Thursday, November 20, 2008
|
|
ELTON JOHN SOLVES GAY MARRIAGE CONTROVERSY
|
|
Posted by:
Michael Medved at
1:40 PM
|
One of the world’s most prominent gay entertainers offered some rare common sense on the explosive issue of same sex marriage. In New York City for a gala AIDS benefit, rock legend Sir Elton John appeared with his long-time partner, David Furnish. “We’re not married,” he told the press, “Let’s get that straight. We have a civil partnership…I don’t want to be married! I’m very happy with a civil partnership. The word ‘marriage,’ I think, puts a lot of people off. You get the same equal rights that we do when we have a civil partnership. Heterosexual people get married. We can have civil partnerships”. If more people on all sides of this issue embraced the simple, irrefutable logic of this clear-thinking superstar, a vastly divisive, unnecessary controversy could reach a successful and amicable solution.
|
|
What seems always lost in the gay marriage debate separate from the religious conception of what constitues "marriage" is that as a society we accept that "men are from mars" and "women are from venus". Whatever we debate marriage has evolved from and into, since early times it has defined the complicated and intimate relationship and convergence between two distinct genders functioning in partnership with each other. This differs from the relationship between two people of the same gender, not in the quality of the love but in the forms of partnership and interaction. Heterosexuals have a reasonable right to want to maintain a specific word in the vernacular that defines this relationship -- and they choose to call it marriage.
The point may be a moot one in one or two generations as people become more accepting in general but if the goal is to focus on attaining equal legal rights & protections across the country in THIS generation - the best strategy is to promote civil unions as a distinct and equally valued relationship that gay people enter into versus what we have chosen to define as the union between two different genders for a few thousand years - this definition will not be redefined in a single generation no matter how many marches are organized... I would argue it simply muddies the waters and postpones legitmate equal protections.
|
|
|
|
Elton John is right about this.
And since he is Homosexual, it's good enough for me that HE speaks it and speaks sensibly.
Those Homosexuals that are DEMANDING Homosexual "Marriage" don't really WANT IT...they just want to create a bruhaha about anything and everything and tie it into "civil rights".
They do so because they want to "stick it to" the majority of people who do not dislike THEM, but DO dislike their "Agenda" being shoved down our throats.
I make NO BONES about the fact that I'm sick to death of it. I honestly believe in Live and Let Live...I would never "harm" a homosexual man or woman verbally or physically, but "Marriage"??
ABSOLUTELY NOT. |
|
WOW...Rachoe/JamesB/Lonny may have not only a sexual identity crisis, but also an pure IDENTITY crisis. SO OBVIOUS!! writing style is the same...immature, venomous BS every single time, that doesn't even make sense!!
YO...Rachoe/JamesB/Lonny/all your other aliases...why don't you buy a journal for a dollar or two and WRITE IN THAT instead!! Spare us here at TH.com!!
You are beyond boring.
PS--not up to writing long hand?? buy some cheap paper at Staples and type it up in Word, print it out and put it in a notebook...spare US here, PLEASE!! Geez... |
|
|
No, vanagon, not a lie a fact. I guess that stating this fact makes you feel uncomfortable. In the same respect, I can't change the color of my eyes or the color of my skin. |
|
Swampfox-
I don't believe that my faith should be the determiner of the law. My moral code should be no determiner of what is allowable by law. That said, I have a hard time with drugs being illegal, and sex out of marriage being legal considering that both are acts that involve a person freely using thier own body in a way that has terrible public health effects. The libertarian in me thinks that both should not be controlled by the federal government, if truth be known.
The thing with marriage is that it is well understood and defined. It has great meaning to those that are involved with it, and has no practical purpose outside of that definition. You can live together, share resources, leagally bind yourself together, and even have children together perfectly well without being married. The only reason to be married is simply to have the designation, and all symbolism that goes along with it. Hetrosexual couples that choose not to be married, but live together, have children, have pooled resources, and have legal agreements will typically be the first to say that they do not have a marriage. There is no "equality" in labeling a couple that is not married as married. Instead, all that you do by broadening the defintion is cheapen it for everyone that current is married. My marriage is the most valuable thing that I have in this world. To cheapen it by changing it's meaning causes me great harm. That is not an act of love, but one of hate from my perspective.
|
|
IowaFalcon writes, "Why do you hate me so much that you want to take from me the meaning of my marriage?" I am one gay that doesn't want to change the current definition of marriage, but doubt seriously that gay marriage would take away the meaning of your marriage. Two people of the same sex can get married in a gay tolerant church and call it a marriage, but currently in most states there would be no recognition of the marriage by the state.
|
|
Lonny-
You are off base. One of the problems with celebrating tollerance is that it wrongly makes folks believe that things that are not similar are the same. Both muslims and Christians would tell you that there is little resemblance to their faiths, and especially the way that those faiths have spread. Muslims have always believed that it is appropriate to spread the faith through force, going all the way back to Mohammed. Christians believe that faith can not be spread by force, but only someone who has decided to have a personal relationship with Christ is a Christian. Anyone who has said to spread the Christian faith by any other means is not spreading the faith, but using the name of Christ to try to gain power.
Christians would not kill gays. We hate the sin of homosexual sex, but we love the practitioners of it. Our goal is not to eradicate sinners, but to eradicate sin by introducing all sinners to Christ.
Marriage is an instition that we take very seriously. What you have to understand is that we feel that we on on the defense, here. We are not trying to take a thing from gays, but instead are trying to defend our own marriages from an assault. Would it be hateful if all of the winners of the Super Bowl were against openng the definition of "Super Bowl Champion" to those people that won the playoffs of other sports? Of course not, an nobody would have a hard time understanding why Super Bowl Champions would want to keep the definition narrow. It has significant value to them, and cheapening would cause them tremendous loss. Why do you hate me so much that you want to take from me the meaning of my marriage? |
|
|
Vanagon writes, "Of course, the truth is there is no such a thing as "being gay"; that is only a modern day fantasy that has been accepted by some as fact. However, the real fact is, there is only the choice of whether to engage in the practices of gaydom." No, I am gay whether or not engage is sexual activity. The same applies to you, you are heterosexual, whether or not you engage in sexual activity. |
|
|
Having an abortion is most certainly a personal choice. Being gay is not. |
|
|
If Roe v Wade was overturned the federal power assumed in 1973 would revert to the states. If I remember correctly abortion was legal in some states in 1973, how many I don't know. |
|
Swampfox-
the point of Romans 1:18-20 is that the evidence of God is so pervasive, both within our hearts, and in all of creation, that it is undeniable.
In verse 20, the idea that presented that as we turn from God, our very thoughts become futile, and are hearts are darkened. Men start to believe themselves to wise, and come up with all sorts of non-sense that they take as being greater than the wisdom of God, but it is only non-sense that they have convinced themselves is truth.
The rest of the passage outlines many ways that this foolishness can manifest in a persons life.
The point is that God never made you gay. You can not pray homosexual behavior away, as you can not pray away the vile things that Rachoe keeps bringing up as being part of “regular” life (pornography, sodomy, and the like). These things all have the same root, which is a mind and heart that have become corrupt as they turned from God.
I was on your side of the argument most of my life. I was womanizing drug addict that was convinced that my life choices were just a natural part of who I was. It was easy for me to point to the success that I had in life as evidence that everything was fine, but I knew it was not. When I started to focus on being who God created me to be, those areas of open sin and rebellion faded away. Once you invite the Holy Spirit into your life, you will find that your very mind changes, and you see things in a different way. It is like blinders are removed from your eyes, and you see the foolishness of the excuses you make for sin in your life. Every day I find where I am turned from Him in different areas, and every day I continue to seek to continue to replace my own corrupt reason with His. I got a long way to go, but I can tell you that there is greater joy in the journey than I ever found turning from Him.
|
|
|
check it out for yourself |
|
Vanagon writes, "Why do you want a handful of kings with lifetime, non-electable roles, to force the edict of their own personal niche of ideals down the throats of an entire country? It is because you happen to agree with their ideals in this particular juncture in history, but that does not make the means right."
I would rather the court protect my individual rights from majority/mob rule. How about yourself? |
|
|
The Constitution did not give the Supreme Court the right to determine the laws of Congress unconstitutional, but it claimed that it had the right. As for the laws of Great Britain, our system of government, especially courts, is founded on the British system. Have you ever head of the term common law wife? |
|
...that Rachoe was posting under that name today instead of JamesBondi...same person/same lie (that he/she/it is a middle aged married woman with grown kids)...but frankly...what I don't understand is WHY DO Y'ALL FEED THIS TROLL??
This is a person who makes LESS THAN ZERO sense and spews nothing but HATE. He/she/it doesn't READ our posts!! just posts more NONSENSICAL Spewing of Hatred...
Let's NOT feed this Troll!! Not now, not ever, not in any thread!!
This is a very troubled and VILE person who belongs at the Daily Kos.
HAPPY THANKSGIVING EVERYONE!! |
|
Vanagon writes, "Thirdly, such practice of fabricating a constitution from the minds of men we call "legislation from the bench", and it is an abhorrent practice, almost as abhorrent as gaydom is, for it strips from the people the right to legislate through duly elected representatives, which is the system originally setup in our country."
I guess you wouldn't like the fact that Great Britain has no written constitution. Nor would you like to understand that courts have always "made law" by their rulings. In the famous court case Marbury v Madison, the John C. Marshall Supreme Court of the United States asserted that it had the right to declare acts of the United States Congress unconstitutional. It took nearly sixty more years before the United States Supreme declared another law passed by the United States Congress.
May I wish that you have a happy Thanksgivings. Certainly you have something to be thankful for this year.
Swampfox |
|
marriage has caused more harm to society than any other human activity. |
|
Its odd to me that you would make gay marriage a left right thing. With 70 percent of blacks supporting prop 8 it would seem that is just not true. Look at the overall voting trend here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008 )
It is what the people wanted in a large way. And for you to say that because marriage is intended to promote growth and for this we should outlaw divorce, adltery and menopause is childish. Homosexuality has become accepted though not understood and its harder to understand when your called a bigot. The noise made by gay "rights" "activists" has shown America the real face of the gay community. And its not to friendly. |
|
...what make degenerates and low-lifes such as rachoe and swampfox continue to come here and weary us all with post after post after post with reason after reason why their sick, twisted perversion should be regarded as a legitimate lifestyle choice.
I found my answer in Isaiah 48:22....."There is no rest for the wicked sayeth the Lord."
I couldn't have said it better .......
I know several people who have "prayed the gay away."
The Bible says if any man be in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has gone, the new is come.
This is especially true in cases such as this...I have sen it....and now they really are gay....in the original (and still best) meaning of the word. |
|
I looked up your Bible reference:
"21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."
