Discussion: Gay Rights II

[CaptainClown]

Some people just can't be enlightened I find though. Whether they're too afraid to associate with a gay person because they feel it unpopular (one of my friends), or they're afraid of being raped by gay people:whatever:/are probably in the closet themselves(another friend I believe this to be the case), or they are too convicted in their religions(most of my family). But hey, it's probably just as ironic that my sister is bi-sexual, though sadly she tries not to indulge in women too much because of the rest of my family. Sad thing is, one my sister's ex's was actually a cool woman, who you'd think would change my family's veiws, but what can you do? She just didn't.
these people will only change if they want to change.Growth starts within and it can't be forced. Tolerance is what we will have to deal with until the day we have reached acceptance.

[spideyboy_1111]

Some people just can't be enlightened I find though. Whether they're too afraid to associate with a gay person because they feel it unpopular (one of my friends), or they're afraid of being raped by gay people:whatever:/are probably in the closet themselves(another friend I believe this to be the case), or they are too convicted in their religions(most of my family). But hey, it's probably just as ironic that my sister is bi-sexual, though sadly she tries not to indulge in women too much because of the rest of my family. Sad thing is, one my sister's ex's was actually a cool woman, who you'd think would change my family's veiws, but what can you do? She just didn't.

you need to get in a debate with people. it needs to be heated essentially to the point where (like we've done here on occasion) there's no answer on there side other then fear and hatred. Usually (for most) thats when they realise... or at least learn to "Accept" others will just keep being blind

[CaptainClown]

The fact that many of us have to hide our sexuality shows how barbaric society has been to us in the past, in my opinion. People wouldn't hide their sexual orientation if they didn't have a reason to, and those reasons are due to centuries worth of atrocious and discriminatory acts.

I would say that a lot of ethnic groups have suffered more than homosexuals. Many races have suffered more than homosexuals. But in some instances, I believe that homosexuals have had it worse.
Homosexuals have definitly had it worse in some areas, but again I feel that race is worst overall
can you please read my post prior to this. He isn't saying we've had it worse. he's saying we've had it equal.
and I am saying no your suffering has not quite been equal. Painful yes, tragic, yes, equal? there I have to say no

[spideyboy_1111]

these people will only change if they want to change.Growth starts within and it can't be forced. Tolerance is what we will have to deal with until the day we have reached acceptance.

actually it's usually the opposite. As humans the majority of us fear change. And for many of us we need to be pushed, forced into a situation to learn how we'd really react from it.

[spideyboy_1111]

Homosexuals have definitly had it worse in some areas, but again I feel that race is worst overall

and I am saying no your suffering has not quite been equal. Painful yes, tragic, yes, equal? there I have to say no

I dont really see how it hasn't been equal to the other races (blacks are obvious due to enslavement) but... quite honestly we've been through the same situations as the asian and latino communities, we've all been through the exact same things, one way or another.

[Addendum]

and I am saying no your suffering has not quite been equal. Painful yes, tragic, yes, equal? there I have to say no

Why, because more minorities were killed instead of homosexuals?

[CaptainClown]

actually it's usually the opposite. As humans the majority of us fear change. And for many of us we need to be pushed, forced into a situation to learn how we'd really react from it.
You can lead a horse to water but you can't get it to drink. The same applies hear. you can push it all you want but you can not for the life of them get them to accept you. You can however create an environment where they have nothing to fear to which they will learn to accept you on their own. You can get married in front of them, you can kiss in front of them but it won't make them accept you. It has to be a change within where they discover, hey you aren't different then me.

[The Senator]

The Census needs to measure how many homosexuals there are in America. All we have are rough estimates provided by research models. The roughest estimate of the gay population in this country is that we comprise approximately 7-9% of the overall population. Which means we are half the size of African Americans, and 3.5-4 times larger than Jews, as a minority group. If we had some solid numbers, I think we could make a greater case to the public that we deserve rights and protections under the law.

But I truly don't see this happening until 2020 at the earliest... and I personally don't have 12 years to wait...

[spideyboy_1111]

You can lead a horse to water but you can't get it to drink. The same applies hear. you can push it all you want but you can not for the life of them get them to accept you. You can however create an environment where they have nothing to fear to which they will learn to accept you on their own. You can get married in front of them, you can kiss in front of them but it won't make them accept you. It has to be a change within where they discover, hey you aren't different then me.

thats obvious... but sometimes you have to force the first step. and the first step is putting them in those kinda situations

[Sloth7d]

these people will only change if they want to change.Growth starts within and it can't be forced. Tolerance is what we will have to deal with until the day we have reached acceptance.

Some also never change. Only one of the people I've mentioned have a chance of becoming a better person imo, and that's the first friend I mentioned. The only thing holding him back is the fear of being ridiculed by his peers, which hopefully that won't be his case for long.

you need to get in a debate with people. it needs to be heated essentially to the point where (like we've done here on occasion) there's no answer on there side other then fear and hatred. Usually (for most) thats when they realise... or at least learn to "Accept" others will just keep being blind

Well, I've been in several debates that could be considered heated with both my family members and my second friend on this and other issues. On one side you have religion is law, even though too much of the bible is inconsistent not only scientific facts but sometimes even itself. On the other side, there a guy who ends the conversaion with "Naw, **** it. That's homo," and doesn't listen to anything after that. I don't want to push him to the point where a literal fight breaks out. Not unless he does something extreme. He is my long time friend, which is why I want to convince him he's being a jerk. However, that may be impossible because I really do think he's in the closet.

[CaptainClown]

I dont really see how it hasn't been equal to the other races (blacks are obvious due to enslavement) but... quite honestly we've been through the same situations as the asian and latino communities, we've all been through the exact same things, one way or another.Homosexuals are not a race, they are everywhere. From white to black, yellow to brown, homosexuals are in every race. Race is something you can not change. You can be a "sell out", you can be coconut, speak perfect english and adopt the dominate culture, but still never be accepted. Homosexuality has suffered with both of these, but the prejudice against a race stretches to entire families. To an entire race. A homosexual white male will be able to hide he is homosexual. Tragic, yes however a family of hispanics can change how they act all they want they wills till be seen as hispanics. Latinos are being hung and dragged at the border, oh and not just men entire families. Japanese were forced into camps and Chinese were exploited to build railroads. Not the same thing.
Why, because more minorities were killed instead of homosexuals?
see above

[CaptainClown]

thats obvious... but sometimes you have to force the first step. and the first step is putting them in those kinda situations How would you force the first step without pissing them off and actually not undoing the work you intended? It is working now slowly in the sense that gays are being portrayed as normal and culturally accepted. We already have a generation that has accepted tolerance of homosexuality. However what of the older generations? We going to force them to watch a gay marriage? You will cause more damage then healing. As you even stated with MLK Jr. it is baby steps and patience.

Some also never change. Only one of the people I've mentioned have a chance of becoming a better person imo, and that's the first friend I mentioned. The only thing holding him back is the fear of being ridiculed by his peers, which hopefully that won't be his case for long.


ya, some also never change but you can not deny that society is slowly changing. With movies and tv shows featuring homosexuals and not making a big deal about it society is moving forward. Some people will never change but they are becoming fewer and fewer.

[spideyboy_1111]

The Census needs to measure how many homosexuals there are in America. All we have are rough estimates provided by research models. The roughest estimate of the gay population in this country is that we comprise approximately 7-9% of the overall population. Which means we are half the size of African Americans, and 3.5-4 times larger than Jews, as a minority group. If we had some solid numbers, I think we could make a greater case to the public that we deserve rights and protections under the law.

But I truly don't see this happening until 2020 at the earliest... and I personally don't have 12 years to wait...

sadly we wont ever have an accurate amount. too many closeted guys i know would be to incredibly frightened even for something anonymous. closet cases are weird like that... they think everyone in the world can track them.

[Addendum]

Homosexuals are not a race, they are everywhere. From white to black, yellow to brown, homosexuals are in every race. Race is something you can not change. You can be a "sell out", you can be coconut, speak perfect english and adopt the dominate culture, but still never be accepted. Homosexuality has suffered with both of these, but the prejudice against a race stretches to entire families. To an entire race. A homosexual white male will be able to hide he is homosexual. Tragic, yes however a family of hispanics can change how they act all they want they wills till be seen as hispanics. Latinos are being hung and dragged at the border, oh and not just men entire families. Japanese were forced into camps and Chinese were exploited to build railroads. Not the same thing.

Umm, prejudice against homosexuals stretches to families as well. Homosexuals have been hung and dragged behind vehicles. Homosexuals were forced into camps and tortured, used in medical experiments by SS "doctors" and killed by various methods.

Prejudice and persecution are the exact same thing, no matter whom is the target

[spideyboy_1111]

And the Anti-Christ comes to Cali.....

http://www.godhates***s.com/schedule.html (3rd one down ull have to fix the link, the by passers wont let me)

http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=34708988659&ref=mf

[spideyboy_1111]

Homosexuals are not a race, they are everywhere. From white to black, yellow to brown, homosexuals are in every race. Race is something you can not change. You can be a "sell out", you can be coconut, speak perfect english and adopt the dominate culture, but still never be accepted. Homosexuality has suffered with both of these, but the prejudice against a race stretches to entire families. To an entire race. A homosexual white male will be able to hide he is homosexual. Tragic, yes however a family of hispanics can change how they act all they want they wills till be seen as hispanics. Latinos are being hung and dragged at the border, oh and not just men entire families. Japanese were forced into camps and Chinese were exploited to build railroads. Not the same thing.

see above

bud, intolerance is spread just the same. Racism and homophobia spread the exact same way. All i'm saying is no matter how you look at it, from what all we have endured, and everything were fighting for... were in the same group. All in which your describing hispanics and asians have again, more or less happened to us.

[BlackLantern]

sadly we wont ever have an accurate amount. too many closeted guys i know would be to incredibly frightened even for something anonymous. closet cases are weird like that... they think everyone in the world can track them.

If you want to keep a secret, don't tell a soul...someone will find out if you open your yapper...

[spideyboy_1111]

If you want to keep a secret, don't tell a soul...someone will find out if you open your yapper...

yea, we all know how healthy that is :(

[BlackLantern]

bud, intolerance is spread just the same. Racism and homophobia spread the exact same way. All i'm saying is no matter how you look at it, from what all we have endured, and everything were fighting for... were in the same group. All in which your describing hispanics and asians have again, more or less happened to us.

I support the gay community and their search for equality, but as black people, we are NOT in the same group....I have a scar on my leg from a fight I got in....when I was 12, a bully cut me with a steak knife because he wanted to see if I bled "black"....there are old photos of black people that have been hung and/or burned with smiling white people standing around like they just saved the world or something.......

[The Senator]

And the Anti-Christ comes to Cali.....

http://www.godhates***s.com/schedule.html (3rd one down ull have to fix the link, the by passers wont let me)

http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=34708988659&ref=mf

The Phelps brigade was in DC on Monday, protesting the Kennedy Center for handing an award to an LGBT-friendly organization... I did not protest them, since I don't waste my time confronting such hatred, but I know of a few people who went... fun times...

[spideyboy_1111]

yeah the phelps brigade doesnt disserve my time... there pretty much the last people on earth i want to run into.

[spideyboy_1111]

I support the gay community and their search for equality, but as black people, we are NOT in the same group....I have a scar on my leg from a fight I got in....when I was 12, a bully cut me with a steak knife because he wanted to see if I bled "black"....there are old photos of black people that have been hung and/or burned with smiling white people standing around like they just saved the world or something.......

those same instances have happened to gay people as well though. I have a friend who was ran over in an Alabama mall parking lot.. both legs were broken, and he had to endure painful skin graphs for 3 years. They were kids at his high school, and they got away scott free. the principal wouldn't even press charges. My first guy i ever liked had strict baptist parents, who forced him to go to a dr to "change him" he ran away, knew i was headed out west to california for school. Kept in touch via email... and by the time he got to cali, he had become a prostitute... and was living on the street.

so please spare me, we've all had horrible hatred things happen to us. That should unite us, not tear us apart.

[spideyboy_1111]

Very interesting.....

Map shows what areas in los angeles county voted Yes on 8 (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/la-2008election-lacountyprecincts,0,5863152.htmlstory)

This i find very interesting, Obviously the areas we suspected were big on Yes areas (Compton, Whittier both very high in black and latino votes, and Palmdale which is out in the middle of no where, and those areas tend to always be very conservative, esp since its near a military base).

What came to a shock to me, was Santa Clarita, the San fernado Valley (aka porn capital of the world) and Palos Verdes (between redondo and long beach). This area is full of wealthy people... and i've never gotten a conservative vibe from that area...

[spideyboy_1111]

on second look.. i guess Palos verdes is pretty conservative :(, that was one of the only areas (other then like pamona) in los angeles that also voted for McCain

[thedeadite]

I'm going to pipe in on this whole issue.
I think it's a sad, sad state of affairs in modern society where things like this are even questioned.
This is human rights, and obviously many people have learned nothing about past human rights struggles.
Even the thought of voting on something like human rights is absolutely ridiculous. Human rights are not something that should be "voted" on, especially considering (in many areas) there are high amounts of bigoted people who wish to deny these rights.
The ablolishment of slavery, right to vote for blacks/women, right to marry outside your race and other changes to abhorent laws may not have ever come to be (in some areas/states/countries) if these rights were decided by a "vote".

It's ridiculous, it's saddening, it's anger inducing, it's depressing that in the 21st century some things haven't changed at all.

[Heretic]

I respect your opinion, even though its is based on the assumption that your opinion must be 100% right because you came up with it.

Look, apparently there is A LOT of people who do not view this as a human rights issue, but as a sanctity of marriage issue. Those people are wrong. They are basing their opinions on a dislike of gay people. However, just because you and I disagree with them, it doesnt mean that our view on things is godlike. There are people who say that it is a basic human right to marry a horse. You may laugh, but people are actually petitioning for that. Any clear-minded person would know the difference, but what about other issues. Abortion is not nearly so cut and dry as gay marriage...though you could make a "human rights" argument for EITHER side of that issue.

Rather than having a court shove this down peoples throats, Id rather have states legalize it on their own and have public opinion sway, through the opening of hearts and minds to a different lifestyle, and then when theres a few hold outs in the states, have the people concentrate on those states. I remember Arizona being absolutely ripped to shreds over not recognizing a Martin Luthor King Jr day, for instance.

[ShadowBoxing]

The Phelps brigade was in DC on Monday, protesting the Kennedy Center for handing an award to an LGBT-friendly organization... I did not protest them, since I don't waste my time confronting such hatred, but I know of a few people who went... fun times...
There is no point in even acknowledging Phelps. From what I understand, from outsiders of WBC and such, the entire compound is basically a cult and they spend an inordinate amount of time simply catering to his every whim and treating him like Nero.

[BlackLantern]

those same instances have happened to gay people as well though. I have a friend who was ran over in an Alabama mall parking lot.. both legs were broken, and he had to endure painful skin graphs for 3 years. They were kids at his high school, and they got away scott free. the principal wouldn't even press charges. My first guy i ever liked had strict baptist parents, who forced him to go to a dr to "change him" he ran away, knew i was headed out west to california for school. Kept in touch via email... and by the time he got to cali, he had become a prostitute... and was living on the street.

so please spare me, we've all had horrible hatred things happen to us. That should unite us, not tear us apart.

This goes back to my previous point....a large number of people, race aside, are simply unaffected by this...They have no reason to care....

[RAMORE]

I respect your opinion, even though its is based on the assumption that your opinion must be 100% right because you came up with it.

Look, apparently there is A LOT of people who do not view this as a human rights issue, but as a sanctity of marriage issue. Those people are wrong. They are basing their opinions on a dislike of gay people. However, just because you and I disagree with them, it doesnt mean that our view on things is godlike. There are people who say that it is a basic human right to marry a horse. You may laugh, but people are actually petitioning for that. Any clear-minded person would know the difference, but what about other issues. Abortion is not nearly so cut and dry as gay marriage...though you could make a "human rights" argument for EITHER side of that issue.

Rather than having a court shove this down peoples throats, Id rather have states legalize it on their own and have public opinion sway, through the opening of hearts and minds to a different lifestyle, and then when theres a few hold outs in the states, have the people concentrate on those states. I remember Arizona being absolutely ripped to shreds over not recognizing a Martin Luthor King Jr day, for instance.


I agree with some of what you said but your wrong we didn't vote out of hate for Gay people!:huh: I don't hate them I just think marriage is between a man and a woman and anything else isn't marriage. The people should have the say not a Judge's opinion on the matter.

[Heretic]

I agree with some of what you said but your wrong we didn't vote out of hate for Gay people!:huh: I don't hate them I just think marriage is between a man and a woman and anything else isn't marriage. The people should have the say not a Judge's opinion on the matter.

Perhaps hate is too strong of a word. Through your religious beliefs, or your moral compass, you do not feel that a gay couple should have the same legal rights as a straight couple. I wholeheartedly disagree with you, but I dont think we are at a point where I should have a judge stomp out your voice on the issue.

[wiegeabo]

I agree with some of what you said but your wrong we didn't vote out of hate for Gay people!:huh: I don't hate them I just think marriage is between a man and a woman and anything else isn't marriage. The people should have the say not a Judge's opinion on the matter.

So marriage between a gay man and gay woman is ok because it's still between a man and a woman?


