Yeah, that’s the real problem in America today—the way the gays have managed to completely silence Christians. Can you even recall the last time you heard a peep out of an American Christian? Remember how the gays drove Mike Huckabee from public life? Whatever happened to Rick Warren anyway?
Sigh.
Go and watch the video, marvel at the awesome power of the gay rights lobby, and then take their “Family Values Survey.” (Please note: hating and fearing gay people is the only value the Christians behind this survey are interested in.) Unfortunately there’s not a “who gives a fuck?” option for the first question (“Do you believe the Bible condemns homosexuality as sin?”), so just vote “undecided.” And to this woman…
…I’d like to say this: the gays are perfectly willing to tolerate your story—”tolerate” meaning “put up with” not “be delighted by”—it’s your haircut that we can’t abide. You can be an ex-lesbian without having to have your hair done by the same woman who frosts the cakes down at the IGA. Thanks to Slog tipper Sean.
148-
Who said it was the middle of the night? It was 11:29 a.m. my time. Not everybody lives in the same time zone, or haven’t you heard.
And – How does one make a jackass of oneself? Doesn’t seem easy to me. Seems like it would make sex reassignment surgery seem like a piece of cake by comparison.
And it would be difficult to post at the same time, especially with hooves.
Must go now, as my weekend is beginning.
I actually know of many Conservative Christians in my state though who honestly feel in this new ‘radical’ word that not only are they being silenced, they are being oppressed.
As a female secularist from a bible belt town, I have of course never been opressed. I feel so sorry for this new minority. Yack…
@#150—I believe homosexuality is morally just fine. I support same sex marriage. I happen to be a lesbian and I really don’t give a shit what somebody’s book may say about it. This is a free society and we no mroe have to follow the bible than we do the koran. America is a secular nation so the bible is not the final authority for making public law and policy.
In a free society if you oppose homosexuality your only option is to not sleep with sommeone of the same sex. This is not just my opinion. it is the law of the land. In 2003 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states cannot control what consenting adults do behind closed doors. This battle is won. Next we will secure same sex marriage rights in all 50 states.
I don’t just love the sinner I really love the “sin.”
@13 you rock.
Homosexual marriage has never been recognized in America for the first 200+ years of its existence as a nation and 400 years as a society. Now along come homosexuals wanting to change the bedrock institution of society based on their views of what is moral and right. I am uncomfortable with altering marriage just to conform to the views of 2% of the population without some reason other than they believe it is right. Our law is not based on the Bible so when homosexuals argue that the Bible doesn’t condemn homosexuality my reaction is “Why do you get to imprint your (or anyone else’s) interpretation of the Bible into Civil Law?” Keep your religion out of state law.
For most of the first 200 years in America some states outlawed interracial marriage. Some used to argue that if interracial marriage were allowed that it would end traditional marriage. Along came the civil righs movement and in 1967 the Supreme Court said that states could not forbid interracial marriage.
Bedrock institutions change as well as come and go. Slavery was a bedrock institution at one time. There were at one time even laws that said that a woman must obey her husband. Those days are gone.
Same sex marriage has been legal in Massachusetts for a couple of years now and I doubt it had any negative impact on hetrosexual marriages. In the end your discomfort with altering marriage really is your problem. The fact that rights are being expanded is good for society. Even if only 2% of the population directly benefit from same sex marriage what skin is it off of your nose? Weather it is 2% or 10% of the population who are lesbian or or gay America still belongs equally to us. The percent of the population that is homosexual is difficult to determine anyway because of fear of discrimination or outright violence. I assure you it is much higher than 2%.
@155 – Really? ‘Cuz you’ll find much more than 2% of the population in support of gay marriage. (Like myself – straight man, pro-gay-marriage.) Try at least 40% at this point, and more and more each day as younger generations grow up realizing that gay people are just as harmful/harmless as any other arbitrary group of people in society.
Also, nobody’s using the Bible to justify gay marriage. That’s just the point. We didn’t bring the Bible to this fight. Gay marriage is right for other reasons that have nothing to do with the Bible. So, Mr. “keep your religion out of state law”, where were you when Focus on the Family and the Mormon Church were donating huge sums of money to banish gay marriage? What right to these religious organizations – acting as organizations, mind you, not just individuals within them – have to organize to institute their religious views into law (under tax-exempt status, no less)?
Furthermore, you can’t argue that because something is the status quo, it must remain so. Slavery was a bedrock institution for 200+ years in this country. Do you want to bring that back?
