. The prohibition in Deuteronomy 22:5 of women wearing men’s clothing appears to be a specific condemnation of transvestism. In Romans 1:18-32 the apostle Paul condemns the practice in the severest terms. Homosexuality is “unclean,” “impure,” “dishonoring to the body,” “vile,” “degrading / disgraceful,” “contrary to nature,” “unseemly/ obscene,” “improper activity of a depraved mind,” “unrighteous,” “wicked,” etc. Of particular importance to the apostle in this passage is the fact that homosexuality is “unnatural”—contrary to nature. In other words, nature itself teaches that the practice is wrong; we all know it intuitively. Homosexuality is, then, a particularly rebellious sin. “Wherefore, God gave them up to the desires of their heart, unto uncleanness: to dishonour their own bodies among themselves. Who changed the truth of God into a lie and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause, God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature. And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts, one towards another: men with men, working that which is filthy and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error. And as they liked not to have God in their knowledge, God delivered them up to a reprobate sense, to do those things which are not convenient. Being filled with all iniquity, malice, fornication, avarice, wickedness: full of envy, murder, contention, deceit, malignity: whisperers, detractors, hateful to God, contumelious, proud, haughty, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, foolish, dissolute: without affection, without fidelity, without mercy. Who, having known the justice of God, did not understand that they who do such things, are worthy of death: and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them.â€? (Romans 1: 24-32) In 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 the apostle Paul speaks of homosexuals as “effeminate” and “abusers of themselves with mankind” who “shall not inherit the kingdom of God.” The terms he uses here seem to be specific references to both active and the passive participants in a homosexual relationship. Such people are “unrighteous,” he says, and if they remain in that practice they will be condemned.
By Akeya W.
November 1, 2004 12:49 PM | Link to this
Why do you people continue to try and use religion to determine how others should live? Regardless of whether or not they believe the same things?
YOU CANNOT FORCE OTHERS TO BELIEVE THE SAME THINGS YOU BELIEVE.
And Boscoe- you need prayer. How can you call yourself a Christian and say the things that you say with a straight face and a cross clinched in one hand, Bible in the other. You continuously use passages from the old testament (the OBSOLETE TESTAMENT) to uphold your poisonous views.
It disgusts me to see people pretend to be Christians, then emit clouds of hate from every pore in their bodies.
Go to your church, pray for forgiveness for yourself and let God lead YOU to the light…
By j alan sartain
November 1, 2004 01:01 PM | Link to this
Read your history books, people, and take an honest look at what it is that you purport to defend. Marriage, first and foremost, is a legal agreement about property and property rights. The principal property that marriage was developed to deal with – a property that is still the core right of marriage in many cultures across the globe – is the woman. In this most traditional, most historically accurate form of marriage, the woman is considered a possession: first of her father, then of her lawful husband. She has little voice in where she lives; what her husband does; whether, or how many children she’ll bear; or what her own duties and chores in the arrangement are to be. She is expected to devote herself to her husband and her family. Historically, wives were often awarded to men for great victories or feats of strength and bravery. Sometimes they were – and still are – simply sold outright.
As time went by, the property of the wife was joined by all kinds of other property rights that were settled by marriage: joining lands controlled by multiple families; allotting a portion of one family’s wealth to the heir of another family with the proviso that Dick marry Jane; creating heirs so that all the lands and wealth could be passed along and kept in the family. And so on.
According to these millennia-old traditions, marriage is a contract that has nothing to do with faith, religion or God. It has everything to do with real estate, wealth, lines of succession, and business and political negotiations.
Contrary to popular belief, marriage has not always been a religious institution. Early Christianity wanted nothing to do with marriage: It was considered too sullied by secular things like property and propagation and power, things that a good Christian rendered unto Caesar. Not until 1215, after ferocious internal debates, did the Roman Catholic Church define its marriage rules and declare marriage a sacrament. And when it did so, the church outraged feudal families by declaring that marriage was made “inside oneself� – that a 12-year old girl and a 14-year old boy could meet in some back hall, declare “I marry you,� and be irrevocably wed in the eyes of God. The couple’s spirits made the marriage. Powerful families were furious: How can you maintain power if your adolescent can hand away a dynasty based on nothing more than feelings?!
By the 1500s there were so many marriages taking place without ceremony or witnesses that the Council of Trent, a Catholic body to counter the Protestant Reformation, decreed in 1563 that marriages should be celebrated in the presence of a priest and two witnesses.
So marriage started out being about property – “Altering marriage would virtually destroy the moral and social efficacy of the marriage institution,� argued 19th-century New York state legislators opposed to allowing married women to own property – and only much later became about love, sort of. To the extent that it ever existed at all, the romanticized marriage model of the 1950’s was an historical aberration made possible by the GI Bill, a social program that today’s neo-conservatives would surely have fought tooth-and-nail.
Even today, marriage is about property, and yes, women are still seen as such, even in these United States. Until fairly recently, married women still needed their husband’s signature to obtain a credit card or a mortgage; single women were much less likely than single men to enjoy those same privileges. In 1970s Texas a woman couldn’t have a tubal ligation without her husband’s consent unless a preset goal had been reached: a certain age, a certain number of children, etc.
You lose all credibility when you rant that two people who actually want to marry could destroy the institution. Sort of like the Tennessee judge who, in defending a decision forbidding legal recognition of “unnatural…revolting� interracial marriages, wrote that altering marriage laws would lead directly to “the father living with his daughter, the son with his mother, the brother with his sister, in lawful wedlock.�
If protecting marriage is what you’re after, leave gays and lesbians alone and ban divorce. It is a blight on marriage, on this country, and on our economy. Instead of excluding people from the institution, you need to make it harder for those in it to get out.
By vincent
November 1, 2004 01:06 PM | Link to this
No reprecussions. Some gay couples will stay and fight, some will stay and not fight, others might move out of the state.
However, the entire issue is a bit odd. The gay population is already a minority. In a democratic society, could a ballot choice actually make a difference? (Well, excluding Dumbya Bush, Fl. 2000)
And, for the record, I am sick and tired of heterosexuals walking around spewing with some sort of authority that gays are gay by choice. Unless you are gay, how can you REALLY know if being gay is in born or a choice? I’ll ask it one more time: Unless you are gay, how can you REALLY know if it is a choice or in born?
Over the last four years, we have become a country thirsty for information. The entire issue of 9/11 remains unresolved. Not one arrest, no capture of Bin Laden, and Bush took over 2.5 years to approve an investigation into what he called the worst crime in American history. I find that odd. Anyway, since we have no answers, many people seek justification of the unexplained through God. While that has provided comfort, it has also distorted itself and afforded many religious people the right to spew hatred from their mouths. I guess being hateful and discriminatory is all right, as long as you represent what is supposed to be a group of loving people from a church.
And: God doesn’t like incest? Adam & Eve were the only two on earth? How did there children make more babies? The bible makes no mention of “womankind laying down with womankind”. So, being a lesbian is all right?
By The Niece
November 1, 2004 01:10 PM | Link to this
Of course I want Amendment One to pass. I am the neice of a gay man who has made a lot of money during his lifetime. I deserve all of that money when he dies, not this guy he has hung around for years. I already have spoken to an attorney who assured me that if Amendment One passes, everything will be mine, last will or no last will.
By norman
November 1, 2004 01:12 PM | Link to this
You have set Boscoe the Fierce off and he won’t relent until he quotes every ignorant Catholic medieval theologian in justification of murder and mayhem.
He should have been a 13th century Dominican, he’d have loved burning people to save them.
By Mike
November 1, 2004 01:17 PM | Link to this
The sad effects of this surrender of the will are soon apparent: the mind becomes dull and weak because the vital forces are used up by the senses: taste for serious studies is lost; the imagination gravitates towards lower things; the heart gradually withers, hardens, and is attracted only by degrading pleasures. In some cases the physical frame itself is deeply affected: the nervous system, over-excited by such abuses, becomes irritated, weakened, and incapable of fulfilling its mission of regulation and defence; the various bodily organs function but imperfectly; nutrition is improperly accomplished, strength is undermined and the danger of consumption threatens. Whoa…I had to respond to this guy. Unbelievable just how comically lost some people are. You proved just how ignorant you are with this one comment. Knowing you are gay, even before you are sexually active, you strive to overachieve. Because you hear so much crap from people like you, you put all your energy into being the best that you can be at everything. Gays run circles around straights in the arts, scientific fields, and educational system. You just don’t realize it because they havn’t told you they were gay. As far as the physical aspect…your comment on that is the most ridiculous of them all. Have you ever been to a gay gym? Believe me, any guy in there could kick your tail! These arent just words, but because we constantly struggle with being the exact opposite of what you stereotype gays as, most gay guys are extremely fit and healthy consious. Your ignorance and stupidity amaze me. Learn the truth and educate yourself Boscoe Roads.
By Akeya W.
November 1, 2004 01:20 PM | Link to this
The Niece-
Thank you for proving that for some, it’s all about the money.
You are truly a sad, sad individual….
You have more love for your uncle’s money than for your uncle.
Please, please tell me you’re kidding…
By Akeya W.
November 1, 2004 01:22 PM | Link to this
Normally I think Norman is a little strange, but that last comment was a little funny…
By Angie
November 1, 2004 01:23 PM | Link to this
Akeya- These are your words,“And Boscoe- you need prayer. How can you call yourself a Christian and say the things that you say with a straight face and a cross clinched in one hand, Bible in the other….It disgusts me to see people pretend to be Christians, then emit clouds of hate from every pore in their bodies.”
Why do you think Boscoe needs prayer exactly? Because he was quoting passages from the bible? And this is wrong because….??? Christians are supposed to quote from the bible because the bible IS our guide book.
I don’t see anyone pretending to be Christians on this forum. I see people taking a stand for what they believe. I also must have missed the “clouds of hate” that you mentioned. I haven’t read anything hateful except for the usual bashing of Christianity.
By The Niece
November 1, 2004 01:29 PM | Link to this
Akeya, why would I be kidding? I have two children to raise. I deserve that money. I am blood kin.
By Akeya W.
November 1, 2004 01:33 PM | Link to this
Angie-
When have I bashed Christians? I believe that religion is very real and serious for some.
Boscoe needs prayer because of the ridiculous information he gives. He looks for information in support of his fight. If you want to impress me, show me information from BOTH SIDES. NOt just the side on which you believe.
You can quote passages from the Bible all day, but the bottom line is that YOU CANNOT FORCE SOMEONE TO LIVE THEIR LIVES AS YOU WOULD LIVE YOUR BASED ON YOUR BELIEFS.
I enjoy learning about Christianity from those who are peaceful Christians, those who do not memorize Bible passages to use as ammunition.
Please list 5+ Bible verses teaching love and acceptance of ALL of God’s creatures.
By Boscoe Roads
November 1, 2004 01:33 PM | Link to this
Contrary to popular belief, marriage has not always been a religious institution. Early Christianity wanted nothing to do with marriage: You can’t be serious. Under what rock did you find this? If this IS correct then why do homosexuals need to be married? If it’s all about the property rights then all they really need, according to you, is a Power-of-attorney. Look just a LITTLE harder and you’ll find the real story. Norman Mr. Hayes asked someone to show him in the Bible where it says homosexuality is wrong. I did. So because I did now I’m a pretend Christian. Christianity states homosexuality is wrong how does that make me a pretend Christian? Is it because I don’t agree with your side Akeya? Seems like everybody who doesn’t even consider practicing Christianity are the experts in it. If you don’t believe it then you don’t believe it, but then why do you insist upon gripping about the Christian stance so much? Aren’t I free to soapbox my stance just as much as you are?
By Akeya W.
November 1, 2004 01:40 PM | Link to this
The Niece-
You could be like Anna Nicole, find an older, wealthy gentleman, woo him, and marry him in like 2 weeks. As a heterosexual, you can marry someone that you’ve just met without the whole love thing.
That way, marriage will still be able to be between a man and woman (seeing as how no one seems to care whether or not the love wach other, just that one has a p*** and the other a v****), and you’ll get your money!!
And because it seems to me that you don’t deserve any of the wealth that your uncle has built, you shouldn’t be entitled to the money anyway. If he’s smart, he’ll leave the money to some uninterested party that has nothing to do with you or his partner (if his partner cannot get it)
By Mike
November 1, 2004 01:44 PM | Link to this
I am gay. I can not change that orientation. Even if I weren’t sexually active I would still know that, and ALWAYS have. I am also a Christian, and you Boscoe, or anyone else, can’t tell me otherwise. If you want to throw around bible verses, I can do the same thing. John 3:16 With that one verse, I know I am fine. There is nothing you can say to dispute that, and until you realize the struggle gay individuals go through, you should be ashamed of yourself.
By Ann
November 1, 2004 01:47 PM | Link to this
Actually, Boscoe, not everything in life can be solved by a Power of Attorney. While working as a paralegal, I dealt with quite the sad case - a man who had purchased a house and wanted to pass half of it over to his partner of 25 years. He wasn’t allowed to do it, and why? The mortgage company would have required immediate repayment of the mortgage - because the partner wasn’t related to him by blood or marriage. Thousands of these circumstances exist - situations where legally executed wills and custody agreements can be contested by the family simply because an individual and his/her partner aren’t legally married. And then there are situations like The Niece’s above - I’m sure she would never complain if her uncle had a wife who was getting his money, but since it’s just his longtime partner, she feels that she deserves it.
By Akeya W.
November 1, 2004 01:48 PM | Link to this
Boscoe-
I say that you are a pretend Christian because you are full of hate. It’s the way in which you say things that leads me to believe that you are very hateful.
And if every one agreed this forum would not be NEARLY as interesting.
I am grateful and enjoy differing ideas and opinions because I respect the fact that not all of us are the same person, so we think and act differently.
It is when we decide to make others live according to our will that the problem arises.
And yes!!! You are free to debate. When have I EVER tried to silence you.
Just because I have a dissenting opinion does not mean that I want you to shut up.
Perhaps that’s how you feel, based on the discussion.
By Boscoe Roads
November 1, 2004 01:48 PM | Link to this
Have you ever been to a gay gym? Believe me, any guy in there could kick your tail! This comes from a guy who was whining earlier because everybody was intolerant of his CHOICE! Didn’t you say you prayed for attraction to the opposite sex? But you didn’t have the strength to resist the temptations did you? What did you feel like the first time you committed this act? How many times did it take for you to ignore those feelings? Mike this is what happens when you give up. You feel lost and then take the easy way in the fight and give in. People do it all the time with all the vices; drugs, alcohol, porn, sometimes people are so weak even as they tell themselves it’s wrong the still can’t resist. You do seem a bit irritable Mike seems like your nervous system is affected. Remember, those that wish to change first turn to the Church.
By Angie
November 1, 2004 01:50 PM | Link to this
Akeya-Boscoe needs prayer because of the ridiculous information he gives. He looks for information in support of his fight….I enjoy learning about Christianity from those who are peaceful Christians, those who do not memorize Bible passages to use as ammunition.
First of all, I’m sure you DO think the information he provides is “ridiculous” because it DOES come from the bible.
YES-he is trying to provide you with information in order for you to understand WHY he feels the way he does on this issue.
So, according to you there are “peaceful” Christians and then there are those who actually share their beliefs with others (I guess these are the ones with clouds of hate,right?). Okay…..
Quoting bible passages is what a Christian does to help explain WHY they believe a certain way-not to use as ammunition (to quote you).
By Karin Hassenger
November 1, 2004 01:52 PM | Link to this
This ammendment-issue boils down to one thing: the separation of church and state. The Founding Fathers fought and died so that, among other reasons, Americans could have an idyllic government where a person could enjoy religious freedom. Granted, back then a “person” meant “white man” and thankfully we have evolved slightly since that time. But their intent was clear, the church can not legislate and the legislation can not force religious beliefs.
Explain to me how the gay marriage issue, or any of the right-wing “conservative” morality issues, does not violate the Separation of Church and State. Aren’t Republicans supposed to advocate “less government involvement?” Or, is does that only apply to non-morality issues? Read the mission statement of the RNC: it doesn’t mention anything about sustaining a conservative religious moral code.
Organized religion is ruining American Politics, and Politics is ruining American Organized religion. It’s time to re-separate the two, and vote “NO” on the gay-marriage ban ammendment.
By Akeya W.
November 1, 2004 01:56 PM | Link to this
Angie-
You don’t quote that many Bible verses, which leads me to believe that you probably don’t know that many.
And yes, I do believe that there are some that use Bible verses ONLY when it is to their benefit to win an argument.
By vincent
November 1, 2004 01:58 PM | Link to this
Isn’t this fun? Sen. Stephens from Canton wrote a commentary on fighting against gay marriage last Saturday. And, for most, that immediately made him their choice. But, Sen. Stephens is doing exactly what Dumbya is doing: Preventing discussion on the real issues by pressing hot bottons.
Sen. Stephens doesn’t want anyone to think about the SEC fine of 14,000.00 he got slapped with on Oct. 15, 2004. And, he doesn’t want you to know the SEC will not let him give himself back an additional 32,000.00 for “expenses”. He abused the system, got caught, has to pay. Did the AJC write about it? If so, I missed it. But, I did see his article against gay marriage.
I really hope we will wake up as a country very soon and start looking at what is really happening. Just as far as numbers go, how much damage to the economy have gay couples seeking marriage protection cost our country? So far, I haven’t found anything. If you know, let me know. How much has white collar corporate crime cost? Each taxpayer forked out about 400,000.00 last year. If you are like me and don’t have an extra 400k sitting around, that is a very damaging figure.
Can we have a forum sometime about real topics?
By Boscoe Roads
November 1, 2004 02:03 PM | Link to this
Mike with regards to John 3:16.It is a truth of faith that the human person is free. That is, we are not determined to any destiny, but rather by our freewill actions we are self-determining. Bearing this in mind, if man is free, he is then responsible. But for all the talk of freedom in our society, the idea of responsibility remains an unpleasant topic for many. St. Paul exhorts us to put off the old man and not return to our former sense of slavery to sin: “be not conformed to this world� (Rom. 12:2), and “Stand fast, and be not held again under the yoke of bondage� (Gal. 5:1). We must DAILY work out our salvation, and by God’s grace persevere in His love and in His Commandments. With the powerful influence of the mass media and the apostasy of society in general, at no other time in history has the follower of Christ had so many intrusions and attacks upon his Faith. By a constant bathing in our materialistic, hedonistic culture (that is, for the most part, diametrically opposed to the Faith), we can’t help but be affected in some measure by these harmful influences. Yet another common ideology is that whatever feels good at the moment must be the right thing, “because God wants us to be happy.� Here, subjective feelings and emotions rule our lives instead of the knowledge of right and wrong, and we become our own standard of morality. Self-gratification and sensual pleasures then master our lives. This particular ideology prevents a person from taking up the cross of Christ and sacrificing for Him. A person ensnared in this false view is particularly susceptible to human respect, and often chooses the way of the crowd over the way of the Gospel. Mike do not mistake my stance as a direct criticism against you. Withholding charitable correction when called to do so is plainly against Jesus’ teaching, and against the love of neighbor. St. Thomas writes, “The greatest kindness one can render to any man consists in leading him from error to truth.� Fraternal correction is a loving act, because it seeks to help our brothers and sisters attain their greatest good and happiness, God in Heaven.
By AllaboutME
November 1, 2004 02:04 PM | Link to this
……….norman………….no one expects the spanish inquisition…………… The Niece….Uncle Willie Wankie might die broke all his money gone to pay medical bills for his partner…ha ha ha ha…priceless…pornographers have long known heterosexual males are attracted to the two-man-one-woman scenario…but we see it clearly makes a difference to all them studly men if the women dont need him no more…oooooooo better run I hear the morality police on my trail….
By Tim
November 1, 2004 02:05 PM | Link to this
Boscoe, I would love to answer your question on how I felt my ‘fist time’. I met a person and dated him a for an extended period of time (and never had a sexual relationship). This was my ‘first time’ and from the VERY FIRST WORDS uttered I finally felt ‘RIGHT’. I finally felt like this is the person God had intended me to be. I finally felt WHOLE! Oh what a wonderful feeling that is to finally realize who God had intended you to be. You may think that God didn’t make me gay, but I would beg to differ. God made me gay and made every other quality (inside and out) because he knew EXACTLY what he was doing and who he was making! Thank God I FINALLY realized who I was, a (now) 22 year old Christian who is loving, considerate, caring, and understanding, who just so happens to be gay! :)
By Akeya W.
November 1, 2004 02:05 PM | Link to this
Vincent-
I agree. These issues are getting tired.
I want to talk about welfare and lazy Americans.
I want to talk about how cultures are different and how we can learn from them (or them from us)
I want to talk about why women and men are allowed to win huge sums of money and other big-ticket prizes solely based on their looks (something that ultimately, most people do not have control over).
By AllaboutME
November 1, 2004 02:09 PM | Link to this
OOPS…did I say two men one woman……..NOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooo…two gals one studmuffin….
By Angie
November 1, 2004 02:09 PM | Link to this
Akeya, let me get this straight. Boscoe’s not a good Christian because he quotes too many bible verses and I’m not a good Christian because I don’t quote enough of them? So, just how many would be adequate for you? One a day? Three a day?
Funny how all of the people who discount Christianity are the experts in it and the bible. WOW!
By Kevin
November 1, 2004 02:12 PM | Link to this
Well, it seems to me that since God created Man in his image, and Adam was the first man, that the original homosexual act must have been God’s use of Adam’s body to create a woman.
On another note, since this amendment is likely to pass tomorrow,I wonder if establishing the right to marry between one man and one woman in the state constitution means that a brother and sister can now challenge laws against incestual marriages as unconstitutional? If that’s the case, gays may end up getting the biggest and the last laugh on this charade of a social “issue.”
Marriage has long been considered a HUMAN right (one should read U.S. Supreme Court decisions) and one that is so highly individual that it buffers people from the control of the State…(note that a wife cannot be forced to testify in court against a husband).
Seems like every unmarried and unmarraigeable person in the state of Georgia should see this amendment as the time to step up to the plate - and end the ridiculous discrimination against every single person’s right to determine who their family will be and what to do with their remains and personal property.
Sounds to me like the paranoid state legislature left out two key phrases in this amendment that would have actually REALLY strengthened marriage - that being “for a lifetime” and “one unrelated man and woman.” Without those additions, we have much to fear about the future mental capabilities of even the most simplistically devout televangelist supporters.
By Kevin
November 1, 2004 02:18 PM | Link to this
Memorizing a few bibleverses doesn’t make anyone a christian. Nor does regular attendance at church make anyone a christian any more than walking into the garage makes you an automobile.
This has never been a religious argument. It is irrelevant in matters of civil marriage.
By Akeya W.
November 1, 2004 02:18 PM | Link to this
Angie-
Please quote when I said specifically that you were not a good Christian for not quoting enough and Boscoe is not for quoting too many?
My reasons are because he says things that lead me to believe that he is hateful.
By Ann
November 1, 2004 02:20 PM | Link to this
Angie - I think the big complaint is that Christians (and I’m one, too, so relax) are so frequently willing to throw around all kinds of Bible quotes that support their way of thinking (usually to condemn others) and so easily ignore the quotes that contradict their way of thinking.
Here’s a favorite of mine, Wisdom 11:24-26:
For you love all things that are and loathe nothing that you have made; for what you hated, you would not have fashioned. And how could a thing remain, unless you willed it; or be preserved, had it not been called forth by you? But you spare all things, because they are yours, O LORD and lover of souls, for your imperishable spirit is in all things!
By mark wood
November 1, 2004 02:30 PM | Link to this
J. Alan Sartain,
Thank you for being the only one here to actually know and understand the history of marriage. That it was NOT a religious institution. That it was NOT INVENTED by Christians. That the only morality involved, came from the wallet.
Unfortunately, the high and mighty ignore you. The self righteous refuse to be denied. History, I hate to disappoint you, is apparently relevant only when you can quote some text that perpetuates the church’s responsibility for defining both marriage and love.
Secular? I guess there has been nothing significant in the history of man, which apparently began two thousand and four, almost two thousand and five, years ago.
Go figure.
By AllaboutME
November 1, 2004 02:32 PM | Link to this
…the book of wisdom?…somebody get me a bible…is that Proverbs…if so that is SO old testement….and we dont believe old testement stuff has anything to do with the bible or jesus …cant we just blame gays on the French and be done with it?
By vincent
November 1, 2004 02:37 PM | Link to this
I just love how nobody has answered the question about incest and Adam & Eve’s children making babies. And, womankind laying with womankind? That silly God. I suppose that is why lesbian acts show up in most hetero “stuff” marketed to the men that buy it.
The myths should be a forum. FBI Criminal Statistics Reports: 92 % of sexual crimes against children (even of the same sex as the criminal) are heterosexual men. So, for those bad at math, 8 % are homosexual men. (OH, THE HORROR? I LOVE MY GOVERNMENT TOO MUCH TO SECOND GUESS THEIR STATISTICS, BUT CAN THAT BE ACCURATE?)
Regarding drinking and porn: Almost all convicted criminals of sex-related crimes did not own any porn. When their homes were investigated, no porn was found. And drinking? Well, since gays make up such a small percentage of the population, I guess the alcohol makers are in business because of the straights.
By Ann
November 1, 2004 02:45 PM | Link to this
What can I say? I’m a traditionalist. I’m all about some New Testament, though.
And I echo Mark Woods’s congratulations - good job knowing the true, secular history of the institution of marriage. And in-depth, too. As soon as people stop tripping over their Deuteronomies and open their eyes, maybe this will all become a non-issue.
By AllaboutME
November 1, 2004 02:45 PM | Link to this
The word for today is: chattle…..that really gets my goat….early christians could own slaves…greek male slaves were prefered…that waxy olympic glow…just say no gay men were involved…how come no one quotes the story of Tamara…you know…the chick raped by her uncles and cousins and thrown out of the tents because she was used….or what about Lot who’s wife turns to salt and he does his daughters…like this is in that book of morality…
By Aisha
November 1, 2004 03:03 PM | Link to this
Actually, Tamar was RAPED by her half brother against her will and he threw her out of his house. And Lot’s daughters slept with him while he was in a drunken stuper because they were afraid they would never have a chance to have sons, and in those days a woman with no son had no provision for the future. The point of those biblical stories is to give a testament to the moral decline and decay that was a result of sin being at the foundation of each event. The sin of the parents of those people involved. It would be to your advantage if you did more research before stating things that took place in the bible.
By Boscoe Roads
November 1, 2004 03:05 PM | Link to this
Vincent You should lay off the sauce yourself!. Since 98-99% of the population is heterosexual, it is technically correct to say that most molestations are done by heterosexuals. However, statistics indicate that homosexuals pose a far more serious threat to children than do heterosexuals. 32 percent of those child molestation cases involved homosexuals. Nearly a third of these cases come from only 1-2% of the population. More than 65 studies have shown that dangerous offenders (child molesters, killers, rapists, incest fathers) are not only more likely to commit their crimes if they employ pornography, they are likely to precede their violent acts with the extended use of deviant materials. Male sex offenders soon begin to display addictive and compulsive behavior when using porn. Their mechanisms for relieving stress soon all become related to deviant sex. They offend more and more often.
By norman
November 1, 2004 03:15 PM | Link to this
Not only is marriage a civil arrangement but the entire Ten Commandments in their original Babylonian form were civil not religious. The primary concern was the consolidation of property, the raising of children, and the genetic identity of children. Gay marriage can certainly consolidate property but it cannot do anything about the raising of children (new children, not some one else’s children); and it does violate what Edmund Burke called the “wisdom of the race.” That is why gay marriage is wrong, not because of the goddam bible.
I will go to the polls tomorrow and together with the bigots, the Christians, the haters (these are all the same) and Boscoe the Proud will vote in favor of marriage as a union of a man and a woman. Sometimes you have to hold your nose.
But make no mistake, these Tartufffes (for you not knowing Moliere and French literature, that means hypocrites using religion for nefarious purposes) will go on to try to regulate other sexual practices, even the ones they most practice, incest and pedophilia.
The Boscoes and Zacks sof the world will go to their end in the conviction that they have done God’s will. And that’s it. There will be eternal sleep for them. One could wish there were a devil to take them in hand.
By AllaboutME
November 1, 2004 03:16 PM | Link to this
Actually, Tamar was RAPED by her half brother against her will and he threw her out of his house…(.ok…this proves…moral superiority.)…. And Lot’s daughters slept with him while he was in a drunken stuper because they were afraid they would never have a chance to have sons, and in those days a woman with no son had no provision for the future.(…but daddies doing daughters is ok by god…because they left Sodom behind them to start the new future….brave new world and such) The point of those biblical stories is to give a testament to the moral decline and decay that was a result of sin being at the foundation of each event..(even if the big Jehova condoned it)…and it is still very evident in todays hetero-controlled society…(.like as I said….blame the French and buy an uzi)
By Tim
November 1, 2004 03:19 PM | Link to this
Boscoe,
I am still curious to hear a response. I answered your question openly and honestly. I am not a child molestor nor are the majority of homosexuals out there. It is extremely sad to see that you would believe something like that. I am just a person who happens to be emotionally attracted to the same sex. That is no way makes me a child molestor. Like I said before, this is not a sex thing, it is a love thing. Let’s stay on topic, this isnt a forum of whether homosexuals are all a bunch of child molestor and porn addicts (GET REAL!). This is a forum on whether or not the ammendment should be passed and the repercussions of it.
By Ms.Fields
November 1, 2004 03:20 PM | Link to this
Yikes! No one stand near “norman”-I hear that lightening can do ALOT of damage!
By Hasell Brown
November 1, 2004 03:27 PM | Link to this
As a heterosexual, African-American male who has been HAPPILY married for over twelve years, the question I have yet seen logically answered is this: what entity has the right to deny people the rights granted to them by their Creator, i.e., life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? If a couple (gay or straight) decides to make a committment to one another, who has that right to deny them their pursuit of happiness? If two people want the protection of the state in their relationship, who has the right to deny that couple their right to pursue happiness? I’m not anti-Christian, for the Christian tenets state to “love thy neighbor”…..but I think the problem is that the people who profess their Christianity the loudest are the ones who want to create a theocracy in America….like Iran or Afghanistan. If the same Creator made man and woman straight and gay, does not that same Creator endow ua with the right of free will, the right of association, the right to pursue happiness?? If anyone can logically answer this in the negative, I would be willing to listen!!
By Akeya W.
November 1, 2004 03:33 PM | Link to this
You know, the hoopla really has to do with who feels superior to whom.
Think of it this way.
The easiest way to condemn homosexuality is to say that there is no way that two people of the same sex can feel what a man and woman feel for each other.
By allowing homosexuals to marry, it would be acknowledging that it IS in fact possible for two people of the same sex to be in love and want to share their lives. It detracts from the argument that homosexuals are baseless and incapable of loving.
People don’t want homosexuals to marry because they are afraid that they will no longer have an argument for treating gays as immoral. How can a couple be immoral if they feel the same things that my husband (wife) and I feel? By acknowledging the love that a homosexual couple has, heterosexuals would have to say that they love they feel is okay, and that cannot be one if there’s no way to denigrate homosexuals.
By Cat
November 1, 2004 03:40 PM | Link to this
Gay marriage can certainly consolidate property but it cannot do anything about the raising of children (new children, not some one else’s children); and it does violate what Edmund Burke called the “wisdom of the race.�
So then do we bar infertile or elderly couples from marrying? What about unfit parents (convicted child abusers, for example)? Or is bearing “new” children only an essential criterion for marriage when it’s used to exclude gays, to be dumped the moment it threatens heterosexuals’ rights?
And why are “new” children an essential requirement for marriage anyway? Gods know there are enough children who need homes and secure families already - why is it a bad thing to provide them with stable and loving parents in the form of a married gay couple? Why is the production of more babies so essential when there is certainly no shortage of others willing to do so, and when the race is in more danger from overpopulation than extinction?
Parenting is not, and has never been, a requirement for secular, legal marriage in this society. (Note that saying “parenting is not necessary for marriage” is NOT equivalent to saying that “marriage is not necessary for parenting.” We don’t believe that marriage is necessary for adulthood in this country, for example - but we do believe that adulthood is necessary for marriage.)
No one asked me or my husband, when we got our marriage license, about our fertility or our plans for having children or our ability to raise them well. All we were asked is whether we were of legal age, and whether we both consented to marry. No mention of kids at all. If parenting was irrelevant to my legal marriage, why is it suddenly relevant for gays? That’s hardly equal protection, is it?
By Boscoe Roads
November 1, 2004 03:47 PM | Link to this
Tim, I didn’t say all homosexuals were child molesters. I merely replied to the false information Vincent was saying. Actually Tim I hear your type of reply quite often. 22 year old Christian who is loving, considerate, caring, and understanding, who just so happens to be gay! Being gay and being Christian are conflicting roles. Clearly, Christianity is opposed to the homosexual act. You admit you are indeed gay and then state you are a Christian. You can’t be both. You will either be a Christian and at some point question you sexual orientation. Or you will be gay and despise Christianity. Your earlier post indicates the latter. I think you are confused. A sexual relationship is not love. You say it’s not sex, but then why are you engaging in sex? Even Merriam-Webster excludes the mention of sex in its definition of love. Homosexual relationships are by definition sexual relationships.
By Akeya W.
November 1, 2004 03:48 PM | Link to this
CAT-
It amazes me how people somehow believe that people will stop having sex, therefore, stopping the production of new babies.
Have we lost our minds to think that there is an issue with the population?
Did we not forget that we’re clear-cutting everything in sight to make room for more PEOPLE or businesses to serve PEOPLE?
Population declination? Give me a break….
I support a couple making their own decisions about the lives they want to lead, and at the same time planning my next child…
By The Niece
November 1, 2004 03:54 PM | Link to this
Akeya, but straight people ARE more important and more valuable than homosexual people. Straight people should be saved first in a disaster, given organs for transplant first, taken first in ER. Straight people are more important because we can pro-create and make more humans.
By Akeya W.
November 1, 2004 03:57 PM | Link to this
The Nut…er Niece-
No one is more important than another. That’s the thing about equality….
By Tim
November 1, 2004 04:01 PM | Link to this
Boscoe, Who are you to say that I am confused and am not a Christian, the last time I checked you weren’t God. Simply because you have a different interpretation of the Bible. I have studied the Bible and there is not one place where the Bible directly condemns homosexuality, people have simply ‘believed’ that is what it states and therefore translated it to reflect that. I am also curious to know where you came up with the fact that if you are gay ‘you despise Christianity’. That is extremely harsh and even if I weren’t a Christian I can say that I would never despise Christianity. I do not despise a persons religous belief system or lack there of. Finally, if homosexual relationships are sexual relationships then does that mean that heterosexual relationships are solely sexual relationships as well? I am sure that if you are married that there is a lot more to your relationship than just sex (because if that is all there is then i feel very sorry for you and whomever you). I am emotionally and sexually attracted to the same sex just as I am sure you are emotionally and sexually attracted to the opposite sex. Gay men and women are not attracted to the same sex just for the simple fact of sex. Obviously there is a sexual attraction but there is also so much more. Just like a straight man or woman is attracted to the opposite sex for more reason than just a sexual attraction.
