Comments
Please wait...
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
is a proud member of the
media network
media network
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
Now was that really necessary?
Totally a cheap shot at hard-working, tax-paying, IGA cake frosters.
And anyone who has tried to head-up some gay-oriented event or sub-committee could talk about the broad disagreement in that tiny group.
What a bunch of whiners those Christians are.........
Freedom to do as I want as long as the Homosexuals approve doesn't feel all that free.
Do you believe that churches and religious organizations should be forced to hire homosexuals?
I said no, as these organizations can discriminate legally based on religious grounds. But I would have said the opposite if "homosexuals" was replaced by "racial minorities they don't like".
This sort of double standard makes me cringe, but I think I'm guilty of it in this case...
Gay acceptance is now permanent and growing.
I just love it on ABC's 'Brothers & Sisters' how Kevin and Scotty have romantic scenes and now the older uncle Sol who just came out has a boyfriend.
Given how our world is smaller and wired, and despite some problems we have as the economy fails and bigots lash out, gay acceptance is on an ever increasing 30% grade trajectory upwards!
The pink-jacketed narrator lady is a tad bit, um, aggressive. Didn't I see her playing pool down at The Comfortable Shoe? Yes, I'm sure I did.
So much of their fear is based on a projection of their own feelings. They assume that since they would deny us our rights that we would deny them their rights. I am sure there is some anger toward people who donated to prop 8 and they should not face discrimination even if they are themselves advocating discrimination. The fact that in the long run they are losing the culture war should be punishment enough.
Lessee, is sexual orientation the same as a civil contract. Err... I'm sorry, but can someone lend me their Apples to Oranges Converter?
Here is my question:
But my reasoning has something to do with this thought: churches generally have a mission, whether it be to serve their communities (y'know, like Jesus did) or to convert the world, they hire people who can support that mission. That goal includes not hiring non-believers to public positions like pastor or sunday school teacher, and I think that's valid.
Prop 8 was a measure to force everyone else to live by fundie right wing Christian beliefs too. Apparently, only fundie right wing Christians have the right to live by their faith.
Condescension is a political fail on serious matters. it remains effective in antismoking and antimullet activities, but not with the real stuff. At this point it's just each team huddling up for a satisfying circle jerk.
Doesn't mean we have to stop, but let's not pretend it's more than dawdling.
http://www.mailinator.com/
@6,18: I said no. I believe that churches shouldn't have to hire people that actively disagree with their teachings. Also, they shouldn't have to perform my gay marriage. And I'll happily not buy any of their products, so it's fair.
For centuries Homosexual marriage has not been recognized and that was the law everyone lived under regardless of their religion or if they had any religion at all.
Homosexuals want to force society to change marriage laws to reflect their religious view of what marriage should be.
Separation of church and state keeps one group from forcing their religious views onto society.
So stop.
"If they would just stop trying to force their book down our throats we might be able to get along better."
Clearly, Christians are the religious equivalent of foie gras eaters, and consider the rest of us their "geese".
Somebody call NARN, stat.
It doesn't really matter if I am a "good" Christian or fit your definition of what a Christian should be or follow the Bible or if I am a mean hypocrit.
In a democracy I can put my position out in the marketplace of ideas and have it accepted or rejected.
Homosexuals try to force the position that opposition to Gay marriage is not an legitimate opinion and those who hold it are fair game to any abuse, harrassment or retaliation.
Those activities (seen after Prop 8 but not unique to it) are no different than KKK nightriders intimidating Blacks into not pressing for their rights.
Next, marriage is a legal status, and contract regulated by the government. Atheists are allowed to get married. Should we ban that?
Gay people are not trying to force Christians to enter into same sex marriages, but Christians want to force their religion on gay people. Really you've got to come up with a valid argument.
The foie gras eaters are more like gay people. They just want the right to eat what they like. They are not forcing anyone else to eat it.
That's the stupidest anti-gay marriage argument EVER.
For centuries polygamous marriage was considered acceptable, but it was eventually outlawed. For centuries miscegenational and interfaith marriages were not recognized and THAT was the law everyone lived under regardless of their religion or if they had any religion at all.
Marriage is not now, nor has it ever been some immutably fixed institution, and in fact, for most of the time it's been around it hasn't even been a religious institution, but rather an economic one more akin to a transfer of property rights between a father and a son-in-law than anything else.