No, gay marriage is right and good because gay people need to have equal rights and privileges under the law. If you’d ever met any gay people you’d realize that most of them just want to live normal lives in healthy, committed, loving relationships, just like everyone else. They’re not going to get that by trying to cram themselves into a straight lifestyle (witness Ted Haggard). And any laws that discriminate against gays signal that gays aren’t normal, which simply isn’t true. Gay people have always been a minority, but they’ve existed in all times in all societies at about 10% of the population. They’re not space aliens, you know. They’re kids from your town, and everywhere. They leave and gather in big cities like Seattle and San Francisco so they can get away from assholes like you.
The fact that some laws were unjust does not mean that other laws are.
Blacks, more than any other demographic group, overwhelmingly reject gay marriage and the comparison of gay marriage to Civil Rights. Perhaps homosexuals need to educate Blacks about Civil Rights in America…
There has to be a better reason for gay marriage than ‘interracial marriage used to be illegal’.
Good morning Truth,
Thank you for writing back again. I appreciate your reading my post and responding. I appreciate your encouragement to study the scriptures yet again. You are right, I do not want to argue. As Proverbs 27:17 says “iron sharpens iron”, we can learn from each others perspectives. Alas, my friend we will likely have to agree to disagree.
I appreciate post 146, it illuminates many of the ancient Greek words I was referencing. So, I will start with the Lev. passage. To read that exactly as it is printed in my Bible (NIV)it reads as you say. It does not read the same in either ancient Hebrew or in ancient Greek. It reads more as (I’m paraphrasing in English here), ” You shall not lie with a male as the layings of with a woman; it is an offense to the holiness code. The word (toevah) is what we mistakenly translate as abomination, it means ritually unclean. Toevah is used in every passage of the holiness code that we translate as abomination: no shellfish, no touch a dead pig or animal (there goes football :)), no yelling at your parents, no having sex with your wife while she is on her cycle, etc. In the book of Acts chapter 10, God lifts the toevah when he addresses Peter and tells him “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.” Now for the “layings of a woman”, the word layings is plural because vaginal, oral, and anal sex was permited between men and women (in fact the ancient Hebrew word for woman translates as orafices (sp?)), this is known because of 1 and 2 century writings in both ancient Hebrew and Greek. Anciet Hebrews believed true sex to be defined as penetration, therefore their writings permit all sexual contact between individuals of same gender (including oral), but males having anal sex with males. So why could males have oral sex and not break toevah and males and females have anal sex and not break toevah? Because, ancient Hebrew society was patriarchal and a male submitting (being the bottom) was viewed as acting like a woman. A man acting like a woman was toevah. In fact writings of the same period record the Israelites, Cannanites, and Egyptians using anal sex as a form of torture in battle, thus they would rape the warriors of the loseing side to humilate them and make them like a woman.
As, far as your statement about God not blessing those who have homosexual relationships, remember the biblical writers (writing in ancient Hebrew and Greek) have no words to define homosexuality as an orientation (or words to reflect an understanding of a lifelong committed same-sex relationship), I don’t think we can say that my friend with confidence. To read the story of King David and Jonathan in 1 Samual and 2 Samual, in ancient Hebrew suggests that they were lovers. Their story translated in English can even lead one to believe that they were lovers, “I grieve for you Jonathan my brother; you were dear to me. Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women” (2 Sam. 1:26). God did indeed bless King David, and Jesus also blessed the centurian I wrote about earlier in Lk. 7:1-10, and Mk. 8: 5-13. Not to mention the story of Daniel and his finding favor with the eunuch in Babylonian court. My friend, the ancient Hebrews and Greeks had words for abomination (something horrifically disgusting and hateful), they had words for sin (meaning completely unforgivable), they even had words for eunuch and celibate and they didn’t use them in either the Old Testament or the New Testament. If they, the ancient writer chose toevah (ritual uncleanliness) then that is what they wanted to say. Ancient biblical writers never condemn same-sex acts as abominations. In fact until 1147 intimate same-sex relationships were permited between priets and nuns. The word homosexual is an English word, it doesn’t exist in ancient Hebrew or Greek, and it was firt printed in the Bible in 1946.
Another area where we are going to disagree is the idea that with enough prayer someones sexual orientation can change. Many homosexuals do exactly that, they spend years and years praying to be changed. They enter into ex-gay and reparative therapy, where many undergo electroshock treatment, exorcism, conversion therapy, sexual reorientation therapy, sexual identity therapy, gender indentiy therapy, gender affirmatative therapy, context specific therapy, and in rare occasions emasculation of their genitalia. And all of that doesn’t work for the great majority, and the few who claim it do struggle with remaining faithful. You may have heard of Michael Bussee co-founder of Exodus International, and John Paulk founder of Love Won Out, both of they returned to same-sex relationships. Two books you should read are Mel White’s, Stranger at the Gate: To be Gay and Christian in America, and Mitchell Gold’s CRISIS: 40 Stories Revealing the Personal, Social, and Religious Pain and Trauma of Growing Up Gay in America. Some website you might find helpful:
http://www.faithinamerica.info
http://www.soulforce.org
http://www.truthwinsout.org
Thank you so much for reading and writing to me. I appreciate it very much. I respect your position, but my friend I think for now we must agree to disagree.