I would think marriage would be defined as the union of two people who love each other.

[Addendum]

But the judge wouldn't be telling religious places of worship to perform same sex marriages. People get married without any religious involvement at all, since the government can perform marriages. It won't affect any heterosexual marriage, nor will it weaken any religion

[Anita18]

sadly if given the choice, i think Pro-life/conservative supporters would rather have there children work in a sweat shop in a 3rd world country, or be completely aborted then to have there child raised by a loving gay couple that could give them more then they could.
My boss has an interesting theory on anti-gay people. Accepting homosexuality means that being gay isn't actually a choice, and thus you and your kids can "catch the gay." To them, being gay IS a choice, that can and should be stifled. I mean, cause adultery and premarital sex is looked down upon, right? And you have to stifle that, so why not the gay? :oldrazz:

Assuming that, of course, being gay is a choice, but I don't think people would choose the less-convenient lifestyle if that were the case....:oldrazz:

on second look.. i guess Palos verdes is pretty conservative :(, that was one of the only areas (other then like pamona) in los angeles that also voted for McCain
I think it can be pretty conservative, depending on the area. I have a few friends from there and one comes from old money, while another's parents were lucky enough to buy a house there when housing was still cheap. :funny:

Although I know them from college so by virtue, they're more liberal even though their parents can be conservative. :funny:

My voting district voted slightly yes, which doesn't surprise me, really. I voted no, but...anyway. :funny:

I'm :lmao: at the stark differences between Playa del Rey and the LAX area, even though they're right next to each other. "NO!" "YES!"

[wiegeabo]

But the judge wouldn't be telling religious places of worship to perform same sex marriages. People get married without any religious involvement at all, since the government can perform marriages. It won't affect any heterosexual marriage, nor will it weaken any religion

Exactly. A church would still have the right to refuse to marry anyone. They already do it now (church refused to do my friend's wedding because he and his fiance were living together). And if church shouldn't tell government who can or can't get married, government shouldn't tell the church who they can or can't marry.

[Anita18]

Argh, double post, LOL.

[spideyboy_1111]

I agree with some of what you said but your wrong we didn't vote out of hate for Gay people!:huh: I don't hate them I just think marriage is between a man and a woman and anything else isn't marriage. The people should have the say not a Judge's opinion on the matter.

I'm sorry, but either way, it boils down to it is fear or hate they both might be strong words, but discrimination always boils down to those 2. Why do you think marriage is exclusive to a man and a woman? Can you explain it at all besides your religious point of views? Anything other then that to back it up?

[Gilpesh]

I agree with some of what you said but your wrong we didn't vote out of hate for Gay people!:huh: I don't hate them I just think marriage is between a man and a woman and anything else isn't marriage. The people should have the say not a Judge's opinion on the matter.

You think wrong.

Especially when you say that people should have a say... clearly you haven't heard of tyranny of the majority.

[spideyboy_1111]

So it looks like the join the impact, protesting campaign is actually picking up alot of steam. It's going to be HUGE, i honestly think it could be the largest gay rights protest in history :D

http://jointheimpact.wetpaint.com/?t=anon

I really hope all of you go, and get as many others to go as you can.

[wiegeabo]

Hmm...there's going to be one in the city I work. It'll be interesting to see how that one goes since that county, and mine, are pretty conservative and voted heavily for Prop 8.

[Marx]

I agree with some of what you said but your wrong we didn't vote out of hate for Gay people!:huh: I don't hate them I just think marriage is between a man and a woman and anything else isn't marriage. The people should have the say not a Judge's opinion on the matter.

I always find it interesting that the majority vote can legislate issues important to the minority. Equality is not just for those who agree with you.

[Heretic]

I always find it interesting that the majority vote can legislate issues important to the minority. Equality is not just for those who agree with you.


Its called Democracy...sorry if it offends your sensibilities.

[Marx]

Its called Democracy...sorry if it offends your sensibilities.

I think some of us forget the part about 'all created equal' when it doesn't serve to further their argument. It's like arguing 'it's in the bible' when you are trying to say what is right or wrong but leaving out the ridiculous part about publicly stoning women, or it's an abomination to eat meat on sunday out...that's also in the bible. Some things are conveniently ignored.

[BlackLantern]

what determines what the American people should and should not vote on?? This whole issue shines a light on that...I support gay marriage, but I also support the will of the people....if something comes to a vote, than it is both sides responsibility to get people to support their side....

[Marx]

what determines what the American people should and should not vote on?? This whole issue shines a light on that...I support gay marriage, but I also support the will of the people....if something comes to a vote, than it is both sides responsibility to get people to support their side....

To be completely honest with you, I fail to see how minority rights can be gained when their fate lies at the hands of those in the majority. A majority that is scared by distorted truths.

[BlackLantern]

To be completely honest with you, I fail to see how minority rights can be gained when their fate lies at the hands of those in the majority. A majority that is scared by distorted truths.

Fair point....so why didn't the gay community reach out into those areas or communities to educate people?? What is stopping them from going to churches, city council meetings, etc to get the message out to stop 8 from passing??....

[Marx]

Fair point....so why didn't the gay community reach out into those areas or communities to educate people?? What is stopping them from going to churches, city council meetings, etc to get the message out to stop 8 from passing??....

Why did Kerry lose in 2004? The GOP scared the he** out of everyone. The gay community did alot to stop prop 8 from passing. Alot of people stepped up for it. It just wasn't enough to counter the scare tactics and distortions coming from those who favored passing prop 8.

[BlackLantern]

Why did Kerry lose in 2004? The GOP scared the he** out of everyone. The gay community did alot to stop prop 8 from passing. Alot of people stepped up for it. It just wasn't enough to counter the scare tactics and distortions coming from those who favored passing prop 8.

ok then...try harder next time around if the Governor doesn't flip this thing over.....it's a fight, the other guy isn't just going to lay down.....You can't just expect years or generations of fear/deception to melt away and for people to automatically accept you...it takes blood, sweat, and tears....like I said the other day, it might take something seriously violent happening for people en masse to really start caring

[Gilpesh]

it might take something seriously violent happening

Tell that to Matthew Shepard.

[Marx]

ok then...try harder next time around if the Governor doesn't flip this thing over.....it's a fight, the other guy isn't just going to lay down.....You can't just expect years or generations of fear/deception to melt away and for people to automatically accept you...it takes blood, sweat, and tears....like I said the other day, it might take something seriously violent happening for people en masse to really start caring

And as I said the other day, Matthew Shepherd's well publicized death virtually did nothing.

[Heretic]

And as I said the other day, Matthew Shepherd's well publicized death virtually did nothing.


Id like to think that weve come a long way since then...

As Ive stated before, acceptance for gay marriage will grow with each passing year as more old people die. That doesnt mean that bigotry should just be endured, but its a fight to change peoples souls...and thats a fight worth taking on.

[BlackLantern]

Yes I remember, but we are a country galvanized by tragedy....we only close the door after the house has burned down....and I don't mean to sound morbid here, but Shepherds death wasn't close enough to the issue of gay marriage...show this country a long time gay couple beaten to death in their own home, then people may start to give a ****....

I personally hope the Governator or some judge with a lick of sense overturns this thing....that would be a more favorable route

[spideyboy_1111]

Its called Democracy...sorry if it offends your sensibilities.

it's also called bigotry. :o

[spideyboy_1111]

Fair point....so why didn't the gay community reach out into those areas or communities to educate people?? What is stopping them from going to churches, city council meetings, etc to get the message out to stop 8 from passing??....

To be honest most of us thought it would pass. We didn't count on the ignorance and black/latino communities negative responses.

[spideyboy_1111]

ok then...try harder next time around if the Governor doesn't flip this thing over.....it's a fight, the other guy isn't just going to lay down.....You can't just expect years or generations of fear/deception to melt away and for people to automatically accept you...it takes blood, sweat, and tears....like I said the other day, it might take something seriously violent happening for people en masse to really start caring

or public exposure, exposing all the lies the prop 8 campaign spread.

[spideyboy_1111]

Yes I remember, but we are a country galvanized by tragedy....we only close the door after the house has burned down....and I don't mean to sound morbid here, but Shepherds death wasn't close enough to the issue of gay marriage...show this country a long time gay couple beaten to death in their own home, then people may start to give a ****....

I personally hope the Governator or some judge with a lick of sense overturns this thing....that would be a more favorable route

to me this has gone above and beyond just california... above and beyond arizona, florida and arkansas. Saturday the NATION will unite in protest.. first we fix cali and then we fix the rest of the US. I'm seriously prepared to march on washington

[Oddzball]

Why you wanna bring the FF movie into this?


Punk.


:cmad:



:ff: :ff: :ff:

He was illustrating a point. Admittedly he was illustrating it with a FACT about the FF movie, but nevertheless, he was illustrating a point. ;)

[spideyboy_1111]

hey did anyone watch... i think it was today's ellen? or might of been yesterday.. with emma thompson? they both spoke out beautifully about the whole situation.

here's some random funny stuff :-P (couldn't find the emma comments though :()
W5M3iS2O0Es
nXxWpilC4GI

[Heretic]

it's also called bigotry. :o


So your issue seems to be that you dont want the majority voting on minority issues. What other rights would you restrict in voting?

Also, if the majority could never vote, wouldnt that mean that the minority would win every vote...ever?

[spideyboy_1111]

So your issue seems to be that you dont want the majority voting on minority issues. What other rights would you restrict in voting?

Also, if the majority could never vote, wouldnt that mean that the minority would win every vote...ever?

your putting words in my mouth, My complaint is that the majority should never be able to vote on a minority related vote (if that minority is of "born" kind, something they can't help and are currently citizens of the US).

Women, Blacks, Asians, Indian, Mexican, Gay, Bi, Lesbian, Mutant, Alien, Vampire rights are all civil minorities... and all should have equal rights :o

Minority "groups" such as lifestyles, things they can help (child predators, nudists, villains, kkk and other hate groups, space invaders, Fred Phelps, and Cultists) should have voted on rights.

People do not CHOOSE to be Black, they do not CHOOSE to be Women, and we do not CHOOSE to be gay. The only thing we can choose is to deny ourselves with who we are and hide. This is what makes this a civil right.

[Heretic]

You say that the majority should not be allowed to vote on these things...but what about the minority itself? Isnt it cleaer to say, I dont want ANYONE to vote on this, as opposed to the majority should be allowed to vote?

[spideyboy_1111]

You say that the majority should not be allowed to vote on these things...but what about the minority itself? Isnt it cleaer to say, I dont want ANYONE to vote on this, as opposed to the majority should be allowed to vote?

well considering we didn't vote on black or womens rights i don't believe we should for gays either.

[Heretic]

well considering we didn't vote on black or womens rights i don't believe we should for gays either.

We also didnt vote on the rights of the unborn...or the rights of the taxpayers.

[spideyboy_1111]

We also didnt vote on the rights of the unborn...or the rights of the taxpayers.

? so. I have no problem with abortion, as long as its within the first month

and rights of tax payers? we vote on what we pay taxes for.. and if we didnt pay taxes our nation would collapse.

[spideyboy_1111]

this website just made my head explodes, much like it does when i think about gay republicans...

http://mormonsformarriage.com/

[SatEL]

To be honest most of us thought it would pass.

Well been homosexual is still seen as been immoral by many, and anyone thinking homosexuality is accepted is Naive. Hell racism is still around and people have been fighting that for how long now?

[thedeadite]

I'm still waiting for somebody, anybody (not just this site, but in general) to give one clear, NON RELIGIOUS reason why gay marriage "ruins the sanctity of marriage". Seriously, I havn't ever heard one concise, relevant argument against it.

[spideyboy_1111]

Well been homosexual is still seen as been immoral by many, and anyone thinking homosexuality is accepted is Naive. Hell racism is still around and people have been fighting that for how long now?

:o sorry but i think MOST people thought the ban wouldn't pass.. Cali is known for being a VERY liberal state.. if not the most. Most thought Cali would have it probably before Mass and if not, def before Connecticut. So i don't consider that Naive at all.

[spideyboy_1111]

I'm still waiting for somebody, anybody (not just this site, but in general) to give one clear, NON RELIGIOUS reason why gay marriage "ruins the sanctity of marriage". Seriously, I havn't ever heard one concise, relevant argument against it.

that's because there isn't. And to be honest the religious reasonings don't hold up that well either. Which is why we all know in the end we will win.

Actually i thought i'd share this ridiculous argument i had on facebook with this old gay guy in Oklahoma who was using incredibly stupid arguments as to why us gays should "suck it up". (im sorry about the length, but its a good, funny read, esp cuz its a gay guy against us...)

Will=This was posted on his page
Jaquelin=Will's mom
Justin=me
Stephen=old gay man


(this was all started from the olbermann video)

Jon Boller at 9:21pm November 10
OMG, bathtub boy actually speaking civilly.

But I have a question, is there a difference between civil unions and marriage other then the name? I don't see the difference, and the law doesn't. You still have that. This measure did nothing to civil unions which are still valid and attainable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_partnership_in_California

Justin Belcher at 9:28pm November 10
There are some discrepencies. Such as a few different tax break rules as well as hospitals not recognizing them in terms of spouse. (say your partner is hurt and they only want next of kin, you might not have any say on his medical process)

But they are very similar, our point is equality though. It's not the same thing. It very similar to the 50's and 60's with the "white and black" labeled drinking fountains. What were being told is "your not good enough for this title"


William Boller at 9:31pm November 10
to that I can only really cite the national precedent of Brown v. the Board of Education which established "Separate but equal" is not equal and desegregated public education.

You see, Jon, it's not about what you, or even most of Americans or Californians, Arizonians, Floridians, Arkansan, or Christian - the majority may rule, but minorities have... Read More rights.

I doubt you've had much of a struggle, Jon, at least compared to a lot of minorities that really do lack the opportunity of which you have had in abundance. I ask you to please use that great mind (we both know you're something of a super-genius) and use it to think critically instead of believing everything your mother, pastor, church, or even your peers tells you.

Stephen Paulsen at 5:57am November 11
It has nothing to do with civil rights or equality or any of that nonsense. If that were the case, then you wouldn't want to step on the civil rights of hetero couples now, would you?

Is using the word "boy" to define the Boy Scouts discrimination? Is insisting that someone be Catholic to join the Catholic church discrimination? In these two cases... Read More, the extreme left of the Gay community felt it was discrimination, just as with the definition of the word marriage. It's intellectually dishonest, and now they've reaped what they've sown.

Historically and linguistically, there has never been cause to change the definition of a word, even though they could have. Do we change something for the sake of those not defined by it? That's what you're asking for. Civil Unions and Domestic Partnerships were created to address those not defined by marriage. If gay couples want civil rights, then those two legal documents are the ones they should be attacking

Justin Belcher at 7:29am November 11
I don't think you quite get the meaning of equality... separate does not mean equal.

Stephen Paulsen at 8:15am November 11
I don't think you understand language. Dictionary.com defines 'equal' as "uniform in operation or effect: equal laws." Domestic Partnership laws created most of the equality you seek. They were made to mostly mirror the rights of married couples. You should focus on legitimate legal battles instead of insisting the world change the definition of '... Read Moremarriage' to include something it was never intended to. You only separate yourself from the world around you by picking sense-less fights over semantics.

Jacqueline Korteland Boller at 9:04am November 11
Still it's not the same as falling in love and getting married...I think what is desired is being treated just like everybody else. Listen to the Keith Obermann video...he expresses it perfectly.

Justin Belcher at 9:49am November 11
This situation is the EXACT same as during the civil rights movement with 2 different drinking fountains. One for whites and one for blacks. We feel we are being treated as 2nd class citizens and being essentially told "you're not good enough for this"

Stephen Paulsen at 10:14am November 11
Take religion out of the debate for a minute. Let's look exclusively at how language works. There are MANY laws that the majority enact with the integrity of language. Many DO think it's appropriate to keep words meaningful. Civil Rights arguments are skewed in this debate when the few insist that the many give up their historic and defined ... Read Morelanguage. That's taking away someone else's civil rights! It IS important that civilized people distinguish ourselves through words. I am all for the state acknowledging that domestic partnership licenses should have the SAME benefits as marriage licenses. Because in the end it's about the benefits couples receive from the state- through a word on a license. There is NO precident for changing the linguistically accepted definition of a word- no matter how many people don't fit it's definition. It's as silly as saying that I am now defined as an African American because I go to a black church, or a dog is now a cow because it eats grass.

Jacqueline Korteland Boller at 10:52am November 11
Semantics are fine and good, but still doesn't include everything emotionally and fundamental that a marriage "I do" would entail. That's the bottom line here. Very simple, but made complicated by those not open to it.

Stephen Paulsen at 11:30am November 11
Fortunately, common sense and an understanding of the English language prevailed in my state, and the politics of disinformation and unwarranted discrimination charges did not. I'm sorry that some feel I, as a gay man, am not open-minded enough to throw aside the definition of the word marriage. But while some protest the Constitution, I will continue to fight for the same language as marriage laws for those of us who choose to get domestic partnership licenses- legally.

William Boller at 2:53pm November 11
Stephen, I honestly can't say I know where you're coming from. This is because your first statement "It has nothing to do with civil rights or equality or any of that nonsense" because it has EVERYTHING to do with civil rights and equality.