The notion that marriage has always been some sort of religious sacrament, and is therefore under the exclusive jurisdiction of religious authority is complete and utter bunk. Organized religion has developed a very lucrative racket over the millenia by co-opting the trappings of the marriage ceremony, and they're afraid of losing a good chunk of that income when people - straight people that is - start to realize that civil marriage can be equally as satisfying, equally as profound, and equally as bonding as any religious one.
It's not JUST the fear of Teh Gays, it's also the fear that many organized religions will lose their near exclusive monopoly on administering and consecrating the marriage bond that scares the bejeebuz out of them.
That's exactly the analogy I've been searching for all morning. Thanks!
Should a town that is 90% Christian be allowed to vote Jews to be lesser citizens?
Interracial marriage bans were overturned by the courts. Should interracial couples have been forced to convince the population of the deep south before they could get the right to marry?
Marriage IS a legal status, and contract regulated by the government. Atheists are allowed to get married because it has nothing to do with religion.
Homosexuals want to change the law based on their religious view of marriage.
Leave your religious beliefs out of everyones laws.
If you want your preacher to do something for you go for it.
Leave my state constitution out of it.
Blacks saw that when they voted three to one against homosexual marriage in Californis.
Try again.
You also failed to address the fact that atheists can get married. Gee, I wonder why?
Do you really not have any better arguments? Really?
Please understand that religious marriage has nothing to do with it. Gays can already get a minister or rabbi in many denominations to perform a religious marriage ceremony, but it doesn't do diddly squat for tax purposes. After 21 years in a committed relationship, most of it as main breadwinner, I still have to file as "single / no dependents" even though neither one of those is true.
The anti-religious thuggish terrorist tactics disappointed gays engaged in post Prop 8 were exactly like what the be the KKK (and Nazi Brownshirts) did in their day.
Bummer about all those beaten-up & murdered Christians.
Blacks were enslaved and denied human rights based on their race.
Homosexuals want to force society to endorse and accept behavior choices that are biologically perverse and carry a high social cost.
Perhaps a black California voter could explain it to you better.
sorry.
Would it help if I borrow my son's crayons and drew a picture?
Darcy, you're just cranky because your diaper is full.
I'm sure an attendant will be along soon.
Have faith in Democracy and the people.
Blacks did win their Civil Rights thru legislation and now we have a Black President and a strong national consensus on racial equality.
Trying to go around the people by finding sympathetic judges to throw out voter passed amendments is undemocratic and a short sighted shortcut.
Try again. In this analogy, the gays are the Blacks pressing for their rights, and the Christians are the KKK nightriders trying to take those rights away. Except that the KKK was outspoken and honest about their actions and intent, and the Christians are all whining, "You're trying to make me feel bad about oppressing you! How can the world tolerate such violent injustice as name-calling and guilt? Name-calling violates my right to oppress! I'm the REAL victim here! Wah!"
Don't wiggle.
You'll leak on the sheets.
Is your position that denying human rights can be a good thing, as long as it's against someone you don't like?
Nobody is telling you that you have to accept anything. Is a Jew who eats kosher forcing their religion on you? Does that mean you you must eat kosher? Do you even care what a Jew eats? Since the majority of people don't eat kosher, should we ban the practice?
You don't have to eat kosher.
You don't have to go to a kosher luncheon.
You don't have marry someone of the same sex.
You don't have to go to a gay wedding.
Problem solved.
Gays were the thugs.
Look it up on Utube.
Where are the Christian concentration camps, gas chambers, and ovens?
In Nazi Germany the top Nazis were homosexuals.
It's in Wiki.
God help us-
It must be lunchtime-
Rob has marched out his "kosher is gay" story.
Wow Davie, everyone saw the Utube video of Gays assaulting the old lady in California.
they're all in a boredom induced coma
You are more optimistic than I if you think the anti-gay marriage crowd should have a basic understanding of history...
Actually, homosexuals were hunted down and killed and/or put in concentration camps by the Nazis (including the ONE top official who was gay) Its called Paragraph 175. Look it up on Wiki.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paragraph_1…
Thirty Million slaughtered babies are so grateful for activist judges like Butcher Blackmun.
That's a side effect of the Aricept
Marriage between man and woman is not a Christian invention. Mother Nature invented it. She plumbed men and women to make it work. She is sooo smart.