So God made me gay for what reason? I can't pray the gay away, my friend. |
|
Swampfox/Jamesb
I am interested in how I can be said to hate my brother simply because I hate a sin commiting.
The motive that I have for speaking to my brother about his sin is love, as I do not want to see him live without a relationship with Christ.
Swampfox -
I you want to understand why you are gay, read Romans 1:18-32. When you read this, you will be angered at me. It is truth, and I am attempting to speak it in love. I want nothing more for you to start a relationship with the Lord, which will bring you eternal joy.
Jamesb-
I believe in the Genesis account. I have yet to see a single piece of evidence that has been brought to convince me otherwise, and science is offering nothing that I know of (and I have done years of research). As of right now, the Big Bang is still the current theory for the start of the universe (let there be light). Evolutionists do not disagree with the order of Genesis, but assume that God used "magic" to create, and try to put him in a box. We know that only by putting God in a box can we say that 7 days to God is the same as 7 days to us. The first day, there is no Earth, so how could that day be based on a single spin of the Earth? You need to quit suggesting that the thought of other are nothing but hate because they do not align with yours, and start listening to ideas.
The faith that you so readily bash is based on a kind of love that places others ahead of self. We do not make the rules, but instead acknowledge that we are not in a position to. We talk to you about sin because we want to see it destroyed so that the sinner is free from it. I will be happy to be called any name you desire for the chance to help someone get free of their bonds to sin. |
|
I agree with you...there is much to be Thankful for on Thanksgiving, and EVERY DAY, actually...
SO...Happy Thanksgiving to all!! |
|
|
This coming Thanksgiving all give thanks for something. |
|
Vanagon writes, "There is no "be gay", only "choose to engage in sexually and emotionally damaging acts"...........really?
Vanagon also writes, "Definitely not all militant. But the act itself is a violent act, inherently so." ..........now, you truly jest. I guess that you think that male gays are sick, but lesbians are just fine. |
|
...I don't believe for a second that all Homosexuals are militant, but the ones that are clearly are absolutely vicious about it.
NOT exactly the way to win friends (for their cause) and influence people (positively)...
BUT...Rachoe/JamesB./whatever other aliases he/she uses...wanted a "cite", so I gave it.
If pure RAGE doesn't scream from the posts of this person, I don't know what does.
Actually, I find it sad...that anyone would be just so filled with RAGE...but...not much I can do about that.
But...it works to their disadvantage, as it makes me even more determined in MY work, not less so. It's annoying...but in the end?? It's really only "white noise"... |
|
...I don't believe for a second that all Homosexuals are militant, but the ones that are clearly are absolutely vicious about it.
NOT exactly the way to win friends (for their cause) and influence people (positively)...
BUT...Rachoe/JamesB./whatever other aliases he/she uses...wanted a "cite", so I gave it.
If pure RAGE doesn't scream from the posts of this person, I don't know what does.
Actually, I find it sad...that anyone would be just so filled with RAGE...but...not much I can do about that.
But...it works to their disadvantage, as it makes me even more determined in MY work, not less so. It's annoying...but in the end?? It's really only "white noise"... |
|
...recognizing when you are "not on the same page" about an issue, but CAN discuss it, and "Agree to Disagree".
Swampfox states he is "gay" and overall has been respectful in his discourse here.
Rachoe/JamesB/other aliases, you state you are middle aged, married, etc. (I don't believe you but that's beside the point), you are simply angry, beligerent and most of all: IMMATURE.
I have many diverse friends and we can have some very interesting discussions because there is something else underlying it: RESPECT.
You (Mr. or Ms. Multipersonality) make sweeping assumptions about everything and quite frankly, don't know what you are talking about. You are just an angry angry angry angry angry angry 19 year old "gay" (homosexual) guy (at most) who doesn't even write very well...
You have a distinctive writing style (HORRIBLE!!) so I will avoid you in the future. |
|
...you and JamesB. were the same person!! KEWL!! (for me, that is, not you...LOL)
I'll cite for you that a Christian group that routinely is in the Castro District of San Francisco (they are "available", they do not "grab anyone" or anything else). One of the Homosexual protestors took a young girl's Bible, hit her on the head with it, such that she fell down, then began kicking her legs.
She didn't pursue charges but did file a police report.
This was on several shows on "Fox News"; the young girl was interviewed (and the police report verified). Do you watch the news??
OH...wait...you are likely glued to MSNBC, so NO WONDER you haven't heard this above story or the next one I'm about to tell you: Militant Homosexual Activists roughed up an elderly woman (thank goodness SHE wasn't hurt!!) but they caused the cross she was carrying to drop out of her hands, and then they trampled it and destroyed it.
HEY...nice going, Militants!! I would never consider hurting an older person (or anyone) or destroying THEIR property, especially an Ancient Religious symbol...
These angry Militants have no decency or BOUNDARIES!! they are determined to force their Homosexual Agenda down our throats.
BTW, Rachoe/JamesB/whatever aliases you use here: there is NOTHING illegal about discussing politics from the pulpit. You will be on the losing end of that one.
When is it that you turn 20?? you still write like you are 19 at best... |
|
|
I hope that you get well, soon. I am a gay conservative. I voted for have voted for Republican presidential candidates as long as I have been able to vote. As for the natural born/gay gene ...... will we ever really know. And, does it matter? All I can tell you is that I did not ask to be gay. Now choosing to have an abortion is a choice. |
|
...know what the Bible says about Homosexuality.
And I agree 100%: It's a choice.
EVERYTHING in life is a choice when we are of age/adults.
Later...
PS--just like Rachoe, which you might be "her" alter ego, I don't believe you are "straight" either...you two write just alike...very very very very very very angry...I'll give ya a clue: Your anger will never change anybody's mind.
BUT...if you need to vent, why not start your own Blog?? just not here. This really is a Conservative, Pro-Family site... |
|
being homosexual is a choice. you are not born that way.
roy |
|
I'm a middle aged lady. Married. Not gay.
But an activist who will make sure that each and every church that supports political causes loses its tax exemption, so maybe its corrupt preachers and pedophile priests will have less money to spend on political causes.
An someone who knows that my nephew will be a great captain as soon as he is allowed to serve. Good thing he didn't out himself until after his eagle ceremony. BSA is a tremendous organization with a blind spot, but in places like CA, they will come around.
So keep up the hate. Keep calling people like me liars. You see, until Prop 8 came along, I assumed that people were good and tolerant.
And in my city in CA, the vote was 78% no, and 22% yes. (west hollywood was 88%-12%). If you live in a community like mine, you know that people are good, people change, and gay rights will prevail. Your kids know that too... |
|
...STOP lumping me or anyone else here into your self-created Cess Pool of anger, etc.
Remember: when you point that finger at me (you don't know anything about me at all), there are THREE fingers pointing right back at YOU.
Read your own posts!! They are illogical, nasty, and really...not worth reading.
Can YOU prove how old the earth is??
NO, you can't. Carbon dating proves nothing. Has anyone been around long enough to "prove" anything is 2000 years old, 2 Billion years old or even 200 years old??
Anyway...I refuse to be "lumped" into any group, as I've never made ONE anti-gay remark here. I am opposed to Homosexual Marriage but that is not being "anti-gay". It's called PRO TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE, James.
But, you can't understand that anyone could think differently than you and not be angry or fearful or whatever. I'm not fearful at all as I know God is always holding my hand, through thick and thin. Jesus did warn us that "...in this world there will be trouble, but I have overcome the world." What I have is called "Faith", James. What you appear to have is ideology. You are an ideologue.
Anyway...it's been interesting, but...I am late for the door in this discussion and OUTTA HERE!! |
|
meaning to some news publication, AP, NYT, LAT, one of those. Not some blogger.
Yes, the earth is not 6000 years old. Do you dispute carbon dating? Do you?
You simply project on me the anger, fear and belligerence you have at the changing world. Within 2 years, gays will serve openly in the military in the USA as they do in most of the world. Do you think the Israeli army is 'gay' and thus ineffective because gays can serve?
Do you realize that nothing you do is different, except in degree, from fundamentalist islamists? No, you don't lop off people's heads, that is true. But your intolerance, your steadfast belief that you can determine what is deviant behavior based on a book is no different than what those who believe in a literal koran do.
Gays are not going away. They don't bother you. They don't impact on you. The only marriages that are threatened by gay marriage are those where one of the marriage partners is gay and the other straight. A new alternative.
Lastly, when did you choose to be straight? |
|
gay fearing wall....
"A Miami judge overturned Florida's ban on gay adoptions today, declaring there was no legal or scientific reason for sexual orientation alone to prohibit anyone from adopting. Mitch Perry reports from WMNF in Tampa."
History moves on. Intolerance passes away. |
|
Trying to "discuss" anything with you, and those like you, is truly pointless. You have your mind made up before anyone can say a word. Clearly, you are very angry and already "know everything", such as how old the Earth is and God's plan(s), etc.
As to citing injuries, I already did and can cite at least one more that I know of.
BUT...why should I bother/waste my time?? You aren't LISTENING!!
Anger, Militancy and Beligerance (putting others down) will get you NOWHERE, despite what you may think. People have grown very very weary of your ilk and are not going to waste their time and energy arguing with you. I am certainly not.
Posting and reading in this column/thread has been very interesting, however...an "education" of sorts. So, it's not been for naught!!
|
|
when you don't like reality, you call people liars. Since he's a virgin, he's hasn't been dragged into anything. And he will get to join the military because of President Obama. Ain't that just one brick in your wall of 'deviance'. LOL.
He is the best human you could find. He will have his rights in CA. If anyone in CA doesn't want to marry the same gender, they don't have to.
Still waiting for the citations. |
|
he is 19. He is a virgin. He is an eagle scout. You wouldn't guess he is gay. But he is. He and his boyfriend wear promise rings. He is the most moral person you could ever meet, certainly more than anyone who hates gays the way some of you do. He might be the person who runs to save your life sometime, yet you would deny who he is, who he has been his entire life. His parents are straight, long married, have one other son who is straight. They were raised together, same house, same family,same holidays, same sports, only the other brother washed out of boy scouts, not mentally strong enough. If this kid is allowed to by President Obama, he will join the military. He would be a tremendous officer, leader. His sexual orientation is only one teensy bit of the story.
Meanwhile, Bristol Palin is lauded because she doesn't abort her baby. That's her big accomplishment. You cut that immoral woman slack, yet my nephew you believe was put here by God to be punished by never being able to have a spouse and a family. He will have those things because he can go to MA or CT, or Canada and be married. Nothing you can do to stop that (just like you cannot stop the 18,000 couples already married in CA). NOTHING. Imagine that...you have to explain to those frail children of yours that some gay people are allowed to be married. How on earth are you going to do that? LOL. |
|
I'm still waiting for a citation to where violence has been done to anyone who is pro 8.
