My Problem with Pro-Life and Anti-Gay People

[CorvusRexus]

Oh, so it's just the *** perverts at OKcupid that destroy careers....gotcha.

Is Okcupid an organization?
Am I going to ask this for all time without anyone answering me?

Do your homework. I won't do it for you, fool.

What does a dating site have to do with "*** perverts" that "destroy careers"?

 

[Noomi]

USA= HERE IN GOD WE TRUST!! One nation under GOD with liberty and justice for all!!!

Except for the people you hate.

 

[Nutz]

Do you really think only Christians are against poof marriages and abortions or is it just your hate that makes you believe that?

Sorry, but you are seriously delusional if you think that only Christians oppose poor lifestyle choices.

 

[AntiParty]

So you basically stand for nothing? Do I have that correct?

He stands for his own perspective. Something you clearly know nothing about. Stop being a party parrot and own yourself, stop being party sheeple.

 

[elektra]

As it states in the title, I have a serious problem with people who are against gays and are pro-life. Personally, I believe that gays should be able to marry because this is America, land of the free, where people are allowed to love and marry and not submit to the authority of one faith (Christianity *cough* *cough*), as guaranteed by separation of church and state and the 1st amendment. As such, gays are Constitutionally guaranteed the right to marry. Just as long as churches are permitted to deny them service (religious freedom) I am okay with it. If gays have problems finding pastors/priests, they could find other solutions and hold it in a park or something with a friend giving vows.
Same follows for abortion. While I believe abortion itself is wrong, actually, I see no problem with contraceptives and believe Christians lack the right to invoke the 1st amendment on their behalf in regards to that. I say that if Christians want that, then they have to legalize abortion to balance things. You know, for a religion that seems to invoke the 1st at every step of the way, they seem awfully keen to impose their faith on others and take their freedom away. My justification for contraceptives? Catholicism defines life as starting from conception till death. Their is no life, therefore, to destroy by using contraceptives. Plus, this takes away the need for abortions because contraceptives are now even easier to have access to, so one could feel entirely justified in telling someone they can't have an abortion. Just tell them, "Well. Sorry 'bout your luck. Shoulda been prepared."
As I have stated, people who hate gays and oppose contraceptives are hypocrites. Same goes for people on the opposite side who plead the exact same but mirrored in reverse against Christians.

sure, and I should be able to sell Oranges under the name Lemons, to you. Lemons cost more so I would be more gratified with my profit, and beings how you do not care what we call things, this will be perfectly acceptable.

Lemons For Sale

Sure its a orange, but its a "lemon", the government says so.

 

[AntiParty]

As it states in the title, I have a serious problem with people who are against gays and are pro-life. Personally, I believe that gays should be able to marry because this is America, land of the free, where people are allowed to love and marry and not submit to the authority of one faith (Christianity *cough* *cough*), as guaranteed by separation of church and state and the 1st amendment. As such, gays are Constitutionally guaranteed the right to marry. Just as long as churches are permitted to deny them service (religious freedom) I am okay with it. If gays have problems finding pastors/priests, they could find other solutions and hold it in a park or something with a friend giving vows.
Same follows for abortion. While I believe abortion itself is wrong, actually, I see no problem with contraceptives and believe Christians lack the right to invoke the 1st amendment on their behalf in regards to that. I say that if Christians want that, then they have to legalize abortion to balance things. You know, for a religion that seems to invoke the 1st at every step of the way, they seem awfully keen to impose their faith on others and take their freedom away. My justification for contraceptives? Catholicism defines life as starting from conception till death. Their is no life, therefore, to destroy by using contraceptives. Plus, this takes away the need for abortions because contraceptives are now even easier to have access to, so one could feel entirely justified in telling someone they can't have an abortion. Just tell them, "Well. Sorry 'bout your luck. Shoulda been prepared."
As I have stated, people who hate gays and oppose contraceptives are hypocrites. Same goes for people on the opposite side who plead the exact same but mirrored in reverse against Christians.

I love your post.

Your perspective on gay marriage is awesome. Freedom but no oppression to the person that might be forced to marry.