By Brian Curtis
November 1, 2004 04:02 PM | Link to this
And that’s a good thing? Are we in danger of running low on people? I hadn’t heard….
How about sterile or sterilized people? I guess they don’t need any rights either. And post-menopause… fuhgeddabout it!
(sheesh.)
By Heidi
November 1, 2004 04:04 PM | Link to this
The whole issue is a boondoggle. The fact is that unconventional families of any kind are being resisted. It’s harder to deny legal rights to caregivers, stepfamilies, and grandparents raising their grandchidren. This is the easiest way to set a precendent to disallow health insurance, death benefits and so on. The sleight-of-hand rhetorical power of the propaganda machine has even taken in folks with real values - but I advice you to follow the money trail on this and other issues. It’s very similar to the Laci Peterson “fetus as a person” precedent which opens the door to prosecute women to terminate their pregnancies with murder, or the redefinition of a “financial institution” to include libraries, jewelry shops, and bookstores. The right has learned a great deal about literary theory from the left, and Rove is the great new Goebbels. I can’t wait to hear the voices in a few years echoing the Germans, “But we didn’t know.” We know, and there is no excuse for our participation in turning our partial democracy into full fascism (the cojoining of the corporation and the state). Vote.
By Blair
November 1, 2004 04:06 PM | Link to this
Government can’t ban or allow something that is not theirs to decide.
Religious institutions are the only ones who decide who they will marry and who they don’t want to marry in a ceremony. It is that way now, it will always be so.
This has zero to do with legal rights, which is why Amendment One is just flat-out discriminatory.
All (law abiding) American citizens -gay or straight, christian, jew, athiest- must be afforded equal rights under the law.
It is not up to the majority to decide the rights of a minority. And thankfully, it is not up to Shaunti Feldman.
By Tim
November 1, 2004 04:07 PM | Link to this
Niece,
Gays and lesbians can procreate as well ;) Akeya is right, there is definitely no one on this earth more important than the next.
By norman
November 1, 2004 04:08 PM | Link to this
Tim: don’t you get it? Boscoe thinks he is God, or at least God’s messenger (like Mohammed?)
By J. Alan Sartain
November 1, 2004 04:17 PM | Link to this
Niece, while baby-making is certainly important — though personally I think there are too many people in the world already — there are other factors to consider.
Strict sexual selectionists hold that females guide the evolution of their species by choosing the “fittest” mates to father their children. Richard Dawkins enshrined this idea in his influential book The Selfish Gene, which postulates that genes compete (selfishly) for their own preservation, fighting with other genes for the opportunity to survive through the offspring of the species’ choosy ladies. From this point of view, the only players in evolution are heterosexual reproducers.
Interpreted in this light, it would seem that nature is voting for the “rightness” of heterosexuality, relegating all other forms of sexuality to the ash can of the genome. And yet, in species after species, we find nonreproducing and non-heterosexual creatures helping the group to survive. Female worker bees, for example, contribute to the survival of the hive without ever mating. Several species, including certain monkeys and dogs, form families with one mother and several fathers in order to rear their young. Whiptail lizards and hundreds of other species routinely engage in homosexual pair-bonding.
Two percent of male ostriches ignore females and court males with a lively dance. 100% of male bonobos monkeys (along with chimps, genetically the closest relatives of humans. In fact, chimps and bonobos share more genes with humans than they do with gorillas.) engage in homosexual sex. Male flamingo pairs have been observed who mate, build nests and sometimes rear foster chicks.
Some homosexual animals have one-night stands and some have long marriages. Gay and lesbian geese stay together year after year. Bottlenose dolphins don’t form male-female couples, but males often form lifelong pairs with other males. Some are interested only in males, but others are bisexual and happily indulge in beak-genital propulsion and more with male or female alike.
Male black swans court and form stable pairs. With two males, they are able to defend huge territories from other swan couples, which sounds like a double-income-no-kids situation except that they often manage to wangle some eggs from somewhere — all right, they steal them — and become model parents, twice as successful as straight parents.
If sexual selection and its selfish genes are the only story, Roughgarden asks, why do we find so much sexual diversity in nature? She suggests we consider the possibility of a “genial gene” that selects for creatures who share the work of species survival without competing to pass their genes on. The endurance of homosexuality in animals suggests a social cooperation principle is at work, because homosexuals often contribute to the survival of the species without reproducing sexually.
It’s easy to see what the political agenda of a social cooperation model would be. This model suggests that nature votes yes on sexual diversity: Our species requires more than baby-makers to survive – it needs caretakers, thinkers, protectors, laborers, and all kinds of other people to keep us from becoming extinct. Evolution depends on social cooperation, and heterosexual reproduction is just a small part of that.
Nature votes yes on gay marriage!
By Cat
November 1, 2004 04:43 PM | Link to this
“If sexual selection and its selfish genes are the only story, Roughgarden asks, why do we find so much sexual diversity in nature? She suggests we consider the possibility of a “genial geneâ€? that selects for creatures who share the work of species survival without competing to pass their genes on.”
While I do agree that homosexuality probably has a positive evolutionary value (at least for a minority), this theory has flaws. Natural selection selects on the individual level, not the species level. It cannot, literally cannot, select against an individual’s fitness in order to promote group fitness - because a less fit individual does not pass on their genes, and thus is selected out of the gene pool, no matter how much they benefit their whole species.
The missing piece here is kin. The children of my sister or other kin bear a significant proportion of my genes. A few gay individuals in a premodern human society, where child-rearing is labor-intensive and risky, and where one’s social group is largely composed of kin, can, by helping to raise their siblings’ children, and the children of other kin, drastically improve the survival rate of those children. More of those children therefore will survive to carry the “gay genes” on to the next generation. If enough of those children survive to “compensate” the gay person genetically for not having children of my own, they’re an evolutionary success.
Then there’s the possibility that the existence of gays is a side effect of selection for bisexuals, who in a complicated social situation might be better able to build and reinforce social ties with rivals and allies of both genders. (Bonobos - pygmy chimps, one of our two closest relatives - are all, as far as we can tell, bisexual, and frequently use sex to cement ties between allies, defuse fights, and smooth social relations.)
By Cat
November 1, 2004 04:43 PM | Link to this
“If sexual selection and its selfish genes are the only story, Roughgarden asks, why do we find so much sexual diversity in nature? She suggests we consider the possibility of a “genial geneâ€? that selects for creatures who share the work of species survival without competing to pass their genes on.”
While I do agree that homosexuality probably has a positive evolutionary value (at least for a minority), this theory has flaws. Natural selection selects on the individual level, not the species level. It cannot, literally cannot, select against an individual’s fitness in order to promote group fitness - because a less fit individual does not pass on their genes, and thus is selected out of the gene pool, no matter how much they benefit their whole species.
The missing piece here is kin. The children of my sister or other kin bear a significant proportion of my genes. A few gay individuals in a premodern human society, where child-rearing is labor-intensive and risky, and where one’s social group is largely composed of kin, can, by helping to raise their siblings’ children, and the children of other kin, drastically improve the survival rate of those children. More of those children therefore will survive to carry the “gay genes” on to the next generation. If enough of those children survive to “compensate” the gay person genetically for not having children of their own, they’re an evolutionary success.
Then there’s the possibility that the existence of gays is a side effect of selection for bisexuals, who in a complicated social situation might be better able to build and reinforce social ties with rivals and allies of both genders. (Bonobos - pygmy chimps, one of our two closest relatives - are all, as far as we can tell, bisexual, and frequently use sex to cement ties between allies, defuse fights, and smooth social relations.)
By The Niece
November 1, 2004 04:53 PM | Link to this
See told ya! The entire purpose of the existance of gay people is to for the benefit of helping straight people raise children! Gay people were put here to serve straight people. Another reason why me and my children deserve the inheritance!
By mark wood
November 1, 2004 05:00 PM | Link to this
J. Alan,
Here, here (the old world toast for those of you who don’t know)
But…
Wow.
Geese? Flamingos? Monkeys?
You are as sure to alienate the god squad with that kind of talk as they have apparently alienated you already. (Although they don’t seem to understand alienating others. I guess they’re too busy patting themselves on the back.)
But you are right. Homosexuality is commonplace in nature. Always has been. Probably always will be. We have no reason to believe otherwise. (Angie, Boscoe, Zack, and that other woman who’s name starts with an A but I’m too lazy and immoral to go back and look, GROW UP.)
You can try to manipulate history until you turn blue in the face. But you can never outrun it. You, too, will fall victim to this “immoral” reality the rest of us have accepted. No doubt, only in death. (Which might be a step up since you all sound so miserable and dejected.) Try to smile. Try to laugh. Try to see others in a positive light. Belive it or not, some of us are actually happy.
As far as how gay marriage might impact the “institution” of marriage…
From my personal experiences, it can only help. And, (To blaspheme in respect for those listed above), God knows, married, christian couples have made the best case in the history of mankind to argue AGAINST marriage.
Open your eyes.
Open your mind.
Gay marriage threatens only those who don’t.
By vincent
November 1, 2004 05:06 PM | Link to this
Adam & Eve’s children - incest. Womankind laying with womankind.
I am very happy to report that I do not drink alcohol. At all. Diet Coke guy here.
FBI Criminal Statistics Reports - which governs allocation of funds to protect you and me - 8 percent of sex crimes against children are done by gays. Most of all the sex criminals that confessed and convicted had no trace of porn in their property, nor in their history of movies rented.
gay marriage cost taxpayers how much? white collar crime cost how much?
By Lyrazel
November 2, 2004 08:06 AM | Link to this
This is the most important thing we do as Americans, we vote. Good luck everyone, vote your conscience. Your votes matter not just in America but all over the world—make us the country one you can take pride in—Show good ol’ American values from the heart can triumph—over stump speaches and media spin and blogs. Vote to change the world for the better and be proud you live in a land where you are not beheaded for hearicy or stricken from the votes because of race. Wave your flags people, today is what freedom is really about. bless you all. Lyrazel
By Boscoe Roads
November 2, 2004 08:34 AM | Link to this
Tim, I suggest you read the Bible AGAIN. Here it is in black and white DIRECTLY from the BIBLE!In Romans 1:18-32 the apostle Paul condemns the practice in the severest terms. Homosexuality is “unclean,� “impure,� “dishonoring to the body,� “vile,� “degrading / disgraceful,� “contrary to nature,� “unseemly/ obscene,� “improper activity of a depraved mind,� “unrighteous,� “wicked,� etc. Of particular importance to the apostle in this passage is the fact that homosexuality is “unnatural��contrary to nature. In other words, nature itself teaches that the practice is wrong; we all know it intuitively. Homosexuality is, then, a particularly rebellious sin. “Wherefore, God gave them up to the desires of their heart, unto uncleanness: to dishonour their own bodies among themselves. Who changed the truth of God into a lie and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause, God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature. And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts, one towards another: men with men, working that which is filthy and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error. And as they liked not to have God in their knowledge. Please explain this one as well becuase this should be good. Gays and lesbians can procreate as well.
By Boscoe Roads
November 2, 2004 08:36 AM | Link to this
FBI Criminal Statistics Reports - which governs allocation of funds to protect you and me - 8 percent of sex crimes against children are done by gays. Most of all the sex criminals that confessed and convicted had no trace of porn in their property, nor in their history of movies rented. Vincent PROVE IT. post the location where I can get that report myself.
By Angie
November 2, 2004 08:42 AM | Link to this
Well put Lyrazel! We need to realize how lucky we are to live in America. We don’t always agree but we are free to speak our mind. Speaking your mind in the middle east can mean your death sentence.
(Good morning to you too Mark. Have you already gone out and voted for “W”?)
By Akeya W.
November 2, 2004 08:48 AM | Link to this
Hmmm….
By Akeya
November 2, 2004 08:57 AM | Link to this
You know, the hoopla really has to do with who feels superior to whom.
Think of it this way.
The easiest way to condemn homosexuality is to say that there is no way that two people of the same sex can feel what a man and woman feel for each other.
By allowing homosexuals to marry, it would be acknowledging that it IS in fact possible for two people of the same sex to be in love and want to share their lives. It detracts from the argument that homosexuals are baseless and incapable of loving.
People don’t want homosexuals to marry because they are afraid that they will no longer have an argument for treating gays as immoral. How can a couple be immoral if they feel the same things that my husband (wife) and I feel? By acknowledging the love that a homosexual couple has, heterosexuals would have to say that they love they feel is okay, and that cannot be one if there’s no way to denigrate homosexuals.
By Cat
November 2, 2004 09:00 AM | Link to this
“Speaking your mind in the middle east can mean your death sentence.”
Which is exactly why we need to preserve liberty and justice for all here in America, and not try to imitate the Middle East in its theocratic ways.
By Akeya W.
November 2, 2004 09:03 AM | Link to this
The bottom line on this amendment is that voting “yes� is stripping a couple (homosexual or heterosexual) of the right to love and marry whomever they want.
We have the right to pursuit of happiness in this country (supposedly) and it is being systematically taken away from us.
For the third time, why are we a nation so intent on having our privacy violated. Since when is it okay to have someone else decide on what happens in my life?
By Akeya W.
November 2, 2004 09:06 AM | Link to this
And the sad part is that the entire amendment isn’t on the ballot and most of us are apathetic to even read the whole thing….
People complain about standing in line to vote, but stand in ridiculous lines for concert tickets.
By mark wood
November 2, 2004 09:06 AM | Link to this
Good morning to you, Angie.
Tears of joy filled my eyes when I saw that you were thinking of me.
(But it’s “dubya,” not “W.”)
And my heart soars since you, yourself, pointed out the dangers of overzealous members of a religion.
Vote well, people.
By Akeya
November 2, 2004 09:13 AM | Link to this
This playful banter is very entertaining…
By Terry S
November 2, 2004 09:13 AM | Link to this
Oh Lord, somebody’s gonna start cutting and pasting their former statements again…and again…and again. (Give us something NEW.)
By the way, I am against gay marriage. This country needs to hold ON to some values and morals-not throw them out the window because some men like to sleep with other men. You say you want us OUT of your bedroom-FINE! Then don’t expect the government to give you special rights because of who you sleep with!!! You can’t have it both ways. (Stay out of our bedroom…wait a minute…before you stay out of it first give us legal rights for being attracted to the same sex.)
No one is going to tell you WHO to sleep with or who to love…EVER!!!!!!No one is going to come into your bedrooms…EVER!!! Men will always be able to sleep with other men-and women with women. That will NEVER change. What we’re talking about is a legal recognition for who you sleep with. It makes no sense even voting on this.
By Angie
November 2, 2004 09:26 AM | Link to this
Mark-when is the last time you heard of a group of masked Christians beheading anybody??? Oh, that’s right-you haven’t!!!
Don’t equate me or any other Christian with the followers of Allah who are torturing and beheading people.
The Christians that I know are good, loving people who try to help others and try to make the world a better place. You’re just angry because some Christians joined this forum and are speaking their mind.
I don’t want to get into an argument with you today. You have a right to your beliefs and so do I. Let’s be civil and leave insults to the others, okay? Let’s give it a try.
By Regan DuCasse
November 2, 2004 09:31 AM | Link to this
Wow, Terry-your comments clearly show the double and impossible standards heaped on gay men and women simply for being gay. Equal treatment under the law is what’s wanted and ONLY that. Marriage and the quality of it can only be judged by who is married. Not who isn’t. If our government was truly concerned with the meaning of marriage and it’s importance then ENFORCEMENT of the VOWS would be federal law. Gay men and women are ordinary folks with needs and obligations the same as yours-there are no exceptions there. And the RIGHT to address and protect those needs and obligations are no less than any other human being. Don’t talk about morals and standards when they are so generous to other human beings WHATEVER they ARE. The standard of marriage is to make two non related consenting adults, primary first of kin and primary custodian of their chosen spouse in lieu of the state. THAT is the law as it is now! Nothing about that standard is changing if two men or two women marry. That would be EQUAL treatment under the law, not special treatment. Especially if there is NO damage or alteration of heterosexual marriages. Homosexuals aren’t trying to break YOU up! Gender behavior and it’s factor in marriage was a forced proscription, not a natural one. It’s no more important than children as a requisite for a marriage license. No Terry, everyone is REVERSING all the rules and trying to get out of the contract which is the Bill of Rights and the Constitution ONLY for excluding gay people, not for family, not for marriage. Anyway Terry, just WHAT is so BAD about having more stable, secure and happy gay people? Securing their children with TWO parents? In what possible way will that hurt anything or anyone? Who are you to judge gay people and what love is there?
By Angie
November 2, 2004 09:33 AM | Link to this
So, how many are voting YES today???
By Big Al
November 2, 2004 09:41 AM | Link to this
It’s really simple folks. You don’t believe in gay marriage? Then don’t have one. PROBLEM SOLVED.
By Terry S
November 2, 2004 09:42 AM | Link to this
Perversion is perversion-no matter what. Why give it legal rights?
If you decide to be gay then you have to give up certain things-being able to get married, being able to have children, etc. No matter how hard they try a man can never get another man pregnant (or a woman with a woman). It’s simple biology. Can’t happen. Why let gays adopt just to be able to screw up the next generations way of thinking. It teaches children that perversion is acceptable…and it ISN’T!
If you want to be gay-then be gay. But don’t expect to be able to have babies and play husband and wife. It warps the minds of the children. IT IS NOT NORMAL.
By Angie
November 2, 2004 09:46 AM | Link to this
Big Al-
It’s very simple, don’t think slavery is right-DON’T OWN ONE!
Don’t think drinking and driving is right-DON’T drink and drive.
Don’t think stealing is right-DON’T steal.
The list goes on and on….
That logic doesn’t hold up. There are things that should be legislated.
By Boscoe Roads
November 2, 2004 09:47 AM | Link to this
If gay people only want legal status, or legal recognition for marrying the people they love based on rights, then somebody please show me where it says sexual preference is a right! Show me where this is genetic and you’re born like this! Don’t tell me it has to be this way because it makes sense. Prove it to me. I doubt you can.
By Cat
November 2, 2004 09:48 AM | Link to this
May all of you who vote Yes someday, in this life or another, have your marriage at the mercy of those who hate you or find your “lifestyle” disgusting.
May you be called “sick” and “perverted” for the crime of being in love and wanting to make a lifelong commitment to your partner. May you be told that your desire to support and care for each other, through sickness and health, through good times and bad, until death do you part, is “selfish hedonism.” This while two-day Vegas flings between other people are acknowledged as full marriages.
May you have to pay extra for necessities like health insurance, while your neighbors are automatically and cheaply covered by their spouses. May you suffer a thousand inconveniences and more because you are denied the simple legal status of “spouse.”
May you be told that your love, your commitment, and the strength of your family matter less than the ability to breed biological children, something every animal can do. And this no matter what selfless and loving care you extend to your children, biological or adopted.
May you be kept from the bedside of your dying spouse, and have your house, and worse, your children taken away from you after their death, because you are a legal stranger to them. May those children be raised to hate you, and to believe that you will burn in hell forever.
You say I hate you and wish you ill? But isn’t all this what you want for yourself? After all, you claim to be Christians- would Christians do unto others what you would not have done to yourselves?
By mark wood
November 2, 2004 09:55 AM | Link to this
Terry S.
Legal recognition? But no judgement?
Can you hear how ridiculous that sounds?
Law is judgement.
Two people in love? A wonderful thing. Discriminating because they are of the same sex? Well…
Legislation as it stands gives preferential treatment to married heterosexuals if, in nothing else, tax breaks. Not singles of either sex. Not homosexuals. Not purple people from Pluto.
I’m punished for being a single, white, relatively successful, heterosexual, middle aged man. I don’t get the deductions on my taxes. My insurance rates are higher. Because I am not in a heterosexual marriage.
The government is already in my bedroom (and my wallet).
Gays have as much right to happiness as you. And they should receive the same benefits for the same committments. Anything else is discrimination. That conclusion comes from using your argument.
By Mary Ann Williamson
November 2, 2004 10:04 AM | Link to this
Ahhh, for the old tolerance in which people agreed to disagree and shook hands and went to dinner and had a great time. With the new tolerance, not only are we to accept each other with our wildly differing opinions, we’re to embrace our opponent’s opinion as right and true and just as right and true as our own. The new tolerance has not worked. Each side is screaming hate filled invectives at each other because the other will not accept their opinion as right and true.
Problem with Jesus was that He made politically unwise statements such as “I am God.” We catagorize people who make such statements today as insane. And “I am the way, truth and life. No man comes to the Father but through Me.” Translated…there are not many ways to God…I’m the only way. Pretty divisive. Incredibly polarizing. The only one not polarized was Jesus. He didn’t hang with the Pharisees, the church people, He hung with the outcasts, the sinners. His message was still the same however. It never changed. In the end, they killed Him for it. So today, in insisting we’re right, we huddle together, the homosexuals vs the straights, the pro choice vs the anti abortion groups, you name the groups, and all scream “WE’RE RIGHT!!! AND YOU MUST SAY WE’RE RIGHT!!!” But with widely differing opinions that cannot possibly diverge, at some point, someone has to decide what the population will do. Not who is right or wrong, but what the majority of the people who have to live together must do.
Hence, voting. And I believe we should vote back in the old tolerance.
By Zack
November 2, 2004 10:06 AM | Link to this
Who wants to accept my wager that Diane Glass will never use the phrase “darn Buddhists” or “darn Hindus”, or “darn Jews”? Let’s be consistent, Ms. Glass. I know you seem to subscribe to the “anything goes but Christianity” worldview that’s sadly so prevalent these days, but why don’t you explain to me why it’s socially acceptable to take shots at Christians and no one else?
Again, you don’t have to; I already know the answer: This is the devil’s world—and the fact that this IS the devil’s world, combined with the socially acceptable act of attacking Christians is just that much more proof of Christianity being the true religion.
Akeya, why don’t you quit accusing Christians of imposing their worldviews on the world? I find it so ironic how liberals can promote the injustifiable killing of innocent babies, the attack on the institute of marriage, etc. and then talk about how those who stand against their actions are “oppressing” others.
By Todd
November 2, 2004 10:09 AM | Link to this
I voted NO on Amendment #1.
Marriage is indeed an OPTION. You don’t have to own your own home, have children, etc. But as a tax-paying citizen of this country and of this state, I dan well should be extended the same OPTIONS as those who *prefer to partner with the opposite sex. I’m no less an American or Georgian because I’m gay. Thank God my vote carries the same weight as those who insist on molding everyone around their beliefs… What if you’re wrong? A question as tough to answer today as it was 40 years ago when we finally afforded full rights to African Americans. If Amendment #1 passes you’ll think you’ve won, but rest assured we will win the war. I’m persistent and patient.
By Terry S
November 2, 2004 10:11 AM | Link to this
Mark, so what you’re saying is that marriage between a man and a woman is wrong because they get all the tax breaks? Maybe we should just do away with marriage altogether since it’s hurting your pocketbook? (er, wallet)
The single white big businessman who gets a ton of deductions on his taxes due to the big business loopholes are cutting into MY wallet. Guys like Ted Turner who end up probably paying less taxes than you or I do. Let’s gripe about them. Traditional marriage isn’t the cause for your financial problems.
By Regan DuCasse
November 2, 2004 10:17 AM | Link to this
Well, Boscoe- Look around you-non procreative sex, whether with a partner or alone, is not only condoned, it’s ENCOURAGED as healthy. Gay men and women aren’t complaining about their sex lives, YOU are. Physical compatiblity isn’t written into law. There are spouses who are very DIFFERENT from each other-even if opposite sex, we don’t concern ourselves with. Those of the same gender we SHOULD assume are even MORE compatible. And Boscoe, I got news for you-I work for the Los Angeles Police Dept as a forensic photographer and it’s not gay people that are contributing to children’s problems in the numbers you state. It’s not gay people’s spawn who are recruiting other children into gangs or killing them. It’s heterosexual males who abuse young girls and boys (with boys it’s mostly violence) and because they make their own children, no one is looking over their shoulders. It’s the heterosexuals that are making their children live in filthy, impoverished and overcrowded conditions, and heterosexuals who regularly abandon their children to welfare and foster care. Pregnancy is motive for female homicide and dumpster babies are still common. Validation of heterosexual sex, however pathological is alive and well. Bacchanals like Mardi Gras, frat parties and spring break are traditions as rife with rape, assault and drug overdoses and is far more validated as a rite of passage than any White Party will ever be. And gay men and women don’t give each other unintended pregnancies for which a baby might be sacrificed. Yeah Boscoe, heterosexuals are such ideal custodians of sex, morals and family. WHAT were WE thinking?! Your proof is where you look. But how can you see with your eyes shut?
By Regan DuCasse
November 2, 2004 10:38 AM | Link to this
Mark, you’re not being ‘punished’ for being white, male and a taxpayer. Your status is single, but that’s not what you ARE as a person. If you were so fortunate as to have someone who would marry you and you chose to marry, that would change your status. Being single could also be called a chosen lifestyle. So is being married-I still find it offensive that there are heterosexuals in here that keep saying being gay is a ‘lifestyle choice’ when homosexuals don’t. Marital status is just that- your status. It’s not WHO or WHAT you are. Those that don’t know how to make those distinctions cannot judge who is FIT to marry. Therefore, marriage should be for everyone, equally applied in the law. After all, FITNESS to marry, isn’t law anyway-and can’t be applied to homosexuals ONLY.
By Akeya W
November 2, 2004 10:45 AM | Link to this
It’s not about special rights. It’s about having THE right without government interference.
Neither you, Terry, nor I, nor anyone in this forum should have been able to vote on such a stupid amendment.
The choice of WHOM to marry lies only with that couple.
By Akeya W
November 2, 2004 10:49 AM | Link to this
Yes, TERRY and it’s perverse the way that you think. You say some of the most convoluted things!!
Tell me, just how often are you in the missionary position?
By John Hays
November 2, 2004 10:49 AM | Link to this
Boscoe Roads sorry I didn’t check back sooner to see your wonderful reply. I was hoping someone would come back with the type of response you did. You cite studies that have been disproved by other studies, and flawed mehtodology. However, you overlook other studies. The most recent of these comes from Italian scientists showing a link to homosexuality that is passed along the maternal line indicating a link to the X chromosome. They believe that several genes are involved and that this is the reason no single “gay gene” has been found.(Camperio-Ciani 2004) Others have actually produced homosexuals in other species through genetic manipulation.(Odenwald & Zhang 1995) Still others have observed homosexuality in other species in the same ratio seen in humans.(Heg & van Trueren) Also, multiple twin studies do show a link to homosexuality. It is not 100%, but all this indicates is that homosexuality is more complicated than we understand at this point. You mention Sodom and Gommorah as one example of the bibles condemnation of homosexuality. Yet the bible makes no reference to this. It mentions only that both cities were wicked. The portion of this story most people use in defense of their bigotry is actually a condemnation of gang rape, not homosexuality. A crowd of men demand that Lot allow them to “know” the stangers who have visited him. Lot in turn offers up his two daughters for them to do with as they please. They find this offer acceptable, but before anything happens the strangers, who are actually angels intervene. Also, part of the scripture you quote doesn’t jive very well when you look at different translations. When you look at the original Hebrew and Aramaic scriptures, you find that the bible condemns homosexual acts in certain circumstances, but never makes a blanket condemnation of homosexuality in general. The bible condemns homosexual acts between males when it involves abuse of children, pagan sex rituals, orgies, prostitution, or outside of a committed relationship. All of these things could be said of heterosexuality as well, but we do not take it to be a condemnation of all heterosexuality. Actually the bible also has a few same sex relationships in it that are never condemned. Ruth and Naomi profess a love for each other, “Where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God. Where you die I will die, and there I will be buried. May the Lord deal with me, be it ever so severely, if anything but death separates you and me.” Also, Ruth 1:14, referring to the relationship between Ruth and Naomi, mentions that “Ruth clave onto her.” The Hebrew word translated here as “clave” is identical to that used in the description of a heterosexual marriage in Genesis 2:24: ” Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” Then we see David and Jonathan as intimately close. 1 Samuel 18:1 “…Jonathan became one in spirit with David and he loved him as himself.” “…the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul” Most translations use the term “soul” rather than “spirit” to describe the bond. They speak of an “immediate bond of love”, their souls being “in unison,” their souls being “knit”, etc. Genesis 2:7, as written in the original Hebrew, describes how God blew the spirit into the body of Adam that God had formed from earth, so that Adam became a living soul. This means that “soul”, in the ancient Israelite times, represents a combination of body and spirit. Thus the two men appear to have loved each other both physically and emotionally. 1 Samuel 18:3-4 “And Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself. Jonathan took off the robe he was wearing and gave it to David, along with his tunic, and even his sword, his bow and his belt.” Since people in those days did not wear underwear, Jonathan stripped himself naked in front of David. That would be considered extremely unusual behavior (then and now) unless their relationship was physical. 1 Samuel 20:41 “After the boy had gone, David got up from the south side of the stone and bowed down before Jonathan three times, with is face to the ground. Then they kissed each other and wept together - but David wept the most.” The original Hebrew text says that they kissed each other and wept together until David became great. The word which means “great” in this passage is “gadal” in the original Hebrew. Some theologians interpret “gadal” in this verse as indicating that David had an erection. 2 Samuel 1:26 “I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother; you were very dear to me. Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women.” In the society of ancient Israel, it was not considered proper for a man and woman to have a platonic relationship. Men and women rarely spoke to each other in public. Since David’s only relationships with women would have been sexual in nature, then he must be referring to sexual love here. It would not make sense in this verse to compare platonic love for a man with sexual love for a woman; they are two completely different phenomenon. It would appear that David is referring to his sexual love for Jonathan. These stories seem to contradict the idea that the bible is against homosexuality. Also, there is never any condemnation of lesbianism, which would be a pretty big error if God considered all same sex relations an abomination. We should also remember that there are many things in the bible which we believe to be in contradiction to God’s will, slavery, genocide, mass murder, and the oppression of women. We can therefore only conclude that some of these ideas were introduced by men who included their own beliefs in the bible. Finally, I have to say that the idea that someone who is homosexual cannot be a Christian by definition to be ludicrous. The logic you use for this argument would preclude everyone from being a Christian. Even if you believe that homosexuality is a sin, so what? Christians committ sin everyday. We can’t help it, no one can. Even biblical heros committed heinous sins. David was an adulterer and murderer. Solomon helped promote paganism and idolatry. Every member of every church ever formed has committed sin every day of their life. This does not stop us from being Christians. It is part of who we are, and it is only the forgiveness we have been given for those sins that separates us from any other person on the planet. The fact is it is not our place to judge or force our beliefs on anyone. We are responsible only for our own actions, and our own beliefs. I have rambled enough now, so I won’t bother to respond any more, but it has certainly been interesting to see how divergent peoples’ beliefs can be. This divergence of opinion is what makes us great, so please don’t try to quash that today.
By Akeya W.
November 2, 2004 10:59 AM | Link to this
Of course, by denying homosexuals the right to marry it is easier to perpetuate the argument that they are just “in it” for the sex and not love.
By Kevin
November 2, 2004 11:13 AM | Link to this
Some of these comments really make me laugh - the ridiculous “special rights” argument, as if people are “confused” over constitutional provisions that say “ALL”. And then there are the phony religious arguments, those people who claim THEY will be persecuted if a gay person falls in love with someone else - as if they themselves will be forced into a homosexual relationship. Their faith is so powerful that they can’t handle the idea that an individuals right to love could mean they might have neighbors with property rights or hospital visitation rights…and their persecution industry is completely dependent on having someone to crucify.
I’m sorry - but maybe it’s time someone question your right to religious belief with a constitutional amendment. There is no evidence that suggests alleged “christians” are born that way - that there is a genetic predisposition to embrace evangelical beliefs dependent on persecuting others. It is completely a choice, and evangelicals can most certainly choose to embrace a religion that more righteously represents the true meaning of God.
It seems to me that as long as you seem to demand your right to enjoy freedom to worship as your conscience sees fit, you have absolutely no right to demand that others reflect those beliefs, nor deny them the same protections and benefits under a constitution that was written to protect everyone.
I love laughing at heterosexual who somehow feel they have a corner on “morality” as they bend the rules to accommodate whatever they’ve decided feels good for themselves. To base the rights of others on the basis of what gets your OWN willie excited is perhaps the most ridiculous form of persecution of all. It makes me think there are far too many straight men who have been allowed to view and judge others on the basis of sexuality…and who should’t be allowed to be married themselves since they can’t keep their thoughts or minds out of the imagined acts of other people’s bedrooms.
You might feel real proud about passing this amendment - but you have further alienated a group of your own citizens who will never forget it - and they will still fall in love, whether it bothers you or not. When you are willing to step up to the plate with your OWN relationships and marriages so we can scrutinize YOU, then you’ll have an argument worth discussing. Until then, I’ve seen nothing to justify support for this amendment beyond personal religious dogma and vague references to a morality that seems quite fluid when you apply it to yourselves.
By Regan DuCasse
November 2, 2004 11:15 AM | Link to this
Quoting the Bible is really pointless. It really is. Being Christian is a lifestyle choice that can be followed to whatever degree without enforcement-but it’s STILL a protected right. Sexuality is a fact of life, for all human beings. Let’s be clear about morality within sexuality. Promiscuity, adultery, pederasty and polyamory-are not exclusive to orientation. So it’s also pointless to exclude homosexuals from marriage, and also not support monogamy and commitment among homosexuals. That’s contradictory. The aforementioned sex practices that are contra to monogamy aren’t actionable by law and don’t exclude heterosexuals from marrying once or again, and again and again. Akeya is correct-this is about validation-and heterosexuals are trying to validate myth rather than reality. The reality is that there is so little difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals that ANY exclusions are not only impractical, but harmful to society at large. And since private sexuality IS protected, YES as a lifestyle it is among all other human beings so therefore, the law is supposed to protect gay men and women’s access to a committed partner. Besides, to refer to same gender spouses as her wife and his husband, isn’t so hard to integrate into the lexicon. Furthermore, as for this MYTH that children within or without marriage between gay men and women-children assume that married people or two women or two men who hold hands or peck each other love each other and that assumption-is the correct one. To teach children, whether they have gay parents or not, that is anything else is wrong, cruel and a huge lie. It’s these contradictions and hypocrisies that confuse children. Not being honest about the simple truth that gay men and women exist and to respect homosexuals accordingly.