Not sure what you mean by belligerence. Do you mean actually asking for a real citation when you make claims? Actually asking a question about things like your belief system (for example, if someone says that they believe in Genesis, I'm not going to take their point of view on anything that relates to science with much credence...if you believe the earth was literally created 6000 years ago by one god who did it in 6 days, sorry, but your view of gay as choice or born that way is not particularly valid). So asking that question is belligerent?
Is asking about your sexual practices belligerent? Sorry, but lots and lots of folks in 2008 do not have missionary duty sex in the dark. They have sex on the beach, they do all kinds of acts that 100 years ago would have been seen as 'deviant', and straight women do as many sodomy acts as do gay men. Porn isn't the huge industry it is in the USA because of gay people or a few straight college boys in Texas. Many of you are sheltered.
oh, and "who will answer the 911 calls in their Society of Anarchy??"http://www.gspoa.com/links.asp
|
|
human beings are not animals. I wonder why homosexuals always try to justify their human behaviors by referring to the animal world?
Conduct is what human beings control. That is why conduct is an appropriate subject for government.
Do you think it is rational to attack someone as a prejudiced bigot because they advocate for chastity and purity?
Do you think a society founded on chastity and purity is inferior to one that is founded on fornication and adultery? |
|
How beligerant pro-Homosexual Agenda people are? and how they grasp at straws with purported "data" (most of it untrue, because they make it up...such as the "gay gene")?
It's true that some on the other side are also "out there" somewhere in their posts here at TH.com, but here's the thing: Imperfect as it may be, Marriage has been between ONE MAN and ONE WOMEN from a Religious and Legal perspective because it simply works better in supporting a society that has some structure and rules, vs. anarchy.
I ask again: IF these bigoted and beligerant people (and I don't mean just the Homosexual activists knocking over old women with Crosses or shouting obscenities...I mean the whole "Moveon.org Crowd") succeed in gaining their Agenda, who will answer the 911 calls in their Society of Anarchy??
ALL of these left-wing activists are hell-bent on tearing it all down, yet have absolutely nothing of value to replace it with. When they truly present a "better way", I'll take notice and listen. Until then, they are a distraction of hot air. |
|
How beligerant pro-Homosexual Agenda people are? and how they grasp at straws with purported "data" (most of it untrue, because they make it up...such as the "gay gene")?
It's true that some on the other side are also "out there" somewhere in their posts here at TH.com, but here's the thing: Imperfect as it may be, Marriage has been between ONE MAN and ONE WOMEN from a Religious and Legal perspective because it simply works better in supporting a society that has some structure and rules, vs. anarchy.
I ask again: IF these bigoted and beligerant people (and I don't mean just the Homosexual activists knocking over old women with Crosses or shouting obscenities...I mean the whole "Moveon.org Crowd") succeed in gaining their Agenda, who will answer the 911 calls in their Society of Anarchy??
ALL of these left-wing activists are hell-bent on tearing it all down, yet have absolutely nothing of value to replace it with. When they truly present a "better way", I'll take notice and listen. Until then, they are a distraction of hot air. |
|
I love how you think God is so powerful etc, but when he creates gay people, who have sex via what you call sodomy (there are few 'sodomy' laws anymore, mostly because heteros engage in so many acts that were once considered criminal sodomy, though we know not in your house, right?), you say, oh, that's a choice. You know that science has found gays in every species of animal life, you know that any day now, they will find what makes people gay, and it will be demonstratably NOT a choice to be gay, anymore than it is a choice to be a female or a male, so you have to make it a conduct thing. How convenient and what rot!
As for those of you who say your gay friends are dead or lonely, where the heck do you live? Any gay who likely lived where you live has moved to a place like SF or NYC or LA where they can live as they were born, not some closeted person who has to worry about what religious bible literalists think.
|
|
explanation of how God created man, the earth, and the heavens? It is a simple question.
Eddie, you need to read what I wrote. Prop 8 creates a new class of people--gays who are not allowed to marry other gays. But prior to 11/4, gays could marry other gays, and nothing can be done to undo that. With me so far?
Therefore, by preventing gay people post 11/4 from marrying other gay people, Prop 8 (because you intolerant haters who sponsored Prop 8 were too chicken to include the retroactive thing that would have guaranteed a loss, rather than a very small 'win') discriminates against gay people in preventing them from marrying other gay people.
|
|
prop 8 does not discriminate based on sexual orientation.
Heterosexual same-sex couple also cannot marry.
Prop 8 had nothing to do with homosexuality.
If you cannot understand that, keep trying. |
|
|
do you believe God created the heavens and earth in 6 days? |
|
God did not create sodomy. That is a lie.
Engaging in acts of sodomy are free human choices. Do not blame God for the choices human beings make. |
|
18,000 gay people got married, legally, before Prop 8 passed. Prop 8 does not apply to those marriages. It is not retroactive. Prop 8 supporters decided not to try to void those marriages because they were afraid that the public would not want to undo those marriages, that it would help the anti 8 people put human faces on the intolerance of Prop 8.
So, there's the discrimination based on orientation, Eddie. Gay people pre 11/4/08 and gay people post 11/4/08 (or whenever the ban takes effect). Treating like situated people, gay people, differently from other gay people. Discrimination based on their orientation only, because the Supreme Court did allow gays to be married under the equal protection clause of the CA State constitution. You cannot discriminate on that basis, same orientation vs. same orientation. |
|
and none is ill, none has a destructive lifestyle. Indeed, marriage would be the final link to 'normalcy', which is what you fear. You fear that as each People magazine cover with Ellen, or Rosie, or Elton, or Lance, and many others, your little scared part of the world, especially your kids, becomes tolerant of something that God created. You don't even respond to that point. Just like people thought some folks were witches and burned them at the stake in NE, this period of time will be seen as a backward time for intolerant, but scared, Christians. 18,000 gay couples are married in CA, and will likely stay married no matter what happens to Prop 8, and what impact have those marriages had on you, on anyone? None.
You must live in small town surrounded by people who think like you and who worship at your megachurch. Do you ever have sex with your wife? Do you have a wife? Do you turn off the lights? Is that what God tells you? Do you ever commit acts that would constitute sodomy?
And as far as 'historical' marriage is concerned, you on the right lost that argument when you didn't fight divorce being so easily obtained, when you haven't made childless marriages illegal and voided.
|
|
can cite even one marriage law in the United States that discriminates based on sexual orientation.
I defy anyone to cite even one marriage law that discriminates based on sexual orientation.
Keep reading TH. No one will ever cite such a law.
If current marriage laws in the United States do not discriminate based on sexual orientation, than the prohibition against so-called same-sex marriage logically cannot be discriminatory toward homosexuals. |
|
fearful, believing in outdated things. 99.9% of gay people have no 'diseases', so you are just showing your hateful side. For someone who supposedly believes in God, you are very judgmental of others. Especially when the 'others' are gay people created in God's image much as you or I are. Or in addition to believing in a literal bible, do you also believe in that wrathful god who creates people just to watch them suffer at the hands of intolerant crackpots like you?
I think that God actually creates gay people to test intolerants like you. Guess what, Van? You have failed. Hell will be full of haters just like yourself, people who were intolerant in this life, who have failed God's challenges on this earth, and who will find that those around them in hell are just as selfish, intolerant and judgmental. Enjoy the afterlife. It will not be fun for people like you. |
|
Medved states that if all people embraced Elton John's proposed method of the gay marriage debacle that it "could reach a successful and amicable solution".
Mr Medved, I'm afraid your wrong on this one. The BEST and only solution is to NOT embrace the homosexual lifestyle at all. By giving in to the homosexual community's hue and cry for civil partnerships is giving in to their lifestyle as a societal norm. I don't want my children exposed to the sexually deviant lifestyle at all, and civil partnerships say it is OKAY for two men or two women to have sexual and intimate relationships together. You might as well allow them to marry if you allow them to have civil partnerships... what's the difference?
Covering up an issue doesn't make the core issue go away. Homosexuality is a product of sin. Instead, we must reach out to homosexuals and tell them the Good News of Jesus Christ. Only He is capable of turning a gay individual into a straight heterosexual man or woman as originally intended by God.
As long as God allows us as Christians to take a stand against sin, all sin, including the sin that I myself have been enslaved to, we should continue to do so. Otherwise, Satan has become victorious and Christ's death on the cross is in vain. |
|
Vanagon, are you that fearful of your gay side that you must be so intolerant?
People are born gay. People like you thought the earth was flat before Columbus sailed to America. People like you think the world was created in 6 days. People like you think the world is only 6000 years old. People like you think that black and other minorities are genetically inferior.
Keep your antiquated point of view, let the rest of us move on. |
|
triple wow.
Only the left aborts, eh? Is that why you on the right have failed to pass a Federal constitutional amendment protecting the unborn? Because the majority of American voters actually want Roe overturned, but you just haven't gotten around to it?
How come the GOP can win presidential elections (since 1968, Nixon, Nixon, Reagan, Reagan, Bush I, Bush II, Bush II), but you cannot convince Americans on the abortion issue?
So long as you on the right think that is your most important concern, you will continue to be a minority party. Women (even your fundy types) really don't want the govt. telling them what to do; how is govt. intervention on that point conservative anyway?
Meanwhile, intolerance is immoral, especially when people are born gay. |
|
Intolerance is not the ultimate immorality. There are plenty of sins worse than intolerance. I would argue intolerance to evil could be a virtue;)
Anyway for all the intolerance on the right, the left's actual murderous, ignorant, poverty train it has its voters on dwarfs the sins of the right. The left has murdered and aborted black Americans into the second largest minority group. Liberalism/immorality has aborted 13 million black babies since the 70's. 4000 black American's will be murdered this year in America, roughly the same number as whites even though they make up around 13% of the population.
Top 10 most violent, poorest, worst educated big cities in America have all be run by democrats since the 70's. The right may be good at sinning, but the left shows expertise in sin that we right wingers could only dream about. Liberalism kills. |
|
double wow.
The hatred expressed here about gay people. Calling it a choice. Then you don't really know any gay person. The one who was straight, then bi, then gay, that is typical, esp. since he seems to have family members who obviously reject his very being.
yes, we all have family members, friends, co-workers, etc, who are gay. that you may not know that is indicative of how they fear telling you, not indicative of the fact that no one around you is gay. Many gay men have traditionally married, had kids, then when the kids are grown come out. What would you do if society denied you the right to marry the one you love, and you wanted a family? Most of the people I have known who have gone through this actually have better relationships with their ex spouses than do 'straight' divorced people.
