I am against homosexuality, gay marriage, and civil unions.

[maineman]

It was suggested more than once that churches lose their tax exemptions if they refused to perform gay marriages back when the Mayor of SF (I think it was him) decided he was going to issue licenses.

my suggestion is a two sided coin: if you let churches decide NOT to marry anyone who wants to get married, that has to go hand in hand with the state allowing any adult to have a civil union with any other adult.

and earlier, I think you intimated that no republicans here have ever expressed support for a ban on homosexuality...I wonder how many republicans on here decried the Bush administration's impassioned support for the state of Texas in Lawrence v Texas?

 

[MissileMan]

It was suggested more than once that churches lose their tax exemptions if they refused to perform gay marriages back when the Mayor of SF (I think it was him) decided he was going to issue licenses.

It would be as unenforceable as forcing a synagogue to marry a couple of Catholics...

And while I disagree with what the SF mayor said, if it was him, that would hardly be forcing churches to perform gay marriages, it would be forcing them to choose between paying taxes or marrying gays. All in all though, a highly stupid idea. If the gays are looking for a state recognized religious institution to sanctify their unions they need only open their own church.

 

[Gunny]

my suggestion is a two sided coin: if you let churches decide NOT to marry anyone who wants to get married, that has to go hand in hand with the state allowing any adult to have a civil union with any other adult.

and earlier, I think you intimated that no republicans here have ever expressed support for a ban on homosexuality...I wonder how many republicans on here decried the Bush administration's impassioned support for the state of Texas in Lawrence v Texas?

I don't recall that the subject has ever been brought up. I can tell you right now, we voted about 2 years ago to make marriage solely between a man and a woman and I voted for it.

I haven't looked at Lawrence v Texas that i'm aware of.

 

[Gunny]

It would be as unenforceable as forcing a synagogue to marry a couple of Catholics...

And while I disagree with what the SF mayor said, if it was him, that would hardly be forcing churches to perform gay marriages, it would be forcing them to choose between paying taxes or marrying gays. All in all though, a highly stupid idea. If the gays are looking for a state recognized religious institution to sanctify their unions they need only open their own church.

True enough, but that is not what they want. They are demanding mainstream acceptance as being "normal," and they just aren't going to get it anytime soon.

 

[jillian]

True enough, but that is not what they want. They are demanding mainstream acceptance as being "normal," and they just aren't going to get it anytime soon.

They don't care what you think of them. What they want is for people to mind their own business and let them get married and lead their lives like everyone else.

 

[Gunny]

They don't care what you think of them. What they want is for people to mind their own business and let them get married and lead their lives like everyone else.

Perhaps some do. The radicals that get all the attention DO care. They want to flaunt their aberrant lifestyle in our faces. When I say I don't care what they do in the confines of their own home, THAT is what I mean ... the confines of their own home. Civil union? Fine.

But the fact remains their lifestyle is based on aberrant sexual behavior, and they were and probably still are demanding a law that caters solely to that behavior.

So, as far as politics goes, I disagree. They DO care, They are demanding not only equality under the law; which, they already enjoy, they demand in addition that their aberrant behavior be recognized by law.

 

[jillian]

Perhaps some do. The radicals that get all the attention DO care. They want to flaunt their aberrant lifestyle in our faces. When I say I don't care what they do in the confines of their own home, THAT is what I mean ... the confines of their own home. Civil union? Fine.

But the fact remains their lifestyle is based on aberrant sexual behavior, and they were and probably still are demanding a law that caters solely to that behavior.

So, as far as politics goes, I disagree. They DO care, They are demanding not only equality under the law; which, they already enjoy, they demand in addition that their aberrant behavior be recognized by law.

Radicals always get the most attention because they make the most noise. It's their extremism which makes the demands of the moderates appear reasonable. Has been the case in every movement to make major change.

 

[Gunny]

Radicals always get the most attention because they make the most noise. It's their extremism which makes the demands of the moderates appear reasonable. Has been the case in every movement to make major change.

But it is the radicals that appear to set the stereotype for their detractors to use to label ALL.