The main issue a lot of black voters (who are part of the reason prop 8 passed if you look at exit polls) ... Read Morehad with same-sex marriage is that they failed to recognize a common struggle for minority rights. There is a direct parallel between having a SEPARATE homosexual "civil union"/heterosexual "marriage" and SEPARATE colored school/white school. The point is, there is discrimination based on a status, weather it be ascribed or achieved.

Definitions of words are tricky, because every word of any language developed and changed. Just take a look at etymology or HotForWords's Channel on Youtube, and you'll see what I mean.

I look at Prop 8 as a step back from true human equality, but I think it's apparent that a leap forward's about to be made.

Stephen Paulsen at 4:52pm November 11
It's a word with a definition that doesn't fit us. It has nothing to do with blacks, hispanics or any other group. It isn't about 'status'- its about the definition of a word vs. it's desired definition. I don't like what "poo" stands for, but I can't change it because of that. Do I have a right to feel discriminated against because no one else ... Read Morewants to allow me to change it to something less offensive? You may think its a silly comparison, but words and their definitions are what separate us from apes.

William Boller at 5:16pm November 11
What?

No - it's not just a silly comparison, it's also a baseless and ridiculous one.

I'm really beginning to think you didn't even watch the Olbermann statement I posted in my status here.

Again - it has everything to do with Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Women, Gays, Lesbians, or any other minority group. The amazing thing to consider about ... Read Moremajority rule and minority rights, is that what often gives the many minorities their rights is that the majority is comprised of minorities.

In Olbermanns statement, he asks you "What is this to you?"

Are you really saying that you wish people who wish to be married to loose that? It doesn't matter weather you want it or not, but really - you're rights end where someone else begins. Same-Sex Marriage has no impact on Straight Marriage, as well as vice versa.

Love and Compassion is what unites us from nature. I think it's about time you looked at what unites, rather than what divides, or else I hope you permit others to be happy.

Stephen Paulsen at 6:17pm November 11
What part of the definition of marriage do you not understand? I've laid it out quite clearly from the beginning. Look up the word in ANY dictionary. Love, compassion and all that is NOT a part of it! Nobody has the right to change the language we speak because they don't like it. Its pretty simple. And that idiot Olbermann is making it a ... Read Morestereotypical minorities-rights issue with all the rhetorical nonsense that goes along with it. Before you respond, I ask you to get a look at the definition of the word "marriage". Also, look up "definition" as well.You will understand my distain for the whole debate.

William Boller at 6:34pm November 11
That's funny, because I looked up marriage, and it has many definitions:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/marriage
Marriage
4. a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife, without legal sanction
5. any close or intimate association or union

The other definitions do tend to be... Read More exclusive, but the fourth and fifth are quite inclusive.

and I don't care if you want to attack Olbermann's character, but his message is clear, concise, and definite. He spoke with eloquence and a fair perspective.

And I ask what Olbermann asks - what is this to you?

Jacqueline Korteland Boller at 7:32pm November 11
From http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage:

1 a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b: the ... Read Moremutual relation of married persons : wedlock c: the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage2: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected ; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities3: an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry — J. T. Shawcross>

Now isn't this interesting...includes same sex marriage!! I knew marriage wasn't a hetero exclusive word...gays aren't horning in on a hetero term!! Marriage is a state of being or status that can be shared by all people, and if it is NOT then it's called discrimination!! Just that simple!!

Stephen Paulsen at 8:05pm November 11
It matters to me because I'm sick and tired of us being made fools of! You have the disadvantage of youth. You don't fully understand how the law works and how the gay community keeps shooting itself in the foot with every irrational protest! I've been part of a much larger group of people who want the same rights granted to gays- without having ... Read Morethe dictionary reprinted in the process. Your mother's example (above) directly proves my point. Even the dictionary has to preface marriage with 'same-sex' to fit your definition. But what Websters shows (and what I've been tryin to get across) is that marriage on its own is about a man and woman. Just that simple. Now lets stop the screaming, raging protests and fight for the rights we ARE guaranteed under civil unions. Thats a winner and no one is discriminated against in any way, shape or form.

jacqueline Korteland Boller at 8:20pm November 11
Sounds like you're giving up...let the youth, as you say, continue the fight...

Jacqueline Korteland Boller at 8:23pm November 11
I can hear your frustration...don't give up though...other minorities didn't give up and have made great strides. I think you've been hurt and fear continued pain...progress is painful and must be earned.

Jacqueline Korteland Boller at 9:50pm November 11
Wow, what happen to the messages? It felt like we were arriving to some understanding of some sort...or sort of...oh, well...good luck to you...

Justin Belcher at 10:51pm November 11
stephen sorry, but your an idiot. It clearly has more then one definition, one in which actually suits us.

Stephen Paulsen at 6:07am November 12
Justin, we are a pluralistic society. Your name-calling won't change that fact! The voters heard all the arguments and decided that we don't want to destroy our language, heritage, history and definitions because you don't like it. Get over it. It's done. I've patiently waded through all your arguments, politely, and simply disagree. That's how a ... Read Moredemocracy works. Screaming and name-calling only makes you look like the idiot and tunes out anyone listening to anything valid you may have to say. Look beyond yourself for ten seconds and listen to the other side for once and maybe the next time there's an issue you're passionate about, you won't embarrass yourself with ignorance.

Stephen Paulsen at 6:20am November 12
No one seems to be accepting their defeat with the passage of Prop 8. I've laid out an alternative to the loss, and I hope you will stand tall and fight for your civil rights in another arena. I DO understand people's passion, on both sides. But it's time to start thinking logically and try and keep our emotions in check. We have a REAL opportunity with this defeat to push for recognition and benefits under DP's. Let's not spend any more time fighting a lost cause.

Justin Belcher at 6:30am November 12
Stephen your acting ridiculous, you sound as if you have given up on the battle yourself, so trying to justify these actions. When your sounding ridiculous. Nothing your saying makes a lick of sense at all.

Stephen Paulsen at 7:14am November 12
Then take the blinders off and read what I've stated! I can't give up on something I've NEVER supported. I've stated my opposition to changing the definition of the word 'marriage' over and over! And again, name-calling only tunes people out to anything legitimate you may have to say.

Justin Belcher at 7:36am November 12
BUT MARRIAGE IS NOT DEFINED AS A WORD BY MAN AND WOMAN ONLY.. we've given you proof of that.

Stephen Paulsen at 7:50am November 12
No, you haven't. Mrs. Boller showed that, even in the dictionary, marriage is prefaced by 'same-sex,' which is the way of distinguishing it from the root definition. Look at it again; "the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage." "...like that of a traditional marriage," not the same as nor legal as marriage. It's English 101. What do you not understand? Seriously???

Justin Belcher at 8:03am November 12
it has several definitions.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/marriage
mar... Read More⋅riage
/ˈmærɪdʒ/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [mar-ij] Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
2. the state, condition, or relationship of being married; wedlock: a happy marriage.
3. the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of a man and woman to live as husband and wife, including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage.
4. a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife, without legal sanction: trial marriage; homosexual marriage.
5. any close or intimate association or union: the marriage of words and music in a hit song.

[spideyboy_1111]

Justin Belcher at 8:04am November 12
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage

Main Entry:

mar... Read More·riage Listen to the pronunciation of marriage
Pronunciation:

\ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij\
Function:

noun
Etymology:

Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
Date:

14th century

1 a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b: the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c: the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage2: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected ; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities3: an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry — J. T. Shawcross>

Justin Belcher at 8:06am November 12
Same sex marriage falls under both of those as a definition of marriage. It does not need to be the first definition to still be a definition. Both clearly state same sex marriages in there definitions.
dictionary.com as #4 and Websters speaks of it in the very first definition.

Stephen Paulsen at 8:26am November 12
Again, you don't seem to understand how language works. Your first example mentions same-sex couples as " in the manner of a husband and wife, without legal sanction," while the second, which is the same as Mrs. Boller's, prefaces marriage with "same-sex," which takes it outside the law (as stated) and separates it from the definition with the ... Read Morewords "like that of a traditional marriage." "Like that of" and "in the manner of" show the distinction between same-sex marriage and marriage. Where's the equal-footing? Where's the denial of civil rights? Its apples and oranges. Apples are round "like" oranges. They grow on trees "in the manner of" oranges. They are not oranges.

Justin Belcher at 8:32am November 12
out side the law? several countries and now officially 2 states legally allow it... Law, in terms as using it in a definition is irrelevant.

Stephen Paulsen at 8:47am November 12
I don't think that law is irrelevant here, and neither did the voters. Laws are determined by the people and the people decided to keep the definition of marriage intact. We will have to agree to disagree on this. But I still hope you can turn your energy towards a goal that I think everyone can agree on in granting the same benefits to gay ... Read Morecouples under our Domestic Partnership laws. THAT would be equality. Heck, do away with marriage licenses all together and expand civil unions if we're going to keep fighting over words! No one gets hurt and no one loses. That could unite everyone! And thats what its all about- isn't it?

Justin Belcher at 8:51am November 12
your talking about a word though, a word that has meaning in a language that is more then just state wide. It's world wide. Marriage between homosexuals is perfectly legal in some places. So your argument is asinine.

Stephen Paulsen at 8:54am November 12
Wow. Such a well-stated argument! You should have no problem winning! Oh- you lost. Maybe you should try being rational instead of completely dismissing others.

Justin Belcher at 8:58am November 12
Dude what kinda logic are you using... your basing the reason to have gay marriage based on a definition of marriage, which not only acknowledges gay marriage, but then you go to the next step and bring up the law side of it. Some places allow it by law, so that part of the definition is irrelevant. Basically what it's saying is the word marriage ... Read Morecan be used when it's legal. Your arguments are just redundant and i feel like im talking to someone who just simply doesn't get it... I don't think your convincing anyone one way or another on the subject. You just sound pretty illogical.

Stephen Paulsen at 9:10am November 12
The majority of Californians agreed. And I'm not trying to convince you. The law is the law now and I simply want the hateful dribble coming out of people's mouths to stop! Its pointless! If you can't see beyond your own personal agenda, then that's sad. But at least try and direct that energy to something attainable for everyone.

Justin Belcher at 9:14am November 12
PEOPLE do not have a say in HUMAN rights. its going to be turned away in court, and as long as rights are taken away, and people are not treated equally there will always be a reason to complain. SO DO NOT SIT THERE AND TELL ME TO TAKE IT. ITS MY GOD DAMN RIGHT AS A HUMAN BEING TO HAVE THE SAME THINGS AS EVERYONE ELSE. NO ONE can deny me that. IF ... Read More you can't add anything intelligent to this conversation rather then just telling us to "shut up and take it" essentially, then please do us all a favor and move on.

Stephen Paulsen at 10:36am November 12
LMAO! Justin, what do you think you're accomplishing??? You seem to think that the only intelligent point is yours. It's not. Intelligence comes from facts- not emotion. While you've made some awesome points, it's lost in the wind when you refuse to acknowledge other valid opinions. A debate is based on two opposing positions, routed in fact. You ... Read Moreare simply emotional. And unfortunately, it's blinding you. I'm trying to show another way that you may not have thought of. The Constitution has been changed and cannot be re-written by the courts. So are you gonna continue to protest the past, or are you going to work for the future?

Stephen Paulsen at 10:47am November 12
As for your position that "ITS MY GOD DAMN RIGHT AS A HUMAN BEING TO HAVE THE SAME THINGS AS EVERYONE ELSE;" By your way of thinking, I should be ENTITLED to money for college from the UNCF. It's discrimination that keeps me from that pot of cash. I should be ENTITLED to tax breaks that everyone else gets. It's discrimination that keeps me from it... Read More. Entitlements are a ***** because they're exactly that- entitlements. NOT EVERYONE IN SOCIETY IS THE SAME. Thats the reality you refuse to acknowledge. This isn't the Soviet Union. This isn't a collective. The 'change we can believe in" mantra is a myth in a free society.

Jacqueline Korteland Boller at 11:44am November 12
Since I have a BA in English, words carry different meanings as well as connotations, so marriage can and does apply to both heterosexual and homosexual unions. So I don't see the problem here unless what we're dealing with is some sort of commitment phobia.

I also heard on the news that the courts might decide that this sort of proposition ... Read Moreshould not have been voted on in the first place. Makes sense to me that perhaps the courts should disallow votes in which one group of people are trying to disenfranchise another. Just because there's a majority rule doesn't make it right...what if they voted in slavery again?? You think that would go through by any stretch of the imagination??

Stephen Paulsen at 12:05pm November 12
I heard about that as well. But from what I've read in the state's Constitution, only the voters can decide on amendments and the court can't change the wording. And since Domestic Partnerships grant the same rights as a marriage license, there's no legal claim of 'disenfranchisement.' All I'm trying to get across to everyone is that there's an ... Read Morealternative to name-calling and anger- on BOTH sides! But we will have to agree to disagree on our interpretations of the word 'marriage.' I've pointed out that when any dictionary has a secondary definition with "same-sex" prefacing it, it takes on a different meaning with little or no relation to the original parameters therein. It's slang, even though it may be commonly viewed as proper. And that's putting my B.A. (U.S.C., 1992) and teaching credentials on the line. But make no mistake- I fully comprehend and appreciate your point of view. I just hope everyone can learn from this experience and find common ground.

Justin Belcher at 12:56pm November 12
This is a Civil rights issue and i can't explain that to you enough. People didn't vote on woman's and african-americans rights. so i dont see why people can for gay rights.

Stephen Paulsen at 2:00pm November 12
Actually, yes they did vote on those things- through Congress. And yes, both times they were challenged in court. Sound familiar? Learn your past before trying to forge a future. Your insistence on saying its a civil rights issue is an argument that didn't work. Let's try something else.

Justin Belcher at 7:54pm November 12
I know very well about the past, and like in the past, it was overturned. THIS IS A CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUE. There is no if's ands or buts about it. Accepting defeat is accepting the fact you will be forever a 2nd class citizen and "straits" are "better" then you. And that is a load of crap. This isn't the 1950's with white and colored drinking ... Read Morefountains. It's the same situation with Marriage vs Civil Unions. Here's another example imagine if someone goes to the emergency room and says 'My husband is in there. Let me in.' Everyone would understand what that meant and clear the way. Now imagine someone goes in and says 'My domestic partner is in there. Let me in.' Surely you can envision somebody getting the response 'Ummm, I'm not sure what our policy is. Let me get a supervisor' as precious minutes tick away and now it's up to the hospital bureaucracy to get you in there to make life or death decisions. They aren't the same thing. And I'm astounded as a gay man you can't see the difference

Jacqueline Korteland Boller at 8:28pm November 12
Don't give up, Justin!!!

Justin Belcher at 8:30pm November 12
I wont, i never will. I refuse to be a second class citizen.

Stephen Paulsen at 8:34pm November 12
I do feel sorry for you, Jason. You've convinced yourself that your struggle is the same as blacks and women. Unfortunately, blacks and women, who really were discriminated against, don't want that association with you and showed us in the voting booth. What you fail to understand is that those two groups are recognizable when they walk in a room. ... Read MoreYou want special treatment from the world for what you do in your bedroom in private. HUGE difference. And if you'd bother to read the domestic partnership laws from '07, you'd realize your hospital argument doesn't hold any validity. If you REALLY think it's about civil rights, why not protest the black churches in Compton? Or is that not politically correct?

You won't always get what you want out of the political system. No one does. It's called democracy.

Justin Belcher at 9:10pm November 12
too bad i'm not Jason.. Stephen i think you need to wake up, your clearly brainwashed. And there's not much more i can say on that. Your arguments are tiring and completely non-nonsensical. You clearly don't under stand the concept of fighting for ones rights, and instead feel its up to everyone else to decide what your rights are. Your a lost ... Read Morecause and seem to be very self hating. Makes me wonder what society will have to do to you to finally make you wake up. That's if society hasn't caused you to be so blind in the first place.

Stephen Paulsen at 9:39pm November 12
Wow. You finally said something grounded in reality; YES other people DO decide what rights are allowed under the law! That is what constitutions are for! Or would you rather have anarchy? But that's not the case here since you already have the rights you keep claiming you don't. So you go right on protesting. I for one choose to continue life with my eyes wide open and my brain not handed over to the collective.

Justin Belcher at 9:44pm November 12
Continue being blind, I have no problem with that. Your truly pathetic, grow some balls dude and at least try to understand what were fighting for. Stop the self hate, im not sure what has hit you upside of the head so many times, that you seemingly are completely fine at the fact your considered a 2nd class citizen. I've explained our side enough... Read More, and no matter how many facts i through in your face, for some reason you still can't comprehend what any of us have told you. If your ok with "seperate but equal" then thats fine, but the rest of the gay community is not. We've heard your opinion, and we don't need anymore of it.

Stephen Paulsen at 9:53pm November 12
Name-calling. The last vestige of a desperate man. Good luck with that, JUSTIN. And when you're ready to step up and stop describing yourself as a second-class citizen, then hopefully you will participate in the democracy we live in and stop insisting everyone conform to your own twisted standards.

Justin Belcher at 10:00pm November 12
Hey Mr English, as you seem to make yourself all knowing at the English language like you seem to act, you'd know that "pathetic" is an adjective right? not a noun? i'm calling you pathetic. No where in that post did I call you a name. WTF do you think i'm doing? I AM STEPPING UP, when your sitting with your thumbs in your ass wondering why the world isn't changing. Twisted standards? since when is equality and justice twisted?