Best wishes.
k
There are many leaders of the Black Community who support gay rights and acknowledge the connection of gay rights to the Civil Rights Movement. The President just appointed an openly gay Black man to his new commission on faith.
We can only speculate, but I would say that if he had lived Martin Luther King would have supported the gay rights movement. Also you should remember that the single most important Black figure in the U.S. happens to be the President of the United States and he has repeatedly expressed his support for gay rights including on the White House website.
144,im quite familiar with the bible, which is exactly why I dont consider it literal truth now! The more you actually know about this book and its history, the less likely you are to accept it as the truth you claim it is! For me it’s simply mythology, the same as Zeus and Apollo and the other gods I mentioned in my previous post! I dont have anything against christianity, but it has no more validity than any other religion – certainly there’s no proof for it, any more than there is for Scientology! Christians need to practice their religion quietly and leave others alone! Campaigning against same sex marriage and telling gay people their natural sexual orientation comes from “satan” is not going to change anyone! And by the way, the “conflict” between god and satan was borrowed by the early christians from Zoroastranism, a persian religion! Zoroastrians believed in a struggle between the powers of light and darkness – the early christians just transferred this concept into their own religion and made god the power of light and satan the power of darkness! In the old testament, satan is just one of god’s angels and no more!
157
Thank you for your comments, David.
Are you new to SLOG?
The role of the Mormon Church has been hashed ad nauseam here but perhaps you missed it.
The Church itself seems to have contributed about $195,000 (mostly in staff time and services) to organizing.
Members of the Mormon Church as individuals are reported to have donated a considerable percentage of the pro Prop 8 funds raised, $20 million or so depending on whose numbers you look at.
As individuals and citizens they; or members of any denomination, or people with no particular religious beliefs; are free to participate in the process as they choose.
Do you object to individuals with opinions different from your own participating in democratic referendum campaigns? Should only people whose religious beliefs you approve of be able to participate?
I am concerned that you seem to feel Mormons don’t have the ‘right’ to be part of the civic conversation.
160
Heather, you are so precious.
Talk is cheap.
SLOG is very familiar with Obama’s actual record on gay marriage.
The ‘leaders’ in the black community are paid off whores who have sold the best interest of their race down the river for their own position within the Democratic Party.
Perhaps you noticed that Obama conspicuously does not come from that segment of the black ‘leadership’.
You do speculate, and have no basis on which to put words or positions in the mouth or mind of MLK. Please do not do so.
You do not address the fact that Blacks, more so than any other demographic group, reject gay marriage and the notion that gay marriage is a Civil Rights issue.
Will, you are so annoying.
I think you seek to drive a wedge between the Black community and the gay rights movement. The opposition within the Black Community to gay rights is not some solid and immovable wall. As with other parts of society there is still work to be done to convince people in the Black community to support same sex marriage.
My guess that Dr. King would have supported gay rights is based on his history of supporting human rights for all people.
President Obama has stated his support for civil unions and he views that as different than same sex marriage. To me that is a hair splitting difference since most if not all of the rights that go along with marriage are granted by civil unions. All of the couples that I know who are in civil unions call it a marriage and had weddings. it is a civil rights issue and that is why more people are supporting both civil unions and same sex marriage. Those of us who support same sex unions will continue to present it as a civil rights issue even it that does not meet with your approval because that is how we will win.
Heather, you drive the wedge by asserting that MLK would support gay marriage.
Presenting it as a Civil Rights issue is inaccurate and alienates the Black community, who know Civil Rights when they see it. That is why they voted 3 to 1 against gay marriage in California (and everywhere else)
As you note Obama does not support gay marriage. You may be too optimistic, gay marriage is losing ground; 30 states so far have banned it and even a Democratic President doesn’t support it.
Will-
Since when is the black community the sole arbiter of what does and does not constitute a civil rights movement? Besides, people aren’t drawing the parallels between the gay rights movement and the black rights movement in order to argue that legalizing gay marriage would make the blacks happy. The reason that people are pointing out the parallels is because the same ass-backwards mentality that was used to make interracial marriage illegal is being used again to make gay marriage illegal. They are also noting that, in both cases, denying the group in question their civil rights was the more “popular” viewpoint during the peak of all the legal battles.
