The Evil of Gay Transcends Individual Religion

[Two Thumbs]

they like to avoid that salient fact....

Loving v. Virginia

but then again, dominion over one's own body is a right... and they've never let that stop them.

Thanks.

In a ironic way, this very ruling can, and should be used to crush every single last unconstitutional law that restricts the right to bear arms.

but that's different, somehow. it just is.




If you don't like the government telling you how you can live, don't support it telling me how to live.

or

get used to shit like this.

jokes on you

Image blocked, link it if you dare!!

 

[del]

Hmmmm... OWS calls for a day of general strike. My, my my, the left squeals and claps and muses how WONDERFUL it is that people are banding together for a cause. Naturally, the 'evil' here being the fictitious 1%. "Shut down the county!" one OWS leader screams through a bull horn. Shut down traffic, the stock markets, impeed traffic, shut down the universities. It is a manufactured cause that the left champions because it keeps them in the news for just another day, despite the fact that most of the people they demonize are self-made and support the very system they 'game' to become professional protestors. It doesn't matter if you support or even care what they want, we are going to FORCE you to conform.

The church calls for it's members to band together against gay marriage. Naturally, they aren't calling for the rounding up of gays, the tatooing of their arms with a number, or their segregation. No call to arms to shut down gay or lesbian centers, or to place them in concentration camps. No sounds of construction for gallows on which gays or lesbians will swing at dawn like they do in Iran. Just a call to members of the church that because of our shared religion, we do not believe that same-sex marriage should be the law of the land.

Oh my GAWD! It is the inquisition all over again. There is NO DIFFERENCE between the clerics of Iran who openly carry out executions of gay men and the priests who call for unification against gay marriage. These priests are FORCING their religious views on me and the rest of the country. How dare they tell anyone how to think. The humanity of it all!

Naturally, OWS are heros to the left and the priests are evil, simply because the left supports ones views and doesn't support the others. It has never failed to amaze me how the left can always scream to keep your religious views to yourself, but then champion a group that not only wants to espouse their views from a 'pulpit' but then disrupt society to impose those views. Imagine the outcry if a priest stood at every intersection stopping traffic because they wanted gay marriage outlawed. Why is the left so afraid of speech they do not agree with? I have always maintained that Orwell's book 1984 was a treatise on how society would look if liberals got what they want. Mindless robots who did what they were told, when they were told. Who stood in line patiently and behaved. Not me.

Oklahoma still has a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. That constitutional amendment does not allow the state to recognize same-sex marriages performed in any other state. I gave money to get that amendment passed and will give money to defend my states right to keep it. If your state wants to pass same-sex marriage, I am all for it.

Freedom... it is so feared by the left. Why?

you wouldn't know freedom if it grew a dick and pissed down your leg.

 

[Dr.Drock]

This won't be an issue for long. In my opinion gays will have equal rights soon and our children will laugh at us for making a big deal out of nothing. Don't like gay marriages? Don't marry a gay person. REALLY don't like gay marriages? Don't go to one. Not sure why that isn't the end of it.

And as CalGirl says marriage is a religion thing. So get gov't out of it. Either have gov't out of marriages (the best option) or have gov't stop forcing a RELIGIOUS view of marriage on everyone.

 

[del]

Thanks.

In a ironic way, this very ruling can, and should be used to crush every single last unconstitutional law that restricts the right to bear arms.

but that's different, somehow. it just is.




If you don't like the government telling you how you can live, don't support it telling me how to live.

or

get used to shit like this.

jokes on you

Image blocked, link it if you dare!!

i can see it just fine, sparky

http://img2.moonbuggy.org/imgstore/i-can-catch-lightning-in-a-bottle.jpg

 

[Newby]

"And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself*. There is none other commandment greater than these." mark 12:31

*unless your neighbor is gay

I guess that works if you define 'love' as letting anyone do anything, regardless of any consequences. My kids try the same thing on me as a parent, it never works. And guess what? I still love them.

 

[Dr.Drock]

"And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself*. There is none other commandment greater than these." mark 12:31

*unless your neighbor is gay

I guess that works if you define 'love' as letting anyone do anything, regardless of any consequences. My kids try the same thing on me as a parent, it never works. And guess what? I still love them.

It's not your choice to "let" gays do anything.

Not in my opinion at least, obviously we disagree.

 

[del]

"And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself*. There is none other commandment greater than these." mark 12:31

*unless your neighbor is gay

I guess that works if you define 'love' as letting anyone do anything, regardless of any consequences. My kids try the same thing on me as a parent, it never works. And guess what? I still love them.

i define love as treating others as i would want to be treated.

nice try, though

 

[Newby]

"And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself*. There is none other commandment greater than these." mark 12:31

*unless your neighbor is gay

I guess that works if you define 'love' as letting anyone do anything, regardless of any consequences. My kids try the same thing on me as a parent, it never works. And guess what? I still love them.

It's not your choice to "let" gays do anything.

Not in my opinion at least, obviously we disagree.

My point wasn't about letting or not letting gays do anything. My point was about the implication that since the Bible/God/Jesus calls for us to love one another that that somehow means that the meaning of love is to accept and allow any behavior that anyone wants to exhibit, and if you don't then you don't 'love' them. In a nut shell, it's an empty argument.

 

[Dr.Drock]

I guess that works if you define 'love' as letting anyone do anything, regardless of any consequences. My kids try the same thing on me as a parent, it never works. And guess what? I still love them.

