msnbc.msn.com— "Historical evidence, including legal documents & gravesites, can be interpreted as supporting the prevalence of homosexual relationships hundreds of years ago"
Aug 29, 2007View in Crawl 4
You are going to copy-paste? Ok, I will too:It is shortsighted and ignorant to think that one individual blowing up a car bomb in a crowded street does not effect the people around them, but being gay? Is there something wrong with you? How does that effect any other people? If that person's family has a problem it is their fault, not the gay persons. Some people...
Justified by the Bible or not, the Bible has been used to grant authority to people who burn, torture and declare war on others for their beliefs. Besides this, you are using a straw man argument to try to imply that people who are for gay marriage are for going back to ancient times. The real argument is that people who are against gay marriage say that it goes against all historical president and this is being brought up to refute that claim.
Yes. Having 5 dads and 2 moms to take care of children would be awful... especially when compared to todays norms of having 1 mom and 1 dad, both of whom work so much that they don't raise their children at all and leave it to daycare, teachers, siblings and television.
I'm a bit late to the party, but I wanted to point out that some theologians think that King David (as in, Old Testament) may very well have been gay- and in a homosexual relationship.
My point is that people promoting "Family values" should promote families -- i.e., any family unit (i.e., single parent) is better than none, two parents are better than one, and, most importantly, a loving/nurturing environment is the goal. If you want to place heterosexual parents as more optimal than two same sex parents, that's your prerogative, but to frame the entire effort around that point is ludicrous. The anti-gay movement masquerading under the title "Family values" should be renamed to "Anti-Gay Values" and leave the tag line "Family values" for people that want to *encourage* the formation of families. Do people selling "Family values" honestly believe that two same-sex parents providing a loving environment is somehow worse than a single parent household?
Marriage between people of the same sex is NOT a civil rights issue. The fundamental argument is that the societal value of a homosexual marriage is the same as the marriage between a man and a woman. The argument is flawed because on a macro level a same sex marriage has almost no societal value. It does not perpetuate the race, it does not create an ideal structure for raising children, it does not create order in society, and it opens the door for arguments about legalization of many other things destructive to society.The problem we have in our society today is that we only think of individuals and their personal pleasure and happiness. Concentrating on only the individual preferences of a few will destroy the rights of the many. A society is a structure that brings discipline to groups of human beings, when there is no discipline you have the law of the jungle, tribes, and no collective good eventually. Individual needs should be considered in balance with the larger needs of society.This decision in California will force the need for a US Constitutional Amendment banning same sex marriage. California should have left it alone. But typical of California, if it is wrong they will choose it. California is a model for how to destroy a society. They have gone too far and it is time for an activist approach to ending the madness. One other point: To top it all off, the Courts have usurped the will of the people again and all of those judges need to be impeached. Courts have overstepped their boundaries.
Gay marriage was historical in a marriage between a man and a sexual male slave, if you want to really call it a marriage. As far as the Church considering it bad to take a bath, it was more symbolic in the fact that rich people could take baths in tubs and the poor couldn't afford to unless they lived near water (like in a rural area). They could only wash their bodies with some kind of washcloth. Therefore, the consideration of baths being a part of vanity. But ALL people took full-on baths certain times throughout the year. You obviously get to a point where you're itchy and what-not. You must understand that the Church does not hate the person but the sin of being sexual with another of the same sex. Same goes for a male and female unmarried... Male and female were joined by God to raise a family. Each has strong attributes and provides balance. There are homosexual Catholics and other denominational Christians who are faithful to their beliefs. I have an aunt who is one of them and I love her dearly.
To the homosexuals and "no" voters, you can disagree, but don't be unkind. I think people in the gay community have re-created their own definition of "intolerance" through this.Only when a gay friend demanded that I agree with his or her point of view or cease to be friends has the friendship ended. What is odd is that in every case they called me intolerant. They misunderstood the meaning of "tolerance."Tolerance implies disagreement -- it means that even though we don't agree with or approve of each others beliefs or actions, we can still live together amicably. When we agree, we aren't being tolerant, we're being uniform.It's uniformity or submission these former friends wanted, not tolerance at all.It makes me sad when people are so intolerant that they cannot bear to be friends with anyone who disapproves of some action or opinion of theirs.Those who try to use the force of law to promote homosexual behavior and homosexual marriage to our children, and who would forbid us to publicly teach and forbid us to express our belief that marriage is only meaningful and sacred between a man and a woman, move into the category of enemies of freedom. And that will be because of their attempt to suppress religious freedom, freedom of speech and press, and the right of parents to control their children's moral education.Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and is sacred, religious ceremony. Always will be one man and one woman in God's eyes and in religions. There is no where in scripture where God has accepted or allowed homosexuality. Enough said. I am allowed to believe that gay sex is sinful just as gays are allowed to believe that it is just fine...because these are beliefs. Please, respectfully disagree but don't FORCE the gay minority fringe rights on the millions and millions in CA who believe marriage is between one man and one woman. Just remember that the disagreement goes both ways.