But keep thinking that your morality is superior, that you have no flaws. I certainly hope that St. Peter greets you with his husband Jesus, as you get placed in the express lane to hell, where intolerant and hateful people are sent. Intolerance is the ultimate immorality. |
|
Folks need to get over the homosexuality is a choice thing. If people can be born with both female and male parts there is no reason to believe that some homosexuals aren't born that way.
Plus the homosexual rights movement is going to end abortion!!! As soon as we can test for the gay gene you'll have a constitutional amendment banning abortion due to race, gender, sexual orientation, and disability. Overnight the GOP can convert gay Americans to our side. It's really an easy argument to make. We may not want you to get "married", but we sure don't want you aborted like the democrats. |
|
Those that continue to say that the human genome is mapped and a gay gene has not been found just don't know anything about genetics. I don't know why I am gay.
IowaFalcon, HIV has disproportionately hit the male gay population in the United States. The other STDs are equal opportunity diseases. How many people die from heart disease, diabetes or any number of ailments? The fact is that we all die from something one time in our life.
|
|
practices of sodomy. Such practices provide nothing positive to society or the people who engage in them.
It is human nature to deny the destructiveness of our sins. If humans did not engage in such denials, they would either reject the sins and strive to eliminate them from their lies or their guilt would overwhelm them and make them incapable of a productive life. |
|
Swampfox-
The thing is, you want to unlink homosexuality from other forms of sexual sin. It is not like we can go back in time and try to take a poll of everyone who died of STDs to figure out exactly what their sin of choice was. I can tell you that if everyone did not commit any sexual sin, that is not have sex outside of marriage, there would be exactly ZERO deaths from STDs.
I assume that you are both young and educated based on your insistence that I provide you with links to things that you should simply know. While it has failed to teach anything of use, our education system has taught that there is no truth unless there are footnotes cited. We used to believe in such concepts as common sense, and we expected people to actually piece together the things that they were taught.
STDs have always been killers of huge numbers, but we have sort of brushed that under the rug as we have been trying to embrace a more open view of morality. Over 1/3rd of the population of Europe was wiped out by syphilis within a short period of time. Over 23 million people have died of AIDS alone, with another 40 million currently infected. That said, war has not been as big a killer as most would have you believe. Most of the big death counts attributed to war are actually actions take within the boundaries of a state, with a single people doing very bad things to themselves. Stalin, for instance, killed more of his own people than all of the worlds wars during the time that he was in power. It is easy for us in the US to not put into perspective the genocide and political killing that continues to go on all around us. We used to understand that the US is the great exception, but I guess we no longer are allowed to believe in American exceptionalism. We also understood that war has been a great saver of life, not waster of it.
You are right to say that influenza is scary, but that does not change the the effects of STDs.
|
|
Iowahawk writes, "poor schools in 2000 words or less, and I can not erase the bias that has been placed into them by those looking to shape minds instead of educate. I will tell you that STDs have killed more people than war and religion" I did not know that STDs are transmitted solely by homosexuals. Can you give me a link as for your statement that STDs have killed more people than war and religion? Remember that everyone dies from something at least one time in their life.
Wave upon wave of various diseases have swept this world from time to time. If you will look at any world population chart we live in an era in which more humans walk this world than ever before. Thank modern medicine and our expanding knowledge of what causes diseases. However, in my opinion, nothing will be able to stop the next GREAT influenza outbreak. |
|
Swampfox-
You are not paying attention if you have not seen the round up of Christians.
We had more Christians lose their life for their faith in the last year than any in history. While Christians are very forcefully being pushed out of the public square in the US, around the world it is getting worse by the year. Parents are killed for their faith, then their their kids are sent to reeducation camps. The Bible is outlawed in most of the world, and is cause for arrest in places that you would imagine, such as islamic countries, as well as places that you would not expect, such as China.
In Canada, a minister can be thrown in jail for preaching on Romans 1:24-32. In the US, the goal by the militant homosexual lobby is to set up the same. We have been told that we can not speak on the subject within our businesses, and some churches are being sued to try to force them to employ homosexuals. I I mentioned in a previous post, eHarmony has been forced to create a site for homosexuals, greatly against their will. It is easy for non-Christians to turn a blind eye to what is happening to Christians, and it sounds like you are taking that route. It is OK, though. We were told it was going to happen, and we already know the end of the story. |
|
|
About the double post. Thought I had gone over the limit, as it did not load. |
|
Swampfox-
First, thanks for replying. For these types of issues, polite discourse is needed.
I do believe that my brother has chosen to be gay. Without getting into the particulars, he started as straight, then went through a bi phase, and finally settled on being gay when he started a relationship that he has been in for about 16 years. He would not argue against choice in the issue, and does not see himself as some sort of evolutionary victim or oddity.
As stated, he has been in a committed relationship for roughly 16 years. He and his partner have taken the steps that people should to protect their assets and choices, so have never felt the need for a marriage. The thing that people miss is that we are all sinners, and we need certainly need to hate sin, but we need to love people. He is living in a sinful way, in open defiance to God. I hate that. I deeply hate his sin, as I do my own.
I think that you will need to study history a bit if you are not familiar with the impact of sexually transmitted disease and social decay on history. I can not hope to make up for poor schools in 2000 words or less, and I can not erase the bias that has been placed into them by those looking to shape minds instead of educate. I will tell you that STDs have killed more people than war and religion (but have lost pace with socialism in the last 110 years or so). Homosexuality is one of many forms of sexual sin, and should not be separated from the others when looking at the effects of sexual sin on societies. We are only now making distinctions because homosexuals have been effective at convincing people (themselves included) that homosexuality is somehow different.
From a biblical context, any sex outside of marriage is sin, so they only way for homosexual sex to even be possibly considered non-sinful is to change the definition of marriage.
|
|
Swampfox-
First, thanks for replying. For these types of issues, polite discourse is needed.
I do believe that my brother has chosen to be gay. Without getting into the particulars, as it is not really germane to the discussion, he started as straight, then went through a bi phase, and finally settled on being gay when he started a relationship that he has been in for about 16 years. He would not argue against choice in the issue, and does not see himself as some sort of evolutionary victim or oddity.
As stated, he has been in a committed relationship for roughly 16 years. He and his partner have taken all of the steps that most people should, but don't, to protect their assets and choices, so they have never felt the need for a marriage. While I do not agree with his lifestyle and choices, I still love him. The thing that people miss is that we are all sinners, and we need certainly need to hate sin, but we need to love people. He is living in a sinful way, in open defiance to God. I hate that. I deeply hate his sin, as I do my own. He is my brother, and deeply love him, and do want to spend eternity with him. That is not up to me, though.
I think that you will need to study history a bit if you are not familiar with the impact of sexually transmitted disease and social decay on history. I can not hope to make up for poor schools in 2000 words or less, and I can not erase the bias that has been placed into them by those looking to shape minds instead of educate. I will tell you that STDs have killed more people than war and religion (but have lost pace with socialism in the last 110 years or so). Homosexuality is one of many forms of sexual sin, and should not be separated from the others when looking at the effects of sexual sin on societies. We are only now making distinctions because homosexuals have been effective at convincing people (themselves included) that homosexuality is somehow different.
|
|
|
Japan currently has a Catholic Prime Minister. I haven't researched it but I am sure that Catholics in Japan make up a very, very small minority. |
|
Alleycat writes, "Yeah...right...Tolerance. For everybody, EXCEPT Christians. Sounds like total INtolerance to me.
UGLY Indeed."
Really?.............I haven't seen a round-up of Christians. In fact every person running for the presidential nomination in both the Republican and Democratic Parties said that they are Christians. |
|
IowaFalcon writes, "It is a very interesting, ugly time. We have gotten to the point that people of faith are considered to be too scary for office, while the people that advocate social morals that have repeatedly caused the spread of deadly disease and social collapse throughout history that are thought to be safe.
The first thing that I want to say is that there is ZERO discrimination in the US when it comes to marriage. My brother is very gay, and he can marry the exact population of people that I can."
Do you think that your brother chose to be gay? As for gays spreading disease and causing social collapse throughout history .......... can you tell me one time where gays have caused social collapse? I will admit that AIDS has disproportionally effected the male gay community. But, it has not caused social collapse. It is sort of odd that I remember that STDs were at one time called social diseases. |
|
...and it's AMAZING when people PREACH "Tolerance" yet fail to practice it, such as Rachoe.
He/she/it states "she" is hetero, married 35 years with grown children. By reasonable calculations that would have "her" be be "about 60"--55-60, maybe even 60+.
He/she/it behaves like about a 19 year old angry gay guy...I notice posts from "her" all over TH.com. Always the same UGLY INtolerance.
Sad.
But at least I now know not to reply!! ROFL!!
Yeah...right...Tolerance. For everybody, EXCEPT Christians. Sounds like total INtolerance to me.
UGLY Indeed. |
|
It is a very interesting, ugly time. We have gotten to the point that people of faith are considered to be too scary for office, while the people that advocate social morals that have repeatedly caused the spread of deadly disease and social collapse throughout history that are thought to be safe.
The first thing that I want to say is that there is ZERO discrimination in the US when it comes to marriage. My brother is very gay, and he can marry the exact population of people that I can. The fact is, marriage and love have little to do with each other from a legal perspective, and they should not.
Marriage is not a contract, where there is an agreement between parties that one will do something for the other in exchange for something in return. It is a covenant that a man and a woman make with each other, each vowing behavior that is not predicated on the behavior of the other. Vows are echanged, but each of the participants separately makes the vows. The legal protections that gays say that they seek in marriage are not really part of the marriage covenant, but something that is granted to married folks as a matter of practice. Those rights are also granted to non-married couples in this country, and have been since it's inception.
Legal rights for a gay couple to each others property are clearly not behind this movement, but instead it is forced acceptance of homosexuality that is at the root. We saw that eHarmony this week finally settled on making a site for gays, even though such a thing is repugnant to the founder of the company. The gay lobby continues to be successful at making people of faith bow and kiss thier pinky ring, and people like Rachoe continue to think it is the people of faith that are being offensive. Ugly times indeed. |
|
"The answer is clear: civil unions for everyone who chooses to be in a legally recognized romantic partnership. If you also want a religious ceremony to call it marriage, fine, call your civil union whatever you like."
I like what you said here. See, for me, Prop 8 and others like it were just a semantics war. To say that "well you have the same thing, but you can't call it marriage" just kind of bugged me.
Please understand, I didn't like that the people's decisions were being overturned by the Courts. I absolutely believe that the people should be the one's voting on this, even though I voted against Prop 8.
I tried to find a good argument for such a thing, and I couldn't, but I really like this idea:
For purposes of the "law", all unions between 2 consenting adults that are meant to be for life, etc. should be designated "civil unions" - for heterosexuals and homosexuals. Marriage is taken out of the civil context and left for spiritual ceremonies that take place in churches, synagoges, mosques, etc.