Stephen Paulsen at 10:11pm November 12
LMAO! YOU HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS AS MARRIED COUPLES UNDER DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIPS!!! But I guess your programming doesn't allow you to comprehend information other than that which your "community" has put into you. How sad that you are missing out on a rich, full life over the definition of a word. Have fun, kiddo! Good night.

Justin Belcher at 10:15pm November 12
BUT WERE CALLED "DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIPS" we are NOT treated equally. If you truly can't understand the comparison to "white and colored" drinking fountains then i'm not sure what else to tell you. If you can settle for that fine, but the rest of the gay community can not, and wont. Don't forget to soak your dentures tonight, I'd hate for you to wake up with a fowl taste in your mouth. That ignorance has to stink.

Stephen Paulsen at 10:33pm November 12
Oh Lord. Again with the comparison to african- american discrimination and even more hateful missives. And you have yet to actually qualify your position or answer one question. All you do is scream "discrimination discrimination." Have fun pissing in the wind!

Justin Belcher at 10:34pm November 12
O i will.. just make sure you bring a poncho

Stephen Paulsen at 6:53am November 13
I'm tired of arguing with two obviously immature boys. William, I thought much higher of you than this. But both of you read carefully: Sucking dick is NOT the same as have black skin. Having a cock up your ass is not the same as a woman being denied the right to a job. The reason your campaign lost is because MOST Americans gay or straight, are ... Read Moresick and tired of guys like you insinuating discrimination where none exists. Especially in Cali! You have the same rights as everyone else, but insist on changing the definition of a word because you're not it is too much.

Stephen Paulsen at 7:15am November 13
So you keep on protesting for naught. All your idiots out there, knocking over little old ladies and breaking crucifixes, only show your true and deliberate ignorance and piss off people that were on your side in the beginning. And the rest of the nation IS watching your behavior and will remember it when their states vote on the issue. So thanks ... Read Morefor setting the strides we've made back about 50 years. Your immaturity and irrational behavior have led to your loss. Its that simple. So the bottom line is this- call it a wedding, call it a marriage, call it an orgy- it doesn't matter what you put on the invitations. What matters is there is a form at the courthouse that says you are together. Same love-same public ceremony-same benefits. That's called equality. Get over it. And try not to look too stupid with piss blowing in your face.

Justin Belcher at 11:59am November 13
there was a phrase i heard once.. that crazy people don't realize there crazy.... considering you seem to be the only gay guy ive EVER ran into that has this twisted point of view, while most are fighting for equality... i have a feeling that phrase might apply to you...

...

[spideyboy_1111]

William Boller at 12:42pm November 13
OMG - totally got a good phrase

IT'S ALL THE SAME FIGHT
WE'RE HERE TO EXTEND HUMAN RIGHTS

Y'see - I'm sick of people adding divides, saying "you're different than me" or "I don't understand you, so I'm going to ignore you" "being black and being gay are two different things"

Point is that we are fighting longstanding stigmas, most of which still... Read More exist today. And you really need to realize that Race, Gender, and Sexual Orientation - despite the many differences between each individual human rights movement have one common trait: The Prejudices that they stand, march, and wish to abolish are all SOCIALLY CONSTRUCTED (meaning that although we have been socialized to believe there is a fundamental difference between men and women; black, white, asian, latino, or mixed; gay or straight; the only real difference is genitalia and skin pigment - all other prejudices wouldn't exist except for our culture's persistence to maintain divisiveness

Justin Belcher at 2:25pm November 13 via Facebook Mobile
Aggrees, our kinds have all been beatin, killed, imprisoned, austrocized, and ridiculed. We all have unique seperate pain but the reasons behind it Are all the same. we should use our pain to unite. I wish MLK was alive today, most people dont know that he was also very pro gay rights but realised the nation needed baby steps

Jacqueline Korteland Boller at 3:07pm November 13
I think you two have nailed it. One cause isn't necessarily better than another, but all are genetic and can't be helped, but need acceptance. Being Black is genetic; being a woman is genetic; being gay is genetic; having blue eyes is genetic...etc. All should be treated with human dignity...

Stephen Paulsen at 6:10pm November 13
from Minnesota Public Radio, 11.13.08

Martin Luther King Jr.'s youngest daughter participated in a march in Atlanta in December 2004, in support of a federal constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. The Rev. Bernice King has said she doesn't believe her father died to give homosexuals the right to marry.

"Most people want to say he was a ... Read Moregreat civil rights worker, but he was a great preacher," says the Rev. Bob Battle. "A preacher of the gospel of Jesus Christ."

Battle also says King's theology would have prevented him from endorsing gay marriage. He says King believed in a Bible that stated God's opposition to homosexuality, and that defined marriage as between one man and one woman. A recent Pew Research poll found that 67 percent of black Protestants oppose gay marriage on religious grounds.

He NEVER said he was pro gay rights, Justin. Try some different propaganda.

Stephen Paulsen at 6:14pm November 13
William, your last post is really good at explaining your position. I'm gonna copy it into a private email between you and I because I'm sickened by Belcher's consistent hate and propaganda. I think you are much more capable of explaining your positions and I appreciate your ideas.

William Boller at 6:17pm November 13
ok Stephen - how's this? STOP BEING SO ****ING DIVISIVE. There is propaganda on both sides, and if you took a step back and looked from many different perspectives, you'd feel the shame for all those African-American protestants for putting their religious dogmas before the human ability to love.

I really encourage you, Stephen, to stop ... Read Morebelieving that hate, division, segregation, and civil unions are anything but an excuse for the eternal-fascist movement of the christian right to divide an conquer the people of the world.

Jacqueline Korteland Boller at 6:39pm November 13
Just who wrote the Bible?? Not God...but man...and man is it open to intrepretation. I can't believe a God can be so unforgiving...

Stephen Paulsen at 6:41pm November 13
Oh Lord. I take back what I said. You're as brainwashed as the other. I have looked from ALL perspectives and simply don't see any disenfranchisement. I see a bunch of Christian-hating gay people trying to force total anarchy on the law, using segregation and discrimination as an excuse. So answer one simple question: how are gays disenfranchised or discriminated against under California law?

Jacqueline Korteland Boller at 7:16pm November 13
Just who isn't being nice here? I'm sorry if those entrenched in their religion can't get past it and open their hearts on a more human level. I've known too many so-called Christian people who are judgmental and self-rightgeous beyond niceness...sorry...but see no reason why religion should have anything to do with gay people having the right to be married.

Justin Belcher at 8:00pm November 13
Stephen, remember my crazy quote? denial buddy, denial.

Stephen Paulsen at 9:06pm November 13
Belcher, you'e incapable of civilized conversation, so I'm done addressing your stupidity.

Justin Belcher at 9:09pm November 13
Good, No one here is giving 2cents about what your saying anyway... I think I speak for everyone when I say your pretty much a self-hating weakling.

Stephen Paulsen at 9:15pm November 13
Mrs. Boller and William, While I DO NOT agree with some of the tactics the church used during the campaign, I certain don't think that the gay community were sterling examples of civility either. But I don't think your anger is being directed properly if you solely want to make it a religious issue. The black churches were the ones that put the ... Read Morevote over the top, but you have yet to protest them. The leaders in the gay movement know that the black community don't like being tied to them, but need that stigma in order to garner sympathy. But religion aside, there's NOTHING preventing two people from getting hitched! You keep saying that, but if you'd bother to read the law, you'd stop haggling over a non issue!

Stephen Paulsen at 9:20pm November 13
You still haven't answered the basic question: how are we being disenfranchised or discriminated against under the law??? Is the truth of the matter that you are trying to force churches to wed people against their beliefs? Isn't THAT discrimination? Isn't that eliminating Freedom of Religion- which, last time I looked was still a part of the ... Read MoreConstitution of the U.S.? I haven't been arguing from a religious perspective, and I see that you are. So ask yourself if people have a right to believe how they want, as long as it doesn't take away your freedom.

Stephen Paulsen at 9:21pm November 13
As of 2007, California affords domestic partnerships all of the same rights and responsibilities as marriages under state law (Cal. Fam. Code §297.5).

Justin Belcher at 9:26pm November 13
Under the law? SEPARATE BUT EQUAL, IS NOT EQUAL, not to mention in nearly all cases it takes a 3/4 majority vote to alter the constitution, not half. No church can or ever will be forced to marry, they can turn away strait couples too.. there are churches that have spoken out willingly to accept gay marriage, no one is forcing them... please properly educate yourself on the subject, because clearly you haven't.

Stephen Paulsen at 9:33pm November 13
Belcher, you're reading comprehension is atrocious. This is why I am done dealing with your ignorance. Try actually reading what I wrote, instead of looking at things through hateful, jaded eyes.

Justin Belcher at 9:35pm November 13
I did... and responded correctly. Do you not read what your typing?

Justin Belcher at 9:35pm November 13
*give you some reading glasses and some salmon tablets*

Jacqueline Korteland Boller at 9:40pm November 13
Stephen, you're all over the place...I think I've indicated that religion should have nothing to do with this...you certainly don't need a church to get married...I didn't get married in a church. It would be nice of a church to be accepting, but that part of it is not necessary since of course they have their prorogative to turn away any couple ... Read Morethey want. Before the vote, yes, things were equal because the term marriage could be used for both hetero and gay unions. But if you apply marriage only to hetero and this domestic partnership to just gays, you are treating two groups of people differently. Also, in a marriage, you say "I do" and everything falls into place while with domestic partnership, it's my understanding that lawyers are involved. How romantic. NOT. When both groups can use the same form (i.e., marriage certificate) to commit to one another only then will you have true equality. Hey, maybe everyone should do the domestic partnership.

Jacqueline Korteland Boller at 9:47pm November 13
Looking back on the conversation, you were the one who called us "Christian-hating gay people," and brought MLK's daughter into the equation when you said she couldn't accept gay couples because of her religious beliefs...that's where the religion aspect of all this was brought into the conversation and I was merely defending myself. I don't think... Read More this has anything to do with religion or should if we are to have separation of church and state. Religion was NOT what were were voting against or for...the proposition had to do with voting against or for equality in marriage rights...

Justin Belcher at 9:50pm November 13
it's ok jackie... I don't think Stephen will ever understand, he loathes himself and aparently the entire gay community too much.

Jacqueline Korteland Boller at 10:04pm November 13
That's a shame...no reason to feel that way. To me, the concept of gay has been with me all my life...since about 4 years old when my dad explained to me that I had two uncles instead of the usual aunt/uncle combination. My dad's brother was gay and he was together with his partner for over 25 years when the partner died. So I've always been very... Read More accepting. LOL...except when it came to Will...took some adjusting there since all I could think about was what a difficult life he might have...but now that's even leveled out for me. I also found out that I'm a *** hag...gosh, back when I was in high school, that term didn't exist, but my male friends, even one boyfriend, turned out to be gay...

Anyway, I guess with such an upbringing, it's no wonder I have to scratch my head over this issue...isn't it to everyone's advantage that gays marry???

Justin Belcher at 10:07pm November 13
well the main point is it's absolutely no DIS-advantage :) Will is very lucky to have a mother like you :D

ok someone please tell me that this stephen guy doesn't make any sense... or are the 3 of us crazy?

[SatEL]

:o sorry but i think MOST people thought the ban wouldn't pass.. Cali is known for being a VERY liberal state.. if not the most. Most thought Cali would have it probably before Mass and if not, def before Connecticut. So i don't consider that Naive at all.

In reference to my statement about been Naive, what I meant is the fact that some people make statements like " By the Gods people still have a problem with homosexuality....... thats just ghastly how dare they. I mean we are in the 21st century for crying out loud, this is an outrage grahhhhhhhhh". The topic of homosexuality is still very much a big thing to some and a very uncomfortable subject to others and people's opinions on it shouldnt really surprise people.

[spideyboy_1111]

In reference to my statement about been Naive, what I meant is the fact that some people make statements like " By the Gods people still have a problem with homosexuality....... thats just ghastly how dare they. I mean we are in the 21st century for crying out loud, this is an outrage grahhhhhhhhh". The topic of homosexuality is still very much a big thing to some and a very uncomfortable subject to others and people's opinions on it shouldnt really surprise people.

o peoples opinions arn't surprising us at all.. it was just the majority of california's opinions that surprised us.

[SatEL]

I'm still waiting for somebody, anybody (not just this site, but in general) to give one clear, NON RELIGIOUS reason why gay marriage "ruins the sanctity of marriage". Seriously, I havn't ever heard one concise, relevant argument against it.

Perhaps it has something to do with the concept of it all been "unnatural", heck as I stated a few pages back I have no problem with gay people having a civil marriage but thats where it should end.

[SatEL]

o peoples opinions arn't surprising us at all.. it was just the majority of california's opinions that surprised us.

And thats what I am trying to say that it shouldn't, despite California been dubbed as a liberal state when you put homosexuality and marriage in the same sentence it might make people uncomfortable. People might be against gay marriages but that doesnt neccesarily mean they are against Homosexuals.

[The Major]

And thats what I am trying to say that it shouldn't, despite California been dubbed as a liberal state when you put homosexuality and marriage in the same sentence it might make people uncomfortable.

African-Americans not being treated as second class citizens made people uncomfortable, too.

The only difference is that was a racial issue, not a sexual one.

People might be against gay marriages but that doesnt neccesarily mean they are against Homosexuals.

They would still be fine discriminating against them, though.

Spidey:

MLK's daughter being against gays is disappointing to hear.

[SatEL]

African-Americans not being treated as second class citizens made people uncomfortable, too.

The gay community and minorities in America have many things in common.



They would still be fine discriminating against them, though.

Spidey:

MLK's daughter being against gays is disappointing to hear.

Like I said homosexuality and marriage in the same sentence is a complicated area, and on MLK daughter she isnt "against gays" from what I know but simply against the idea of gay marriage. Has it been scientifically proven that people are essentially born gay? If it hasnt I dont think we can compare it to AA.

[The Major]

Like I said homosexuality and marriage in the same sentence is a complicated area,

Discrimination is discrimination.

How would these people like it if other minorities successfully stopped them from getting married? I'd guess they'd be angry about it, too.

and on MLK daughter she isnt "against gays" from what I know but simply against the idea of gay marriage.

She still doesn't think the deserve equal rights.

That's enough to make her a hypocrite.

[SatEL]

Discrimination is discrimination.



And what if we go by the notion that Homosexuals are an anomoly when it comes to the concept of nature and survival. And that the very act itself is unnatural by natures standard and peoples perception of it is merely a psychological response to something that goes against the very survival of their (Our) race.

[SatEL]

She still doesn't think the deserve equal rights.

That's enough to make her a hypocrite.

How do you know it doesnt have anything to do with her religious affiliation?

[The Major]

How do you know it doesnt have anything to do with her religious affiliation?

It doesn't matter where it comes from.

Religion shouldn't give anyone the right to oppress another.

[spideyboy_1111]

Perhaps it has something to do with the concept of it all been "unnatural", heck as I stated a few pages back I have no problem with gay people having a civil marriage but thats where it should end.

please explain to me how exactly is being gay "unnatural"... We were born this way.. we didn't wake up and choose, it's found and documented in just about every animal, and has been documented in man since practically the dawn of time. So I say to you... HOW THE HELL is that unnatural when NATURE made us that way?

[spideyboy_1111]

African-Americans not being treated as second class citizens made people uncomfortable, too.

The only difference is that was a racial issue, not a sexual one.



They would still be fine discriminating against them, though.

Spidey:

MLK's daughter being against gays is disappointing to hear.

indeed... i still believe MLK would be with us today, and completely disgraced at how 2 sided his daughter is.

[spideyboy_1111]

Like I said homosexuality and marriage in the same sentence is a complicated area, and on MLK daughter she isnt "against gays" from what I know but simply against the idea of gay marriage. Has it been scientifically proven that people are essentially born gay? If it hasnt I dont think we can compare it to AA.

nothing is scientifically proven, but almost every study, is pinpointing to it. the Gay brain in a man is much more similar to that of a woman (and vice versa torwards lesbians) we are LITERALLY wired differently and our hormones are different.

Now i believe in a flexible idea.. i think part of everyone is born bi.. but factors through ones life can essentially "pile up" on one side more then the other, throwing things off balance into causing homosexuality. I know there's many a gay who had the absence of a father, and an overbearing mother...

Lesbians don't seem to have this in common as much though.. so i hardly consider my theory fact, just that there could be "more ways to skin a cat" so to speak... Basically i don't think there is or will ever be a concrete answer, we do know hormones are a huge factor which can indeed be caused in the womb. The one thing we all do know though is it's NOT A CHOICE. I've yet to hear one gay guy ever EVER say he's chosen to be gay.

[spideyboy_1111]

And what if we go by the notion that Homosexuals are an anomoly when it comes to the concept of nature and survival. And that the very act itself is unnatural by natures standard and peoples perception of it is merely a psychological response to something that goes against the very survival of their (Our) race.

see my above post on "natural" now .. a theory i've also toyed with myself is .. what if homosexuality in some form is natures way to keep down population? Nature has proven to step in in weird ways like this to ensure survival of a species.. well personally the human races biggest threat is ourselves. Now i'm not saying this is the most gays on earth we've ever had.. because thats impossible to tell. more are just out now due to more people being ok with the idea... but what if there really are more gays today and the very theory i came up with is true?

