I'm a Christian and I believe homosexually is morally wrong. That said, It's not like it is illegal for gay couples to get married and live together. The fight is whether or not their marriage is recognized by the state.They understandably want to be married by the state because of the tax brakes. Why should families have to pay more in taxes because of their genders? The state should quit the whole business altogether and give marriage back to the people. Institutions for different groups can decide who they want to marry and the state can extend tax savings to everyone. Less government is always the answer.
Advice to other Christians: Making something illegal is not going to change the hearts of the people who desire it. It only fans the flame of hatred on both sides. Reach out to everyone and show them the love of Christ, no the hatred from your self-righteousness.
Wow, while I disagree with your position of homosexuality being morally wrong, I want to give you a hi-five and put you on national television to tell everyone what you just said. That may be one of the most reasonable well sorted "I disagree, but that doesn't give me the right..."s I've ever heard.
Thank you.
One thing though - it's not just about the tax breaks. There are a lot of limitations other than taxes to non-married couples. Simple things like health insurance, to important things like hospital visitation in the event of near-death or other emergencies.
It definitely affects a lot more than just tax breaks. Marital status has woven itself into the fabric of our legal system, and affects an amazing amount of stuff.
Basically, we have 200+ years of legal history in which we, as a society, have decided that the role of 'spouse', is special, and conveys certain rights and responsibilities.
"According to the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO), there are 1,138 statutory provisions in which marital status is a factor in determining benefits, rights, and privileges"
Some of these things are things that an individual can replicate, through careful legal planning (such as who inherits your stuff if you die). But there are many items for which an individual has no control, and _only_ the legal definition applies.
- 'spousal privilege' in court cases (i.e. aren't required to testify against their spouse)
- sponsor spouse for immigration
- veteran's benefits
- collection of social security based on spouse's work history
- family visitation rights (prison, hospital, etc.)
- parental rights
- etc.
There are a _ton_ of things like this. It's just flat-out legally not possible for an individual to re-create these rights themselves. It's baked into 200 years of legal decisions, and it's almost all rules about how other people/groups must treat YOU.
You only get a tax break when you have the "stay-at-home parent" situation, with one spouse bringing in the dough, and one with no income.
Nationally, it's almost even - about 46% of couples pay more than they would as a single filer, and 51% pay less.
While I don't have any numbers to back this up, I would be willing to bet that most same-sex couples would end up paying _more_ in taxes. After all, they are less likely to have kids, and hence less need for a stay-at-home spouse. Thus, more likely to both be working, and subject to the 'marriage penalty'.
Bottom line, you either have to extend the definition of 'marriage' to include same-sex couples, or you have to define a new label (i.e. 'civil union') and also pass legislation that conveys all of the rights and benefits and responsibilities of marriage onto the new label ('civil unions'), making it de-facto marriage anyway.
Unfortunately, we live in a democracy, so short of a Constitutional amendment saying otherwise, people pretty much *do* have the right to tell others what they can and can't do, provided they can convince enough other people to agree with them (and vote that way).
And what kind of Democracy is it when there are two wolves and a herd of sheep, but the wolves control the ballot box and announce the count. Current polls show that a greater portion of Americans favor allowing gays to marry; however, those in power are preventing this from taking place.
+1 to you, sir, for being correct. But I'd say my point still stands -- the "representative" part of our representative republic is theoretically supposed to vote according to the whims of their constituency.
...and those same "representatives" are supposed to know when to be just and uphold the Constitution, even if it runs counter to the wants of their constituency (and their chances of re-election) - because it is the right and just thing to do.
You mention extremists judges (which is, of course, total bulls**t; would you consider him an extremist judge if he were a Christian fundamentalist and ruled in favor of Prop 8?), but what about when the bill was hijacked by an extremist hate group? That would be the Latter Day Saints, a group based in another state that launched a multi-million dollar hate campaign against homosexuals in order to sway the vote. If not for all the blatant bulls**t they spouted, the vote would certainly have turned out differently. Hell, if you held another vote this very day, it'd still turn out in favor of gay marriage.
@rgb86, I'm not saying Prop 8 should or should not have passed, I'm saying that in this case we actually do have a directly democratic system for making these decisions. As far as the judge comment, I'm pointing out that the problem with this democratic process is that it is insufficiently protected and honored.
I'm pretty sure Atheists "believe" there is no god just as much as Christians "believe" there is one... believing something doesn't exist is still "believing" for all intents and purposes.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Everyones Agnostic, How could you know? None of us know. The question is "Do you believe in God right now?" If the answer is no then I think you are an Atheist. There is Theist and Atheist, Agnostic is not in-between the two, it is something else entirely.
- poorly quoted from Penn J-
If you DON'T believe there is something bigger then us (i.e.: God), then MORALLY you can't think that it's wrong to believe in such a thing.
For example, can you morally believe it is wrong to say it's morally wrong to believe in flying cows?
You can't prove flying cows exist so you can't prove it's morally wrong to believe in them since to you this very concept does not exist.
Sorry if this seems as confusing as what I was trying to explain but I guess my skills in my second language isn't as polished as I thought.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Atheists' morals don't come from a fear that God will punish them. They come from an innate sense of what is right.
Many atheists give to charities or go help in their community. They follow their own consciences, not the laws of a religion.
People of religion also give to charities or go help in their community. Does that mean they lie, cheat, and steal less than atheists? Not necessarily.
The question is: Why do some people of religion go against their very belief system of morals and then criticize those who don't have a belief system and still follow morals?
Belief is a strange thing. It's not dependent on a higher power. It's dependent on the person who believes.
For the record, and if it matters, I'm not an atheist. :)
Did you read my post? I never said you can't have moral without religion but that you can't say it's morally wrong to be morally wrong about something which FOR YOU doesn't exist.
Of course morale and religion has nothing to do with one another (in terme of existence, you can have one without the other, both or none).Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
I think you're wrong, because no one's saying God is morally wrong (although if he does exist, there's a good case for that), they're saying that belief in God is morally wrong, and that is something that certainly does exist.
No it's more morally wrong to fool people into believing lies that you know are false by feeding on their hopes and desperations and leading them to your collections plate so you can not only feed off them in their hour of need, but also live a tax free life. Religious leaders are more often criminals than actual caring people. I'm not saying all, Ghandi and Mother Theresa are of course shining examples of humanity at its finest. However it is also important to realize that it was not their religions that made them great, it was their sense of morality. Humanity would be much farther ahead if there were no organized religions. If we were all taught a strong moral system and allowed to believe what we wanted then the world would be a happier place. Then again, women wouldn't be raped, people wouldn't be shot and stupid 'I think this just because I believe it and have no facts to prove it's wrong' arguments would not even exist, thus making things like same sex marriage legal.
Ghandi: was a racist, he spoke poorly of Blacks and lower class Indians. "Ours is one continued struggle against degradation sought to be inflicted upon us by the European, who desire to degrade us to the level of the raw Kaffir, whose occupation is hunting and whose sole ambition is to collect a certain number of cattle to buy a wife with, and then pass his life in indolence and nakedness." "The Raw Kaffir" - Gandhi Describing the Blacks
Mother Theresa: During the Aids epidemic she refused birth control on people, she preached that poverty was the way to heaven "Millions of people died because of [Mother Theresa's] work, and millions more were made poorer, stupider, more sick, more diseased, more fearful and more ignorant." -Christopher Hitchens-
I would have to disagree with your statement that Humanity would be much farther ahead (I am assuming you mean technologically). While religion may have played a role in the fall of Rome it was not the primary cause. During the Dark ages, the church was the primary repository and source of scientific knowledge. The basis for our understanding of modern heredity, chemistry, and astronomy (just to name a few) were either direct results of church activity, or were benefitted by major contributions from religions. The church does tend to push back against any percieved major change (religion tends to be conservative when it comes to change) but it was and still is a net positive (IMHO) when it comes to Science.
I think religion is ONE of mankinds problems however removing it will not breed a utopia.
"If we were all taught a strong moral system and allowed to believe what we wanted then the world would be a happier place"
really? what about Dahmer or Manson or Genghis Kahn or John Wayne Gacy... oh yeah Gacy was very moral helping out at the hospital and making people laugh (except the ones he raped and killed)
religion is often a convieniant escape "god told me to" or "they were filthy sinners" when the truth is some people are just f**king crazy... sorry blame whatever you want it wont change a thing.
Ummm pretty sure the idea of gravity is easily provable ... I don't think as of yet I have seen a person float off, so we know something is keeping us here. The very mechanism causing it may be unknown but believe me gravity is very real ... and hurts.
I am spiritually and religiously open, that being said, you can't prove anything either. I have no problem letting people believe what they want. Devout atheists that constantly attack those who are religious and believe in something they cannot definitely prove are every ounce as bad as the worst Christian bible thumpers. Quit telling people what they can and can't believe in and stay out of it. It is so hypocritical it makes my blood boil.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
I'm sorry but when peoples' very perception of reality rests upon a faith-based foundation; especially one revolving around reward and punishment....It's not "bad" to have a problem with it. When people fear homosexuality because of a book, or find the motivation for war in a book promoting peace, I have a problem. There are plenty of religious people that are reasonable, but the ones who preach to others, use fear to exploit the weak-minded, and let their faith shape their identity have the potential to be some of the worst people on the planet. I don't know any atheists that attack people for simply believing; only for blindly and stupidly filtering every aspect of reality through a religious tomb.
So you would be open to removing some states laws that deny Atheists the same rights as Theists? I think that is what most "Devout Atheists" are trying to accomplish. We want it to be equal, we want representation. We are going through the same thing that Blacks have been through and the Gays are fighting for. I'm all for "Love the Man, Hate the religion" and encourage others to act the same but I will not be quiet. Believe what you want, just dont impose your beliefs in our laws, that is what I am saying.
I'll listen to your views on laws when you stop bitching about Christmas. Im not even a practicing relious person but for f**k's sake noone ever said you cant put an "atheist nativity scene" (picture that go on try it I'll wait... better? o.k. lets move one) up but how dare you tell me I cant put my display up. Please you got something against the city hall christmas tree say what you want... say while climbing the tree but stop making a happy season for so many so miserable... Merry Christmas even in June
What Atheist bitches about Christmas? Certainly not me, I love Christmas! And why would they not want you to put your display up? The nativity scene is a wonderful story to tell children just like Santa . The tree is a pagan symbol and always has been, I have no problems with that either. It has been a world holiday for much longer than Christianity has been around, I grew up calling it Christmas and no matter what it means to me personally, I think we should keep the name. Now can we talk about some of those laws?
Belief in a god and religion are two different things. I have no problem with the belief in a god. Religion, on the other hand, is a horrible corruption of what it claims to stand for, and can only get stronger with time.
Thank you. I'm getting sick and tired of Christians forgetting that whatever God thinks of homosexuals- and it's not what the asshats at Westboro think- He really has a low opinion of people acting like a douchbag in his name.
My source is the Bible. You telling me Abraham almost sacrificing his son because a voice in his head told him to do it and be rewarded ISN'T the epitome of douchebaggery?
No, it's not: what if his son was the epitome of douchebaggery, and needed to be sacrificed, for the rest of the world to avoid popped collars and poorly concealed sexual identity crises?
I understand the Bible more than you could ever dream. Granted Abraham is a weak example, but I really don't have the time, the care or the effort to list the 200+ some amounts of prominent diety-supported douchebaggery. Things like keeping women segregating, keeping and beating slaves as long as they are of a different tribe (skin color), slaughtering your young if they disobey you. Etc, etc, etc.
Also, you are forgetting the passage from Isaac 18:36 "Do not doubt the unattended doubters, for by their conscious shall our souls be cleansed."
christ isnt real and there is nothing 'morally wrong' with homosexuality, in fact its quite common among many species of life on the planet. There were many religions that came before christianity, and they'll probably be many more that come after its long gone. Its 2011 - its time for the fairy tale nonsense to stop. <sigh>
Actually, both the historical and archeological evidence of Jesus' life is sufficient to the point that it takes greater faith to believe in his nonexistence than it does his divinity. And "morals" are largely a matter of opinion- assuming that any one set is definitive is what went wrong in the first place.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
I don't know if you meant "existence" when you wrote "divinity". There is a reasonable amount of evidence for the historical existence of Jesus (though, not nearly to the level of certainty). But I wouldn't necessarily disagree with you about that.
On the other hand, the evidence for the *divinity* of Jesus is absolutely nonexistent.
Because the notion of Jesus Christ being God and not the son of God was invented to help convert pagans so the Catholic church could get more followers and thus more money and influence.
The Babel fish is small, yellow, leechlike, and probably the oddest thing in the Universe. It feeds on brainwave energy received not from its own carrier but from those around it. It absorbs all unconscious mental frequencies from this brainwave energy to nourish itself with. It then excretes into the mind of its carrier a telepathic matrix formed by combining the conscious thought frequencies with nerve signals picked up from the speech centers of the brain which has supplied them. The practical upshot of all this is that if you stick a Babel fish in your ear you can instantly understand anything said to you in any form of language. The speech patterns you actually hear decode the brainwave matrix which has been fed into your mind by your Babel fish.
Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the NON-existence of God.
The argument goes like this:
`I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, `for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'
`But,' says Man, `The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.'
`Oh dear,' says God, `I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly disappears in a puff of logic.
`Oh, that was easy,' says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.
Most leading theologians claim that this argument is a load of dingo's kidneys, but that didn't stop Oolon Colluphid making a small fortune when he used it as the central theme of his best-selling book, "Well, That about Wraps It Up for God."
Meanwhile, the poor Babel fish, by effectively removing all barriers to communication between different races and cultures, has caused more and bloodier wars than anything else in the history of creation.