By Kevin
November 2, 2004 11:17 AM | Link to this
John:
I think Boscoe’s remarks fall under that biblical provision that allows false witness and perpetuating lies and myths if it accomplishes the greater purpose of persecution in the name of God.
By Tim
November 2, 2004 11:17 AM | Link to this
Boscoe, It is very simple… not one word in the Bible that refers to homosexuality when DIRECTLY translated means homosexuality. It is simply what the interpreters ‘believed’ the authors were trying to say. When reading the Bible one must look at the historical, social, and spiritual aspects of the test (not just what is written in BLACK AND WHITE). It is simple for homosexuals to pro create as well, it is called artificial insemination.
P.S. Sorry it took me so long to respond. I had other things to do yesterday.
By mark wood
November 2, 2004 11:21 AM | Link to this
Terry S, my sweet,
I have no financial difficulties.
Nor did I suggest heterosexual marriage is wrong. I simply pointed out that it is rewarded by both government and insurance companies. Preference based on societal biases (prejudices).
Can’t you see. It’s a conspiracy. Breed more. Larger electorate. No wonder rational people have so little say. Oh, wait. I just got saved. These posts have finally hit home. Thank you, Boscoe and Angie and Terry S and Zack. I see the truth now.
We’re outnumbered. Damn gays. I should have realized your unions were unholy. You can’t procreate. To hell with your happiness. You have lust in your hearts. You can’t possibly love and care and make a committment. So you don’t count. You’re less than the rest of us. You are (a gasp of horror) modern day Sodomites.
Me. I feel redemption already. (Hey, Boscoe. Pass the nuts. I’m on the A-train now.)
By Zack
November 2, 2004 11:38 AM | Link to this
If we allow gays to marry, the definition of marriage becomes very twisted. Who would be to say that two men and three women couldn’t form a marriage, or four men, or four women? What if someone wanted to marry his dog? Would we legalize that as well?
By laurie
November 2, 2004 11:43 AM | Link to this
Why is it that major coroporations (such as Home Depot) will allow for pets to have insurance paid through the employer,..but not same sex partners? The Reason: because nut jobs like these listed above have been in power too long! They discriminate (even when they claim not to),..they are racists towards others who they “feel” are different,…and they are flat wrong! How can you seriously look yourself in the mirror everyday? This should be a non issue! Vote for the man who will take away this insanity,..and allow for all HUMANS the same rights. This is similar to the way minorities have been treated in the past. What’s next? Are you going to take away their right to vote?
By Joan Dillon
November 2, 2004 11:48 AM | Link to this
Why doesn’t anyone discuss the additional issue; the one that keeps the voters away from the liberal ideal? That is, that not only do people want to have gay marriage, or for that matter, pro-choice, they want those rights to come with taxpayer responsibility to support them. When gay marriage is sanctioned won’t partners get tax benefits and social security. When pro-choice is sanctioned isn’t the taxpayer supposed to pay for the indigent’s “freedom” to chose? If you separate the “right” from the taxpayer’s responsibility to pay for that right, you would probably get a lot more support for the gay marriage, pro-choice “rights”. It is all a “pork barrel” issue as usual.
By Brian Curtis
November 2, 2004 11:53 AM | Link to this
“Where will it all end?” Ahh, yes… the ever-popular “slippery slope” argument. If we recognize the rights of blacks and whites to intermarry, what’s to stop a man from marrying a goat? (I think the animal of choice this year is a turtle.)
One of my favorite cartoons addresses that very subject: http://www.zmag.org/cartoons/toons//1223.jpg
By Cat
November 2, 2004 12:00 PM | Link to this
“If we allow gays to marry, the definition of marriage becomes very twisted. Who would be to say that two men and three women couldn’t form a marriage, or four men, or four women? What if someone wanted to marry his dog? Would we legalize that as well?”
There are valid secular reasons for barring polygamous and animal-human marriages. First, because if we restrict polygamy to one gender (women may have multiple husbands but not men, or vice versa), it’s discriminatory. If we, on the other hand, allow one person to have as many spouses as they want, each of whom may have as many spouses as they want, the administrative and regulatory issues quickly become complicated beyond the reasonable ability of government to manage. How do you decide who gets child custody in case of death or divorce, who gets to cover whose health insurance at work, who is whose next of kin for end-of-life and medical treatment decisions? Sure, you can do it by separate contracts, but then what’s the point of marrying at all?
Second, animal-human marriage is outlawed because animals are not considered consenting adults nor are they competent to agree to any form of mutual legal contract, including marriage. This also applies to children and inanimate objects.
The definition of legal marriage, with gays included, stays pretty much the same - two consenting adults wishing to make a lifetime legal and familial commitment to each other. Expanding marriage to include people of two different races or faiths didn’t change that - nor will expanding marriage to include two people of the same gender.
By The Niece
November 2, 2004 12:01 PM | Link to this
Rights, rights, rights. Only humans have rights! Gays are not humans! Therefore, gays have NO rights. They are a species put here for the benefit of straight people. Gays are here to serve straight people and form a “village” to assist straight people with taking care of children. Akeya, make no mistake straight people ARE superior in every way. Tonight at 7pm almost every state will make the statement that gays and lesbians are subhman. Gays will go back to being the servants they were created to be.
By Cat
November 2, 2004 12:03 PM | Link to this
“Why doesn’t anyone discuss the additional issue; the one that keeps the voters away from the liberal ideal? That is, that not only do people want to have gay marriage, or for that matter, pro-choice, they want those rights to come with taxpayer responsibility to support them. When gay marriage is sanctioned won’t partners get tax benefits and social security.”
Sure, just as you do…can I refuse to pay for your tax benefits and social security if I disapprove of your choice of spouse? Can I refuse to pay for your tax deduction if I think you made a bad choice in having kids?
By Boscoe Roads
November 2, 2004 12:03 PM | Link to this
John Hayes, I’m not going to sugar coat it for you. The Bible is clear on the matter. Men laying with men, and woman lying with woman is an abomination. This is exactly why years ago the Catholic Church made it a crime to for those other than the Church to interpret Sacred Scripture. So it did not get twisted to justify debased behaviors. Cleave: to adhere firmly and closely or loyally and unwaveringly. Does this mention sex John? No and neither does the story of Ruth and Naomi does it? The other theologians that you mention speaking of David have been rebuked by their counterparts for extreme ideals. Your reaching here John. And I’m sorry but my principals are sound. You cannot profess to be Christian and something that is contradictory to Christianity. You will love one and hate the other. The two are oppose each other. Of course all men sin John, that doesn’t make them against Christianity. What I replied to were those that profess to be both. They have not even acknowledged that homosexual acts are a sin. If you claim to be a Christian you know full well homosexual acts are a sin. Thus you cannot be both.
By Brian Curtis
November 2, 2004 12:10 PM | Link to this
Boscoe, the snag is that the Bible’s position on this issue is irrelevant. It’s not a religious question; rather, it’s a legal one regarding a civil arrangement very similar to incorporation. It establishes legal rights, responsibilities, and liabilities regardless of religious views. (That’s why you don’t need a church to get married, although churches can also perform the function.)
Moreoever, the Bible is a guidebook for a single religion only: Christianity. Laws regarding civil marriage apply to ALL citizens, and therefore cannot be based on the opinions of one particular faith. (First Amendment again.)
By Zack
November 2, 2004 12:10 PM | Link to this
If we legally redefine marriage, it can be redefined some more. However, it is never redefined in God’s eyes, as His Word never changes.
Also, let’s not try to say the Bible is vague about homosexuality. People have said the same thing about abortion. These are non-arguments.
By Lori
November 2, 2004 12:14 PM | Link to this
I think it will be interesting to see how opinions change on judgement day. Although I am Christian an oppose gay marriage I do not think it is something we should be voting on. There are heterosexual couples who harp on the “immorality” of gay marriage when they themselves are not moral people. The bottom line is being gay or straight does not make you moral or immoral. As Christians I believe we are to share Christ with the world, but not pass judgement on sinners because we are ALL sinners. And how can we say which sins are worse than others? After all, gluttony is a sin but we don’t dictate the legal rights of people who overeat? Ultimately there will be a day when each of us is held accountable for our own actions and not those of others. I think it is best to clean up around our own doorstep instead of worrying about everyone else’s.
By Tim
November 2, 2004 12:25 PM | Link to this
Boscoe, thanks for turning into God… I will come to you next time i need guidance… in the OLD testament where it talks about a man lying with a man being an abomination… the word used there simply means ‘unclean’ or ‘different’… many things were viewed as being ‘unclean’ or ‘different’… not the ‘fire and brim stone’ you were probably going for when you used the word abomination… and when did the Catholic church become the deciding factor on interpreting the Bible?… God blessed me with a brain so I could use it… I will read the Bible for myself and come to my own conclusion… but thanks for trying to ‘play’ God and tell what I or anyone else will and won’t be
But this is not supposed to be about any church recognizing a gay marriage… this is about the GOVERNMENTS role… if a particular Church does not want to recognize a marriage so be it… but the government should not place a hetersexual couples committment to one another above that of a homosexual couples committment to one another (and don’t give the argument about ‘this is the way marriage has always been’ because slavery and prostitution have been around longer than our western view of marriage has… and also don’t give me the argument that it is ‘the will of the people’ because it was also the will of the people that slavery should continue… simply because there is a majority of people who think a certain way definitely does not make something right)
By Boscoe Roads
November 2, 2004 12:36 PM | Link to this
John Hayes here is your so called scientific evidence!!! Camperio-Ciani 2004— A survey of Italian men has provided evidence that homosexuality may be partly influenced by genetics. By quizzing around 200 men of different sexual orientations – Wait let me get this straight. The researchers concluded homosexuality is genetic by asking 200 men a series of questions? The study even admits the don’t have any idea where to find these genes. Odenwald & Zhang 1995— Animals have often been used to help conduct scientific research. The search for the causes of homosexuality is no exception. At the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland, biologists Ward Odenwald and Shang-Ding Zhang transplanted a gene into fruit flies that cause the males to exhibit homosexual behavior: the females cower in groups at the top and bottom of the jars, while the males form “big circles or…long, winding rows that look like winged conga lines.â€? A similar gene to the one that Odenwald and Zhang have transplanted into fruit flies also exists in humans, although there is no evidence, yet, that it influences human sexuality preference.
By Boscoe
November 2, 2004 12:41 PM | Link to this
Tim, if you look at the history of the word “homosexuality” the word wasn’t even created until the 1900s. So how could it be wriiten in the Bible which was written over 2000 years ago? What don’t you understand about men lying with men is an abomination?
By Boscoe Roads
November 2, 2004 12:47 PM | Link to this
Well Tim, we’ll find out about the people’s voice today won’t we? That is the good thing about our government isn’t it? Everybody has a vote. Even us most hatful Christians. Do you wanna know what I’m going to vote?
By Tim
November 2, 2004 01:02 PM | Link to this
Boscoe, I understand the men lying with men passage perfectly… I have researched it and come to my own conclusion… just as I am sure you researched it and have obviously come your conclusions as well… what do you not understand about my rebuttal? and I never said that you are anyone else was a hateful Christian (that’s an oxymoron)… and i know everyone has a vote… like I said… just because a majority of people believe something, that does not make it right… and sure i would love to know how you are going to vote
By norman
November 2, 2004 01:17 PM | Link to this
I guess you guys on both sides think that it is important to interpret obscure and in any case irrelevant passages in the Unholy Bible. Why don’t you think for yourself and not take something invented by scribes during the reign of Josiah king of Judah as authoritative?
Here is the greatest example of the corrupting effects of bible reading on one and all.
Bible reading weakens the mind and prepares it for nonsense.
By Randy
November 2, 2004 01:40 PM | Link to this
The problem with homosexual marriage is the following. If I really believed they wanted to get married because they loved each other and would try to stay faithful to each other. Even though I am a Christian, I would consider voting no on the amendment, so they could get married. However, I see them using this mainly, as a attack on Christianity and the values which have made this country strong. The few homosexuals I have known had little to no “Character”. They would sell their mother out, for a few dollars. This is my experience with homosexuals. On the subject of Christians getting divorced, I have first hand knowledge on this as I own quite a few rental houses. The key is the couples who rent from me, if they are not Christian, very few get married to start off with. This is the main cause of me losing a renter. As a landlord, I will take a married Christian family any day, over the other options. Unfortunately, for me most Christian couples seem to already own property.
By Randy
November 2, 2004 01:43 PM | Link to this
I see we have another comment from Norman. For those who may be new to this forum, Norman is our beloved “VILLAGE IDIOT”. Well maybe he’s not loved, but he humorous.
By norman
November 2, 2004 01:47 PM | Link to this
Randy: I hope you get screwed by some crooked Christian tenants.
By Tim
November 2, 2004 01:58 PM | Link to this
Randy, you said something interesting… you would consider voting no on the amendment if homosexuals loved each other and would try to stay faithful of one another… but because you believed that the FEW gay/lesbians that you have known had little or no character… you are going to base an entire sect of people because of your experience with (in your own words) a FEW people? Could you explain how by wanting to get married gays and lesbians are attacking Christianity?
By Zack
November 2, 2004 02:03 PM | Link to this
Norman—Why do you have such hatred toward Christians, and how long have you been this way?
I guess the Normans, Akeyas, Mark Woods, etc. aren’t going to be happy until we get rid of every law in this country. After all, law itself refers to the recognition of morality. (Granted, there are some laws, like the legality of abortion, which are anything but moral.)
I think the reason many have such bigotry toward Christians is because the Bible is from God, and it’s totally consistent and true. People cringe nowadays at the mention of absolute truth and would rather try to convince themselves that everything’s relative. In other words, very few are willing to confess their sins and acknowledge the fact that they need to make restitution.
As for an amendment banning same-sex marriage, it would be a great victory. Hopefully, it’ll be done in all 50 states. I was thrilled to hear of the nullifying of gay marriages that took place recently. That was indeed a rare victory in today’s society.
There is so much animosity toward Christians on here from some people. Honestly, Christians deserve blame for not standing up for God enough. If Christians had been living for God primarily, abortion, for example, never would’ve been considered as a possible law. Christians have spent way too much time (any time at all is way too much time) hiding their faith. I’m afraid John Kerry will win the election, and if he does, it’ll be because his camp spoke up more.
By norman
November 2, 2004 02:15 PM | Link to this
Yada yada yada, Zack
By Tiffany
November 2, 2004 02:23 PM | Link to this
Why should the govermnent intrude on the union between two consenting adults should be the real topic. Whether a couple is gay or not their life is theirs to do as they wish. And all you religious fanatics out there: take a seat! When was the last time you had a personal conversation with your LORD??? It is so funny how the media condones homosexuality and yet we are making it seem as if its the end all or be all of todays soceity. Maybe homesexuals will teach us straight folks how to stay in a marriage “till death do us part” because we have a hard time doing it
By Tiffany
November 2, 2004 02:24 PM | Link to this
Why should the govermnent intrude on the union between two consenting adults should be the real topic. Whether a couple is gay or not their life is theirs to do as they wish. And all you religious fanatics out there: take a seat! When was the last time you had a personal conversation with your LORD??? It is so funny how the media condones homosexuality and yet we are making it seem as if its the end all or be all of todays soceity. Maybe homesexuals will teach us straight folks how to stay in a marriage “till death do us part” because we have a hard time doing it
By Tiffany
November 2, 2004 02:24 PM | Link to this
Why should the govermnent intrude on the union between two consenting adults should be the real topic. Whether a couple is gay or not their life is theirs to do as they wish. And all you religious fanatics out there: take a seat! When was the last time you had a personal conversation with your LORD??? It is so funny how the media condones homosexuality and yet we are making it seem as if its the end all or be all of todays soceity. Maybe homesexuals will teach us straight folks how to stay in a marriage “till death do us part” because we have a hard time doing it
By Brian Curtis
November 2, 2004 02:25 PM | Link to this
I don’t think it’s hatred of Christianity that motivates people fighting for basic rights… I think it’s more indifference to Christianity. After all, the Bible is the holy book of one sect: Christians. Why should non-Christians care about it, any more than you care about the dictates of the Koran, Torah, Bhagavad Gita, or Eightfold path?
The sweet thing about our democracy is that your rights are the same regardless of your religious views… and nobody can pass laws to impose the dictates of their book on the rest of us. Which is why, even if a lot of states pass the anti-gay amendment (which, let’s face it, is what this is), they will eventually be overturned in the courts. Basic rights are not subject to majority votes and popularity—that’s why we have a Constitution.
By Tiffany
November 2, 2004 02:26 PM | Link to this
Why should the govermnent intrude on the union between two consenting adults should be the real topic. Whether a couple is gay or not their life is theirs to do as they wish. And all you religious fanatics out there: take a seat! When was the last time you had a personal conversation with your LORD??? It is so funny how the media condones homosexuality and yet we are making it seem as if its the end all or be all of todays soceity. Maybe homesexuals will teach us straight folks how to stay in a marriage “till death do us part” because we have a hard time doing it
By Akeya W
November 2, 2004 02:27 PM | Link to this
So, according to what you’re saying, Randy, is that the actions and characters of a small group of people that you know account for an entire population of people?
I’m African-American and I hate hip-hop, I’ve worked 2 jobs since I was 16 years old, had a full-time job while attending college full time, can’t remember the last time I ate collard greens, friend chicken, or watermelon, and I’ve never been on welfare of any kind. I’m an anomaly to many like you who believe that how a few people are in a certain population of people is how they ALL are. That’s stereotyping, and where there is stereotyping there’s discrimination.
By Brian Curtis
November 2, 2004 02:29 PM | Link to this
I don’t think it’s hatred of Christianity that motivates people fighting for basic rights… I think it’s more indifference to Christianity. After all, the Bible is the holy book of one sect: Christians. Why should non-Christians care about it, any more than you care about the dictates of the Koran, Torah, Bhagavad Gita, or Eightfold path?
The sweet thing about our democracy is that your rights are the same regardless of your religious views… and nobody can pass laws to impose the dictates of their book on the rest of us. Which is why, even if a lot of states pass the anti-gay amendment (which, let’s face it, is what this is), they will eventually be overturned in the courts. Basic rights are not subject to majority votes and popularity—that’s why we have a Constitution.
By Brian Curtis
November 2, 2004 02:29 PM | Link to this
I don’t think it’s hatred of Christianity that motivates people fighting for basic rights… I think it’s more indifference to Christianity. After all, the Bible is the holy book of one sect: Christians. Why should non-Christians care about it, any more than you care about the dictates of the Koran, Torah, Bhagavad Gita, or Eightfold path?
The sweet thing about our democracy is that your rights are the same regardless of your religious views… and nobody can pass laws to impose the dictates of their book on the rest of us. Which is why, even if a lot of states pass the anti-gay amendment (which, let’s face it, is what this is), they will eventually be overturned in the courts. Basic rights are not subject to majority votes and popularity—that’s why we have a Constitution.
By Tiffany
November 2, 2004 02:31 PM | Link to this
Why should the govermnent intrude on the union between two consenting adults should be the real topic. Whether a couple is gay or not their life is theirs to do as they wish. And all you religious fanatics out there: take a seat! When was the last time you had a personal conversation with your LORD??? It is so funny how the media condones homosexuality and yet we are making it seem as if its the end all or be all of todays soceity. Maybe homesexuals will teach us straight folks how to stay in a marriage “till death do us part” because we have a hard time doing it
By Tiffany
November 2, 2004 02:31 PM | Link to this
Why should the govermnent intrude on the union between two consenting adults should be the real topic. Whether a couple is gay or not their life is theirs to do as they wish. And all you religious fanatics out there: take a seat! When was the last time you had a personal conversation with your LORD??? It is so funny how the media condones homosexuality and yet we are making it seem as if its the end all or be all of todays soceity. Maybe homesexuals will teach us straight folks how to stay in a marriage “till death do us part” because we have a hard time doing it
By Tiffany
November 2, 2004 02:32 PM | Link to this
Why should the govermnent intrude on the union between two consenting adults should be the real topic. Whether a couple is gay or not their life is theirs to do as they wish. And all you religious fanatics out there: take a seat! When was the last time you had a personal conversation with your LORD??? It is so funny how the media condones homosexuality and yet we are making it seem as if its the end all or be all of todays soceity. Maybe homesexuals will teach us straight folks how to stay in a marriage “till death do us part” because we have a hard time doing it
By Tiffany
November 2, 2004 02:32 PM | Link to this
Why should the govermnent intrude on the union between two consenting adults should be the real topic. Whether a couple is gay or not their life is theirs to do as they wish. And all you religious fanatics out there: take a seat! When was the last time you had a personal conversation with your LORD??? It is so funny how the media condones homosexuality and yet we are making it seem as if its the end all or be all of todays soceity. Maybe homesexuals will teach us straight folks how to stay in a marriage “till death do us part” because we have a hard time doing it
By Ann
November 2, 2004 02:35 PM | Link to this
I’m not so sure about Christians standing up for God, Zack. The God that I worship is omnipotent such that he can take care of himself. My understanding is that we’re here to take care of each other, and I remain unconvinced that persecuting and oppressing the minorities among us falls into that mandate.
By Brian Curtis
November 2, 2004 02:37 PM | Link to this
I don’t think it’s hatred of Christianity that motivates people fighting for basic rights… I think it’s more indifference to Christianity. After all, the Bible is the holy book of one sect: Christians. Why should non-Christians care about it, any more than you care about the dictates of the Koran, Torah, Bhagavad Gita, or Eightfold path?
The sweet thing about our democracy is that your rights are the same regardless of your religious views… and nobody can pass laws to impose the dictates of their book on the rest of us. Which is why, even if a lot of states pass the anti-gay amendment (which, let’s face it, is what this is), they will eventually be overturned in the courts. Basic rights are not subject to majority votes and popularity—that’s why we have a Constitution.
By joanne
November 2, 2004 02:47 PM | Link to this
I am tired of Jesus’ sacfifice being used as political fodder and for political gain. Being a Christain lies in being tolerant, compassionate, and loving. Sin is Sin. IF homosexuality is a sin then it proves that they are just as human as the rest of us. No sin outweighes another. Being hateful and inflicting persecution on another is a sin. Jesus said “Give to Ceasar what is Ceasar’s”. Jesus understood that politics will cause most of the evil in the world. This amendment has divided our country as well as our religion. We are suppossed to be equal in Christ. He does not favor one sinner over another. To turn your back on one of God’s creations goes against everything that Christ taught us.
By Akeya
November 2, 2004 02:47 PM | Link to this
I want to know how it is possible for someone to judge an entire population of people based on the small group of people he/she knows within that population.
I am an African-American female who only has 1 child, I’ve had 2 jobs since I was 16 years old in high school, I had a full-time job while attending college, I do not listen to hip-hop or rap, I can’t remember the last time that I ate fried chicken, collard greens, or watermelon, and I’ve never been on welfare. Despite all of these things about me, there are still some idiots who will think that I am just like a few other African-Americans they know that display “negative” behaviors.
This is called stereotyping and where there is stereotyping there’s discrimination…
By Angie
November 2, 2004 02:49 PM | Link to this
Zack, I have that same fear. Have you seen the “rock the vote” campaign that MTV and the likes are running? Hopefully young people will read up on the issues and vote on them-instead of voting for so-and-so because Mr.Rock Star says vote for him.
To say that there is ONE way to God and that there is ONE God and that there is such a thing as RIGHT and WRONG definitely gets peoples dander up. But it doesn’t change the truth-which is there for ALL people to find if they just take the time to look.
Are Christian’s perfect? Of course not. But once you become a Christian you begin to change from your former lifestyle and former sinful ways. Whatever sin you’re guilty of before you became a Christian you don’t continue doing once you give your life to Christ. Do you still make mistakes? Yes. But you learn from them as you walk with Christ and God corrects you when you sin. You have a new conscience (& the Holy Spirit) that guides your decisions and helps you and corrects you. It’s a lifeling journey. And you will never be “perfect”-only Jesus was perfect. But we can try to be better and try to remove all sin from our lives. As a Christian you don’t revel in sin-you try to remove it and it’s effects from your life.
P.S. I just came back from voting.:)
By Texas
November 2, 2004 02:49 PM | Link to this
Folks, Society has every right, indeed the duty, to define marriage. A constitutional amendment defining marriage has become necessary only because liberal judges, by taking that role upon themselves, have rendered it impossible for American society to do so. Liberals are delighted to have five justices define the Constitution to allow abortion for no reason other than the convenience of a pregnant woman, but find adding an amendment to define marriage passed by the legislatures of three-quarters of the states offensive.
By Angie
November 2, 2004 02:51 PM | Link to this
Zack, I have that same fear. Have you seen the “rock the vote” campaign that MTV and the likes are running? Hopefully young people will read up on the issues and vote on them-instead of voting for so-and-so because Mr.Rock Star says vote for him.
To say that there is ONE way to God and that there is ONE God and that there is such a thing as RIGHT and WRONG definitely gets peoples dander up. But it doesn’t change the truth-which is there for ALL people to find if they just take the time to look.
Are Christian’s perfect? Of course not. But once you become a Christian you begin to change from your former lifestyle and former sinful ways. Whatever sin you’re guilty of before you became a Christian you don’t continue doing once you give your life to Christ. Do you still make mistakes? Yes. But you learn from them as you walk with Christ and God corrects you when you sin. You have a new conscience (& the Holy Spirit) that guides your decisions and helps you and corrects you. It’s a lifeling journey. And you will never be “perfect”-only Jesus was perfect. But we can try to be better and try to remove all sin from our lives. As a Christian you don’t revel in sin-you try to remove it and it’s effects from your life.
P.S. I just came back from voting.:)
By joanne
November 2, 2004 02:54 PM | Link to this
I am tired of Jesus’ sacfifice being used as political fodder and for political gain. Being a Christain lies in being tolerant, compassionate, and loving. Sin is Sin. IF homosexuality is a sin then it proves that they are just as human as the rest of us. No sin outweighes another. Being hateful and inflicting persecution on another is a sin. Jesus said “Give to Ceasar what is Ceasar’s”. Jesus understood that politics will cause most of the evil in the world. This amendment has divided our country as well as our religion. We are suppossed to be equal in Christ. He does not favor one sinner over another. To turn your back on one of God’s creations goes against everything that Christ taught us. If this is how Christains behave then we have learned nothing from Christ’s teachings.
By Angie
November 2, 2004 02:54 PM | Link to this
Zack, I have that same fear. Have you seen the “rock the vote” campaign that MTV and the likes are running? Hopefully young people will read up on the issues and vote on them-instead of voting for so-and-so because Mr.Rock Star says vote for him.
To say that there is ONE way to God and that there is ONE God and that there is such a thing as RIGHT and WRONG definitely gets peoples dander up. But it doesn’t change the truth-which is there for ALL people to find if they just take the time to look.
Are Christian’s perfect? Of course not. But once you become a Christian you begin to change from your former lifestyle and former sinful ways. Whatever sin you’re guilty of before you became a Christian you don’t continue doing once you give your life to Christ. Do you still make mistakes? Yes. But you learn from them as you walk with Christ and God corrects you when you sin. You have a new conscience (& the Holy Spirit) that guides your decisions and helps you and corrects you. It’s a lifeling journey. And you will never be “perfect”-only Jesus was perfect. But we can try to be better and try to remove all sin from our lives. As a Christian you don’t revel in sin-you try to remove it and it’s effects from your life.
P.S. I just came back from voting.:)
By Texas
November 2, 2004 02:59 PM | Link to this
Folks,
Society has every right, indeed the duty, to define marriage. A constitutional amendment defining marriage has become necessary only because liberal judges, by taking that role upon themselves, have rendered it impossible for American society to do so. Liberals are delighted to have five justices define the Constitution to allow abortion for no reason other than the convenience of a pregnant woman, but find adding an amendment to define marriage passed by the legislatures of three-quarters of the states offensive.
By Angie
November 2, 2004 02:59 PM | Link to this
Zack, I have that same fear. Have you seen the “rock the vote” campaign that MTV and the likes are running? Hopefully young people will read up on the issues and vote on them-instead of voting for so-and-so because Mr.Rock Star says vote for him.
To say that there is ONE way to God and that there is ONE God and that there is such a thing as RIGHT and WRONG definitely gets peoples dander up. But it doesn’t change the truth-which is there for ALL people to find if they just take the time to look.
Are Christian’s perfect? Of course not. But once you become a Christian you begin to change from your former lifestyle and former sinful ways. Whatever sin you’re guilty of before you became a Christian you don’t continue doing once you give your life to Christ. Do you still make mistakes? Yes. But you learn from them as you walk with Christ and God corrects you when you sin. You have a new conscience (& the Holy Spirit) that guides your decisions and helps you and corrects you. It’s a lifeling journey. And you will never be “perfect”-only Jesus was perfect. But we can try to be better and try to remove all sin from our lives. As a Christian you don’t revel in sin-you try to remove it and it’s effects from your life.
P.S. I just came back from voting.:)
By Boscoe
November 2, 2004 03:03 PM | Link to this
Tiffany, maybe your friends will teach us about these problems: the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology found that 75 percent of the nearly two-thousand respondents had pursued psychological counseling of some kind, many for treatment of long-term depression or sadness: Among the sample as a whole, there was a distressingly high prevalence of life events and behaviors related to mental health problems. Thirty-seven percent had been physically abused and 32 percent had been raped or sexually attacked. Nineteen percent had been involved in incestuous relationships while growing up. 6 percent drank daily. One in five smoked marijuana more than once a month. Twenty-one percent of the sample had thoughts about suicide sometimes or often and 18 percent had actually tried to kill themselves… . More than half had felt too nervous to accomplish ordinary activities at some time during the past year and over one-third had been depressed. Is that what you want them to teach you Tiffany? After you’ve thought about that maybe you can explain why those of us who protest this are “religious fanatics” because we follow a certain set of principals.
By Boscoe Roads
November 2, 2004 03:14 PM | Link to this
iffany, maybe your friends can teach us about these thins as well: the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology found that 75 percent of the nearly two-thousand respondents had pursued psychological counseling of some kind, many for treatment of long-term depression or sadness: Among the sample as a whole, there was a distressingly high prevalence of life events and behaviors related to mental health problems. Thirty-seven percent had been physically abused and 32 percent had been raped or sexually attacked. Nineteen percent had been involved in incestuous relationships while growing up. 6 percent drank daily. One in five smoked marijuana more than once a month. Twenty-one percent of the sample had thoughts about suicide sometimes or often and 18 percent had actually tried to kill themselves… . More than half had felt too nervous to accomplish ordinary activities at some time during the past year and over one-third had been depressed.
By Boscoe Roads
November 2, 2004 03:20 PM | Link to this
iffany, maybe your friends can teach us about these thins as well: the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology found that 75 percent of the nearly two-thousand respondents had pursued psychological counseling of some kind, many for treatment of long-term depression or sadness: Among the sample as a whole, there was a distressingly high prevalence of life events and behaviors related to mental health problems. Thirty-seven percent had been physically abused and 32 percent had been raped or sexually attacked. Nineteen percent had been involved in incestuous relationships while growing up. 6 percent drank daily. One in five smoked marijuana more than once a month. Twenty-one percent of the sample had thoughts about suicide sometimes or often and 18 percent had actually tried to kill themselves… . More than half had felt too nervous to accomplish ordinary activities at some time during the past year and over one-third had been depressed.
By Brian Curtis
November 2, 2004 03:39 PM | Link to this
Wow… a lot of posting problems today!
My apologies for all the duplicate posts I wound up sending.
By Akeya
November 2, 2004 03:49 PM | Link to this
Wow!!
If those are the stats for just a smal group of homosexuals I cannot imagine what the numbers would be for heterosexuals. Heterosexuals must be doomed!
By RS
November 2, 2004 03:55 PM | Link to this
Niece, I hope & pray you are only joking. I find it terrifying that anyone as psychopathically hate-filled as you is raising children! Your big beef is that you’re a greedy gold-digger who is bitter because you want your uncle’s money. WHY do YOU deserve it? You clearly don’t care about him. He is with someone who does & that is the person who is entitled. For you to claim that gays are subhumans & their only purpose is to serve straights indicates what a sad, dangerously disturbed sicko you are. I really do pity you though, dear. How desperately unhappy you must be…Do you also feel that African Americans should have remained slaves without any rights? As for the inane comment you made that you should get your uncle’s money because you have children to support… Hey, you made your bed, now it’s time to lie in it! are you some trailer-trash single mom who aspires to welfare? (i.e. ripping off us taxpayers?) Seems so?!? But if you, Angie, Zack, Boscoe etc need to degrade others to make yourselves feel better, go for it! I’m sorry you don’t have more productive means of aquiring some healthy self-esteem. Well, I’ve wasted enough space on you. Akeya, I agree with EVERYTHING you’ve said. Not only re gay marriage (of course I’m voting ‘NO’ to the ban) but against welfare-moochers & yes, I have a HUGE gripe against rewarding & awarding anyone for their looks. That just reinforces the all too prevalent attitude in this society that it’s acceptable & even desirable to idolize the beautiful & punish the disfigured.
By Akeya
November 2, 2004 03:55 PM | Link to this
Wow!!
If those are the stats for just a smal group of homosexuals I cannot imagine what the numbers would be for heterosexuals. Heterosexuals must be doomed!
By Texas
November 2, 2004 04:00 PM | Link to this
Boscoe and Norman,
You guys remind me of two brothers who lived on adjoining farms who fell into conflict. After years of farming side by side, sharing machinery and trading labor and goods as needed without a hitch, they fell apart. It began with a small misunderstanding and grew into a major difference and finally, exploded into bitter words followed by weeks of silence. One morning a carpenter appeared at Boscoes house with a toolbox looking for work. Boscoe said “I do have a job for you. Look across the creek at that farm. In fact, that’s my brother Norman’s farm. Last week there was a meadow between us. Norman recently took a bulldozer to the river levee and now theres a creek. I want you to build an 8’ fence so I won’t need to see his place or face any longer. Boscoe had to go to town so the carpenter got busy. When Boscoe returned his eyes opened wide and his jaw dropped. There was no fence there at all. It was a bridge…a bridge that stretched from one side of the creek to the other! A fine piece of work, and his brother Norman was coming toward them, his hand outstretched….Your quite a fellow to build a bridge after all I’ve said and done Norman stated. The brothers meant in the middle taking each other’s hand….. Remember this… God won’t ask what kind of car you drove, but He’ll ask how many people you drove who didn’t have transportation. God won’t ask the square footage of your house, but He’ll ask how many people you welcomed into your home. God won’t ask about the clothes you had in your closet, but He’ll ask how many you helped clothe. God won’t ask what your highest salary was, but He’ll ask if you compromised your character to obtain it. God won’t ask what your job title was, but He’ll ask if you preformed your job to the best of your ability. God won’t ask how many friends you had, but He’ll ask how many people to whom you were a friend. God won’t ask in what neighborhood you lived, but He’ll ask how you treated your neighbors. God won’t ask about the color of your skin, but He’ll ask about the content of your character…
By mark wood
November 2, 2004 04:04 PM | Link to this
Joanne,
Thank you for being a proud christian who points out the anger and unchristian behavior of those who claim to represent your faith.