[The Major]

And what if we go by the notion that Homosexuals are an anomoly when it comes to the concept of nature
Homosexuality occurs in nature.

and survival.

How are gays dangerous to anyone's survival?

If anything it's the heterosexuals which are a threat to their's.

And that the very act itself is unnatural by natures standard

Homosexuality is in nature.

That's not a reason a reason to discriminate against any class of people.

Gays are human, too.

and peoples perception of it is merely a psychological response to something that goes against the very survival of their (Our) race.

Our race is doing rather well with population. We dominate the Earth with our numbers which are in the billions.

These theoretical discussions are fascinating but are irrelevant since you can't prove it.

Of course, even if it was true it still doesn't give anybody the excuse to discriminate against people.

[thedeadite]

I always love the "choice" argument.
I know I never "chose" to be straight. I'm not sexually attracted to men in the least, never have been.
It's not like I made any conscious decision to be with women instead of men.
I haven't meant ANY straight person who EVER said they choose to be straight.
So why would it be different for gays?

[The Major]

see my above post on "natural" now .. a theory i've also toyed with myself is .. what if homosexuality in some form is natures way to keep down population? Nature has proven to step in in weird ways like this to ensure survival of a species.. well personally the human races biggest threat is ourselves. Now i'm not saying this is the most gays on earth we've ever had.. because thats impossible to tell. more are just out now due to more people being ok with the idea... but what if there really are more gays today and the very theory i came up with is true?

It may be one of nature's triggers to keep animal populations to considerable levels.

It hasn't had that big an impact, however. Humans breed to quickly, live in bigger areas to survive and our technology is destroying everything around it at a rate the planet has trouble keeping up with. :csad:

Another possible trigger is decreased sex drive in heavily populated countries. Japan has this problem IIRC.

[SatEL]

please explain to me how exactly is being gay "unnatural"... We were born this way.. we didn't wake up and choose, it's found and documented in just about every animal, and has been documented in man since practically the dawn of time. So I say to you... HOW THE HELL is that unnatural when NATURE made us that way?

Hence why I classed it as an anomaly. And until its proven as fact that people are born gay you stating it as fact is just mere speculation.

[The Major]

Hence why I classed it as an anomaly. And until its proven as fact that people are born gay you stating it as fact is just mere speculation.

It's not that hard to believe.

Unlike most test subjects in scientific experiments scientists can communicate with gays.

Are you honestly suggesting every gay person who says they didn't choose their sexuality is lying?

[SatEL]

nothing is scientifically proven, but almost every study, is pinpointing to it. the Gay brain in a man is much more similar to that of a woman (and vice versa torwards lesbians) we are LITERALLY wired differently and our hormones are different.

Now i believe in a flexible idea.. i think part of everyone is born bi.. but factors through ones life can essentially "pile up" on one side more then the other, throwing things off balance into causing homosexuality. I know there's many a gay who had the absence of a father, and an overbearing mother...

Lesbians don't seem to have this in common as much though.. so i hardly consider my theory fact, just that there could be "more ways to skin a cat" so to speak... Basically i don't think there is or will ever be a concrete answer, we do know hormones are a huge factor which can indeed be caused in the womb. The one thing we all do know though is it's NOT A CHOICE. I've yet to hear one gay guy ever EVER say he's chosen to be gay.

Again until actual facts are presented that people are born gay, it is not true. I dont think people chose to be gay of course not but I believe the atmosphere and surronding in which a child grows up in has an influence on their sexual prefrences.

[spideyboy_1111]

Hence why I classed it as an anomaly. And until its proven as fact that people are born gay you stating it as fact is just mere speculation.

problem is it may never be proven. There could easily be different situations for different people. We could all be born bi, and hormones are triggered and we swing one way or the other... The thing about hormones is that they are very tricky. They can be cause biologically and they can be caused by emotions and environment. So unless theres something deeper then just "hormones" causing the swing, then there will never be one solid answer. Personally I believe hormones are 100% the answer, but i think weather there caused by emotional stress and environment, or triggered naturally in the way they were created... i think the answers both.

[spideyboy_1111]

Again until actual facts are presented that people are born gay, it is not true. I dont think people chose to be gay of course not but I believe the atmosphere and surronding in which a child grows up in has an influence on their sexual prefrences.

that alone though is faulty as is... Twins can both be gay, or one can be striat or both strait. One can be gay and the other strait when they come from the same family and treated the same way. There's gay guys who were always close with there dad and he was always there, there is no definitive story for a gay man or a lesbian. So that alone disproves the environmental factor alone.

[SatEL]

It's not that hard to believe.

Unlike most test subjects in scientific experiments scientists can communicate with gays.

Are you honestly suggesting every gay person who says they didn't choose their sexuality is lying?

No what I am suggesting is that gay people are made not born, I think surroundings and early interactions influence people heavily on their eventual sexual choice (I use the term choice lightly here).

[The Major]

problem is it may never be proven. There could easily be different situations for different people. We could all be born bi, and hormones are triggered and we swing one way or the other... The thing about hormones is that they are very tricky. They can be cause biologically and they can be caused by emotions and environment. So unless theres something deeper then just "hormones" causing the swing, then there will never be one solid answer. Personally I believe hormones are 100% the answer, but i think weather there caused by emotional stress and environment, or triggered naturally in the way they were created... i think the answers both.

This is really a bogus argument against gays.

Who cares why people turn gay? It doesn't matter how they found their sexuality beyond scientific curiosity.

They're apart of our society which deserve the same rights as any other race or group.

[spideyboy_1111]

No what I am suggesting is that gay people are made not born, I think surroundings and early interactions influence people heavily on their eventual sexual choice (I use the term choice lightly here).

but there are gay guys who grew up EXACTLY in the same atmosphere and surroundings as straight men. Environment alone does not make one gay.

[SatEL]

that alone though is faulty as is... Twins can both be gay, or one can be striat or both strait. One can be gay and the other strait when they come from the same family and treated the same way. There's gay guys who were always close with there dad and he was always there, there is no definitive story for a gay man or a lesbian. So that alone disproves the environmental factor alone.

Twins wont always have the same interactions as one another, one will experience something completly diffrent from the other at some point in life. So using twins as a reason to debunk the environmental theory doesnt hold up.

[The Major]

No what I am suggesting is that gay people are made not born, I think surroundings and early interactions influence people heavily on their eventual sexual choice (I use the term choice lightly here).

Its an interesting theory.

But it should not be used as an excuse to discriminate against them however they came to be.

Scientists found the cause for skin color, it still doesn't make racists right for discriminating against those races.

[SatEL]

but there are gay guys who grew up EXACTLY in the same atmosphere and surroundings as straight men. Environment alone does not make one gay.

Not only environmentally but interactions.

[SatEL]

Its an interesting theory.

But it should not be used as an excuse to discriminate against them however they came to be.

I agree but the concept of marriage was intended for a male and female union and has always been so, now me personally I dont mind the fact that gay people want in on the act. My only issue with it is that it should never ever take place within a church or any religion that claims the act is a sin, due to the contradictions.

[BlackLantern]

To be honest most of us thought it would pass. We didn't count on the ignorance and black/latino communities negative responses.

The gay community assumed that "peoples better nature" would prevail...and were kicked in the junk relying on that....People, as a group, are scared, ignorant, and paranoid....as for this "nationwide" protest....Im sure the major cities have something going, but it's all quiet here in CT and the rest of New England...I think there is something planned for Boston and a small rally or something here in CT, probably in New Haven....but I have not heard or seen anything else....Hate might be your biggest obstacle, but apathy is a close second

[The Major]

I agree but the concept of marriage was intended for a male and female union

Things change.

The old world weren't a PC as we are today. They probably killed a gay person on sight. No surprise the marriages were straight only affairs.

How did the Greeks deal with this? I don't know if the gays got married in that ancient society.

and has always been so,
Just because some old guys thousands of years ago weren't as open minded about marriage doesn't mean our society has to be.

This is the 21st century. Race, gender and sexuality don't have to stay in the status quo if we don't want it to. MLK's dream didn't just have to affect African-Americans. It should be for everybody.

now me personally I dont the fact that gay people want in on the act.

You don't know for a fact that gays want to get married? Did I read your sentence right? I'm not being sarcastic, it's just the last part of your sentence looks like something missing from it. Just want to know that reading it correctly.

My only issue with it is that it should never ever take place within a church or any religion that claims the act is a sin, due to the contradictions.

Now we get into the religious debate.

You had more of an argument with the scientific theory.

I'm an atheist. While I don't follow any religion I have no qualm with you on it, but I disagree any religious teachings should impact the government and find ways to oppress races or groups from having equal rights.

Racists found all sorts of excuses with the bible, too.

[Heretic]

? so. I have no problem with abortion, as long as its within the first month

and rights of tax payers? we vote on what we pay taxes for.. and if we didnt pay taxes our nation would collapse.


Notice that AT NO POINT do I use my personal opinions as a barometer for what should and should not be legal. But here you are, on yet another issue, where your personal stance on the issue is what leads you to say "its okay that people arent allowed to vote on abortion". I am pro-choice (with many reservations) but one persons opinion does not equal the law...and what happens when a judge makes a decision you disagree with? Do you get up in arms about how your rights have been violated? If abortion suddenly was overturned, would you then demand that the people have the right to vote? Or perhaps the supreme court should be fired because they dont have the right to disagree with you? Dude...seriously...you are not a god. Your opinion is only your opinion, and should not be the law of the land just because you are steadfastly sure that you are in the right. This is why we have a democratic republic, so that the people en masse can have a say on these things. If you want to change the world, change peoples opinions. Where was the outreach from the gay community on this issue? Sure, the community itself talked about it, but did you ever bother to engage non-gays in this? Did you go to black communities? Did you talk to Mormons? No, you just assumed you would get your way, and now that you didnt you want a judge to overrule those who disagree with you. There are still people out there who have an irrational fear of gay people...and honestly...there are times when the gay community is to blame for that...so gay groups should reexamine their approach, and take a new path to educate people that this is a natural way of life, that wont infect your son with gayness, nor turn Jesus into fiction.

As for taxes...I do not recall voting on whether my federal taxes are raised...

[The Major]

No what I am suggesting is that gay people are made not born, I think surroundings and early interactions influence people heavily on their eventual sexual choice (I use the term choice lightly here).

Don't you think gays would know if they switched orientation on purpose?

[Anita18]

And what if we go by the notion that Homosexuals are an anomoly when it comes to the concept of nature and survival. And that the very act itself is unnatural by natures standard and peoples perception of it is merely a psychological response to something that goes against the very survival of their (Our) race.
As someone mentioned before, homosexuality does occur in animals. Gay penguins, anyone? And they raised an orphaned chick together too. :yay:

Animals also sometimes interbreed to create sterile hybrids. Apparently they didn't get the memo that they should be taking the effort to ensure their species' survival either. :oldrazz:

Trying to use the argument that homosexuality is "unnatural" is a disservice to nature, IMO. And I'm a biologist. All kinds of crazy things happen in nature.

Will it fail under natural selection? If we were a small population of non-human organisms, maybe, but we are. We physically fight natural selection every day with technology. That's what makes us human, our ability to choose.

And I thought religious types didn't believe in natural selection? How many of them use the argument that homosexuality is unnatural? Isn't that hypocritical? (Just bringing it up, I don't know how religious you are SatEl and what your stance is on evolution...)

[Marx]

No what I am suggesting is that gay people are made not born, I think surroundings and early interactions influence people heavily on their eventual sexual choice (I use the term choice lightly here).

(I need Jman's 'eyes popping out of my head' icon.)

As I have said numerous times on this forum, 95 percent of gay people are gay because they are born gay. The other 5 percent are gay because they consciously make a choice.

[BlackLantern]

(I need Jman's 'eyes popping out of my head' icon.)

As I have said numerous times on this forum, 95 percent of gay people are gay because they are born gay. The other 5 percent are gay because they consciously make a choice.

I don't think it's that lopsided...Id say 88% to 12%

[Marx]

I don't think it's that lopsided...Id say 88% to 12%

88 percent still falls within the term 'larger majority' BL. :oldrazz:

[BlackLantern]

88 percent still falls within the term 'larger majority' BL. :oldrazz:

Sure....i just like the number '88'

[Paradoxium]

As someone mentioned before, homosexuality does occur in animals. Gay penguins, anyone? And they raised an orphaned chick together too. :yay:

Animals also sometimes interbreed to create sterile hybrids. Apparently they didn't get the memo that they should be taking the effort to ensure their species' survival either. :oldrazz:

Trying to use the argument that homosexuality is "unnatural" is a disservice to nature, IMO. And I'm a biologist. All kinds of crazy things happen in nature.

Will it fail under natural selection? If we were a small population of non-human organisms, maybe, but we are. We physically fight natural selection every day with technology. That's what makes us human, our ability to choose.

And I thought religious types didn't believe in natural selection? How many of them use the argument that homosexuality is unnatural? Isn't that hypocritical? (Just bringing it up, I don't know how religious you are SatEl and what your stance is on evolution...)You know, it's findings like this - that is the genetic implication of homosexuality - that has enormous implications against feminist theory and egalitarianism. That gender roles and stereotypes has more of a biological foundation then one wants to admit.

[Franklin Richards]

But it has nothing to do with the "Traditional Family". If we were to use the best system for procreation I would have 6 wives.


:thing: :doom: :thing:

[BlackLantern]

But it has nothing to do with the "Traditional Family". If we were to use the best system for procreation I would have 6 wives.


:thing: :doom: :thing:

...but you don't...you have Palmela Handerson and her 5 sisters....j/j

[Franklin Richards]

I like to lay on Pamela so that she goes to sleep.


:thing: :doom: :thing:

[Anita18]

You know, it's findings like this - that is the genetic implication of homosexuality - that has enormous implications against feminist theory and egalitarianism.
Care to explain?

And "biological foundation" doesn't give us human beings an excuse to roll back equality. It just gives us perspective on how they might have came about. It's an interesting study, but I wouldn't want to base policies or excuse devious behavior on it.

[Paradoxium]

But it has nothing to do with the "Traditional Family". If we were to use the best system for procreation I would have 6 wives.


:thing: :doom: :thing:Mathematical speaking, polygamy is unsound in society since there would be less women to go around anyways. Not that I care too much, most guys don't appreciate the art of "spinning plates". hehehehe :woot:

[BlackLantern]

I like to lay on Pamela so that she goes to sleep.


:thing: :doom: :thing:

ahhh...The Stranger...:oldrazz:

[Paradoxium]

Care to explain?

And "biological foundation" doesn't give us human beings an excuse to roll back equality. It just gives us perspective on how they might have came about. It's an interesting study, but I wouldn't want to base policies on it.Never said anything about rolling back anything. It explains why women in general make different choices than men. How these different choices attribute to the differences in statistical outcomes. Like why men die more often on the job (90% of the time) - they have a tendency to take greater risks. Or why there are more "firemen" than "firewomen": feminists have pushed to reduce the physical standards to get more women, but try explaining that to a 200 lb victim in a burning building that needs you to drag him or her out. Stuff like that. The problem I see with feminist theory is how they equate equal opportunity as equal outcome as some guiding principle. If something is not an equal outcome it is some how a malicious attempt by men to oppress them, cause we are evil sexists or something.

[Anita18]

Never said anything about rolling back anything. It explains why women in general make different choices than men. How these different choices attribute to the differences in statistical outcomes. Like why men die more often on the job (90% of the time) - they have a tendency to take greater risks. Or why there are more "firemen" than "firewomen": feminists have pushed to reduce the physical standards to get more women, but try explaining that to a 200 lb victim in a burning building that needs you to drag him or her out. Stuff like that. The problem I see with feminist theory is how they equate equal opportunity as equal outcome as some guiding principle. If something is not an equal outcome it is some how a malicious attempt by men to oppress them, cause we are evil sexists or something.
Ah, I interpreted that "enormous implications against feminist theory and egalitarianism" involved actively rolling back such things.

I have no problem with women being denied specific jobs because of physical limitations. If you can't lift 100lbs when it's a requirement for the job, you can't have said job, no matter if you're a man or a woman. But I think that's a drastic, obvious example. Many jobs nowadays don't have such physical limitations, and I think egalitarianism mostly focuses on jobs where simply being a man or a woman really makes no difference.

[The Senator]

Sigh... I grew up in a conservative area, with a conservative family, in a town with only three openly gay people and little access to "gay" material... yet I realized I was gay in middle school... I don't think I made a conscientious choice in the matter, considering I had very little idea what "gay" was...

[Paradoxium]

Ah, I interpreted that "enormous implications against feminist theory and egalitarianism" involved actively rolling back such things.

I have no problem with women being denied specific jobs because of physical limitations. If you can't lift 100lbs when it's a requirement for the job, you can't have said job, no matter if you're a man or a woman. But I think that's a drastic, obvious example. Many jobs nowadays don't have such physical limitations, and I think egalitarianism mostly focuses on jobs where simply being a man or a woman really makes no difference.Probably a poor use of words in my part. But that's how a lot of feminists think: emphasis on equal outcome is some barometer for equal opportunity. Which is absolutely wrong.