This doesn’t mean that the Californian black community’s viewpoints on gay marriage are relevant to its validity (as if the “black community” is some sort of hivemind). Every black person on the planet earth could despise gays with all their hearts, and the parallels between the black MOVEMENT and the gay MOVEMENT would still remain. Besides, it’s not as if “gays” and “blacks” are mutually exclusive, just because you have divided them into separate categories of token minorities in your mind.
Does anybody have a real reason to believe that gay marriage should be illegal, or that homosexuals are dominating the media and silencing Christians? Anybody? So far I’ve only heard that “It will change our traditional view on marriage,” “It’s a popular viewpoint,” “The blacks voted for prop 8 so it can’t possibly be oppressive,” “It’s a sin,” etc; none of which are proper legal grounds on which to deny people their rights.
166
The better question is, “does anyone have a real reason that gay marriage should be legal?”
The status quo has stood for thousands of years.
No one has made a case how it will be good social policy to change.
167- I already addressed your argument: the one that legalizing gay marriage will “change tradition.” For one thing, homosexuality hasn’t been illegal for “thousands of years.” For another, if you view longevity as the one and only parameter on which to measure something’s validity, then put your money where your mouth is and go live in a cave. Housing has violated the status quo of humanity’s forest-dwelling roots. Also, never seek medical attention for an injury, and never cook anything. By your logic, all those practices should be banned, because they’re all relatively new developments in human history (newer than homosexuality, even), and are therefore violations of our “status quo.” Status quo is such a nebulous term anyway, since things are constantly changing, and there never has been some magical, constant “status quo” that people like you seem to worship. It is not only temporary by definition, but it’s stupid as hell to think that it is always the best case scenario. Better not put an end to those wars between Israel and Palestine! They’re part of the STATUS QUO! You’ll RUIN it if you save all those lives!
The point of tradition isn’t simply to keep things the same no matter how counterproductive they are to humanity. When a something, even a tradition, doesn’t benefit humanity in the slightest, people are supposed to dump it in exchange for something that works better. This is called “progress,” and it’s the reason you haven’t already died of smallpox or starvation.
You want a reason that homosexuality should be legal? Well, I could argue that you shouldn’t need one; that people like you are the ones who are trying to shove YOUR homophobic beliefs down the throats of gays who just want to mind their own business, and so it’s YOUR obligation to give compelling reasons why. But I’ll give you a very simple one: because it would benefit homosexuals without hurting heterosexuals. Sure, some people will be pissed that they can no longer watch a bunch of queers suffer, or pissed that their ever-precious status quo has changed yet again (trust me, it was going to change anyway), but all in all, more people will be more free to do what they wish with their lives.
168
Actually homosexuality has been illegal in a lot of places for thousands of years but that is not the point and no one but you brought it up and you did not address the point, which is that Homosexual marriage has not been recognized for thousands of years.
Just because it has been that way for thousands of years doesn’t mean it is a good idea but it also doesn’t mean it is an out of date useless idea either.
One can find no social benefit to homosexual marriage without being homophobic. However that narrow minded position is driving many who are sympathetic to gay rights away.
You studiously avoid the point, which is, please tell why it is good social policy to change the definition of marriage.
What does society get in return for the extra money it will pay out in social benefits?
Is anyone else getting spammed because of taking that fucking survey? Goddamnit.
@169 – The same thing that it already gets from paying out social benefits to straight couples. Gay couples will get married, settle down, adopt kids (yes, even kids that otherwise might’ve been aborted), pay taxes, and live stable, healthy lives. You’ll probably see illegal drug use and unsafe sex practices decline too as there’s now a stable lifestyle option available, so medical costs will go down. There’s a huge economic upside here that you conveniently ignore.
@162 – Charles, go back and read my post again. I specifically called out the institution, not the individuals, for exploiting their socially-granted tax exempt status to engage in public policy. I said nothing about keeping individuals from contributing. I think private individuals should have every right to donate to the cause of their choice, including banning gay marriage. I also think that anyone who donates money to any political cause should have their names on the lists that are compiled so that I don’t have to give them my money for being close-minded hateful bigots. Important distinction: I could not disagree more with their viewpoints, but I defend their right to disagree. That’s why we’re talking now. Nobody here (who’s serious, anyway) is saying you should be silenced or locked up for your warped and perverted “values”. Capice?