Your point had nothing to do with the poster's point. Why is it so hard for Christians (and Muslims, for that matter, who seem to share the same belief) to understand the difference between YOU living the life you want, and forcing others through government power and control to live their lives according to your religion? This is actually a serious question. Why is not enough for you to have religious freedom? Why can't you allow others to live their lives in a way that doesn't affect you in the slightest way?
You appear to believe this:
"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination." (Leviticus 18:22)
If so, shouldn't you believe this as well?
"For everyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother. His blood shall be upon him." (Leviticus 20:9)
Even better, let's go for the same level of sin--"abomination"--and even keep it in the same book!
Leviticus 11:
10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.
Both abominations from Leviticus, so being gay is no worse than eating lobster!
If you really believe that, you have no clue what love is. I know gay couples. They have true love for each other. You obviously have never experienced love.
Funny for somebody claiming to be Christian to blatantly ignore the teachings of Jesus whilst simultaneously claiming hypocrisy. Amazing how foolish a brainwashed mind can be.
I'm curious; why do you find homosexuality morally wrong? If your answer is "the Bible says so," (a woefully inadequate argument, but whatever), please cite the passage that says so.
I'm not the OP, but I have similar beliefs, here are some verses:
1Tim 1:
8 We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. 9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11 that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.
1Corinthians 6:
9 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 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
So let me get this straight: Jesus or God never said that homosexuality is wrong? Just some guy writing letters? And somehow this is now concrete doctrine? You guys sure are a lot more trusting than I am.
That "some guy" was taught by Christ Himself. There aren't too many who can say that.
Christians are doing the best they can to interpret the evidence they have. We'd all LOVE more empirical evidence, However, pillars of smoke and fire don't make for lasting faith.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
That's like saying it's OK take food that isn't specifically marked with a price tag, because hey, if the store wanted me to pay for it, they would have marked it.
Jesus was preaching specifically to the Jewish nation, where, because of verses like the Leviticus one already mentioned (below), homosexuality was not as much of a problem (I don't want to say there weren't any Jewish gay folk, because I wasn't there so, HTF would I know?).
Paul (the writer of both the books quoted above) dealt with the problem more often because he was with "gentiles" more often than the other writers of the books of the Bible, so it makes sense that he would write about it. While the other writers are rather silent about it.
the "some guy" who wrote leviticus was the old testament. way before Jesus was involved in religion at all. As a born, but no longer practicing Catholic after 12 years of schooling, the old testament has been deemed irrelevant. NOT christianity. it is the book of the torah, the book of judaism. if you're going to argue religious belief systems, at least get the citations correct.
by the way, "God created all people in His image".
"do unto others...." ring a bell? would you want someone persecuting your love life? did ANY of you homophobes choose to be attracted to the opposite sex? I know i didn't. and neither did my gay or lesbian friends. i'm anti-marriage, but if they want that, they deserve it just as much as you in your hetero relationships.
The verses I posted were both taken from the New testament. Pay attention. Also, this thread is based on a comment about being sympathetic to the gay lifestyle, but still disagreeing with it. I'm not out to condemn anyone, but I still choose to live my life differently. Do you see the difference?
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.
That's the big one. However, if you keep reading in that same section in Leviticus you learn that beard cutting is just as bad, mildew is a valid reason to completely destroy a house, most animal are off limits for eating, a woman on her period must leave the town for several days, people can be slaves, and so on.
This was a list of rules and statures to follow for the safety of the group. The idea was that because males were fairly rare, much lower than current 50/50, think more like 20% male and 80% female after war and loss due to work. While many women did die in childbirth, there was still a large female population compared to males. In order for the group to survive all available males must procreate.
That is why the Bible was outspoken against Gays, they didn't reproduce, and when you only have a few people wandering around the desert, you need every available male to help out.
The Old Testament laws that the Hebrews had to follow were ended by Christs death and resurrection. They had to abide by different rules than we do now and that is why the Old Testament shouldn't be taken in literal usage in our lives today.
But homosexuality isn't just about them not being able to populate, it's about them being spiritually unclean. Everyone always seems to gloss over the influence of the Devil and his minions in our lives.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
So, in your opinion, are all these temptations that are biologically hardwired put there by the Devil? Does that mean that the Devil has the power to corrupt God's creation? Isn't that heresy?
Here's the thing, I'm a Christian too. I was born and raised Christian. But I believe all these people who are claiming to be "Christian" really aren't Christian at all. Think about it. I believe God is the creator of the universe, the ultima, the omega, the all be all, the most powerful being we know of. Do you really think he needs us to stop gay marriage? Do you really think if He hated gay people, that they would exist? No, if you believe God is all powerful, act like God is all powerful. He doesn't need your help. If God wanted gay people out of the picture, they wouldn't exist. But they do, so I believe they should be able to do whatever the hell they want. Same goes for Atheists, why do Christians bag on them so much? Do you really think if God didn't want Atheists to exist, they would? No, they believe what they believe for a reason. More power to them.
People use Christianity as a guise for banning what makes them uncomfortable. It's not right. I am discriminated against simply for being a vegan and it sucks. I can't even imagine how bad it must be for gay people. Gay teens kill themselves because of how bad discrimination is. And for what? Really, nothing. f**k discrimination and f**k intolerance.
I'm all for the "f**k intolerance" vibe, and as I stated above, I'm not the OP, but I have similar beliefs, but there're all sorts of things in this world far worse than gay teens killing themselves over discrimination that God seems to allow.
We can't just say that "if God doesn't want it, it wouldn't be here" because there are tragedies that happen all the time that any just (as in justice) God would not allow, however these things happen, so the only conclusions are a) God does not exist b) God is not just c) God is doing something we don't understand. I prefer to believe the latter.
I mean I get what you're saying, but for me, what we deem as "terrible", in my eyes, isn't the same as what God sees as "terrible". We hate disasters, and that sucks, but we kind of just have to accept and tolerate them because they happen. Just like whatever, like gay people. They "happen" and we should "tolerate" them. That last sentence trivializes it a little, obviously gay people don't "happen" or whatever, but it's just in the same vein as me. We just have to accept things and change things that WE believe should be changed, not what we think God wants to be changed, you know what I mean? Do I think gays deserve to be ridiculed, no. And I'll fight for them not because I think that's what God wants, but because that's what I want. I want to help the people in Joplin not because God wants me to, but because I want to. Does that make sense?
I mean, regardless, believe what you want because it's influenced how you see the world. And we all see it differently, so we should all believe different things.
Do you view approaching dictators and f**ked up parents differently than natural disasters? What I mean is that I don't think God necessarily acts as though dictators and f**ked-up parents serve no purpose, but I want to, I guess remove them(?) for my own personal moral beliefs. Like I'm not crusading God against them, I'm crusading morality. That might be really convoluted and make no sense, but yeah I get what you're saying.
Yes, I want dictators and parents who sell their kids' virginity @ 3 dragged out into the street and shot. However, God allows these things to happen, I don't know why. I have faith that, in eternity, He will make these things right.
But God has to allow us to have freedom of will. The Earth is under the control of the Adversary until the return of Christ. He uses that control to try and keep as many people from learning the truth as possible.
you scare me .... how about you let god judge everything at the end ... if he doesn't want sinners up there then i guess you don't have to worry about them.
I don't think you can say he is just and forgiving while also saying they have sinned him and nothing can change that .... not very just and forgiving at all.
I agree with you, but unfortunately you are only a Christian because you choose to call yourself one. It is very un-christian like to say such things. Christians by their definition follow the bible and what you said above was far too reasonable to be part of it. It takes away the whole aspect of social control. They need people to think in terms of good and evil, reward and punishment, and us vs them; or else they lose power. I'm glad you are intelligent enough to see past the oppressions of such institutions. At least you can focus on your faith and not certain ancient methods of social control that have long outlived their usefulness.
I don't really agree. I see myself as being very in line with a lot of Christian views. The problem is that all these extreme groups are being viewed as though they're the real Christians. It's the same with Muslims. Real Muslims suicide bomb other people. They destroy government buildings. Real Christians sit outside funerals with signs that say "God hates Fags". The majority of us are very accepting of everything and take the Bible to be more figurative than literal. We just don't make the news every day because we're "normal" people haha.
No I wasn't talking about extremists. I have been to many church services; none of which reflected such an open-minded outlook on life. However, if you choose to ID yourself as Christian, I am no authority to say otherwise.
Why do you think the Christian god is the last letter of the Greek alphabet? The Omega. Wouldn't he be the alpha? Or maybe both, whoa!
Anyways, The argument that an all-loving, all-good being is all powerful, all-knowing, and all-present is an untenable argument. No matter how much you blame Satan, a tri-omni god is still directly responsible for any evil in the world. This is the problem of good and evil.
It's quite humorous to see all of these people that "morally" disagree that you morally disagree with gay marriage getting upset. It's rare that you find someone who has a level head on them in life. You should post more often.
My wife has an excellent solution to the problem:
Make "Marriage" a religious word/institution.
Make "Civil Union" legally synonymous with "marriage."
Remove the word "Marriage" from every law/amendment/Constitution.
This way, churches can "Marry" whomever they choose, meanwhile couples can love whomever they choose.
Why, would the rest of the English speakers of the world suddenly agree that the word marriage now belongs to christians and the rest of us now need to use a new word that means the exact same thing? The simpler option is to get religion out of contracts, civil or otherwise.
Well said.
The point isn't who gets what. The point is making "civil unions" synonymous with "marriages" and giving religions a separate word for their ceremony.
I personally don't care who gets what as long as the laws don't care.
It isn't "their ceremony". Marriage as a concept, ceremony or institution has been around thousands of years longer than christianity and to claim it as "their ceremony" is arrogance of the highest order. The problem resides with their own bigotry and inflexibility as well as abject arrogance and giving into their issues will not resolve anything. Instead it serves them a victory and reinforces their view of everyone else as somehow inferior.
People should step off on the whole marriage to laws. The country broke up religion and laws a long time ago, but marriage barges in on a regular basis.
Got this law to agree, that law to agree to OUR religious beliefs. I'm not "our", I'll make that very clear, this is my country as much as it is anybody Else's who chooses to stay here, free of religion.
Freedom of Religion, want to keep it? Get the f**k out of my life. Buddhists, Islamists, Christians... All y'all. Or should scientology take over, because that's what people are asking for. That law follows religion is a crime.
"I'm a Christian and I believe homosexually is morally wrong."
You, sir, are the lowest form of life that exists, and how you've got a net result of +64 Diggs is beyond me. Digg really has hit rock bottom if the likes of you has such support.
I read it all. Notably, it starts with: "I'm a Christian and I believe homosexually is morally wrong." and it ends with: "Reach out to everyone and show them the love of Christ, no the hatred from your self-righteousness."
Which is just hopelessly and embarrassingly hypocritical.
While I don't think the poster is "the lowest form of life" (there are much much worse) I don't think he/she deserves such a high rating. A valid argument does not negate the ignorance and close-mindedness of the opening sentence. It is the very essence of oppression.
He got dugg up because of saying the government should have no say in marriage and I agree with him on that point. In effect he said "I dont agree with what you are doing however it does not matter what I think you are free to do what you want" its rare to find a Christian who will say this who also feels as strongly as he does. People must be permitted to believe in what they want as long as it does not effect others. I'm guessing many of the people digging him up actually support Homosexuality and don't consider it a morality issue as he does.
I'm a Christian catholic who is in the Knights of Columbus. I pretty much stand alone in my stance that Gay marriage is ok... by God. Yeah, you won't find really anyone agreeing with me. There's too much to dislike, I know. That's not why I'm commenting here...
Completely aside from that, I do not forget that catholics flocked (sheep joke) to America because a lot of other counties were persecuting catholics, and America was our safe haven. That was huge, and catholics around the world would do good to remember this forever. Especially a group that I notice growing in my church that is this anti-immigrant (read anti-latino). I can't think of a group more like the one in stories I hear my (Irish) relatives tell than the latinos. We're like the friggin same.
Additionally, it's against our religion to force our religion upon others. This pisses me off just as much as not being accepting, and being exclusive and forcing our rules on others.
I really wanted to say I'm sorry. I'm ashamed of these "brothers" (catholic and non) of mine, but they hate me too. Love is hard to come by nowadays.
I appreciate this, thank you. I would venture to say that I DO agree with you, that gay marriage IS okay by God. Although I am not a Catholic, I will still tell you that you're not completely alone. I would probably define as agnostic if I had to put myself in a box, but I believe that if there is a God, he/she has no problem with homosexuality, and also that he/she does not wish anyone to force their religion upon others. In fact...that last bit is pretty clear even in the bible.
You're not entirely alone, nor is love as hard to come by as you might think! :) I extend mine to you, to the greatest extend possible over the internet, by standing up with you and asserting similarity of belief and heart.
I am also sorry for any suffering you or your relatives have felt at the hands of anti-immigrant attitudes. That is highly unfair and has been a long-running issue in America. If it's not one group of people, it's the next.
Well, I'm a Christian and I believe it is morally wrong to live so strictly by standards established thousands of years ago and not be allowed for our ethical and moral standards to grow along with our level of intelligence. Run on sentence etc, yeah, but I really just want my basic point out there. Thanks.
I agree with your basic point, but your message begins to get lost when you say "I feel it's morally wrong" and "show them the love of christ."
You sound like you're using a hot topic to further religion. Why do religious people need to force other people to follow their religion... answer = it's a business. More people = more donations = more money for the church.