Contraceptives can and will prevent the necessity of Abortion in the future.

We need to stop hating things we don't understand. Stating that I don't understand gay sex doesn't make me a bigot. I don't get gays, I think they are weird. Guess what, they think straight people like me are weird. And they don't judge me for my opinion on their life perspective.

Abortion is a bit different. Science says the fetus has no human qualities yet Christianity says it's, "Human once conception".

The Left attacks Christianity and the right attacks Contraceptives.

 

[AntiParty]

USA= HERE IN GOD WE TRUST!! One nation under GOD with liberty and justice for all!!!

God says, "Do not judge or be judged"

Justice will be served.

 

[AntiParty]

Do you really think only Christians are against poof marriages and abortions or is it just your hate that makes you believe that?

Sorry, but you are seriously delusional if you think that only Christians oppose poor lifestyle choices.

Then explain to us what a poor lifestyle choice is....

The floor is yours.

 

[Erand7899]

Separation of church and state:

Amendment 1:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Can you read the first part of the sentence? Congress (government) will not make laws respecting an establishment of religion (anti-gay marriage bigotry misguidedly based on the Bible), nor prohibit the free exercise thereof (we won't tax your silly cult into third world poverty as long as you stay out of the public government).

That is the separation of church and state. It's pretty ******* obvious even thought it doesn't specifically use the words "separation of church and state". It means keep your silly cult out of our laws and we'll keep our laws off of your silly cult.

It is only obvious to ignorant people and highly trained lawyers that can twist words and phrases into previously unknown meanings.

At the time of the creation and adoption of the first ten amendments, several of the new states had existing state sponsored religions, and none of these states had any thoughts that the first amendment required them to discontinue those state sponsored religions.

None of the thirteen states desired that the federal government should establish a state sponsored religion. Consequently, the first amendment was written to both prevent the federal government from establishing a state sponsored religion, and prevent the federal government from interfering with existing state sponsored religion.

The key word here is "respecting". Congress shall make no law "respecting" an establishment of religion. That means neither pro nor con.

Both the House of Representatives and the Senate established their own chaplains and opened their sessions with prayer. Obviously they did not read any separation of Church and State in the first amendment. The Supreme Court opens its sessions with the words "God save this honorable court". Obviously, they did not read any separation of Church and State in the first amendment.

 

[Erand7899]

Who is stopping you from opposing abortion? I believe that you should be able to speak freely about your beliefs. You shouldn't be able to impose your religious beliefs on others.

Wanting to protect the sanctity of life is purely a religious thing?

It’s a personal and subjective thing, where the courts have wisely and appropriately left the determination as to when life begins to each individual to decide for himself in accordance with his own beliefs and good conscience, free from interference by the state; where the Constitution prohibits the state from interfering with the choice individuals make (Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992)).

If one believes ‘personhood’ begins at conception, then he is at liberty to act upon his belief in the context of his personal life; he may not, however, seek to compel others to abide by that subjective, personal belief using the power and authority of the state.

Privacy rights jurisprudence in the context of substantive due process is a doctrine vital to maintaining restrictions on the power of the state and safeguarding the individual liberty of each American.

It always sounds good, when personal convenience is couched in the language of personal freedom. However, it is a false premise.

It is absolutely true that the US Constitution does not specify a right to life before birth, and therefore, The killing of a fetus is not unconstitutional. And when the law does not prohibit it, the killing of an unborn child is legal. But, it is not moral, and never will be moral. The same justification used to condone abortion can also condone infanticide. After all, what moral difference is there between killing a child one day before birth, or one day after birth?

So, get off your moral high horse, it is dead.

 

[Erand7899]

Your spouse is covered by your employer's insurance. Gays are asking for the same thing.

Your spouse will receive Social Security survivor benefits when you die. Gays are asking for the same thing.

If you are critically ill and on your deathbed in the hospital, your spouse is allowed in to sit with you as your breathe your last. Gays are asking for the same thing.

God is not involved. THE STATE IS. The State, and bigotry on the part of the people, is preventing these things.