@ 164
Are you aware of how offensive it is for black people to have to hear others compare their civil rights struggles with a sexual lifestyle? It’s disrespectful for those who had to fight to be allowed to drink from water fountains for those whose children had no way of moving up career wise and on and on. People who want to hump their same gender don’t face that! Dr. King’s main source of inspiration was his religion, as a baptists minister with strong moral principles it is doubtful he would’ve seen sexual perversity which goes against God’s nature as a “human right” when its something that is opposed to human welfare. Believe whatever the heck you want to believe but stop defaming black civil rights with your warped ideas of what human rights are. High health risk behaviors that produce nothing for society are not rights. Comprende?
169- you’re backpedaling. The illegality of gay marriage was brought up- it’s what this entire thread is about. Your reason to keep it illegal is because “the status quo has stood for thousands of years,” implying that it’s been consistently illegal for thousands of years. Now you’re saying, “well, it has not been fully recognized in several societies over a period of thousands of years.” I’d tell you to make up your mind, except it doesn’t matter because both arguments are equally weak. So your new defense is that, while its longevity doesn’t mean it’s a good idea, it doesn’t mean it’s a stupid idea? Hey everyone- 169 has saved the anti-gay movement: its longevity is not the thing that makes it a stupid idea! What powerful logic! What a shame that we have overlooked such a valid defense of keeping the gays oppressed.
I don’t care if its longevity isn’t the REASON that it’s an out-of-date, useless idea. This doesn’t change the fact that it IS an out-of-date, useless idea.
And no, I didn’t avoid your argument. I told you exactly why it’s good social policy to legalize gay marriage: the quality of life for currently-oppressed gays would increase, while the quality of life for heterosexuals would suffer no dents. If you want to know about the economic costs vs. benefits of allowing a few extra marriages (the treasury wouldn’t exactly be drained dry by allowing a few extra couples to claim a spouse as a dependent, btw), you shouldn’t have asked why it would be a good social policy. You should have asked why it would be a good ECONOMIC policy. Don’t accuse me of avoiding the point just because I can’t psychically divine your real meaning when you screw your words up or fail to specify. As far as the economic benefits go, 171 has already answered that: people who are put into a more stable economic position through their marital tax benefits tend to spend more steadily. Plus, you seem to be forgetting that homosexuals are part of society; the world isn’t grouped into “society” and “homosexuals,” and helping one will hurt the other.
Not that it matters, anyway; the validity of oppressing people is not based on whether or not it’s profitable. Slavery was very profitable; all that free hard labor. From your definition, how did society benefit from all those “wages” and “social services” that they suddenly had to start giving to the slaves once they were no longer allowed to regard them as livestock? Or do you think it was a mistake to end slavery?
The social (if not economic) benefit is that our society will be more just and its members will have more liberty to do harmless things like marry each other. To not see this as a benefit, you either have to be a homophobe, an apathetic sociopath, or a greasy misanthrope posing as a sociopath because he thinks that parroting pseudo-objective utilitarianism makes him seem “edgy.”
Speaking of avoiding the point, now it’s your turn: how would society benefit from refusing to recognize gay marriage? As I said before, making (or keeping) gay marriage illegal is the aggressive act of intrusion, so it is THIS act (not legalizing gay marriage) that requires a reasonable defense. Do you have one? Or do you still think that this imagined historic timelessness of homophobia is a good enough reason for it to continue?
Deandre, once again, you’ve managed to make an argument that was refuted before you even posted. Isn’t that just like a homophobe? Here, I’ll spell it out very, very simply for you:
First, “civil rights” is not synonymous with the black civil rights movement. Civil rights is what the black population was after, which is why we call it the civil rights movement. It is the term we give to basic human rights for equal treatment. Black people are not the only people who have been denied these rights, and they are not the only people who want them. Gay people are another group that have been denied civil rights: maybe not the exact same civil rights (they can drink from the same fountains, for instance; whoopdedoo), but a set of civil rights nonetheless. They, like the black population, are trying to regain these civil rights that have been denied to them. Therefore, the black rights movement and the gay rights movement are BOTH civil rights movements: there is more than one! Because their end goal- equal treatment- is the same as the black population’s end goal, and because much of the mentality and logic behind their oppression is similar, people are drawing parallels between the two movements in order to make their point. If straight, white, Christian men are ever denied their civil rights, even they can have a civil rights movement. Isn’t this fun?
Meanwhile, it is not an insult to the black community to point out the parallels between their rights struggle and that of the gays. Many leaders of the black civil rights struggle have pointed this out themselves, and several prominent black civil rights leaders were ALSO GAY. Have you ever heard of Bayard Rustin? Look him up. Do you think he would be insulted that the black rights struggle helped to teach people that they, by extension, probably shouldn’t deny civil rights to other groups either?
