Homosexual Marriage

[DaisyDeadhead]

(05-10-2012 04:43 PM)greg Wrote:  not one state has voted for Homosexual marriage yet, not even the Sodom on the West Coast.

Is Vermont not in the USA? (checks map)

Wait, does this mean Greg doesn't know his facts? Shocked, shocked I tell you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_ma...in_Vermont

[DaisyDeadhead]

(05-11-2012 02:16 PM)Persnickety Polecat Wrote:  But I really do love how so many scream about "separation of church and state" until it affects one of THEIR pet peeves, and then they want the state all up in other people's business and dictating religious beliefs to them.

Amen!

Greg, do you agree with the psychologists who say people like you, obsessed with gay sex, really want it themselves? If not, why are you so obsessed with the subject? It seems rather odd to me.

In terms of being "anti-family"--surely heterosexual divorce harms many more children, wouldn't you say? Are you anti-divorce, and do you seek to make it illegal, as it once was? Why or why not? Many, many more heterosexual divorces than there will EVER be gay marriages... why not go after the most popular anti-family sin?

Or have you been divorced yourself? Ah, exceptions made for yourself and your friends, yes?

On my radio show tomorrow, we are going to talk about people like Greg, who believe convicted serial killers, terrorists and child molesters should be able to marry, as long as they are heterosexual. But being gay? Far worse.

This lack of a moral center is why his kind will die off... the kids are laughing at the lack of morality in these beliefs. And they will be the ones who make the change.

Love the Ted Haggard cartoon!

[Persnickety Polecat]

(05-11-2012 04:23 PM)Donb123 Wrote:  

(05-11-2012 11:44 AM)Persnickety Polecat Wrote:  I don't think anyone is arguing about whether or not it is in the Bible. I think people are arguing over the amount of authority the church has or should have in the government. And the framers of the Constitution seemed to believe it should have none. But apparently, you know better ...

Well sure people here are arguing whether it's in the Bible.

Not to mention that because a religious person wants input into the representative voting process and they happen to espouse views they believe to be informed by religion, doesn't mean that it is the church doing anything.

This is a pretty common fallacy for those who don't like a particular religious viewpoint to blame it on "the church" when there's lots of churches. Religious institutions get to have a viewpoint and a voice just as much as non-religious ones. And then more particularly, people of a particular religious persuasion and viewpoint are entitled to their opinion and vote as well, even if they are part of "the church."

To be perfectly honest, I don't believe the Bible addresses loving, consensual, monogamous homosexual relationships. I believe that the gay sex to which it refers was the prostitution and exploitation taking place in the temple. I understand not everyone agrees.

And obviously I believe that religious people should have a say in the government. I just disagree that they should dictate that everyone espouse and follow their particular belief system and use governmental authority to force their beliefs on others. *shrug*

Incidentally, a lot of people who are gay are also devoutly religious. One of my acquaintances is a lesbian ... and a minister ... like, zomg! The two are not mutually exclusive.

[dramaturge]

(05-11-2012 01:50 PM)greg Wrote:  

(05-11-2012 01:44 PM)dramaturge Wrote:  I'm pretty sure that sentence doesn't mean what you're using it to imply.

Do tell?

You used it to counteract this:

(05-11-2012 11:44 AM)Persnickety Polecat Wrote:  I don't think anyone is arguing about whether or not it is in the Bible. I think people are arguing over the amount of authority the church has or should have in the government. And the framers of the Constitution seemed to believe it should have none. But apparently, you know better ...

...which would seem that you expect that sentence to prove that the Framers (all hail) did, indeed believe that the church should have authority in the government. Adams, albeit in an out-of-context way, is merely pointing out that the Constitution is not meant to deal with people who have no interest in abiding by a morality. The same could be said for any law, thus the use of a penal system to enforce criminal law. The Constitution has no punitive measures, thus, it requires the adherence of the people to be effective. Or the addition of some form of legal system to back it up at lower levels. There is nothing in that sentence that indicated Adams expected the Church or the Bible to inform government action.

[JLL]

I can't believe I haven't checked the forum for a while. I totally missed this and Greg's North Carolina posts until tonight. I guess I was too busy undermining society with my wicked homosexual lifestyle. Being an abomination in the sight of the Lord is so tiring sometimes. I've hardly had time to vacuum.

Anyway, I read the "NC Passes Amendment One" thread before this one and had this image in my head of Greg's sticking his tongue out and shouting "nyah nyah nyah" (then later complaining about the snark he receives). A day later he's stomping up and down with smoke coming out of his ears because of Obama's statement. Sucks when your side loses something, doesn't it honey? Bitter? Party of one? Your table is ready. Snarky enough?

I'm glad some states are letting legislatures vote on gay marriage, because I don't really think I want the majority of Americans being able to vote on my civil rights. The majority of Americans can't even get the winner of American Idol right half the time, much less anything else. Lee DeWyze is playing Branson this summer. Enjoy.

I'm sure Greg and a lot of others would be really happy if this country turned into a real-life version of "The Handmaid's Tale" and based all of our laws on biblical principles, but they'd better get themselves to a good quarry, 'cause there's a lot of stoning about to happen. Good heavens, that mixed-fiber thing could really take its toll. There'd be blood in the streets.

Hey! Guess what, kids? There are a lot of people living in this country who don't believe the Bible! And that's legal! What about them? And just exactly WHOSE Bible wins? Whose interpretation? That's a very slippery slope, my friends--sure you wanna go there? You just might find yourself on the wrong end of a heresy trial one of these days, depending on who's in power. People like Greg are fond of saying that societies that accepted homosexuality are always destroyed, but theocracies rarely end well either, do they?

[beth]

Ok, I don't usually discuss Gay marriage, because I always manage to piss someone off. But Greg's "Sodom of the West Coast" remark is a bit much. We're actually pretty far from that. Granted, there are a bunch of stupid laws out here, but no one is raping visitors in the streets (if that were the case, you'd have heard about it on the news). I lived in California when Prop 8 was up for vote. I know how it got passed. It was very poorly written, and thus the huge campaigns from each side to clarify which answer meant what. But still, if you actually read the prop in the voting booth, it would be entirely possible to vote in a way you did not intend. Personally, I agree with the federal judge who heard the case after it went to court. Just because more tax-paying Americans are afforded the right to marry doesn't take anything away from my marriage.

[lucrezaborgia]

[Donb123]

   

[Jenni]

http://deeperstory.com/same-sex-marriage/