Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Breaking: California Court overturns gay marriage ban
hosted.ap.org — SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- The California Supreme Court has overturned a ban on gay marriage, paving the way for California to become the second state where gay and lesbian residents can marry.
Tomboys- 947 diggs
- digg it
- intilli4, on 05/16/2008, -22/+86One step closer to actually being a FREE Nation.
- 533n, on 05/16/2008, -5/+23I don't know if it's just me but I really couldn't care less what gay people choose to do with their lives.
- CrazyDave303, on 05/16/2008, -1/+10it's kinda funny how not caring what gay people do with their lives, is some way in part it's being pro. Not to imply 533n is actually pro-gay marriage.
Personally I'm thinking we need to ban hero marriage for all people under the age of 30. Also there should be 1 year waiting period for a license*
*all marriage licenses not applicable for use in the cities of Reno or Vegas- pf101, on 05/16/2008, -1/+4Crazy Dave, I actually agree with you about no marriage under 30 and a 1-year waiting period. It would cut down on the divorce rate! I also think couples should live together first...
- EtherGnat, on 05/16/2008, -5/+1Living together before marriage actually correlates with an increase in the divorce rate.
- pf101, on 05/16/2008, -0/+4Ether, those stats are skewed. You are only counting the people who lived together and got married, then got divorced. It does not take into account the people who lived together, realized it was a mistake and then never got married. That is a far higher number and, had those people not lived together first and then gotten married, the divorce rate would probably be much higher.
- mihai11, on 05/16/2008, -5/+2Free nation ? If this defines a free nation than nations shouldn't be free.
This news is sickening. This is not about freedom, it is about a group of severely sick people gaining power over the young generation thru adoption. - CrazyDave303, on 05/16/2008, -0/+3mihai11: What the ***** are you talking about. Where does letting people get married relate directly to gaining power of the youth? The severely sick people already have power over the youth it's the media, politics, and the larger groups of bastardized Christianity sects we have around here. (other 1/2 assed fallowed religious groups can take the credit out side of North America)
- LeeSoong, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1Great.
Now can California convince the
Nation of Texas to give over 400 children
back to over 100 mothers?
Mormons. The only religion
to face open discrimination in the USA,
by law:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Utah#Utah_ ...
- EtherGnat, on 05/16/2008, -1/+1I don't buy your argument. If living together weeded out couples whose marriage would fail you would expect the divorce rate for couples that lived together to be lower, not higher. In fact a CDC National Center for Health Statistics report found:
"the probability of a first marriage ending in separation or divorce within five years is 20 percent, compared with the 49 percent probability of a pre-marital cohabitation breaking up within the same time period."
I realize there are a number of variables that affect the statistics, and I have no problem whatsoever with people living together. In fact there may be a number of good arguments for living together, but I don't think you can find any evidence that shows living together leads to a stronger marriage. - pf101, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1I didn't say it leads to a stronger marriage.
- EtherGnat, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1Let me rephrase. I don't think you can find any scientific benefit from living together that carries over into marriage. If that's the case, I don't see any reason to *recommend* that couples live together first. If you want to live together to spend more time together, save on rent, whatever that's great. Just don't think it somehow gives you a step up on marriage.
While it might seem like common sense that it is the case (I used to believe it myself) I've never seen any research that supports it.
- EtherGnat, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1Let me rephrase. I don't think you can find any scientific benefit from living together that carries over into marriage. If that's the case, I don't see any reason to *recommend* that couples live together first. If you want to live together to spend more time together, save on rent, whatever that's great. Just don't think it somehow gives you a step up on marriage.
- CrazyDave303, on 05/16/2008, -1/+10it's kinda funny how not caring what gay people do with their lives, is some way in part it's being pro. Not to imply 533n is actually pro-gay marriage.
- jordankasteler, on 05/16/2008, -4/+24Still a LONG ways to go.
- Elranzer, on 05/17/2008, -0/+2Only 48 more states to go. You know that this country is truely free when one man could openly marry another man from Kansas in Alabama, without ignorant stares of disgust.
- Barackalypse, on 05/16/2008, -4/+5Sorry, but we already re-authorized the Patriot Act and the House has already nearly unanimously passed the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act. If you think one state allowing gays to marry somehow offsets this even a little, you're deluded.
- Samohtneas, on 05/16/2008, -0/+4It's a step in the right direction though isn't it? Lets do it America, lets go outside and get in shape! Let's stop the government from using money they don't have! Let's -- !
... Maybe I'm asking too much. Gay Marriage is good for now. - pf101, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1So should we do nothing, change nothing and celebrate nothing because it's not a world changing event? Almost every world changing event was preceded at some point by a relatively small one. This victory is a step in the right direction. If we take no steps in the right direction we might as well just step backwards.
- Samohtneas, on 05/16/2008, -0/+4It's a step in the right direction though isn't it? Lets do it America, lets go outside and get in shape! Let's stop the government from using money they don't have! Let's -- !
- logosx1, on 05/16/2008, -13/+2Right . . . now if only they would allow incest, polygamy, and bestiality, we'd be getting somewhere. /sarcasm
- bowchikabowbow, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1well im cool with polygamy. but how is Incest or Bestiality even related? they have nothing to do with marriage.
- samoan27, on 05/16/2008, -8/+3Sigh, it's one step down the wrong path. Do you not realize that thousands of years of evolution (not modern thought) defines what it the healthiest and most succesful way to raise children. It doesn't matter what species of animal, if you differ from what's natural it comes at a price to the offspring and society (this is statistically, not individually speaking of course). I'm not going to bad mouth being gay, it's your business, but putting it on the same level as a man and a woman when it comes to what rears a family is your way of saying "I'm smarter than nature."
- pf101, on 05/16/2008, -4/+4The smartest way to raise children is in a happy, healthy home. Don't tell me that a child who is being raised in an unhappy, abusive, straight home is better off than a child with gay parents who love each other. Or a child who comes from a broken home where the parents hate each other is better off because even though their home life is miserable, at least they have a mommy and a daddy. You're equating happiness with being straight...that is your problem.
From my experience, the gay couples I know are usually MUCH better and more loving parents than many straight couples because they have to actually WORK at it instead of the "oops, I guess the condom failed" route to parenthood. People who actually want their kids (before they're born) usually make the best parents.- samoan27, on 05/16/2008, -1/+1Double sigh, I was hoping that adding "(this is statistically, not individually speaking of course)" would prevent people like yourself from replying, but apparently not. Now I'm a physicist not a psychologist so I don't know the names of studies off hand, but my long time girlfriend who is finishing her Ph.D in family and childhood development has recited to me time and again of the countless and nearly unanimous studies stating anything short of a mother and father (and that includes straight single parent households, I'm not here to gay bash) show an immediate spike in social and emotional disorders as well as a decline in coping abilities. Now I'm not saying there aren't exceptions to the rule, which is where you seem to misunderstand, but as a society, regarding same sex relations the same way as what nature has prescribed as best can only bring negative results.
- Gabberwok, on 05/17/2008, -1/+2Thousands of years? So I take it you believe in a young Earth?
- samoan27, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1The family structure of homosapiens is significantly different than that of our nearest relatives and modern humans are estimated to have evolved from a common ancestor roughly a million years ago (and all unique attributes have developed past that point). Now I'll speak a little slow so that you can understand, if a number is more than a thousand but less than a million it's measured in thousands (i.e. fifty thousand years, two hundred thousand years). Do you see that common word, 'thousand'.
A little advice: Think...then talk, if you do it backwards you can look quite the fool.
- samoan27, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1The family structure of homosapiens is significantly different than that of our nearest relatives and modern humans are estimated to have evolved from a common ancestor roughly a million years ago (and all unique attributes have developed past that point). Now I'll speak a little slow so that you can understand, if a number is more than a thousand but less than a million it's measured in thousands (i.e. fifty thousand years, two hundred thousand years). Do you see that common word, 'thousand'.
- pf101, on 05/16/2008, -4/+4The smartest way to raise children is in a happy, healthy home. Don't tell me that a child who is being raised in an unhappy, abusive, straight home is better off than a child with gay parents who love each other. Or a child who comes from a broken home where the parents hate each other is better off because even though their home life is miserable, at least they have a mommy and a daddy. You're equating happiness with being straight...that is your problem.
- Gabberwok, on 05/17/2008, -0/+0I really wish this decision had waited until December. As it stands it will probably result in less freedom, not more, because nothing mobilizes the religious nutjobs to vote more than the thought of two men kissing.
- LeeSoong, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1Why?
Jesus was gay, he lived with 12 men, right?
Following Jesus example, he supported both
gay marriage and plural gay marriage too.
After all, he went around and found young men
to become 'fishers of men' to live with him and follow him.
Jesus didn't mind helping prostitutes because,
well, he just didn't feel 'that way' towards women...
I think there was a book about the untold story:
''Jesus Was A Gay Black Man.''
or something like that.- Gabberwok, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1Personally I don't care what/who Jesus did/didn't do, all I care about is keeping the Evangelicals from voting in another Republican president.
- LeeSoong, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1Why?
- 533n, on 05/16/2008, -5/+23I don't know if it's just me but I really couldn't care less what gay people choose to do with their lives.