I simply feel that we need to redefine what is recognized by the States. The States should issue Civil Union certificates, and it should have nothing to with religion (who woulda thunk that?). Marriage should be what you and your partner arrange through your church sanctioned by whatever imaginary being/faith you choose.
We simply need to flip the way things are currently done, and take the religion out things that are sanctioned by the States. It would solve a lot of problems.
"I'm a Christian and I believe homosexually is morally wrong."
And that makes you a blind and ignorant fool. Provide one reason it is wrong other than "the bible says so."
If you actually understood the bible, youd realize the context in which those statements were written pretty much confirms that it is biased and untrue. "Abomination" means "against the established tradition," not "sin." If homosexuality was wrong, JESUS WOULD HAVE f**kING MENTIONED IT. HE DIDN'T. YOU ARE AN IDIOT FOR BELIEVING IT.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
GUESS WHAT
Dolphins are gay and other species, has all mighty GOD have been so evil to have inflicted the same 'test' on those species as well?
Voted down because you are an idiot who worries about the lives of other people instead of your own.
This is a great post, no getting past that. Thank you for being the first christian to ever admit that they don't have the ability to tell people how to live.
But if I may present an argument for why it is not morally wrong, I would like to:
Part 1: Do you agree: "If there is exists a god, and he is not just, you should not want to follow him."
Part 2: Do you agree: Homosexuality is genetic (it is, but feel free to research it)
Part 3: Do you agree: Our genetic makeup is God's design and not our choice.
Part 4: Do you agree: God does not follow any rules on what is considered "right and wrong"; he is God and does not answer to any higher power. He decides what is "good" and what is "sin".
Part 5: Do you agree: If God were to create two people, one with genetic makeup A and another with genetic makeup B, then subsequently deemed genetic makeup B to be sinful, this would be considered unjust.
In a nutshell: murder, rape and stealing are obvious why they are considered "sins", they hurt people. When it comes to homosexuality you can't say that. You also can't say "well it's a sin because the bible says so" as that uses parts 1, 4 and 5 to show that God is unjust. It is my belief that if consenting individuals can enter a closed off room and engage in acts that do not harm anyone outside of the room, this act should be legal.
That's not an argument. You didn't provide any basis. You didn't establish homosexuality as something that is not a choice. You didn't explain why it's not a sin. What might seem quite detailed in your head came out as one naive sounding sentence.
You summed it up perfectly here:
"What might seem quite detailed in your head came out as one naive sounding sentence."
I'll add a tiny bit more info so I dont come across as naive, god created homosexuals, murderers, rapists, etc, but the difference with homosexuals and the reason I believe there's absolutely nothing wrong with them, they dont harm others, therefore they should be free from persecution.
I think that there's nothing wrong with homosexuality. If there is a god (probably not but that's my own opinion), he created man and woman straight, gay, and everything in between.
However I happen to agree with your solution. Marriage has always been a religious institution and I don't see how the state needs to get involved. Instead, in order to promote families living together, whatever shape or form they take, the state should provide tax incentives for family groups living together. Humans are social creatures and more robust and satisfying social networks including nuclear family type groups should be encouraged. The exact size and shape is something to be determined by the individuals participating in them. Mankind has seen a great variety throughout the many cultures. While each have their advantages and disadvantages, there are many different configurations that have equal efficacy.
If a church or denomination does not want to marry a group because of their own ideology or preference, that is their concern, not the state at large. They should never have the right to do direct harm to individuals, nor should any public institution have the right to discriminate in any way. However, religious type groups and private clubs and groups should have the latitude to be bigots.
I just had an argument with my very "right wing" uncle about this issue. I think it is simple: treat everyone the same no matter what or it is discrimination.
His argument for not allowing same sex marriage is because it will open marriage up to those that would like to marry a donkey, cow, or sheep. How are those even related in anyone's minds?
Why is marrying animals the first go-to extension of preventing marriage between gays? I question if there isn't a lot of latent zoophilia out there.
Seriously, I'd worry more about people seeking to marry themselves or to marry a piece of technology before I'd think someone would want to go off and marry a creature most people have no common practical knowledge of how to care for it.
And to think about it... gay people seeking protection and acknowledgement of gay marriage, they want to be able to be with their partner through good times and bad. If you were in the hospital and your wife wasn't allowed to come see you because she wasn't family... or your wife was dying or sick and your insurance couldn't care for her? How do you just tell a couple, straight or not, no?
Just to be clear, I'm NOT against gai marriage and I don't try to defend people who are, I'm just trying to shed some light on the situation.
What I think goes on in there mind is that gay people = weird perverted psycho (again, I'm NOT of this opinion) so the next logical step would be bestiality (and then if they want to push it further: necrophily).
To them, this is the same situation as give them an inch, they'll take a foot. Some people just can't reason correctly and think that anything against there view is a moral attack on them. Just like if you agree with my enemy you are an enemy too: retarded but prevalent in the mind of a lot of individuals (sadly).
It's very interesting that this point is brought up. The popular idea of gay is flamboyant leather shorts with multiple partners. Compare San Francisco to Minneapolis, both highly gay cities.
Your uncle is a moron. He goes there for two reasons: 1. He wants to take the chance to let you know that, in his mind, homosexuality is on the same moral level as bestiality. 2. This allows him to make an argument with no basis in fact, but will appeal to those who agree with him on 1. If he can't understand the distinction between two consenting adults entering a relationship and a human sexually assaulting an animal that can't possibly give consent, then he is an idiot.
Just as a point of note: Sex was not mentioned. Marriage was. While in many people's minds those two are linked there are quite a few people interested in marrying animals that aren't interested in sex with said animal.
People like this hear "gay sex" when you talk about gay marriage. They think homosexuality is simply a deviant sexual behavior and gay marriage is simply a sneaky vehicle by which society will be forced into condoning that deviance.
I think *you* hear gay sex when you hear gay marriage. Just like *you* heard 'sex with animals' when marriage with animals was brought up. :)Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Pundits love to use the slippery slope political fallacy, and it's been engrained into the heads of many Fox patrons as a reality. It's just not how things work though.
I think that slippery slope argument goes a little too far. But I was once asked to come up with a rational argument that supported gay marriage without also supporting incestuous marriage -- I couldn't come up with anything.
Easy, incestuous marriage can lead to children with birth-defects, something; gay marriage will never lead to. Gay marriage as a concept or an institution cannot harm anyone.
It helps if you consider the ban on incestuous marriage as a natural extension of the ban on incestuous sexual relationships. Sexual incest is unlawful as it presents a heightened risk of genetic defects occuring in any offspring produced.
Now the tricky part is the whether a sexual relationship is necessarily a part of marriage. Although im pretty sure that there are such things as sexless marriages (as, im sure, many grumpy men will attest lol), the fact is that from a legal perspective it is just easier to ASSUME that a married couple are going to be involved in a sexual relationship. Thus in the eyes of the law it makes sense to say incestuous marriage = incestuous sex = illegal etc etc.
Now i know none of this is perfectly reasoned, but its along the right lines as far as i can see.
Although, now that i think of it, none of this applies to ....
I'll admit it's a subtle distinction, but the exercise was to come up with something that supports gay marriage that doesn't also support incestuous marriage. But I agree that you've hit on the distinction between gay and incestuous marriage.
I agree with you. There really is no good argument for prohibiting incestuous marriage if gay marriage is allowed. There's no reason two consenting adults who happen to be related to each other shouldn't be married.
Most people who argue against it will argue on the basis of increased risk of genetic defect. But we don't go to lengths to prevent two people from marrying who, for example, are both genetic carriers of Huntingdon's disease.
For the record, I think both homosexual sex and incest are morally wrong. But it's not the government's job to enforce morality; it's their job to protect the weak against the strong.
What I have found with Religious people is that they do not believe people are born gay. I'm guessing because if they were born gay then that would mean god made them that way (and therefore should be fine). It just boggles my mind; There is no amount of circumstance that would ever make me gay ever. People are born that way and we should just let them live their life and pursue their happiness.
I'm pretty sure you're thinking of "fundamentalists".
As a Christian, I'm too busy trying to get this log out of my eye to really worry about the couple next to me with a few splinters.... and yes, I'm quite comfortable with letting them marry.
Our last two preachers here were fine with gai couples...
It's not THAT progressive, it's only that we hear a lot more from the anti-gai religious people than from those that are more open to different life choice.
While you can say his position is progressive, it's by no means rare in the christian community. 48% of mainline protestants believe gay marriage should be legal. (only 28% for evangelicals though). And of course this is american stats. In Europe and canada they're much more accepting to gays even in the religious sectors.
There is no reason religious people would have to believe that people couldn't be born gay. Christianity holds that all people are born with corrupt desires and are imperfect. Also, as the parent commenter pointed out, under Christian teaching, there is actually nothing wrong with being homosexual, just performing homosexual acts. The general conclusion in the Christian community is that if someone is in fact born gay, they should simply abstain from sexual relations. That said, I agree 100% with the leandrews.
This is coming from someone who believes in god but also believes in Gay marriage.
There is not scientific proof that people are born gay. Yes there are some theories but nothing has been proven (please show me otherwise).
Even if people choose to be gay and or are raised to be gay (see statistic about growing up with multiple sisters) it doesn't change the idea that it should be left up to the people.
I'm religious and I believe sexuality is a spectrum. Very few, if any, people are born 100% straight or 100% gay. Consider this test: if you consider yourself a straight man, who would you do, Brad Pitt or Roseanne Barr? I'm a straight man, but I'd go with Brad. It doesn't mean I'd take John Goodman over Megan Fox. So let's say I'm 90% straight; i.e. I prefer the top 90% of women to the bottom 90% of men, and I prefer the top 10% of men to the bottom 10% of women. I'm probably fairly average.
Some of the gay guys I've known have some type of sexual abuse in their past. Let's say these guys were born 60% straight; i.e. not strongly preferring either men or women. Their sexuality has likely been influenced by their environment.
Some guys of course are born 80% gay, or 90% gay. I would bet most gay guys would still prefer sex (as specified above) with Megan Fox over sex with John Goodman.
Anyway, that's my theory. For what it's worth, fundamental Christians such as myself also believe heterosexual sex is wrong outside of marriage. There are plenty of heterosexual men who will never marry; if a Christian man has homosexual tendencies, I have no issue with that. It's acting on sexual impulses without a Biblically approved marriage that I would consider a sin. And of course, I wouldn't hold a non-Christian to that standard.
I disagree with you, sir, in that acting on those tendencies is morally wrong (I am completely okay with it), but I appreciate your logic and your honesty. You make sense in your reasoning, it is merely the part of it which is opinion that I disagree with, and that's what opinions are for, right? :)
The Right to peruse happiness, too bad everyone has their nose stuck so far up other peoples business.
If a couple is happy being gay, let them, why should it matter to YOU what that couple does, IT'S BETWEEN THEM not you!
I've asked the same question many times. All I've gotten as an answer are a bunch of quotes from the bible. They don't seem to understand that they'll have to do alot better than quoting scripture from a book of myths, to make me see why 2 people shouldn't be happy together.
Gay marriage is going to be legalized everywhere sooner than later, so why even bother fighting it at all? History is not going look back kindly on the people who opposed gay marriage. They are going to be seen the same way we now see people who were against segregation.
I suspect you'll find many of the people who oppose gay marriage don't have such a negative opinion of those who opposed segregation. Bigotry knows no boundaries in time, one form of bigotry just evolves into another.
Iowa might turn back to black soon. The social conservatives there had a HUGE campaign to oust every member of the Iowa Supreme Court who voted in favor of LGBT equal marriage rights in the last election (even though judicial elections are supposed to be non-partisan events).
And yet those bastions of liberalism, California and New York remain solidly black, having never even lightened up just a wee bit.
Doesn't that just ball your little fists in rage, Novie? That a little red state in the middle of America's heartland, those broad, wide open spaces inhabited by the evil conservative farmers, people who might worship, red-necks and knuckle-draggers would actually have passed legislation affirming the right to pursue happiness. Damn that's got be irritating.
And the Republican leader on the Iowa House has basically said they've got better things to do than worrying about trying to evict sitting judges.
what you're basically saying is - yeah its f**ked up that they are trying to evict judges - even so that there is factions of the GOP splitting to say "hey this is stupid." So although you evidently don't like novenator - you're agreeing with him.
Then you try to say that "well liberals are doing this..." therefore the topic of discussion is....invalid? this only works on the 50% <100 IQ.
Really? Don't you think that people like Novenator's time would be better spent putting pressure on those groups who haven't enacted gay-rights support? Why are the states of New York and California, solidly blue and home to the largest gay communities not even close to enacting legislation?
But rather than pull back the covers on the failure of those Democratically controlled states, Novenator goes for the easy target, in this case some far-righties in a state that has gay-rights and where there is actually no concern of those rights being revoked. Novie operates by deflection, liberal failure is always the fault of someone else, no matter how far the reach.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
By the way, the problem in any of those states to enact the right legislation is not a result of the "liberals." Rather, it is some other group within those states who seem to have an aversion to equal rights and individual freedoms.
I think you can spend YOUR time better then dragging Novenator thought the mud and actually doing something about equality for everyone - regardless of gender, race, religion or dog-ownership.
California is nowhere close to legalizing gay marriage?
Remember the whole Prop 8 in 2008? That failed by the smallest of margins, and likely will pass in the next election cycle.
It failed yes, but the courts ruled that while there could be no new marriages, the ones in existence would stand. Out here just about everyone at least tolerates it, and those that don't are just an outspoken minority.
Visit San Francisco sometime soon, and then tell me that at least the northern half of the state isn't ready for this to happen.