smillsAug 30, 2007
You are going to copy-paste? Ok, I will too:It is shortsighted and ignorant to think that one individual blowing up a car bomb in a crowded street does not effect the people around them, but being gay? Is there something wrong with you? How does that effect any other people? If that person's family has a problem it is their fault, not the gay persons. Some people...
phragAug 31, 2007
Justified by the Bible or not, the Bible has been used to grant authority to people who burn, torture and declare war on others for their beliefs. Besides this, you are using a straw man argument to try to imply that people who are for gay marriage are for going back to ancient times. The real argument is that people who are against gay marriage say that it goes against all historical president and this is being brought up to refute that claim.
phragAug 31, 2007
Yes. Having 5 dads and 2 moms to take care of children would be awful... especially when compared to todays norms of having 1 mom and 1 dad, both of whom work so much that they don't raise their children at all and leave it to daycare, teachers, siblings and television.
jonnytromboneSep 1, 2007
I'm a bit late to the party, but I wanted to point out that some theologians think that King David (as in, Old Testament) may very well have been gay- and in a homosexual relationship.
klayborgSep 2, 2007
You're an abomination of the design.
ekrubDec 12, 2007
My point is that people promoting "Family values" should promote families -- i.e., any family unit (i.e., single parent) is better than none, two parents are better than one, and, most importantly, a loving/nurturing environment is the goal. If you want to place heterosexual parents as more optimal than two same sex parents, that's your prerogative, but to frame the entire effort around that point is ludicrous. The anti-gay movement masquerading under the title "Family values" should be renamed to "Anti-Gay Values" and leave the tag line "Family values" for people that want to *encourage* the formation of families. Do people selling "Family values" honestly believe that two same-sex parents providing a loving environment is somehow worse than a single parent household?
megawhyMay 17, 2008
Marriage between people of the same sex is NOT a civil rights issue. The fundamental argument is that the societal value of a homosexual marriage is the same as the marriage between a man and a woman. The argument is flawed because on a macro level a same sex marriage has almost no societal value. It does not perpetuate the race, it does not create an ideal structure for raising children, it does not create order in society, and it opens the door for arguments about legalization of many other things destructive to society.The problem we have in our society today is that we only think of individuals and their personal pleasure and happiness. Concentrating on only the individual preferences of a few will destroy the rights of the many. A society is a structure that brings discipline to groups of human beings, when there is no discipline you have the law of the jungle, tribes, and no collective good eventually. Individual needs should be considered in balance with the larger needs of society.This decision in California will force the need for a US Constitutional Amendment banning same sex marriage. California should have left it alone. But typical of California, if it is wrong they will choose it. California is a model for how to destroy a society. They have gone too far and it is time for an activist approach to ending the madness. One other point: To top it all off, the Courts have usurped the will of the people again and all of those judges need to be impeached. Courts have overstepped their boundaries.
wildjmpSep 12, 2008
Gay marriage was historical in a marriage between a man and a sexual male slave, if you want to really call it a marriage. As far as the Church considering it bad to take a bath, it was more symbolic in the fact that rich people could take baths in tubs and the poor couldn't afford to unless they lived near water (like in a rural area). They could only wash their bodies with some kind of washcloth. Therefore, the consideration of baths being a part of vanity. But ALL people took full-on baths certain times throughout the year. You obviously get to a point where you're itchy and what-not. You must understand that the Church does not hate the person but the sin of being sexual with another of the same sex. Same goes for a male and female unmarried... Male and female were joined by God to raise a family. Each has strong attributes and provides balance. There are homosexual Catholics and other denominational Christians who are faithful to their beliefs. I have an aunt who is one of them and I love her dearly.
globetrecker1Nov 6, 2008
To the homosexuals and "no" voters, you can disagree, but don't be unkind. I think people in the gay community have re-created their own definition of "intolerance" through this.Only when a gay friend demanded that I agree with his or her point of view or cease to be friends has the friendship ended. What is odd is that in every case they called me intolerant. They misunderstood the meaning of "tolerance."Tolerance implies disagreement -- it means that even though we don't agree with or approve of each others beliefs or actions, we can still live together amicably. When we agree, we aren't being tolerant, we're being uniform.It's uniformity or submission these former friends wanted, not tolerance at all.It makes me sad when people are so intolerant that they cannot bear to be friends with anyone who disapproves of some action or opinion of theirs.Those who try to use the force of law to promote homosexual behavior and homosexual marriage to our children, and who would forbid us to publicly teach and forbid us to express our belief that marriage is only meaningful and sacred between a man and a woman, move into the category of enemies of freedom. And that will be because of their attempt to suppress religious freedom, freedom of speech and press, and the right of parents to control their children's moral education.Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and is sacred, religious ceremony. Always will be one man and one woman in God's eyes and in religions. There is no where in scripture where God has accepted or allowed homosexuality. Enough said. I am allowed to believe that gay sex is sinful just as gays are allowed to believe that it is just fine...because these are beliefs. Please, respectfully disagree but don't FORCE the gay minority fringe rights on the millions and millions in CA who believe marriage is between one man and one woman. Just remember that the disagreement goes both ways.