The reduction in physical standards to shore up women numbers in the fire department case is a real story, the New York Fire Department to be specific. This is the tip of the iceberg. This type of thinking is really starting to shape policy. A lot of feminists are trying to "equalize" jobs or industries that have a disproportionate of men. But a lot of these industries are also high risk ones and men have a propensity towards this - physical limitation might not be the only reason. My point is, the differences attribute a lot more to choice and some of these choices have a biological context. I am sure that some employers develop some stereotypes because of this, but it doesn't mean they are wrong in this sense. And exceptions does not negate the general trend.

I have no problem with equal opportunity (I don't think anyone does nowadays) but I think it is assine to equate different statistical outcomes as discrimination only somehow. This doesn't just apply to genders but also racial lines as well. I am sure it plays so role but it is an overestimation. Things like this drives me nuts.

I guess my point is not all differences connote inferiority, rather they are complementary. Like choices you get your own set of pros and cons. But please, don't be hatin all men cause of these differences, jezzz :cmad:

[Anita18]

I guess my point is not all differences connote inferiority, rather they are complementary. Like choices you get your own set of pros and cons. But please, don't be hatin all men cause of these differences, jezzz :cmad:
Of course not.

Just you. :hehe:

Don't you feel special? :woot:

[Paradoxium]

Of course not.

Just you. :hehe:

Don't you feel special? :woot:

You hatesss me cause I loves gold. Gold hater :cmad:

You are succumbing to the dark side :venom:

[SatEL]

As someone mentioned before, homosexuality does occur in animals. Gay penguins, anyone? And they raised an orphaned chick together too. :yay:

I am aware it occurs in animals as well but those animals do not operate under the one gender rule, if a male dog humps another male dog he is still going to hump a female dog if given the chance. Hence them complying with their natural Instinct. And I dont know why you make the penguins statement, I never stated two gay couples couldnt raise a child. Besides Penguins are known for there supportive nature with one another so its not a monumental feat that one Penguin aided another.


Animals also sometimes interbreed to create sterile hybrids. Apparently they didn't get the memo that they should be taking the effort to ensure their species' survival either. :oldrazz:

Yes animals interbreed at times and so do humans but it's a rear occurance for both species.


Trying to use the argument that homosexuality is "unnatural" is a disservice to nature, IMO. And I'm a biologist. All kinds of crazy things happen in nature.

Maybe unnatural was the wrong term to use, Ok how about homosexuals been an anomaly.


Will it fail under natural selection? If we were a small population of non-human organisms, maybe, but we are. We physically fight natural selection every day with technology. That's what makes us human, our ability to choose.

How so? If you mean survival and been top dog food chain wise then I have to disagree. Us been number one is due to us adapting, some creatures evolved and grew fur or claws to adapt to various situations while we in essence got smarter and used that as our tool for survival.


And I thought religious types didn't believe in natural selection? How many of them use the argument that homosexuality is unnatural? Isn't that hypocritical? (Just bringing it up, I don't know how religious you are SatEl and what your stance is on evolution...)

I am religious but it doesnt warp my mind to the point of me been ignorant and unopen to the fact of learning things outside my religion.:yay:

[Franklin Richards]

I am religious but it doesnt warp my mind...

That, my friend, is an oxymoron.


:thing: :doom: :thing:

[Anita18]

How so? If you mean survival and been top dog food chain wise then I have to disagree. Us been number one is due to us adapting, some creatures evolved and grew fur or claws to adapt to various situations while we in essence got smarter and used that as our tool for survival.
It's not really survival anymore, not with us. Pretty much every human has the smarts to go through life without getting themselves killed or starved. Now it's about liberty, equality, and other "human" things, because we can afford that luxury.

Are you asking how we have been fighting natural selection with technology? You see it every day. For instance (REALLY easy example), I wear glasses. I cannot see more than 3 inches in front of my face clearly without them. Technology allows me to function pretty normally despite this physical shortcoming. Natural selection would have weeded me out generations ago, yet I still thrive. :hehe:

[SatEL]

That, my friend, is an oxymoron.


:thing: :doom: :thing:

What because I keep an open mind to science and things outside my religion:whatever:, ok.

[SatEL]

It's not really survival anymore, not with us. Pretty much every human has the smarts to go through life without getting themselves killed or starved. Now it's about liberty, equality, and other "human" things, because we can afford that luxury.

Are you asking how we have been fighting natural selection with technology? You see it every day. For instance (REALLY easy example), I wear glasses. I cannot see more than 3 inches in front of my face clearly without them. Technology allows me to function pretty normally despite this physical shortcoming. Natural selection would have weeded me out generations ago, yet I still thrive. :hehe:

Its more like adapting, even animals do it.:hehe:

[The Senator]

What because I keep an open mind to science and things outside my religion:whatever:, ok.

Does your religion say homosexuality is a choice?

[Anita18]

Its more like adapting, even animals do it.:hehe:
Not really. My eyesight is probably even worse than it normally would have been, since both my parents have bad eyesight too. Purified bad eyesight genes! :oldrazz: At least I got purified intelligence genes and skinny genes to go with it.

You could call allowing gay marriage "adapting" too, by the same token. Allowing it won't help our species physically, but would promote equality and happiness nonetheless. :cwink:

[SatEL]

Does your religion say homosexuality is a choice?

No it says its a sin.

[Heretic]

No it says its a sin.

And we're all sinners. Do you think, institutionally, that your religion is against gay marriage because it doesnt want to reward or positively reinforce a sin?

[The Senator]

No it says its a sin.

Oh really? Would you like to provide proof of this?

[Paradoxium]

You know it got me thinking if skinny gene is actually counterproductive on a evolutionary scale. Skinny genes tend to equate with higher metabolism right (or to some degree)? I mean if there is a food shortage, having this trait would probably suck. But then again your metabolism revs up when you exercise and diet properly... I'm confused :huh:

[The Senator]

And we're all sinners. Do you think, institutionally, that your religion is against gay marriage because it doesnt want to reward or positively reinforce a sin?

There are more verses in the Bible which regulate the activities of heterosexuals than homosexuals, so as far as I'm concerned, God feels that heterosexuality is far more sinful than homosexuality.

[SatEL]

And we're all sinners. Do you think, institutionally, that your religion is against gay marriage because it doesnt want to reward or positively reinforce a sin?

My religion is against gay marriages because thats the way its always been and to make an exception for homosexuals would only lead to greatly contradicting what is preached.

[SatEL]

Oh really? Would you like to provide proof of this?

Sure just pick up the nearest bible.

[Franklin Richards]

Because... ya know.


Contradictions in the Bible are rare.



:thing: :doom: :thing:

[BlackLantern]

My lesbian best friend wants to dress me....I have to go buy new clothes and she's more excited than I am

[The Senator]

Sure just pick up the nearest bible.

Actually, the Bible never explicitly states that homosexuality is a sin...

[Heretic]

My religion is against gay marriages because thats the way its always been and to make an exception for homosexuals would only lead to greatly contradicting what is preached.


So its mostly due to tradition? Thats...pathetic.

[SatEL]

There are more verses in the Bible which regulate the activities of heterosexuals than homosexuals, so as far as I'm concerned, God feels that heterosexuality is far more sinful than homosexuality.

I cant claim to know the bible text for text but I am extremly certain you are wrong.

[Anita18]

You know it got me thinking if skinny gene is actually counterproductive on a evolutionary scale. Skinny genes tend to equate with higher metabolism right (or to some degree)? I mean if there is a food shortage, having this trait would probably suck. But then again your metabolism revs up when you exercise and diet properly... I'm confused :huh:
For me, it's probably a combination of fast metabolism and just not eating very much.

I've been at this weight since middle school, even during college where everything was all-you-can-eat. And I'm still at this weight when I'm being super-cheap and not eating much. :oldrazz: Needless to say, my body definitely has an equilibrium.

And being skinny is overrated, IMO. Even so, I wouldn't be surprised if some people wanted to pay big money to have some skinny gene spliced into them. Can I get paid for this research into my skinny genes? :oldrazz:

[The Senator]

I cant claim to know the bible text for text but I am extremly certain you are wrong.

I actually read the Bible back in the day, and yes, I am correct. There are only eight references to homosexuality in the Bible, as opposed to over one hundred references to heterosexual behavior. As a result, I argue that God felt that homosexuality was less sinful than heterosexuality. Especially since He never refers to homosexuality as a sin in the Bible...

[Addendum]

My religion is against gay marriages because thats the way its always been and to make an exception for homosexuals would only lead to greatly contradicting what is preached.

Religions will NOT, repeat, NOT BE FORCED to perform same-sex marriage. Heterosexual couples can get married without any religion, and it is still considered legally binding.

That's all homosexuals want.

[SatEL]

So its mostly due to tradition? Thats...pathetic.

Halloween is tradition, this is more like a decree.

[SatEL]

I actually read the Bible back in the day, and yes, I am correct. There are only eight references to homosexuality in the Bible, as opposed to over one hundred references to heterosexual behavior. As a result, I argue that God felt that homosexuality was less sinful than heterosexuality. Especially since He never refers to homosexuality as a sin in the Bible...

Perhaps you can post some actually texts from the bible that back up your claim. Like I said I dont know the bible word for word and neither have I read it from start to finish (Shamefully) but if I am recalling correctly I am sure there is a section where it states man shall not lay with another man.

[wiegeabo]

Marriage performed by a church is religious. But marriage performed by the state isn't. And since states can perform marriages, why should a gay marriage performed by the state be a problem?

And what about those churches who believe gays should marry and are willing to perform the ceremonies? Why shouldn't they be allowed to do so since they believe it is ok within the realm of religion?

Legalizing homosexual marriage doesn't force a church to perform them. It would just give them (and the State) the option to do so. If they don't want to on religious grounds, then fine. They already deny marriages on other religious grounds (my friend couldn't marry his wife in their church because they lived together before marriage).

[Addendum]

Exactly. If an individual house of worship or a specific sect decides to perform same-sex marriages, fine. If another doesn't because they believe doing so would go against their beliefs, fine.

The only thing that matters is the government being able to perform legally binding same-sex marriages

[The Senator]

Perhaps you can post some actually texts from the bible that back up your claim. Like I said I dont know the bible word for word and neither have I read it from start to finish (Shamefully) but if I am recalling correctly I am sure there is a section where it states man shall not lay with another man.

Um, why don't you actually read the Bible and count all the references made to heterosexuality verses the references made to homosexuality? I find it sad when a non-Christian such as myself can read the Bible and take more from it than a self-declared Christian can.

[Addendum]

edit- double post

[SatEL]

Marriage performed by a church is religious. But marriage performed by the state isn't. And since states can perform marriages, why should a gay marriage performed by the state be a problem.

And what about those churches who believe gays should marry and are willing to perform the ceremonies. Why shouldn't they be allowed to since they believe it is ok within the realm of religion.

Legalizing homosexual marriage doesn't force a church to perform them. It would just give them (and the State) the option to do so. If they don't want to on religious grounds, then fine. They already deny marriages on other religious grounds (my friend couldn't marry his wife in their church because they lived together before marriage).

I agree which is why I am heavily in favour of Civil marriages been available to homosexuals.

[Addendum]

And that's all homosexuals want!

So we're in agreement

[The Senator]

I agree which is why I am heavily in favour of Civil marriages been available to homosexuals.

Except several religious groups, including at least two Christian groups, have stated that they will recognize gay marriage if it is legalized.

So I see no reason to only give homosexuals civil unions when religious organizations WANT to allow homosexuals the option to marry.

[cerealkiller182]

My religion is against gay marriages because thats the way its always been and to make an exception for homosexuals would only lead to greatly contradicting what is preached.

Sure just pick up the nearest bible.

The Bible says a lot of things that I don't think you'll particularly agree with

[SatEL]

Um, why don't you actually read the Bible and count all the references made to homosexuality verses the references made to homosexuality? I find it sad when a non-Christian such as myself can read the Bible and take more from it than a self-declared Christian can.

As stated I havent read the bible from start to finish and some verses are a little hazy to me, and yet again I am boldly stating you are wrong.

[Ocramed]

I say, end marriage, so it's traditional definition remain intact. :P

[The Senator]

As stated I havent read the bible from start to finish and some verses are a little hazy to me, and yet again I am boldly stating you are wrong.

Okay. Well, count the verses, and when you're done with that we can talk about your findings. I think you'll be quite surprised.

Then again, you say that the Bible calls homosexuality a sin, when it doesn't explicitly say so, so I would suggest READING the Bible in addition to counting those verses...

[SatEL]

Except several religious groups, including at least two Christian groups, have stated that they will recognize gay marriage if it is legalized.

So I see no reason to only give homosexuals civil unions when religious organizations WANT to allow homosexuals the option to marry.

What a minority speak's for the majority? Never mind the fact it contradicts the very teachings that their religion is founded upon.

[Addendum]

As stated I havent read the bible from start to finish and some verses are a little hazy to me, and yet again I am boldly stating you are wrong.

Even though you've never read the bible from start to finish? You've discredited your stance then

[wiegeabo]

I agree which is why I am heavily in favour of Civil marriages been available to homosexuals.

Cool.


So why not just make homosexual marriage legal? As long as no one is forced to perform them (just like no one is forced to perform heterosexual marriages), then what's the problem?

I mean, if a church wants to marry gays, then they would be married in the eyes of God (according to them) whether or not the State sanctions it. So why not consider them married in the eyes of the law as well?

[Franklin Richards]

As stated I have no idea what I'm talking about and I have no basic understanding of what the Bible says, and yet again I am boldly stating you are wrong based on a dream I had.


Fixed.


:thing: :doom: :thing:

[BlackLantern]

Civil unions is a baby step....no war is won all at once....

[SatEL]

And that's all homosexuals want!

So we're in agreement

Yes.

[SatEL]

Fixed.


:thing: :doom: :thing:

I really dont know what your problem is (You obviously have one), perhaps airing your opinion rather than attacking like an immature fool will aid you in some way.

[The Senator]

What a minority speak's for the majority? Never mind the fact it contradicts the very teachings that their religion is founded upon.

Um, in whose eyes though? Yours? You haven't even read the Bible in its entirety, so how can you expertly claim to know what your religion was founded on? Meanwhile, numerous Biblical scholars claim that the Bible does not reference homosexuality as a sin, and that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality at all. I tend to trust what the EXPERTS say, as opposed to someone who has publicly admitted to never reading the Bible in its entirety.

Not to mention, there are other religions out there. I know this may surprise you, but Christianity-- :eek:-- isn't the only religion in the world, and several non-Christian religions have said that they would recognize gay marriage if it was legalized.

[Ocramed]

actually the NAACP is with us. Were not attacking races, that's not what this is about. We have protested more then just the Mormon churches as well. I believe there were a few baptists and catholic churches being protested as well, that donated money to the yes campaign. We targeted the Mormon church cuz it was a ridiculously large contribution to the yes campaign. And for that you can easily protest. You can't go after and protest a black community because you have no idea who in that black community voted yes or no. So your point is moot.

How racist. News flash: the NAACP hasn't been relevant in the Black Community is YEARS, so why assume it speaks for them? And the only reason why the focus has been on the Mormon Church is because it is predominantly conservative, white, straight and male. You know that if the gay activists went after the Black Church, it'll turn ugly REAL quick.


O.

[SatEL]

Okay. Well, count the verses, and when you're done with that we can talk about your findings. I think you'll be quite surprised.

Then again, you say that the Bible calls homosexuality a sin, when it doesn't explicitly say so, so I would suggest READING the Bible in addition to counting those verses...

Corinthians 6:9-10 - "Do 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 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

Leviticus 18:22 - "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."

Leviticus 20:13 - "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

Romans 1:26-27 - "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."

[Franklin Richards]

My problem is your bigotry. You are intellectually bankrupt by your own admission.


And that's not an opinion.


:thing: :doom: :thing:

[wiegeabo]

Not to mention, there are other religions out there. I know this may surprise you, but Christianity-- :eek:-- isn't the only religion in the world, and several non-Christian religions have said that they would recognize gay marriage if it was legalized.

Something very important to note since one of the founding principles of this country is freedom of religion. And by disallowing gay marriage, the government is denying the freedom of those religions that would recognize it.

[Heretic]

It doesnt matter if religions recognize it. What matters is if the state recognizes it. I think gay couples would be okay with getting married in a court as opposed to a church where even the preacher is damning them to hell.

[UltimateJustin]

Why are we even having this arguement when the north won the Civil War?

[wiegeabo]

Corinthians 6:9-10 - "Do 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 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."


Fairly convincing. Now I'd like to know what it says in the original biblical texts (in Greek, Latin, Hebrew, whatever) and see if there is any way these could be translated in different ways, including this one.

Remember, the word of God might be perfect, but the Bible is not infallible because man translates/interprets it through their own perceptions of the world. And man is quite fallible.

[Franklin Richards]

Corinthians 6:9-10 - "Do 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 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

Leviticus 18:22 - "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."

Leviticus 20:13 - "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

Romans 1:26-27 - "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."

I see your quotes from a book of fiction and raise you the Constitution of the United States of America.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,"



:thing: :doom: :thing:

[wiegeabo]

It doesnt matter if religions recognize it. What matters is if the state recognizes it. I think gay couples would be okay with getting married in a court as opposed to a church where even the preacher is damning them to hell.