As far as homosexuality being a huge health risk, I’ll use that as my argument when I vote to ban spinach, peanut butter, and driving. Oh, and gay MARRIAGE is a health risk? So it’s riskier for gays to enter a monogamous, lifetime commitment than it is for them to go through a series of lovers? That’s not even like banning driving for being dangerous; that’s like banning SEAT BELTS because driving’s dangerous. Nice logic. Like I said; isn’t that just like a homophobe?
And can you prove that homosexuality goes against God’s nature? Can you prove that God wrote the bible that people like you keep (mis)quoting? No? Then that belief doesn’t qualify as basis for establishing US laws. Don’t get me wrong, you can believe that there’s a god and that he wrote the bible and that he hates gays just like you do, and that hating gays is #1 on his big, cosmic list of priorities. Believe that all you want, and I won’t argue with you. But you can’t make secular laws based on that belief. Sorry. You just have to keep those beliefs inside your head and church, no matter how true you think they are.
And hey, if those beliefs turn out to be true, then god will send all the gays to hell and it won’t matter that they got to enjoy a good marriage first on earth, will it?
171
173
So it will hardly cost anything to pay benefits to a few gay couples but gay marriage is going to provide loving stable homes for all the neglected kids in America.
This sounds too good to be true.
Why don’t you girls huddle and get your story strait then try again.
@174
There are no parallels between sodomy and discrimination based on ones race.
Ethnicity is something we are born into, we can’t hide it. Sexual depravity is something we decide to do. What about that don’t you understand? or do you just want to defame black people with your absurd comparisons?
I don’t need the Bible to know that homosexuality goes against nature, I just need to look at nature, try to the same.
173
The status quo is and has been no gay marriage.
You need to make a compelling case to change it.
None has been forthcoming.
174
If nature meant for homosexual men to ‘love’ each other it seems they would have been provided with a vagina.
It seems kind of mean to make them use their anus as a sex organ.
@178 – Not all gay men have anal sex. Not all people who have anal sex are gay men. You need to read more Dan Savage.
@176 – Appeal to Nature fallacy fail.
Also, @176 – violence has been (and continues to be) perpetrated against gays and even straights who are suspected of being gay. This is discrimination, regardless of what they’re doing in their bedrooms. And it continues as long as gays are seen as categorically inferior to straights, which legitimizes all manner of discrimination. That is all the reason you need to change the status quo: the status quo is broken and harmful and needs to be changed.
177-
I did make a compelling case. The quality of life for a segment of the population would increase, at the expense of no one. I made that case several times. I also argued, over and over again, why something being the “status quo” isn’t reason enough to support it. You even (somewhat accidentally) conceded this point before giving me the ever-so-strong argument that it ALSO isn’t reason, in and of itself, to oppose it. Also, measures like Prop 8 are active measures to BAN gay marriage, whether it was recognized before or not. This is at least as new as giving it full recognition, by your logic.
Status quo or not, it is more intrusive to control what kind of marriage people can have than it is to stop that kind of intrusion. That is why people who want to continue that sort of intrusion are the ones who need the compelling reason; “status quo,” no matter how many times you shout it out, is not a compelling reason, nor does it place the obligation on those who want to change it. You have given me no reason that homosexual marriage should be made or kept illegal or unrecognized. You just keep repeating “status quo.” Before you repeat it again, just re-read all my arguments about why that is not a strong argument for anything, ever, and save yourself the trouble.
Besides, in a way, allowing gay marriages is already written into our law. What with all those “civil rights” laws that, while open to interpretation, forbid the government from controlling benign aspects of people’s private lives, and I’d say gay marriage qualifies. Unless you have a reason to think that it harms third parties somehow.
176- people’s sexuality IS biological. Whether they actually have sex with those that they are attracted to is a choice, sure, but it’s not a choice that should be made illegal for them. How convenient for you that the “choice” to have a heterosexual relationship just happens to coincide with your un-chosen attraction to the opposite sex (assuming you’re straight). I’ll tell you what- never, ever have sex with anyone that you’re attracted to again. Only have sex with horrendously ugly people, or only have gay sex (assuming you’re straight). Then, you will have some room to tell gay people that they should “choose” a lifetime of heterosexual sex rather than marry each other. Otherwise, you’re a giant hypocrite. Unless you think that being attracted to a member of the same sex is a choice. If that’s the case, you should read the last paragraph of post #115, and then take a long look in a mirror.