I can live with that. Keeps the gov't out of the spiritual and the spiritual out of the gov't. |
|
Well, Swamp...I believe the Words Jesus spoke...he told us He goes to prepare a place for us and that in His Father's House are many Mansions...He also told the one thief on the cross who came to belief in his last moments, that he, too, would join Him in "Paradise"...
I believe that to be clear that we will return to God one day, but only if we accept the Son as our Savior...as did that thief on the cross... |
|
Alleycat writes, "I AM a Born-Again Evangelical Christian and I will never "lose" because I have Eternal Security. I know where my Eternal Destiny is. It's not here, on this earth.
Do you?"
I believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ. I don't "know" if that will lead to eternal life or something else. |
|
If your point was previously that the Roman Empire was a "brutal" one, you did not make that point at all. Instead, you directed me to some six-volume set on the topic which I am not going to read, quite frankly. While a history buff, my legal work keeps me much too busy to do so.
I therefore checked some solid texts I have here in my home office/library and the reasons for the decline/fall are many.
Thanks, however, for being thoughtful and civil in your replies...it IS appreciated!! :-)
|
|
Alleycat writes, "Decaying morals, political corruption, pure size and much much more including invasions from barbarian tribes heralded and caused the fall of the Roman Empire.
Many historians feel Christianity may have EXTENDED the life of the Roman Empire, not caused its downfall." All empires come to an end some time, for a variety of reasons. That that the Roman Empire lasted as long as it did was amazing. My previous point was that it was a brutal empire.
|
|
YOU are the one who is ANGRY and very very SILLY.
And I will PROVE it to you.
I NEVER said I was "glad" that O'Hair was murdered. I DID SAY it was very "sad".
Did I not??
And I meant it. Murder is always sad. Especially when it is done by "one of your own" over $$$$.
That is the problem in trying to have a discussion with people like you; you do NOT listen. You hear NOTHING because you are SO BUSY thinking up your response to others WHILE they are talking, that you do not HEAR them.
You are baiting me. And I am DONE with it.
I came back in to this blog one last time cuz I knew you wouldn't be able to resist slamming me, or trying to anyway.
Slam away, if you must, Rachoe!! Your posts make no sense anyway. You spew nonsense and pure hate and can't even state the truth of another's post...I can't waste my time on such silliness. I will pray for you though...
Buhbye, Rachoe!! |
|
You are definitely very angry. What has caused your anger, I don't know for sure but I have some ideas.
"I" am not going to "lose this one". YOU will be the loser if you and your ilk manage to "secularize" the US, as started with M. Murray O'Hair and school prayer (and gee...where is SHE today, BTW?? chopped up in pieces, last I heard...very sad, actually...)...
Your hate SCREAMS from your posts. On one hand, I don't care!! You are absolutely entitled to your opinion!!
On another hand, I do care as you are the true bigot here. We can have "rights" for everyone...except Christians. Like it or not, our Country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles. That does not mean everyone has to be Jewish or Christian. It does mean, however, that there IS an absolute right and an absolute wrong.
I am certain you are absolutely wrong.
And I got some news fer ya Rachoe...my whole life is about defending our First Freedom, that being RELIGIOUS FREEDOM, and the First Amendment, which is simply to prevent the STATE from establishing a State Religion (protect the church from the state, not the other way around as all you bigotted people like to "spin" it).
I am truly sad and sorry you are so angry, and so bigotted. I will pray for you. And on that note, no more "breaks" for me. I really do need to finish up my work here to protect Marriage between ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN.
|
|
Is that a THREAT?? Christians are a minority so we better watch out??
Watch out for what, exactly??
YOUR wrath and anger??
Your bitterness will do YOU in, not me, or other Christians.
I am genuinely saddened for you that you are just SO angry. It will eat you up. |
|
Far be it for me to criticize either your degree or interest in history, for I share that interest...
However, if your degree is in the subject, I'm sure you will realize that a sort of "pacifism" of Christianity "may" have contributed "slightly" to some changing attitudes about the military/need for of the Roman empire, but the Fall of the Roman Empire unto itself was due to MANY factors, including things as simple as using lead pipes to channel water into cities and directly into homes...it is thought Nero was insane perhaps due to lead poisoning (and/or the unglazed pottery)...
The Empire also expanded to such a large area it was difficult to defend it and maintain it. Things fell into disrepair and ruin, and thus, crime ensued...few were truly "wealthy" in the Roman Empire...which also contributed to crime and unrest...
Decaying morals, political corruption, pure size and much much more including invasions from barbarian tribes heralded and caused the fall of the Roman Empire.
Many historians feel Christianity may have EXTENDED the life of the Roman Empire, not caused its downfall.
|
|
My undergraduate degree from some decades ago was in history from a very good small college. I have always been fascinated by history.
My guess is that the issue of gay marriage is going to end up someday in the Supreme Court of the United States. I have no idea how they will rule. |
|
elton better expect "protesting" for his intolerant, homophobic words....
roy |
|
Ooops...THIS will be my last post...just saw yours as I was exiting!! YOU are definitely on the right track, Responder!!
Only, it's far worse than you lay out, really it is. Since the homosexuals in CA didn't get their Homosexual Marriage upheld, they are now trying to wrap it up into "civil rights", which they were doing to some extent before...but it is even far worse than that.
People this ANGRY and this MILITANT won't be happy until they TEAR IT ALL DOWN!!
The only this is...they have absolutely NOTHING to replace it with. They think Anarchy is the answer...but when they go dial "911"...there won't be anyone on the other end of the phone...like you or me!!
So, you are on the right track as to its being Evil...but again, that is just for starters. |
|
Swamp...I never take anything on Wikipedia as a "standard" and sorry, dear...but my study of history simply does not match yours.
And to Rachoe, Hmmm...I think I just "might" understand the courts far better than you. You don't know what I do for a living.
Alas, this is my last post on the subject, however, as I have (legal) work to do for DOMA.
Nice "chatting" with you, tho! (Holds your friends close, and your enemies closer.) |
|
It is just plain historical fact that Rome fell after its leaders converted to Christianity. Rome was founded around the year 753BC. In the 313AD the Emperor Constantine became the first Christian ruler of Rome. The traditional year in which the fall of Rome is recognized is 476AD.
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Gibbon
"Edward Gibbon (April 27, 1737[1] – January 16, 1794) was an English historian and Member of Parliament. His most important work, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, was published in six volumes between 1776 and 1788."
Alleycat, perhaps you should buy the entire work and sit down and read it. |
|
While your comment is true and valid, it misses the fundamental point.
Once the "definition of Marriage" is changed from ONE MAN MARRIED TO ONE WOMAN, who is to say it won't be extended from ONE MAN to TWO WOMEN? or from a WOMAN to her DOG?
I really don't see what is SO difficult to "get" here...Marriage is a statement of Love and Faith, but also the "legal unit" to raise children...which ONLY a Man and Woman can do together...it takes a member of EACH sex to produce a child.
Two men cannot do it; two women cannot do it. Two men need an egg and a womb; two women need a sperm donor.
And, it's not about Civil Rights!! "Sexual Preference" is not a "civil right"!! |
|
|
There's a benefit of civil partnerships that proponents of same-sex marriage haven't thought about. Ending a civil partnership doesn't require filing for divorce. Other than the death of one of the parties, the only way to end a marriage is to get a divorce. They can be time-consuming, nasty, & expensive. Is this what proponents of same-sex marriage really want? Be careful what you wish for...it may very well come back to bite you. |
|
I would LOVE nothing more than to keep my nose out of your business.
It's just that you keep inserting it into MY business.
I am not Catholic so do not believe in the "St. Peter" concept but there is a Judgement Day.
I am sad for you. You are SO angry!!
And this is NOT about Civil Rights, dear.
It's about a very small group of people wanting to change the definition of "Marriage" that has been legally and religiously defined as between ONE MAN and ONE WOMEN for thousands of years.
We have not "lost the battle" or whatever it is you say, not will we ever. God is in Control...always has been, always will be. It's really just that simple. |
|
Swamp, your historical knowlege is flawed. Rome fell due to social and moral decay from within. Pick up any history book. Just make sure it isn't "revisionist" history.
And to Rach, who says we will "lose"??
I AM a Born-Again Evangelical Christian and I will never "lose" because I have Eternal Security. I know where my Eternal Destiny is. It's not here, on this earth.
Do you? |
|
David writes: "Civil Unions vs Marriage
Moral decay.
Social decline.
&
America goes the way of ancient Rome."
Ancient Rome fell after it had converted to Christianity. The great days of Rome were its pagan days. When they crucified thousands of slaves after Spartacus' uprising. Disciplined their troops with the threat of decimation. Engaged in human matches that were fought to the death, to entertain the masses. Need I go any more? |
|
I don't know that I agree with homosexuals are less than 1% of the population, but certainly they ARE a very small percentage. I've also known people who were "sure" they were homosexual at the ripe old age of 20, only to end up married with kids by 30 (case in point is a female friend of mine from college; she lived with another woman in a homosexual relationship for years and one day, realized she was not homosexual at all!).
HOWEVER...I do agree, that there is a Homosexual Agenda, a Homosexual Movement AND that they ARE WELL ORGANIZED! Given too that they usually do not have children, they have A LOT of "disposable income" to spend on their "Agenda".
Hence...that which we see today, including the Anger and Militancy which I am really sick of. I do not believe Homosexuality is a "normal" choice but I am not going to "bash" those who make it either physically or verbally, or refuse to serve on some general committee with them or any other such thing!
However, when it comes to the Issue of Marriage or what my children are taught, that is where the Line is CLEARLY drawn in the Sand for me. Enough is enough. Homosexuals are not a "minority" as Blacks were in Civil Rights issues. If "minorities" are now going to be defined by "sexual preferences", GOOD GRIEF!! What next?? I hate to be offensive but will we have those who like "Sex in the woods", or what?? |
|
Since homosexual men and women comprise a very small percentage of the population (3%, maybe 5% at most), WHY-O-WHY do they insist on shoving this issue of Homosexual "Marriage" down the throats of the rest of America??
Marriage has been defined both Religiously and Legally for thousands of years as being between a MAN and a WOMAN because it WORKS best that way. Homosexual couples are NOT going to reproduce without the aid of the OPPOSITE SEX (surrogate mother, sperm donor).
Homosexuals can live together, legal documents allow them to leave each other property and/or name each other as beneficiaries, many companies allow same-sex medical coverage...WHY does this MINORITY feel it must TAKE OVER everything AND try to wrap it up in "Civil Rights" to boot?? (it is NOT a civil rights issues, folks!!)
Read the book: "The Homosexual Agenda"...it will open your eyes WIDE.