(They are few. But, they are loud.)
By the way. It wasn’t salvation. I just had indigestion.
By Akeya W.
November 2, 2004 04:17 PM | Link to this
RS-
Thank you! Bring on the REAL issues. This is craziness.
We’re voting on Who someone else can marry!! That’s ludicrous!
By Terry S
November 2, 2004 04:36 PM | Link to this
Akeya-it’s not voting on who someone else can marry-it’s WHO CAN MARRY. Gays can’t marry. Shouldn’t be allowed to. If we allow it then we are condoning their sexual preference/perversion. If we allow it then we send the signal that it’s nomal and that there’s nothing wrong with it. That’s why we have laws in this country. Certain things are wrong.
I vote we give Akeya her OWN forum so she can argue about welfare and privacy til she’s blue in the face.
By Randy
November 2, 2004 04:46 PM | Link to this
Brian, On your comment “indifference to Christianity”. I don’t see any indifference to Christianity, most everyone has a strong feeling one way or the other, look at Norman. We have been talking about subjects for weeks here and they all go back to Christianity and the bible. If you want to talk indifference, talk about Buddists or Scientology.
By Catb
November 2, 2004 04:50 PM | Link to this
“it’s not voting on who someone else can marry-it’s WHO CAN MARRY. Gays can’t marry. Shouldn’t be allowed to. If we allow it then we are condoning their sexual preference/perversion. If we allow it then we send the signal that it’s nomal and that there’s nothing wrong with it.”
It IS normal. It IS good. Love is always good. Why on Earth would it be perverted or evil to love someone of the same sex? It’s good and wonderful and blessed for me to love my husband - why would it suddenly be icky and awful for me to love him if he were a woman? You would make chromosomes and genitalia more essential for marriage than love and commitment. You would define marriage by bodies and sex rather than by hearts, minds, and years of committed caring. Now THAT’s sick and perverted. Maybe you shouldn’t be allowed to marry. After all, if your personal, bigoted opinion, backed up by NO rational secular evidence whatsoever, is allowed to interfere with OTHER people’s right to marry, then why shouldn’t I be allowed to do the same to you? Aren’t I condoning your nasty, knee-jerk bigotry by allowing you to live as you choose? Why should I have to condone something I find sick, wrong, and perverted?
By mark wood
November 2, 2004 04:57 PM | Link to this
My, oh my, oh my,
Terry S. You could learn a thing ot two from Joanne. She doesn’t attend the “The first church of bitterness and contempt.”
And I gotta ask, as inappropriate as it is, did your man leave you for another man? Sure sounds like it.
By Beverly
November 2, 2004 04:58 PM | Link to this
Norman, I am not a “damn Christian” as Norman calls us. I am simply a forgiven one. (Diane says “darn Christians” anyway.) Reading the Bible has not weakened my brain in any way nor does it prevent me from functioning normally. Rather it improves the quality of my life. Like it or not, God Himself has said in the Bible that homosexuality is a sin and those who practice will surely die (Leviticus, Chapters 18:22 and 20:13. Look it up for yourself if you don’t believe me.) We are not above God, He has not given His authority to us nor has He abandoned His domain to us, and we do not have the right to change God’s laws to suit ourselves. God also says that He doesn’t change (Malachi 3:6). As a member of my Sunday School class said to a lesbian with whom she was discussing sexual orientation “The Bible was written to change us, not for us to change it.”
By Akeya
November 2, 2004 04:58 PM | Link to this
Terry-
So now you want to silence me in this forum because you don’t have the cajones to talk about real, more pressing issues?
That’s really sad and weak of you.
By Terry S
November 2, 2004 04:58 PM | Link to this
It is NOT normal or good. No matter how many liberals shout that it is. No matter how many Hollyweird celebrities shout that everyone has to accept it. I don’t have to accept it, nor do our laws.
By Akeya W
November 2, 2004 05:00 PM | Link to this
Cat-
A woman after my own heart!
By Boscoe Roads
November 3, 2004 08:12 AM | Link to this
Texas you’re making some broad assumptions. Withholding charitable correction when called to do so is plainly against Jesus’ teaching, and against the love of neighbor. St. Thomas writes, “The greatest kindness one can render to any man consists in leading him from error to truth.â€? Fraternal correction is a loving act, because it seeks to help our brothers and sisters attain their greatest good and happiness, God in Heaven. The first thing to helping these poor souls is getting through to them that this act they do is against nature and an abomination to God, regardless of how hateful that may sound to some. Afterwards, should any be willing call, I would be glad to point them in a direction in which they may find help. I think that’s a reasonable bridge, don’t you?
By Nena Halprin
November 3, 2004 08:22 AM | Link to this
Shaunti,
You’ve ignored one critical point. The US government was designed to separate Church and State. It’s unconstitutional in this country to legislate religious “laws”. The governement is for all people, Catholic, Muslim, Baptist, Atheist, Jewish, Quaker, Methodist, Buddhist, etc.
If you want to condemn and discourage gay unions, go form a mission and get busy. If you want to live in a religious state, go form another country.
By Boscoe Roads
November 3, 2004 08:30 AM | Link to this
Nena, the government did exactly what they were supposed to do, they let the people vote on it. All 11 states where there was a vote to amend the state constitution and solidify marriage as a union between a man and a woman voted in favor of that amendment. ALL 11. The people decided this not the government!
By Randy
November 3, 2004 08:40 AM | Link to this
NEWSFLASH: LIBERALS LOSE IN ALMOST AREA OF 2004 ELECTION. NEXT DECISION, WILL THEY ALSO LOSE THEIR IMMORTAL SOULS, DUE TO BEING STUBBORN. WHO WILL THEY LISTEN TO, EVIL OR GOD. TUNE IN FOR MORE DETAILS.
By Akeya W.
November 3, 2004 08:42 AM | Link to this
The PEOPLE should NOT be allowed to decide on who someone can and cannot marry. Plain and simple.
Only the PERSONS INVOLVED IN THE RELATIONSHIP and WHOEVER WILL BE PERFORMING THE CEREMONY should be allowed to decide on this.
The PEOPLE also decided that blacks were 3/5 human and that we had no souls.
This is the 21st century.
By Randy
November 3, 2004 08:44 AM | Link to this
NEWSFLASH LIBERALS LOSE IN ALMOST AREA OF 2004 ELECTION. NEXT BATTLEGROUND, THEIR IMMORTAL SOULS, WILL THEY LOSE HERE ALSO? WILL THEY LISTEN TO EVIL AGAIN, OR GO WITH GOOD. POLLS SAY IT DEPENDS ON HOW STUBBORN OR SMART THEY ARE. DETAILS COMING SOON.
By Boscoe Roads
November 3, 2004 09:29 AM | Link to this
Akeya it’s a good thing they didn’t put that to a vote. This is differant color of the skin is genetic; sexual preference is not!
By Akeya W.
November 3, 2004 09:50 AM | Link to this
You’re still missing the point, Boscoe.
This vote should not have been up to those not involved in the relationship(s).
By Angie
November 3, 2004 10:07 AM | Link to this
Akeya said,“The PEOPLE also decided that blacks were 3/5 human and that we had no souls.”
9 PEOPLE on the Supreme Court decided over 30 YEARS AGO that unborn babies had no legal rights as a person. This decision was WRONG…9 people should not have the power to make that determination…and this decision is outdated. With the advanced technology, including 4D ultrasounds, all you have to do is look at the unborn in the womb and see how WRONG abortion is.
By Angie
November 3, 2004 10:15 AM | Link to this
What a great day for America!!! The majority has stood up and put BUSH back in office, voted Daschle OUT and 11 states voted for the gay marriage amendment!!!
I guess that shows just how the American people feel about gay marriage. And, yes, someone needs to decide whether to allow them to marry-since it’s not currently leagalized. So, WHO do you propose makes that decision? The president, the supreme court, individual judges or the American people???
Oh, that’s right…the supreme court (those 9 people) should have the final say on ALL of our issues. (Unfortunately, they DO.)
By Akeya W
November 3, 2004 10:15 AM | Link to this
Angie, sweetie, we’re not talking about abortion.
We’re talking about you and I being involved in the personal lives of couples who want to marry.
Stay on topic, please…
By Angie
November 3, 2004 10:19 AM | Link to this
Akeya,hun,what does blacks being 3/5 human have to do with GAY MARRIAGE???
I used your reference to black people to tie in with the abortion issue. Neither relate to gays I agree.
By Akeya W.
November 3, 2004 10:19 AM | Link to this
Angie,
How would you feel if the supreme court decided that you are not fit to be a parent because you are single?
By Akeya W
November 3, 2004 10:22 AM | Link to this
Ohhhh, right!!!
The supremem court SHOULD be able to make decisions regarding our personal lives. I forgot.
By John Hays
November 3, 2004 10:23 AM | Link to this
Boscoe, your responses get better and better. First of all lets get one thing straight. The name is Hays, not Hayes. Also, I am really glad we are now letting the Catholic Church interperet everything because we all know how reliable they can be. Let’s see now, bribery, murder, inquisitions, support of Nazi’s are all okay, but not homosexuality. Oh, wait, even those in charge of the Church have been homosexuals at different points in history. Hmmmm…How to reconcile that? I know, let’s ignore facts that don’t agree with what we want. I think I will continue to keep an open mind and make my own decisions as to interpretation. After all, with all the interpretations that exists who can really claim to be the ultimate authority. Last time I checked, God had not come down from heaven and endorsed one version over another. There are so many contradictions on so many subjects that it is quite obtuse to deny it is open to interpretation. Actually, the only thing clear in the bible is the love of God for all mankind demonstrated through the sacrifice of his son. However, as many people have pointed out, the bible really has nothing to do with this question. It is a question of basic human rights. The people have spoken, and have made a mistake. In the end however, their folly will be stricken down. I also find it interesting that all the arguments for this amendment that I have seen are all rehashes of the same arguments used to oppress people throughout history. I suppose next your going to tell me that Darwin was wrong, and that evolution simply couldn’t have happened. The bible is very clear that the Earth was created in exactly 7 days so evolution can’t exist. I guess the Earth is still the center of the universe. The Earth is also clearly flat. Blacks are obviously more closely related to apes than humans. Women are clearly inferior and should submit to men in all ways. Eating tomatoes will kill you. All of these things were fact at one point, until disproven. Even when they were disproven, people like you continued to argue against them, and tried to dispute the evidence presented. In the end we all know what happened, and this too will follow suit eventually.
By Boscoe Roads
November 3, 2004 10:24 AM | Link to this
Akeya stop! First proponents of same-sex marriage said the people should vote, even Kerry said this. We did and you see the results. Now you’re saying only those in relationships should? STOP. It’s over. This has an effect on every citizen..every citizen voted. the results are in. GET THE MESSAGE!
By Angie
November 3, 2004 10:25 AM | Link to this
The Supreme Court shouldn’t have the right to legislate that. I personally think the set up of the supreme court needs to be changed. A man and a woman can make a baby-no one can regulate that. A man and a man can NOT make a baby-that’s biology-it’s impossible.
By Akeya W
November 3, 2004 10:28 AM | Link to this
Hmmm…
Okay, Angie- I see what you mean about both our comments.
In my opinion, no courts should be involved in this.
Oh hell, why don’t we just make it legal and mandatory to arrange marriages.
By Brian Curtis
November 3, 2004 10:35 AM | Link to this
Angie: I’m curious… what does “making a baby” have to do with whether two people are allowed to get married? Surely having kids is not mandatory for married couples, so how is it relevant?
The Supreme Court is there to protect the minority’s rights from being trampled by the majority. They make use of the inarguable guarantees of the Constitution to do that. If 99.9% of the country voted not to let the Ku Klux Klan print their pamphlets, the Supreme Court would overturn that law in the name of protecting freedom.
Just like they’ll have to go through the tedious process of reversing “popular opinion” on this gay marriage nonsense, too. Rights are not subject to popular vote. THAT’S why the amendment should never have been on the ballot in the first place.
By Akeya W
November 3, 2004 10:40 AM | Link to this
Boscoe- I’m sure that we would like I stop, but that’s not the way that it works. You cannot silence those that do not agree with you. I don’t wish to silence you, Angie, or any of your other compadres. I do wish to bring to light the other sides of certain issues.
You think that this is over?? Do you think that today there are 100% heterosexuals in this country. It will never be over, Boscoe. Deal with that. Get THAT message.
Angie- why shouldn’t the supreme court not have the right?
Do you think marriage is only based on procreation? If that were the case, people would not get married based on love. Love would be unimportant.
By Boscoe Roads
November 3, 2004 10:43 AM | Link to this
All right John, now you’re really making sense. The Catholic Church has been solid on their stance on this from the beginning. Typically you attack them on everything else because they don’t agree with you. You should study history better. The Church did not support the nazi party, there are documents that prove that. Yes, there were homosexuals in the Church at various points in history and they were removed, as should any that currently in hiding among the hierarchy. That is NOT an endorsement of homosexuality by the Church John. The rest of your argument has no merit nor is it correct. This will not be overturned for years John and you know that; and for as long as there are challenges to it there will be challenges against. What we have resolved it what the populace thinks as a whole. They can’t all be wrong John.
By Zack
November 3, 2004 10:50 AM | Link to this
The Democrats have been told clearly by America that gay marriage is not wanted. Now it needs to realize that America doesn’t want abortion, either, and maybe by 2008 the party will be really reformed.
By Boscoe Roads
November 3, 2004 10:52 AM | Link to this
Brian Curtis, for months the advocates of gay marriage insisted that this be taken to the populace for a vote. John Kerry even said that. You got what you wanted and now you’re not happy with the results. It won’t be easy to change the “popular opinion” this was a resounding NO to the question. It will be years before the tide can change and that change will be challenged to the end. It’s obvious the people think this is the best interest(s) of the state(s). Good enough for law.
By RS
November 3, 2004 11:30 AM | Link to this
Angie, Zack, Boscoe etc, the reason most Americans are against gay marriage is because most Americans are sheep & are too darn lazy to think for themselves. So, luckily, y’all have the church & the government to do your thinking FOR you; lucky you! It also makes you feel better to have an underdog to hate. Gee, poor me, poor Akeya, etc. Who can WE hate in order to feel superior???
By Zack
November 3, 2004 11:32 AM | Link to this
Akeya—Angie’s comments, which you said were irrelevant, were anything but. A fetus is a human being. A black person is a human being. A judge can change none of the above in reality.
By Boscoe Roads
November 3, 2004 11:40 AM | Link to this
Angie, Zack, it looks like RS is onto us. Except for the part where NEITHER THE CHURCH OR THE GOVERNMENT HELD THE POPULATION’S HAND ALL THE WAY TO THE BALLOT BOXES! The people made up their own minds and got off their lazy butt’s and voted RS.
By Daria
November 3, 2004 11:45 AM | Link to this
Resolution 595 passed : - (
Right now, my faith in mankind is definitely shaken, and I am absolutely mortified that this resolution to amend the state constitution passed! All I can think is that most of those who voted for this amendment did so because they thought they were voting for what it said – “Shall marriage be defined as ONLY being between a man and a woman.�
I have to believe that most people were unaware that this amendment not only prohibits same-sex marriage, but it outlaws civil unions, domestic partnerships, and all other such contracts between a same-sex couple. Additionally, part b of this resolution, further provides that Georgia courts will have no jurisdiction to enforce contracts that pertain to the respective rights of the parties when the parties to the contract are a same-sex couple; therefore, it renders wills, child custody arrangements, powers-of-attorney, etc. VOID, regardless of when or where such contracts were entered into.
By extrapolation, in accordance with this amendment, all the companies and agencies in the state that currently recognize same-sex couples and offer domestic partnership benefits not only can, but must stop doing so – because that constitutes a contractual arrangement with a same-sex couple.
I am a lesbian who spent eighteen miserable years married to a man, trying to conform to the norm, and living in denial. I have been a much happier and better person since I admitted the truth and “came out.� My partner and I are “soul mates� and have been in a committed monogamous relationship for nearly six years. We have legal partnership contracts, power-of-attorneys, wills, medical authorizations, etc. which this amendment now makes null and void.
I am not at all sure what we are going to do now. My partner and I have discussed emigrating to Canada, Germany or the Netherlands - specifically seeking asylum due to political persecution. I hope such extremes won’t be necessary.
I am trying to remain optimistic and trust that this resolution will be overturned in the state Supreme Court. There are numerous reasons why it should be: 1. This amendment violated state law by including multiple issues in one resolution.
2. The wording on the ballot was intentionally misleading.
3. And part b of the resolution is in direct violation of the FEDERAL constitution regarding contracts.
They say that those who fail to learn from the past are destined to repeat it. If this resolution does not get overturned, I am truly afraid that this is only the first step, and things will get much worse before they improve. Soon we will have to start wearing pink triangles in public. Well, I better stop writing before the Gestapo arrests me.
By Akeya W.
November 3, 2004 11:53 AM | Link to this
Daria-
I think that the saddest part is that people voted “no” thinking that they were doing the best thing.
I spoke with my mother, who states that she voted “yes” based on the Bible. I asked my mom why she used that as a basis being that she doesn’t read the Bible, doesn’t attend church, and is not my idea of a “good Christian.”
She only chalked it up to be “how she was raised.”
People still do not understand that they have taken away people’s RIGHTS.
This country is free, alright…free to dictate how others should live…
By Brian Curtis
November 3, 2004 11:54 AM | Link to this
Boscoe: I never wanted this put to a public vote, because basic civil rights are not subject to a vote—as I said already.
Now we’ll have to go through the bother of bringing it before the courts. It will waste a lot of time, but eventually the gay-haters will be denied and overturned by the last bastion of freedom in the face of “majority will”—the courts.
The American people may have spoken on what they like and don’t like. It’s now up to the courts to repeat the lesson, once again, that what you like—even in overwhelming numbers—has no bearing on protecting basic rights. Again, the Constitution and the judiciary exist to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority. And they’ll do so again.
By Tim
November 3, 2004 11:57 AM | Link to this
150 years ago the majority of people thought that slavery was right, since the majority thought it should continue then it should have. hmmmm whom should we make slaves this time? any suggestions Boscoe?
and Angie, like it was stated earlier, your argument about 2 men or 2 women for that matter be able to make a baby is null and void. If this is your reasoning behind it than any heterosexual couple who chooses not to have a baby or those that are infertile should not be allowed to get married.
By Akeya
November 3, 2004 12:03 PM | Link to this
Thank you, Brian and Tim.
We denigrate Muslim countries based on our idealogies, saying that they are restrictive and have no rights.
Why are we heading in the same direction?
By Boscoe Roads
November 3, 2004 12:09 PM | Link to this
Sorry Brian, it’s legal! The Law is the Law, despite what you think. The civil rights movement in the 60s was denying the rights of those based on the color of their skin. Something they were born with. This is not the case this time. Nobody’s civil rights are being broken simply because they choose to do this. There is NO scientific proof that this is a genetic trait. None Brian. This is hardly tyranny! Tim you better take a look at history, that’s not the case. The nation was divided it’s true but the majority did not feel that way.
By Zack
November 3, 2004 12:15 PM | Link to this
Akeya—The ones attacking the unborn and the institution of marriage are the oppressors, not the ones defending our values.
By Akeya W.
November 3, 2004 12:19 PM | Link to this
The basic tenet of CIVIL RIGHTS is not just about skin color!!!
It’s about other issues as well.
If you continue to deny that you will continue to deny certain groups inalienable rights.
By mark wood
November 3, 2004 12:23 PM | Link to this
Brian, Akeya, et. al.
There is no getting through to the likes of Boscoe, Zack and Angie. They are not concerned with the rights of living, breathing, loving people. They are too worried about their own (supposed) salvation, and convinced that they can suppress the rights and dignity of others to obtain it. They don’t simply feel validated, they feel it is their mission.
I’m not a christian (As you all know). But I know the Bible I have read, more than once, does not have a god in it that resembles these three. If their is justice in the world and their god does exist, they are certain to find this out for themselves. I can almost hear lucifer cracking his knuckles in anticipation of their arrival.
By Lyrazel
November 3, 2004 12:33 PM | Link to this
May I jump into the fray? I applaud—and stand applauding—all of the people who voted and ALL of you people who gave your voices to this issue.
I believe gays will experience a further backlash of public opinion and the churchs will retreat from a more liberal interpretation of Scripture and promotions of gay clergy. The failure of this amendment will create a sunami backlash of zealotry more determined than the most staunch same-sex defenders are prepared to support. It wont change the truth of gay life nor the morals of hetero-lifers.
To me, I was rather shocked by having to define/defend marriage at all. It seemed so ludicrous gay activists would ever think a lifestyle choice qualified as a civil rights issue, that gays would call on Dr. King’s legacy to support their claim—did they not know many blacks feel sacred ground won is not for sale? Did they not see HIV destroying the black gay community was more of the norm than partnerships?
To me, gays most radical belief was that the majority of Americans would support a gay lifestyle equal to marriage. THEN they used the platform only bigots would want it any other way. And by what right does one call a neighbor a bigot because of their spiritual belief or because they are heterosexual and do not feel homosexuality is a norm?
Ok I see gays as no better/no worse as far as people in relationships and with 45% divorce ‘santity of marriage’ is a crock of bull hard to swallow. Certainly I feel gay couples ought to have rights concerning legal issues, like that tax deduction and for parenting issues—and death rights. Yet, SO MANY gays are not consciencious parenting couples, indeed those committed folks are not the norm of the gay world. Maybe the backbone of their cause—but not the vast majority of same sex advocates/players.
In the next few years laws will change to allow a special: civil law; a pocket-change provision that assists estate lawyers to follow the wishes & wills of gay partners.
My 2 cents: of course I voted NO. But, I voted YES to approve the ERA…my track record stinks….
By Lyrazel
November 3, 2004 12:35 PM | Link to this
May I jump into the fray? I applaud—and stand applauding—all of the people who voted and ALL of you people who gave your voices to this issue.
I believe gays will experience a further backlash of public opinion and the churchs will retreat from a more liberal interpretation of Scripture and promotions of gay clergy. The failure of this amendment will create a sunami backlash of zealotry more determined than the most staunch same-sex defenders are prepared to support. It wont change the truth of gay life nor the morals of hetero-lifers.
To me, I was rather shocked by having to define/defend marriage at all. It seemed so ludicrous gay activists would ever think a lifestyle choice qualified as a civil rights issue, that gays would call on Dr. King’s legacy to support their claim—did they not know many blacks feel sacred ground won is not for sale? Did they not see HIV destroying the black gay community was more of the norm than partnerships?
To me, gays most radical belief was that the majority of Americans would support a gay lifestyle equal to marriage. THEN they used the platform only bigots would want it any other way. And by what right does one call a neighbor a bigot because of their spiritual belief or because they are heterosexual and do not feel homosexuality is a norm?
Ok I see gays as no better/no worse as far as people in relationships and with 45% divorce ‘santity of marriage’ is a crock of bull hard to swallow. Certainly I feel gay couples ought to have rights concerning legal issues, like that tax deduction and for parenting issues—and death rights. Yet, SO MANY gays are not consciencious parenting couples, indeed those committed folks are not the norm of the gay world. Maybe the backbone of their cause—but not the vast majority of same sex advocates/players.
In the next few years laws will change to allow a special: civil law; a pocket-change provision that assists estate lawyers to follow the wishes & wills of gay partners.
My 2 cents: of course I voted NO. But, I voted YES to approve the ERA…my track record stinks….
By Tim
November 3, 2004 01:04 PM | Link to this
Boscoe, show me your history book. the nation was divided but it was NOT over Slavery. the North agreed with slavery just as much as the South did. as a matter of fact when slaves were freed in the South there were still people in the North who still had slaves! So like i said (thanks i do know history) the MAJORITY of people thought slavery was right. So therefore, by your standards if the majority thinks something is right then it should be law. Bring on the slaves!
it has been said again and again that one role of the Government is to protect MINORITIES from the MAJORITY… therefore, just because the majority thinks something is right simply does not make it so… this will be fought and the ban will be struck down… thank God (oops I am gay i shouldn’t say God)
By Zack
November 3, 2004 01:06 PM | Link to this
Mark Wood—Would you care to try to support your thesis statement? I’ve consistently come in here and defended the institution of marriage and the unborn. We need more of this, not more of the manmade belief that everything’s cool.
By Texas
November 3, 2004 01:19 PM | Link to this
First of all Congradulations Georgia on your amendment. Secondly and just as important, the reason for the amendment was to prevent Judges from interperting the law as they see fit. Aykeya, there are laws on the books in Georgia preventing Same Sex Marriage, the amendment was to prevent Judges from interperting those laws as they see fit. Lastly, Boscoe, your wrong about the Catholic Church on it’s position with Gay’s. First of all the Catholic Church stands for forgiveness and within the church there are several support groups who support gay’s. The Catholic Church does not condemn them, the Church teaches them Abstinence and encouragement. There is nothing wrong with being Gay. If a Priest has Gay tendencies, but remains celibate and does not act on those tendencies he has committed no sin.
By RS
November 3, 2004 02:07 PM | Link to this
Boscoe, since you’re forever quoting the Bible as, yes, an alternative to thinking for yourself, then it’s your Bible that held your hand all the way to the polls. Although I am not a Christian (gasp, horror! Will you go to hell just for reading something I’ve typed?? Sorry!!) I do know that Jesus did not hate homosexuals or anyone else for that example; can you & your Bible-thumping bigoted cohorts say the same? No, I didn’t think so. Mark Wood is absolutely right. Daria, my heart goes out to you. I can’t believe in a God who would rather you live a lie & tear an innocent family apart than share a loving, committed lifetime relationship with your true soulmate. I wish you all the happiness in the world & never give up!
By John Hays
November 3, 2004 02:10 PM | Link to this
Okay Boscoe, lets have another go. The point I was making about the Catholic church, is that it has a long, bloody history of crimes committed in the name of Christ, and that their interpretation of things has been fallible to say the least. Surely you cannot deny this? Also, if Pope Pius XII wasn’t a Nazi collaborator, then please explain how he could have ignored the holocaust? It is certain he was aware of it, but I guess he saw the extermination of Jews as doing God’s work. Pope John Paul II even came out and apologized for all of the harm the Church has caused through the centuries, but lets forget about that for now. I also saw where you commented to Akeya that “she should be glad we didn’t vote on that,” what? That blacks should only count as 3/5 of a person? Sadly, after last night, I have little doubt that such a measure would pass. On to better things though. You claim that homosexuality is a choice, and therefore marriage for them should be outlawed because it is wrong and the majority is against it. Freedom of religion is also a choice. It is guaranteed in our country by the constitution, but would you deny that it is a universal freedom that should be enjoyed by all people? Let us hark back to the days of the Roman Empire. From the time of Christ’s death for 3 centuries Romans persecuted Christians. Christians were murdered, tortured, and sent to the arena to die. All of this was done with the blessing of the majority. They believed that Christianity was wrong and sought to put an end to it. So they must have been right, correct? I am certain you say it was wrong. Why, because you believe it was wrong? Those people chose to be Christians, and since the majority said it was wrong, shouldn’t they have just changed religions. You might argue that the Christians weren’t hurting anyone by their choice. Who cares? The majority rules, the people spoke and they wanted blood. Is this right? If the majority was wrong when it came to the Romans, how then can we lend it any more credence now? While this example proves the illegitimacy of your logic, I doubt if it will have any impact on your position. Finally, I will repeat, this amendment will be overturned. No court will allow it to stand.
By John Hays
November 3, 2004 02:20 PM | Link to this
Okay Boscoe, lets have another go. The point I was making about the Catholic church, is that it has a long, bloody history of crimes committed in the name of Christ, and that their interpretation of things has been fallible to say the least. Surely you cannot deny this? Also, if Pope Pius XII wasn’t a Nazi collaborator, then please explain how he could have ignored the holocaust? It is certain he was aware of it, but I guess he saw the extermination of Jews as doing God’s work. Pope John Paul II even came out and apologized for all of the harm the Church has caused through the centuries, but lets forget about that for now. I also saw where you commented to Akeya that “she should be glad we didn’t vote on that,” what? That blacks should only count as 3/5 of a person? Sadly, after last night, I have little doubt that such a measure would pass. On to better things though. You claim that homosexuality is a choice, and therefore marriage for them should be outlawed because it is wrong and the majority is against it. Freedom of religion is also a choice. It is guaranteed in our country by the constitution, but would you deny that it is a universal freedom that should be enjoyed by all people? Let us hark back to the days of the Roman Empire. From the time of Christ’s death for 3 centuries Romans persecuted Christians. Christians were murdered, tortured, and sent to the arena to die. All of this was done with the blessing of the majority. They believed that Christianity was wrong and sought to put an end to it. So they must have been right, correct? I am certain you say it was wrong. Why, because you believe it was wrong? Those people chose to be Christians, and since the majority said it was wrong, shouldn’t they have just changed religions. You might argue that the Christians weren’t hurting anyone by their choice. Who cares? The majority rules, the people spoke and they wanted blood. Is this right? If the majority was wrong when it came to the Romans, how then can we lend it any more credence now? While this example proves the illegitimacy of your logic, I doubt if it will have any impact on your position. Finally, I will repeat, this amendment will be overturned. No court will allow it to stand.
By John Hays
November 3, 2004 02:22 PM | Link to this
Okay Boscoe, lets have another go. The point I was making about the Catholic church, is that it has a long, bloody history of crimes committed in the name of Christ, and that their interpretation of things has been fallible to say the least. Surely you cannot deny this? Also, if Pope Pius XII wasn’t a Nazi collaborator, then please explain how he could have ignored the holocaust? It is certain he was aware of it, but I guess he saw the extermination of Jews as doing God’s work. Pope John Paul II even came out and apologized for all of the harm the Church has caused through the centuries, but lets forget about that for now. I also saw where you commented to Akeya that “she should be glad we didn’t vote on that,” what? That blacks should only count as 3/5 of a person? Sadly, after last night, I have little doubt that such a measure would pass. On to better things though. You claim that homosexuality is a choice, and therefore marriage for them should be outlawed because it is wrong and the majority is against it. Freedom of religion is also a choice. It is guaranteed in our country by the constitution, but would you deny that it is a universal freedom that should be enjoyed by all people? Let us hark back to the days of the Roman Empire. From the time of Christ’s death for 3 centuries Romans persecuted Christians. Christians were murdered, tortured, and sent to the arena to die. All of this was done with the blessing of the majority. They believed that Christianity was wrong and sought to put an end to it. So they must have been right, correct? I am certain you say it was wrong. Why, because you believe it was wrong? Those people chose to be Christians, and since the majority said it was wrong, shouldn’t they have just changed religions. You might argue that the Christians weren’t hurting anyone by their choice. Who cares? The majority rules, the people spoke and they wanted blood. Is this right? If the majority was wrong when it came to the Romans, how then can we lend it any more credence now? While this example proves the illegitimacy of your logic, I doubt if it will have any impact on your position. Finally, I will repeat, this amendment will be overturned. No court will allow it to stand.
By Angie
November 3, 2004 02:51 PM | Link to this
Mark Wood made this comment referring to me and 2 other Christians on this forum,“I can almost hear lucifer cracking his knuckles in anticipation of their arrival.”
Mark-first of all, unlike you apparently, I KNOW I do not have to worry about meeting up with lucifer one day. If you do not know Jesus and have a personal relationship with Him then it is you who truly needs to be worried. I hear he’s not the nicest fellow you’d want to meet.
If you continue on your path away from God then you’ll be in for a rude awakening one day. And no amount of bickering on these forums will ever change that fact.
I truly hope you find your way to Jesus and realize what a great feeling it is to know you are saved. (Notice I said “saved” not “perfect”.) Giving your life to God will change you forever. And yes, when you become a Christian you want others to come to the same place. But these forums have been about various issues-not about me trying to convert you to Christianity.
I know alot of your comments are made in joking so I will try not to take everything you say to heart. (On the last forum your sense of humor escaped me. Maybe you are still using that wry humor of yours.)
By Tim
November 3, 2004 03:05 PM | Link to this
Angie~ i have no doubt that anyone who is a christian will go to heaven. but shew lord will some of ya’ll be surprised to see my lil gay rainbow butt up there too… whew should be fun!
By Boscoe Roads
November 3, 2004 03:06 PM | Link to this
Mark You know so much about religion, I guess I’ll see you there then. Tim The history of African American slavery in the United States can be divided into two periods: the first coincided with the colonial years, about 1650 to 1790; the second lasted from American independence through the Civil War, 1790 to 1865. Prior to independence, slavery existed in all the American colonies and therefore was not an issue of sectional debate. With the arrival of independence, however, the new Northern states—those of New England along with New York, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey—came to see slavery as contradictory to the ideals of the Revolution and instituted programs of gradual emancipation. By 1820 there were only about 3,000 slaves in the North, almost all of them working on large farms in New Jersey. Slavery could be abolished more easily in the North because there were far fewer slaves in those states, and they were not a vital part of Northern economies. There were plenty of free white men to do the sort of labor slaves performed. In fact, the main demand for abolition of slavery came not from those who found it morally wrong but from white working-class men who did not want slaves as rivals for their jobs. In 1860, families owning more than fifty slaves numbered less than 10,000; those owning more than a hundred numbered less than 3,000 in the whole South. The typical Southern slave owner possessed one or two slaves, and the typical white Southern male owned none. He was an artisan, mechanic, or more frequently, a small farmer. This reality is vital in understanding why white Southerners went to war to defend slavery in 1861. Most of them did not have a direct financial investment in the system. Their willingness to fight in its defense was more complicated and subtle than simple fear of monetary loss. They deeply believed in the Southern way of life, of which slavery was an inextricable part. They also were convinced that Northern threats to undermine slavery would unleash the pent-up hostilities of 4 million African American slaves who had been subjugated for centuries.
By RS
November 3, 2004 03:13 PM | Link to this
Tim, as a card-carrying f* hag (I’ll even show you the card; LOL!) & a decent human being, or so I’m told, I plan on going to Heaven too, even though I’m one of those dreaded JEWS! I look forward to partying with your lil gay rainbow butt up there but hopefully not for many years! We have work to do here on Earth.