- Tomboys, on 05/16/2008, -9/+64Digg seriously needs to fix their submission process where dupes are concerned. When I submitted this there were no other duplicate stories... according to digg. After the fact I saw one that was submitted at the same time and two that were submitted 8 minutes before. Since then there have been at least 20 (and counting) dupe submissions. When so many dupes get submitted it covers up other stories making digg seem very redundant and boring.
- stevenscorsese, on 05/16/2008, -0/+6Yeah, it seemed like there wasn't anything and then, boom - a bunch all at once appeared.
- masterm1nd, on 05/16/2008, -3/+2Looks like someone is gayming digg.
- MCBAIKO, on 05/16/2008, -2/+1I commented on a story about this around 4pm PST today.
- pbd1637, on 05/18/2008, -0/+1It is also the submitters. Digg always asks to compare "your" article to any that are similar. Unfortunately, many submitters don't pay attention or they are trying to become famous on digg.
- stevenscorsese, on 05/16/2008, -0/+6Yeah, it seemed like there wasn't anything and then, boom - a bunch all at once appeared.
- cheesejaguar, on 05/16/2008, -6/+30Now if only we could have individual rights without having to jump through hoops at the California Supreme Court.
- jmpeagle, on 05/16/2008, -0/+3you realize that can never be achieved right? You would need the power of unlimited secession which no place on earth grants.
- AriaStar, on 05/16/2008, -16/+53Love between adults is beautiful, regardless of if it's between a man/woman, man/man, woman/woman, tranny/man, whatever. This world needs more love and I'm proud to be part of a state fighting to recognize that. It's hard not to throw confetti out of happiness for the gays who are one step closer to being given the same rights as straight people!
- lukas88, on 05/16/2008, -10/+21All love is beautiful: yes
All love is equally fun to watch: no
Just wanted to make that clear- AriaStar, on 05/16/2008, -4/+11No one's making you watch.
- turkeyssr, on 05/16/2008, -8/+2They will be.
- AriaStar, on 05/16/2008, -4/+11No one's making you watch.
- Y0tsuya, on 05/16/2008, -15/+2OK, now how do I go about telling people I'm married without them wondering whether my wife is a dude? I guess I should qualify it as "different-sex" marriage, or "regular" marriage?
- pf101, on 05/16/2008, -0/+13Why do you care if they wonder if your wife is a dude? BTW - many people think gay marriage IS "regular" marriage.
- xstarsprinklesx, on 05/16/2008, -1/+11If you use the word "wife," people will assume you're referring to a female. Two males who married would most likely both be husbands.
And part of the eventual goal is not to have to qualify it as anything, because it's irrelevant.- masterm1nd, on 05/16/2008, -3/+1Irrelevant is an overstatement. Trivial, yes, but I can think of numerous occasions where it would be necessary or useful.
- xstarsprinklesx, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1Maybe, but in those instances, it wouldn't be a matter of simply "telling people I'm married." If you are talking about your partner, then yes, it might be relevant, but merely stating the fact that you're married, I don't really see how it matters who it is.
- masterm1nd, on 05/16/2008, -1/+10Did they overturn the ban on love too?
- LeeSoong, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1You're allowed to buy guns for self defense,
but women are barred from taking their shirt off.
Free the Best Breasts of the West, California!
Topless Beaches U.S.A. !
The right to keep and bare bosoms, should not be infringed.
(Always remember to use appropriate sun-block.)
- LeeSoong, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1You're allowed to buy guns for self defense,
- 4UIDigg, on 05/17/2008, -1/+1well, since you're into love so much, please don't beat your kids, or the CPS will take them away, and then they might get adopted by a group of 2 or more loving "husbands"'
I say love is great, but long live the NRA
- lukas88, on 05/16/2008, -10/+21All love is beautiful: yes
- heavensevans, on 05/16/2008, -5/+45Live and let live.
- tushyd, on 05/16/2008, -8/+26great news
- borninda818, on 05/16/2008, -32/+13I support gay marriage but this was done in a wrong way. Californians voted for a ban on gay marriage in 2000 and won. Thus it was turned into law. The supreme court can't just strike down any law it pleases. That's giving them way too much power. They have to enforce the laws, even if they disagree with them. The right way to overturn the ban would have been through another proposition. If we allow the courts to have this much power they can truly do whatever they want. Next we'll be striking down laws against marriage between sibling, or interspecies marriage because it's "unconstitutional"
- kinghajj, on 05/16/2008, -2/+30The Supreme Court of California *did* enforce the law--the Constitution of the State of California. If you remember, constitutions have higher legal authority than normal legislation.
- Y0tsuya, on 05/16/2008, -6/+4Now we'll see a voter backlash that'll amend the constitution to bar gays from marrying. It'll win by the same margin as the original law, perhaps more.
- centerblack, on 05/16/2008, -1/+11No we won't.
- solomonsjim, on 05/16/2008, -0/+11And if that happens, then you will have *hundreds* of couples newly married in California take the matter to the U.S. Supreme Court. Then the fireworks will start.
If the Supremes determine that a 1-woman, 1-man marriage requirement in a state constitution is unlawful, then existing similar bans in all other states will be instantly vulnerable to similar lawsuits. Remember, this is hypothetical because the opponents in CA have their work cut out for them to get the proposal on the November ballot, and then to have it pass.
The matter is very likely to reach the Supremes even if the opponents cannot amend CA's constitution. This will likely be when one couple married in CA sues another state that refuses to acknowledge their marriage. The suit will allege a violation of federal law, namely the reciprocity provisions that require each state to extend full faith and credit to contracts established in other states of the Union.
If the Supremes rule in favor of those litigants (not a done deal, given the current conservative slant on the SCOTUS), then all state constitutions and all state laws which prohibit marriage between same-sex partners would **instantly** be overturned, making the right of same-sex partners to marry a constitutional right. - mlostracco, on 05/16/2008, -0/+4If it were the Supremes Court, they'd rule that we'd have to stop...in the name of love.
- logosx1, on 05/16/2008, -2/+0It would be a hard sell to argue that the U.S. Constitution as written requires the States to approve of gay marriages. Then again, the Supreme Court has long since exceeded its mandate to simply interpret the Constitution, and it may very well decide to amend the Constitution on its own. After all, why follow the amendment process as laid out in Article V when a handful of black-robed senior citizens meeting in secret can do it for us? That's how we got the War On Drugs without a constitutional amendment.
- Y0tsuya, on 05/16/2008, -6/+4Now we'll see a voter backlash that'll amend the constitution to bar gays from marrying. It'll win by the same margin as the original law, perhaps more.
- alukima, on 05/16/2008, -1/+16If the law is unconstitutional the supreme court can over turn it. The Constitution trumps Laws.
- pilot3033, on 05/16/2008, -2/+19The whole point of having a Supreme Court is to overturn laws (voted, passed, or otherwise) that violate the constitution. By your logic we would still have bans on interracial marriage because at the time, the constituency was in favor of it. This is a check (and to take some of the other lobbies rhetoric...) that has been woven into the fabric of this nation; we decided long ago that we are all created equal, and while it has taken some time to fulfill that dream, this is a big step towards that goal. To say that this court decision was anything but a right step is to defy the foundation that this country was built on: equality and freedom.
- nkoi, on 05/16/2008, -2/+3CA supreme court ruled that the law was discriminatory against persons of select sexual preference, hence unconstitutional.
- Adelie, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2Democracy is two wolves and a sheep vote on what to have for dinner. This was done the RIGHT way. How is this any different than Loving v. Virginia that said the 14th amendment and Civil Rights Act also applied to marriage in the case of anti-miscegenation law across the United States. Democracy fails when majorities are allowed to gang up on minorities. And you are right, the supreme court can't just strike down any law it dislikes. It doesn't work that way and that isn't what happened. In order for the supreme court to hear a case, it lawsuit that has worked its way through the appeals courts where varying rulings have taken place. Have you even read the constitution? Equal protection means same law for every person and the civil rights act says that those laws can not discriminate on the basis of gender, race, or religion. This means, as the court affirmed, you can't pass a law keeping *****, Jews or Fags from marrying, no matter how White, Christian, or Straight the majority of the population might be. READ A BOOK!!!
- kinghajj, on 05/16/2008, -2/+30The Supreme Court of California *did* enforce the law--the Constitution of the State of California. If you remember, constitutions have higher legal authority than normal legislation.
- pianonotes1010, on 05/16/2008, -13/+45Finally, at least there's a couple places in the US where I can have the same rights and freedoms as everyone else.
- AriaStar, on 05/16/2008, -0/+16I want to give you a hug and beat the hell out of those who think you shouldn't have the same rights I do. No one's business but yours.
- cjflashman, on 05/17/2008, -0/+3I agree all the way. I am straight yes, but I am tired of hearing -LITERALLY- "Dude thats so gay"
...Since when was Homosexuality an INSULT?- AzureRise, on 05/17/2008, -0/+2The media. Watch South Park and other popular shows.
- Gioleb, on 05/16/2008, -5/+41I support gay marriage only if both girls are hot!
More seriously, I wish happiness to all the future married couples. - Namaha, on 05/16/2008, -9/+45How sad is it that authorization of constitutional rights is breaking news =/
- dleesgeetar, on 05/16/2008, -2/+6how about your conservative buddies in the supreme court, think they never interpreted the constitution to serve their own cause? *cough* 2000 Presidential Election *cough*
- Namaha, on 05/16/2008, -1/+5Errr what?