I for one will NOT lie down and play dead on this issue. Marriage is between ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN. PERIOD.
I have grown so very weary of being pushed here and there by minorities, even though I am one! I have no more right to "special treatment" than anybody else! I am an American first and want what is best for my Country and "homosexual marriage" ain't it! |
|
|
I appreciate Sir Elton's comments very much because my cultural tradition means a lot to me, but very little to those who want to change the definition. I suspect that in many ways they're trying to get rid of old mores, however they can, in spite of the multiculturalist label many liberals give themselves. But those who want to live by the old culture must defend it because those who want to get rid of it do not respond to politeness. I appreciate those who want to live by a new tradition and let me keep my old one! |
|
I feel that gay and lesbian couples should have the same rights as a married man and woman. It was a fair request which I am supportive of. That was the issue wasn't it? I may be ignorant on this matter but didn't the gay and lesbien crowd get that wish? If no forgive my lack of knowledge please offer the facts for my own education. If they did get it good, if they didn't then I think it only fair that we go to bat for you and help you accomplish that goal. If we did help you get the same rights then why proceed for something like a recognized marriage. Help me to get a better understnding of this.
Lastly, there are plenty of dating sites on the web for gay and lesbien lifestyle so why was it important to the community to impose the dating lifestyle on e-harmony? What is the point?
NEWBNEW |
|
With all of the name-calling, alleged prejudice, etc. connected to "Yes on 8" I felt compelled to not only look at the definition of a domestic partnership, but also California law regarding these "unions". Here's the deal: for $33 and a state form, if you are in a same-sex partnership, are over 18 years and live together, you qualify! You are afforded the legal and tax benefits of any married couple.
I call this Reverse Discrimination - what about the hetero couples who meet this same criteria??!! Sorry!! |
|
From the BBC News site:
"Crowds had gathered for their ceremony, which came on the first day of same-sex unions in England and Wales."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4546670.stm
By casually omitting the above information Mr. Medved is showing his ignorance and prejudice. How clever for you not to mention that the laws in England do not apply to citizens of the United States. And you wonder why your party is dead? Society no longer tolerates the deception and you are now outnumbered. |
|
|
|
|
to disagree with the Queen of RocknRoll? |
|
|
Elton has my respect for seperating gay activism from 'gay pride' while respecting heterosexuals enough to recognize that we want to keep marriage as one man and one woman. The issue of equal rights has been addressed by partnerships and if anyone wants more than that - then he or she needs to hook up with the opposite sex. Many have championed poligamy for those who want it for religious rights reasons but then again that would confuse the issue of defining marriage from a legal stand point and just like polygamists have come to face their reality so must gays i.e. marriage is one man and one woman. No more, no less and no arguments based on the pretense of 'rights' religious or civil. |
|
|
punish children for our disagreements. On election day, Arkansas banned adoption/fostering for unmarried couples, targeting gays particularly. The unintended target of this are unwanted and unloved children. I was raised by my natural mother and a stepfather. The absence of my "natural father" was replaced by the love of a man who chose to care for me as his own. How beautiful a thing for a child abandoned by an unloving biological parent to be chosen and loved for who they are, filling that void. I wonder what those children in Arkansas think about their abandonment by so many people. |
|
|
that marry gays. Some of them are Christian sects like the Anglican Church, some Baptist orders, etc. None of these churches are being coerced, they are willingly bringing people into the fold of their church who have been shunned for a long time. If gay people want to emulate the acts of heterosexuals, that is the ultimate form of flattery. The dispute over rights and what to call any arrangement is part of a much larger debate..the rights of singles/unmarried people versus those of the married. Married people are given many rights and privileges economic, spiritual, and social that all others desire and are forced to subsidize through our tax code and education funding, etc. |
|
MARRIAGE IS FOR MEN AND WOMAN ONLY
-PROCREATION IS THE REASON.
UNTIL GAYS CAN PROCREATE WITH THEIR STYLE OF SEX...
ALL OF THEIR EXCUSES OR REASONS, ABOUT MARRIAGE INSTEAD OF CIVIL UNIONS, ARE NULL AND VOID.
VERY SIMPLE...LET THEM CHANGE THEIR SEXUAL CHOICES ( NOTE ) THEIR SEXUAL CHOICES, THEN SHUT THE HELL UP. |
|
"Sorry, you don't get to cherrypick, esp. from someone who undoubtedly would be sickened that gay haters were taking his comments out of their specific context."
-- 1) I, for one, have not taken the words of this brilliant musician (want to compare how many of his songs each of us has on their iPod?) out of context AT ALL. 2) Sorry, but I DO get to pick which of his views I agree with, and which ones I do not (and YES, that was a marriage pun).
"If you wish to quote him when he agrees with you, then you better accept his positions about GWB and religion. You don't get to choose, sorry."
-- Where do you come up with such a mindset? Is it the all-or-nothing, blind quest for Utopia that so many liberals seem to be infected with? Who the hell are YOU to tell me what I am obligated to accept? Have I told you what I think YOU are obligated to accept? Of course not. I would never do that. But then again, I do not have a 'benign-totalitarianism' nanny-state collectivist mindset.
"He cannot be wise just because he agrees with your bigoted position. His isn't based on bigotry, whereas yours is."
-- 'Fraid not. I am not a bigot.
"I find it utterly hysterical to see the fundys quoting Elton John on gay marriage but not on sex practices, or claiming that racism is over because people other than their own racist selves have voted for Barack Obama."
-- 1) Who proclaimed that racism is over? 2) I am not a fundamentalist Christian; and yet, I am opposed to redefining marriage. What a freak I am, eh? Do you suppose that I am the only one?
"Or somehow Bristol Palin's unwed pregnancy (how are those marriage plans coming, btw) is ok, but some other celeb or a black teen in Compton gets preggers, and she's the dregs."
-- Who said this? Who? Names - dates - places - Let's Go! |
|
You posted a lot of words, loaded with accusations, and completely failed to make a point.
So Hannity, Ingraham, et al are associated with homosexuals in some way. How does that have anything to do with their approval/disapproval of homosexual marriage. They don't pretend to be against homosexual rights, nor do most conservatives. What is your basis for that accusation? Which homosexual rights, specifically, are they against? What does homophobic mean? How do you know their "base" is uneducated?
Until you can correctly answer the above questions (and many more), I'm afraid you are completely lost on the core issues surrounding government endorsement of homosexual relationships.
|
|
|
|
|
Some how you managed to bring Sarah Palin's daughter into this discussion,as my kids would say,that is so gay. |
|
Sean Hannity has a dating website for conservative minds, Hannidate, that has always included straights and gays.
http://web1.hannity.com/hannidate/
So we have Sean Hannity with a straight and gay dating/sex ad site, Laura Ingraham with a gay brother who was in a committed relationship where he cared for his dying partner, Bill O Reilly who is friends with a gay couple who have adopted children, and finally we have Michelle Malkin and Ann Coulter who are friends with a former gay porn star (Matt Sanchez aka Rod Majors)....
So these people aren't really against gay rights.
You all have been played for fools.
They only pretend to be against gays because they are playing to their homophobic uneducated base.
They just want you guys to read their comments, go to their websites, watch/listen to them on TV and radio, and most importantly of all to buy their products. |
|
The Constitution is the "we the people" and WE the people voted to perserve the institution of marriage. As you Obama voters love to say, we won, get over it!
If homosexuality if all about love, then why is promiscuity such an integral part of the community. What drove the governor of NJ to slum around truck stops just to have a sexual relationship? Where's the love, man????
The average relationship lasts less than 3 years and the average homosexual has had many different partners, one bragging over 1000. It seems to all be about satisfying a sexual urge even to the point of "tapping" in bathrooms to total strangers and the act is everything, unlike hetero, where the act is mainly secondary. |
|
The dog humps my leg. Do you think he is in love with my leg and just terribly confused? Don't start with the "animals do it" too comparison. It's as obviously abnormal there as anywhere else, since it defies and defiles Nature. It's ridiculous! Many animals eat their young so I don't think that's right either.
This "but we love each other" is a stupid comparison. I know many men who care for other men deeply, as brothers, to the point of giving their lives for them, but their minds are ordered as such, as not to even think about sexual activities. It's NOT about love, it's about sex! You are have totally confused the two. You can have sex without love and love without sex.
|
|
Rachoe, before someone IS tellng churches that they have to marry homosexuals, that anything less is bigotry. Look at the ruling this week for Eharmony. The judge ruled while they were breaking NO law in specifying their clientele they HAD to offer 10000 FREE memberships to homosexuals, and begin matching same sex partnerships.
It IS forcing religions to believe against their core beliefs, which the Constitution protects us from.
|
|
....that one day we'd be arguing over something so obvious, and who would've thought we'd have to "amend" the constitution to reiterate an obvious truth.
That marriage is between a man and a woman was never given a thought until this depraved generation.
God's curse on all who would presume to change this institution to suit their own selfish purposes. |
|
Marriage is foundationally a Christian Institution. Whether or not you are Christian, it was begun in the JudeoChristain book of Genesis, when God created Man and Woman, (Adam and Eve). He did this as a reflection of HIMSELF and his church, eventually to be culminated in Christ and his bride (The christian Church)
Now, THAT is what the Christian Church believes, and that is why this is a sacred institution to Christians. Yes, Non-christians marry, but to change what is a CHRISTIAN invention, to reflect their relationship with their God, so that it's meaning would/could signify man's relationship with no one other than MAN himself is no one's "Right". It is bigger than any one civil rights lawsuit. It is an Institution, established by the one True God.
This is beyond Morals. Beyond wanting what other people have. NO ONE is saying anyone can't marry. EVERY LAST HOMOSEXUAL in this country can marry, they would have to choose a heterosexual partner to do it with, but that's what MARRIAGE is. You cannot change fundamentally change it, even if some leftwing judge thinks he's bigger than The Triune God. They will simply be perverting something God has given us. But, please understand me, WE ALL SIN, all the time, and ruin every good thing He sends us starting with the Garden of Eden on till now.
I would say the assault on it tells much about our relationship with God. We care much less about Him, and our standing with Him, than we do about ourselves. |
|
|
It really cuts right to it. Certain gays want "marriage" only as a symbol that mainstream society accepts and celebrates their gayness. Elton's right, though. Marriage is for heterosexuals, civil unions are for gays. Some institutions simply shouldn't change. Change is the ultimate form of entropy (i.e., eventual destruction) for just about anything. |
|
University of Oslo, Museum of Natural History...
Has an exhibit on homosexuality in the animal kingdom...
http://www.nhm.uio.no/againstnature/index.html
Pictures included are two male ducks having sex, a male giraffe anally penetrating another male giraffe, a male killer whale penetrating another male killer whale with his dorsal fin, two male sperm whales rubbing their pen!s' together, and two female bonobos having sex.