By Boscoe Roads
November 3, 2004 03:24 PM | Link to this
Texas you’re absolutely correct. I didn’t say otherwise. I said the stand against homosexuality (i.e. The ACTS)has been firm all along. Mr. Hays, On Christmas Day, 1942, Pius XII became the first international figure to publicly condemn what later became known as the Holocaust, thereby earning the enmity of the Nazi regime. In a broadcast entitled The Rights of Man, Pius XII asked: “Are the nations to stand by inactive while this disastrous process goes on?â€? “Surely,â€? he continued, “all men of courage and honor ought to unite in a solemn vow … to devote themselves to the service of the human person and of a divinely ennobled human society…. Humanity owes this vow to those hundreds of thousands who, without any fault of their own, sometimes only by reason of their nationality or race, are marked down for death or gradual extinction.â€? ,the Gestapo was angered by this message. A Gestapo report accused Pius XII of “speaking on behalf of the Jewsâ€? and declared that the speech was “one long attack on everything we stand for.â€? The Nazis had identified Pius XII as their enemy. Moreover, in the official Nazi publication Das Reich, the pope was called a “full Jew.â€? This was in keeping with Hitler’s view of Christianity as an enemy of Nazism. As early as 1933, Hitler had announced: “There is no future with the churches…. One is either a Christian or a German. One cannot be both.â€? No John, my words were Akeya it’s a good thing they didn’t put that to a vote. Thank you again John. Your comparison between the fight for Christianity and homosexuality only shows how desperate you’ve become to prove your point. I hardly think the fight to legitimize a vile act will continue for more than two thousand years. Tim I hope so but not with your rainbow, remember you can’t be both.
By Tim
November 3, 2004 03:27 PM | Link to this
Thanks for the long history lesson… still says nothing of that fact that the majority of people in the north and south did not view slavery as being wrong… if there would have been a vote on whether people should be allowed to own slaves the voters would have passes it… so again… simply b/c the majority thinks something is right does not make is so!
By Tim
November 3, 2004 03:30 PM | Link to this
RS, AMEN to that!! I’ll save ya a seat if i get there first (I will be the one with the rainbow tatooed on my rear end) ;)
By Texas
November 3, 2004 03:45 PM | Link to this
It was no ordinary auction. The puplic was bidding on unclaimed items people had left behind in safe-deposit boxes. Items once deemed so important that people had paid money to safeguard them in steel. Diplomas, children’s report cards, letters Tables werre stacked with coin collections, pocket watches, yellowed documents, and small jewelry items sealed in plastic bags. It was all unclaimed property, waiting to be auctioned—the forgotten or overlooked obsessions of owners now dead. Two marbles, three stones and a belt buckle Why these things? Did they represent a special memory? A special person? Why where these marbles so important to somebody? Rosaries, Boy Scout patches, train tickets…Each bag contained a mystery, clues doing more to arouse curiosity than provide answers. The immigration papers of Udof Matchiner, who arrived at Ellis Islan in 1906 were on the table. Did he find what he was looking for in America? Passports, telegrams, newspaper clippings…An article torn from a 1959 Los Angeles Newspaper was headlined, “Vlahavich’s Mother Sobs at Guilty Verdict”. A mother’s son had been convicted of murder. The mother wept, pleading with the judge to spare her son. “Take my blood!” she screamed. “Kill me”!What happened. Did she watch her son die in San Quentin’s electric chair? Diaries, photographs, the ink print of a newborn’s feet…In Death’s wake, most of the items spoke volumes about life. They also suggested a sense of finality, a piognant reminder that life on earth ends. That everthing gets left here. So what will we leave behind? A six-by-twelve inch box full of mementos can speak volumns about what we value. But it’s only a whisper compared to the legacy of our lives. Amidst our the-one-with-the-most-toys-wins attitudes, perhaps we should dare to leave… An Investment in what God so dearly loves-people A lifelong marriage that defies the odds and demonstrates for the next generation a love that lasts a life time. An example of a life, guided not by the capricious winds of culture but by the rock-solid promise of Christ.
By norman
November 3, 2004 04:01 PM | Link to this
Beware, Boscoe has a perverted interpretation of history in general and when he talks of the Roman Church he is wildly full of nonsense. You all should not let him have his say without challenge.
Pius XII was willing to have the Jews exterminated in exchange for Nazi victory over Bolshevism. The Roman Church always puts its temporal interests first.
See Garry Wills’ book Papal Sins. Wills is not only smarter than Boscoe, he is also a much better Catholic.
By RS
November 3, 2004 04:34 PM | Link to this
Tim, if I were a man, I’d marry you! Oh, that’s right, we can’t “legitimize a vile act” now, can we??
By Tim
November 3, 2004 04:54 PM | Link to this
RS~ that’s ok… we can still ‘live in sin’ :)
By mark wood
November 3, 2004 04:57 PM | Link to this
Angie, Boscoe and Zack,
You have shown such concern for me today on your posts, concern for my salvation, I should thank you.
But I won’t.
I can imagine each of you, twidling your thumbs and licking your lips as you imagine me and those gays who would like legal recognition of their love and commitment burning in your hell. You have made envisioning this easy. You have made it abundantly clear you detest everyone different from yourselves.
If there is a hell, I will see you there. Ask for the smoking section so we can sit together. And bring a cartoon of Marlboros, since you’re in uncharacteristically generous moods today.
By norman
November 4, 2004 07:11 AM | Link to this
Mark: you are right about the concern of Boscoe and his cohort about your salvation. It is the concern the inquisitors had as they burned their victims, hoping at the last minute that would repent; but burn they would nevertheless.
Isn’t it painful to think (based on the election returns) that about 50% of our nation is made up of bible-thumping ignoramuses?
I am comforted by Voltaire’s (paraphrased)wish coming true: that some day the last clergyman will be strangled in the entrails of the last dictator.
By Randy
November 4, 2004 07:44 AM | Link to this
Norman, First of all Voltaire, who said Christianity would be dead in 100 years at a point in his life. 100 years after that, they were doing a bible study at his house. Also, it’s not 50% of people. We Christians won the election, without the support of most of the african-american vote(who most are strong christians), we won without 50% of the Catholic vote(Who are Christians), we won with people like my aunt, who are christians, but have been a democrat their whole life(so they voted democrat) and we won with people who are strong christians but work within a labor union, so they voted democrat for ecomomic reasons. If anyone saw Sean Hannity’s show last night, he had the counties that went to Bush. It was a total sweep by the Republicans. Face it, this nation is Christian, we try to leave guys like you alone, as God wants everyone to have FREE WILL. But you, and liberals like you are a very small percentage of this great country.
By Texas
November 4, 2004 07:48 AM | Link to this
Mark, Tim, Norman and RS A friend of mine “Bob” enjoyed nothing better than driving from one garage sale to another on Saturday mornings. He never knew what treasure he might find sifting through other people’s trash, especially in the Los Angeles suburb where he lived. One Saturday morning, he spotted a Harley Davidson motorcycle parked in the garage, partially covered by a tattered quilt. The Harley wasn’t part of the garage sale, but Bob asked if it was available anyway. “Could be,” the man behind the card-table replied. “The wife says everything has to go anyway. But I gotta tell you, the bike hasn’t run since I got it. Motor seized up”. “Okay, so it’s not working. What do you want for it”? Bob presisted. “Oh, I don’t know. How does thirty-five bucks sound? “Sold”. “Can I pick it up tomorrow?” “Sure enough.” The rusty Harley sat in a corner of Bob’s garage, merely taking up space for several weeks before he got around to calling the local Harley-Davidson dealership. He was connected to the parts department. After discrbibing his problem, the parts man asked for the motorcycle’s serial number. Bob rattled off the long number and then was put on hold. When the parts man came back on, he said, “Uh, I’m going to have to call you back, okay? Can you give me a couple of days?”. “Sure.” The Phone rang two days later, but this time a Harley executive was on the line. He struck Bob as being overly solicitous. “Listen, Bob, can you do something for me?” I can certianly try. I want you to take the seat off your bike and see if anything is written underneath. I’ll wait right here for you. Bob took a screwdriver and did as he was told. He lifted up the seat and noticed someone had engraved THE KING into the metal shell. “It says THE KING,” Bob reported. For the longest time, the Harley executive didn’t say anything. “Bob, my boss has authorized me to offer you $300,000 for the bike, payable immediately. Would you like to sell it?” Bob was so stunned he didn’t know how to respond. He mumbled something about having to think about it. The next day Jay Leno, called saying he had heard that he had a Harley-Davidson for sale. Explaining that he was a Harley collector, Leno offered $500,000. Why so much money? Because the bike belonged at one time to the King of Rock n’ Roll, Elvis Presley. The bike Bob purchased on a whim for thiry-five dollars was worth a half a million dollars. We don’t know it, but when we say yes to Christ, we belong to the real King, the King of the Universe, the Lord of all things. Did you know that you are worth far, far more than you ever imagined? You see, we have Jesus Christ engraved on our souls, and we won’t understand how much that is worth-or how undeserving we are-until we stand in His presence.
By John Hays
November 4, 2004 07:58 AM | Link to this
Boscoe, your failure to address the comparison between the struggle for Christianity and homosexuality proves that your have no defense when your logic crumbles in front of you.
By Randy
November 4, 2004 08:06 AM | Link to this
You are absolutely right “Texas”. I get on this sight, not because I like to type, but as a hope that what I say will touch someone and they will know what you and I know. How great Jesus is and how much greater life is as a Christian. God Bless!
By Randy Hayes
November 4, 2004 08:14 AM | Link to this
John Hays, I have a cousin named John, last name is Hayes though. The difference between Christianity and Homosexuality is in the Bible(19 times). I for one follow the bible exclusively. Also, homosexuality is a hedonistic lifestyle, I don’t believe that is good for our children or our country. I don’t want our great country to end up like Europe. As poll results come in, it looks like women with children agree with me vs women without children, who disagree. So when women have children, their perspective changes. They want what is best for their children and that is a world that doesn’t promote Homosexuality. Have a good day.
By Akeya
November 4, 2004 08:39 AM | Link to this
Hmmm…. those who are disabled are a small percentage of this “great country”. African-Americans are a small percentage of this “great” country. Native Americans are a small percentage of this “great” country.
Does that make those groups less important? Does that make their voices less desired to be heard?
And promote homosexuality?
Homosexuality just IS. It’s not going to go away solely because people voted to ban marriage. Do you people think that this country is now 100% hetero.
What’s next, burning crosses in the yards of homosexuals?
By Boscoe
November 4, 2004 08:41 AM | Link to this
Tim if the majority were in favor of slavery what I said in my earlier post would not have been true Slavery could be abolished more easily in the North because there were far fewer slaves in those states, and they were not a vital part of Northern economies Mark if I’m told that’s where I need to go then I will indeed bring a carton of cigarettes. But I don’t intend on going without kicking and screaming. At any rate say hi to Norman when you get there. John I did address the question. The struggle for Christianity is not the same as your struggle to legitimize a depraved act.
By norman
November 4, 2004 08:45 AM | Link to this
One of Kerry’s biggest mistakes was in not opposing gay marriage, not on religious but on common sense secular grounds. The other mistake was in not making the war a real issue by admitting he had been wrong about supporting the war resolution, just as he had initially supported the Vietnam war and then turned against it when he understood how crazy that war really was. Kerry was the wrong candidate — he did not have enough real convictions, he did not stick up for the ones he had, and he was too aloof. We got in Bush what we deserve — an ignorant, middle-american know-nothing Christian pharisee.
The fact that about 50% of Americans are ignorant bible-thumpers will explain the contempt rational men and women around the world will have for us.
By Boscoe Roads
November 4, 2004 08:45 AM | Link to this
Akeya, 11 states voted for this ban. What’s next is an attempt for the Federal Amendment again.
By Boscoe Roads
November 4, 2004 08:54 AM | Link to this
Norman, there’s still a majority of us. We Won, to bad, so sad, bye-bye. Isn’t it time for your nazi youth meeting?
By Akeya
November 4, 2004 09:11 AM | Link to this
As usual, Boscoe-you’re missing the point.
You cannot ignore people and pretend that they will go away solely because they are different.
You should not be able to “x” away the rights of those who do not bow down to your beliefs.
It’s just that simple. There was no 100% vote in those 11 states, which means that not everyone agreed with the ban.
Please show me 100% “yes” from all 11 states…
By norman
November 4, 2004 09:16 AM | Link to this
Notice that Arafat has gone to a French hospital for his serious, perhaps fatal medical condition. Eight hundred years ago Christian rulers in Europe sought out Muslim physicians for their medical needs. If our evangelicals succeed in banning medical research, stem-cell and otherwise, in favor of prayer cures and miracles, in the future Americans may have to seek medical care in Japan, China, Russia, or even in the secular Europe our Taliban Christians detest. What a comedown!
By Texas
November 4, 2004 09:20 AM | Link to this
100% of 11 States voted YES to Amend their state consitutions (“Which already say no to same sex marriage)to prevent Judges from instilling their opinion on the people.
By Akeya
November 4, 2004 09:28 AM | Link to this
Excuse me, Texas, but there was no 100% vote in the 11 states.
Georgia was 24% no. That means that 24% of Georgians voted “no”.
Anyway, this is getting old and boring.
I’ll be blogging away on another forum about the welfare state.
I wish people had such inflamed passions about that. Maybe then we can get some of these shiftless people off of welfare…
By Boscoe Roads
November 4, 2004 09:31 AM | Link to this
Akeya, this doesn’t take away anybody’s rights. This simply sends the message that this behaviour will not be legitimized.
By Akeya W
November 4, 2004 09:44 AM | Link to this
ducking the point that Boscoe, once again, missed
The fact that this ban passed took away the right for people to marry whomever they want to share their lives with.
This sends the message that if someone doesn’t conform to your lifestyle or beliefs, they have no voice.
This should not be the intention of the “people” in this country.
It is not a “legitimization of behavior.” It is the assurance that my rights are just as important as the rights of others, and deserve to be protected.
By Texas
November 4, 2004 09:49 AM | Link to this
NORMANThe violent grinding of brakes and the harsh creaking of skidding wheels died as he big car came to a sudden stop. Young Eddie picked himself up from the dusty pavement where he had been thrown, and looked around wildly. Susie! Where was his little sister? He had been holding her hand when they started across the street. The next moment, he turned and saw her under the big car and a dark stain was spreading across her white sweather. It seemed like forever before sirens announced the arrival of help. Susie was quickly examined, and delicately put on a stretcher, then loaded into the ambulance. Eddie was allowed to ride in the back with her, and held her hand all the way to the hospital. “We must operate at once, she’s lost a great deal of blood,” the surgeon said. Eddie waited in the sitting room while the surgeons worked on Susie. After what seemed an eternity, a nurse came looking for him. “Eddie,” she said kindly, “your sister is hurt very badly and requires a transfusion. Do you know what that is?”Eddie shook his head. He had never even heard the word before. “She’s lost so much blood that she can’t live unless someone gives here blood” the nurse explained”. “Will you do that for her”? Eddie’s face grew pale as he gripped the arms of the chair so hard that his knucles became white. “Your a fine young man,” the nurse said, as she whisked him away to the operating room. “Are you ready?” Asked a man swathed in white from head to foot, turning from the table over which he had been bending. For the first time Eddie noticed who it was lying there so still. Little Susie! And he was going to make her well. Two hours later the surgeon looked up with a weary smile. “I think she’s going to pull through,” he said. That’s wonderful news, doctor, exclaimed on of the young interns. “A miracle! Nothing, he thought, could be greater than the miracles of science. As the Doctor turned to explain the good news, he was caught off-guard when Eddie quietly asked. “When do I die”? Die? What do you mean, son. I thought….when they took somebody’s blood …he died, whispered Eddie. The smiles faded from the lips of the doctor and the nurses. The young intern, who had thought that there was nothing greater than the miracle of modern science, caught his breath. The soft-spoken lad had climbed to the very heights of devotion and scarfice. He had shown them a glimpse of the greatest miracle of all—-the selfless love! The kind of love Jesus demonstrated when He died on the Cross. He didn’t consider His rights. He didn’t consider what was best for Himself. He simply paid the debt we could never pay. A number of years ago the force of that love caused a man to pen these words: Amazing love, how can it be? That thou, my God, should’st die for me?’ That’s the gospel. And when you begin to understand it, it will take your breath away.
By Boscoe Roads
November 4, 2004 10:05 AM | Link to this
Akeya, the only one missing the point here is you! The poeple voted IN FAVOR of the bans because this type of behaviour is offensive and the populas will not legitimize it. What is so hard to understand about that. Those people can certainly go and “Love” one another in the privacy of their own homes. 100% of the 11 states that voted, voted in favor of the ban. IT WILL NOT be legitimized. Get over it!
By Texas
November 4, 2004 10:12 AM | Link to this
Boscoe, 100% of 11 States voted to amend the Existing Ban. How come no one get’s that. The original question is what would the reprecussions be. The law already existed! And the only reprecussions would be is it would keep Judge’s from interpeting it differently.
By Akeya
November 4, 2004 10:21 AM | Link to this
Oh, Boscoe- hon….
You are a poor, lost soul.
You still don’t get it.
There’s no point in further “communication.”
By norman
November 4, 2004 10:29 AM | Link to this
Texas (a good name for an ignoramus): if you get to heaven what will you say when you find out Jesus was just another Jewish victim of Roman violence and Jewish bigotry, nothing divine at all?
By Texas
November 4, 2004 10:50 AM | Link to this
Norman, Dr. Paul Stevens, a director of the Southern Baptist Radio and Televison Commission, served as chaplain during WWII, stationed in the European theatre. He was on duty at an Army Air Corps base one day when a soldier burst into his office and said there was an emergency in the control tower. When Stevens arrived, he was told that a shot-up B17 was circling the airfield but couldn’t land. The belly turret had been damaged and wouldn’t revolve, trapping the gunner underneath the fuselage. Normally this wouldn’t be a concern, but on this occasion, the B-17 pilots couldn’t lower the landing gear. Everyone knew the score. If the plane landed with the wheels retracted, the gunner would be crushed when the bomber belly flopped onto the runway. The crew radioed the tower and reported that they where flying on fumes. Stevens took the microphone and spoke to boy. “Son, do you understand the trouble your in. “Yes, sir” the young man replied, voice firm. “Son, are you ready to meet God?” “Yes, sir, I am. “Son, I’m going to ask you to close your eyes. Are your eyes closed?. “Yes they are”. “Son when you open your eyes, you’ll be looking into the face of Jesus.” Norman, I don’t know how many faith-or-fear issues you face, but I’m certain death is one of them. “It is appointed unto mean once to die,” Scripture tells us, and what the chaplain said was exactly correct. No matter how God calls us home, Jesus will be waiting to greet us into His presence the instant we draw our last breath. That’s either true or it isn’t. I think it’s true…
By Boscoe Roads
November 4, 2004 11:14 AM | Link to this
Texas the “existing ban” was a federal law. These are state laws. These are new amendments to the state constitutions. The repercussions are that now those laws will be challenged in courts across the country. There will still be judges on those benches making the final decision. This also makes it possible for a Federal Marriage amendment to be passed.
By Randy
November 4, 2004 11:26 AM | Link to this
Texas You can forget getting to Norman, he’s not our “Village Idiot” without a reason. In fact he refuses to here reason. He just likes to argue. I usually don’t talk about people like this, but Norman has not had a reasonable response to anything anyone has said. He has shown no reason on anything he responds to, he has shown no logic or facts. Really, he’s pitiful.
By norman
November 4, 2004 11:30 AM | Link to this
Randy: you cannot reason with Christians since they regard reason as foolishness (see St. Paul). All you cab do is ridicule them and perhaps some of them will change out of shame.
By Zack
November 4, 2004 11:44 AM | Link to this
Norman—You don’t know the definition of reason, my friend. You will not have credibility until you do and then act on it.
By Randy
November 4, 2004 11:46 AM | Link to this
Norman You are fighting a losing battle. This is something you don’t understand, but a true Christian, would nor could ever change. We have been transformed by the Creator of this world(belive it or not). I for one, could not, nor would want to ever be a non-Christian(It’s really not possible). When one actually becomes a true Christian it is a life changing experience(some call it Born-again). Born again is a spiritual birth. We are born physically of our mothers, spiritually of Jesus. The change is great, I don’t have a hole to fill in my soul. I don’t have a need to cheat on my wife, get drunk etc. The only people I have seen change, are people who are non-Believers become Believers. It doesn’t work the reverse way, if the person is a true Christian. This being a Christian is so great, out of love, I would wish it for everyone. But, GOD insists on free-will, which is necessary or we would all be Robots. Their may be things you don’t understand about it, or you may have had a defining moment which turned you away from it. But Jesus didn’t do anything wrong and he loves you as much as he loves me. God Bless.
By Boscoe Roads
November 4, 2004 12:07 PM | Link to this
Norman you’re trying to shame us out of Christianity? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Wow that’s good! HAHAHA…Stop I can’t breath! WOO HAHAHA! The only shame would come if you actually convinced somebody. HaHaHa. You’re funny but this is the best one yet!
By norman
November 4, 2004 12:12 PM | Link to this
Randy: we non-believers have also been born again. We have finally been liberated from superstition. Or as a friend of mine from Georgia used to say: when he was five years old he was sitting in a Baptist church, “drug” there by his parents, and he suddenly had this illumination: “these people are crazy.” That is the illumination we have received about people like you.
By Boscoe Roads
November 4, 2004 12:24 PM | Link to this
I guess Norman thinks George Washington is crazy too. Then again Norman does take the advice of five year old children…seems about right for Norman. “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports…. And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure; reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. ‘Tis substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government.” - George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796
By norman
November 4, 2004 12:25 PM | Link to this
American education has failed. It has been too timid to tackle evangelical belief in nonsense. It may come to be necessary to ban or burn the Bible. I would be willing to light the first match.
By norman
November 4, 2004 12:46 PM | Link to this
Roscoe: stop quoting those 18th Century deists who recommended religion for the lower classes so they would not, at Voltaire said, “slit your throat and steal your purse.” The argument that religion is necessary for the preservation of the social order is an argument unworthy of a pious nut like you.
By mark wood
November 4, 2004 01:04 PM | Link to this
I must say, I enjoy the little fables told by Texas. I’m just wondering where he finds them. Are they from those little books the jehovas witnesses try to hand out?
And I forgot a very important “fact” yesterday when making my last post. Zack, Angie and Boscoe are almost 100% guaranteed a place in heaven. They can commit whatever crimes against humanity that they wish. Go to the local priest, probably a pedophile or closeted homosexual, ask for forgiveness, rub that little idol called a rosary, mumble a few lines and, bang, they are forgiven.
If I weren’t so narrow minded in my pursuit to see that all people are treated with dignity, I might be jealous.
By Texas
November 4, 2004 01:07 PM | Link to this
Boscoe, The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) signed into law by Clinton in 1996 is a US federal law that serves two purposes. First it allows each state to recognize or deny any marriage like relationship between persons of the same sex which has been recognized in another state. Second, it explicitly recognizes for purposes of federal law what has been stated in other areas of federal law for at least a centuy by specifically defining marriage as ” a legal union of one man and one woman. “So the law existed.” Critics agrue that the law is unconstitutional on several grounds. Several challenges to the law’s constitutionality have been presented to the US Supreme Court since its enactment, but so far the Court has declined to review any such cases. Many states (Gerogia) has since proactively enacted specific laws, by referendum to further conclude the defination of “Marriage” to preclude any Judges whom would challenge the constitution by defining Marriage…
By Texas
November 4, 2004 01:23 PM | Link to this
Mark, First of all thank you for you kind remark. Second I obtained those little fables from Christian Book Stores, the Internet, the Bible etc. etc. etc. I hoped that by sharing them that they would bring a different understanding other than quotes directly from the Bible, however, scripture is the most important of all. I hope I am not being at times to winded. If I am, please forgive me, and I will reduce or stop altogether.
By norman
November 4, 2004 01:42 PM | Link to this
These homey little stories Christians like can be found in all Christian and Catholic book stores. The reverend clergy use them to put in their wonderful homilies. They are designed to put things on an emotional rather than a rational level because believers cannot argue rationally. They appeal to emotions: fear, love, hate, etc. Christians do prove one thing, however, they prove original sin; it is something you can find easily in most Christians. Christians do know about sin since they commit them I should expect more readily than anyone else. Catholics can go to confession, evangelicals can believe that onece having accepted Jesus as their personal saviour they can sin with impunity. Calvinists believe that their salvation is foreordained and don’t worry if they sin. Of course, if there is a God he doesn’t really care about sin. He cares about keeping the heavenly bodies in their place, making sure the sub-atomic world continues to operate according to the laws he fixed at the start of it all. If there is a God he is like the Sultan in the story Voltaire wrote, Candide. When one character talks about God, a Muslim character simply asks: When the Sultan sends a ship from Constantinople to Egypt, does he worry about the rats aboard?
By Texas
November 4, 2004 02:07 PM | Link to this
Norman, We live in an age when words don’t mean what they used to, but our language has been subverted for so long that we barely even notice it. What used to be called “killing a unborn baby” is now called “choice.” What used to be known as “living in sin” is now called a “meaningful relationship.” What used to be called “sexual relations” is now called “inappropraite behavior.” How did we get ourselves in this mess? When did we start to turn the meaning of words upside down? We need to reclaim the true meaning of words because words do mean something, Astinence shouldn’t be a word that evokes smirks from gum-smacking teenagers. Martial fidelity shouldn’t be dismissed as a Victorian-sounding relic—it should be held up as a worthy goal. Think about it. If politicians can surround themselves with “spin doctors,” why can’t we surround ourselves with God’s word? Pride, Lust and evil actions are all sins. The wise man saves for the future, but the foolish man spends whatever he gets. A man is know by his actions. An evil man lives an evil life, a Godly man lives a Godly life. God loathes all cheating and dishonesty. These are direct statements aren’t they? No equivocation, no spin. Anytime you feel the world has polluted the simple meanings of words, turn back to the real Word. We can be confident that when the Bible tells us God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow, that means He never changes. We have His word on that. God doesn’t mince with words. He doesn’t play with words. He doesn’t twist words to alter their meaning. When He says He loves you, He means it. When He says He has forgiven you, He means it. God talks straight. And so should Godly men.
By Zack
November 4, 2004 02:23 PM | Link to this
I cannot believe Norman’s statement that Christians do not think rationally. I cannot believe that statement. There is no more rational act in life than to serve God.
Norman did have a point, however, when mentioning flaws in theology. Yes, Norman, the Calvinists, for example, do have some flaws in their doctrine. However, we have the Bible as a guide and should use it, as opposed to using what a preacher/denomination says and ignoring the Bible. The Bible is the Word of God and is what we must use in our search for answers.
I’d like for those who think Christians are meddling with marriage to think about something and then realize it’s just the opposite. God designed marriage to be between one man and one woman, and it is a mutual partnership based on love and respect, not submission and domination, as the secular perspective smiles upon. The secular view of marriage also is rather flippant about regarding the ordained institution and is open to such attacks on it like Britney Spears “marrying” for 12 hours and now the attempts to include homosexual marriage as natural.
It amazes me that, although America was founded upon Christian principles, it is being infiltrated by manmade doctrines, whims, and biases that are wanted to be turned into law, and those who stand up against the attacks are being slandered with the first verbal weapon that comes to mind. Anyone called a bigot for opposing homosexuality and/or gay marriage should take that person to court, sue for slander, and set a positive precedent for the legal system. Taking these attacks lying down is not the answer. We’ve already tried that, for some unfortunate reason.
By Boscoe Roads
November 4, 2004 02:29 PM | Link to this
Mark we always have room for one more, besides you might learn something. Texas weren’t you the one who said that God would judge me by my character? So why are you arguing over the technical aspects of a law that was recently voted upon. These votes were for state laws above and in addition to the DOMA. Do you feel it’s necessary to argue with everybody? Your beginning to remind me of Norman.
By Boscoe Roads
November 4, 2004 02:43 PM | Link to this
Mark the Rosary an idol? explain that one Mr. narrow minded in my pursuit to see that all people are treated with dignity. You’re not living up to your name. OHHHHH I get it. Dignity for everyone except Christians. What’s next are you going to put everybody who voted “YES” on a list? Norman why don’t you shutup on this one, Mark said it let him standup for himself.
By Texas
November 4, 2004 02:45 PM | Link to this
Boscoe, I’m sorry. Your right. I didn’t mean to argue with you over technicalities. And I believe you have a strong Godly character, and I believe you have represented the Christian aspects well…..
By Randy
November 4, 2004 03:24 PM | Link to this
Zack You can believe that Norman will say anything, again he likes to argue. Texas and Boscoe you both represent Christians well, keep up the good work. If Norman is so determined to “not believe” maybe we should let him ramble on. No one takes him seriously.
By norman
November 4, 2004 03:36 PM | Link to this
Boscoe: don’t tell me to shut up! You are an infuriating tridentine Catholic who is many centuries out of touch. People like you were fascist-minded before there were any fascists. You once made the Roman church into the most montrous institution of oppression in history, and while a majority of Catholics have seen the light you persist in your superstition and your intolerance.
By Randy
November 4, 2004 03:44 PM | Link to this
Norman As I have explained before, the position you have taken is a lose/lose. Your best case scenerio is my worst. Why would anyone take this stand? If you don’t know God, say I don’t know God, I haven’t found him. But to attack us Christians only unites us and makes us stronger. Why are you wasting your time on this sight unless down deep you really want to know God. We true Christians cannot be converted(not spiritually possible). Why are you so emotional about something that you think doesn’t exist. Or maybe down deep you realize it does exist. I’m sure you will come back with one of your “emotional, no logic” comebacks, but maybe its time to listen to your heart and the truth.
By Brian Curtis
November 4, 2004 03:50 PM | Link to this
And once again, the Women’s Forum on this week’s topic has become devoid of 1) the opinions of any women and 2) the actual topic.
Let the religious war continue. For those who will not rest until Christian/Biblical doctrine is made into law, I must wonder why you consider yourselves Americans at all. You certain have no understanding of freedom.
http://worldofwonder.net/images/JESUSLAND.JPG
By Randy
November 4, 2004 03:59 PM | Link to this
Thats right Brian and with 75% going against homosexual marriage(election), you liberals must feel very outnumbered. I have a radical idea, lets become even more of a Christian nation, this will get rid of the infighting. Then we can team up, work on getting rid of world hunger, adopt more and more babies worldwide, stop murdering unborn babies, that could be adopted and become a even greater nation. However, that would mean giving up selfish and self-centered ways and taking care of others.
By Randy
November 4, 2004 04:09 PM | Link to this
One thing I have noticed while doing these posts, the liberals never win a debate. How can you defend something that is a lose/lose? I guess some of you picked the wrong side of the discussion initially and can’t admit you are wrong! Not strong guys.
By Tim
November 4, 2004 04:47 PM | Link to this
Randy… simply put… you’re a moron… not much more I can say on that topic… sounds like what you want to do is throw everyone out that does not think exactly like you do… my 9th grade History teacher was correct when he said ‘THE MASSES ARE ASSES!’ you certainly have proved that!
By mark wood
November 4, 2004 04:47 PM | Link to this
Yes. Boscoe.
The cross. Rosary beads. Statues of the virgin Mary. Idols, one and all. Only the self righteous could possibly claim otherwise.
Real faith does not need these tokens. Real faith would shun them.
Then again, someone with real faith wouldn’t need a book written by men to justify their faith.
You are so fond of research. Look up what faith really is. Unless your dictionary is biased, it will mention nothing of christianity, the bible, and certainly nothing about whether or not homosexuality is “morally” permissable.
The issues you are arguing have nothing to do with faith. They have to do with organized religion. Organized by humans. They are OPINION. No more, no less.
By lozen
November 4, 2004 05:08 PM | Link to this
There are many types of christians but primarily two kinds I’ve known. 1. Those who follow Jesus’ example of loving God and loving their neighbor as themselves
By Randy
November 5, 2004 07:28 AM | Link to this
Tim Where I come from a Moron is someone who argues a lose/lose position. Again I have not heard a winning argument from any liberal. About 2 years ago, in the AJC there was a challenge from a Christian/Conservative, he would pay $100,000 to anyone who would or could outdebate him. No one took the challenge. We want some logic, facts, scientific evidence, something which proves the liberal position.
By norman
November 5, 2004 07:30 AM | Link to this
Boscoe won’t be here today. He’s out manufacturing relics which he will sell on the streets of Atlanta.
By Tim
November 5, 2004 08:53 AM | Link to this
Randy, other than quoting the Bible WHERE ARE YOUR FACTS!! I read this forum and your arguments and see a LOSING positions… great you have a majority of people who believe the same thing… but let me state this for the thrid time since you obviously have trouble reading (probably because you have your nose stuck so far in the are because of how much better you think you are than other people) ONE ROLE OF THE GOVERNMENT IS TO PROTECT A MINORITY FROM THE MAJORITY! it is simple as that… I honestly do not know how to make it any easier for you to understand
By norman
November 5, 2004 08:58 AM | Link to this
Tim: thanks for making it clear (although nothing is clear to Randy) that the bible and facts are two very different things.
By Zack
November 5, 2004 10:32 AM | Link to this
Norman—Study history. Not only were American laws founded upon the Bible, but so were our learning institutions. It was known that the pursuit of knowledge combined with ignorance of God was futile.
We eventually moved away from this—unfortunately—very unfortunately—and adopted a worldview similar to yours. Now we have a public school system that’s based on the weakest of foundations. (Take a survey at a high school. Ask students a few random questions. Ask them how many presidents we’ve had before. Ask them about the electoral college. For that matter, ask them who the two vice-presidential candidates were in 2000. After you get a ton of wrong answers—assuming you would recognize them as being wrong—then maybe you’ll give in and admit that being blind to the truth, reason, and the pursuit of truth is not being “liberated”, as you say we are.) However, you seem to be one of these people who’s perfectly fine with all of this, just as long as God isn’t referred to in The Pledge of Allegiance.
This is why homeschooling is becoming so popular. Kids are far-better off in this environment than in the public school system. Education is better; social skills are better, etc.. I fear for the kids who are homeschooled until college and then are exposed to the flippant-about-life worldview of the typical college campus.
By Lyrazel
November 5, 2004 11:20 AM | Link to this
Brian, There’s been a lot of women opinion this week but perhaps the AJC will re-name this column Men Debating Men About Religion No Matter What Topic—-but compared to last week I would say the majority stayed with the topic—being it is quasi-religious. Happy Friday peepers. Next week: turnip costs in Spain should women worry?