I was commenting on how bad it is that people getting the rights they deserve is considered breaking news...
- Namaha, on 05/16/2008, -1/+5Errr what?
- masterm1nd, on 05/16/2008, -5/+2In other words, you would be sad no matter what happened.
- jmpeagle, on 05/16/2008, -1/+3why do you think we have the Supreme Court system. Every year the courts authorize constitutional rights based on the changing interpretations. SC decisions are always news because they set precedent.
By your view everything should have been settled back in 1787 and all progress since then is despicable because it didn't happen earlier. - FrenchAnarchy, on 05/17/2008, -0/+0Very true...
- dleesgeetar, on 05/16/2008, -2/+6how about your conservative buddies in the supreme court, think they never interpreted the constitution to serve their own cause? *cough* 2000 Presidential Election *cough*
- digitallysick, on 05/16/2008, -4/+31I think gays should be able to marry, they should have the chance to suffer like the rest of us =)
- vmeeno, on 05/16/2008, -0/+3Is this from the movie "Man of the Year"?
- chester27, on 05/16/2008, -5/+24Marijuana vending machines...
Same sex marriage...
Man, California has got it made. :)- Y0tsuya, on 05/16/2008, -1/+17You're welcome to move here and help us pay our huge debt and yawning budget deficit.
- chester27, on 05/16/2008, -0/+7Oh. That too. :(
- wrestlingnrj, on 05/16/2008, -0/+3I'll switch you, I live in CA and we have by far some of the stupidest laws ever. I hope you don't enjoy customizing cars or firearms or you're out of luck.
- cjflashman, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1Get outa here, Pothead.
You belong out here while most others belong in a better place.
(I live in CA)
Theres just to many ***** gangsters. They are everywhere you go. And if you think your gonna be able to sleep, Think again as you hear traffic on the ***** highways in America while the truckdrivers do their hoot owl shift.
If thats not bad enough, Your neighbor will be sure to blast some nice loud snoop dogg *****.
- Y0tsuya, on 05/16/2008, -1/+17You're welcome to move here and help us pay our huge debt and yawning budget deficit.
- shondell, on 05/16/2008, -56/+5Being gay is a choice and you will go to hell if you are gay. That is what i believe.
- pf101, on 05/16/2008, -4/+26Just like being an a$$hole is a choice and I believe you'll go to hell for that. :)
- shondell, on 05/16/2008, -21/+6why? im an ***** because i have an opinion?
- omnibahumut, on 05/16/2008, -2/+13Being gay is not a choice. Thats a fact, and not an opinion. Do you recall the moment in time when you finally decided to be straight? Didn't think so.
- wrestlingnrj, on 05/16/2008, -11/+3That's because we're born straight and choose to be gay. One of my best friends is gay and he specifically told me it's because he has chosen so.
- mhuggins, on 05/16/2008, -1/+5You probably just didn't understand your friend. He was more than likely telling you about when he 'realized' he was gay. It's not a choice, it's a realization/acceptance thing.
- wrestlingnrj, on 05/16/2008, -2/+2That's what I thought, but he told me "I didn't realize I was gay in high school, I decided I wanted to be gay". He's the only gay friend I have so that's really my only experience with something like this.
- dleesgeetar, on 05/16/2008, -5/+11this comment better be -43 when this goes front page . . .
- mhuggins, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2Pretty close, it's -40 right now. :)
- alukima, on 05/16/2008, -5/+24Your an ***** because your opinion is full of bigotry and hate. I majored in Theology for two years and I still have yet to see where it says "gay people go to hell" in the original translations of the bible. But like most morons who use the bible as a basis to hate and judge others you probably haven't read the book all the way though on your own.
Thanks for making Christians look like assholes! - Drogoganor, on 05/16/2008, -4/+18What you believe is wrong.
- xstarsprinklesx, on 05/16/2008, -2/+18Lucky thing hell isn't real, then.
- freakk123, on 05/16/2008, -4/+17You are an idiot. That is what I believe.
- jlous, on 05/16/2008, -2/+11What has that got to do with anything?
Or are you saying people who will go to hell should not be allowed to marry? - beefygeek, on 05/16/2008, -4/+19How nice of you to play the roll of God. Don't forget to post your hate about the people having children out of wed lock, people who have gotten a divorce, who use drugs, are over weight, who use a condom, those who cut other people off in traffic (oh my goodness - that COULD be attempted murder!), and of course my all time favorite; those who judge others.
Have a NICE day! - luchid, on 05/16/2008, -3/+14Shondell: I hope you read the part of the Bible that says you shouldn't judge. Hypocritical christian.
- Breticus07, on 05/16/2008, -6/+2Wow... I thought people on digg couldn't convey their stupidity anymore than they have but all these comments are proof. I mean seriously, you are all calling him an *****. He is "full of bigotry and hate", "playing the role of God"? Seriously now come on he said he "believed" gays were going to hell. Did you even read what he wrote? He didn't say he hopes gay people go to hell, he didn't say that they should go to hell, he said that he believes they are going to hell. As far as bible is concerned, I've heard of other examples but one I remember is Romans 1:26-32. Basically, people who are gay are part of a group of "God Haters." I don't see the connection between being a Christian and hating God...
- UltramegaOK, on 05/16/2008, -11/+15Jesus.....
Buried again for having "BREAKING" in the title. Just stop already.- Tomboys, on 05/16/2008, -2/+2It's only put there... kinda as a joke... cause digg takes so long to let a story go popular that by the time it does it's passe. It's more a commentary on digg's algorithm than anything else. But keep the comments flowing. It seems to be what you enjoy doing most on digg.
- Sharky35, on 05/16/2008, -19/+3I was about to move to Cali.... Seriously!
- slimnickyy, on 05/16/2008, -1/+14That's okay we didn't want you to come anyhow. God forbid you live your own life and not worry about what other people do.
- falafelkiosken, on 05/16/2008, -1/+4And now you're afraid a gay man will drug you and mary you? seriously?
(sorry slimnickyy, was supposed to answer to Sharky35)- charm803, on 05/16/2008, -0/+5It was supposed to be a surprise!!!!!
- falafelkiosken, on 05/16/2008, -1/+4And now you're afraid a gay man will drug you and mary you? seriously?
- slimnickyy, on 05/16/2008, -1/+14That's okay we didn't want you to come anyhow. God forbid you live your own life and not worry about what other people do.
- pf101, on 05/16/2008, -6/+12By far the best news I've heard all day! And I've heard some pretty damn good things today. Now if only all the other states or, I don't know, the Federal Government, would pull their thumbs out of their asses and stop projecting their morals onto other people then the world would be a much happier place. :)
- kingbling169, on 05/16/2008, -5/+34Homosexuals are gay!
- JimmySpaza, on 05/16/2008, -35/+7If you want homosexual marriage, then you have to first redefine marriage to mean the union between ANY two adults. But, then again, why stop there? Marriage could be redefined to mean anything, anytime, anywhere.
Thus begins the slippery slope...- nekochan, on 05/16/2008, -2/+16just make it between two adult sentients so we can get the whole robot/clone/whatever marriage thing out of the way early as well. it'll cleanly bar animals and children like everyone's so worried about too.
- viruz, on 05/16/2008, -0/+4I think dolphins are sentient... But if you add consenting on top of that, that could work.
- spence798, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1I headed up to Vermont to wed my dolphin bride
- viruz, on 05/16/2008, -0/+4I think dolphins are sentient... But if you add consenting on top of that, that could work.
- pf101, on 05/16/2008, -8/+8I must have missed where it was carved in stone that marriage was between a man and a woman. Silly me, I thought that was just the powers that be putting their own preferred spin on it. You don't have to redefine anything when it never had a specific definition in the first place.
- masterm1nd, on 05/16/2008, -2/+7I think when the term was first used, being gay was extremely rare and something that you had to be less open about as well. Words do constantly evolve though. Couldn't they just call it something else but still get all the benefits?
- pf101, on 05/16/2008, -0/+4But why should they? The term lover was probably initially geared towards same sex couples. Should gay couples have to have a different word for that too?
Why should a new vocabulary be developed for what is an identical life choice - choosing to spend the rest of your life with one person - as the one that straight couples choose?
Should we have different words for the same processes that both men and women do? Initially politicians were all men does that mean women politicians should be called something else? (I know, I'm leaving myself open with that)
Seriously though, civilization evolves into what's needed by it's members, language does the same. Why re-invent the vocabulary wheel? - JimmySpaza, on 05/16/2008, -8/+1Carved in stone? Uh, the original laws given by God to the Israelites?
The Old Testament laws trumps 4 activist judges in the People's Republic of Kalifornia.- kayala, on 05/16/2008, -1/+4What "God"?
By the way, you might want to try keeping all the Old Testament laws, *****, not just the ones that suit your ignorant purpose. - JimmySpaza, on 05/17/2008, -3/+1Kayala is not a very nice person to be using bad language and personal attacks. I guess she can't argue any issue, just attack the messenger. Sad.
- kayala, on 05/16/2008, -1/+4What "God"?
- pf101, on 05/16/2008, -1/+6And it said on those stones "marriage is for men and women only. you ***** are out of luck" did it? No, it didn't. It did not define exactly what a marriage was. You and the ones who feel the way you do are the ones trying to do that. Nice of you to try to play god but news flash, you're not it.