It is natural for a certain percentage of the population to be homosexual, but for the sake of argument let's say that it is not:
Driving a car isn't natural.
Commenting on a blog isn't natural.
Marriage isn't natural.
Are all these things wrong too?
you're so welcome!
(?)
must stay awakeeee.....zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Me choosing not to patronize a business that is owned by someone who donated to Prop 8 is not persecution. It's capitalism. Please make a note.
Don't forget the part about their leaky Depends making a mess on bus seats and at the computer terminals at the public library where they oogle high school wrestling photos.
This makes them b-o-r-i-n-g.
Please don't feed the trolls any more.
If it's a religious institution, why was a judge able to marry us?
I do not believe in God, and no deity has any place in my marriage. We married for the socioeconomic benefits.
Marriage may be a sacrament in some churches, but its importance to the community at large is as a legal contract and a civil right.
"Mother Nature" didn't "invent" marriage; if anything, monogamy is inherently UNnatural, as it artificially restricts the ability of males to follow their biological imperative, which is to impregnate as many females as possible in order to ensure the propagation of their genetic line.
Although many species naturally exhibit monogamous behavior, it's not exclusive, nor even the norm, as polygamous behavior is far more prevalent. And, as recent observations have born out, a number of species have been shown to engage in homosexual behaviors, so ever there nature seems to allow for tremendous leeway when it comes to bonding relationships.
In short, "mother nature" is unambiguously against you on this issue.
FAIL.
No, you don't need to borrow your son's crayons and draw me a picture. First, your argument would make more sense if you could explain why you define homosexuality as a religion. I've never heard of homosexuality being a religion. Does your having a son indicate you are a member of heterosexual religion? Never heard of heterosexuality as a religion either. Second, you could try and answer a respectfully asked question with respect. Your posts suggest either your knickers are in a big twist or your incredibly impolite. I'm going to cut you some slack, a little grace here, and conclude your just extremly frustrated.
Hope your day improves.
Why is it okay for them to be "put on lists" by the backers of Prop 8, but NOT okay for opponents to see the lists someone else ALREADY PUT THEM ON?
And, of course, it's perfectly acceptable in the minds of many Prop 8 supporters to fire people for THEIR beliefs, to discriminate against THEM for the way they live, to deny THEM the legal rights afforded other citizens because of who they choose to love - but when tit comes for tat, they scream blood murder when the tables get turned.
See, that's what we call "hypocrisy": when you think it's okay for you to do something, but it's not okay for someone else to do it back at you.
And in case you hadn't heard, religion is something you CHOOSE; you are not born believing in a god, you LEARN to believe in one. So, your entire argument can be turned 180 degrees against you for the very same justifications you posit.
"High risk health behavior" THAT's your rationalization? ROTFLMFAO! That's RICH! In that case, let's ban het sex, since far more straights contract STD's in this country than do gays. Let's outlaw drinking, and overeating, and not exercising, and smoking (well, we're getting close on that one) - because, by YOUR way of thinking apparently, ALL of these are high risk behaviors!
See, it's this kind of assinine, half-baked, wing-nuttery that makes you people look like complete and utter idiots.
Civilization is defined as a social consensus overriding our natural animal inclinations in favor of living together civilly. An appeal to nature is fallacious:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_n…
you illiterate moron.
the post you respond to cites marriage but you rant on (and on and on) about monogamy.
they both start with 'M' and deal with relationships but they mean different things.
go sit in the corner.
How does 91 have it right? He thinks it is OK to lick his own ass because he saw his dog do it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
The only ones who have prompted government officials to put on disclosure lists Proposition 8 backers so that they can target those that supported the law are Homosexuals.
How come homosexual groups never admit that homosexuals already enjoy civil partnerships in places like California? So much for the "deny THEM the legal rights afforded other citizens" part.
Don't know what world you live in but in the real world the only ones whose means of support for them and their families has been threatened are those who voted in a different way than Homosexuals.
How about the use of technology to hunt Proposition 8 donors.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/08/busine…
See your hypocrisy?
The disclosure lists already exist. It is the public's right to see them. Always. You want to see the list from the pro-monorail campaign? You have the right, just as everyone else has a right to see the lists from Prop 8.
Oh, and I'm not gay, but I sure would like to know who gave money to support Prop 8. It's none of your business whether I want to see the list to send them a thank-you note and cookies or to boycott them.