By Akeya
November 5, 2004 11:53 AM | Link to this
giggling about Lyrazel’s comment
By Randy
November 5, 2004 02:26 PM | Link to this
Tim Ask specific questions, I have answers to them. I do not quote the bible. If you don’t believe, what good is it to quote the bible. Beware though, truth is on my side! I may or may not have time to respond this week, but I will answer on Monday.
By Tim
November 5, 2004 02:40 PM | Link to this
Randy, the only question that I want answered is why the person I with and myself be allowed the same rights that the government issues to heterosexual married couples
Akeya, I thought it was funny too :)
By Tim
November 5, 2004 03:00 PM | Link to this
Sorry… I should probably proof read next time
Randy, the only question that I want answered is why the person I am with and myself not be allowed the same rights (hospital visitation, adoption rights, social security benefits, etc) that the government issues to heterosexual couples
By mark wood
November 5, 2004 04:26 PM | Link to this
Public education is failing, Zack says.
He’s right.
But, Zack, it has nothing to do with committed gay couples getting married, or the pledge of allegiance.
And I find it odd that a proponent of hard core christianity would complain. The sciences are lacking more than anything. The very area of education that proves you as the ignorant bigot that you are.
By Randy
November 8, 2004 08:15 AM | Link to this
Tim Because that is the deal you accepted. When you decided to live the homosexual lifestyle(notice I didn’t say, be a homosexual), you knew the chances of you getting married were close to 0%. It’s like me when I got married, I knew I had to give up certain things, other girlfriends etc. That’s the deal and our country can’t afford to change it. The good of the many outweigh the good of the few. As a Christian, I have to be against it. 40 years ago we let 1 woman change prayer in schools and our country has gone downhill drastically since. I think we Christians are finally taking a stand for what is best for our country. I wish you the best.
By Boscoe Roads
November 8, 2004 08:26 AM | Link to this
Well Mark, there are over one Billion of us self righteous.(and that’s just the Catholics) I assure you: man will always reject what he does not believe in or understand. They have ears that do not hear; they have hearts that have hardened because of sin; they have eyes that will not see. But to those who have even a small measure of faith like a seed in a garden of flowers, if they but give this seed a small water of light, it will grow and grow and bear great beauty and fruit. The simple context of Faith is being cast aside and replaced by all manner of novelty and implementation. You have received a firm foundation. There is no need to change. Heaven, the Eternal Father knows no change, for He is, He was, and He always will be. There is no change in Heaven. The Father has chosen the words ‘Faithful and True’ for reason. It will be the banner for all children of God who remain in the light.
By Randy
November 8, 2004 09:05 AM | Link to this
Randy, If you only argument about me not being able to get married is because I chose to be gay then I honestly don’t know what more than I can say. I love all of you that think that you know everything you make me laugh… walk a mile in my shoes and then you may figure some things out. I didn’t choose to be gay, I wouldn’t have chosen to be gay (but I am now VERY PROUD of who God made me!) studies are proving more and more everyday that it is not a choice(I dont want to hear about biased Christian studies either because those are faulty) if you are unwilling to look at that then I honestly don’t know what to say. You are right in saying that my stance is a lose/lose because you are too ignorant to see facts that are staring you right in the face but that is fine because I will continue to FIGHT FOR RIGHTS and we WILL win this fight (maybe not in my lifetime but I will do EVERYTHING in my power to help!) and I will continue to be the wonderful creation God intended me to be!! :) Thanks for your hatred :) it has only made me stronger!
you should like this one:
NO WEAPON FORMED AGAINST ME SHALL PROSPER (in this case, your ignorance)… I AM MORE THAN A CONQUERER!
By Randy
November 8, 2004 11:20 AM | Link to this
Tim There is no hatred from me. Also, homophobia doesn’t exist. I vote this way, because it’s best for our country. We can’t make the homosexual lifestyle legimate, as it might encourage people who are not Gay. Sorry.
By Zack
November 8, 2004 11:30 AM | Link to this
Mark Wood—“Ignorant bigot”? That’s a compliment, coming from you. It’s also the kneejerk response by non-Christians to Christians nowadays, right in between your other name-calling, mixed in with your “Let’s not hate” rhetoric.
The public school system has failed in many areas. One of which is indeed its overt ignorance of God. You simply cannot be truly educated when you ignore the existence of God and embrace the myth of evolution.
You said science exposed me. You’re right. Science exposes me for being factual. Science supports creationism and contradicts evolution, not vice-versa. You want science to disprove God? I’ve got news for you: God CREATED science.
By Zack
November 8, 2004 11:36 AM | Link to this
Randy—Actually, you’re wrong. Homosexuality is a choice. Practicing it also is a choice. Accepting gay marriage is also a choice. All three are wrong choices.
By Tim
November 8, 2004 12:12 PM | Link to this
Zack… sorry that was actually me the said that homosexuality is not a choice… sorry for the mix-up… but thanks for enlightening me on the fact that I chose to be gay… I should have thought of that when I struggled with it for almost 20 years… I have had these feelings as long as I can remember… so I guess I chose to be gay before my earliest memories
you were correct in one of your statements… it is a choice to ‘practice’ being a homosexual (although I really didn’t need practice to know I was attracted to men)… sorry that I ‘chose’ to be the person I was made to be… next time I will let you play God and you can decide who I am supposed to be :)
did any of you choose to be heterosexual?
By RS
November 8, 2004 12:52 PM | Link to this
Tim, do you believe this? “Homeophobia doesn’t exist”. Gee then there must be another name for gay-bashing, anti-gay crimes & voting “yes” on an amendment that will deny basic rights to decent, tax-paying citizens just because they love their own gender (gasp horror!) Yet another fine example of the government dictating how we should live. I laughed myself sick about how allowing gay marriage will encourage those who are not gay. “Gee, since I can now marry a man, I will divorce my beloved wife of 30 years & do so, even though I am completely heterosexual & have enjoyed a wonderful, loving marriage for most of my adult life. The reason I plan to throw it all away & marry another man is BECAUSE I CAN!” Our Bible-thumping buddies make so-o-o-o much sense, don’t they, Tim? (NOT!!!)
By Tim
November 8, 2004 12:59 PM | Link to this
RS, it has just become so ludicrous that I just have to laugh to keep from going crazy ;) and yeah I didn’t know that I had sooooo much power and could lure people to ‘the other side’!
By Zack
November 8, 2004 01:06 PM | Link to this
If preserving the institution of marriage makes me a bigot, I’d like to be known as the world’s biggest bigot.
You talk about hatred. Read up and down this forum. Who shows more hatred on here than you, Norman, Akeya, and Mark Wood? Nobody. As I’ve said before, Christians are the ones receiving hatred in this country. Don’t tell me I hate anyone just because I oppose a lifestyle.
I’m so sick of hearing about “embracing diversity” when it comes to lifestyles. We’re to love everyone, of course. Are we to love others’ decisions? Not necessarily. We’re not supposed to love the decision to practice the perverse lifestyle of homosexuality, the new age movement, child molestation, racism, etc..
By Tim
November 8, 2004 01:13 PM | Link to this
Zack, I am not here to argue about who has been more hateful because there have been some intense words said on both sides… but to put homosexuality in the same category as child molestation makes me want to vomit… that is rediculous and spews hatred!
By RS
November 8, 2004 01:14 PM | Link to this
AHA! I think we hit on something here! Any psychologist will tell you that in many cases the root of homophobia (“Yes, Virginia, there IS homophobia”) is actually being a homosexual so deeply closeted that one cannot even admit these preferences to themselves. So maybe you Bible-thumping homophobes are jealous because my gay friends do have this “power”, as you undoubtably see it…And I hate to burst your collective bubbles, but I highly doubt Jesus would equate loving another human being with racism, child molestation et al.
By Tim
November 8, 2004 01:36 PM | Link to this
RS, Amen!
and I will even give you a hallelujah!
By RS
November 8, 2004 01:58 PM | Link to this
Tim, one “Hallelujah” from you is worth a million from Zack, Boscoe, Randy etc because on your end, it is sincere & on theirs, just a lot of self-righteous hateful propaganda
By mark wood
November 8, 2004 02:44 PM | Link to this
RS
I am so glad you brought up the theory that the most homophobic are the most likely to be closeted homosexuals who have been taught to hate themselves. I wanted to, but thought it would be improper since I am heterosexual.
And Zack, I apologize for my brand of hatred. I shouldn’t accept people for who they are and criticize those who don’t. How horrible of me.
Worship as you wish. Do it well. But that is for the santuary of a church, not public policy.
And I will repeat. My closest friends are christians. Real christians. They see no need to impose their religion on others. They have real faith that is not shaken by the questioning by others.
By Dane
November 8, 2004 02:55 PM | Link to this
How has this amendment already affected people? I’ll give you an example: My partner has worked for his company for more than ten years, he is a well-liked, well-respected member of management and on the fast-track for promotion into a V.P. position. Until last week. He was told by someone in his office, one that he thought was a good friend, that “now that we got that amendment passed, you guys will just have to move out of state, better yet—- out of the country.”
This came from a very sweet woman who had been at our house with her husband and children many times for parties and dinners, and we had been to her house for Thanksgiving last year. She had said she supported us many times, and thought of us like family, and often asked us questions because she really didn’t understand us “gays” and wanted to know. We demonstrated that we were people, human beings, and the only “lifestyle” we lived was the American suburban lifestyle: a $200 K mortgage, BBQ’s, lawn maintenance, cleaning the gutters, two SUV’s, jobs, taxes, golf and racquetball and a circle of friends. The difference is that our neighbors in our suburban subdivision are all married.
Personally, I would rather be ignored than to be the target of so much animosity. My partner and I have made it through nearly five years without any legal recognition of our relationship, though my sister has been married and divorced twice during that time period. We are married, we wear rings, and had a ceremony in a church that welcomes everyone. So for all you people who think you have God on speed dial, I really think that, should you actually make it to heaven, you will be shocked to find so many of us there. Who do you think does all the couture and hair up there?
I suppose I was just really saddened the way that, once the Amendment was passed, otherwise loving and sweet people have taken off their masks to reveal the hateful monsters behind, hiding under a mask of Christian love. You can quote the Bible until your fingers bleed from typing, you will never make us go away. It would be easy to just sell our house and move to a more gay-friendly state, but I think the victory will be in just shoving it in our enemies’ face at just how successful we can be. I went out on my front porch and hung a Pride Flag—- the first time I have ever done so.
Indeed, the fight is not over. 51% is not a “vast majority.”
By Tim
November 8, 2004 03:07 PM | Link to this
Dane, what an amazing story! and I definitely stand with and say we are not going anywhere!
(I love the fact that you hung a pride flad… I have never had anything rainbow… but this election had me so motivated that I have had a rainbow bumber sticker on my car!)
By RS
November 8, 2004 03:12 PM | Link to this
Dane…Good for you & your partner! You are brave (& right!) to stay & fight; wave your pink flag proudly, no reason why you shouldn’t. I have a feeling Jesus is MUCH less pleased with the likes of Zack, Randy & Boscoe than with you & Tim; Jesus, after all, preached love & tolerance. Know who I really feel sorry for? The children of this so-called “sweet (?!?) woman”. Think of the legacy of hate they’re being raised with. I actually consider that child abuse! I was fortunate to be raised in a family where it’s a given that no matter what our sexual orientation, we deserve equal treatment. I hope that was the case with you & your partner too. (P.S when we get to Heaven, will you give me an extreme makeover???!??)
By Randy
November 8, 2004 04:20 PM | Link to this
The Gay Marriage thing is over. Remember the election, lets go to the next subject.
By Tim
November 8, 2004 04:30 PM | Link to this
ohhhhhh Randy hate to burst your bubble but it has only begun!! It is long from over!
By RS
November 8, 2004 04:33 PM | Link to this
Randy; this column is ABOUT the “Gay Marriage Thing”. Scroll to the top if you don’t believe me
By Randy
November 8, 2004 04:34 PM | Link to this
Tim Knock yourself out. Give it all you got. It’s irrevelant, 75-80% of the USA knows better. Waste your time and money, it ain’t going to happen.
By Randy
November 8, 2004 04:41 PM | Link to this
Maybe when you guys get the “Gay Marriage” passed. You could get the right to marry more than one woman in Ga to. Or if someone wants to marry their horse, work on that also. Good Luck!
By Tim
November 8, 2004 04:50 PM | Link to this
Randy, actually first you need to get your facts straight… there is actually a majority of the country that believes that gays and lesbians should have some sort of recognition of their relationship which includes civil benefits… 2nd even if there wasn’t a majority, let me just type again for you because you obviously do not know how to read, ONE ROLE OF THE GOVERNMENT IS TO PROTECT A MINORITY FROM THE MAJORITY… and 3rd, you have jUSt shown your hatred and IGNORANCE towards gays and lesbians… compairing us to bestiality… GET REAL… maybe in your sick mind but we actually aren’t into that… most of us just want our relationship with the person we love to be recognized
tell me to knock myself out all you want… I can guarantee you one thing… as long as there are people like you fighting against it I will be fighting for it… I and many others are more motivated than ever… so in the words of that great classic cheerleading movie ‘BRING IT ON’
By Randy
November 8, 2004 04:52 PM | Link to this
Yea guys lets get all these things passed, I don’t care what happends to innocent children and our country. Lets be like Rome or Greece 2500 years. Rape, murder galore, etc. Lets do it! Lets do what we want to do and not care about what the creator wants, in fact lets be GOD. It will be fun, at least until we are on our death beds and beyond. We will say we are going to heaven, in fact we will create our own set of rules, our own “bible” so to speak. We will tell GOD, we went by our bible. Lets see what he says.
By Tim
November 8, 2004 04:59 PM | Link to this
Randy, you are the one trying to play God… your theory about Greece and Rome is HILARIOUS… homosexuality didn’t just magically appear in Greece and Rome and that is why their Empires fell… Homosexuality was PREVALENT through out Greece and Rome during their entire rule so try another argument… every single one you have used has failed and then you go on to another one that is more funny than the last… looks like yours is the lose/lose stance
again… putting homosexuality in the same category as rape and murder… can you get anymore hateful?
give me sound facts that homosexuality is somehow ruining childrens lives… (you probably wouldnt want to ask the children being raised in same-sex homes… they probably wouldn’t like the fact that you are attacking their parents)
By RS
November 9, 2004 11:40 AM | Link to this
Randy, once more I’m compelled to agree with Tim. I’ve known many gay & lesbian folks. They are not into rape, murder, bestiality, incest & child molestation. They are, however, for the most part, decent, compassionate, hard-working tax-paying citizens who are active in things such as feeding the homeless, & attend church & (GASP, HORROR!) synagogue. Sorry to disappoint you, hon
By Zack
November 9, 2004 11:52 AM | Link to this
As a country, we should not leaglize a marriage between a same-sex couple, and thankfully, after an early charge, we’re standing firmly on this. A very clear message has been sent to liberals that gay marriage is not wanted.
RS—you talk about hatred. If you want to see hatred, just look at the posts from people like yourself toward Christians.
By Akeya
November 9, 2004 12:05 PM | Link to this
Why is this still the topic? Aren’t they supposed to change each week?
Anyway…
Dane, I’m sorry to hear that the ugly face of exclusionism showed itself to you.
I heard so many people stating that they wanted to move to the “blue” states. Why? So that the blue states we have now can become “red”?
The bottom line is that we are in a quandary. What I mean is that we will have people imposing their religious rhetoric and hate on us.
I’m so sick of people talking about how they are persecuted on this forum. That is such b******! You are not being persecuted simply because others want you to understand that not everyone is like you or holds the same beliefs.
I want to commiserate with people who will agree with me that we must embrace each other—we must embrace each other’s lives. Not just Christians embracing those who they believe to be Non-Christian, but also I have many friends that are heterophobic.
I can’t imagine wanting to completely eliminate another group of people simply because they do not believe as I.
Its prepostorous(sp)
And how can we denigrate those living in Muslim countries, saying they have no freedom and rights when we are destined for the same!!!
These so called “values voters” will be the blame of our nation turning into a twin of those countries where the women cannot walk around unassisted.
We’re arguing about something that should not even be on the ballot while people are getting their heads SAWED off. NOt chopped, because that would be too nice. NO, their heads are being SAWED off, like slicing a X-mas turkey! And you’re concerned because two people who love one another want to have a ceremony to commit themselves to each other? When it’s no one else’s business but the couple’s anyway?
I don’t hate or well harm to anyone on this forum. My beliefs are such that we should accept the fact that people are different and our lives are reflected by our differences.
Shut up and move on to something else!
No one is going to stop being gay because others don’t like it and no one is going to stop being a Christian because others don’t agree.
That’s life…
The only way to live in peace and harmony is to live and let live…
Think about having your head sawed off for a while and you’ll realize that there are more pressing issues than what another couple is doing in their bed…
By RS
November 9, 2004 12:21 PM | Link to this
Zack. I do not hate Christians nor do I ever remember posting such a sentiment. What I DO hate is the bigotry & intolerance demonstrated by those professing to be Christians. True Christians (i.e. followers of Jesus) preach & more importantly, practice love & tolerance toward all, even those who embrace lifestyles radically different from their own. So even though I am a DREADED JEW, I am conversant enough in the tenets of true Christianity to know this. Hope this clears things up
By Texas
November 9, 2004 01:01 PM | Link to this
Dane, Tim and RS: It’s a quiet, sunny Saturday morning-perfect for waxing the car. First I do the basic wash, to remove any bugs and loose dirt. Then comes the more demanding work. Trying to remove road tar smudges behind the wheel walls-black streaks and blotches of oily goo. Everytime I wax the car I tell myself I’m going to spend extra time rubbing away those grimy stains. But that kind of rubbing takes time. And it’s not as easy as it was when I firest started. Besides, I buy the kind of wax that goes on fast and wipes off shiny-the no-fuss-quick-and-easy kind. I can be done with this job in no time. What to do, then, about those road-tar smudges? What I usually do on a Saturday that’s rapidly passing me by. I take my quick-and-easy car wax and polish right over those smudges, trying not to look too closely. I convince myself that I’ll get around to removing them someday when I have more time. Pretty soon I have a clean, shiny car, with glossy tar smudges glistening behind the wheel wells. Road Tar entombed in car wax? Shiny Smudges? This looks familiar. Looks a little like me. Jesus had something to say about layers of dirt entombed beneath a sheen of polish. “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men’s bones and everything unclean! In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as rightous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness” Is my soul like a whitewashed tomb-beautiful on the outside, but underneath, full of dirt? A casual observer might notice how faithfully I attend Bible studies, mentor other believers, put away chairs after church, and be impressed. What a good Christian! But what if he peered closer? What if he took a rag and rubbed away the outer layer of polish? What would he see? A short temper? A covetous heart? An envious spirit? An impatient demanor? Smudges? It’s not enough to sweep over the surface of our souls, to push the dirt around with a rag or a sponge and cover it up with polish. A well-cleaned soul must be stripped of all pretense. What does it take to examine your soul? It takes getting down on your hands and knees before God, admitting to Him all that your are: ill tempered, covetous, envious, impatient. It also takes admitting to others that you’re not as flawless as they think, and asking them to pray for you. It takes the scouring cleanser of honesty and humility before God and others to purge our souls of hypocrisy. It’s never too late to apply the rigorous cleansing of reality and repentance to a negelected soul, and become-inside and out-thoroughly clean.
By Tim
November 9, 2004 01:04 PM | Link to this
another AMEN for RS! :)
By Tim
November 9, 2004 01:08 PM | Link to this
Texas, I am confused… do I have smudges because I am gay? or do the other people have smudges because they are telling me that I am bad?
By Texas
November 9, 2004 01:26 PM | Link to this
We All have smudges because we’re all human. Only Jesus was without smudges
By Zack
November 9, 2004 01:32 PM | Link to this
RS—This is about the fifth time you’ve tried to portray yourself as a verbally-attacked Jew. I’ve heard no one attack you for being a Jew, which includes me, someone who disagrees with your beliefs, but I guess your first response to your opponents is to play the “anti-Semitism” card.
Tolerance? We are not to be tolerant of sin. You put love and tolerance in the same sentence as though they’re related, when in reality they’re anything but. You’ve attacked people for opposing homosexuality and have played the “bigot” card as well, not uncommon to those attacking opponents of gay marriage. (If we’re supposed to be tolerant, why aren’t you tolerant of Christians?)
There is nothing wrong or hateful about standing against gay marriage, and I think we all know this, whether we all admit it or not. There’s plenty wrong and hateful for attacking Christians.
By Randy
November 9, 2004 01:54 PM | Link to this
RS I for one have nothing against JEWS, in fact I closed a house about a year ago, the attorney had a jewish symbol around her neck. One of the guys I was closing with asked her if she was jewish? She said yes, however she was a jewish person who had accepted JESUS as her lord and savior and went to a church in north atlanta where there were approximately 5000 members who had done the same thing. That accepting JESUS, was undeniable to her. So Jewish people are great. My mother, who is a great Christian lady, always called them GOD’s chosen people.
By Texas
November 9, 2004 02:08 PM | Link to this
Tim, Dane told us a story of something that happened. Something in which some people need a rigorous cleaning. However, Dane also used his sister to imply that straight people did not hold marriage as an honorable institution. All people have smudges, and no one should judge. Tim, a couple of days ago I told a story about what we would leave behind, one of the things one should leave was a lifelong marriage that defies the odds and demonstrates for the next generation a love that lasts a lifetime. I believe all people deserve rights. I believe that if two people live together, whether they’re of the same sex or not should have the same rights as anyone else. However, I believe marriage is a Scared Institution and should remain one. I believe that laws should be enacted to allow people who live together to have the same entitlements as married people. I don’t know what Jesus will say, I believe He’ll judge not by just one act, but by your Character. By how you loved your neighbor. Jesus said, “Love one another as I have loved you.” That means no matter what! Let Marriage remain a Christian Institution, the important thing are your rights. It would be a lot easier establishing those first.
By Zack
November 9, 2004 02:09 PM | Link to this
Akeya—Why is this still the topic? That actually was funny. I think this forum is somewhat like a raffle sale. Why put up the “closed” sign if people are still buying?
I’m in no rush for a new topic. Give the guy in the back a break. Besides, we can continue enjoying this fine camaraderie in here.
By Randy
November 9, 2004 02:15 PM | Link to this
On Tim, Tim there is to much evidence that JESUS is the messiah and I talking about evidence that has been verified by science, for me to decide I can put my own rules into place(concerning the bible). In your earlier posts you claimed to be a 22 year old Christian, I think one must follow Gods written word. I have desires I would like to do also, like have sex with other women(outside my marriage) but I don’t do them out of character and respect for Gods word. There is a reason that the bible forbids “Gay” sex. Because it leads to a society that is hedonistic. Also, you are always going to be know as the Gay guy. What’s Tim doing now? They won’t say, he’s a teacher, astronout, or rich millionaire, they will say “He’s Gay”. That’s your idenity. You are still young, think about it.
By RS
November 9, 2004 02:40 PM | Link to this
Randy & Zack, I’d “play the same card” if I were Muslim, Islamic, Hindu, Buddhist, Hare Krishna etc. My problem with you is your continuing efforts to portray non-Christians as inferior. You know, I recently saw a bumper sticker I just loved: “God is too big for any one religion”. I couldn’t have said it any better! Texas, when you refer to marriage as a Christian institution, do you mean the rest of us, be we gay or straight, shouldn’t be allowed to marry?? Randy, there is one topic on which we are on the same page: Marital infidelity. I think it’s a sin! Yes, being only human, I do come across other men I lust over but out of respect for my husband and God (a God, mind you, that I like to think embraces all faiths) I will NOT act upon these feelings. In fact, when I am aware of these feelings, I pray to God that they be banished! And, by the way, I’ve never thought of any homosexual people I know as “that gay guy/gal”. I think of them as unique individuals, like we are..
By Tim
November 9, 2004 02:54 PM | Link to this
Texas, I can see your point in saying that marriage is a religious institution… the only problem I have is that the government recognizes marriage and people recieve benefits for being married… so then if marriage is a religious institution then couples should not get benefits from the government for being married… marriage should only be recognized through religious outlets such as church, synogogue, mosque, etc… they can decide if their religion is going to recognize someones relationship and call it a marriage… (which I do not have a problem with, if a religious institution does not want to recognize my relationship as marriage I would respect that)… and then the government should recognize civil unions for heterosexual relationships and homosexual relationships (if that couples chooses to do so)… I guess what it somewhat comes down to is semantics… I don’t care what you want to call the relationship as long as I have equal rights… (amen to everyone having smudges… I just was not sure if you were adressing that to anyone in particular or just everyone as a whole)
Randy Randy… not too sure that I ever said Jesus wasn’t the messiah… your theory that gay sex leads to a hedonistic society has one major flaw… homosexuality has been around for a long time and is found in every society through out history… so by now I would think the entire world would be a hedonistic place and should have been for a long time now… to pin point homosexuality and state that that is the reason for fallen empires and hedonistic societies is just rediculous… I honestly don’t think us ‘gays’ have the power to make an empire fall or create a hedonistic society… furthermore like I have said before no where in the Bible does it say that homosexuality is a sin (in my interpretation)… you have just interpreted it to mean that… which is fine you are entitled to do that… but you are NOT entitled to then force that belief on me… and finally, if you want to think of me as the ‘gay guy’ go ahead… but most people aren’t that narrowed minded though… if you asked any person that truly knows me to describe me the first thing that came out of their mouth probably wouldn’t be ‘oh he is that gay guy’ and if for some reason it was that is fine because they I know they wouldn’t be saying it in a negative way and they also know there is more to me than just being gay
By Tim
November 9, 2004 03:01 PM | Link to this
RS… I knew you would have my back on not just thinking of someone as that ‘gay guy’girl’… thanks :)… Randy’s comment was just rediculous and I know EVERY ONE of my friends would be extremely insulted to know that someone like Randy is telling me what they, my friends, really think of me
By Dane
November 9, 2004 03:25 PM | Link to this
Texas, I do believe that you actually, somewhat, got what I was saying in my posting. If any would care to re-read what I posted, I was conveying that my partner and I lead very quiet lives in the suburbs. We have never pushed our “lifestyle” on others, and actually are religious and attend church. The fact that I mentioned my sister is a juxtaposition, that while opponents of same-sex marriage always refer to it as a “Sacred Institution,” it isn’t being treated as sacred, and divorce is rampant—- even among the faithful. The woman who we thought was our friend is, in fact, on her third husband. While I would otherwise never mention that, it’s just that the very one’s who screech that marriage is “sacred” and all, seem to take it for granted and marry and divorce willy-nilly.
Many of the posters in this column feel that they are being attacked from either side, and I want everyone here to look at my words and see that I am writing from a very peaceful point of view. My earlier post told the story of a feeling of betrayal and a deep sadness at the loss of a friend based on politics and religion. Our dear friend, once her political stance had been firmly established by the re-election of President Bush and the passing of Amendment 1, suddenly took a very sharp turn and told my partner that we would just have to move out of state, or better yet, out of the country.
I am attending graduate school, and in some of my classes that sentiment has been repeated by other students, and not in a joking or playful way. And from the tone of a lot of the comments made in this forum, it appears that the feeling is prevalent here as well.
Some of the percentages tossed around are misleading, as was the amendment itself. People voted for marriage to be defined as between one man and one woman. Fine. But the actual amendment will forbid any type of legal rights such as a civil union, or inheritance rights or palimony agreements. I don’t care how you view it, whatever your personal views are, based on your own religious beliefs, that is just wrong. That is itself bigotry. To lump two people who love each other and have built a life together in with pedophiles and those who engage in bestiality betrays a complete ignorance of the world outside your own walls.
People are being hurt by this amendment and the ongoing debate over how we should live our lives, and very few of you seem to care, and in fact, are revelling in it. Akeya hit it dead on when she mentioned that people are having their heads sawed off in Iraq while America debates about the gay neighbors.
Pitiful priorities, folks. Pitiful.
The topic is “repurcussions,” and I’m telling them to you. If you are heterosexual and married, you may go back to sleep, no one is coming for you—- no one ever was. The fact that my partner and I have been drawn unwillingly into this fray is saddening. Politics and religion have kicked down my front door, and I just can’t seem to get them out. No matter how many candles I burn, how many times I vacuum the carpet and scrub the floor, no matter how many cans of Pier One Cedar & Sage room spray I spray, I can’t get the stench out.
We’ve lost friends, now, because of this Amendment, and jobs and home can’t be too far away.
By RS
November 9, 2004 03:40 PM | Link to this
Even though I am a married heterosexual, I have serious problems accepting that marriage affords certain benefits that cannot be enjoyed by single people. I wonder what the Bible-thumping faction would say about the (lack of??) rights for a straight person who cannot marry, maybe due to a physical disability/disfigurement?? I guess such an individual was not created in God’s image?? Boy, did some of you bring up a valid point! Why is a committed loving one-on-one long-term relationship “sinful, hedonistic & leading to bestiality & pedophilia” but it’s fine to have spouse after spouse? Dane, you are right. The voting in of this vile gay marriage ban has opened a particularly noxious can of worms..I prefer to call it a “witch hunt”. Tim, try not to let Randy’s comment get to you & tell your friends the same. After all, consider the source.
By Tim
November 9, 2004 03:47 PM | Link to this
RS~ don’t worry I sit back and just laugh at some of the comments made
By RS
November 9, 2004 04:22 PM | Link to this
Tim, there IS something inherently amusing about ignorance. And, Dane, I am ever so sorry about the heartache you & your partner have been experiencing; you certainly don’t deserve to be made to feel threatened & unwelcome in your community & country (real Christian behaviour hm??)because of whom you love. Well, try to take comfort in the fact that these people were never your friends to begin with & you were actually lucky to find out what they are really like. It just stinks that you had to go through anything so painful. Just think what a miserable woman she is, having already gone through 3 husbands. And she considers YOU dysfunctional??? HA!
By Texas
November 9, 2004 04:36 PM | Link to this
In the same way that Christianity would say that this type relationship would be unacceptable, so would it be to approve any unjust discrimination of homosexual persons. The Vatican has insisted, in a document considering proposals to give legal recognition to homosexual unions, that such persons “can always make use of the provisions of law…to protect their rights in matters of common interest.”
By Randy
November 9, 2004 04:45 PM | Link to this
Tim Think it through. Don’t go any further down the wrong path.
By RS
November 9, 2004 04:49 PM | Link to this
Want to talk about the “wrong path”? We’ve all heard the sad stories of gay folks who tried to live a lie by suppressing their true feelings & living as heteros. That makes for a miserable marriage, a traumatic divorce & severely traumatized children.
By Texas
November 9, 2004 05:14 PM | Link to this
Dane, One more little story: Fred Keissling was a big man, which helps when you’re a high school coach. His hands may have been the size of baseball mitt, but they were the softest hands in Fort Ben Harrison, Indiana, where Fred was the athletic director for the area high school and a golf pro in the summer. Fred Loved teaching youngsters the rudiments of the game. They often came to his junior clinics with little idea of how to play golf-or even how to grip the club. Most used baseball grips instead of interlocking their fingers. Unfortunately, the baseball grips caused youngsters to sway and dip, leading to poor swings and horrible shots. Whenever Fred saw a poor grip, he stepped behind the youngster, took his own big hands, and wrapped them around the small hands of the youngster. Then he folded the childs hands correctly and initiated practice swings, letting the youngster get used to the feel of the new grip. The new grip usually felt awkward at first, but after several more swings and a few disastrous hits, the most wondrous things happened: the child began hitting the ball squarely, lofting it high into the distance. We may not know it, but we are in the Master’s grip-a grip that is gentle, loving, and never clenched. He cares enough to reach down and hold our hands in His. What could be more loving, more directional, and more hopeful? When our life is held in Christ’s hands, we can be assured that He has ordained the outcome. You’ve heard it before, but it remains true” God has a plan for you. A good plan. The only obstacle to enjoying that plan is running away from it. And that’s not a very wise thing to do. “I know the plans I have for you,” God said through the prophet Jeremiah. “Plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.” A friend of mine always signs his letters, “In His grip.” That’s the safest we can ever be. In God’s grip. That grip is big enough to hold not only you, but your future as well. Worried? Anxious? Not sleeping well because of some huge weight? God’s grip is big enough to handle any problem. And He will handle it. It’s the least He can do for one of His own.
By Zack
November 10, 2004 11:03 AM | Link to this
Texas—Yes, God is there and ready to help us and protect us. We just have to be careful not to get out of His will. God does His part; we just have to do ours. In other words, one can’t go out and live a life of willful sin and expect to walk in fellowship with God simultaneously.
I would appreciate it if those who support gay marriage wouldn’t call its opponents bigots. This is such an unfair act. Bigotry has absolutely nothing to do with opposing gay marriage. This is an unfair label tossed around in an attempt to keep homosexuality opponents from speaking up.
By Zack
November 10, 2004 11:03 AM | Link to this
Texas—Yes, God is there and ready to help us and protect us. We just have to be careful not to get out of His will. God does His part; we just have to do ours. In other words, one can’t go out and live a life of willful sin and expect to walk in fellowship with God simultaneously.
I would appreciate it if those who support gay marriage wouldn’t call its opponents bigots. This is such an unfair act. Bigotry has absolutely nothing to do with opposing gay marriage. This is an unfair label tossed around in an attempt to keep homosexuality opponents from speaking up.
By RS
November 10, 2004 11:10 AM | Link to this
Zack, I need to explain why supporters of the right for gays to marry view the opposition of such act as bigotry. If a segment of the population who has to pay taxes, pay car registration fees, etc, JUST LIKE THE REST OF US, is denied the same rights the straight population is given, what else can it possibly be called? I, for one, cannot think of a viable alternative term.
By Boscoe Roads
November 10, 2004 11:16 AM | Link to this
Texas, you’re wrong. The Vatican continues to push its campaign against gay marriages. Pope John Paul today said the true nature of marriage and family is being distorted by what he calls “a misunderstood sense of rights.” The pope says marriage is a “human” and “divine” gift that society has to defend. He also noted that Christmas is a time to remember the “holy family” of Mary, Joseph and Jesus. The Vatican defines matrimony as a union between a man and a woman. It launched a global push in July to try to stem the growing legal recognition of same-sex marriages. The Vatican has said Catholic politicians have a “moral duty” to oppose laws granting legal rights to gay couples.
By Texas
November 10, 2004 11:26 AM | Link to this
Boscoe, You exactly correct about the Catholic’s position on Marriage, However, you are incorrect on the Catholic’s position on Civil Unions.
By Zack
November 10, 2004 11:38 AM | Link to this
RS—I understand that gay people pay taxes. However, if a man wants to marry his daughter and both are taxpayers, are we going to legalize this, too? I’m not getting smart with you here; I’m just making a point. The ethical side must not be overlooked.