 

[MissileMan]

But it is the radicals that appear to set the stereotype for their detractors to use to label ALL.

You would think these "detractors" would be a little more hesitant to label and stereotype with similar radicals that can be linked to their own camp.

 

[Gunny]

You would think these "detractors" would be a little more hesitant to label and stereotype with similar radicals that can be linked to their own camp.

Yeah, but I have yet to meet one that doesn't label themselves "moderates."

 

[Kagom]

Yeah, but I have yet to meet one that doesn't label themselves "moderates."

You forget about me! I label myself a moderate! Hell, I don't even do the gay pride parades. I'm quite frankly afraid to go to them.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

Thank You very much, I read what you said, and I think it always good to question, because it does not mean you will agree and disagree. What i worry about is people saying, you have to accept my beliefs. If a muslim, jew, or christian believes homosexuality is wrong, who are we to judge them, and tell them how to believe. we can disagree, and point our why we disagree, but for some to say, if you dont accept what i believe whether it be gay marriage, affirmative action, illegal immigration or any issue, that is in-tolerant. In other words, as a nation, and a world, gays should be tolerated and not discriminated against, but gays, and their supporters should also not demonize people who disagree with them on the issue of homosexuality.

I am a jew, and i tolerate that their are christians that think im going to hell for not believing in jesus as my personal lord and saviour, but you know what, they have every right to believe that, and while i disagree, Its not my job to judge them. I believe in god, and he shall judge us all, and i should tolerate their beliefs because I belief in tolerance, even with those i dis agree with strongest

Thank you for the compliment, though I'm not sure how brilliant I am.

There is nothing wrong with being conflicted about an issue, it can be a useful tool and force a person to do some critical thinking, it causes one to search his or her conscience to discover how they really feel.

In your post to Vintij you said, "You are completely right about my fear of challenging God. I want to be more spiritual, I really do believe in God, and how can I call him wrong on gays, kids, and marriage? You are completely right about a lot of hypocrisy, it just feels weird to say, God youre right about this, but not that," to this I say, if there is a God, and if this God created man in his image, and if in doing so he gave us free will, the ability to think, wouldn't he want us to question things such as this? Consider, if you will, that the Bible was written by men, men with an agenda, men who had a strong desire to bend the beliefs of the general populace to conform to their beliefs. These men who chose what to put in the book and what to omit. I am of the opinion that this alone should lead us to question their intent. Perhaps God wants us to love and be tolerant of everyone, perhaps the men who wrote the Bible found the idea of homosexuality so abhorant that they designated it as evil and punishable by death. Something to think about.

You said that maybe you are just a "young fool," well, I don't know how old you are, but I assure that it is not a person's age that makes them a fool, among other things, it is their inability to consider that they may be wrong, it is their unwillingness to change and adapt their beliefs or opinions when confronted with the realization that they may be wrong.

When I was in high school I had an English teacher who changed the way I think. He showed us a movie. I recommend this movie to you, Inherit the Wind, 1960, Spencer Tracy and Frederick March. It is loosely based on the Scopes monkey trial, it uses the issue of evolution and the 1925 trial as a backdrop. But it also about McCarthyism. Jerome Lawrence and Bob Lee, the writers of the play say they weren't writing a play about the Scopes Trial; they were writing a play about McCarthyism. They were writing during the period of the blacklisting of authors and playwrights. Some blacklisted playwrights actually helped in writing it. They were just projecting back to another event, and then making a play about, trying to expose, how terrible McCarthyism was.

Never stop asking questions. The only stupid question is the question left unasked.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

Again, frankly the united states has bigger fish to fry then gays and abortions. Let each states voters, or even cities voters decide?

What do you think.

I dont care about the benefits, the gays, can have any benefit they want, they simply cant say, anyone who opposes homosexuality is wrong, because thats true bigotry, to not tolerate someone elses view, even if you think they are full of shiite

im fine with that.

Truth be told, I was never completely opposed to civil unions. Rights are fine, i have no problem with, just tolerate those who believe its a sin, as long as they bother you.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

I agree with gunny here. Their are some gays, and their supportes who want to flaunt their sexuality in our faces, and force us to agree with us, or call us homophobes, that is wrong.