You make a good point, but you have a few small details reversed. Prop 8 did pass (not failed, as you said), and the proposition was to ban gay marriage (instead of allowing it). It passed by 4% (about the same as you'd expect out of presidential elections). It's true, though, it was taken to court and found unconstitutional, but we undoubtedly have not heard the last about it.
However, if the behavioral trends hold true, if gay marriage ever goes up for a vote in California again, there will be no contest and gays will finally have equal marriage rights.
"Having never even lightened up just a wee bit"? -- you obviously know nothing about the situation in California. In fact gay marriage was legal there for a time after the judicial branch determined it was so - just like in Iowa. And then there was a conservative backlash - just like in Iowa. It's just that California already got to the next stage:
The Mormons came in from Utah and joined in the fight to roll the rights back via constitutional amendment. After a long battle the conservative oppressors won by 2.24%. And yet the battle rages on.
I know that there have been ongoing battles in New York as well, though I'm not familiar with them. So your comment really makes no sense at all.
Leaving the whole red/blue thing aside, it's interesting how over and over the wiser people - judges - make the right call, and the mob-mentality masses keep choosing (by a small margin) any way they can to oppress a peaceful minority. Civil rights battles always go down this way. Yet in the end we always win.
Enjoy it while it lasts, homophobes. Your days are numbered. Prepare for the horrors of a nation with even more equality and liberty.
People seem to think that conservatives don't exist in California. In reality, though, it's just the largest cities that are overwhelmingly liberal--San Francisco, Los Angeles, etc.--which leaves vast stretches of surprisingly conservative communities.
I think God has a problem with gay marriage when it's done in his name. However gay marriage is done under the state not under god.
My personal belief as a christian is that it is God's job to Judge man and not ours. If homosexual couples want to let them marry let them.
The bible speaks of not allowing gay marriage (not specifically just gay marriage; it's lumped in with a whole list of other things) in heaven. It says nothing on gay marriage on earth.
That being said it's human choice as to weather they want to believe in and follow God's word or not. Why man has made it illegal is understandable under a christian government (which the government is still based on) but it's not our choice to dictate how one lives their lives until it puts another in danger.
Get married, live life. If you wish to do so as per God's instruction do so. If not it's between you and God and it's not my job to stop your free will.
I believe peoples lives are their own to life be it straight, gay or cousin curious.. Marriage is was an "institution" once upon a time but not anymore. I mean how high are the stats today on divorce? A true christian surely wouldn't commit such a mortal sin..
It's really only in modern times that marriage of cousins has become frowned upon. Back in the day when travel was not so easy and populations not so large, it was not uncommon.
Up shot, there should be no laws against marriage AT ALL. Especially not a the Federal level.
Marriage is a religious idea to begin with and is outdated. The majority of Americans are now not married which is a good thing. It's time to admit that we no longer need marriage and and simply ignore it.
Well, as a species we do better when a couple stay together and raise their children together. The mother to teach social and home skills, the father how to fend for oneself.
Several studies show that children raised in a 'traditional; 2 parent household do better in just about every field, professional, mental, physical, all the way through their lives.
Not that separated parents are bad, but there is an advantage to keeping parents together, and the reward of tax breaks and the social status of being married seem to do it.
You do realize it is possible to be in a committed relationship with one or more people, without needing to be married, right?
Granted, there might not be the same level of legal protections as in a marriage (at which point the next best thing would be to form an LLP, or a corporation - though that makes taxes a bear - but I digress) - but it is perfectly possible, and there are many couples (and oh my - triples! quads!) who raise and care for their children and their S.O.(s) just fine...
Step into the 21st century (hell, 20th, for that matter) already!
Correlation doesn't imply causation, but damn if there probably isn't a link between family interbreeding and retardation.
HURR GAYS AREN'T PEOPLE.
Another case of religious morality being shoved down others throats. This is the most obvious form of discrimination by these religious organizations. The destruction of rights for people wishing to preform actions the chruch/bible is against.
I'm not asking. This isn't god. I'm telling you to wear your seatbelt. I'm a SOB that will kick you the f**k out of my car. Strap up or get kicked to the curb. My car, my rules. Would you be stupid enough to argue about safety bars on a six flags ride?
Not happening in my ride. God may be expecting you, just not in my ride.
What are we talking here?...gay marriages?..to be married,Next what lesbian?...What happen to future generation?...They can give birth normal like man & woman marriage?...daa aah!?
I do understand how love felt in my heart,but falling in love and marry same kind like what we talking here,gay...I AM STRAIGHT!...isn't falling is painful and again have you gay or lesbian think,how to keep on living with ARTIFICIAL ORGAN /PHYSICAL...is that made your love so ReAL ? What kind of government allow the plan to banish the Normal Human Development....?
leandrewsMay 31, 2011
I'm a Christian and I believe homosexually is morally wrong. That said, It's not like it is illegal for gay couples to get married and live together. The fight is whether or not their marriage is recognized by the state.They understandably want to be married by the state because of the tax brakes. Why should families have to pay more in taxes because of their genders? The state should quit the whole business altogether and give marriage back to the people. Institutions for different groups can decide who they want to marry and the state can extend tax savings to everyone. Less government is always the answer.
Advice to other Christians: Making something illegal is not going to change the hearts of the people who desire it. It only fans the flame of hatred on both sides. Reach out to everyone and show them the love of Christ, no the hatred from your self-righteousness.
shorterthanrichMay 31, 2011
Wow, while I disagree with your position of homosexuality being morally wrong, I want to give you a hi-five and put you on national television to tell everyone what you just said. That may be one of the most reasonable well sorted "I disagree, but that doesn't give me the right..."s I've ever heard.
Thank you.
One thing though - it's not just about the tax breaks. There are a lot of limitations other than taxes to non-married couples. Simple things like health insurance, to important things like hospital visitation in the event of near-death or other emergencies.
mazda_corollaMay 31, 2011
It definitely affects a lot more than just tax breaks. Marital status has woven itself into the fabric of our legal system, and affects an amazing amount of stuff.
Basically, we have 200+ years of legal history in which we, as a society, have decided that the role of 'spouse', is special, and conveys certain rights and responsibilities.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_United_States
"According to the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO), there are 1,138 statutory provisions in which marital status is a factor in determining benefits, rights, and privileges"
Some of these things are things that an individual can replicate, through careful legal planning (such as who inherits your stuff if you die). But there are many items for which an individual has no control, and _only_ the legal definition applies.
- 'spousal privilege' in court cases (i.e. aren't required to testify against their spouse)
- sponsor spouse for immigration
- veteran's benefits
- collection of social security based on spouse's work history
- family visitation rights (prison, hospital, etc.)
- parental rights
- etc.
There are a _ton_ of things like this. It's just flat-out legally not possible for an individual to re-create these rights themselves. It's baked into 200 years of legal decisions, and it's almost all rules about how other people/groups must treat YOU.
As for tax breaks, it can actually be _more_ expensive to be married if both partners make about the same income. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_penalty
You only get a tax break when you have the "stay-at-home parent" situation, with one spouse bringing in the dough, and one with no income.
Nationally, it's almost even - about 46% of couples pay more than they would as a single filer, and 51% pay less.
While I don't have any numbers to back this up, I would be willing to bet that most same-sex couples would end up paying _more_ in taxes. After all, they are less likely to have kids, and hence less need for a stay-at-home spouse. Thus, more likely to both be working, and subject to the 'marriage penalty'.
Bottom line, you either have to extend the definition of 'marriage' to include same-sex couples, or you have to define a new label (i.e. 'civil union') and also pass legislation that conveys all of the rights and benefits and responsibilities of marriage onto the new label ('civil unions'), making it de-facto marriage anyway.
rglarson13May 31, 2011
Unfortunately, we live in a democracy, so short of a Constitutional amendment saying otherwise, people pretty much *do* have the right to tell others what they can and can't do, provided they can convince enough other people to agree with them (and vote that way).
psyber1anMay 31, 2011
...umm...it's a "Representative Republic" that we live in...
...NOT a democracy...thankfully...
johnn11238Jun 1, 2011
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
crosstime_saloonJun 1, 2011
And what kind of Democracy is it when there are two wolves and a herd of sheep, but the wolves control the ballot box and announce the count. Current polls show that a greater portion of Americans favor allowing gays to marry; however, those in power are preventing this from taking place.
rglarson13Jun 1, 2011
+1 to you, sir, for being correct. But I'd say my point still stands -- the "representative" part of our representative republic is theoretically supposed to vote according to the whims of their constituency.
psyber1anJun 2, 2011
...the maps tell the tale, do they not...?
cr0shJun 3, 2011
...and those same "representatives" are supposed to know when to be just and uphold the Constitution, even if it runs counter to the wants of their constituency (and their chances of re-election) - because it is the right and just thing to do.
cmwh1teJun 1, 2011
Yes, however Prop 8 and similar bills were handed directly to the people to decide (I mean before being hijacked by extremist judges and whatnot).
psyber1anJun 2, 2011
Yeah...we should let the public decide who can and can't make the most serious commitment of their lives...right...
The courts will overturn it for the blatant discrimination it is...no one should have a say but those two people...
rgb86Jun 3, 2011
You mention extremists judges (which is, of course, total bulls**t; would you consider him an extremist judge if he were a Christian fundamentalist and ruled in favor of Prop 8?), but what about when the bill was hijacked by an extremist hate group? That would be the Latter Day Saints, a group based in another state that launched a multi-million dollar hate campaign against homosexuals in order to sway the vote. If not for all the blatant bulls**t they spouted, the vote would certainly have turned out differently. Hell, if you held another vote this very day, it'd still turn out in favor of gay marriage.
cmwh1teJun 3, 2011
@rgb86, I'm not saying Prop 8 should or should not have passed, I'm saying that in this case we actually do have a directly democratic system for making these decisions. As far as the judge comment, I'm pointing out that the problem with this democratic process is that it is insufficiently protected and honored.
ndreeeJun 2, 2011
Not true. The people have been against every civil rights victory this country has ever had. We can thank our government for them.
neotechniMay 31, 2011
"I'm a Christian and I believe homosexually is morally wrong. "
I'm an Atheist and I believe that religion is morally wrong
rotundoMay 31, 2011
You think it is morally wrong to believe in things you can't prove? I'm an atheist and I don't understand that comment.
markwu121May 31, 2011
are you saying its great for people to believe in things that they cant prove? i honestly do not understand YOUR comment
dizkokiddMay 31, 2011
I'm and Atheist and you guys lost me at "I believe"
/s
bakundwabMay 31, 2011
lol --i'm with you, dude
jordanhardingMay 31, 2011
I'm pretty sure Atheists "believe" there is no god just as much as Christians "believe" there is one... believing something doesn't exist is still "believing" for all intents and purposes.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
noctechJun 1, 2011
I have to admit, that was funny
puttputtfpsJun 3, 2011
@jordanharding ahem, research atheism sometime. You are incorrect. This is very old ground.
betteroffedMay 31, 2011
He didn't say anything was great. He said he doesn't understand the assertion that believing in things you can't prove is morally wrong.
(I'm agnostic.)
(As if that f**king matters.)
...
mcdrunkin2May 31, 2011
Im an assh**e and I think moral's are wrong...
betteroffedMay 31, 2011
I'm a grammar nazi and I don't understand why you made "moral's" possessive.
simonjester666Jun 1, 2011
Everyones Agnostic, How could you know? None of us know. The question is "Do you believe in God right now?" If the answer is no then I think you are an Atheist. There is Theist and Atheist, Agnostic is not in-between the two, it is something else entirely.
- poorly quoted from Penn J-
stk198323May 31, 2011
Just so you understand:
If you DON'T believe there is something bigger then us (i.e.: God), then MORALLY you can't think that it's wrong to believe in such a thing.
For example, can you morally believe it is wrong to say it's morally wrong to believe in flying cows?
You can't prove flying cows exist so you can't prove it's morally wrong to believe in them since to you this very concept does not exist.
Sorry if this seems as confusing as what I was trying to explain but I guess my skills in my second language isn't as polished as I thought.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
kallistiMay 31, 2011
You don't have to believe in God to have morals.
Atheists' morals don't come from a fear that God will punish them. They come from an innate sense of what is right.
Many atheists give to charities or go help in their community. They follow their own consciences, not the laws of a religion.
People of religion also give to charities or go help in their community. Does that mean they lie, cheat, and steal less than atheists? Not necessarily.
The question is: Why do some people of religion go against their very belief system of morals and then criticize those who don't have a belief system and still follow morals?
Belief is a strange thing. It's not dependent on a higher power. It's dependent on the person who believes.
For the record, and if it matters, I'm not an atheist. :)
stk198323May 31, 2011
*facepalm*
Did you read my post? I never said you can't have moral without religion but that you can't say it's morally wrong to be morally wrong about something which FOR YOU doesn't exist.
Of course morale and religion has nothing to do with one another (in terme of existence, you can have one without the other, both or none).Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
stk198323May 31, 2011
Edit time over....
To put it maybe more easily understandable:
You can't be against something which (for you) doesn't exist.
deathray2kJun 1, 2011
I think you're wrong, because no one's saying God is morally wrong (although if he does exist, there's a good case for that), they're saying that belief in God is morally wrong, and that is something that certainly does exist.
jjbradyJun 1, 2011
Religious people base their morals on whether they think they are pleasing or displeasing God.
This is utterly insane.