- JimmySpaza, on 05/17/2008, -3/+1Pf101 is wrong. Maybe if he actually read the Bible...
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-f018.ht ...
http://www.gotquestions.org/marriage-Bible.html
- JimmySpaza, on 05/17/2008, -3/+1Pf101 is wrong. Maybe if he actually read the Bible...
- slimnickyy, on 05/16/2008, -2/+19This hasn't happened in Canada or any other country that has gay marriage. The sky hasn't fallen in in these countries, there's no polygamy or legalization of child molestation (seriously, someone insinuated that). Thus in practice your theory has been shown to be flawed.
- KhanneaNL, on 05/16/2008, -4/+5I dont see any copyright/trademark law claiming the idea of marriage as a owned concept. As long as anyone wants to be regarded as marriage, or voters elect it as an arbitrary union, go ahead.
However I am AGAINST all this. I am opposed to the state acknowledging this whole idea of marriage as anything other than a private contract. The state should see people as people and butt out of this whole civil union business. I don't want "married" couples to have some kind of special tax status. I think that is discriminatory, either way. I am for abolishing state support or special taxation of married humans. People should decide whatever contract they engage in themselves. We don't need some kind of nanny state to dictate rules on all that.- analogkid01, on 05/16/2008, -0/+5I agree in principle. However, unless you're involved or have created some movement attempting to remove governmental interference from marriage itself (whether hetero or *****), it's in your best interest to support legislation which recognizes gay marriages.
- KhanneaNL, on 05/18/2008, -0/+1For the time being, in this context yes.
But in the long run, I most certainly government do not want my government to subsidize some people using the marriage construct. And we sure as hell don't need more people than we already have.
- KhanneaNL, on 05/18/2008, -0/+1For the time being, in this context yes.
- analogkid01, on 05/16/2008, -0/+5I agree in principle. However, unless you're involved or have created some movement attempting to remove governmental interference from marriage itself (whether hetero or *****), it's in your best interest to support legislation which recognizes gay marriages.
- talonstriker, on 05/16/2008, -0/+5IMHO, defining marriage is simple: marriage = civil union between any number of THINGS (doesn't matter if its alive or not) which CONSENT to the union.
Here, a man marrying a goat will be alright as long as the goat consents....which would be interesting (the goat consenting I mean). As for polygamy, as long as all parties involved agree whats wrong with it?
- nekochan, on 05/16/2008, -2/+16just make it between two adult sentients so we can get the whole robot/clone/whatever marriage thing out of the way early as well. it'll cleanly bar animals and children like everyone's so worried about too.
- tones1, on 05/16/2008, -10/+26Why is California still even part of the Union? They are too rational.
- Neiby, on 05/16/2008, -0/+3Let's not get carried away, now. California is one of the least rational places in the country. But this court did get this one right.
- Lyph5, on 05/16/2008, -1/+10Not breaking if it's already on the front page.
- Tomboys, on 05/16/2008, -2/+1Please read my comment above. It explains that.
- Lyph5, on 05/16/2008, -1/+3Doesn't change the fact that this story shouldn't have been dugg up, since the STORY is already front page'd and top ten'd.
- stevenscorsese, on 05/16/2008, -1/+4Did you know that this story was actually submitted before the one that made the front page?
- Lyph5, on 05/16/2008, -1/+3Doesn't change the fact that this story shouldn't have been dugg up, since the STORY is already front page'd and top ten'd.
- Tomboys, on 05/16/2008, -2/+1Please read my comment above. It explains that.
- masterm1nd, on 05/16/2008, -17/+8Why don't they just give gays all the benefits and legalities of marriage, but call it something else, because marriage by traditional definition is between a man and woman? Wouldn't both sides be happy with that?
- Drogoganor, on 05/16/2008, -3/+6What you mean like "civil unions"? ;)
- slimnickyy, on 05/16/2008, -3/+5Most rational people would, but then again it's still discriminatory. Personally civil unions that give the same rights but called as such is satisfactory to me, but that's just me I guess.
- kelly, on 05/16/2008, -6/+5It's discriminatory to those you regard marriage as union sanctioned by God. Call it whatever you want, just don't call it marriage.
- Neiby, on 05/16/2008, -2/+10Would this apply to non-Christian straight couples who marry? Should we call that something different, as well? If I ever get married again (and that's a big IF) the last thing I want is for it to be "sanctioned by God." My last marriage was and it didn't turn out so well. I guess a sanctioning by The Most High isn't worth all that much, huh?
- pf101, on 05/16/2008, -1/+5I agree with Neiby. For something that's sanctioned by god, it's not working out too well for most people who try it. Perhaps if people looked at it as a contract (which it is) instead of something "god" says is good they'd take it more seriously.
- csw1342, on 05/16/2008, -1/+8Like seperate but equal??
- kelly, on 05/16/2008, -6/+5It's discriminatory to those you regard marriage as union sanctioned by God. Call it whatever you want, just don't call it marriage.
- masterm1nd, on 05/16/2008, -3/+5It was my understanding civil unions don't have all the benefits or aren't recognized everywhere or something? Wouldn't it kind of be discriminatory to not allow anyone/thing to get married?
- lbdinh, on 05/16/2008, -1/+7Anything short of "marriage" itself is discrimination.
Plus, it's hard to make the term "civil union" sound sexy. For example:
"Would you like to be my lawfully wedded civil partner?"- masterm1nd, on 05/16/2008, -4/+1You could call it whatever. If they don't let a man marry his horse, that would also be discriminatory. So no matter what, the law is going to be discriminatory to some people. I think it would be pretty trivial for both sides at that point, and well, it sucks being part of any minority in a democracy. And you'd still be able to call it a marriage and call your partner your husband or wife, it just wouldn't be technically and legally called a marriage.
- Neiby, on 05/16/2008, -1/+6A man can't marry his horse because a horse can't enter into a contract. From the government's perspective, a marriage should be nothing more than a contract between two people. The gender of the people involved should be irrelevant.
- luchid, on 05/16/2008, -1/+4"If they don't let a man marry his horse, that would also be discriminatory"
Are you equating gay people with people who ***** horses? Really? How can you be such a mouth breathing, knuckle dragging prick? - pf101, on 05/16/2008, -0/+6Animals cannot make decisions and the very comparison is offensive. Would it be trivial for you if they told you only white couples could call it marriage and every other couple had to have a civil union?
- lbdinh, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2pf101: at one point, interracial marriage was illegal.
- masterm1nd, on 05/16/2008, -2/+1If you listen to what I said, I was merely saying that someone will always be discriminated against no matter what the law is, so it's not exactly the best argument as to why you need to call it marriage.
- masterm1nd, on 05/16/2008, -4/+1You could call it whatever. If they don't let a man marry his horse, that would also be discriminatory. So no matter what, the law is going to be discriminatory to some people. I think it would be pretty trivial for both sides at that point, and well, it sucks being part of any minority in a democracy. And you'd still be able to call it a marriage and call your partner your husband or wife, it just wouldn't be technically and legally called a marriage.
- KhanneaNL, on 05/16/2008, -2/+9Good idea, while we're at it let's call a "marriage" between two colored people a "negro slave breeding program".
- godzillaWax, on 05/16/2008, -1/+7So, separate but equal?
- masterm1nd, on 05/16/2008, -5/+2By definition, they are separate.
- Qeveren, on 05/16/2008, -1/+1Not anymore.
- masterm1nd, on 05/16/2008, -5/+2By definition, they are separate.
- Adelie, on 05/16/2008, -2/+3White Christian Men and White Christian Women, right? Till 'recently' Virginia said it was an abomination to let members of the degenerate races marry. To call the union of two ***** marriage is practically saying it is ok for those kinds of people to have children. Civil Rights Act and the Fourteenth Amendment were liberal conspiracies for cases like Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 to let this country be over run with degenerates to steal all the hard work that was done in this country by white people. I know it isn't "Politically Correct", but Hitler really had the right idea, and we should have heeded his warning.
- dildoolielly, on 05/16/2008, -7/+36During the last Presidential elections, I talked with one of my elderly neighbors and tried to persuade her not to vote for Bush. She said, "I don't care, I am just so disgusted at the thought of those gays getting married, there's nothing that would make me not vote for Bush."
A couple of days ago, she was complaining about the rise of her insurance costs, prescription costs, gas pricess and that her son's job was outsourced and he was in foreclosure and now bankruptcy because he couldn't sell his home. I looked at her and said, "Well, I'm sure the fact that gays can't marry makes it all worth it." She just looked at me, went into the house and slammed the door!
I'm glad the old bitch got what was coming to her as will a lot of other fvckers that thought stopping queers from getting married was more important than getting that stupid prick out of the White House!- centerblack, on 05/16/2008, -1/+9Whammy!
- slimnickyy, on 05/16/2008, -1/+9Coupled with the fact that he was simply saying what people wanted to hear to get re-elected and knew it'd never pass nor did he intend to actually do anything about it.
- Cubedude04, on 05/16/2008, -1/+4Have you written that before? I swear i've heard that story before.
- rancor01, on 05/16/2008, -1/+5Yeah - Ive heard that one too.. Cant remember where though.
- L33tmaster, on 05/16/2008, -2/+1I concur, that story has been told before.
- Samohtneas, on 05/16/2008, -3/+2Definitely copypasta from a few years ago..