Even that would be a significant victory. And since it wouldn't be religious, it shouldn't be a problem.

[SatEL]

My problem is your bigotry. You are intellectually bankrupt by your own admission.


And that's not an opinion.


:thing: :doom: :thing:

How am I a bigot? have you read all my posts in this thread or perhaps its a lack of comprehension on your part. If you didnt understand the first time I will say it again, I have nothing against gay people they do not scare me and how they chose to live their life is of no corcern to me. Hell they want to get married then allow them a civil marriage and be done with it.

[Heretic]

Calling the bible a work of fiction only makes your argument sound less believable.

Cant we strive for equal rights without putting down others religious beliefs?

No, we probably cant.

[Doomed_hero]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eD52OlkKfNs

for the bible fanatics

[SatEL]

I see your quotes from a book of fiction and raise you the Constitution of the United States of America.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,"



:thing: :doom: :thing:

*Sighs* Good lord, the Constitution would be more in favour with Civil marriage's which I am all for:whatever:.

[wiegeabo]

Fairly convincing. Now I'd like to know what it says in the original biblical texts (in Greek, Latin, Hebrew, whatever) and see if there is any way these could be translated in different ways, including this one.

Remember, the word of God might be perfect, but the Bible is not infallible because man translates/interprets it through their own perceptions of the world. And man is quite fallible.

Also, this is the Christian word of God. Not all views. So even if all Christian churches shouldn't/wouldn't/couldn't perform same sex marriages, it still isn't right for the State to deny other religions (or even itself) from performing them.

[Franklin Richards]

Calling the bible a work of fiction only makes your argument sound less believable.

Cant we strive for equal rights without putting down others religious beliefs?

No, we probably cant.

I hate to break this to you, but the Bible is a work of fiction.



:thing: :doom: :thing:

[SatEL]

Calling the bible a work of fiction only makes your argument sound less believable.

Cant we strive for equal rights without putting down others religious beliefs?

Obviously just a little boy lashing out.

[wiegeabo]

*Sighs* Good lord, the Constitution would be more in favour with Civil marriage's which I am all for:whatever:.

Exactly. Which makes me wonder all the more why the State can ban same-sex marriage.


And I'm fairly convinced that if this goes to the US Supreme Court (which it may very well do seeing as how the mayor of San Francisco is suing California), it will overturn bans on gay marriage.

[cerealkiller182]

Corinthians 6:9-10 - "Do 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 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

Leviticus 18:22 - "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."

Leviticus 20:13 - "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

Romans 1:26-27 - "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."

You must also believe in this then

Exodus 21:20-21 When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.

Leviticus 20:9 All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense.

Deuteronomy 22:20-21 But if this charge is true (that she wasn't a virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father's house. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst.

Deuteronomy 13:7 If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him.

[SatEL]

I hate to break this to you, but the Bible is a work of fiction.



:thing: :doom: :thing:

Your opinion as fact again?

[Addendum]

Corinthians 6:9-10 - "Do 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 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

Leviticus 18:22 - "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."

Leviticus 20:13 - "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

Romans 1:26-27 - "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."
So you named a total of 4 passages. And yet, there's at least 5 times that many regarding straight sex

[The Senator]

This is the fourth time I have had to refute these verses. Behold, texts from all over the internet refuting the idea that the Bible calls homosexuality a sin:

Corinthians 6:9-10 - "Do 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 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

The word translated as "practicing homosexuals" has challenged scholars for centuries, and has been alternately rendered as "abusers of themselves with mankind", "sodomites", or "men who practice homosexuality". The original term is very unusual, ἀρσενοκοίτης (arsenokoitēs), thought to mean "one who has sexual intercourse with a male" (Greek ἄῤῥην / ἄρσην [arrhēn / arsēn] "male"; κοίτην [koitēn] "sexual intercourse"), rather than the normal terms from the Greek culture. Within the Bible, it only occurs in this passage and in a similar list in 1 Timothy 1:9-10. Paul may have been drawing from the Greek (Septuagint) translation of Leviticus 18:22: καὶ μετὰ ἄρσενος οὐ κοιμηθήσῃ κοίτην γυναικός· βδέλυγμα γάρ ἐστιν (kai meta arsenos ou koimēthēsē koitēn gunaikos. bdelugma gar estin "And you shall not have sexual intercourse with a male as with a female. For it is unclean.") Boswell (1980) argues that this is a term specifically created by Paul. Given its unusual nature, the fact that Paul did not use one of the more common Greek terms, and given its direct reference to the Levitical laws, it is a matter of debate whether Paul was referring generally to any person having homosexual sex, or whether (as discussed below) it referred only to anal sex of any form. Other translations of the word include Martin's, who argued it meant "homosexual slave trader" and Boswell who argued it referred to "homosexual rape".

The term arsenokoitai was rarely used in Church writings, with Townsley counting a total of 73 references. Most are ambiguous in nature, while St. John Chrysostom, in the 4th century, seems to use the term arsenokoitai to refer to pederasty common in the Greco-Roman culture of the time[citation needed] , while Patriarch John IV of Constantinople in the 6th century used it to refer to anal sex: "some men even commit the sin of arsenokoitai with their wives".

Perhaps even more challenging is the word translated as "male prostitutes", "effeminate", or "catamites". The Greek word μαλακός – malakos carries a root meaning of soft, luxurious or dainty, but here it used in a much darker way, most likely referring to the more passive partner in a homosexual relationship. The two terms are sometimes rendered as "men who practice homosexuality" in the ESV, which notes that together they "refer to the passive and active partners in consensual homosexual acts". One major problem with this interpretation lies in the fact that arsenokoitai appears on its own in Timothy, without malakos, demonstrating that the two words do not necessarily form a fixed word-pairing. It is difficult for some to understand why Paul would condemn both the active and passive partners in male homosexual activity in 1 Corinthians 6: 9-10 but then in 1 Timothy 1: 9-10 he would only condemn the active partner, if the ESV and other similar translations are indeed accurate in their assertions.


Leviticus 18:22 - "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."



Leviticus 20:13 - "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

Various counter-arguments have been suggested to the idea that homosexuality is declared a sin in Leviticus: Johns (2004) claims that these texts were purity codes to keep Israel separate from the Canaanites and that as Jesus rejected the whole purity code as they are no longer relevant. West argues that "These verses in no way prohibit, nor do they even speak, to loving, caring sexual relationships between people of the same gender", speculating that these laws were to prevent sexual abuse. However, many Christian theologians hold that the New Testament classifies ceremonial and dietary laws as typological in nature and fulfilled in Christ (Galatians 4:10; Colossians 2:16; Hebrews. 9:10), and thus abrogated as to their religious observance "according to the letter," while the moral law is supposedly upheld. These Christian theologians maintain that this abrogation does not extend to homosexuality, and that homosexuality itself is not declared an "abomination" by God.


Romans 1:26-27 - "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."

Some commentators (eg., Boswell 1980, p.109f; Vasey 1995, p.131f) speculate that the text does not condemn homosexual acts by homosexuals, rather "homosexual acts committed by heterosexual persons" (Boswell 1980, p.109), or heterosexuals who "abandoned" or "exchanged" heterosexuality for homosexuality. Boswell argues that the conceptual modality (natural laws) which would provide the basis for the blanket condemnation of homosexuality did not exist prior to the Enlightenment era.

Another viewpoint is that Paul is condemning specific types of homosexual activity (such as temple prostitution or pederasty) rather than a broader interpretation. West argues that Paul is speaking to a Gentile audience in terms that they would understand to show that "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23).

[Franklin Richards]

*Sighs* Good lord, the Constitution would be more in favour with Civil marriage's which I am all for:whatever:.

So your for Gay Marriages and against Contitutional Bans on Gay marriage?


:thing: :doom: :thing:

[Gilpesh]

Your opinion as fact again?

Wait.... so the bible is true?

Even though the Earth is 4 billion years old... and the bible says it isn't.

[Addendum]

Wait.... so the bible is true?

Even though the Earth is 4 billion years old... and the bible says it isn't.

It also says that rabbit chew cud and that bats are birds

[wiegeabo]

You must also believe in this then

Exodus 21:20-21 When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.

Leviticus 20:9 All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense.

Deuteronomy 22:20-21 But if this charge is true (that she wasn't a virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father's house. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst.

Deuteronomy 13:7 If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him.


Many things in the Old Testament (of which these are from) were overturned (for lack of a better word) in the New Testament by the teachings of Jesus. Not sure if these specifically were, but someone probably does.

[Ocramed]

You gay people are going about this argument the wrong way. Here is how to win your argument, without being patronizing (i.e. equating gay marriage to the black Civil rights struggle). Here's how:

1) Go to the Mormons. Make a deal that says, "You support our cause, we will support polygamy".

2) Use the abortion rights argument: MY BODY, MY CHOICE.

3) Use the free speech argument.

4) If someone says what you do is a sin, say, proudly, my life is between MY god and me. YOU DO NOT have the right to interfere with MY faith (however you define it).

5) Lobby to "reform" marriage. It wasn't until the 19th century that "marriage" (which is not a part of the US Constitution) was defined. Call upon the congress to look at how marriage works in practice. Reduce marriage as a strictly ceremonial venture, conducted by priests, judges and sea captains. Create "household compacts" licensing, so that couples (gay or straight), siblings, friends. Create an actual license for this (like a drivers license card, complete with picture ID, one that can be shown to anyone for verification).

To win this, you have isolate the opposition through the use of coalition building. Find commonality across the board. DO NOT BE A HYPOCRITE, which means you have to accept the idea of polygamy amongst consenting ADULTS. If you do all that I suggest, gay marriage will not only be tolerated, but accepted.

This tape will self-destruct in...never mind. :cwink:

Good luck!

O.

[The Senator]

It doesnt matter if religions recognize it. What matters is if the state recognizes it. I think gay couples would be okay with getting married in a court as opposed to a church where even the preacher is damning them to hell.

I would actually prefer to be married by my church, as would many other homosexuals. And since my church would allow gay marriages if gay marriages were legalized, I see no reason to fight for civil unions when my religion recognizes full marriage rights.

[Gilpesh]

It also says that rabbit chew cud and that bats are birds

Also. It says nothing about a period of time on Earth where dinosaurs ruled and there was no such thing as humans...

[Heretic]

I hate to break this to you, but the Bible is a work of fiction.



:thing: :doom: :thing:

Once again...youre OPINION must be right because you are never wrong.

Do I believe the bible is the complete, unerring word of some omnipotent god? No, I dont. Im not a religious guy.

However, there is a large percentage of people in this country who DO believe that...and there isnt any real proof that the bible is fiction.

So, get over yourself. You will never win the hearts and minds of the american public by insulting theri deepest held religious beliefs. Instead, try to actually change their minds on this subject. No ones mind will be changed when you start by telling them that their god is a lie.

[Franklin Richards]

Your opinion as fact again?

No. It's the english language.

fiction

1. the class of literature comprising works of imaginative narration, esp. in prose form.


:thing: :doom: :thing:

[The Senator]

Hell they want to get married then allow them a civil marriage and be done with it.

Um, they should be allowed the full rights of marriage, considering many religious movements have stated that they will recognize gay marriage if it was legalized. You obviously missed the part where I said Christianity wasn't the only religion out there, and that denominations within Christianity have stated that they will recognize gay marriage if it was legalized.

[SatEL]

Wait.... so the bible is true?

Even though the Earth is 4 billion years old... and the bible says it isn't.

We can all take it for what we want, I dont dismiss the bible neither do I dismiss Scientific facts.

[Charlie No-One]

I fail to see the correlation amongst gay marriage and polygamy. The arguments are entirely different.

[BlackLantern]

People rode dinosaurs....

So who's going to protests or rallies tomorrow?

[Heretic]

I would actually prefer to be married by my church, as would many other homosexuals. And since my church would allow gay marriages if gay marriages were legalized, I see no reason to fight for civil unions when my religion recognizes full marriage rights.

If the state recognizes gay marriage, and your church will perform it, then wheres the problem? Your battle is with the state, not your church. Why do you care what some other unrelated church does?

[Gilpesh]

We can all take it for what we want, I dont dismiss the bible neither do I dismiss Scientific facts.

Um... the bible is either non-fiction or fiction.

[The Senator]

Once again...youre OPINION must be right because you are never wrong.

Do I believe the bible is the complete, unerring word of some omnipotent god? No, I dont. Im not a religious guy.

However, there is a large percentage of people in this country who DO believe that...and there isnt any real proof that the bible is fiction.

So, get over yourself. You will never win the hearts and minds of the american public by insulting theri deepest held religious beliefs. Instead, try to actually change their minds on this subject. No ones mind will be changed when you start by telling them that their god is a lie.

So if I got 51% of the population to believe that there was a magic cigarette lighter orbiting mars with magical powers controlling all of us, you wouldn't have a problem if people believed it?

[Addendum]

If the state recognizes gay marriage, and your church will perform it, then wheres the problem? Your battle is with the state, not your church. Why do you care what some other unrelated church does?

You have ****ty reading skills. He's not forcing churches to accept it if they choose not to.

[SatEL]

If find it extremly ironic how the people in support of gay marriages can openly mock and bash others religious belief but if someone was to make a crude statement about homosexuals I am sure everyone would be up in arms at that individual and he would be banned faster than he could type sorry.

[SatEL]

Um, they should be allowed the full rights of marriage, considering many religious movements have stated that they will recognize gay marriage if it was legalized. You obviously missed the part where I said Christianity wasn't the only religion out there, and that denominations within Christianity have stated that they will recognize gay marriage if it was legalized.

I dont see how that can work, wait so you marry homosexuals on Saturday and then on Sunday call them sinners and tell them there is a place reserved for them in hell?

[Franklin Richards]

So if the Bible is Non-fiction then all the other religions ARE fiction?


Because they don't tell the same story and contradict each other all the time?


Which one is fiction and which one isn't?



:thing: :doom: :thing:

[The Senator]

If the state recognizes gay marriage, and your church will perform it, then wheres the problem? Your battle is with the state, not your church. Why do you care what some other unrelated church does?

I don't care what other churches do. However, I care when people who belong to those churches act as if their religion is the only religion in existence, and argue that because their faith is against gay marriage, the whole country should be against it.

The government shouldn't force churches to recognize gay marriage. However, the government shouldn't back away from legalizing gay marriage because of the religious argument, considering several religious groups have stated that they would perform gay marriage ceremonies if gay marriage was legalized. As a result, there really is no argument against gay marriage which should be used to keep it illegal.

[Gilpesh]

If find it extremly ironic how the people in support of gay marriages can openly mock and bash others religious belief but if someone was to make a crude statement about homosexuals I am sure everyone would be up in arms at that individual and he would be banned faster than he could type sorry.

What do you call a gay midget?





A lowblow.

[SatEL]

So if the Bible is Non-fiction then all the other religions ARE fiction?


Because they don't tell the same story and contradict each other all the time?


Which one is fiction and which one isn't?



:thing: :doom: :thing:

Rather than openly bash others belief and call them into question oh wise one, how about showing a little respect and acknowledging the fact that everyone's views vary:wow:. Yes the world isnt made up of people that live by Franklin Richards "facts".

[Heretic]

You have ****ty reading skills. He's not forcing churches to accept it if they choose not to.

Actually, my reading skills are fine. He responded to my post saying that his fight is with legalization, not the church...so...he basically agreed with my point while trying to argue against it.

[The Senator]

I dont see how that can work, wait so you marry homosexuals on Saturday and then on Sunday call them sinners and tell them there is a place reserved for them in hell?

You really need to get off this forum and start doing some research. First, you'll find that the Lutherans and United Church of Christ are affirming institutions which don't condemn homosexual behavior. Why? Because both church hierarchies have realized that the Bible does not explicitly reference homosexuality as a sin, or they have taken a "common sense" approach to their faith by realizing that the Bible was written thousands of years ago by men and many aspects of the book are outdated.

Second, you'll realize this point, which I'm going to put in ridiculously large font because you seem to miss it every time it comes up in this conversation:

CHRISTIANITY ISN'T THE ONLY RELIGION IN THE WORLD.

Reform Jews, Unitarian Universalists, some Quaker denominations, and two Buddhist sects allow gay marriage and do not follow doctrines which condemn homosexuality.

So again... I really think you should leave Superhero Hype and do some research on these religious organizations. And while you're at it, you should actually READ the Bible. Until then, don't act as if you know what you're talking about, because you certainly have no clue.

[Heretic]

I don't care what other churches do. However, I care when people who belong to those churches act as if their religion is the only religion in existence, and argue that because their faith is against gay marriage, the whole country should be against it.

The government shouldn't force churches to recognize gay marriage. However, the government shouldn't back away from legalizing gay marriage because of the religious argument, considering several religious groups have stated that they would perform gay marriage ceremonies if gay marriage was legalized. As a result, there really is no argument against gay marriage which should be used to keep it illegal.

Agreed. Though people should use their religious convictions to guide their decisions, including voting...the state itself should not take religion into account when making laws.

[cerealkiller182]

Did Jesus say homosexuals were born that way?

http://tobyjohnson.com/cause.html

I have no idea what to think of this.

[Addendum]

If find it extremly ironic how the people in support of gay marriages can openly mock and bash others religious belief but if someone was to make a crude statement about homosexuals I am sure everyone would be up in arms at that individual and he would be banned faster than he could type sorry.