You can justify anything with this irrational logic.
routhyMay 31, 2011
No it's more morally wrong to fool people into believing lies that you know are false by feeding on their hopes and desperations and leading them to your collections plate so you can not only feed off them in their hour of need, but also live a tax free life. Religious leaders are more often criminals than actual caring people. I'm not saying all, Ghandi and Mother Theresa are of course shining examples of humanity at its finest. However it is also important to realize that it was not their religions that made them great, it was their sense of morality. Humanity would be much farther ahead if there were no organized religions. If we were all taught a strong moral system and allowed to believe what we wanted then the world would be a happier place. Then again, women wouldn't be raped, people wouldn't be shot and stupid 'I think this just because I believe it and have no facts to prove it's wrong' arguments would not even exist, thus making things like same sex marriage legal.
simonjester666Jun 1, 2011
Just to further your point
Ghandi: was a racist, he spoke poorly of Blacks and lower class Indians. "Ours is one continued struggle against degradation sought to be inflicted upon us by the European, who desire to degrade us to the level of the raw Kaffir, whose occupation is hunting and whose sole ambition is to collect a certain number of cattle to buy a wife with, and then pass his life in indolence and nakedness." "The Raw Kaffir" - Gandhi Describing the Blacks
Mother Theresa: During the Aids epidemic she refused birth control on people, she preached that poverty was the way to heaven "Millions of people died because of [Mother Theresa's] work, and millions more were made poorer, stupider, more sick, more diseased, more fearful and more ignorant." -Christopher Hitchens-
EKnight74Jun 1, 2011
I would have to disagree with your statement that Humanity would be much farther ahead (I am assuming you mean technologically). While religion may have played a role in the fall of Rome it was not the primary cause. During the Dark ages, the church was the primary repository and source of scientific knowledge. The basis for our understanding of modern heredity, chemistry, and astronomy (just to name a few) were either direct results of church activity, or were benefitted by major contributions from religions. The church does tend to push back against any percieved major change (religion tends to be conservative when it comes to change) but it was and still is a net positive (IMHO) when it comes to Science.
mcdrunkin2Jun 2, 2011
I think religion is ONE of mankinds problems however removing it will not breed a utopia.
"If we were all taught a strong moral system and allowed to believe what we wanted then the world would be a happier place"
really? what about Dahmer or Manson or Genghis Kahn or John Wayne Gacy... oh yeah Gacy was very moral helping out at the hospital and making people laugh (except the ones he raped and killed)
religion is often a convieniant escape "god told me to" or "they were filthy sinners" when the truth is some people are just f**king crazy... sorry blame whatever you want it wont change a thing.
voydangelMay 31, 2011
Yes. He must not believe in gravity either since it is, technically, not provable as of yet.
FallteaJun 1, 2011
Ummm pretty sure the idea of gravity is easily provable ... I don't think as of yet I have seen a person float off, so we know something is keeping us here. The very mechanism causing it may be unknown but believe me gravity is very real ... and hurts.
mcdrunkin2Jun 2, 2011
prove it.
elijah54594May 31, 2011
I am spiritually and religiously open, that being said, you can't prove anything either. I have no problem letting people believe what they want. Devout atheists that constantly attack those who are religious and believe in something they cannot definitely prove are every ounce as bad as the worst Christian bible thumpers. Quit telling people what they can and can't believe in and stay out of it. It is so hypocritical it makes my blood boil.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
chadster1000Jun 1, 2011
I'm sorry but when peoples' very perception of reality rests upon a faith-based foundation; especially one revolving around reward and punishment....It's not "bad" to have a problem with it. When people fear homosexuality because of a book, or find the motivation for war in a book promoting peace, I have a problem. There are plenty of religious people that are reasonable, but the ones who preach to others, use fear to exploit the weak-minded, and let their faith shape their identity have the potential to be some of the worst people on the planet. I don't know any atheists that attack people for simply believing; only for blindly and stupidly filtering every aspect of reality through a religious tomb.
simonjester666Jun 1, 2011
So you would be open to removing some states laws that deny Atheists the same rights as Theists? I think that is what most "Devout Atheists" are trying to accomplish. We want it to be equal, we want representation. We are going through the same thing that Blacks have been through and the Gays are fighting for. I'm all for "Love the Man, Hate the religion" and encourage others to act the same but I will not be quiet. Believe what you want, just dont impose your beliefs in our laws, that is what I am saying.
mcdrunkin2Jun 2, 2011
I'll listen to your views on laws when you stop bitching about Christmas. Im not even a practicing relious person but for f**k's sake noone ever said you cant put an "atheist nativity scene" (picture that go on try it I'll wait... better? o.k. lets move one) up but how dare you tell me I cant put my display up. Please you got something against the city hall christmas tree say what you want... say while climbing the tree but stop making a happy season for so many so miserable... Merry Christmas even in June
simonjester666Jun 2, 2011
What Atheist bitches about Christmas? Certainly not me, I love Christmas! And why would they not want you to put your display up? The nativity scene is a wonderful story to tell children just like Santa . The tree is a pagan symbol and always has been, I have no problems with that either. It has been a world holiday for much longer than Christianity has been around, I grew up calling it Christmas and no matter what it means to me personally, I think we should keep the name. Now can we talk about some of those laws?
cactusjack901May 31, 2011
Belief in a god and religion are two different things. I have no problem with the belief in a god. Religion, on the other hand, is a horrible corruption of what it claims to stand for, and can only get stronger with time.
Closed AccountJun 1, 2011
Stop living under a rock?
icarus19Jun 6, 2011
Then you my friend, like MOST Christians, don't get understand Christianity.
belbaridMay 31, 2011
Thank you. I'm getting sick and tired of Christians forgetting that whatever God thinks of homosexuals- and it's not what the asshats at Westboro think- He really has a low opinion of people acting like a douchbag in his name.
unattendedpancaMay 31, 2011
Really? God rewards people that act like douchebags in his name.
rglarson13May 31, 2011
Please explain. Your inflamatory, unsupported assertion has me waiting with bated breath.
unattendedpancaMay 31, 2011
My source is the Bible. You telling me Abraham almost sacrificing his son because a voice in his head told him to do it and be rewarded ISN'T the epitome of douchebaggery?
rglarson13Jun 1, 2011
No, it's not: what if his son was the epitome of douchebaggery, and needed to be sacrificed, for the rest of the world to avoid popped collars and poorly concealed sexual identity crises?
Also, Ephesians 34:20 says, "Whatever the hell Unattended Pancakes says, he's probably wrong."
Your amateur interpretation of an event taken out of context isn't exactly a persuasive or cogent argument.
unattendedpancaJun 1, 2011
I understand the Bible more than you could ever dream. Granted Abraham is a weak example, but I really don't have the time, the care or the effort to list the 200+ some amounts of prominent diety-supported douchebaggery. Things like keeping women segregating, keeping and beating slaves as long as they are of a different tribe (skin color), slaughtering your young if they disobey you. Etc, etc, etc.
Also, you are forgetting the passage from Isaac 18:36 "Do not doubt the unattended doubters, for by their conscious shall our souls be cleansed."
chadster1000Jun 1, 2011
Let's just hope society avoids any modern Abrahams.
netmongerMay 31, 2011
christ isnt real and there is nothing 'morally wrong' with homosexuality, in fact its quite common among many species of life on the planet. There were many religions that came before christianity, and they'll probably be many more that come after its long gone. Its 2011 - its time for the fairy tale nonsense to stop. <sigh>
belbaridMay 31, 2011
Actually, both the historical and archeological evidence of Jesus' life is sufficient to the point that it takes greater faith to believe in his nonexistence than it does his divinity. And "morals" are largely a matter of opinion- assuming that any one set is definitive is what went wrong in the first place.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
nairebisMay 31, 2011
I don't know if you meant "existence" when you wrote "divinity". There is a reasonable amount of evidence for the historical existence of Jesus (though, not nearly to the level of certainty). But I wouldn't necessarily disagree with you about that.
On the other hand, the evidence for the *divinity* of Jesus is absolutely nonexistent.
sniperhareMay 31, 2011
Because the notion of Jesus Christ being God and not the son of God was invented to help convert pagans so the Catholic church could get more followers and thus more money and influence.
chrisd80Jun 1, 2011
Its impossible to prove divinity exists until you prove the divine exists... Jesus was just a man who was good at marketing
crosstime_saloonJun 1, 2011
The Babel fish is small, yellow, leechlike, and probably the oddest thing in the Universe. It feeds on brainwave energy received not from its own carrier but from those around it. It absorbs all unconscious mental frequencies from this brainwave energy to nourish itself with. It then excretes into the mind of its carrier a telepathic matrix formed by combining the conscious thought frequencies with nerve signals picked up from the speech centers of the brain which has supplied them. The practical upshot of all this is that if you stick a Babel fish in your ear you can instantly understand anything said to you in any form of language. The speech patterns you actually hear decode the brainwave matrix which has been fed into your mind by your Babel fish.
Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the NON-existence of God.
The argument goes like this:
`I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, `for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'
`But,' says Man, `The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.'
`Oh dear,' says God, `I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly disappears in a puff of logic.
`Oh, that was easy,' says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.
Most leading theologians claim that this argument is a load of dingo's kidneys, but that didn't stop Oolon Colluphid making a small fortune when he used it as the central theme of his best-selling book, "Well, That about Wraps It Up for God."
Meanwhile, the poor Babel fish, by effectively removing all barriers to communication between different races and cultures, has caused more and bloodier wars than anything else in the history of creation.
cmwh1teJun 1, 2011
- Douglas Adams
(credit where credit is due)
rglarson13Jun 1, 2011
Polygamy is quite common among many species of life on the planet. It's time for whatever monogamous nonsense is going on to stop.
deathray2kJun 1, 2011
Monogamy isn't nearly as useful, important, or widespread as it used to be. You're right, it is time for more polygamy!
po43292May 31, 2011
*breaks
po43292May 31, 2011
The love of God is not in homosexual relationships. Don't call yourself a Christian if you believe it is. It's hypocrisy.
source: http://bible.org/article/homosexuality-christian-perspectiveComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
po43292May 31, 2011
homosexuality "shall not inherit the kingdom of God" (I Corinthians 6:9; 10)
nairebisMay 31, 2011
Your point had nothing to do with the poster's point. Why is it so hard for Christians (and Muslims, for that matter, who seem to share the same belief) to understand the difference between YOU living the life you want, and forcing others through government power and control to live their lives according to your religion? This is actually a serious question. Why is not enough for you to have religious freedom? Why can't you allow others to live their lives in a way that doesn't affect you in the slightest way?
Closed AccountJun 1, 2011
You appear to believe this:
"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination." (Leviticus 18:22)
If so, shouldn't you believe this as well?
"For everyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother. His blood shall be upon him." (Leviticus 20:9)
rgb86Jun 1, 2011
Even better, let's go for the same level of sin--"abomination"--and even keep it in the same book!
Leviticus 11:
10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.
Both abominations from Leviticus, so being gay is no worse than eating lobster!
jhbarrJun 1, 2011
Hell, go two verses before:
Leviticus 18:20
Do not have sexual relations with your neighbor’s wife and defile yourself with her.
How many politicians does that describe who have voted against gay marriage.
ophelloJun 1, 2011
If you really believe that, you have no clue what love is. I know gay couples. They have true love for each other. You obviously have never experienced love.
po43292Jun 1, 2011
Gay love? No.
ophelloJun 1, 2011
f**k off and die. Please. You are the cancer of humanity.
chadster1000Jun 1, 2011
Funny for somebody claiming to be Christian to blatantly ignore the teachings of Jesus whilst simultaneously claiming hypocrisy. Amazing how foolish a brainwashed mind can be.
smigliaccio52May 31, 2011
Wow. You are religious but even when people do what you don't agree with, you still respect them as human beings. Well played.
daronicusMay 31, 2011
I'm curious; why do you find homosexuality morally wrong? If your answer is "the Bible says so," (a woefully inadequate argument, but whatever), please cite the passage that says so.
ravenzeMay 31, 2011
I'm not the OP, but I have similar beliefs, here are some verses:
1Tim 1:
8 We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. 9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11 that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.
1Corinthians 6:
9 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 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
daronicusJun 1, 2011
So let me get this straight: Jesus or God never said that homosexuality is wrong? Just some guy writing letters? And somehow this is now concrete doctrine? You guys sure are a lot more trusting than I am.
ravenzeJun 1, 2011
That "some guy" was taught by Christ Himself. There aren't too many who can say that.
Christians are doing the best they can to interpret the evidence they have. We'd all LOVE more empirical evidence, However, pillars of smoke and fire don't make for lasting faith.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ophelloJun 1, 2011
If homosexuality was wrong, JESUS WOULD HAVE BEEN TEACHING THAT TO EVERYONE. Please pull your head out of your ass.
daronicusJun 1, 2011
Ophello pretty much sums it up. If he was "taught by Christ Himself" that homosexuality is wrong, why doesn't Jesus ever say so?
ravenzeJun 1, 2011
That's like saying it's OK take food that isn't specifically marked with a price tag, because hey, if the store wanted me to pay for it, they would have marked it.
Jesus was preaching specifically to the Jewish nation, where, because of verses like the Leviticus one already mentioned (below), homosexuality was not as much of a problem (I don't want to say there weren't any Jewish gay folk, because I wasn't there so, HTF would I know?).
Paul (the writer of both the books quoted above) dealt with the problem more often because he was with "gentiles" more often than the other writers of the books of the Bible, so it makes sense that he would write about it. While the other writers are rather silent about it.
seksangelJun 2, 2011
the "some guy" who wrote leviticus was the old testament. way before Jesus was involved in religion at all. As a born, but no longer practicing Catholic after 12 years of schooling, the old testament has been deemed irrelevant. NOT christianity. it is the book of the torah, the book of judaism. if you're going to argue religious belief systems, at least get the citations correct.
by the way, "God created all people in His image".