- playuhh, on 05/16/2008, -2/+6Epic win *raises arm up and points hand down vigorously*
- d4ftpunk, on 05/16/2008, -7/+2The priests in San Fransisco were getting bored...
- Betrayer, on 05/16/2008, -7/+5Horray for the Gays, they have another place to call home and Procreate....?????
- arjie, on 05/16/2008, -0/+5Procreate? How? I know a female homosexual couple can manage something with that experimental stuff involving bone marrow and stuff, but otherwise how?
- pf101, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2The miracle of surrogacy. I have 2 friends (one is the bio-dad of each) who have to beautiful kids through this method and they're easily the best parents I've ever seen.
- Betrayer, on 05/17/2008, -1/+1Kinda defeats the purpose if you still need a man and a woman to procreate. i say give the gays an island and let them all move there.. in a generation or 2 the island will be uninhabited.
im all for the companionship a gay relationship gives, and to each his own.. but from a basic biological view .. its not natural. there is no way for the tribe to procreate.
I dont see the point of marriage if you cant procreate!
- Betrayer, on 05/17/2008, -1/+1Kinda defeats the purpose if you still need a man and a woman to procreate. i say give the gays an island and let them all move there.. in a generation or 2 the island will be uninhabited.
- LeeSoong, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1Well a little chromosomal transfer technology applied to some non-embryonic adult stem-cell modified male egg cell, and two daddy or two mommy families are possible. Human cloning technology applied to homosexual reproduction - no problem.
Easy!
What? Were are you going?
Was it something I said ?
I thought you guys said you were 'Pro-Life!' ?
- pf101, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2The miracle of surrogacy. I have 2 friends (one is the bio-dad of each) who have to beautiful kids through this method and they're easily the best parents I've ever seen.
- arjie, on 05/16/2008, -0/+5Procreate? How? I know a female homosexual couple can manage something with that experimental stuff involving bone marrow and stuff, but otherwise how?
- xsquirrel378x, on 05/16/2008, -1/+3not only is this not "breaking" but its a ***** dupe
- stevenscorsese, on 05/16/2008, -1/+1Actually it was submitted before the one that was on the front page first
- lohphat, on 05/16/2008, -5/+14Damned queers! They should only allow marriage as it is in The Bible!!11!!1!moses
Polygamy.
/sarcasm- mlostracco, on 05/16/2008, -0/+5Plus, women were actually chattel and marriage was technically a property transaction between the bride's father and groom. THAT's "traditional" marriage, if the fundies wanna get technical.
- Divals, on 05/16/2008, -0/+5I met a female fundie once who actually believed in that kind of nonsense. She told me that god made women inferior to men and they should be owned by their husbands... I was disturbed.
- Divals, on 05/17/2008, -1/+2...and slightly turned on.
- Divals, on 05/16/2008, -0/+5I met a female fundie once who actually believed in that kind of nonsense. She told me that god made women inferior to men and they should be owned by their husbands... I was disturbed.
- mlostracco, on 05/16/2008, -0/+5Plus, women were actually chattel and marriage was technically a property transaction between the bride's father and groom. THAT's "traditional" marriage, if the fundies wanna get technical.
- poseitom, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2damned only now?
- HumanRecall, on 05/16/2008, -8/+7Not being a hater -but when did it stop being wrong to be staright ? :(
Everywhere you turn on the media, news, sports, interent , newspaper everything and everybody is charged up about being gay ?
WTF ?- viruz, on 05/16/2008, -1/+7there's absolutely nothing wrong with being straight... there is however something wrong with being a hateful close minded fool.
It's just nice to see good news these days, to get our minds off your war, or your money troubles. - pf101, on 05/16/2008, -0/+5It's not wrong, but it's not hot news. Aside from the fact that they don't have equal rights and are having to fight for it, there's no reason for them to be in thew news more than any other group. So, once that happens it should die down.
- HumanRecall, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1thats what i'm saying , i have a gay great uncle thats fine - there nothing wrong being gay, i'm not personaly. I just hate how gay is the new "IN" of the out ( no pun intended )and that it's plastered in all media like i'm being sold something. Sorry just cause i don't mind the word or act of being Gay doesn't mean i accept it. Am i close mined cause i'm not jumping on the gay banwagon stance that most have? NO!
I'm just sick of being bombaried and beaten over the head with it everytime i tune into a type of medinum !
- HumanRecall, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1thats what i'm saying , i have a gay great uncle thats fine - there nothing wrong being gay, i'm not personaly. I just hate how gay is the new "IN" of the out ( no pun intended )and that it's plastered in all media like i'm being sold something. Sorry just cause i don't mind the word or act of being Gay doesn't mean i accept it. Am i close mined cause i'm not jumping on the gay banwagon stance that most have? NO!
- LeeSoong, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1It's illegal to be male in the USA.
- viruz, on 05/16/2008, -1/+7there's absolutely nothing wrong with being straight... there is however something wrong with being a hateful close minded fool.
- KhanneaNL, on 05/16/2008, -3/+5What? The Bush era ends in may already? That's early for him to change from a lame duck into an impotent duck :)
- jameshickmott, on 05/16/2008, -1/+3mayor quimby.
- lazejanis, on 05/16/2008, -8/+8In USA everybody is allowed to carry guns - but in most states people can be married if they happend to fall in love with a person with the same gender as themselves...
Strange country...- iamnotrich, on 05/16/2008, -1/+4I think u meant can't
- wrestlingnrj, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2Actually you can't carry guns in the US unless you obtain a permit to do so, which you can't even get a lot of places. Look at DC, it's illegal to own a handgun and if you own a rifle or shotgun it has to remain unloaded and locked at all times, a lot of use that would do defending your self or family other than hitting them with it.
- Barackalypse, on 05/16/2008, -2/+4Why does the government even recognize marriage in the first place? I believe the Constitution is silent on the issue.
- kinerry, on 05/16/2008, -1/+9Holy ***** people, STOP USING "BREAKING" IN YOUR TITLES!!!
- viruz, on 05/16/2008, -0/+4"Breaking" is the new "Amazing"
- VinnieDaMac, on 05/16/2008, -1/+3I could really care less about same sex marriages. If anything, it'll clear the way for REAL news.
- spavacer, on 05/16/2008, -12/+8The problem I have with this is that a unelected group of judges has overturned an amendment that Californians voted for in a past election. The People of California decided on whether or not to have Gay Marriage. Now 4 people have decided to go against what their state wanted. That's not right. The Judicial system in this country is ridiculous. I have nothing against Gays. Here in Tennessee we had a similar amendment on our ballot. Tennessee decided to ban Gay marriage as well. I voted for that ban, but If it had been in favor of gay marriage I would not have been mad. For I know that the amendment was passed fairly and democratically.
- jeopardydd, on 05/16/2008, -2/+11We live in a Constitutional Democracy. They upheld the Constitution. The Constitution protects the minority from the majority, and that's why it is so important.
Democracy without a Constitution is like 2 foxes and a chicken deciding what to have for dinner.- spavacer, on 05/16/2008, -6/+3The California State Constitution never mentioned anything about Gay Marriage. There was nothing to uphold. It was never a right granted by the state constitution. The problem was that it was not word correctly so in 2000 the California Defense of Marriage Act was placed on the ballot as to give the voters on the state the power to clearly define marriage.
The voters decided as to what their constitution should say which is their right.- Myonosken, on 05/16/2008, -1/+6Did you miss the bit about equality for all people?
- pf101, on 05/16/2008, -2/+3The US Constitution is the one that has priority and it says "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
It does NOT say "as long as you're straight" - spavacer, on 05/17/2008, -0/+2You have to understand I am not arguing for or against gay marriage. I am arguing on how this instance happened. If the voters decided it then I would have no problem. Its the fact that 4 judges that were appointed not elected went against what a majority of their state wanted.
- nogahide, on 05/16/2008, -3/+3Nambla will be happy when their constitutional rights are upheld also. All free thinker should be shouting for joy!!!
- spavacer, on 05/16/2008, -6/+3The California State Constitution never mentioned anything about Gay Marriage. There was nothing to uphold. It was never a right granted by the state constitution. The problem was that it was not word correctly so in 2000 the California Defense of Marriage Act was placed on the ballot as to give the voters on the state the power to clearly define marriage.
- L33tmaster, on 05/16/2008, -1/+3It was a statute, not an amendment. There's going to be a vote for an amendment in November.
- JoeVet, on 05/16/2008, -1/+4Its called the pursuit of happiness and it is a basic human right that transcends human law.
- medieval, on 05/16/2008, -1/+9Do you know how racist Jim Crow laws got on the books? "Democratically..."
Do you know who in the 60's and 70's had the balls to rule that racist Jim Crow laws were unconstitutional? Activist judges... - Neiby, on 05/16/2008, -1/+5So, in your world, human rights are something that can be voted away?
- jeopardydd, on 05/16/2008, -2/+11We live in a Constitutional Democracy. They upheld the Constitution. The Constitution protects the minority from the majority, and that's why it is so important.
- beefygeek, on 05/16/2008, -4/+6Look towards the Budda as his ideas are from the heart, mind and spirit as our own. His insight is older than the Bible and does not teach to put people down for whom they love.
- friendlyman, on 05/16/2008, -14/+7It's Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve!