And for both 176 and 178, smarter people than you have taken long looks at nature. They have spent their lives studying human nature and human sexuality from a biological standpoint. Guess what they agree on? Homosexuality is not only natural and biologically engrained; it is beneficial to the survival of our species. Look up studies on the “altruism” gene and, assuming you have any IQ at all, you’ll understand how. I’ll trust scientifically tested theories and facts and data over some asshole’s observation that “men don’t have them any vaginers! How can thar be gays in nature??”
@181
No one is in favor of violence against “gays” but you are making an argument in favor of special rights for them. Alternative sexual acts are not some minority group.
@183 – This is about marriage, not about sex. Gays are going to have sex no matter what; besides, sodomy and other forms of gay sex are already legal (in most states anyways). These are not special rights. These are normal rights. The same rights everyone else has: to marry the consenting adult of their choice. How hard is that to understand?
A Kiev art museum contains a curious icon from St. Catherine’s monastery on Mt. Sinai. It shows two robed Christian saints. Between them is a traditional Roman pronubus (best man) overseeing what in a standard Roman icon would be the wedding of a husband and wife. In the icon, Christ is the pronubus. Only one thing is unusual. The “husband and wife” are in fact two men.
Is the icon suggesting that a homosexual “marriage” is one sanctified by Christ? The very idea seems initially shocking. The full answer comes from other sources about the two men featured, St. Serge and St. Bacchus, two Roman soldiers who became Christian martyrs.
http://www.libchrist.com/other/homosexua…
@165
In March 2004 Coretta Scott King in a speech at Richard Stockton College in New Jersey affirmed her belief that same-sex marriage is a civil rights issue.
“Gay and lesbian people have families, and their families should have legal protection, whether by marriage or civil union,” King said.
“A constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages is a form of gay bashing and it would do nothing at all to protect traditional marriages.”
She has frequently denounced other black leaders who support amending the Constitution.
King has frequently said that her late husband also supported gay rights and saw it as a civil rights issue.
@165
Just for clarity here is a link to that statement.
http://www.gaypasg.org/GayPASG/PressClip…
176:
As has been said here before, nature in fact has several examples of nonhuman animals engaging in homosexual behavior, and not just as a one-time thing, in most cases the animal in question is exclusively homosexual. Your opinion that being gay is a matter of choice has already been disproven. As a person who obviously feels oppressed because of something you can’t change, don’t you think gay people would change if they could and avoid similar oppression?
To David G, Unitarian and Kim,
Please, do me this favour and read what I write and get “exactly” the meaning intended.
One thing I’ve learnt in my life is that trying to win an argument is not always the ultimate and getting into an argument without thinking deeply about what the other is saying will only lead to more argument.
David, I’ll like you to understand that there is only one true God but He has other names as well that are mentioned in the Bible. Yes, I know certain religions have names for God too. But their having different names for God doesn’t really change anything as long as they all are worshipping this one true God and also acknowledge His only Son Jesus Christ the way God intends and the Bible instructs. I do not force nor intend to force anyone to do what they do not desire to do. I am not forcing people to worship God the same way that I do. All I am trying to say is that we need to worship this one true God (no matter the name you call Him) in Spirit and in Truth. All I’m saying is that we need to obey his doctrines. That’s all. I’m not here to argue or push people around, okay?
Unitarian, I’ll like to thank you very much for replying my post by trying to make a mockery of me first. Everyone is prone to make mistakes. If u read some of my other posts you’ll notice that I used the correct spelling of “homosexuality”. The wrong spellings were mistakes that came about while trying to reply promptly to certain people here. If u read all my posts here with an open mind, you’ll have no cause to call me proud. I’m not here to make people think I’m superior. I’m only here telling people what I believe is the truth. All the wrong things you accused me of stem from the fact that you “probably” did not read my other posts nor did you even try to understand the things that I’m trying to pass across. I never judged anybody here, I only tried to tell people what the Bible says. PLEASE, try and read my other posts.
Kim, so far so good, learning is a very wonderful thing and I’ve learnt a lot from you. I understand that you care for gay people, but I also want you to know that I care about them too. But no matter how much I care for them and feel sorry for what they are going through in the hands of the society, it cannot make me nullify the truth about what they are involved in. Even if the whole world agrees with what is false, it will never become true. The truth will always stand, if not now, then in the future. I rest my case for now. Nice talking to you, Kim.
The only thing that could silence a christian is the 2-for-1 buffet special at Sizzler.
@172, I think #186 has provided the answer unless you want to maintain that Mrs. King was missrepresenting her late husband. I had heard Mrs. King supported the gay struggle for civil rights I just did not have the exact quotes available. What I think is insulting to Dr. King’ memory would be to imply that he would endorse bigotry.
Comparing the gay rights movement to the civil rights movement for Black rights is not only appropriate, but it elevates the stature of both movements.