Gays have a choice who they ****, not who they are attracted to. Im a straight man, I wanna **** every woman i see, does that mean the government should recognize, single male idiots who want to sleep with every woman and give them special benefits?

Just a thought. Being gay, as i understand it, is like being straight, except I like tacos, and you like hotdogs

Perhaps some do. The radicals that get all the attention DO care. They want to flaunt their aberrant lifestyle in our faces. When I say I don't care what they do in the confines of their own home, THAT is what I mean ... the confines of their own home. Civil union? Fine.

But the fact remains their lifestyle is based on aberrant sexual behavior, and they were and probably still are demanding a law that caters solely to that behavior.

So, as far as politics goes, I disagree. They DO care, They are demanding not only equality under the law; which, they already enjoy, they demand in addition that their aberrant behavior be recognized by law.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

I think letterman should come out and say, im a liberal, and my jokes biased, because I hate bush and conservatives. Ironically, liberals want fox to have a disclaimer, but liberals like hollywood and msnbc dont?

hypocrisy, why am i not surprised

Radicals always get the most attention because they make the most noise. It's their extremism which makes the demands of the moderates appear reasonable. Has been the case in every movement to make major change.

 

[Bullypulpit]

I respect your opinion, but I ask you this, if gay marriage happens, and most americans dont want it, is this forced?

Perhaps civil unions are a good comprimise, I dont want either side dictating american policy.

Kids should not be forced to learn that homosexuality is acceptable, their parents, and later on the kids, should make that decision himself

Where am i wrong here lol

I enjoy chatting with you truthmatters, I really think you care about the truth, and i respect that.

There was a time when most Americans thought marriages between people of different races was unnatural and immoral. It was only forty years ago that anti-miscegenation laws were deemed unconstitutional by the SCOTUS. The prohibitions against same gender couples marrying or entering into civil unions have no more rational or moral basis than did the anti-miscegenation laws.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

I see a bit of a difference here. While I support gays having the same rights. I am not sure you need gay marriage for that. For example, a gay person, can hide the fact they are gay, a black person has no such ability at all to do that.

I think quite honestly, its a different issue.. With that being said, im sure we can find a way, to give gays the same rights, and to be honest, civil unions are the best way to go.

My confliction ends here: civil unions. Its not marriage, but its just enough, that gays get all the benefits, and anyone jew, christian, or muslim, still has the right to be against if he or she chooses.

Call me crazy, but I think, comprimise means , one or both sides are pissed, they didnt get it their way, or exactly how they wanted it

There was a time when most Americans thought marriages between people of different races was unnatural and immoral. It was only forty years ago that anti-miscegenation laws were deemed unconstitutional by the SCOTUS. The prohibitions against same gender couples marrying or entering into civil unions have no more rational or moral basis than did the anti-miscegenation laws.

 

[jillian]

But it is the radicals that appear to set the stereotype for their detractors to use to label ALL.

Isn't that true of all radicals, regardless of cause?

 

[Shogun]

Again, frankly the united states has bigger fish to fry then gays and abortions. Let each states voters, or even cities voters decide?
What do you think.
I dont care about the benefits, the gays, can have any benefit they want, they simply cant say, anyone who opposes homosexuality is wrong, because thats true bigotry, to not tolerate someone elses view, even if you think they are full of shiite

do you feel the same way about jew hating nazis? is it true bigotry to believe that THEY are wrong about their opinions regarding jews? Im betting your answer changes when your identity becomes the target. Ready to TOLORATE a state full of jew hating southerners who you think is wrong for their beliefs?



my take on gay marriage and the idea that equality is "forcing it in your face" is this:


of you dont agree with their lifestyle then dont go **** another man. Ive yet to see a single strait dude being dragged, kicking and screaming, into a park restroom and forced to suck a dick just because gays want to get married.


perhaps all the archie bunkers in this thread can tell me if THIS MOVIE flaunted interracial unions in your face too...

tell me... does THIS make you archie bunkers start to itch and squirm too?

 

[roomy]

I am wondering what the **** religion has to do with homosexuality?