Complaining blasphemy is so 18th century

[wiegeabo]

If find it extremly ironic how the people in support of gay marriages can openly mock and bash others religious belief but if someone was to make a crude statement about homosexuals I am sure everyone would be up in arms at that individual and he would be banned faster than he could type sorry.

Don't lump us all together. I don't mock and bash the belief of others because I don't know what's right or wrong. I don't know if God exists, what religion(s), if any, are right.


Even if I didn't support it, the way I see it is this: If it's wrong in the eyes of God, I'll let God sort it out in the end. I seem to remember something along the lines of 'judge not lest ye be judged' and 'turning the other cheek' being in the Bible.

If it isn't wrong in the eyes of God, and I deny marriage to homosexuals, then it will reflect poorly on me in God's eyes.

And if there is no God, then the whole argument is mute.

[The Senator]

If find it extremly ironic how the people in support of gay marriages can openly mock and bash others religious belief but if someone was to make a crude statement about homosexuals I am sure everyone would be up in arms at that individual and he would be banned faster than he could type sorry.

Oh, please-- if you have any crude statements you would like to make about homosexuals, go right ahead and say them. And if you feel people are mocking your religious beliefs, feel free to report them.

You have the option to do both here.

[Franklin Richards]

Rather than openly bash others belief and call them into question oh wise one, how about showing a little respect and acknowledging the fact that everyone's views vary:wow:. Yes the world isnt made up of people that live by Franklin Richards "facts".

Oh God, if only.


You have to admit that at least I base my assertations on logic instead of The Invisible Man who's gonna spank me unless I follow the 10 Commandments.


You do realize that telling people to do something or they'll get killed and burn forever makes you a bully and morally bankrupt?


:thing: :doom: :thing:

[Heretic]

So if the Bible is Non-fiction then all the other religions ARE fiction?


Because they don't tell the same story and contradict each other all the time?


Which one is fiction and which one isn't?



:thing: :doom: :thing:

None of them are fiction, as far as the law allows. I know this is hard for some to understand...but we are all entitled to our own beliefs...even when it disagrees with you.

[Franklin Richards]

Oh screw this. I'm gonna watch Gilmore Girls.


Later, *****es.



:thing: :doom: :thing:

[Ion Kenshin]

If find it extremly ironic how the people in support of gay marriages can openly mock and bash others religious belief but if someone was to make a crude statement about homosexuals I am sure everyone would be up in arms at that individual and he would be banned faster than he could type sorry.
i would like to agree with some parts of this post. i hate the fact the we are trying to push equality and rights for all but are so quick to judge or mock someones faith. i am gay and i also happen to be rather religious as well. you may consider that contradictory so be it. while i may not agree with everything that is in the bible or that is taught in my religion i still believe in and have faith in a good amount of it. this seems to be the common nature of anyone who has been discriminated against or treated differently for their beliefs and values. i dont practice other religion i am catholic but i have respect for other peoples religion and beliefs and values. i'll be damned if im going to ask people to accept me and my faith and religion while at the same time telling them that theirs is wrong and makes no sense just because it is not your religion or your way life does not mean it is wrong. everyone is spouting of verses and quotes from the bible yet seem to forget one of the major ones DO UNTO OTHERS AS YOU WOULD HAVE DONE UNTO YOU. why do people feel the need to be the attacker. i feel like the people are all just going "you dont accept my religion, beliefs or way of life? well im gonna hate yours until you accept mine" is there any winner here. now you just have two people who hate each other for the way they are and what they believe in. its riduculous and solves nothing...not a damn thing. you wanna spit out bible verses? i have a reminder God said if someone slaps you on the right side of your face turn to them the other cheek. no one is gonna get anywhere if the answer to hatred is more hatred its absurd and stupid...im sure i have more to say but im losing my train of thought at the moment

[Addendum]

we are all entitled to our own beliefs...even when it disagrees with you.

That doesn't mean those beliefs warrant respect from non-believers

[The Senator]

Rather than openly bash others belief and call them into question oh wise one, how about showing a little respect and acknowledging the fact that everyone's views vary:wow:. Yes the world isnt made up of people that live by Franklin Richards "facts".

This post is hilarious in all its irony.

[wiegeabo]

i would like to agree with some parts of this post. i hate the fact the we are trying to push equality and rights for all but are so quick to judge or mock someones faith. i am gay and i also happen to be rather religious as well. you may consider that contradictory so be it. while i may not agree with everything that is in the bible or that is taught in my religion i still believe in and have faith in a good amount of it. this seems to be the common nature of anyone who has been discriminated against or treated differently for their beliefs and values. i dont practice other religion i am catholic but i have respect for other peoples religion and beliefs and values. i'll be damned if im going to ask people to accept me and my faith and religion while at the same time telling them that theirs is wrong and makes no sense just because it is not your religion or your way life does not mean it is wrong. everyone is spouting of verses and quotes from the bible yet seem to forget one of the major ones DO UNTO OTHERS AS YOU WOULD HAVE DONE UNTO YOU. why do people feel the need to be the attacker. i feel like the people are all just going "you dont accept my religion, beliefs or way of life? well im gonna hate yours until you accept mine" is there any winner here. now you just have two people who hate each other for the way they are and what they believe in. its riduculous and solves nothing...not a damn thing. you wanna spit out bible verses? i have a reminder God said if someone slaps you on the right side of your face turn to them the other cheek. no one is gonna get anywhere if the answer to hatred is more hatred its absurd and stupid...im sure i have more to say but im losing my train of thought at the moment


"Do you believe in God?"
"No"
BANG!

"Do you believe in God?"
"Yes."
"Do you believe in my God?"
"No."
BANG!

Sometimes George Carlin got it exactly right.

[The Senator]

That doesn't mean those beliefs warrant respect from non-believers

Exactly. There are some religions I refuse to respect because their beliefs/ foundations/ traditions are completely ridiculous.

[SatEL]

You really need to get off this forum and start doing some research. First, you'll find that the Lutherans and United Church of Christ are affirming institutions which don't condemn homosexual behavior. Why? Because both church hierarchies have realized that the Bible does not explicitly reference homosexuality as a sin, or they have taken a "common sense" approach to their faith by realizing that the Bible was written thousands of years ago by men and many aspects of the book are outdated.

Second, you'll realize this point, which I'm going to put in ridiculously large font because you seem to miss it every time it comes up in this conversation:

CHRISTIANITY ISN'T THE ONLY RELIGION IN THE WORLD.

Reform Jews, Unitarian Universalists, some Quaker denominations, and two Buddhist sects allow gay marriage and do not follow doctrines which condemn homosexuality.

So again... I really think you should leave Superhero Hype and do some research on these religious organizations. And while you're at it, you should actually READ the Bible. Until then, don't act as if you know what you're talking about, because you certainly have no clue.

You realise I was talking about gay marriages been allowed in a church? Thats my only qualm, everyone on here seems to think I am a bible basher that hates all homosexuals. That isnt the case, what I am merely stating is that you cant call for god as a witness to a Holy Matrimony for such an unholy act. I might not have read the bible to the end but I certainly was an avid church goer and I can tell you Homosexuality was deemed a sinful act by the church and in the bible (Despite your claims). And when your stating "religious organizations" I think you mean religious leaders and they do not speak for a minority neither can they change the very commandements that they themselves are bound to. Beside I would love a link as to when a religious leader has stated he/she will back gay marriages.

[Ion Kenshin]

"Do you believe in God?"
"No"
BANG!

"Do you believe in God?"
"Yes."
"Do you believe in my God?"
"No."
BANG!

Sometimes George Carlin got it exactly right.
haha i completely forgot about that... its so true

[SatEL]

This post is hilarious in all its irony.

May I ask why?

[SatEL]

That doesn't mean those beliefs warrant respect from non-believers

What about the non-believers that denounce and dont believe in the act of homosexuality? Do homosexuals warrant respect from them?

[Heretic]

That doesn't mean those beliefs warrant respect from non-believers

Of course not...but in a political debate, it only hurts your cause to openly demean and refute the very existence of the deity that your opponent worships. What that does is immediately put them on the defensive, close theri mind off to your beliefs and put an end to any hope for compromise.

So...if the gay movement wants to openly belittle christians in this way..assuring that every christian in the country will continue to vote for gay marriage bans...then it seems to me that your cause would be hurt by that and youd be making a horrible tactical move.

It reminds me how gay people would say "treat me like an equal" and then when there was a firefighters parade in new York, gay activists demanded a gay firefighters parade...as if gay and straight had anything to do with being a firefighter...you are polarizing the people whos opinions you should be trying to sway.

I'll say the same thing to christians...if your opening salvo is "gays are heathens and should burn in hell" then youre setting yourself up for a rough night.

[The Senator]

You realise I was talking about gay marriages been allowed in a church? Thats my only qualm, everyone on here seems to think I am a bible basher that hates all homosexuals. That isnt the case, what I am merely stating is that you cant call for god as a witness to a Holy Matrimony for such an unholy act. I might not have read the bible to the end but I certainly was an avid church goer and I can tell you Homosexuality was deemed a sinful act by the church and in the bible (Despite your claims). And when your stating "religious organizations" I think you mean religious leaders and they do not speak for a minority neither can they change the very commandements that they themselves are bound to. Beside I would love a link as to when a religious leader has stated he/she will back gay marriages.

There isn't a commandment against homosexuality? :huh:

Nor does the Bible explicitly call homosexuality a sin, as I posted on the last page with arguments refuting the verses you gave me :huh:

So again, the only reason why you think homosexuality is a sin is because someone from within your church must have told you that it was. Which is interesting, because that is the very argument you are using against Christian churches legalizing gay marriage-- that the religious leaders are the ones who decided to give rights to the minority. Well, the religious leaders in this case are the ones who decided not to give rights to the minority.

People wonder why I dislike most religions. The reason why is because various leaders have bastardized their respective religions by pulling interpretations from verses which those interpretations cannot be pulled out of. Moreover, the fact that there are MULTIPLE interpretations make me call into question the legitimacy of the straightforwardness of the Bible. How can a book which is the key to salvation have multiple interpretations behind many of its verses? That doesn't seem like a nice thing God would do to us.

[The Senator]

May I ask why?

FranklinRichards' views were different from yours, yet you implied that his views were unacceptable. That, my friend, is ironic.

[BlackLantern]

Is wearing brown shoes with a blue blazer unacceptable?

[Addendum]

What about the non-believers that denounce and dont believe in the act of homosexuality? Do homosexuals warrant respect from them?

The existence of homosexuality isn't related to one's "belief". That's similar to someone saying that they don't believe in music while a marching band passes by.

[The Senator]

You realise I was talking about gay marriages been allowed in a church? Thats my only qualm, everyone on here seems to think I am a bible basher that hates all homosexuals. That isnt the case, what I am merely stating is that you cant call for god as a witness to a Holy Matrimony for such an unholy act. I might not have read the bible to the end but I certainly was an avid church goer and I can tell you Homosexuality was deemed a sinful act by the church and in the bible (Despite your claims). And when your stating "religious organizations" I think you mean religious leaders and they do not speak for a minority neither can they change the very commandements that they themselves are bound to. Beside I would love a link as to when a religious leader has stated he/she will back gay marriages.

Also, upon taking a second glance at this post, it is obvious that you didn't READ my first post on the matter. Based on your track record (hey, you haven't READ the Bible in its entirety, yet you know exactly what it says about homosexuality), you may want to start READING things before you respond to them:


You really need to get off this forum and start doing some research. First, you'll find that the Lutherans and United Church of Christ are affirming institutions which don't condemn homosexual behavior. Why? Because both church hierarchies have realized that the Bible does not explicitly reference homosexuality as a sin, or they have taken a "common sense" approach to their faith by realizing that the Bible was written thousands of years ago by men and many aspects of the book are outdated.

Second, you'll realize this point, which I'm going to put in ridiculously large font because you seem to miss it every time it comes up in this conversation:

CHRISTIANITY ISN'T THE ONLY RELIGION IN THE WORLD.

Reform Jews, Unitarian Universalists, some Quaker denominations, and two Buddhist sects allow gay marriage and do not follow doctrines which condemn homosexuality.

So again... I really think you should leave Superhero Hype and do some research on these religious organizations. And while you're at it, you should actually READ the Bible. Until then, don't act as if you know what you're talking about, because you certainly have no clue.

I'm not going to provide you with any links, either, because as far as I'm concerned, it doesn't take too much effort to look up the Lutheran's or the United Church of Christ's stances on homosexuality and gay marriage.

[Ion Kenshin]

Is wearing brown shoes with a blue blazer unacceptable?
a little bit :oldrazz:

[SatEL]

There isn't a commandment against homosexuality? :huh:

Nor does the Bible explicitly call homosexuality a sin, as I posted on the last page with arguments refuting the verses you gave me :huh:

So again, the only reason why you think homosexuality is a sin is because someone from within your church must have told you that it was. Which is interesting, because that is the very argument you are using against Christian churches legalizing gay marriage-- that the religious leaders are the ones who decided to give rights to the minority. Well, the religious leaders in this case are the ones who decided not to give rights to the minority.

People wonder why I dislike most religions. The reason why is because various leaders have bastardized their respective religions by pulling interpretations from verses which those interpretations cannot be pulled out of. Moreover, the fact that there are MULTIPLE interpretations make me call into question the legitimacy of the straightforwardness of the Bible.

The texts I provided where from the bible now how you chose to acknowledge them is up to you, they are there for all to see in black and white. It's bascilly condemning homosexuality as been a sinful act it simply doesnt get much clearer than that. Yes you have made a load of statemen to refute the factual texts from the bible that I provided but you have no links to prove to your claim.

[SatEL]

FranklinRichards' views were different from yours, yet you implied that his views were unacceptable. That, my friend, is ironic.

No he claimed his opinion was fact and I simply called it as it was which was that it was his opinion.:yay:

[The Senator]

The texts I provided where from the bible now how you chose to acknowledge them is up to you, they are there for all to see in black and white. It's bascilly condemning homosexuality as been a sinful act it simply doesnt get much clearer than that. Yes you have made a load of statemen to refute the factual texts from the bible that I provided but you have no links to prove to your claim.

No. They. DO NOT.

I provided you with interpretations of those verses declaring that your interpretation was WRONG. Why don't you use your MOUSE and CLICK on page 64, where you will find my POST which provides you with those interpretations? (but again, since you haven't read the Bible in its entirety, I do think I am asking too much by requesting that you actually READ what I write here)


The fact that TWO interpretations exist over those verses proves that the Bible is NOT CLEAR on how God views homosexuality, and as a result, it is an awful bastardization of the Bible for you to say that God DEFINITIVELY declares homosexuality as a sin.

[Paradoxium]

This thread is "teH contravershowl!"

[SatEL]

The existence of homosexuality isn't related to one's "belief". That's similar to someone saying that they don't believe in music while a marching band passes by.

Perhaps I should have been more specific, notice I stated that dont believe in the act of homosexuality.

[The Senator]

Perhaps I should have been more specific, notice I stated that dont believe in the act of homosexuality.

Funny, because I performed an act of homosexuality earlier this afternoon... I certainly believe in the act of homosexuality, and I can say from firsthand experience that such acts exist...

[Ion Kenshin]

just for curiosities sake what is considered an act of homosexuality?

[SatEL]

No. They. DO NOT.

I provided you with interpretations of those verses declaring that your interpretation was WRONG. Why don't you use your MOUSE and CLICK on page 64, where you will find my POST which provides you with those interpretations? (but again, since you haven't read the Bible in its entirety, I do think I am asking too much by requesting that you actually READ what I write here)


The fact that TWO interpretations exist over those verses proves that the Bible is NOT CLEAR on how God views homosexuality, and as a result, it is an awful bastardization of the Bible for you to say that God DEFINITIVELY declares homosexuality as a sin.

Well you cant blame me for skimming over that bloody hell thats a lot to read:oldrazz:, I have read it now and see where your trying to put your point across none the less it all falls down to whose word's you want to believe.

[SatEL]

Funny, because I performed an act of homosexuality earlier this afternoon... I certainly believe in the act of homosexuality, and I can say from firsthand experience that such acts exist...

Awesome stuff hope you had fun, anyway your misinterpreting what I meant. When I stated act I meant been gay in general and acceptance of it.

[The Senator]

Well you cant blame me for skimming over that bloody hell thats a lot to read:oldrazz:, I have read it now and see where your trying to put your point across none the less it all falls down to whose word's you want to believe.

Exactly. Which is why no Christian can truthfully declare to know the will of God.

[SatEL]

just for curiosities sake what is considered an act of homosexuality?

Holding hands and locking eyes for more than 2 minutes.

[The Senator]

Awesome stuff hope you had fun, anyway your misinterpreting what I meant. When I stated act I meant been gay in general and acceptance of it.

I believe in being gay and I accept it :huh:

[The Senator]

Holding hands and locking eyes for more than 2 minutes.

:lmao:

Which Biblical passage says this?

[SatEL]

I believe in being gay and I accept it :huh:

Other's dont and wont and they are blasted for it, which is my point.

[Ion Kenshin]

Holding hands and locking eyes for more than 2 minutes.
hahahahah :lmao::lmao:

[SatEL]

:lmao:

Which Biblical passage says this?

:huh:You do realise I wasnt been serious.