- jeopardydd, on 05/16/2008, -2/+9wow, clever....you think of that one all by yourself?
- Adelie, on 05/16/2008, -1/+2How about your church stops molesting our kids, and then we can start discussing the origins of life.
- kayala, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1So... lesbians are okay in your book?
- jeopardydd, on 05/16/2008, -2/+9wow, clever....you think of that one all by yourself?
- YuriSakazaki, on 05/16/2008, -5/+19If gay marriage is legal, I want to be able to marry two women.
- nogahide, on 05/16/2008, -7/+2Seriously,
I want to marry two women and I love my brother so I want to marry him to (no problems with genes being too close there since we cant procreate). Free thinkers UNITE!!! - pf101, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2You've obviously never been married. :) And that would be polygamy, so just move to Utah/Colorado and you're golden!
- newbill123, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2Good news then, Marrying two women would simply require being a justice of the peace or a recognized religious leader over the age of 18. If you don't live in California or Vermont, you probably need to file some extra paperwork to be recognized by the state governments as being able to perform a marriage ceremony.
- elamr, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!!
- LeeSoong, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1Plural marriage rights are coming to the USA too, it is only a matter of time.
When foreigners move to work and live in the USA,
and they have say, 4 wives and many children, what
are they supposed to do?
Pick 1 wife and some of the kids and dump the rest?
Some parts of the USA are very backwards
when it comes to accepting people
from other countries and other cultures.
It will be nice when the government stops trying to turn
citizens into Christians. More than 60% of the people on planet
Earth are not Christian and have no intention of
abandoning their culture or their traditions to make
Washington bureaucrats happy. - LeeSoong, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1If gay marriage is outlawed,
only outlaws will become married ?
- nogahide, on 05/16/2008, -7/+2Seriously,
- caponumen, on 05/16/2008, -2/+6Ironically, most gays are too smart to become entangled in such lunacy.
- dbXXd, on 05/16/2008, -10/+8Leave it to California, the land of fruits and nuts. :)
- wrestlingnrj, on 05/16/2008, -2/+3Hey that's my state! But I totally agree with you, I'd leave but the weather is too nice.
- nogahide, on 05/16/2008, -16/+1Nambla (www.nambla.org) will be happy that they are one step closer to their rights given back to them. Let the free Thinkers UNITE!!!
- mlostracco, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2Yeah, because NAMBLA is such a credible, influential lobby group and because there are sooooo many people fighting to be allowed to marry non-consenting minors.
/sarcasm (obviously?) - joebeastie, on 05/16/2008, -0/+3you are a ***** for putting gay marriage and pedophilia in the same group.
- mlostracco, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2Yeah, because NAMBLA is such a credible, influential lobby group and because there are sooooo many people fighting to be allowed to marry non-consenting minors.
- neurotap, on 05/16/2008, -3/+19I'm going to try and be constructive for once, so bear with me please.
I can't see what the big deal about gay marriage is. Even if it is immoral, which I doubt it is. What gay people choose to do with their lives does not affect me or my family at all. It doesn't affect my neighborhood. It does not affect my community. It does not even affect the country. People who think that gays excercising their rights to marry somehow degrades the morality of the country are just ***** stupid.
Gay marriage does not encourage people to be gay, it gives the people who choose to be gay the freedom to marry. Their god given right. Whether or not God likes it, is irrelevant. God gave men the freewill to choose what they want to do. He does not dictate what we can do, only tells us what we should do. That does not give anybody the right to limit other people's rights. That would be against the core of christianity. Treating other people as less than yourself, is breaking one of the core commandments that God handed down to Moses. "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you."
A question for all you fundamentalists out there. In this case, would it be right for somone to take away your right to marry? What makes you more special than everyone else? Who gave you the right to choose what others can and cannot do? Do you think God will look kindly at how blatently prejudiced you have been to your fellow man? Regardless of whether or not anyone is going to hell, it is their God given right to choose what they do and where they go. Not yours. Stop trying to save everyone else and just focus on saving yourselves, because you need it.
Digg me down, I don't give a *****. But this needed to be said and I am damn tired of all the self-righteous biggots posting their ***** here on Digg. Do us all a favor and take a good look at yourself in the mirror and ask yourself if you are happy with what you are doing and saying. If you are christian, then ask yourself if God will be happy with what you did. Saying things like, "Gays don't have rights" is. is offensive to most all reasonable people. It is prejudiced and wrong.
I am not gay. I am not a christian. It should not matter, because I am a person just like everybody else.- mlostracco, on 05/16/2008, -0/+4Minor revision: gay people don't choose to be gay, though they should be allowed to choose whether or not to marry.
- frepnog, on 05/16/2008, -7/+0that is not, i believe, totally accurate.
there are, i believe, some people born gay. it is a birth defect akin to a cleft palate or club foot.
there are more people, however, that i believe actively CHOOSE to be gay, for whatever reason, be it abuse, having been sexually molested, being rejected by the opposite sex, you name it. I personally know a few "gay" people that, simply put, are putting themselves on by pretending to be gay because they think it is cool.
gay people should still be allowed to marry, however based simply on one thing - why does anyone give a ***** who someone else marries? why does it matter?- TBoneFever, on 05/16/2008, -0/+4I stopped reading when I read "being born gay is a birth defect."
...WTF? - mlostracco, on 05/16/2008, -0/+3Wrong. While a select few may "choose" to be gay (and that's by their own definition) or engage in same-sex behaviour, the vast, vast majority do not and are incessantly victimized by the ignorant assumption that it's a choice.
Sexual molestation does not turn people gay. Being rejected by the opposite sex does not turn people gay. Abuse does not turn people gay. Those elements may give people mixed messages about what sexual conduct means and how relationships are conducted, but they do not turn people gay. If that were the case, half of the world would be gay. - frepnog, on 05/16/2008, -2/+0TBoneFever, I have nothing against gay people, and yes i do believe gays should be able to marry, and yes i believe there are many people born gay.
however, it IS a birth defect if you are born gay, because for a man to be sexually attracted to another man or a woman to be sexually attracted to another woman is not natural, no matter how else you want to put it. an autistic person did not choose to be autistic, he was born that way, and it is a mental birth defect. REAL homosexuality is, as well. - Ramble, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2It's a birth defect in the fact that it essentially makes you infertile.
- TBoneFever, on 05/16/2008, -0/+4I stopped reading when I read "being born gay is a birth defect."
- WallyAnti, on 05/16/2008, -1/+2I'm sure some choose while others do not. I don't think this is black and white. I also don't think it matters either way, they should be allowed the same freedoms as everyone else.
- frepnog, on 05/16/2008, -7/+0that is not, i believe, totally accurate.
- frepnog, on 05/16/2008, -1/+0you misspelled "bigot".
sorry.
;) - Saikou, on 05/16/2008, -10/+0To answer you attempt to be constructive neurotap, I would like to point out that we do not “save” ourselves as Christians. We can’t merit heaven by avoiding sin. Christ died as payment for sin, and mere acceptance of this fact and this gift is what saves people. You, my friend, are in danger because you acknowledge God but reject this gift, thinking that the gift comes with a price you are unwilling or unable to pay. Don’t let issues like these unsettle you. They are distractions. The reality is there is a hell, but it is filled with people who rejected Christ, not people who were more horrible sinners than other people. There is not a “purity” test to say who gets into heaven. Also, don’t make the mistake of thinking that all Christians are the same. We are not. I know some people who are gay, and the fact is they struggle with it daily. The reality is that we are ALL called to lives of purity, but not because this will merit us heaven. Instead, being moral and pure of heart leads to happiness. If you talked to gays, you’d know that many of them are not happy, not because they can’t “marry” but because the validation and love they seek is not found in another person, but can only be found in an acceptance of Christ. The tenant to not judge others is often misunderstood to mean we should not call sin what is it. This is wrong. We as Christians are told to love the sinner, hate the sin. As Christians, we can’t stand by and consent to things like gay marriage, not because we hate anyone, but because we know the truth. We look at people like yourself who have been so distracted by false morality, “justice” and bad-takes on Christian teaching that it has turned you into someone openly hostile towards religion and Christianity. The sad thing is I bet you have never bothered to read the New Testament, but are instead relying on what others told you about faith and what it “takes to be saved.” You reject someone who died for you, paid the price for sin, and asks nothing more than belief. Trust Christ to finish what he started. You asked a question about judgment before God. I turn that question back to you: What you would rather be able to answer: That you rejected Christ over a silly issue like gay marriage, or that yes, you are a sinner, but that you stand on the Promise of Christ, the Son of God, that whomever believes has eternal life. If God sent his son as payment for your sins, then being able to say “Christ died for me” to God is more sound than claiming there is no hell or that “others need saving, etc. Lastly, understand that God loves you, that his mercy and love for you every second keeps you in existance. You are validated by God because you live, and that is not only “permitted” by God but actively supported by him. Turn that rejection you voiced in your posting that something is wrong with judging others into love and understanding. Not everyone is able to convey the teachings of Christ, and too often we fail and let our own fears and prejudice seep into what we say about God. Instead of rejecting God, seek him. Get a bible and read the New Testament. Accept Christ if you are moved to do so, and then rest in the knowledge that salvation is not something you’ve earned but was given to you by Christ. All the rest will take care of itself.