Both the late Dr. King and Correta Scott King supported equal rights for lesbian and gay citizens. Mrs. King endorsed equal rights for same sex couples. Deal with it.
@189 “I do not force nor intend to force anyone to do what they do not desire to do. I am not forcing people to worship God the same way that I do. All I am trying to say is that we need to worship this one true God (no matter the name you call Him) in Spirit and in Truth. All I’m saying is that we need to obey his doctrines. That’s all. I’m not here to argue or push people around, okay?”
Why do we need to do those things? Why do people who worship other gods also need to acknowledge Jesus as the son of god? Why do you think your opinions about god should be considered “the truth” and everyone else’s false? How is legislating your particular dogma against gays not forcing others to live as you think they should?
Christians are finally being held to account for their actions and attitudes and are obviously finding transparency uncomfortable.
81,
You have a good point. One could also argue on the “mother nature” side of things, that homosexuality is indeed natural. Research has shown that heterosexual brain patterns are remarkably different from that of homosexuals. Plus, one course in genetics will teach you that there are so many details that go into determining gender itself (only just begins with the Y chromosome!) Homosexuality is also quite prevalent in many other mammalian species, including dogs, apes, giraffes, dolphins….So… differences in sexual orientation are as natural as differences in the color of skin.
But, I suppose that argument is a lost cause considering so many Christians still strongly believe that the earth was created only about 6,000 years ago and in 7 days and species have remained completely the same since then. *sigh*
Ms King does not speak for Dr King.
The notion that MLK endorsed homosexuals marrying is bullshit in the extreme.
Gays should make an ad about that and run it for the next referendum.
Expect to lose the black vote 90-10 then.
I would guess that Mrs. King knew a bit more about what MLK stood for than you do, LeRoi. Nobody said that Dr. King had ever expressed and opinion about gay marriage. What Mrs. King pointed out was that her late husband viewed gay rights as a civil rights issue. I would guess that percentage wise there are as many lesbian and gay folks in the Black community as there are in the general population and that you will be as unsuccessful in silencing them as you are other gay folks. Same sex marriage is going to be a fact of life. Just adjust youself to that.
195
Thank you for the warning, Heather …
I shall adjust, and brace myself.
The progress to this point has been dizzying, after all.
Thirty states have amended their Constitution to ban homosexual marriage.
Some have banned civil union as well.
Some also go out of their way to pointedly not recognize homosexual marriages or civil unions other states may grant.
Thirty states where the people voted, by as much as 80%, to outlaw homosexual marriage.
California voters did it twice, btw.
Goods old liberal California.
How many states’ voters have approved homosexual marriage?
Let’s see, that would be …, oh yes, ZERO.
Of course there are states where judges have imposed their will and over ruled the wish of the people.
Tyrants in Black Robes.
In those states they go through bizarre contortions to keep the voters from having their say.
Poor Massachusetts voters.
And a California judge will no doubt soon overturn that state’s voters (again).
But tyrany is a flimsy foundation for social change.
And it breeds deep resentment.
195
Perhaps America’s first Black President needs to be educated about Civil Rights.
He opposes gay marriage, you know.
Maybe you need to let him know what Dr King would want, Heather.
You could make the same lame arguments about Brown v. Board of Education that desegerated schools, Roe v. Wade or the decision that made interracial marriage legal in all 50 states. Sometimes the rights of minorities are not popular, but pepole eventually accept these decisions. Before 1967 there was deep opposition especially in the south to white people marrying black people, but now it is a fact of life.
I think the fact that same sex marriage has been a fact of life in Massachusetts and with no dire consequences has normalized it in the eyes of millions of people. The same thing is true of the states that recognize civil unions. Courts defending the Constitutional rights of minorities is a poor example to point to as a form of tyrany.
Good Afternoon Truth,
It was very nice meeting you as well. Thank you for taking the time to exchange ideas with me. I regret that we could not agree more, as I appreciate your thoughtful and intelligent heart. You are correct I do love them, and I want for them to have equal rights in all arenas of life. It’s good to know that someone as compassionate as you stands on the other side of this line in the sand. Although, we disagree we share a common heart for the great “I am”.
God bless you and best wishes,
k
LeRoi, Presidentt Obama does support civil unions which in reality gives legal sanction to same sex unions. Frankly I see having civil unions as a foot in the door that will eventually lead to acceptance of marriage.
President Obama on his White House website restates his full support for full civil rights for gay and lesbian citizens. He also just appointed am openly gay Black man to his commission on faith and neighborhood development. Maybe you should explain to him why this is wrong, LeRoi.