"do unto others...." ring a bell? would you want someone persecuting your love life? did ANY of you homophobes choose to be attracted to the opposite sex? I know i didn't. and neither did my gay or lesbian friends. i'm anti-marriage, but if they want that, they deserve it just as much as you in your hetero relationships.
ravenzeJun 2, 2011
The verses I posted were both taken from the New testament. Pay attention. Also, this thread is based on a comment about being sympathetic to the gay lifestyle, but still disagreeing with it. I'm not out to condemn anyone, but I still choose to live my life differently. Do you see the difference?
stemfishMay 31, 2011
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.
That's the big one. However, if you keep reading in that same section in Leviticus you learn that beard cutting is just as bad, mildew is a valid reason to completely destroy a house, most animal are off limits for eating, a woman on her period must leave the town for several days, people can be slaves, and so on.
This was a list of rules and statures to follow for the safety of the group. The idea was that because males were fairly rare, much lower than current 50/50, think more like 20% male and 80% female after war and loss due to work. While many women did die in childbirth, there was still a large female population compared to males. In order for the group to survive all available males must procreate.
That is why the Bible was outspoken against Gays, they didn't reproduce, and when you only have a few people wandering around the desert, you need every available male to help out.
sniperhareMay 31, 2011
The Old Testament laws that the Hebrews had to follow were ended by Christs death and resurrection. They had to abide by different rules than we do now and that is why the Old Testament shouldn't be taken in literal usage in our lives today.
But homosexuality isn't just about them not being able to populate, it's about them being spiritually unclean. Everyone always seems to gloss over the influence of the Devil and his minions in our lives.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
daronicusJun 1, 2011
So, in your opinion, are all these temptations that are biologically hardwired put there by the Devil? Does that mean that the Devil has the power to corrupt God's creation? Isn't that heresy?
aadenylMay 31, 2011
Here's the thing, I'm a Christian too. I was born and raised Christian. But I believe all these people who are claiming to be "Christian" really aren't Christian at all. Think about it. I believe God is the creator of the universe, the ultima, the omega, the all be all, the most powerful being we know of. Do you really think he needs us to stop gay marriage? Do you really think if He hated gay people, that they would exist? No, if you believe God is all powerful, act like God is all powerful. He doesn't need your help. If God wanted gay people out of the picture, they wouldn't exist. But they do, so I believe they should be able to do whatever the hell they want. Same goes for Atheists, why do Christians bag on them so much? Do you really think if God didn't want Atheists to exist, they would? No, they believe what they believe for a reason. More power to them.
People use Christianity as a guise for banning what makes them uncomfortable. It's not right. I am discriminated against simply for being a vegan and it sucks. I can't even imagine how bad it must be for gay people. Gay teens kill themselves because of how bad discrimination is. And for what? Really, nothing. f**k discrimination and f**k intolerance.
ravenzeMay 31, 2011
I'm all for the "f**k intolerance" vibe, and as I stated above, I'm not the OP, but I have similar beliefs, but there're all sorts of things in this world far worse than gay teens killing themselves over discrimination that God seems to allow.
We can't just say that "if God doesn't want it, it wouldn't be here" because there are tragedies that happen all the time that any just (as in justice) God would not allow, however these things happen, so the only conclusions are a) God does not exist b) God is not just c) God is doing something we don't understand. I prefer to believe the latter.
aadenylJun 1, 2011
I mean I get what you're saying, but for me, what we deem as "terrible", in my eyes, isn't the same as what God sees as "terrible". We hate disasters, and that sucks, but we kind of just have to accept and tolerate them because they happen. Just like whatever, like gay people. They "happen" and we should "tolerate" them. That last sentence trivializes it a little, obviously gay people don't "happen" or whatever, but it's just in the same vein as me. We just have to accept things and change things that WE believe should be changed, not what we think God wants to be changed, you know what I mean? Do I think gays deserve to be ridiculed, no. And I'll fight for them not because I think that's what God wants, but because that's what I want. I want to help the people in Joplin not because God wants me to, but because I want to. Does that make sense?
I mean, regardless, believe what you want because it's influenced how you see the world. And we all see it differently, so we should all believe different things.
ravenzeJun 1, 2011
I wasn't thinking of natural disasters, I was thinking of dictators and f**ked-up parents.
aadenylJun 1, 2011
Do you view approaching dictators and f**ked up parents differently than natural disasters? What I mean is that I don't think God necessarily acts as though dictators and f**ked-up parents serve no purpose, but I want to, I guess remove them(?) for my own personal moral beliefs. Like I'm not crusading God against them, I'm crusading morality. That might be really convoluted and make no sense, but yeah I get what you're saying.
ravenzeJun 2, 2011
I think I see what you're saying.
Yes, I want dictators and parents who sell their kids' virginity @ 3 dragged out into the street and shot. However, God allows these things to happen, I don't know why. I have faith that, in eternity, He will make these things right.
sniperhareMay 31, 2011
But God has to allow us to have freedom of will. The Earth is under the control of the Adversary until the return of Christ. He uses that control to try and keep as many people from learning the truth as possible.
FallteaJun 1, 2011
you scare me .... how about you let god judge everything at the end ... if he doesn't want sinners up there then i guess you don't have to worry about them.
sniperhareJun 1, 2011
We are all sinners, all it takes to have eternal life is to confess that Jesus died and was resurrected to redeem mankind.
Nothing someone has done can prevent it, and nothing they do after the fact can take that away. God is just and forgiving.
FallteaJun 1, 2011
I don't think you can say he is just and forgiving while also saying they have sinned him and nothing can change that .... not very just and forgiving at all.
chadster1000Jun 1, 2011
I agree with you, but unfortunately you are only a Christian because you choose to call yourself one. It is very un-christian like to say such things. Christians by their definition follow the bible and what you said above was far too reasonable to be part of it. It takes away the whole aspect of social control. They need people to think in terms of good and evil, reward and punishment, and us vs them; or else they lose power. I'm glad you are intelligent enough to see past the oppressions of such institutions. At least you can focus on your faith and not certain ancient methods of social control that have long outlived their usefulness.
aadenylJun 2, 2011
I don't really agree. I see myself as being very in line with a lot of Christian views. The problem is that all these extreme groups are being viewed as though they're the real Christians. It's the same with Muslims. Real Muslims suicide bomb other people. They destroy government buildings. Real Christians sit outside funerals with signs that say "God hates Fags". The majority of us are very accepting of everything and take the Bible to be more figurative than literal. We just don't make the news every day because we're "normal" people haha.
chadster1000Jun 2, 2011
No I wasn't talking about extremists. I have been to many church services; none of which reflected such an open-minded outlook on life. However, if you choose to ID yourself as Christian, I am no authority to say otherwise.
13ryanJun 4, 2011
Why do you think the Christian god is the last letter of the Greek alphabet? The Omega. Wouldn't he be the alpha? Or maybe both, whoa!
Anyways, The argument that an all-loving, all-good being is all powerful, all-knowing, and all-present is an untenable argument. No matter how much you blame Satan, a tri-omni god is still directly responsible for any evil in the world. This is the problem of good and evil.
jbarker6May 31, 2011
It's quite humorous to see all of these people that "morally" disagree that you morally disagree with gay marriage getting upset. It's rare that you find someone who has a level head on them in life. You should post more often.
jrackowMay 31, 2011
I'm a Christian, and I'm right there with you leandrews.
ravenzeMay 31, 2011
My wife has an excellent solution to the problem:
Make "Marriage" a religious word/institution.
Make "Civil Union" legally synonymous with "marriage."
Remove the word "Marriage" from every law/amendment/Constitution.
This way, churches can "Marry" whomever they choose, meanwhile couples can love whomever they choose.
mdmcgeeMay 31, 2011
Why, would the rest of the English speakers of the world suddenly agree that the word marriage now belongs to christians and the rest of us now need to use a new word that means the exact same thing? The simpler option is to get religion out of contracts, civil or otherwise.
ravenzeMay 31, 2011
Well said.
The point isn't who gets what. The point is making "civil unions" synonymous with "marriages" and giving religions a separate word for their ceremony.
I personally don't care who gets what as long as the laws don't care.
mdmcgeeMay 31, 2011
It isn't "their ceremony". Marriage as a concept, ceremony or institution has been around thousands of years longer than christianity and to claim it as "their ceremony" is arrogance of the highest order. The problem resides with their own bigotry and inflexibility as well as abject arrogance and giving into their issues will not resolve anything. Instead it serves them a victory and reinforces their view of everyone else as somehow inferior.
ravenzeMay 31, 2011
"Their" was used as a reference to all religions. I'm sorry I wasn't clear enough for you.
mdmcgeeJun 1, 2011
It isn't a religious ceremony.
rethreadJun 1, 2011
People should step off on the whole marriage to laws. The country broke up religion and laws a long time ago, but marriage barges in on a regular basis.
Got this law to agree, that law to agree to OUR religious beliefs. I'm not "our", I'll make that very clear, this is my country as much as it is anybody Else's who chooses to stay here, free of religion.
Freedom of Religion, want to keep it? Get the f**k out of my life. Buddhists, Islamists, Christians... All y'all. Or should scientology take over, because that's what people are asking for. That law follows religion is a crime.
zendez1May 31, 2011
"I'm a Christian and I believe homosexually is morally wrong."
You, sir, are the lowest form of life that exists, and how you've got a net result of +64 Diggs is beyond me. Digg really has hit rock bottom if the likes of you has such support.
ravenzeMay 31, 2011
read the whole comment, and not just the first line. Then you might see why they've got a +64 diggs.
zendez1Jun 1, 2011
I read it all. Notably, it starts with: "I'm a Christian and I believe homosexually is morally wrong." and it ends with: "Reach out to everyone and show them the love of Christ, no the hatred from your self-righteousness."
Which is just hopelessly and embarrassingly hypocritical.
chadster1000Jun 1, 2011
While I don't think the poster is "the lowest form of life" (there are much much worse) I don't think he/she deserves such a high rating. A valid argument does not negate the ignorance and close-mindedness of the opening sentence. It is the very essence of oppression.
rglarson13Jun 1, 2011
Wait -- you're condemning someone for their assertion that X is morally wrong, by saying that their behavior of X is somehow morally wrong.
Hello pot, meet kettle.
zendez1Jun 1, 2011
They're not equivalent. Christianity is not an innate characteristic.
simonjester666Jun 2, 2011
He got dugg up because of saying the government should have no say in marriage and I agree with him on that point. In effect he said "I dont agree with what you are doing however it does not matter what I think you are free to do what you want" its rare to find a Christian who will say this who also feels as strongly as he does. People must be permitted to believe in what they want as long as it does not effect others. I'm guessing many of the people digging him up actually support Homosexuality and don't consider it a morality issue as he does.
harrisbradleyMay 31, 2011
I'm a Christian catholic who is in the Knights of Columbus. I pretty much stand alone in my stance that Gay marriage is ok... by God. Yeah, you won't find really anyone agreeing with me. There's too much to dislike, I know. That's not why I'm commenting here...
Completely aside from that, I do not forget that catholics flocked (sheep joke) to America because a lot of other counties were persecuting catholics, and America was our safe haven. That was huge, and catholics around the world would do good to remember this forever. Especially a group that I notice growing in my church that is this anti-immigrant (read anti-latino). I can't think of a group more like the one in stories I hear my (Irish) relatives tell than the latinos. We're like the friggin same.
Additionally, it's against our religion to force our religion upon others. This pisses me off just as much as not being accepting, and being exclusive and forcing our rules on others.
I really wanted to say I'm sorry. I'm ashamed of these "brothers" (catholic and non) of mine, but they hate me too. Love is hard to come by nowadays.
SamanthaLilyJun 1, 2011
I appreciate this, thank you. I would venture to say that I DO agree with you, that gay marriage IS okay by God. Although I am not a Catholic, I will still tell you that you're not completely alone. I would probably define as agnostic if I had to put myself in a box, but I believe that if there is a God, he/she has no problem with homosexuality, and also that he/she does not wish anyone to force their religion upon others. In fact...that last bit is pretty clear even in the bible.
You're not entirely alone, nor is love as hard to come by as you might think! :) I extend mine to you, to the greatest extend possible over the internet, by standing up with you and asserting similarity of belief and heart.
I am also sorry for any suffering you or your relatives have felt at the hands of anti-immigrant attitudes. That is highly unfair and has been a long-running issue in America. If it's not one group of people, it's the next.
harrisbradleyJun 1, 2011
:) I like you SamanthaLily
llotzafunMay 31, 2011
Well, I'm a Christian and I believe it is morally wrong to live so strictly by standards established thousands of years ago and not be allowed for our ethical and moral standards to grow along with our level of intelligence. Run on sentence etc, yeah, but I really just want my basic point out there. Thanks.
ophelloJun 1, 2011
Brilliant.
noctechJun 1, 2011
Well said.
g8kprJun 1, 2011
I agree with your basic point, but your message begins to get lost when you say "I feel it's morally wrong" and "show them the love of christ."
You sound like you're using a hot topic to further religion. Why do religious people need to force other people to follow their religion... answer = it's a business. More people = more donations = more money for the church.
gridlockJun 1, 2011
I simply feel that we need to redefine what is recognized by the States. The States should issue Civil Union certificates, and it should have nothing to with religion (who woulda thunk that?). Marriage should be what you and your partner arrange through your church sanctioned by whatever imaginary being/faith you choose.
We simply need to flip the way things are currently done, and take the religion out things that are sanctioned by the States. It would solve a lot of problems.
ophelloJun 1, 2011
"I'm a Christian and I believe homosexually is morally wrong."
And that makes you a blind and ignorant fool. Provide one reason it is wrong other than "the bible says so."