Just like Jim Crow laws required the full participation of the State to deny blacks equal rights, so too does modern day discrimination require the State to participate to exclude gays from the privileges endowed by the State everyone else enjoys. This has nothing to do with your God.


For crying out loud, get that through your thick skulls.

Actually, I think you are wrong. Civil union would gain gays the benefits and rights that you contend they want. But, many of them want marriage and not civil union.

I can only think of one reason for the rejection of civil union, and the desire that it be called marriage, and that is to slap it in the face of the large number of people who believe that marriage is the union of a man and a woman in the sight of God.

Perhaps you can enlighten me on other possible reasons why civil unions are not adequate to their needs and desires?

 

[Nutz]

Do you really think only Christians are against poof marriages and abortions or is it just your hate that makes you believe that?

Sorry, but you are seriously delusional if you think that only Christians oppose poor lifestyle choices.

Then explain to us what a poor lifestyle choice is....

The floor is yours.

Hmm...already defined in my previous post. (which you quoted).

 

[Seawytch]

Your spouse is covered by your employer's insurance. Gays are asking for the same thing.

Your spouse will receive Social Security survivor benefits when you die. Gays are asking for the same thing.

If you are critically ill and on your deathbed in the hospital, your spouse is allowed in to sit with you as your breathe your last. Gays are asking for the same thing.

God is not involved. THE STATE IS. The State, and bigotry on the part of the people, is preventing these things.

Just like Jim Crow laws required the full participation of the State to deny blacks equal rights, so too does modern day discrimination require the State to participate to exclude gays from the privileges endowed by the State everyone else enjoys. This has nothing to do with your God.


For crying out loud, get that through your thick skulls.

Actually, I think you are wrong. Civil union would gain gays the benefits and rights that you contend they want. But, many of them want marriage and not civil union.

I can only think of one reason for the rejection of civil union, and the desire that it be called marriage, and that is to slap it in the face of the large number of people who believe that marriage is the union of a man and a woman in the sight of God.

Perhaps you can enlighten me on other possible reasons why civil unions are not adequate to their needs and desires?

Then you aren't thinking very far if that's what you think. Let's start with your false premise that gays have rejected Civil Unions. Name a state where the gays turned down Civil Unions.

(10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2...)

Yeah, there isn't one. Not a single state where it was the gheys that said no to Civil Unions. Now, on the other hand, go find states that have prohibited not only marriage equality for gays but Civil Unions as well. You'll find quite a few...about 15.

Secondly, we the gays don't give a shit what you call it, we just want it to be equal. Go ahead and change the name, just be sure to change it for everyone, not just the gays. I'm not sure if you're aware but separate but equal is unconstitutional. You can't have marriage for the straights and civil unions for the gays.

 

[Avatar4321]

So we should be free to do what we want, unless it's oppose abortion and then our first amendment rights to freedom of religion should be violated for whatever you find convenient.

That's a stupid statement.

You're allowed to oppose all you want. And we're allowed to ridicule you for it.

And vice versa.

And in the end, abortion is here to stay.

You were expecting a transcendent response to a stupid argument?

There is no reason abortion has to stay. Nor is there any reason we should settle for it staying. If we continue to kill our young, there will be consequences.

 

[Avatar4321]

Think hard about the precedent being set. The argument is being made that a religious employer should be forced to do something against their moral code, and that if they don't like it they should just get out of business.

Okay. Let's pass a law that requires employers to issue an assault weapon to every employee.

Hobby Lobby is a secular, for profit company. They should not be exempt because they believe some of the contraceptives are like abortions.

The government should not be dictating what fringe benefits an employer should or should not be providing, period.

The government should not be forcing anyone, employer or not, to do something against their religious beliefs, period.

You wouldn't think this would be such a difficult concept for people.

Just another sign that the spirit is withdrawaling from the people.

 

[emilynghiem]

Hi CR: I find equal hypocrisy on both sides, where they cross the "line of neutrality" and start imposing on each other.

there is a difference between
* opposing Birth Control (or abortion) vs. opposing Public Taxes paying for either
one -- BIG difference!
Free Choice would leave this to the individual, and not impose or ban public funding of it.