"Today we know that homosexuality is a common and widespread phenomenon in the animal world. Not only short-lived sexual relationships, but even long-lasting partnerships; partnerships that may last a lifetime." |
|
|
I wrote it two different ways, just in case somebody didn't agree with one of the ways that I wrote it. |
|
The fact that Medved probably disagrees with Sir Elton on 90% of the issues makes it "out of bounds" for him to tout one of the times when John's opinion is correct.
Friggin' idjits! Do you only trust the opinions of people that agree with you 100% of the time? in other words: yourselves? |
|
Specifically: Rachoe, PatritoAmericanus, & WAY Down South . . .
The fact that some of Elton John's opinions are stupid & wrong does not mean that he cannot be right with some of his other views. Chiding Medved for touting EJ's opinion on civil unions, even though he may well disagree with the man on 90% of the issues, is like saying that you'll only trust the opinion of someone who thinks exactly the same as you do.
Which is to say that you ONLY trust your own opinion. THAT is the definition of narrow-minded.
I'm a conservative; my boss is a liberal. We disagree on over 50% of the issues. Should I then never make a point of noting where I think his opinions are correct? |
|
|
It is really strange that institution that was created to chain a man to one woman to be responsible for his children would become so desirable for men making with men without any consequences. The is why I think that the real cause is woman again: "look for a woman" as French say. Women want to be married and have children. And I suspect that it is a lesbian movement that is behind the hole idea of homosexual marriage. Lesbian woman wants to have a wedding ring same as heterosexual women, and to be married. Do I simplify? - Possible. But I think there is a lot of truth in my humble opinion. |
|
|
|
|
How dare someone from the GLBT community (EJ) drop the talking points and speak their mind. What do you say, blacklist him for his unorthodoxy? Nah, I didn't think so. It is easier to pressure a Sacramento theater to force its manager who supported Prop 8, to resign. |
|
|
In aqua scrubus et piscem natare doces. |
|
When he said this:
"Sunday 30th Sep 2007
Elton John Slams Bush's 'Idiot' AIDS Efforts
Sir Elton John has launched a scathing attack on the American Government's AIDS prevention strategy, dubbing them "idiots".
The singer-songwriter has slammed the George W Bush led emphasis on abstinence at his Aids gala in New York this week.
He told the audience, "They've made a grave error in giving millions to abstinence programs. They don't work. They were told in the beginning that it wouldn't work. It's a tragic waste of money. Please don't listen to those idiots. God almighty."
Earlier this month Elton called on British Prime Minister Gordon Brown to take the lead on fighting the AIDS epidemic in Africa."
Or this? Elton John said he would ban religion. In 2006 he told the Observer newspaper's Music Monthly Magazine:
“ From my point of view, I would ban religion completely. Organized religion doesn't seem to work. It turns people into really hateful lemmings and it's not really compassionate."
So, let's not be quoting Sir Elton just when you think it helps your case.
|
|
|
I get the civil union idea. It is a simple matter of contract. I don't see the sense in fighting over semantics. The name is not the problem. To my admittedly Christian mind, marriage is between (among?) a man, a woman, and their God. No God, no marriage, no problem. The governmental interest is what makes it a debate. No matter what we choose to call it, the issue is money. When they say "rights" they mean all the recognitions of survivorship, community property, parental guardianship, etc. that we have traditionally extended to married folk. That is where I have a moral dilemma. As a Christian, I don't want to be forced to fund sodomy. I know people are going to do whatever people are going to do, and I believe that their payday will come. In the meantime, I would prefer that the govenment abstain from using my taxes to subsidize behavior I believe to be an abomination. |
|
Is now the emperor of gay people!
Please. If he enjoys his civil union, bless his "I lived half my life in the closet and married a female until I had the guts to come out of the closet when I knew it wouldn't hurt my career"
Some people want to be married. Some people have bi-national relationships and need the federal governments support of marriage so they can keep their love ones from being deported.
Elton John has a billion bucks and he's from England.
I figured the people here would tell him to shut up and sing? Not when this can be used to sell their homophobic agenda. |
|
I have always loved the music of Elton John and the man is intelligent to boot. This isn't the first or last time Elton has been brave enough to speak out. Hopefully the wackjobs out there rioting will pay attention to him and stop with the hate. Do they not realize this is just ONE of the many reasons why folks can't and won't jump on board their train? They say we who are opposed are haters...they need to get a mirror!
i am not opposed to sharing everything a married couple shares like a mortgage, health insurance, etc., To me, those rights are fair game but I am and always will be opposed to the actual union of marriage to same sex couples. It needs to stay between a man and a woman period! Just my opinion. |
|
The problem is that 19 states already ban civil unions and domestic partnerships.
The Religious Right acts like they are just against gay marriage but would be ok with civil unions/domestic partnerships.
But thats a lie as they have pushed for bans of civil unions/domestic partnerships in 19 states and they are getting ready for more.
They want gays to give up on marriage and focus on civil unions/domestic partnerships and then they are going to take those away too.
Its a bait and switch tactic.
The Federal Government doesn't even recognize civil unions/domestic partnerships and therefore they do not have all the same rights and protections as marriage. |
|
not the same as homosexual. |
|
neither can heterosexual same-sex couples. That amendment is unrelated to a person's sexual orientation. That is the lie. When people say that such a regulation is discriminatory against homosexuals they ignore the fact that the regulation has nothing to do with a person's sexual orientation.
Now do you get it?
There are no marriage laws in the United States that discriminate based on sexual orientation, none, zip, zilch, nada. Try another argument because that one is WRONG. |
|
Prop 8 discriminates against gays because unlike heterosexuals, they cannot marry the consensting adult they love - period.
As for Elton John's comment - What he expressed is his personal choice on how to structure his own life. Other people feel differently, and imposing EJ's person choices on other gays is just as wrong as imposing James Dobsobn's.
And while California allows civil unions, don't forget that the anti-SSM measure passed in Florida also bans SS civil unions. There is still a lot of anti-gay bigotry out there. |
|
an obviously simple solution ... we need more of them.
http://afencepost.blogspot.com/2008/11/overwhelmed.html
|
|
United States that discriminate based on a person's sexual orientation, not one, zip, zilch, nada.
Please stop lying about marriage laws in the United States being discriminatory against homosexuals until you can cite just ONE law that singles out homosexuals for discrimination.
Moronic sodomite liars. |
|
|
As long as all the rights are equal - taxes and everything else - who cares what it's called? I don't kow how they do it in the UK, but here in the US unless it's called a marriage, it is legally "less than" a marriage. Heterosexuals can have their term "marriage" - gays just want the same RIGHTS. |
|
I would vote for it.
But if it helps to give it a separate name, so be it, if the individual rights are the same. My only caution is civil unions cannot be for heterosexual couples, because that could hurt the institution of marriage by creating a second tier marriage. |
|
|
i agree with mtngirl on this.who would have thought! question for the gay people reading this.if science discovered that gayness was caused by a hormonal deffiecincy during pregnancy and a simple shot of hormones injected at the right stage of pregnancy would keep child from being gay ,would this be genocide? |
|
|
I'm not redefining anything. I say keep government out. Of all of it. Of my health care. Of my retirement. Of my bank accounts. Of my inheritance. If you still believe that government is capable of restraint regarding 'this far and no further,' I feel sorry for you. Government is incapable of promoting a cultural ideal. That is the job for society. Society and government are seperate entities in a free civilization. Liberals have their misguided government intervention programs, conservatives have theirs. They all make me ill. |
|
Moral decay.
Social decline.
&
America goes the way of ancient Rome.
|
|
"One of the best points of being gay was knowing you never would get married! Who wants that?!"
Of course he was of a different generation of gay, there were no cores of radical violent types who would bully others to change the course of law making.
He never had a problem when he willed his estate to his friends, he never had a problem being visited in the hospital by his friends, he was able to own property, vacation and get a hotel room with whomever he chose, nor was he beaten or ridiculed for being gay---and he never felt the need to hide it. Also, he always was friends with any religious groups, and you would find priests, nuns and rabbi's in his home being entertained by him, they loved him for him being a good person.
Some gays have had their problems, but show me one human being of any kind who hasn't be treated unfairly. Crap happens, it's inevitable. |
|
?It’s nice to hear a widely known gay popular singer saying what the Yes on 8 proponents have
been saying. Hopefully he has no gigs in California soon, otherwise he can expect to be
blacklisted by his own community. |
|
|
Couples in "civil partnerships" aren't as likely to receive permission for adoption as married couples. Gays need legally adopted children in order to carry on their agenda. Obviously, Elton John isn't all that concerned about kids. |
|
|
Going to a very liberal school in the Bay Area, when Prop 8 passed the entire school was in outrage. I heard many viewpoints on why this proposition should have passed such as it's their civil right and separate is not equal, but there was a vote in California and the majority of the people voted for Prop 8. There is nothing to you can do now to change the fact that more people agree with marriage means man and a woman than those who do not. |
|
I agree with the point that the same sex folks should have a way to assure equality as far as legal business goes. Dependent health coverage, etc. I also believe they should not be a target of hatred.
I do not believe that anything such as a hate crime act should be in our laws. Why should someone pay less of a penalty for committing a violent crime against a heterosexual? That is nuts.
More importantly I believe this nation was set up with a solid agreement. "In God we trust", "One Nation under God". That being the case, referencing God and his word would make the answer to much of the problems/issues we face crystal clear. It was Adam & Eve that were created and the reasons for that. God did not create a man to be Adams partner nor to procreate, etc. The sin of homosexuality was dealt with by God himself in the destruction of Sodom & Gomorrah, the flood, etc.
The continual weakening of moral issues of man has been brought on by man in the desensitization of things that have always been made clear- No guess work involved. I believe it is meant to be part of the very fiber that holds a great nation apart and opens the door for blessings.
No, we sure aren't perfect- but the guidelines are all there to read AND practice. |
|
Good point. Isn't it the state Supreme Court's job to uphold the state constitution? If the California constitution does not specifically give a right for "anyone" to marry, then the court has no business even addressing it.
I'd like to add that our U.S. Constitution does not give our Federal Government power to bail out huge banks and car makers.
We need to get rid of all of these "representatives". Their only job was to defend us, but all they have done lately is throw money around at ridiculous attempt to boost the economy. |
|
|
A ballot initiative amending the state Constitution is the purest form of self determination. If the CA Supreme Court has the supreme arrogance to overturn the will of the people, the people should overturn the court. |
|
I'm with you.
Whether in school or by societal acceptance, teaching children that deviance is just as desirable as a healthy outlook, is a form of child abuse. |
|
You made no comment about the clear thinking superstar’s comments about wanting to ban religion.