By Texas
November 10, 2004 11:44 AM | Link to this
Boscoe, Cardinal Zenon Grocholewski, on Nov. 5 described as “Unacceptable all unjust discrimination of homosexual persons.” The Polish Cardinal made these statements when closing the 6th International Symposium of the Martin Azpilcueta Institute of the University of Navarre, which brought together 200 professionals and specialist from different countries. “God has endowed nature with wise laws, directed to the good of humanity. These laws cannot be violated without grave risks. Human nature is eloquent in regard to the complementarity of the sexes, the tendency of marriage to generation, etc.”, he said. “I do not understand how the public interest is not seen in recognizing and protecting the institution of marriage. If this is understood, it is not possible to find any basis whatsoever to compare homosexual unions to marriage: there isn’t even an analogy,” he added. On the reiterated position of the Church, he commented: “With this, I mean to say that all those who experience a homosexual inclination are personally culpable, but that homosexual conduct is ‘objectively disordered’ as the Catechism of the Catholic Church reminds us. In the same way as it would be unacceptable to approve this type of relation, so would it be to approve any unjust discrimination of homosexual persons.”
By Texas
November 10, 2004 12:03 PM | Link to this
Zack, The ONE Who has not gotten out of “God’s Will” may cast the first stone!
Look, we all have smudges, there’s nothing wrong with pointed out the correct way, but be careful…
“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men’s bones and everything unclean! In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as rightous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness� Is my soul like a whitewashed tomb-beautiful on the outside, but underneath, full of dirt? A casual observer might notice how faithfully I attend Bible studies, mentor other believers, put away chairs after church, and be impressed. What a good Christian! But what if he peered closer? What if he took a rag and rubbed away the outer layer of polish? What would he see? A short temper? A covetous heart? An envious spirit? An impatient demanor? Smudges? It’s not enough to sweep over the surface of our souls, to push the dirt around with a rag or a sponge and cover it up with polish. A well-cleaned soul must be stripped of all pretense. What does it take to examine your soul? It takes getting down on your hands and knees before God, admitting to Him all that your are: ill tempered, covetous, envious, impatient. It also takes admitting to others that you’re not as flawless as they think, and asking them to pray for you. It takes the scouring cleanser of honesty and humility before God and others to purge our souls of hypocrisy. It’s never too late to apply the rigorous cleansing of reality and repentance to a negelected soul, and become-inside and out-thoroughly clean.
By Tim
November 10, 2004 12:29 PM | Link to this
Zack, you were wondering why people like RS were saying that your stance was bigotry… I can tell you why… you just compaired my relationship to that of incest… THAT IS BIGOTRY!
By RS
November 10, 2004 12:55 PM | Link to this
Zack: The union of a man with his daughter is harmful; it would most likely cause her severe psychological damage & any offspring have a good chance of being born severely deformed/retarded. The union of 2 loving, non-related adults of the same gender will not harm anyone. I’m afraid Tim brought up a valid point in stating that comparing homosexuality & incest is, indeed, bigotry. And no one is stopping you from expressing your opinions; you’ve been doing so all along, right?
By Tim
November 10, 2004 01:01 PM | Link to this
RS~ you are right on about incest… there is a big difference between incest and homosexuality… to compaire the two is rediculous
By Boscoe Roads
November 10, 2004 01:54 PM | Link to this
Texas, how do you understand the Vatican to accept gay unions with that post? The Vatican does not except gay marriage or civil unions! All Cardinal Grocholewski said was that you should discriminate against the basic human rights i.e. food, shelter, medical care simply because someone is gay. He said nothing of accepting civil unions. Pope John Paul II again stressed his opposition to gay unions today, saying they degrade the true sense of marriage between man and woman. He urged Catholic and non-Catholic authorities alike to stop approving them. It was the second time in a week that John Paul has raised the issue, which is making headlines in the United States as a national debate arises from a decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court that prohibiting same-sex marriages violated that state’s constitution. In his comments, John Paul said a family based on marriage between man and woman was a pillar of society that justly had rights and duties specific to it.In his weekly Sunday comments in St. Peter’s Square, the pontiff said marriage - which the Vatican defines as a sacred union between man and woman - was a “human and divine” gift that should be defended by society. “In our times, a misunderstood sense of rights has sometimes disturbed the nature of the family institution and conjugal bond itself,” he said. “It is necessary that at every level, the efforts of those who believe in the importance of the family based on matrimony unite.” In July, the Vatican launched a global campaign against gay unions in a bid to stem the tide of widening legal recognition for same-sex marriages in Europe, North America and elsewhere. The Vatican’s orthodoxy watchdog, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, issued a document saying Catholic politicians had a “moral duty” to oppose laws granting legal rights to gay couples, and that non-Catholics should follow their lead since the issue concerns “natural moral law.” “To vote in favour of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral,” the document said, although it didn’t specify penalties for Catholics who do. A Massachusetts bishop has warned Catholics that they should not be involved in the legal recognition of same-sex unions. Just a week after his installation as head of the Worcester diocese, Bishop Robert McManus issued a strong statement teaching same-sex “marriages” are “clear and serious violations of the law of God and moral teaching of the Roman Catholic Church.” City and town clerks in Massachusetts began granting marriage licenses to same-sex couples on May 17: the day after Bishop McManus assumed his new episcopal duties. Referring to the court decision that authorized same-sex unions, the new bishop said: “The judicial decision of a court can never make morally right what is by nature morally wrong.” In the most striking passage of his statement, Bishop McManus cautioned Catholics that they must not become involved in granting legal approval to homosexual unions. He wrote: “Moreover, it must be pointed out that Catholics, especially public officials, who willingly and with approval facilitate the legal sanctioning of same-sex unions are involving themselves in cooperation with evil. Such cooperation is not free from serious moral and spiritual harm.”
By Boscoe Roads
November 10, 2004 02:02 PM | Link to this
What I meant to say was! All Cardinal Grocholewski said was that you should * NOT* discriminate against the basic human rights i.e. food, shelter, medical care simply because someone is gay. He said nothing of accepting civil unions
By Dane
November 10, 2004 02:04 PM | Link to this
Why is it that when all other logical arguments fail, opponents of gay unions predictably resort to comparing the relationships of gays to incest, pedophiles, bestiality and other dispicable acts. Yes, incest is dispicable, as is sex with children and animals. I know none of you would say that to my face, because I would like to believe that in person you do have some decency and decorum. My partner and I are both in our thirties and are decent, upstanding citizens, as are 99.9% of all gays—yes,there are sicko’s in our community, just like yours. So to stereotype us or to lump us in a detestable group like the ones mentioned is nothing less than bigotry. No matter how you spin it, and it betrays the now un-masked bigotry of the supporters of constitutional amendments and other laws passed to deny basic rights to gays and lesbians.
I do not attack anyone except in retaliation when I am attacked. I post on this site only to convey the changes in people by the recent elections. Maybe not inside the Perimeter or its immediate surrounding, where people are a little more cosmopolitan, but further out in the suburbs people are becoming emboldened in their anti-gay rhetoric. With the feeling of the law “on their side” they aren’t afraid to bash anymore. People who were once tolerant and open-minded are becoming intolerant and narrow-minded. It’s not just against gays, its the whole feeling of regressing back to pre-Victorian ways of dealing with the world.
Five years into the 21st century I find it depressing that people are looking back, instead of looking ahead.
By Randy
November 10, 2004 02:05 PM | Link to this
Anyone want to talk about some group being a bigot. Last night on Hannity and Colmes, Zell Miller said “The public doesn’t know this, but Democrats will not vote into a office anyone who attends church”. That’s scary.
By Boscoe Roads
November 10, 2004 02:10 PM | Link to this
Dane, how will allowing gay marriage move the U.S. into the 21st century or “forward” rather than “backward”?
By Tim
November 10, 2004 02:13 PM | Link to this
oh yes… let me just listen to absolutely everything that Zell has to say… that is funny
By Lee
November 10, 2004 02:32 PM | Link to this
Bigot: One who is strongly partial to one’s own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ. If you do not tolerate the views of others, lifestyles, religions, race, or politics, then you are a bigot. (by the dictionary definition). I think it is more ignorance on behalf of those against gay marriage than it is true hatred. They were just brought up learning that homosexuality was wrong, is a sin, etc etc etc. They didn’t know anyone who was gay, or rather, the gays didn’t let anyone know who they were, for fear of retribution. Because gays were also were brought up learning that homosexuality was wrong, is a sin, etc etc etc. If you do not know someone who is gay, and cannot relate to them, you never learn that they had no choice to feel how they feel. You think they “chose” to be in a group that is so despised by so many?
So, now some homosexuals who have decided against promiscuity (because before, you see, you couldn’t really stay in a relationship, you had to find “it” where-ever you could). People want to “protect marriage” because some people want to dedicate their lives to each other??
ummm… I’d be speechless at the total ignorance … but I hate ignorance.
I’m a bigot against ignorance. I don’t understand why people choose to remain ignorant.
By RS
November 10, 2004 02:33 PM | Link to this
Boscoe, I’ll allow Dane the courtesy of answering the question you posed to him, but here is my 2 cents as well: Allowing gay marriage will move society forward because it will help break us free of ignorance, prejudice & hatred. Zell Miller’s comment is a gross stereotype; I’ve been a lifelong Democrat-teetering-on-Independent & I think it’s actually nice when candidates practice their faith. I say practice as opposed to attending their particular house of worship & then using their church as an excuse to spew vile hate-mongering. You Bible-thumpers are always maintaining that legalizing gay marriage will open the floodgates to all sorts of disgusting perversions & abuses; by the same token, we supporters of gay marriage are afraid that the voting in of the gay marriage ban will open the floodgates for gay-bashing that includes some really violent crimes; Dane is already seeing it happen. Sorry, but I don’t call that very Christian behaviour..
By Akeya
November 10, 2004 03:02 PM | Link to this
And the Hate Crimes law was repealed just in time for this election, no?
By Akeya
November 10, 2004 03:05 PM | Link to this
I thinks it’s a bit strange that I’m getting an influx of tenant moving here from Ohio…
By Boscoe Roads
November 10, 2004 03:09 PM | Link to this
RS, I agree, about the violence but gay pride parades have been filled with violence by the members as well. It certainly isn’t just the Christians. I’m sorry but epidemiological studies in Australia have found gay men to be at high risk of contacting HIV/AIDS and other STIs. There is also an increased risk of both hepatitis A and B in this population. Research indicates that gay men are at greater risk of anal cancers and intestinal infections compared to their heterosexual cohorts. Sexually transmitted diseases are without a doubt the most serious consequence of homosexual behavior. Practicing homosexuals as a group account for an overwhelmingly disproportionate number of cases of sexually transmitted diseases, including gonorrhea, hepatitis A, hepatitis B, and syphilis (Mireya Navarro, “Federal Officials See Sharp Rise of Hepatitis Among Gay Men,” The New York Times, March 6, 1992). According to the American Medical Association, homosexual youth are twenty-three times more likely to contract sexually transmitted diseases than heterosexuals. The AMA is not a faith based organization. I don’t see this as ignorance, prejudice or hatred. I certainly don’t see this as moving forward either. I haven’t gone into the psychological problems that come with homosexuality or the effects this has on raising children. Again I don’t see this as going forward.
By Dane
November 10, 2004 03:12 PM | Link to this
Ah, Boscoe.
Yes, allowing gay marriage, at the very LEAST civil unions, will move society forward in the sense of recognizing people for their worth and as seeing people as equals rather than some dispised group because they aren’t like you. I love my partner with every fiber of my being, but now narrow-minded bigots have seized power and are legislating that I may never legally be married to him. But it doesn’t stop there, no, I cannot even have a basic legal arrangement with him that cannot be thrown out of court based on the new constitutional amendment that also forbids any legal contract “resembling” marriage.
Moving forward is just that, Boscoe. I can’t see how you cannot agree— but then I am sure you will.
By Akeya
November 10, 2004 03:13 PM | Link to this
Black women are at high risk of dying from heart disease. Maybe we should just stop black couples from having black female babies, since we’re at such high risk of dying from heart disease anyway…
By Tim
November 10, 2004 03:16 PM | Link to this
Boscoe, you cited an article from 1992… 12 years ago? today, black heterosexual females are the fastest growing population of HIV cases… and right behind them are senior citizens… does this mean being a black woman, or being old is wrong? and I would LOVE to see the so called psychological problems on raising children… I have seen a number of same sex partners raising children and have not seen one yet that seemed different from a child living in a home with heterosexual parents
By RS
November 10, 2004 03:45 PM | Link to this
Boscoe, most ethnic groups are genetically predisposed to some kind of disorder or affliction; My own ethnic group is predisposed to Tay-Sachs, for one; maybe NO ONE should ever breed again & we ought to let the entire world’s population become extinct? At least gay couples aren’t going to pass on any bad genes!
By Texas
November 11, 2004 07:50 AM | Link to this
Boscoe, After further review I stand corrected on the Catholic’s position on Homosexual Unions. Nonetheless, according to the teaching of the Church, men and women with homosexual tendencies “must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity.” Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.
By Zack
November 11, 2004 09:53 AM | Link to this
Texas—Yesterday, I said we had to be careful not to get out of God’s will—after you almost said we couldn’t do so—and then you refuted me pretty harshly. I don’t know what that was all about.
No, you’re not a bigot, folks, if you oppose gay marriage. A bigot, by definition, is someone who won’t change his position no matter how much reason refutes him. There is no reasoning in a stance in favor of gay marriage. I’m sick of all this “hate group” talk. I don’t hate any homosexual. Hating homosexuality is totally different.
By the way, remember the time Lewis Grizzard wrote an article congratulating Cobb County for its anti-gay stance? He was written some of the most hateful letters, people saying they wish his heart surgery hadn’t been successful, etc.. As you can see, bigotry is what is given by the gay community (and other liberals) to all those who dare to differ.
By Randy
November 11, 2004 10:16 AM | Link to this
Tom Brokaw wrote a book “The Greatest Generation”, about my fathers generation. That generation fought WWII, held strong to their faith, raised healthy strong families, etc. I sincerely want to apologize for my generation. We have let down the american public, we let one lady in 1963 take prayer out of school, we let Roe V Wade happen in 1973 and because of these and other weaknesses from my generation, the USA is not as strong of a nation as it use to be. I am ashamed of what we have done to people, especially the ones who don’t know that they don’t know. Now we have unbelievable crime, confused people who are homosexual, you have my sincere apology. I will make a stand here though and will fight for Christianity and this great nation.
By RS
November 11, 2004 10:27 AM | Link to this
Zack, I think everyone, be they liberal or conservative, pro gay marriage or anti gay marriage, has their own prejudices. I certainly have some of my own. It’s nothing I’m particularly proud of, but like it or not, I feel that way. Oh, I feel there IS reasoning in a stance in favour of gay marriage; whether or not to grant equal RIGHTS to a group of American citizens who have the same RESPONSIBILITIES as the rest of us & are not harming anyone else. I’m sure you truly believe you don’t hate homosexuals but by wishing to deny them basic rights, you can’t LIKE them very much, can you?
By Zack
November 11, 2004 10:27 AM | Link to this
Great points, Randy. Also, isn’t it sadly ironic how a democracy would let a minority—in this case, one lady—influence prayer out of schools?
By RS
November 11, 2004 10:32 AM | Link to this
Randy, I can’t argue that there were things about our parent’s generation that are better than ours, but when you make a comment about “fighting for Christianity”, why are you so shocked when us non-Christians are offended & feel we are being discriminated against? Newsflash: There are people in the USA who are of other religions & guess what? Some of us are pretty decent folks!
By Texas
November 11, 2004 10:36 AM | Link to this
Zack, I’m kind of confused. I understand about marriage and all, but I don’t get society to an extent. For example, on television there is a commerical that promotes Prostitution. The one about “What happens in Las Vegas Stays in Las Vegas. I get as Christians this is unacceptable, but as a whole, society ignores it. While at the same time condemns Homosexual Unions. All I was trying to say was that we all sin. As a sinner, I do my best not to judge for fear of my judgement. I’ve made a lot of mistakes in my life, and I believe we all have to answer for our actions. So I was basically warning all to be very careful of how we make judgements.
By Zack
November 11, 2004 11:00 AM | Link to this
Texas—I understand. We certainly do need to look at our mistakes first and foremost and then discern the rights from wrongs of the world and stand against that which is wrong.
RS—You get offended when people stand for Christianity. Guess what? I’m offended when people stand against Christianity. I’m offended by the notion of gay marriage, the tragic reality of abortion, prostitution, pornography, and all the other appalling filth in society. My stance against gay marriage has nothing to do with hatred. The lifestyle goes against the Bible, which is what our laws were founded upon.
Again, I find it so ironic that gay marriage advocates talk about this phantom hatred they face and then unleash fury on those who stand against their agenda.
I’m not the biggest George W. Bush fan, but I’m glad he won the election. When seeing all the protesters outside the RNC and all the people proudly displaying their homosexual lifestyles, I knew it would be a good thing if they were disappointed by the election’s outcome.
By Tim
November 11, 2004 11:05 AM | Link to this
Zack, I hate to break it to you but you talk about bigots and hate… well as I pointed out earlier you putting me in the same category with people who commit incest is being a bigot and is HATEFUL… simple as that!
By Zack
November 11, 2004 11:13 AM | Link to this
Tim—The argument was made that gay people pay taxes and should be allowed to marry. I refuted that a man and his daughter might pay taxes, but they shouldn’t be allowed to marry. I’m defending an institution, not attacking anyone.
By Tim
November 11, 2004 11:13 AM | Link to this
Zack… the Bible also states that divorce is wrong… when are we going to outlaw that? and furthermore… simply because you believe that the Bible clearly states that homosexuality is wrong does not make it so… the Bible never states that homosexuality is immoral… passages like The Holiness Code in Leviticus states that ISRAELITES were supposed to refrain from homosexual acts because they were supposed to be different from other cultures around them (it is in the same cattegory as mixing fabrics or eating pork)… it was simply a cultural thing… not an immoral thing! so simply because in YOUR view homosexuality is a sin because that is how YOU interpret the Bible does not make is so and you should not force that view on another person
By Tim
November 11, 2004 11:17 AM | Link to this
Zack, plain and simple… you put me in the same category as someone committing incest… YOU did that… I don’t care what you were trying to prove… YOU put homosexuality in the same category as incest… that is HATE no matter how you look at it!
By RS
November 11, 2004 11:18 AM | Link to this
Texas: You brought up a valid point & I think I can answer your concern. We live in a homophobic society. The same people who visit prostitutes then proceed to turn around & condemn gays, not because of any valid moral reason (although they’ll have you believe that’s the case) but because of plain old negativity towards homosexuality. I have to laugh at how a lot of “religious” zealots pick & choose what they consider to be a sin. If they enjoy it, it’s ok. If they don’t, it’s a sin. Zack: I’ve said it before, but clearly there seems to be some sort of miscommunication; no, I am NOT anti-Christianity. I am against putting one religion above all others & being treated like I do & should wallow in filth because I am not a Christian.
By RS
November 11, 2004 11:23 AM | Link to this
Tim, you genuinely know more about the Bible than these so-called “religious”(?!?) zealots. Not that I’m surprised. The reason homosexuality, & masturbation, for that matter, was frowned upon in Biblical times, was that these acts “wasted seed” at a time when the world needed to be populated more. This is no longer relevant. In fact, just the opposite.
By Tim
November 11, 2004 11:30 AM | Link to this
RS~ thanks! I researched things in the Bible (and even went to a Christian University… voluntarily) rather than take someone elses word on what I am supposed to believe
By Zack
November 11, 2004 11:33 AM | Link to this
Boy, talking about putting your own spin on things, RS and Tim.
I’ve said it before and will again: America was founded upon the Bible. Our laws and learning institutions used the Bible as their cornerstone. After drifting from this, nowadays, it’s considered politically incorrect to mention the Bible at all. (The fact that Christian prayers aren’t allowed at graduations is absurd.) We now have the myth of relativism forced upon everyone else.
Don’t tell me a thing about hatred. Defending the institution of marriage is anything but hatred. You know this as well as I do. Quit trying to turn name-calling into a supporting argument.
What we need are more people like me who will stand up against the liberal agenda.
By Tim
November 11, 2004 11:41 AM | Link to this
Zack, number one… I did not put ‘my own spin on things’… I carefully and intellectually researched this… and the only response you can come up with is that?… I have facts to back up my statements… not simply ‘my own spin’… number two… I never said that you trying to defend the ‘institution of marriage’was hatred… I said that PUTTING ME IN THE SAME CATEGORY AS INCEST IS HATRED… you wanting to defend what you believe to be ‘the institution of marriage’ is fine… but bringing incest into the picture and compairing it to homosexuality IS using hatred to support your argument
By RS
November 11, 2004 11:52 AM | Link to this
Zack, the reason Christian prayers aren’t allowed at graduations is because not every graduate & their families & friends are Christian. It’s that simple. Tim, we’ll never make certain people see reason. If they prefer to let the church do their thinking for them, there’s nothing you & I can say. Thinking for oneself can be very scary & threatening to a lot of people. Fortunately they have an alternative
By Randy
November 11, 2004 12:28 PM | Link to this
RS I have absolutely thought it through. So we Christians can’t think for ourselves? Right. The problem is non-Christians are working on partical information. I can back up my Christian faith scientifically, logically, any way you want it. The problem is non-Christians are afraid to ask the questions that really matter! They just want to ask half baked questions and react emotionally. Ask the real questions.
By Akeya
November 11, 2004 12:30 PM | Link to this
The bottom line is that people used their religion to take away a basic right from another group of people.
The amendment should never have been on the ballot. It should never have been left in the hands of people not involved in the relationships.
My boyfriend is of a different culture and race. I guess in 2008 the ballot will include an amendment to ban interracial/intercultural mariages based on some passage from the Bible.
I’m so amazed at how we boast about being a country of freedom and rights, yet our rights are being stripped away..
Can someone please read “1984”?
Better get my burka ready….
By RS
November 11, 2004 12:46 PM | Link to this
Well, Akeya, looks like you & I are going burka-shopping together…Randy, you CAN think for yourself; remember, God gave us free will. You just choose not to. Aha! Again, it’s Christians (i.e. the “good guys”) vs. non-Christians (i.e. “evil Satan-worshippers”). Now, what do you mean by “questions that really matter”? I’m anxious to find out
By Randy
November 11, 2004 12:58 PM | Link to this
Questions that really matter, Is JESUS the messiah? What scientific proof do we have that GOD exists? ETC. I have to work so I may not be able to answer them today.
By Tim
November 11, 2004 01:00 PM | Link to this
RS & Akeya~ don’t leave me out! I wanna go burka shopping too!
By Texas
November 11, 2004 01:02 PM | Link to this
RS, I’m a tolerant Christian. I believe this Amendment issue is very difficult. I can see both sides. However, when you said that prayer shouldn’t be allowed because all are not Christians, with that logic, Meat shouldn’t be served in School’s because some are vegetarians. Where would it end? Akeya, People have used their Atheism to take away Christian right to pray in Public places. How come after 200 plus years we find it untolerable? I understand ya’ll’s point. Tolerance is a two way street.
By Randy
November 11, 2004 01:09 PM | Link to this
I don’t think for myself? RIGHT. The ones who don’t think for themselves are the 88% of African-Americans who voted for KERRY, and any other Christian person who voted Democratic. You RS, Tim etc. are the ones who think they know what they are talking about, but you really don’t. It really my fault and my generations fault your head is where it is. You have my apology.
By Akeya
November 11, 2004 01:10 PM | Link to this
Texas- You have the right to pray wherever you please. I just don’t think that all should be forced to do so.
Also, since some are vegetarians, we have to make accomodations for them because they eat differently. To me, that’s fair. We cannot force those who are vegetarians to eat meat. Being a vegetarian is a choice, but they still have options. Go to any school and /or restaurant and you will see a veggie menu.
BY the same token, we cannot force homosexuals to be heterosexuals by denying them rights…
By Tim
November 11, 2004 01:11 PM | Link to this
Texas, I can see where you are coming from… but no one ‘took’ prayer out of schools… they just stopped making it mandatory for everyone to pray… I prayed every day when I was in high school and I also know that the principal of the high school did as well… people still have a right to pray in schools… you just cannot force the person next to you to pray… we had a moment of silence at the beginning of everyday in my High School… if you wanted to pray you could… or if you wanted to try and sleep for 15 seconds you could do that too… the point is that you are still able to pray… you just don’t have to if you choose not to… and you don’t have the right to force someone else to… in reference to your analogy of being a vegeterian… yes schools serve meat… but they don’t force vegeterians to eat it… if they were forcing someone to eat meat even though they did not want to yes that would be wrong… just like forcing someone to pray even if they don’t want to is wrong
By Akeya
November 11, 2004 01:14 PM | Link to this
Well… aren’t we condescending today, Randy?
By Randy
November 11, 2004 01:25 PM | Link to this
I call it Honesty.
By Texas
November 11, 2004 01:26 PM | Link to this
Tim, I see it kind of different. A moment of silence is not a prayer. It was perfectly okay to prayer aloud in school. If you did not wish to pray, you could have sat in silence while the rest of the class prayed. I don’t know about the amendment. I feel that regardless of your private life, basic rights should not be infringed upon. I understand the Christian point of view, and I understand the Gay’s point of view. I wish I was as wise as King Soleman.
By Randy
November 11, 2004 01:30 PM | Link to this
Tim The problem with the USA is we cater to what we want to do, not what God wants us to do. No one made anyone pray that didn’t want to. They may have put their head down, but no one has prayed ever, that didn’t really want to. It’s like the cartoon where the angel is on one side of the person and the Devil is on the other. It just depends on whos advise you are listening to.
By Akeya
November 11, 2004 01:33 PM | Link to this
What I see is a lack of compromise, Texas…
You think that it’s fair to make others sit in silence as other students pray? That’s completely ridiculous.
Muslims pray 5 times a day, but they don’t pray at random. Their prayers are done at specific times of the day. Why should they sit in silence as some other students recite a Christian prayer.
Talk about exclusionary…
By Tim
November 11, 2004 01:36 PM | Link to this
Texas, I honestly do not know how it would be handled if someone started praying out loud… I am probably safe in saying that at the high school I attended in particular I don’t think someone would have gotten in trouble… I just don’t think anyone actually did pray out loud… I would honestly stand with you and say that if someone did want to pray out loud (at the appropriate time) they should be allowed… as long as a Muslum could put down their mat and pray to Allah at that very same moment
and oh for all of us to be as wise as King Soloman… how much better the world would actually be
By Randy
November 11, 2004 01:38 PM | Link to this
Tim You finaly did something right. You spelled Soloman correctly.
By Tim
November 11, 2004 01:40 PM | Link to this
Randy, the problem is that you think everyone should act like you believe… sure there are certain things God wants us to do… one of them is NOT forcing your beliefs on someone else
By Zack
November 11, 2004 01:41 PM | Link to this
This question is asked with negative wording. It’s as if the amendment is a threat to society and that we have to defend ourselves against it. Actually, the question should ask about the repercussions should the amendment not be passed.
Should that be the case, we would know then that right and wrong, which remain as different as black and white (and always will), are now given another fresh coat of gray paint.
Tim, again, the argument was made that gay people should be allowed to marry because they pay taxes. I used that same “support” in a question about a father and his daughter wanting to marry, and I don’t apologize for my example because I was simply exposing that “logic” for the fraud it was.
I’m just sick and tired of example after example of the left wing imposing itself on everyone else, and then when Christians stand up for the Bible, the original basis for our laws, we’re told we’re doing exactly what they’re doing to us.
The Bible does oppose homosexuality and masturbation, and the spin I referred to your making were the comments you and “RS” made.
By Akeya
November 11, 2004 01:41 PM | Link to this
And you, Randy, spelled “finally” wrong… what’s your point?
By Tim
November 11, 2004 01:42 PM | Link to this
well dang… and spelling is not one of my strong points :)
By Texas
November 11, 2004 01:44 PM | Link to this
Akeya, Your correct with any school or resturant menu, but meat is still on the menu. Prayer is not allowed any longer. A moment of silence is not the same. I don’t believe denying any one any rights will change their preference. I don’t believe that’s the issue. (To change someone’s preference). I believe the issue is the Sancity of marriage. I believe it should remain Sacred. I don’t know how to avoid impacting anyone eles’s rights by doing so.
By Randy
November 11, 2004 01:48 PM | Link to this
Tim I agree, I’m don’t want to force my believes on anyone. However, I want them to see a different point of view. JESUS never made anybody do anything, defeats the purpose. The problem I have is I’m so at peace, happy, great life, family, very well off financially etc. I just wish it for others. As God gave me all these things, I just want to share the good news.
By Randy
November 11, 2004 01:49 PM | Link to this
Tim The reason I pointed out the spelling of Soloman, is TEXAS misspelled it just before.
By Tim
November 11, 2004 01:50 PM | Link to this
Zack, you say that the USA was the original basis of our laws… ok… well the Bible states that it is to be used for your spiritual lives and that there are separate laws for the society as a whole… and that it is wrong to force your Biblical opinions on someone else… therefore citing the Bible as to why homosexuals should not be allowed to marry is essentially wrong (according to the Bible)
and… like I stated before… YOU believe that the Bible states that homosexuality is a sin… others do not believe like you believe… you cannot and should not force that on someone else
By Tim
November 11, 2004 01:53 PM | Link to this
Randy, I can see where your coming from… but the problem is by not giving someone (i.e. me) a choice of whom they believe is best for them to marry you are essentially trying to force your views upon them
By Tim
November 11, 2004 01:56 PM | Link to this
Zack, also… no matter your reasoning for grouping incest and homosexuality together it is still hate
‘you can’t put lipstick on this pig’
By Randy
November 11, 2004 01:57 PM | Link to this
Tim Again, me and the 78% of Georgians who voted “YES” did it not to hurt you and other people who are GAY. We did it to protect our society and country. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
By Zack
November 11, 2004 01:58 PM | Link to this
Tim—What goes on in one’s private life is one thing; what our country endorses/legalizes is another. Someone has a legal right to be gay, but the possible legalization of gay marriage is something we can approve/deny with our laws, and we should indeed deny it.
It sure looks like you’re the one doing the imposing, Tim…you and those like you. The gay community essentially throws its agenda out there and threatens to call you a bigot if you disagree. This is unfair completely.
By Tim
November 11, 2004 02:03 PM | Link to this
Randy, first, I knew why you pointed out the spelling of Soloman… no worries there… second, there are countries in which same sex marriage is legal and these societies have yet to fall… therefore the needs of the many have not been put in jeopardy
By Tim
November 11, 2004 02:07 PM | Link to this
Zack, I honestly could care less if you agree with my lifestyle or not… I am not trying to force you to ‘endorse’ my lifestyle… what I am trying to show is that everyone should be entitled to equal status of their relationship whether it be 2 people of the same sex or 2 people from the opposite sex…
if I dragged you out of you home and forced you to sit in the front row of my wedding or civil union or whatever then I would be trying to force you to agree with my lifestyle
By Texas
November 11, 2004 02:12 PM | Link to this
Akeya, I want to compromise. I went to Catholic School so we prayed aloud and a lot. There was a girl who was not Catholic, I was young and did not talk to her, however, she sat there or stood whatever the case was, in silence. No one teased her. It was a Catholic School, I guess her parents felt she’d get a better education. The point is, no one forced Religion upon her. I don’t mean to be ridiculous. I was in Indonesia for four years, talk about exclusion. The point remains the amendment and how best as Christians to protect the Sanctity of Marriage in which I am having a difficult time.
By Dane
November 11, 2004 02:16 PM | Link to this
Now folks are quoting Star Trek.
By Akeya
November 11, 2004 02:29 PM | Link to this
Prayer is allowed in school… it is for the sake of those students who do not belive or believe differently that it is no longer called “prayer” and forced upon the other students.
Why is it that no one talks about banning divorce? Why are we able to get divorces on the Internet? Divorce and people getting married for the wrong reasons are problems which erase the “sanctity” of marriage.
Also, you brought up a valid point to my defense. You went to a religious school. Of course you would be expected to pray. That student perhaps just did not want to pray. How could you know anything about her when you said that you never talked to her?
By Akeya
November 11, 2004 02:37 PM | Link to this
laughing at Dane
By Dane
November 11, 2004 02:53 PM | Link to this
After reading the comments that have been posted since I logged off yesterday I have come to a conclusion: you just simply cannot change people’s opinions.
Those who maintain their anti-gay sentiment are offended when they are referred to as what they are: bigots. The term “bigot” has been defined in earlier postings, and is dead-on. The same people are part of the movement that has hijacked the Republican party as the “Christian” party and anyone who doesn’t vote or agree with it is seen as amoral, dirty sinners and will be “dealt with severely.”
This is what scares me. I am a fiscally conservative man, I believe that the US military should be the strongest in the world, I believe in free trade; in general, I agree with what the Republican party has stood for for many years, and was myself a Republican and a member of the Log Cabin Republicans. What happened? Bush and the Republicans lost my support when they directly attacked me and my home. How did they do that? By calling on Congress to pass an amendment to the Constitution to forever bar me from achieving a legal relationship with my partner of five years.
That goal was accomplished in Georgia. While someone wrote in an earlier post that it wasn’t designed to harm gays or to discriminate, but to “protect” marriage, to that I say: How in blazes would YOU know? Unless you are gay, and more specifically, unless you are gay in a lasting relationship where there is significant financial and emotional attachment you wouldn’t know.
I wrote earlier, trying to stay on the TOPIC of this column, that the “repurcussions” are indeed great and far reaching for those who are being singled out. The amendment wipes out palimony, inheritance rights, powers of attorney, and anything that “resembles the institution of marriage.”
I said earlier that those of you opposed to gay marriage, and supporters of the amendment can go back to sleep. No one is gunning for your “sacred institution.” No one ever was. You can write from your high pedestal of self-righteousness all you like, and point at me and others like me that we are wrong because your Bible says so, you will never know what it is like for your relationship with the person you love more than anything on this earth to be so callously swept aside as insignificant. You will never know what it is like to be fired from your job after ten years because of who you love and who you live with.
By Dane
November 11, 2004 03:10 PM | Link to this
Further, and this isn’t “designed” to hurt anyone or attack anyone’s beliefs, but why is it that those who so vehemently oppose same-sex marriage by passing legislation to ban it, do not direct the same amount of energy in correcting the already abysmal state of the institution they are trying to “protect?”
Everyone keeps referring to the “sanctity of marriage.” Akeya pointed out that you can get divorced on the internet. People that get married in a church are blessed by a priest/rabbi or whatever and it is, at that point, a religious ceremony. Yes. But when you get divorced, is it in a church? No. The only ones presiding over that sad event is a lawyer and a judge. Are the vows made to each other and to God no longer binding? Did a priest absolve them? These are unanswered quandries that it seems will remain unanswered so long as those damn gays can’t get married! That’s all that matters!