If you actually understood the bible, youd realize the context in which those statements were written pretty much confirms that it is biased and untrue. "Abomination" means "against the established tradition," not "sin." If homosexuality was wrong, JESUS WOULD HAVE f**kING MENTIONED IT. HE DIDN'T. YOU ARE AN IDIOT FOR BELIEVING IT.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ren1999Jun 1, 2011
Some gay people were born that way. You can't tell them that they are making an immoral choice.
"Less Government!" is the mantra our rich bosses taught us so that they can get away with abusing us without government oversight.
I think that capitalism is morally wrong.
I also think that you don't even know who historical Jesus was.
jjbradyJun 1, 2011
Religions have maintained the persecution of sexually alternative people for thousands of years. That is morally wrong.
Just because your views aren't laden with hate, it doesn't mean that they are harmless.
It's not okay to be against homosexuality. It's about as stupid as being against inter-sexed people, or any other trait that people are born with.
badmanajammaJun 2, 2011
GUESS WHAT
Dolphins are gay and other species, has all mighty GOD have been so evil to have inflicted the same 'test' on those species as well?
Voted down because you are an idiot who worries about the lives of other people instead of your own.
puttputtfpsJun 3, 2011
This is a great post, no getting past that. Thank you for being the first christian to ever admit that they don't have the ability to tell people how to live.
But if I may present an argument for why it is not morally wrong, I would like to:
Part 1: Do you agree: "If there is exists a god, and he is not just, you should not want to follow him."
Part 2: Do you agree: Homosexuality is genetic (it is, but feel free to research it)
Part 3: Do you agree: Our genetic makeup is God's design and not our choice.
Part 4: Do you agree: God does not follow any rules on what is considered "right and wrong"; he is God and does not answer to any higher power. He decides what is "good" and what is "sin".
Part 5: Do you agree: If God were to create two people, one with genetic makeup A and another with genetic makeup B, then subsequently deemed genetic makeup B to be sinful, this would be considered unjust.
In a nutshell: murder, rape and stealing are obvious why they are considered "sins", they hurt people. When it comes to homosexuality you can't say that. You also can't say "well it's a sin because the bible says so" as that uses parts 1, 4 and 5 to show that God is unjust. It is my belief that if consenting individuals can enter a closed off room and engage in acts that do not harm anyone outside of the room, this act should be legal.
pookasightingJun 3, 2011
Better to give American Law back to the people and make it actually be the will of the people.
MonkeyFrogJun 3, 2011
If homosexuality is so morally wrong, why did god create homosexuals?
puttputtfpsJun 3, 2011
While I'm not against homosexuality, your statement can easily be countered. Why did God create murderers?
MonkeyFrogJun 3, 2011
Awesome comeback! You definitely win that one!
Needa go rethink my argument.
puttputtfpsJun 3, 2011
That's not an argument. You didn't provide any basis. You didn't establish homosexuality as something that is not a choice. You didn't explain why it's not a sin. What might seem quite detailed in your head came out as one naive sounding sentence.
MonkeyFrogJun 3, 2011
You summed it up perfectly here:
"What might seem quite detailed in your head came out as one naive sounding sentence."
I'll add a tiny bit more info so I dont come across as naive, god created homosexuals, murderers, rapists, etc, but the difference with homosexuals and the reason I believe there's absolutely nothing wrong with them, they dont harm others, therefore they should be free from persecution.
puttputtfpsJun 3, 2011
@MonkeyFrog Agreed. =)
13ryanJun 4, 2011
I think that there's nothing wrong with homosexuality. If there is a god (probably not but that's my own opinion), he created man and woman straight, gay, and everything in between.
However I happen to agree with your solution. Marriage has always been a religious institution and I don't see how the state needs to get involved. Instead, in order to promote families living together, whatever shape or form they take, the state should provide tax incentives for family groups living together. Humans are social creatures and more robust and satisfying social networks including nuclear family type groups should be encouraged. The exact size and shape is something to be determined by the individuals participating in them. Mankind has seen a great variety throughout the many cultures. While each have their advantages and disadvantages, there are many different configurations that have equal efficacy.
If a church or denomination does not want to marry a group because of their own ideology or preference, that is their concern, not the state at large. They should never have the right to do direct harm to individuals, nor should any public institution have the right to discriminate in any way. However, religious type groups and private clubs and groups should have the latitude to be bigots.
burdJun 6, 2011
Less government is *always* the answer? Let's see if that still seems like wisdom after you get a fast busy on a 911 call.
fatumMay 31, 2011
I just had an argument with my very "right wing" uncle about this issue. I think it is simple: treat everyone the same no matter what or it is discrimination.
His argument for not allowing same sex marriage is because it will open marriage up to those that would like to marry a donkey, cow, or sheep. How are those even related in anyone's minds?
dvddesignMay 31, 2011
Why is marrying animals the first go-to extension of preventing marriage between gays? I question if there isn't a lot of latent zoophilia out there.
Seriously, I'd worry more about people seeking to marry themselves or to marry a piece of technology before I'd think someone would want to go off and marry a creature most people have no common practical knowledge of how to care for it.
And to think about it... gay people seeking protection and acknowledgement of gay marriage, they want to be able to be with their partner through good times and bad. If you were in the hospital and your wife wasn't allowed to come see you because she wasn't family... or your wife was dying or sick and your insurance couldn't care for her? How do you just tell a couple, straight or not, no?
mcdrunkin2May 31, 2011
if it could perform fellatio I would marry my seXbox
stk198323May 31, 2011
Just to be clear, I'm NOT against gai marriage and I don't try to defend people who are, I'm just trying to shed some light on the situation.
What I think goes on in there mind is that gay people = weird perverted psycho (again, I'm NOT of this opinion) so the next logical step would be bestiality (and then if they want to push it further: necrophily).
To them, this is the same situation as give them an inch, they'll take a foot. Some people just can't reason correctly and think that anything against there view is a moral attack on them. Just like if you agree with my enemy you are an enemy too: retarded but prevalent in the mind of a lot of individuals (sadly).
Closed AccountJun 1, 2011
It's very interesting that this point is brought up. The popular idea of gay is flamboyant leather shorts with multiple partners. Compare San Francisco to Minneapolis, both highly gay cities.
TWS66May 31, 2011
Tell Him your fine with him marrying a animal, as long as he can get them to sign the paper work and recite the vows.
decayoMay 31, 2011
Your uncle is a moron. He goes there for two reasons: 1. He wants to take the chance to let you know that, in his mind, homosexuality is on the same moral level as bestiality. 2. This allows him to make an argument with no basis in fact, but will appeal to those who agree with him on 1. If he can't understand the distinction between two consenting adults entering a relationship and a human sexually assaulting an animal that can't possibly give consent, then he is an idiot.
pepegsayMay 31, 2011
Just as a point of note: Sex was not mentioned. Marriage was. While in many people's minds those two are linked there are quite a few people interested in marrying animals that aren't interested in sex with said animal.
decayoMay 31, 2011
People like this hear "gay sex" when you talk about gay marriage. They think homosexuality is simply a deviant sexual behavior and gay marriage is simply a sneaky vehicle by which society will be forced into condoning that deviance.
pepegsayJun 1, 2011
I think *you* hear gay sex when you hear gay marriage. Just like *you* heard 'sex with animals' when marriage with animals was brought up. :)Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jmaisMay 31, 2011
I think his "uncle" is a closeted beastialitist<sp>
skeeordyeMay 31, 2011
Pundits love to use the slippery slope political fallacy, and it's been engrained into the heads of many Fox patrons as a reality. It's just not how things work though.
rblancarteMay 31, 2011
"Your uncle is a moron."
IFYPFY
rglarson13May 31, 2011
I think that slippery slope argument goes a little too far. But I was once asked to come up with a rational argument that supported gay marriage without also supporting incestuous marriage -- I couldn't come up with anything.
mdmcgeeMay 31, 2011
Easy, incestuous marriage can lead to children with birth-defects, something; gay marriage will never lead to. Gay marriage as a concept or an institution cannot harm anyone.
rglarson13Jun 1, 2011
Okay, fine -- gay incestuous marriage, only. Any better?
FallteaJun 1, 2011
might hurt at first ...
russianradio85May 31, 2011
hopefully i can help on that one:
It helps if you consider the ban on incestuous marriage as a natural extension of the ban on incestuous sexual relationships. Sexual incest is unlawful as it presents a heightened risk of genetic defects occuring in any offspring produced.
Now the tricky part is the whether a sexual relationship is necessarily a part of marriage. Although im pretty sure that there are such things as sexless marriages (as, im sure, many grumpy men will attest lol), the fact is that from a legal perspective it is just easier to ASSUME that a married couple are going to be involved in a sexual relationship. Thus in the eyes of the law it makes sense to say incestuous marriage = incestuous sex = illegal etc etc.
Now i know none of this is perfectly reasoned, but its along the right lines as far as i can see.
Although, now that i think of it, none of this applies to ....
DUN DUN DUUUUUUUN...
GAY INCESTUOUS MARRIAGE!!
now that is a christians worst nightmare......
rglarson13Jun 1, 2011
I'll admit it's a subtle distinction, but the exercise was to come up with something that supports gay marriage that doesn't also support incestuous marriage. But I agree that you've hit on the distinction between gay and incestuous marriage.
cryinlionJun 1, 2011
I agree with you. There really is no good argument for prohibiting incestuous marriage if gay marriage is allowed. There's no reason two consenting adults who happen to be related to each other shouldn't be married.
Most people who argue against it will argue on the basis of increased risk of genetic defect. But we don't go to lengths to prevent two people from marrying who, for example, are both genetic carriers of Huntingdon's disease.
For the record, I think both homosexual sex and incest are morally wrong. But it's not the government's job to enforce morality; it's their job to protect the weak against the strong.
rblancarteMay 31, 2011
Dude, don't you know - Gateway marriage.
ravenzeMay 31, 2011
Well, have you seen the news coming out of the mid-west? Someone's always getting fined for animal abuse.
:oÞ
Closed AccountJun 1, 2011
Just another logic fail.
Pick some vice of your uncles and do the same thing with it--exaggerate to a ridiculous conclusion.
Actually, if it's alcohol, it make not be so ridiculous.
unattendedpancaMay 31, 2011
She might be my sister or cousin, but it's okay, because she's a woo-man!
sparhaxMay 31, 2011
What I have found with Religious people is that they do not believe people are born gay. I'm guessing because if they were born gay then that would mean god made them that way (and therefore should be fine). It just boggles my mind; There is no amount of circumstance that would ever make me gay ever. People are born that way and we should just let them live their life and pursue their happiness.
UncleTogieMay 31, 2011
I'm pretty sure you're thinking of "fundamentalists".
As a Christian, I'm too busy trying to get this log out of my eye to really worry about the couple next to me with a few splinters.... and yes, I'm quite comfortable with letting them marry.
iclavdivsMay 31, 2011
It isn't just fundamentalists that think so. Your position is considered fairly progressive in the Christian community.
stk198323May 31, 2011
Our last two preachers here were fine with gai couples...
It's not THAT progressive, it's only that we hear a lot more from the anti-gai religious people than from those that are more open to different life choice.
bobbi21May 31, 2011
While you can say his position is progressive, it's by no means rare in the christian community. 48% of mainline protestants believe gay marriage should be legal. (only 28% for evangelicals though). And of course this is american stats. In Europe and canada they're much more accepting to gays even in the religious sectors.
http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctpolitics/2011/03/poll_growing_pu.html
UncleTogieMay 31, 2011
Which is really kinda weird, because this is something I've always considered as *fundamental* to Christianity.
Hm. I've toyed for years with the idea of starting a new fundy sect... Maybe this'd be a good time to establish:
"The Holy Church of Mind Your Own Darn Business"....
What d'ya think?
hackwrenchMay 31, 2011
I'm not sure what being born with a sexual orientation means. When we are born we have no sexual orientation.
UncleTogieMay 31, 2011
So how'd the first humans figure out how to insert Tab A into Slot B?
hackwrenchJun 1, 2011
After puberty
FallteaJun 1, 2011
I'm pretty sure every Slot, Fold, Crack, and Crevice got something inserted to it ... we just found one eventually spat something out.
ajh16May 31, 2011
There is no reason religious people would have to believe that people couldn't be born gay. Christianity holds that all people are born with corrupt desires and are imperfect. Also, as the parent commenter pointed out, under Christian teaching, there is actually nothing wrong with being homosexual, just performing homosexual acts. The general conclusion in the Christian community is that if someone is in fact born gay, they should simply abstain from sexual relations. That said, I agree 100% with the leandrews.
jbarker6May 31, 2011
This is coming from someone who believes in god but also believes in Gay marriage.
There is not scientific proof that people are born gay. Yes there are some theories but nothing has been proven (please show me otherwise).
Even if people choose to be gay and or are raised to be gay (see statistic about growing up with multiple sisters) it doesn't change the idea that it should be left up to the people.
In all reality it's ludicrous to think that gay marriage won't be legal in the majority of states in 20 years.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
cryinlionJun 1, 2011
I'm religious and I believe sexuality is a spectrum. Very few, if any, people are born 100% straight or 100% gay. Consider this test: if you consider yourself a straight man, who would you do, Brad Pitt or Roseanne Barr? I'm a straight man, but I'd go with Brad. It doesn't mean I'd take John Goodman over Megan Fox. So let's say I'm 90% straight; i.e. I prefer the top 90% of women to the bottom 90% of men, and I prefer the top 10% of men to the bottom 10% of women. I'm probably fairly average.