What say you about banning religion?
B-I-G-O-T-R-Y to you!
|
|
dude,
Disagreeing is one thing.
Being disagreeable is another.
Calling Medved a jackass is playground behavior. Grow up.
EJ was absolutely using 'simple, irrefutable logic'. And it is tragic that the gay community will not STOP there, here in America. They have done more to set back any sympathy for their cause here in the past few weeks than further it, I'll tell you that much. I, for one, was always willing to try to see things from their point of view...but no more. I"m sure I'm not the only one. In fact, they are simply illustrating for one and all to finally grasp, the true nature of liberal 'tolerance'. The simply spell it wrong. It's spelled
B-I-G-O-T-R-Y
|
|
M. Medved, I thought that I would share with you two recent statements from esteemed theologian Elton John.
Statement One:
“I think religion has always tried to turn hatred toward gay people. Religion promotes the hatred and spite against gays”
Statement Two:
“From my point of view, I would ban religion completely.”
M. Medved, do you approve of this particular kind of “simple, irrefutable logic of this clear-thinking superstar.”
You're such a jackass.
|
|
stated it the best......
Good job!!! |
|
|
been living in sin with his perverted gay partner in his sickening gay lifestyle all his life anyway, so why would he even consider getting married? And...I'd rather take advice from the bearded lady at the carnival; she wouldn't be nearly as pathetic a side show as Elton John is. PUKE! |
|
To amend the California constitution, it takes 50 percent of the vote, plus one vote. It has been amended by Prop 8. So now it will be interesting to see if the court will strike down an amendment, given that the amendments are supposed to rule over the court.
Same-sex pairings are a different kind of voluntary association than the pairing of both sexes. The state treats different kinds of voluntary associations differently all of the time.
California has a domestic partnership law that treats domestic partners THE SAME AS SPOUSES. However, only same-sex couples can be domestic partners, or a both-sexes couples with at least one person over the age of (I think) 62. Yet nobody challenged this "discriminatory" law. Don't tell me it is "because straights have marriage." There are both-sexes couples that want the legal applications of marriage without the social label of marriage - yet they can't get it.
Like I said... it is okay for the state to treat different kids of voluntary associations differently. If there is no difference between the union of a man and a woman, and the union of two men or two women, then WHY "CAN'T" a gay person be happy with someone of the opposite sex? Oh, that's right... because IT ISN'T THE SAME. |
|
Always a convenant between a man and a women, which by its nature ordered toward procreation. (Catholic Church regards Marriage as a holy sacrament.)
Marriage is not just any relationship between two human beings. It is a relationship rooted in human nature and thus is governed by natural law.
By this reason morally bond to transform the means to help accomplish the purpose that is objective to moral good.
A child of a same-sex marriage will always be deprived of his/her natural mother or father role model, since it ignores child's best interests.
By legalizing same-sex marriage, the states will order schools to teach acceptance and teaching of one moral code, some may not agree their young to be exposed to.
|
|
2/3 vote is required for amendments to the U.S. Constitution. However, every state has their own constitution, and their own rules for how to amend it. I'm not sure of California's constitution, but it may very well require nothing more than just a simple majority.
Again, I'm not up-to-speed on CA's constitution, but I think that might be the case.
Hope that helps. |
|
He wrote some great songs in the 70's. I still enjoy 'em.
Good luck to him and his partner/husband/spouse. |
|
doesn't have a lisp does he?????
that might be stereotyping......
LMAO!!!! |
|
|
"I fthwink fthaht sthe sathomosetsthual cammoonity thaud be happy thwit sizst sthlatootstzen." |
|
I may be wrong, but Prop 8 put the language in the CA state constitution that marriage is between a man and a woman.
Constitutional amendment would then I believe require either yet another vote or a 2/3 majority in both state legislatures. |
|
|
Conservatives saying 'this far and no further' concerning this issue is hardly getting government 'involved' in everything. Our current problems are because government has gotten involved intirely too much in the wrong things, like the mortgage industry. Conservatives didn't do that, liberals did. Conservatives don't want the government involved in their retirement, health care, religion, gun ownership but liberals most certainly do. Trying to redefine things to suit yourself is loathsome. |
|
is the fact that homosexuality is still a psycho-sexual dysfunction.
Screwtape asks,"Could it be that simple?"
I ask, "Can it be any more subtle?" |
|
...he doesn't get it. Gay marriage has nothing to do with gay civil rights. It has everything to with normalizing homosex within the society.
Only if gay marriage is legal can schools teach gay is OK. Instead of 1st grade primers talking about Dick, Jane, Mom and Dad they can have Dick, Jane, Dad and Dad--and nobody can do a thing about it. The teacher can teach that the princess can marry and princess. And of course, they will. The CA Teachers' Union gave $1,300,000 to fight Prop 8.
Without legal gay "marriage" gay activists cannot force churches to perform same-sex marriage and consider married gays on the same level as married heteros.
Gays are attacking Mormons and Catholics because it is religion that keeps insisting the homosex is sinful sex. Teaching that gay is OK in the schools is the same as if you forced Jewish kids to eat ham sandwiches and sripped head-scarves from the heads of little Muslim girls.
Legal gay marriage gives gay activist legal entree into every aspect of society, especially the most gay-is-OK-resistant institution: the "church." |
|
Be cautious with your common sense. There seem to be a lot of "conservatives" lurking here who are enamored with the idea that government should premeate our lives to the extent that it is the guardian of our culture. Keep government away, as government ha s aproven track record of destroying that which it comes into contact with.
Or so my stock portfolio tells me... |
|
Wow, people on the right favoring civil unions. It's about time. A few years ago when Karl Rove wanted to ramp up W.'s votes there were a flurry of constitutional amendments proposed to ban gay marriage-- many of which also forbade civil unions.
At that time reasonable people were advocates for civil unions, but the reactionaries were going nuts to foist their radical hetero agenda.
The answer is clear: civil unions for everyone who chooses to be in a legally recognized romantic partnership. If you also want a religious ceremony to call it marriage, fine, call your civil union whatever you like. |
|
I actually agree with Elton John. But now he's gonna have to watch his back 'cause the rabid haters are gonna be after him.
BTW, I just fired off an angry letter to the California Supreme Court demanding that they uphold the will and VOTE of us California citizens.
My God, could the SC be that insane as to overturn AGAIN the will of the voters!? God help us if they do because I do believe it will be the "straw that broke the camel's back."
|
|
I respect your comments.
I'm a proponent of marriage. I grew up in a great family, want to see people committed and happy. Despite what I say here, I probably would have voted for Prop 8, since it's so hard for me to let go of those values. So... just know that I think we come from the same place.
As for discrimination. Marriage is a civil institution. The government granting a group of people preference is different than a private agreement that results in someone getting paid a salary. The government is supposed to be blind and see us only as "people".
Saying government can make "investments" in itself is how we get an income tax, and bailout packages. The government is a very bad investor. Claiming the government is responsible for our culture is... scary.
This is about values - that's why I brought up how many straight marriages fail, etc. That was what I was getting at. I wish we cared about keeping our straight marriages together as much as we care about preventing gay marriage altogether.
For me this is about values too. About conservatism not just being the "opposite" of liberalism, but for being out of people's lives altogether. Out of marriage. Out of my pocket book. Out of my radio stations. Everything.
Marriage and civil unions are legal agreements, I agree. So why not let people make private, legal agreements, if they choose? I want marriages to stay together because of love, not law. |
|
I disagree.
Saying "marriage discriminates against people on the grounds that they haven't been lucky enough to find love yet" is like saying "earning a salary discriminates against people who haven't been lucky enough to find a job yet."
Society has a vested interest in promoting behavior which strengthens it. A man and a woman in a lifelong partnership--ideally (but not exclusively) for raising the future generation in a loving, secure home until they're ready to contribute to society on their own--is one of the most important foundations of a stabilized society.
(And please, no "straw-man" arguments about how many marriages fail--at least as many gay relationships fail--we're discussing the values and ideals here.)
Exclusive of marriage, allowing other consenting adults to form civil unions to protect their rights is no different from any other legal partnership. It provides stability, peace of mind, and is also a benefit to society.
In the case of gay men, a committed monogamous relationship is even more difficult to maintain given the sexual proclivities of men in general. From a moral standpoint, isn't their lifelong monogamy better for everyone than promiscuity?
And although I applaud and support the commitments gay men and lesbians make with their life-partners I agree with Sir Elton that referring to their unions as civil partnerships would soothe a lot of pain and heartache on all sides.
Working in Hollywood, I have many close friends who are gay. But I was a proud supporter of Proposition 8. It's not an anti-gay issue. It's a pro-marriage issue. |
|
|
Thank you, Tiny Dancer. Let Philadelphia Freedom ring out! Now Bennie can really be with the Jet! |
|
|
In Brown v Board - the court didn't rule that separate but equal couldn't exist, just that it didn't exist in that situation. The fact is that separate but equal can exist if it in fact is equal. I do not know of anything that a Civil Partnership has or doesn't have that a marriage does or doesn't. Do you? |
|
|
I think you are completely and totally wrong in every aspect of your statement. There, how is that for honesty? |
|
|
I think Sir Elton was brave to make these comments. They certainly earn him new respect from me. It will be interesting to see how American gay activists react, e.g., whether they take a more sober look at the issues, trash Sir Elton as a hopelessly out-of-touch fogie, or ignore his comments in the hope everyone quickly forgets them. |
|
I think conservatives need to be honest about the whole gay marriage thing.
We have a tradition that is very dear to us, and that's a wonderful thing. But we also have to admit that distinguishing "marriage" and "civil unions" for no other purpose than to put a different label on it sounds a whole lot like "separate but equal".
The answer is to get government out of the business of marriage. Individuals can get married in ceremony whenever they want - even today - and there should be no civil component whatsoever. If a church will marry you in spirit, so be it.
A civil institution like marriage discriminates against people on the grounds that they haven't been lucky enough to find love yet, and it's a component of class warfare caused by a government monopolizing a term.
Straight people have a ridiculous divorce rate, so why do we act like we have a monopoly on the term meaning this pure thing? If gays are supposedly promiscuous, wouldn't we WANT them to commit to each other?
Again: Private marriage ceremonies, no civil unions, no civil marriage, no government monopoly on the term. Problem solved.
Adoption is the only aspect of it I take issue with. |
|
FINALLY! Some common sense! Marriage means man and woman. Any other kind of union is not a marriage. Gay marriage doesn't give homosexuals anything except their chance to stand in the spotlight and sneer at social conservatives.
Too bad you won't hear about this from mainstream media. |
|
"....Heterosexual people get married. We can have civil partnerships"
Watch out Elton, there be crazies who may take exception to your commonsense view. |
|
|
|