By Mike Hipp
November 11, 2004 03:22 PM | Link to this
You trolls are wearing me out. You’re not going to get anything solved, so just give your fingers a rest and stop posting 4 times a minute.
I would so dearly love to see someone on the ‘ban it’ side try to offer up a reason to ban it based on something other than god or the bible. And no, your morals don’t count, they are derived from your precious old text that isn’t really god’s word at all, it was written by men and translated into the version you enjoy now by a 14th century english king who had his own agenda.
Oh, and no more quoting Spock… out laws are certainly not derived from him.
By Texas
November 11, 2004 03:45 PM | Link to this
Dane, I can’t speak for other Religions, I’m sorry for my ignorance, however, if your married in a Catholic Church, while yes, you can get a divorce from civil courts, you can not get married again in a Catholic Church. As a matter of fact, you can not receive the Sacarments any longer if you have another relationsip outside of the origianl marriage. I know, I’m in that position. It takes a lot to get your first marriage annulled. I still go to church, and I’m still Catholic, just missing out on the Sacarments. But I believe you frustration goes further than that.
By Dane
November 11, 2004 03:46 PM | Link to this
Kudos, Mike.
By Dane
November 11, 2004 04:00 PM | Link to this
Texas, like you, I cannot speak for other religions, I just speak from experience with Baptist and other non-Catholic denominations. Regardless, the fact is that divorce is a relatively easy thing in this country. But this column has been beat to death, and nothing is solved. As Mike summed up in his brief posting.
Time will tell, and the debates will continue. The amendment is being challenged in court, but with the current political climate I am sure the case will be thrown out and the amendment put into effect soon. A victory for Puritanism.
Good luck to everyone, and bundle up: Winter has fallen on America and it is going to be a long, cold ride for the next four years.
By RS
November 11, 2004 04:12 PM | Link to this
(Folks, first of all, it is ‘SoloMON’.) Zack, I’m glad you brought up the Bible’s opposition to homosexuality & masturbation. Now, you might want to scroll back & re-read what Tim & I wrote on that topic. Texas, I never said prayer should be banned from schools. I have no problem with prayer in schools, I believe in a Creator myself, but feel it sould be non-denominational prayer. Exclusionism is exclusionism even if the religion excluded is one of those dreaded minorities. Tim, you may HAVE to go burka-shopping with us one day; who knows WHAT this society will end up doing to our gay & lesbian citizens. Dane, I’m sorry to say that the redneck faction not only offers up no apology as to what was done to you & your partner, they are happy about it. Mike H, you are the voice of reason, we definately want to see more of you on here! Randy, as to your comment about the needs of many outweighing the needs of the few, that doesn’t make us straights more important than gays. And why does taking anyone’s rights away satisfy your “needs”? That’s sad..I’m glad you’re enjoying a happy, successful & fulfilling life but so are many others who are not Christians. I do not ask if Jesus is the Messiah because I do not know; the Messiah has not gotten here yet! I do, in fact, have scientific proof God exists; after all, no one else could have created nature. I won’t go into this but my beliefs are a mix of creationism and scientific. That’s why I never felt a need o ask. I think I know what I’m talking about because whether or not I am right or wrong, I do think for myself.
By Mike Hipp
November 11, 2004 05:30 PM | Link to this
It’s interesting to look at a few numbers here. Know I know I will get flammed for trying to tie miscegenation to gay marriage and I can understand why some would say that they’re not similar issues, but they aren’t dissimilar in the reaction they drew from the public and that’s the issue that I’m speaking to.
Back in the days… pre 1967… when anti-miscegenation laws were still on the books in most of the states, the percentage of americans that opposed the intermarriage of whites and blacks stood around 75 percent. It was as high as 94 percent in the late 50’s but apparently they had grown a little…… Anyway!
Isn’t it interesting to note that on average, it was 70/30 yes/no in the eleven states that voted to put amendments to ban same sex marriage into their state constitutions? I would be willing to wager, though I haven’t done this bit of research, that if you were to go back 20 years from today, that number would probably be up somewhere in the range of 90 percent as well.
What I’m trying to get across here is that people hate change. I see that in my own life… I know how you feel. “Who Moved My Cheese” and all that. It’s true though, people in general resist change. This whole civil union thing did just sort of come up in the last 10 years and gay marriage even later than that. IMHO Mayor Newsom letting all those wonderfully happy couples in SF marry in his city hall really just stirred a pot that started simmering when MA legalized gay marriage. I applaud Mr. Newsom for standing by what he believes was the right course of action, but hurt us it did, nonetheless.
Same sex marriage will happen in the United States of America one day. It may be 50 years from now but it will happen. People hate change and that’s probably a good thing for the species but there have already been enormous strides made towards the acceptance of homosexuals in our culture in the last 40 years and it will continue. I read a stat that said only 35 percent of the people who voted for the same sex marriage ban also opposed any recognition in the laws’ eyes for same sex couples. Couple that with a majority of college aged kids who favor civil unions and the fact that people tend to die towards their 80s and it will happen.
The activist judge routine and the entire same-sex marriage ban(d)wagon that we’re on is all a very ingenious roux cooked up by one un-named political party to win a very important election.
Oh, and if you thought that I was going to go the supreme court way on the anti-miscegenation laws, then here you go.
Lawrence vs. Texas, Loving vs. Virginia, Roe vs. Wade. These are they ways that the tyranny of the majority has, up until now, been kept from affecting the minority. And we’ll get there again. Once everybody sees that they sky isn’t falling in MA and Canada and much of Europe and the roe has settled out from this last election, the tide will surely turn again. Maybe we can try actual debates instead of the last two years of well intentioned hysterics.
By Texas
November 12, 2004 08:12 AM | Link to this
Mike Hipp, on the “BAN IT” I will not refer to any Bible and all Morality is left out…. The reason for the Amendment: in 1996 the DOMA (Defense of Marrigae Act) was passed 85 to 14 in the senate. Oh by the way Democrate Clinton was in office. Kerry voted against, and Edwards ducked it. Any way, in short the Act has two points, 1). No state shall be required to give effect to any public record respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex. 2). Definition of Marriage means persons of the opposite sex. In November of 2003 Massachusetts Judicial Court ruled Gay Marriage Legal sigthen the DOMA unconstitutional, in addition, San Francisco Mayor authorized thousands of gay weddings in violation of state law banning such nuptials. Therefore the Amendment was passed as a safeguard against a repeat in the courts. There you go. LAW plan and simple.
By Tim
November 12, 2004 08:54 AM | Link to this
Texas, you still didn’t give a reason why it should be banned… plain and simple… simply to protect DOMA?… well then why is there a need for DOMA?… you still need to answer the question why gays and lesbians should not be allowed to marry… other than ‘because the bible says it is wrong’… which as a matter of fact I have even shown how one can come to the conclusions that the Bible doesnt even say it is wrong… and yes Sen. John Kerry did vote against DOMA… he was the ONLY Senator to vote against DOMA that was running for re-election… that is one reason why I was EXTREMELY proud to give him my vote!
By Texas
November 12, 2004 09:10 AM | Link to this
Tim, Mike asked to give other than Moral or Biblical reasons for the amendment. So I answered his question as it pertains to the amendment. All Laws enacted where for Moral and Biblical reasons. If I’m not allowed to use morals then murder and rape etc. etc. would be acceptable. I have to go for now, but I’ll be back. I want to go back and discuss Danes statements about his sister, and about the marriage issues among the heterosexual community. 50% of marriages end up in divorce among heterosexual’s. However, among Homosexuals, that number is greater. Dane was pointing out his sister’s being married twice, and indeed his friends three marriages as reason to justify his. However among the Gay community, a long and lasting relationship is just as rare.
By Tim
November 12, 2004 09:19 AM | Link to this
Texas, there is a simple reason why murder and rape is illegeal… YOU ARE HARMING SOMEONE… same-sex marriage does not harm anyone… and… how can the divorce rate be higher among homosexuals? WE CANNOT GET MARRIED!… and even if a long and lasting relationship is rare in the gay commmunity it is just as rare in the heterosexual community… therefore heterosexuals should not be allowed to marry either
By RS
November 12, 2004 09:49 AM | Link to this
Tim, this is the exact point I’m trying to get across; gays & lesbians marrying won’t harm the straight community except for those ignoramuses who CHOOSE to feel they are being “harmed”.Those folks, as far as I’m concerend, can all go live in the red states, to match the colour of their necks!
By Akeya
November 12, 2004 10:20 AM | Link to this
It amazes me that there have been no studies on the longevity of homosexual relationships, but people keep saying that homosexual relationships don’t last.
Also, it’s just another way of making heterosexuals seem superior when it comes to love and relationships.
By Dane
November 12, 2004 10:26 AM | Link to this
RS, Tim, there’s no reasoning here, I’m surprised Boscoe hasn’t chimed in with a 350 word cut and paste dissertation complete with charts and graphs and gold embossed quotations from the bible as to why same-sex marriage should be illegal. Even with level-headed facts and calm wording from Mike, it just doesn’t get through to those who simply refuse to admit that gays and gay marriage hurts absolutely no one and doesn’t tear down the “sanctity” of marriage.
The topic of what has happened, or “repurcussions” of the passing of the amendment, has been completely lost here. Mike eloquently stated that the time will come, though we all may be on walkers or in nursing homes when we can be legally married.
That’s OK, until then I’ll just sew more rhinestones and feathers on my burka and be fabulous and try to ride this storm out.
By Tim
November 12, 2004 10:35 AM | Link to this
Dane, AMEN to that!!! Recognition of my relationship may not come in the near future but I intend to do what is in my power to better this place for gay and lesbian kids… those that are older than me made it a better place for me… and I intend to do the same for those who are younger than me!
RS~ don’t worry if you would like I, and I am sure Dane as well, will help you decorate your burka ;)
By Dane
November 12, 2004 10:42 AM | Link to this
Whoa, now TEXAS. Let me address the issue here about “longevity.” Gays and lesbians are not allowed to marry. Period. Therefore there is no consequence when a relationship ends (other than the emotional ones.) In a marriage situation there are consequences, legal and financial. You can lose your house and kids, we all know that story. My partner and I have been together five years December 13th. But today, if our relationship ends, other than the emotional drama, all I gotta do is move my stuff out of the house and that’s it. If it were over because he cheated, I can’t throw him out of the house because legally, it’s his house even though we bought it together, it’s in his name. I’m not going into detail about our finances, but if we were married and were breaking up you better believe I’d be getting the house!
Can you see where I’m going here? If there were legal concerns involved gays would be a little less promiscuous— as all the evangelists say we are. I work with a young kid (he’s 16) who has just gotten his girlfriend (15) pregnant. I asked him if he was going to marry her, and he laughed and said “Hell, no!”
All I can do is scratch my head. I just don’t get it.
By Akeya
November 12, 2004 10:50 AM | Link to this
rolling around laughing at Dane’s comments
By Texas
November 12, 2004 10:54 AM | Link to this
Tim, The promiscuity rate among the Homosexual Community is closer to 60% while the promiscuity rate among the Heterosexual community is closer to 50%. Dane, used the fact that promiscuity among heterosexuals went against the Sacred Instutition issue, and used his unwavering love towards his relationship as reason for acceptance of his relationship. While I don’t question his love towards his partner, it is unfair to point out his sister and friend in comparison to himself, when in fact, there is a higher rate of promiscuity among the homosexual community. If Dane wanted to be fair, he should have used Pres. Bush’s relationship or Cheney’s. They’ve endured. Bottom line on this is the marriage is and will always remain a Sacred Institution ordained by God. Not to say civil unions can’t be a compromise. Now concerning the Law: Mike said we (Christians) needed to prove to him why the amendment, I believe because liberal judges took it upon themselves, irrespective to the majority of society, to force their will, hence the amendment. Okay, murder and rape, bad examples. Lets say driving under the influence or stealing or Prostitution. These are all against the law. The law was based on Morality and influenced from the Bible. I was merely pointing out that all laws come from a moral stand point and to say any one can not use Morals, well, is just unfair. Lastly, let’s talk about exclusion for a moment. Yesterday I said that prayer in school was now intolerable. In addition, so is the Ten Commandments in court houses, so is In God We Trust on Postal stamps, etc. etc. etc. Tim, for 200 plus years students in the morning would stand up and recite the pledge of allegiance and a pray. Now the fact that God is in the allegiance, this now needs to be removed for the sake of exclusion. Talk about intolerant. First of all, 99.9% of the class is Christian, and oh by the way, it’s not hurting anyone, but for the sake of maybe one, now it wrong. “Intolerance” Let’s use your arguement, and say Prayer in school is not hurting anyone, than why are ya’ll against it for the sake of exclusion. No one got hurt over prayer in school for 200 plus years, however, now, it’s wrong. Seems like to me, a lot of people want it both ways, while not allowing the same.
By Tim
November 12, 2004 11:08 AM | Link to this
Texas, steeling is harming someone else as well as driving under the influence… now yes someone may drive under the influence and not hurt someone… BUT people are put at risk! so in essence you are harming people… as for prostitution… that is harmful too… harmful to the prostitute (psychologically)… but that is a whole other debate
I also never said that prayer should be taken out of school… I said people should not be forced to pray… and yes children were forced to pray… furthermore I don’t know what school you are looking at but 99.9% of the school is NOT Christian… certainly wasnt the case at my school and i grew up in a very southern conservative area
By Akeya
November 12, 2004 11:43 AM | Link to this
Texas, are you pulling these statistics out of your ears?
I have the feeling that you’re making assumptions…
Also, apparently someone was bothered if the gov felt the need to change the policies regarding school prayers…
By Dane
November 12, 2004 11:50 AM | Link to this
Thank you Akeya for actually reading what I posted.
Texas uses some shady percentages there 60% vs. 50%. I don’t know where he comes up with those figures, and quite frankly don’t care because he’s missing the point of my posting. If gays could get married there would be a price to pay if it didn’t work, and wouldn’t so casually end the relationship. I’m not saying it would fix the problems, but it certainly wouldn’t hurt, either.
From a different perspective: heterosexuals fall— under Texas’s figures— in the 50% margin. Is that something to be proud of? You CAN get married, and often, and yet you guys still fail 50% of the time? And gay marriage is going to destroy that? Use Cheney or Bush as an example? You’re joking, right? I’ll use my own parents as an example: 38 years of marriage, and still going.
My partner and I do not fit into any of the conservative stereotypes of gay men. We are both educated, from conservative religious backgrounds, both our parents are still married, and we both served more than four years active duty in the military: six for my partner and ten for me and we both work hard to have a comfortable standard of living. So where’s the harm if we were married, even in a civil union?
Can’t think of one other than biblical blather and defense of tradititional blah blah, and it’s not discrimination only protection of la la la and everyone has rights yada yada and it’s not to judge or exclude supercalifragilisticexpialidocious—— bull! It’s all about keeping gays from equality, and now it’s about throwing reason out of the classroom and teaching the kids that the dinosaurs were a hoax and the world is only 5,000 years old.
By Dane
November 12, 2004 12:01 PM | Link to this
And as for school prayer, when I went to school we stood and said the Pledge of Allegiance, and we had a “moment of silence” for prayer. There were students from other cultures in my class: a Vietnamese girl, a Hindu from India, two Chinese kids, a Muslim girl from Turkey and one from Algeria. Should those children have been forced to say the “Lords Prayer?” Prayer shouldn’t be outlawed from schools, but it shouldn’t be mandated either.
Oh, and my school had a GLBT organization as well. I guess I come from a pretty progressive state: West Virginia, which is historically characterized as backward and inbred hillbillies.
By RS
November 12, 2004 12:13 PM | Link to this
Well, if I have to wear a burka, oh & don’t forget, a veil as well, I’d just as soon get it decorated by Dane & Tim. I won’t have any rights, I’ll be persecuted within an inch of my worthless female life but at least I can look festive as I suffer (LOL). Texas probably gets those statistics from some hate-mongering right-wing literature designed to create even more discrimination, as if we don’t have enough. Tim & Dane, you need to realize that the Bible-thumping faction have a psychological need to punish anyone & anything they don’t understand. Some people are like that. By the way, Tim, you, as always, make a valid point: 99% of virtually NO school is Christian, unless it is a specifically Christian school. But for the sake of argument, let’s say we’re dealing with a class of 36 students. 35 are Christian, one is Hindu. According to the Bible-thumpers, it’s ok/cool/fine/acceptable to make the Hindu child feel excluded & discriminated against because the fact that he/she is a minority renders him/her a non-person. How logical (NOT!)
By Tim
November 12, 2004 12:26 PM | Link to this
just a little side note… Texas, if you are so worried about prayer in schools… I have a suggestion… start with the private Christian University that I attended… the majority of my classes did not include a prayer at the beginning (including my Biblical studies classes)… I find that a pretty sad example if people are so worried about not being allowed to pray in school… clean house before going into someone elses and telling them how dirty it is
(I also know that that is normal at a lot of private institutions as well because I know people who attended other private schools)
By RS
November 12, 2004 12:36 PM | Link to this
Well, Tim, what you said about the Christian university you’d attended not including in-class prayers just proves the old adage about people who live in glass houses..
By Dane
November 12, 2004 12:40 PM | Link to this
Well, at least I can find some comfort that I will not be wearing a burka alone. Yes, we will all be persecuted to within an inch of our worthless gay and Jewish lives, but we’ll be fabulous and dramatic in the spirit of the great Ladies of the silver screen as we go.
And the Buckhead Betties in their SUV’s and the Marietta Mary’s in their BMW’s better get ready to start wearing head scarves and skirts down to their ankles once the new regime really gets going….
O sinners, thy churn and loom await thee…
By Dane
November 12, 2004 12:46 PM | Link to this
But, then, how do you explain why the local Hooters is packed on Sundays after church?
OK, I’m done!
Have a great weekend, I’ve gotta go pick up my burka from the dry cleaners!
By Texas
November 12, 2004 12:51 PM | Link to this
Folks, I got my statistic on line by Ninad Jog. I don’t know if their adequate or not. I was just looking for data. I’m sure ya’ll will find something wrong with it. Please advise of a sight where data can be extracted and I will be willing to use that data. Let’s talk about something we can be assured of. The Ten Commandments being removed from the courts. Why? Who was it hurting? Why was it an issue? We can argue about prayer in school until the cows come home, bottom line, is you can’t pray in school. So why did the Ten Commandments have to be removed? Who was getting hurt?
By Texas
November 12, 2004 12:52 PM | Link to this
Dane, what about the bath houses on Sunday?
By RS
November 12, 2004 01:03 PM | Link to this
Hey, don’t blame ME; I wasn’t the one who removed the Ten Commandments. The reason Hooters is packed on Sundays is because church works up an appetite for wings & fries (yeah, right & if you believe that, I have some swampland in Florida I’d like to sell you). Now, Texas, how is it that you know when the bath houses are busy????? Enquiring minds want to know!
By Dane
November 12, 2004 01:03 PM | Link to this
Damn! I was trying to get out of here early!
I’ve never been to a bath house in my life, unless you count the YMCA. I don’t even know where one is, but apparently you do to know it is open on Sundays.
The Ten Commandments. Hmm, one of them says something about Thou shalt have no gods before me, and if I were Hindu, I would be offended to have a Jewish/Christian god touted by the state over Lord Shiva, or even over Allah if I were Muslim. Why no passages from the Koran or the Bhagivad Gita? No statues of a serene Buddha sit prominently at the local court house. The arguement is as endless as there are religions.
Now, I am truly out of here—- I bid you peace and mental serenity.
By Tim
November 12, 2004 01:23 PM | Link to this
Texas, prayer in schools (which YES people CAN pray if they want to… you obviously have not read earlier posts… they just cannot force other people to) and the Ten Commandments in a court room has what to do with same-sex marriage? if that is what you are worried about then go fight that battle and leave me alone and let me pick out bridesmaids dresses
I am also somewhat curious to know how you know when bath houses are busy? I am with Dane… I have never been to one… nor do I have any desire to go to one… and I honestly don’t have statistics but I am confident in saying that the majority of gay men and women have not nor have a desire to go to a bath house… shows your ignorance towards us
By RS
November 12, 2004 01:35 PM | Link to this
Dane, when you come back on Monday (have a great weekend, by the way), you may want to know a statue of a serene Buddha sits prominently in the foyer of a Chinese restaurant downtown that my husband & I go to. Now isn’t that special??? I’ve had many gay friends since I was 14 & to my knowledge, not one has ever set foot in a bath house
By Dane
November 12, 2004 01:40 PM | Link to this
Daggone! I just can’t seem to get out of here today!
Ok, now we are COMPLETELY off the topic, but I have an interesting story that will go along with Texas’s bath house statement.
I go to the YMCA every day and work out, and I usually finish the day with about 10-20 minutes in the steam room before I shower, dress and head back to school where I teach. I can’t tell you how many times I have been propositioned for sex by married men at the Y. Men who drive cars with “W ‘04” stickers and Jesus Fish.
My point is don’t go pointing fingers at gays and associating them with bath houses when the overwhelming hypocrisy of a LARGE— not all, mind you— portion of the anti-gay, Christian, conservative Bush-voting population can be easily pointed out by me getting cruised at the YMCA by “straight” men, or seeing Hooters packed on Sundays by people that just came from church where the preacher undoubtedly preached on immorality and sexual promiscuity.
It’s hard not to be cynical when the people that are always downing you or, in the case of this forum, passing legislation that outlaws your relationships are, in fact, not living up to the standards from which they point back down at the rest of us.
By Akeya
November 12, 2004 01:40 PM | Link to this
I think I want a misty blue colored burka with darker blue swirls….or does it just have to be black?
By Tim
November 12, 2004 01:47 PM | Link to this
Akeya, I don’t think we are too sure on the colors yet… that will probably have be voted upon by the people… they will have to decide what color you can wear
By RS
November 12, 2004 02:08 PM | Link to this
Well, I guess we now all know why “it’s fun to stay at the YMCA”…doesn’t surprise me, Dane. As for burkas, my guess is that the government will make women wear black ones & gay men either pink or rainbow…
By Tim
November 12, 2004 02:13 PM | Link to this
shhhhhhhhh RS don’t give them any ideas (LOL!!)
By RS
November 12, 2004 02:21 PM | Link to this
Well, gee, Tim, I wear a lot of black anyway. Don’t tell Zack, Randy, Boscoe etc, but aside from my being a gay-friendly non-Christian, I’m also a (gasp! horror!) PUNK ROCK CHICK & you know we wear black frequently. As for you, I’m sure you’d just look divine in a rainbow burka to match that tattoo on your hiney (LOL)
By Tim
November 12, 2004 02:29 PM | Link to this
RS~ good point… hadn’t thought of that… i also have a lot of pink (very in style right now)… maybe I will be allowed to choose between the two :)
By Randy
November 12, 2004 02:29 PM | Link to this
RS That figures. Your a gothic?
By Randy
November 12, 2004 02:31 PM | Link to this
I go to a big church in Northwest Cobb, 30000 square feet. We have quite a few gothic people who go there also. Who would have thunk it.
By Randy
November 12, 2004 02:37 PM | Link to this
Has this arena helped you liberals digest the election last week. What a beating you all took. I hope this has been theraputic. How does it feel to know that 78% of people in georgia vote “YES” on the Amendment to stop gay marriage. Have you all given up hope? Just curious.
By Randy
November 12, 2004 02:47 PM | Link to this
Just thinking about it, I would give up hope if I were you. I’m a fairly liberal minded person(by nature), but most people don’t respect homosexuals. Just being honest.
By Tim
November 12, 2004 02:48 PM | Link to this
Randy, like I said in an earlier post… this has only just begun!! get ready for the long hall because we ain’t going nowhere!
By Tim
November 12, 2004 02:50 PM | Link to this
Randy, maybe that is the difference between you and I… when things get difficult you turn tale and run… I stand and fight… you won’t get rid of me that easily… and how amusing you would say that most people do not respect homosexuals… that sounds pretty hateful to me… and you wonder why we say that your stance is base upon hatred
By Randy
November 12, 2004 02:50 PM | Link to this
Tim I here Boston or San Francisco is nice this time of year.
By Texas
November 12, 2004 02:51 PM | Link to this
Hypocrisy, pointing fingers. Wow, Dane, it wasn’t me who made the statement about Hooters being filled with Christians on Sunday. That was you my friend. It wasn’t me who stated that your relationship was far better than your sisters or your friends because of their failed attempts at marriage, again that was you my friend. Pointing fingers. Maybe one need only look in the mirror. Ya’ll are saying that Gay Marriage is not an impact on any one else, and then say within the same breath that the 10 Commandments might offend a Hindu. That my friends is a double standard. Whether you want to admit it or not. Hypocrisy indeed.
By Randy
November 12, 2004 02:54 PM | Link to this
Tim I don’t hate anyone, I’m just telling you what I here from friends.
By Texas
November 12, 2004 02:57 PM | Link to this
Tim, This is a quote from the Bible Sexual Immorality
12”Everything is permissible for me”—but not everything is beneficial. “Everything is permissible for me”—but I will not be mastered by anything. 13”Food for the stomach and the stomach for food”—but God will destroy them both. The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. 14By his power God raised the Lord from the dead, and he will raise us also. 15Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never! 16Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, “The two will become one flesh.”[2] 17But he who unites himself with the Lord is one with him in spirit. 18Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body. 19Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; 20you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body.
By Tim
November 12, 2004 03:04 PM | Link to this
Randy, Atlanta sure is nice this time of year… I think I just may stay put… like I said… I don’t just run away from things because I don’t like them… and you come on here and try to sound all heartfelt and nice saying that you just want to show people a better way of life… and then in your next breath you are trying to push people out of the state you live in… go read up on love in the Bible
Texas, pllllease tell me how my relationship impacts you other than ‘making you uncomfortable’… The Ten Commandments in a courthouse is a whole other issue… if they were going to take down the ten commandments and in its place put up a picture of my wedding then you would have an argument… until then… The Ten Commandments argument is not working… like i said… if the ten commandments in a courthouse is your beef then go fight that battle
By Tim
November 12, 2004 03:10 PM | Link to this
Randy, oh wonderful… you got a consensus from your group of friends… well let me take a consensus of my friends… most of them (unfortunately) think that Christians are a bunch of bigoted, narrow-minded, ignorant people… simply because they think it does that make it true? and YES you used hate… telling me how nice Boston and SF are this type of year… discusting!
Texas, thanks for the Bible lesson… next time I sleep with a prostitute I will keep all of that in mind… didn’t see any mention of homosexuality
By Texas
November 12, 2004 03:13 PM | Link to this
Tim, your sexual preference does not affect me one tiny bit. I wish you all the happiness in the world my friend. However, the majority of society believes it’s immoral and will not condom it by allowing Marriage of Gay/Lesbian People
By Texas
November 12, 2004 03:17 PM | Link to this
Tim, it was in the paragraph before it. See below
1 Corinthians 6
Lawsuits Among Believers
1If any of you has a dispute with another, dare he take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the saints? 2Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases? 3Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life! 4Therefore, if you have disputes about such matters, appoint as judges even men of little account in the church![1] 5I say this to shame you. Is it possible that there is nobody among you wise enough to judge a dispute between believers? 6But instead, one brother goes to law against another—and this in front of unbelievers! 7The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated? 8Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers. 9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
Sexual Immorality
12”Everything is permissible for me”—but not everything is beneficial. “Everything is permissible for me”—but I will not be mastered by anything. 13”Food for the stomach and the stomach for food”—but God will destroy them both. The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. 14By his power God raised the Lord from the dead, and he will raise us also. 15Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never! 16Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, “The two will become one flesh.”[2] 17But he who unites himself with the Lord is one with him in spirit. 18Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body. 19Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; 20you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body.
By Akeya
November 12, 2004 03:17 PM | Link to this
Bath house, smath house!
You can pass by the corners of Metro Atlanta and buy yourself some lovely lady any time of day!
Also, I don’t really want to go into the “but straight people do this” because that just perpetuates the belief that we can compare “sins”.
By Tim
November 12, 2004 03:17 PM | Link to this
Texas, like i have said in an earlier post… I don’t care if the majority agrees with my lifestyle or not… ONE ROLE OF GOVERNMENT IS TO PROTECT A MONORITY FROM THE MAJORITY… as someone also pointed out earlier… the majority of people thought that black people and white people should not be allowed to marry
By Randy
November 12, 2004 03:23 PM | Link to this
Tim Ever watch the TV show “The amazing race”. When you decided to be a Homosexual, you got eliminated from the race. Your are not a bad fellow though.
By RS
November 12, 2004 03:28 PM | Link to this
Tim: I LIKE pink on men! Randy: No, I’m not a goth; there’s a difference between goths & punks, ask your kids. Although I enjoy a lot of goth music, I despise the lifestyle (you & I might actually agree on this!) but let’s save that for another forum. Wow, goths in church; I guess that shoots down another stereotype. Now, the fact that 78% of all Georgians oppose gay marriage tells me we live in a state largely populated by inbred redneck “sheeple”. Really, consider the source! I think I’ll stay in my Little 5 Points neighbourhood, thanks. Tim IS right; stating that most people don’t respect gays & “inviting” him to leave the state spells “H-A-T-E” to me. If you hear stuff like this from “friends”, maybe you ought to clean house & find some decent, compassionate people to associate with. These folks sound very disempowering, hateul & self-righteous. In other words, not Christ-centered. Texas: Sorry to burst your bubble, friend,but your Bible quote re immorality makes no mention of a loving, committed relationship between 2 consenting adults of the same gender. So, your reason for condemning gay marriage is because the majority of society does? See? That proves my point! You folks DON’T think for yourselves!!
By Texas
November 12, 2004 03:29 PM | Link to this
Tim, Thomas Jefferson worried that the Courts would overstep their authority and instead of interpreting the law would begin making law….an oligarchy….the rule of few over many.
By RS
November 12, 2004 03:33 PM | Link to this
Oh my goodness, Tim, I AM BESIDE MYSELF WITH LAUGHTER!! I’m laughing so hard I HURT!! So, you DECIDED to be a homosexual, hmm? I think I see what happened; you woke up one morning & said to yourself “My life is so boring; I think I will date men so I can be a victim of discrimination & even violence”. And, no, I guess that means you are no longer a member of the human race. Tell me, what do you see when you look in the mirror? A monkey? A cat? A garden slug??
By Texas
November 12, 2004 03:34 PM | Link to this
RS, Did you know? James Madison, the fourth president, known as “The Father of Our Constitution” made the following statement “We have staked the whole of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.”
By Tim
November 12, 2004 03:37 PM | Link to this
Texas, ohhhhh there are soooo many ways to translate that passage (and has been translated in numerous ways)… the two words to focus on in the ORINGIAL TEXT are malakoi and arsenokoitai (these are the words that have been translated to mean same-sex acts)… malakoi has NO specific reference to homosexuality and arsenkoitai MAY be a reference to same-sex acts… BUT if it is then the text condemns wanton, lewd, irresponsible male sex acts… but not homosexuality in general… the problem is that no one really knows how exactly those words are to be interpreted… these words have been interpreted numerous ways depending on the culture at the time it was interpreted… for example… the Catholic church (in general) says it is ok for someone to have homosexual urges… they just must remain celebate… well the New American Bible translates arsenokoitai as ‘practicing homosexuals’… coincidence… i think not… (it fits with their teachings now)… the most accurate interpretation comes from the New Jerusalem Bible… which translates it to mean the ‘self-indulgent’
what one can conclude from the entire passage is that the Bible opposes sexual abuse (whether it be heterosexual or homosexual)… not homosexuality in general
By RS
November 12, 2004 03:41 PM | Link to this
That quote DOES sound familiar, Texas. Now let me share one of MY favourites: “If everyone thought alike, then no one would be doing any thinking”.
By RS
November 12, 2004 03:43 PM | Link to this
Ah, Tim, we’re dealing with people who interpret the Bible to rationalize their own prejudices..
By Tim
November 12, 2004 03:44 PM | Link to this
Randy, again… thanks for informing that i chose to be gay… and i don’t watch that show but i thought the gay couple actually ended up winning that season? i apologize if i am wrong though… like i said i dont watch the show… like i stated earlier… I have been gay as long as I remember… so according to you… I chose to be gay when i was a toddler… and no i am not a bad fellow… i just cannot live in your state… right?… that sounds hateful to me
Texas, sure i have heard of James Madison… planning on having him over for dinner sometime…’each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves’… if he did indeed say this (I am taking your word)… then wouldnt that mean i should get to choose who i marry? The Ten Commandments don’t say anything about homosexuality
By Tim
November 12, 2004 03:48 PM | Link to this
RS~ it is a scary thing
By Texas
November 12, 2004 03:59 PM | Link to this
Tim and RS, my last post. Tim interpret as you wish my friend. May God Bless you on your journey through life. I hope you find happiness my friend. RS, Whether its the Bible or Mein Kampf, knowledge is attained. It doesn’t mean we think alike. May God Bless you also. Good Luck with all your struggles and happiness, when I pass through Georgia I would love to have dinner with ya’ll. I come through once a year on my way to SC for bike week. Good luck and God Bless
By Randy
November 12, 2004 04:01 PM | Link to this
Tim Have a good weekend. Everybody else have one also. Tim, you use to go to church, did you ever have a life changing experience there? I don’t like the phrase Born again. Makes us look weird, when someone uses that phrase.
By Tim
November 12, 2004 04:02 PM | Link to this
Texas, that is all I ask… I don’t want to force my lifestyle on you (just want equal protection)… and in turn you live you life the way you believe is best for you… have fun at bike week! whenever that may be… drive careful and pop a wheely for me :)
By Tim
November 12, 2004 04:09 PM | Link to this
Randy, I still do go to church as well
By Tim
November 12, 2004 04:13 PM | Link to this
Randy, sorry my original message did not post… yes I did have the type of experience you are referring to… I grew up in a church that referred to it as being born again… and there is honestly no other way I can describe it… I was 11… indescribable
u have a good weekend as well
By RS
November 12, 2004 04:13 PM | Link to this
Group hug, folks! We’ll continue this Monday…Bike week, huh? That can be dangerous; wear your helmet! (I know, I sound like a Jewish mother! LOL)
By Texas
November 12, 2004 04:13 PM | Link to this
Tim, bike week is in Myrtle Beach SC every year in May. It’s always the week following Mother’s Day. I ride a chopper and no way can I do a wheely. But thanks for the kind wishes. Hey Randy, I’ll be watching ya’ll’s posts in the future. Keep the Faith my Brother. Good Luck to All From The Great State of TEXAS