* being neutral on marriage or abortion vs.
laws BANNING it vs. laws ENDORSING or paying for it.

You can allow something like marriage to be legal for private individuals and churches,
but without endorsing it or recognizing it at all through the state, which can be limited
to recognizing NEUTRAL contracts such as custody agreements or estate/prenuptial terms.

Both sides have problems remaining neutral, and both complain when the other crosses the line.

The liberals who yell about "separation of church and state" but then want to rely on government to endorse marriages are equally hypocritical and contradictory on that point.

People on both sides can be shown to have biases that defeat their own arguments.
Both the hypocrisy and negative reaction are mutual.
Welcome to the club, otherwise called the human race.

If it's any comfort, just know you are not alone, but we are all in this together.
We all feel the same way about each other when these problems arise between us.
The people we oppose the most feel the same way about us.
At least we have that in common!

==================

As it states in the title, I have a serious problem with people who are against gays and are pro-life. Personally, I believe that gays should be able to marry because this is America, land of the free, where people are allowed to love and marry and not submit to the authority of one faith (Christianity *cough* *cough*), as guaranteed by separation of church and state and the 1st amendment. As such, gays are Constitutionally guaranteed the right to marry. Just as long as churches are permitted to deny them service (religious freedom) I am okay with it. If gays have problems finding pastors/priests, they could find other solutions and hold it in a park or something with a friend giving vows.
Same follows for abortion. While I believe abortion itself is wrong, actually, I see no problem with contraceptives and believe Christians lack the right to invoke the 1st amendment on their behalf in regards to that. I say that if Christians want that, then they have to legalize abortion to balance things. You know, for a religion that seems to invoke the 1st at every step of the way, they seem awfully keen to impose their faith on others and take their freedom away. My justification for contraceptives? Catholicism defines life as starting from conception till death. Their is no life, therefore, to destroy by using contraceptives. Plus, this takes away the need for abortions because contraceptives are now even easier to have access to, so one could feel entirely justified in telling someone they can't have an abortion. Just tell them, "Well. Sorry 'bout your luck. Shoulda been prepared."
As I have stated, people who hate gays and oppose contraceptives are hypocrites. Same goes for people on the opposite side who plead the exact same but mirrored in reverse against Christians.

 

[emilynghiem]

So we should be free to do what we want, unless it's oppose abortion and then our first amendment rights to freedom of religion should be violated for whatever you find convenient.

Who is stopping you from opposing abortion? I believe that you should be able to speak freely about your beliefs. You shouldn't be able to impose your religious beliefs on others.

Wanting to protect the sanctity of life is purely a religious thing?

If the right to health care is a right, not a choice to believe, but "should be the LAW";
so should right to life be a right, not a choice or optional belief.

What's wrongful is not treating
"the right to life"
and
"the right to health care"
as equal beliefs, but demonizing one while sanctifying the other.
Especially not to the point of "mandating" a policy by force of law,
while penalizing other choices!

If "right to life" can't be codified by law because of "freedom of choice,"
then "right to health care" should be limited the same way.

I wish I could find SOMEONE who can explain to me how:
defending the free choice of health care is "bad" but
defending the free choice of abortion is "good."

if the issue is individual liberty and freedom of choice,
BOTH beliefs would be defended equally

Clearly there is a political bias, or a religious bias if people
cannot "choose to change" their beliefs but these are spiritually embedded.

I'm beginning to think it is that deep.

The same way some homosexuals are so by spiritual design
and cannot change their orientation by choosing or mandating otherwise.

Any change can only happen on a spiritual level,
and that cannot be mandated, regulated or penalized by law.

I think the same must be true of these people with "right to health care" beliefs
who don't perceive or treat right to life as equal to theirs,
and don't even see how they are being biased or discriminatory.

They truly see the other side as wrong and do not consider their views a valid choice.
(much like anti-gay people think that gay is just wrong or a deliberate choice
not a race or disability people can't help, and do not consider it unfair discrimination).