- frepnog, on 05/16/2008, -0/+4so what you are saying is that basically -
reject the people here on earth that you love that actually exist for....
imaginary people that are supposed to "save you" from "eternal damnation."
and you call gay marriage silly. poor deluded xtian. the truth is that there is no heaven, no hell, only the physical world that you can see, hear, feel and touch. there are no gods, no demons, no ghosts, no poltergeists, because there is no spiritual plane. people want to believe in god simply because they are conscious of the fact that they are alive, hence, they don't want to die. therefore, people create the story of the afterlife because they simply can not comprehend that one day they will simply not exist anymore. i know, it sucks, but it is the truth, and no amount of faith in jesus will change it.
go ahead, pray for something. i'll wait.
nothing will happen, because there is no god to hear your prayers.
sorry. - WallyAnti, on 05/16/2008, -0/+3Yeah, that's a bunch of crap. We all know the spiel. Pyramid scams never worked for anyone like they work for Jesus's spokesmen. All you have to do is make installments and your salvation awaits... after you die and can't do anything if I'm lying.
How dense can you get? - neurotap, on 05/16/2008, -0/+3Don't try to save me please. Keep your religion to yourself.
I don't hate christians, I just do not like hypocritical ones. Contrary to what you may think, I have read the bible several times, Old and New Testament. I own a bible, and read it daily. Remember, those who pray openly gain nothing, while those who pray in secret gain everything. Keep your religion to yourself and don't advertise your faith.
Also, christianity is not really about saving anybody, because we are all, already saved. There is no need to even point out the sin, because in doing so is to cast judgement. Judge not, lest you be judged. You can hate the sin, without talking about or letting it cloud your judgement.
In short. You sir, are wrong.- Buckwald, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1Wow, what bible are you reading. I have issue with a few things you are saying.
1. Keep your religion to yourself and don't advertise your faith. Ever heard of the great comission? -------And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Amen. (Matthew 28:18-20) ------ I dont think that scripture tells us to keep our religion to our selves.
2. Also, christianity is not really about saving anybody, because we are all, already saved. Again read your bible. John 3 :16 and 17 God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. If we are all already saved then why are we told that we have to be saved through him.
I think you should look at yourself sir with regards to being hypocritical.
You claim to be a Christian but speak like one that has not found Christ. - neurotap, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1Sorry to inform you, but you fail. Failure began when you said I claim to be christian, read my original post. I am quite positive that I clearly stated the exact opposite. Just because I read the bible and own one, does not mean that I am a christian. Since I am not a christian, I cannot see how I am being hypocitical. Fail.
Also, there are many passages in the bible that contradict salvation. Christ said it was only through him. Then he died, for our sins. End of story. After that, there are lots of passages where it states that because he died for our sins, he is our liason to god for forgiveness, and the whole world had been redeemed for all time. ***** it, here it is:
"My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and he is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world." 1 John 2:1-2
These types of passages ar all over the bible, you just have to read it.
Second itteration of fail, is as follows. Nowhere in the bible that I have read has it stated that christians must worry about other people's salvation. Nowhere does the bible say to go out and preach to people. You are not an apostle of Jesus Christ, so he was not speaking to you, he was directly speaking to his apostles, not followers. Apostles were the first people to learn the tenants of the christianity. They were priests.
So, unless you are a priest, you have no authority to preach to me about God, as you are ignorant of his teachings and unable to fully comprehend the bible. That's what a priest does, teach people about something they do not understand, explain and interpret that which is incomprehensible. Even if you were a priest, which I highly doubt, you still would not preach to me or teach me about the faith unless I asked. I obviously did not.
There. Your fail on multiple levels has reached Epic status. Have a good day. - Buckwald, on 05/16/2008, -0/+01st Fail. Sorry but it was my mistake as you did not say that you were, or were not a christian seeing that you claim to read your bible daily i made an incorrect assumption. Let me also point out that the verse from 1 John 2:1-2 is correct. But just because Christ died for our sins doesnt mean we all get to go to Heaven. We must accept the sacrifice he gave for us and believe that he indeed died for our sins. For through the acceptance of that is what truly saves us.
2nd Fail. Oh my friend how wrong you are. Christ said "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." I believe it is very small minded to believe that the great comission was only given to the apostles, with Jesus knowing that the word of God would be read by Billions of people. So I respectuflly call out fail on your part to understand the gosple in this respect.
And no, I am not a priest, and neither are you. Do not presume that because you may have more knowledge about what the bible says doesnt mean you understand what it says. The battle between the spirit and the mind rage even now. Knowledge is not power in and by itself. But knowledge tempered with wisdom, and faith through the Son of God Jesus Christ is where the true power lies. The word apostle in the greek means "one who is sent out." Timothy was an apostle, sent out by Paul an apostle of Jesus Christ. I am a servant of Christ, and I do take it up on myself to fufil the great comission. If you do not want to hear the good news that is fine, but you opened the door to the conversation by responding to a thread that you kenw was religious in nature.
In your eyes i may have readed epic status, but not in my failure, but in my trust in God.
Good Day. - neurotap, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1Touché.
I concede to you sir, on the first portion, as most of those passages are not 100% clear, but then again most of the ones you quoted were also not very clear either. It is arguable whether or not Jesus was speaking directly to his disciples or through the bible. I will aknowledge that could very well be possible however unlikely. Apostles were agents sent by Christ, and of the first people to hear his message. I believe I said that. That is what a priest is, an apostle or agent sent by a clergyman, in this case Jesus.
What Jesus' apostles commanded theirs to do is irrelevant in this debate. And yes, even though apostle does indeed mean "one who is sent out", the same applies for the clergy hiearchy. Archbishops and Bishops annoint Pastors, which are Priests and Archpriests, Deacons are next and lowest in this scale. Each does the bidding of their higher, which is why this is refered to as a hiearchy. Priest are the apostles of Bishops basically, who are indirect apostles of Christ because they were not directly annointed by Christ, they are still his agents. Of coarse, if you want to get into Roman Catholicism. That is a whole other ballpark that I won't get into.
So, more than likely he was ordering his apostles, whom in tern ordered their apostles to continue the great comission. That still doesn't apply to you, at this point it may very well actually apply to the priesthood as it stands now. I understand a lot more than you think I do.
Secondly, if you have never heard the concept of Universal Reconciliation, it is more than likely because the denomination of church that you worship at (I assume you go to church) does not even want to touch that subject. This is exactly what early christianity was preaching. Universal Salvation through Christ, not just people who believed in him, but everyone, eventually. St. Paul wrote about this a lot in his writings, not all of which made in the bible. St. Gregory of Nyssa, and St. Isaac the Syrian. The Catholic church forcefully removed these beliefs from the doctrine around the 6th century, and at that time there was only one school of christianity that taught of eternal damnation. That was a new concept back then, not an old one.
I have already heard the "good news" as you call it and while it is definitely good, it is almost certainly not news. When I learned of these things I left the Church, there was no conceivable reason for me to stay. I was a Roman Catholic for 22 years of my life, indoctrinated before I could even talk. Even though I left the church, I still have much faith in God but I choose not to follow the dogma of any particular sect of christianity. It is with my faith in God that I know in my heart that I am right.
Your fail was not epic, but your comeback was. I wish more christians were like you, I might have stayed with the church then. God bless you, you made my day. - Buckwald, on 05/19/2008, -0/+0Neurotap, thank you for your cordial responce. For you better understand my side of thisgs let me say that i am a Protestant Baptist. I would consider myself a fundamentialist, but still do things like play D&D, read harry potter, and spend alot of time fragging my way through UT2003. I talk with alot of Catholics here where i work and see alot of differences in the details. I myself attend church wth many that have converted from a Catholic church to Baptist. So just a little background on myself. Thanks.
- Buckwald, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1Wow, what bible are you reading. I have issue with a few things you are saying.
- TBoneFever, on 05/16/2008, -0/+5"Instead, being moral and pure of heart leads to happiness. " Dude, gays ARE being pure to their heart...that's why they're gay?
"If you talked to gays, you’d know that many of them are not happy, not because they can’t “marry” but because the validation and love they seek is not found in another person, but can only be found in an acceptance of Christ." You obviously haven't ever talked to a sane gay person.
That was some of the most ignorant BS I've read in a while on digg.
- frepnog, on 05/16/2008, -0/+4so what you are saying is that basically -
- AnotherBrian, on 05/16/2008, -0/+5The problem is, that according to them, God has instructed them to be blatantly prejudiced toward homosexuals.
- WallyAnti, on 05/16/2008, -0/+5The reason they find it disgusting is bc they have been conditioned to see it as such. I was raised in a town that was heavily religious and the church even succeeded in banning cable MTV from a town in excess of 100,000.
These types of people do not think. They are told what to think. I've known more than one of them to believe the concrete statues of angels in front of the church are actual angels.
So yeah they are ***** insane and do not entertain any deviance from "the path" - LeeSoong, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1It is in the interest of the State to encourage responsible reproduction.
That being said, gays do not naturally reproduce, so there is no purpose on banning gay activity or gay marriage. There are, however, many children in need of adoption.
The government, schools, institutions, families, churches, etc.
should be encouraging straight young people to marry and have
children.
No children = no future for the nation.
Japan is already facing problems due to
young people working too hard and not reproducing:
http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,91251-13099 ...