Some of the gay guys I've known have some type of sexual abuse in their past. Let's say these guys were born 60% straight; i.e. not strongly preferring either men or women. Their sexuality has likely been influenced by their environment.
Some guys of course are born 80% gay, or 90% gay. I would bet most gay guys would still prefer sex (as specified above) with Megan Fox over sex with John Goodman.
Anyway, that's my theory. For what it's worth, fundamental Christians such as myself also believe heterosexual sex is wrong outside of marriage. There are plenty of heterosexual men who will never marry; if a Christian man has homosexual tendencies, I have no issue with that. It's acting on sexual impulses without a Biblically approved marriage that I would consider a sin. And of course, I wouldn't hold a non-Christian to that standard.
SamanthaLilyJun 1, 2011
I disagree with you, sir, in that acting on those tendencies is morally wrong (I am completely okay with it), but I appreciate your logic and your honesty. You make sense in your reasoning, it is merely the part of it which is opinion that I disagree with, and that's what opinions are for, right? :)
theimmortalmooMay 31, 2011
The Right to peruse happiness, too bad everyone has their nose stuck so far up other peoples business.
If a couple is happy being gay, let them, why should it matter to YOU what that couple does, IT'S BETWEEN THEM not you!
Closed AccountMay 31, 2011
I've asked the same question many times. All I've gotten as an answer are a bunch of quotes from the bible. They don't seem to understand that they'll have to do alot better than quoting scripture from a book of myths, to make me see why 2 people shouldn't be happy together.
benjie25May 31, 2011
By definition gays are happy. It's those insecure people who are trying to make them feel un-gay :*(
ridgerunner5May 31, 2011
Is there a source on these maps?
youaretooMay 31, 2011
Gay marriage is going to be legalized everywhere sooner than later, so why even bother fighting it at all? History is not going look back kindly on the people who opposed gay marriage. They are going to be seen the same way we now see people who were against segregation.
notachickenhawkMay 31, 2011
I suspect you'll find many of the people who oppose gay marriage don't have such a negative opinion of those who opposed segregation. Bigotry knows no boundaries in time, one form of bigotry just evolves into another.
eatthebrainJun 1, 2011
This.
trax4321May 31, 2011
So if your Gay and want to marry your first cousin, your laughing....
ZombieYakuzaMay 31, 2011
Gay first cousins can marry in Vermont haha.
banderwockyMay 31, 2011
Haha! So this is what they mean by 'family values'!
novenatorMay 31, 2011
Iowa might turn back to black soon. The social conservatives there had a HUGE campaign to oust every member of the Iowa Supreme Court who voted in favor of LGBT equal marriage rights in the last election (even though judicial elections are supposed to be non-partisan events).
Frakkin homophobes and their hatred.
arh61May 31, 2011
they are nor afraid of homosexuals, they are disgusted by their abominable behavior
ikorkyiMay 31, 2011
just like radical Muslims are disgusted by our abominable behavior - like treating women as equals.
different can, same seasoning.
willystyle04May 31, 2011
perfect reply...couldn't have said it better!
Unregistered_CowardMay 31, 2011
And yet those bastions of liberalism, California and New York remain solidly black, having never even lightened up just a wee bit.
Doesn't that just ball your little fists in rage, Novie? That a little red state in the middle of America's heartland, those broad, wide open spaces inhabited by the evil conservative farmers, people who might worship, red-necks and knuckle-draggers would actually have passed legislation affirming the right to pursue happiness. Damn that's got be irritating.
And the Republican leader on the Iowa House has basically said they've got better things to do than worrying about trying to evict sitting judges.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/25/iowa-gop-divided-push-impeach-judges-sex-marriage-case/
Maybe your anger would be better focused on those liberals leaders who just can't seem to get the job done.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ikorkyiMay 31, 2011
deflection by the book
what you're basically saying is - yeah its f**ked up that they are trying to evict judges - even so that there is factions of the GOP splitting to say "hey this is stupid." So although you evidently don't like novenator - you're agreeing with him.
Then you try to say that "well liberals are doing this..." therefore the topic of discussion is....invalid? this only works on the 50% <100 IQ.
theonewhoknowsMay 31, 2011
What a stupid thing to have said.
Unregistered_CowardMay 31, 2011
Really? Don't you think that people like Novenator's time would be better spent putting pressure on those groups who haven't enacted gay-rights support? Why are the states of New York and California, solidly blue and home to the largest gay communities not even close to enacting legislation?
But rather than pull back the covers on the failure of those Democratically controlled states, Novenator goes for the easy target, in this case some far-righties in a state that has gay-rights and where there is actually no concern of those rights being revoked. Novie operates by deflection, liberal failure is always the fault of someone else, no matter how far the reach.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
theonewhoknowsMay 31, 2011
Yes, really.
By the way, the problem in any of those states to enact the right legislation is not a result of the "liberals." Rather, it is some other group within those states who seem to have an aversion to equal rights and individual freedoms.
breadfredMay 31, 2011
I think you can spend YOUR time better then dragging Novenator thought the mud and actually doing something about equality for everyone - regardless of gender, race, religion or dog-ownership.
stemfishMay 31, 2011
California is nowhere close to legalizing gay marriage?
Remember the whole Prop 8 in 2008? That failed by the smallest of margins, and likely will pass in the next election cycle.
It failed yes, but the courts ruled that while there could be no new marriages, the ones in existence would stand. Out here just about everyone at least tolerates it, and those that don't are just an outspoken minority.
Visit San Francisco sometime soon, and then tell me that at least the northern half of the state isn't ready for this to happen.
rgb86Jun 1, 2011
You make a good point, but you have a few small details reversed. Prop 8 did pass (not failed, as you said), and the proposition was to ban gay marriage (instead of allowing it). It passed by 4% (about the same as you'd expect out of presidential elections). It's true, though, it was taken to court and found unconstitutional, but we undoubtedly have not heard the last about it.
However, if the behavioral trends hold true, if gay marriage ever goes up for a vote in California again, there will be no contest and gays will finally have equal marriage rights.
rotundoMay 31, 2011
"Having never even lightened up just a wee bit"? -- you obviously know nothing about the situation in California. In fact gay marriage was legal there for a time after the judicial branch determined it was so - just like in Iowa. And then there was a conservative backlash - just like in Iowa. It's just that California already got to the next stage:
The Mormons came in from Utah and joined in the fight to roll the rights back via constitutional amendment. After a long battle the conservative oppressors won by 2.24%. And yet the battle rages on.
I know that there have been ongoing battles in New York as well, though I'm not familiar with them. So your comment really makes no sense at all.
Leaving the whole red/blue thing aside, it's interesting how over and over the wiser people - judges - make the right call, and the mob-mentality masses keep choosing (by a small margin) any way they can to oppress a peaceful minority. Civil rights battles always go down this way. Yet in the end we always win.
Enjoy it while it lasts, homophobes. Your days are numbered. Prepare for the horrors of a nation with even more equality and liberty.
rgb86Jun 1, 2011
People seem to think that conservatives don't exist in California. In reality, though, it's just the largest cities that are overwhelmingly liberal--San Francisco, Los Angeles, etc.--which leaves vast stretches of surprisingly conservative communities.
Closed AccountMay 31, 2011
i didn't know discrimination and hate was "getting the job done." Thanks for the clarification you're a complete f**king retard.
eatthebrainJun 1, 2011
Did you just cite a Fox News article? Oh man, that's a good one.
analogkid1May 31, 2011
I hear banjos...RUN!
tehpyroMay 31, 2011
I think God has a problem with gay marriage when it's done in his name. However gay marriage is done under the state not under god.
My personal belief as a christian is that it is God's job to Judge man and not ours. If homosexual couples want to let them marry let them.
The bible speaks of not allowing gay marriage (not specifically just gay marriage; it's lumped in with a whole list of other things) in heaven. It says nothing on gay marriage on earth.
That being said it's human choice as to weather they want to believe in and follow God's word or not. Why man has made it illegal is understandable under a christian government (which the government is still based on) but it's not our choice to dictate how one lives their lives until it puts another in danger.
Get married, live life. If you wish to do so as per God's instruction do so. If not it's between you and God and it's not my job to stop your free will.
comeonnowreallyMay 31, 2011
I think Gays should be allowed to get married if they want to. I mean why stop them from being miserable like the rest of us?
AllstarstrippersMay 31, 2011
I believe peoples lives are their own to life be it straight, gay or cousin curious.. Marriage is was an "institution" once upon a time but not anymore. I mean how high are the stats today on divorce? A true christian surely wouldn't commit such a mortal sin..
jmaisMay 31, 2011
Ban marriage.
arnaudjoloisMay 31, 2011
USA are so f**ked up...
kartman2001May 31, 2011
s**t yeah, you can't marry your cousin in Mississippi. Take that California
highkickMay 31, 2011
Everything goes in Vermont
twistxjMay 31, 2011
Even marrying your gay cousin.
ryanwbMay 31, 2011
..and everything goes better with some pure vermont maple syrup
rethreadJun 1, 2011
A wonderfully sticky situation, I would imagine.
usherzxJun 1, 2011
Why does the gov't give tax cuts for being married in the first place?
cmwh1teJun 1, 2011
There are 3 states where you could marry a first cousin of the same sex.
rethreadJun 1, 2011
I've chosen the spaghetti monster as my savior. All the others are busy killing off their competitors so they can play monopoly.
I asked the spaghetti gods what I should do... (I heard. "Waves of life will move through the universe as is should be upon your ever action")
I asked, "You're reading this?" I heard. "______________
What did you hear? :)
xrmbJun 1, 2011
damn you New Hampshire and Iowa, cant marry my same sex cousin?
transfireMay 31, 2011
It's really only in modern times that marriage of cousins has become frowned upon. Back in the day when travel was not so easy and populations not so large, it was not uncommon.
Up shot, there should be no laws against marriage AT ALL. Especially not a the Federal level.
macliberalMay 31, 2011
Marriage is a religious idea to begin with and is outdated. The majority of Americans are now not married which is a good thing. It's time to admit that we no longer need marriage and and simply ignore it.
stemfishMay 31, 2011
Well, as a species we do better when a couple stay together and raise their children together. The mother to teach social and home skills, the father how to fend for oneself.
Several studies show that children raised in a 'traditional; 2 parent household do better in just about every field, professional, mental, physical, all the way through their lives.
Not that separated parents are bad, but there is an advantage to keeping parents together, and the reward of tax breaks and the social status of being married seem to do it.
cr0shJun 3, 2011
You do realize it is possible to be in a committed relationship with one or more people, without needing to be married, right?
Granted, there might not be the same level of legal protections as in a marriage (at which point the next best thing would be to form an LLP, or a corporation - though that makes taxes a bear - but I digress) - but it is perfectly possible, and there are many couples (and oh my - triples! quads!) who raise and care for their children and their S.O.(s) just fine...
Step into the 21st century (hell, 20th, for that matter) already!
rayakkansonMay 31, 2011
gay marriage is ok .....but cousins its sick... and leads to genetic deseases
transfireJun 1, 2011
that's actually a myth. do some research.
macbookformeMay 31, 2011
Wow!
withearsJun 1, 2011
GO SOUTH!
And by "South" I mean you f**king rednecks in Virginia, Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, and Florida.
How can Mississippi, Louisiana, and Arkansas not have legal cousin marriage? They play football in the SEC, right?
pacascheraMay 31, 2011
Well that explains a lot about the Republican Party!
Closed AccountMay 31, 2011
Correlation doesn't imply causation, but damn if there probably isn't a link between family interbreeding and retardation.
HURR GAYS AREN'T PEOPLE.
Another case of religious morality being shoved down others throats. This is the most obvious form of discrimination by these religious organizations. The destruction of rights for people wishing to preform actions the chruch/bible is against.
rethreadJun 1, 2011
Just a public service announcement. Basic education is pitiful in the us so I leave you with this. Wear that Goddamn seatbelt.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nY41q2p19yk
I'm not asking. This isn't god. I'm telling you to wear your seatbelt. I'm a SOB that will kick you the f**k out of my car. Strap up or get kicked to the curb. My car, my rules. Would you be stupid enough to argue about safety bars on a six flags ride?
Not happening in my ride. God may be expecting you, just not in my ride.
lisaxuJun 1, 2011
wawoo.so cool,i cannot wait to crazying.
AjfatmaJun 1, 2011
What are we talking here?...gay marriages?..to be married,Next what lesbian?...What happen to future generation?...They can give birth normal like man & woman marriage?...daa aah!?
I do understand how love felt in my heart,but falling in love and marry same kind like what we talking here,gay...I AM STRAIGHT!...isn't falling is painful and again have you gay or lesbian think,how to keep on living with ARTIFICIAL ORGAN /PHYSICAL...is that made your love so ReAL ? What kind of government allow the plan to banish the Normal Human Development....?
jillzamillzJun 1, 2011
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYbBMQ7MNCY
alf86May 31, 2011
First cousin marriage is not legal in Texas. I suspect this graphic is wrong on many other states as well.
rblancarteMay 31, 2011
From a cursory search here:
http://www.cousincouples.com/?page=states
It appears that only Texas is wrong. Their laws were changed in 2005.
araproMay 31, 2011
it actually explains a lot !
neofactorMay 31, 2011
Old poster... but anyways... 1st cousin marriage concerns are myths... http://www.cousincouples.com/?page=facts
neofactorMay 31, 2011
No European country prohibits marriage between first cousins
spazattack5000May 31, 2011
Les Cousins Dangereux
breadfredMay 31, 2011
No they are not... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/4442010.stm
and something more independent: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v266/n5601/abs/266440a0.html
rxh27 days ago
This is utterly insane!!!!!!
http://healthmarket.info/