So, as true patriots, straight Americans have
a duty to fall in love and go at it like bunnies !
- mlostracco, on 05/16/2008, -0/+4Minor revision: gay people don't choose to be gay, though they should be allowed to choose whether or not to marry.
- Unearthly, on 05/16/2008, -13/+5So if gay marriage is legal, then polygamy has to be also.
Since the dawn of time, marriage is one woman and one man. If you, because you are gay, want to change the laws to fit your lifestyle, who are you to deny people who may be in love with two others? Be very careful not to be hypocritical.- omnibahumut, on 05/16/2008, -0/+7Its great that "Since the dawn of time, marriage is one woman and one man.". Your argument is that since this has been the rule for so long, it shouldn't be changed. However, the laws surrounding marriage have changed over the years. So to say that a certain law is somehow exempt is a bit shaky. Gays are pushing to allow for marriage not to fit any lifestyle, but so that they have the same legal rights as straight couples. Its really quite simple.
- Unearthly, on 05/16/2008, -3/+0All I am saying is that gays have the same legal rights to marriage, then why shouldn't polygamists?
Lets not forget, no one is telling gays they can not be a couple. No one is denying them their rights to be gay and to be together. We are talking about the legal act here.- omnibahumut, on 05/16/2008, -0/+6Because you're not born polygamist.
- Unearthly, on 05/16/2008, -2/+0So by your oh so elegant rebuttal ... if you are born with a mental issue, so severe that after reaching adulthood you lose control of your actions and you murder 300 people. That is ok because then because they were born that way?
Yes ... I see. Well done there. - pf101, on 05/16/2008, -0/+3Unearthly, are you seriously comparing mass murder with gay marriage? Seriously? If you really think they're the same then there is probably no reasoning with you, but here's just two ways they're different:
1 - gay marriage doesn't hurt anyone, unlike mass murder which hurts not only the dead guys but their families as well
2 - in gay marriage, both involved parties are consenting, unlike mass murder where the dead guys probably didn't consent to being murdered
- Unearthly, on 05/16/2008, -3/+0All I am saying is that gays have the same legal rights to marriage, then why shouldn't polygamists?
- trek, on 05/16/2008, -0/+4There is a solid ancient record of legal polygamy in many cultures, dating back to this mythic time dawn you speak of. So, by you argument (whatever marriage has been, it must be continue to be) polygamy should be legal.
However, If you read the majority opinion in this matter you'll see their argument specifically address why polygamy is not related directly to this decision - mlostracco, on 05/16/2008, -0/+4Um, "since the dawn of time" marriage has not been "one woman and one man." It's predominantly been one man and multiple women, in marriages that the women had no choice in. The 1:1 ratio is a relatively new construct, historically.
- pf101, on 05/16/2008, -0/+3Since the dawn of time it was also legal for one individual to own another. Do you support slavery? There are a lot of things that were done back at the dawn of time that are no longer appropriate for modern civilization.
As far as your polygamy point of view, whatever. I don't care who marries or how as long as it doesn't impact me or my rights. - newbill123, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2Polygamy was legal in Utah before they obtained statehood. Many rules of the polygynous relationships were to create big families in this desert territory. The government stopped the practice in an effort to become a state but anyone already in a polygamous marriage was given amnesty and could continue their marriage. 1976 was when the last polygamist marriage ended (when the husband died).
The type of polygamy in Utah is a very male controlled polygyny: one man + many women. Polyandry (one woman + many men) was not allowed. Additionally, if the man died, the marriage ended. It's definitely not the modern marriage of equals; whatever the man decided, the women obeyed. There was no overruling of a man's decision by the two women. Such non-equality would complicate modern marriage issues such as deciding on who has power of attorney (Man in coma, one woman wants death with dignity, the other does not, who wins?).
It's not a big shock that polygamy will be considered a legal form of marriage again in the US. And with its history I suspect it would happen regardless of whether gay marriage was legal or not. Why is this relevant to the gay marriage conversation?
- omnibahumut, on 05/16/2008, -0/+7Its great that "Since the dawn of time, marriage is one woman and one man.". Your argument is that since this has been the rule for so long, it shouldn't be changed. However, the laws surrounding marriage have changed over the years. So to say that a certain law is somehow exempt is a bit shaky. Gays are pushing to allow for marriage not to fit any lifestyle, but so that they have the same legal rights as straight couples. Its really quite simple.
- MrFurious2k, on 05/16/2008, -6/+1I wonder what will happen to churches and other religious groups that see homosexual marriage as sin. Are we now choosing one group over another? Is that our plan?
- pf101, on 05/16/2008, -1/+4One group is already being chosen over another. That's what the legalization of gay marriage is trying to change.
- SweetDee, on 05/16/2008, -1/+2They can still see it as a sin. All this ruling does is allow the right to civil marriage. It has nothing, NOTHING to do with church doctrine.
- MrFurious2k, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1Sure it does. As soon as they do that, they'll force religious groups to recognize the marriage and accept the behavior or suffer legal wrath (tax code primarily).
- Fact0rFiction, on 05/16/2008, -0/+4It can be called marriage, or it can be called a civil union, I have no cares if you want to keep the name sacred or what you want to do with it. Religion != Government. I don't care what the f it was since the "dawn of time". The underlying fact is that marriage is recognized by law and provides exclusive benefits to two persons in this country. To not provide the same benefits to another couple, due to their gender is discrimination, simple as that.
- mwrl, on 05/16/2008, -11/+3Well it is good to see Big Government crushing the will of American voters. If I lived in California I would be rioting right now about this. The measure to remove a voter elected issue is illegal.
- mage1129, on 05/16/2008, -0/+4Ridiculous, the people need to have a check upon them just as much as the government. There needs to be balance and tyranny by the majority is not balance. Check out the bicameral legislative if you need further proof of this.
- Adelie, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2Can someone get this guy a book? The damning problems of allowing a democracy to function such that it was the majority will of the people was proven and documented as a disaster some time ago in a book (among others) called "The Histories". Our founding fathers read the book and used it as a strong guideline in designing the Constitution to protect democracy from destroying itself. The Greeks figured this out some time ago, how about you catch up with the times, eh?
- JTomato, on 05/16/2008, -6/+1@mwrl - totally right.
@beefygeek - no idea what you're talking about... Buddha's teachings aren't even close to being older than the Bible's...- mage1129, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2BC means before Christ, so that would put Buddha before the bible. Unless you are talking about the old testament only, and some of the books of the old testament are younger then Buddha's teachings.
- pf101, on 05/16/2008, -0/+7You may want to get your money back on that comparative religion class you obviously skipped in college.
When did (some of the) the various religions start?
Islam - 1400 years ago
Christianity - 2000 years ago
Buddhism - 2500 years ago
Judaism - 3500 years ago
So, it looks like good ole budda has christ by about 500 years. - holograverse, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1LOL, fail.
- fhdawg, on 05/16/2008, -12/+2Ever heard of Sodom and Gomorrah? It was destroyed. How many fires and earthquakes will it take for California? Just for the record, I do not wish this upon anyone. Living by our own "free will" has a price.
- Neiby, on 05/16/2008, -2/+4Ever heard the word "fiction"?
- Fact0rFiction, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2maybe you should be a suicide bomber with your extremist views.
- mlostracco, on 05/16/2008, -0/+3Kinda like how Canada was deluged with incessant natural disasters after they legalized gay marriage?
I guess the tornadoes, famine, and earthquakes must be on their way up here, then. What's the hold-up? - frepnog, on 05/16/2008, -5/+0they were not real places, just some bullcrap stories told in the bible to scare people into doing as they are told.
big difference in that and letting fags get married, dude. - luchid, on 05/16/2008, -1/+5Go thump your bible some place else. You are not wanted here.
- neurotap, on 05/16/2008, -1/+6First of all, Sodom and Gomorrah were not destroyed just because their inhabitants were homosexual. "She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me." Ezekiel 16:48-50
Wikipedia has this to say about Sodom and Gomorrah:
Classical Jewish texts do not stress the homosexual aspect of the attitude of the inhabitants of Sodom as much as their cruelty and lack of hospitality to the "stranger." (See Jewish Encyclopedia on the importance of hospitality.) The people of Sodom were seen as guilty of many other significant sins. Rabbinic writings affirm that the Sodomites also committed economic crimes, blasphemy and bloodshed[1]. One of the worst was to give money or even gold ingots to beggars, but to inscribe their names on them, and then subsequently refuse to sell them food. The unfortunate stranger would end up starving and after his death, the people who gave him the money would reclaim it.
/wikipedia
I won't even get into how rampant homosexuality was in the bible. Some of it was even condoned by God, the most telling was in Daniel 1:9; "Now God had brought Daniel into favor and tender love with the prince of the eunuchs"
A simple google search would have corrected your failure before it happened.- frepnog, on 05/16/2008, -0/+4epic victory. well done.
- weside, on 05/16/2008, -5/+1Amen to this comment. Similar to how New Orleans got owned for its annual celebration of sin.
- sj200, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1 Sodom and . . . BLOW IT OUT YOUR ASS!
- trek, on 05/16/2008, -0/+5But if it's "marriage" and they're both men, whose father pays the dowry? How do you know which one is the property of the other? Which is given for the "plowing of legitimate children"? This will ruin the traditional definition of marriage!
-
Show 51 - 68 of 68 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by