It's not your choice to "let" gays do anything.

Not in my opinion at least, obviously we disagree.

My point wasn't about letting or not letting gays do anything. My point was about the implication that since the Bible/God/Jesus calls for us to love one another that that somehow means that the meaning of love is to accept and allow any behavior that anyone wants to exhibit, and if you don't then you don't 'love' them. In a nut shell, it's an empty argument.

Oh ok, i better understand now.

Still not sure how gay marriage being legal hurts religion in any way. All a religious person has to do to get around this is go to a church that doesn't perform gay marriages.

 

[Newby]

"And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself*. There is none other commandment greater than these." mark 12:31

*unless your neighbor is gay

I guess that works if you define 'love' as letting anyone do anything, regardless of any consequences. My kids try the same thing on me as a parent, it never works. And guess what? I still love them.

i define love as treating others as i would want to be treated.

nice try, though

I wouldn't want others to show me love by accepting anything I want to do or say, and if they don't, then I emotionally blackmail them with the 'you don't love me' mantra. So, I think I'll stick to my own definition.

 

[Newby]

It's not your choice to "let" gays do anything.

Not in my opinion at least, obviously we disagree.

My point wasn't about letting or not letting gays do anything. My point was about the implication that since the Bible/God/Jesus calls for us to love one another that that somehow means that the meaning of love is to accept and allow any behavior that anyone wants to exhibit, and if you don't then you don't 'love' them. In a nut shell, it's an empty argument.

Oh ok, i better understand now.

Still not sure how gay marriage being legal hurts religion in any way. All a religious person has to do to get around this is go to a church that doesn't perform gay marriages.

I've always believed that gays should have a legal union of some sort, and I'd get on board and support it if they'd leave the word 'marriage' out of it. Like I said earlier, if it's so important to them, then lobby for a 'legal civil union' and take the word marriage out of the picture. They'd get what they supposedly want, and I think most christians would be okay with that as well. That's why I believe that it's about more than that, since this could have been settled a long time ago had that path been taken.

 

[KevinWestern]

I guess that works if you define 'love' as letting anyone do anything, regardless of any consequences. My kids try the same thing on me as a parent, it never works. And guess what? I still love them.

It's not your choice to "let" gays do anything.

Not in my opinion at least, obviously we disagree.

My point wasn't about letting or not letting gays do anything. My point was about the implication that since the Bible/God/Jesus calls for us to love one another that that somehow means that the meaning of love is to accept and allow any behavior that anyone wants to exhibit, and if you don't then you don't 'love' them. In a nut shell, it's an empty argument.

Really quick again though.

I mention that our lives are incredibly short, and that we all deserve a shot at happiness.

If allowing gays to marry will make a certain group of people much more happier, and improve their lives drastically, all while not changing the lives or legal rights of straight people one bit (as they will still be allowed to marry people of the same sex and call it marriage), how can that possibly be a bad thing?

I’m not saying that the church should be barred from speaking their opinion – as I believe in freedom of speech – but what I am saying is that they are only working to make the humanity worse off. No one’s benefiting from banning gay marriage. There’s only losers. So what’s the point?

 

[Truthmatters]

Top Pope official Mennini called for people of all faiths - including Christians, Jews, and Muslims - to "unite" to defeat gay marriage.

Funny that issues like fighting poverty, hunger, and war weren't important enough to unite on, but when it comes to the gays, well....

Any thoughts?

Archbishop Antonio Mennini, Pope's Representative, Calls For Christians, Jews, Muslims To Unite Against Gay Marriage

It's not about the 'gay' part, it's about the 'marriage' part. I do wish people would understand that. It is not Christian to 'hate' gays.... but we cannot support gay marriage. Why? Because it's against the teachings of Christ.

"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh' ? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." Matthew 19 4-6

"But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.' 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." Mark 10 6-9

It's the 'marriage' part that is the problem, not that they are gay.

Then dont enter into a gay marriage.


You dont have the right to tell other people what their lives can be because YOU believe some silly anceint belief based on myths

 

[del]

My point wasn't about letting or not letting gays do anything. My point was about the implication that since the Bible/God/Jesus calls for us to love one another that that somehow means that the meaning of love is to accept and allow any behavior that anyone wants to exhibit, and if you don't then you don't 'love' them. In a nut shell, it's an empty argument.

Oh ok, i better understand now.

Still not sure how gay marriage being legal hurts religion in any way. All a religious person has to do to get around this is go to a church that doesn't perform gay marriages.

I've always believed that gays should have a legal union of some sort, and I'd get on board and support it if they'd leave the word 'marriage' out of it. Like I said earlier, if it's so important to them, then lobby for a 'legal civil union' and take the word marriage out of the picture. They'd get what they supposedly want, and I think most christians would be okay with that as well. That's why I believe that it's about more than that, since this could have been settled a long time ago had that path been taken.

and that whole black rights thing would have been settled if we'd just started calling the back of the bus the front.

simple, really

 

[Newby]

Oh ok, i better understand now.

Still not sure how gay marriage being legal hurts religion in any way. All a religious person has to do to get around this is go to a church that doesn't perform gay marriages.

I've always believed that gays should have a legal union of some sort, and I'd get on board and support it if they'd leave the word 'marriage' out of it. Like I said earlier, if it's so important to them, then lobby for a 'legal civil union' and take the word marriage out of the picture. They'd get what they supposedly want, and I think most christians would be okay with that as well. That's why I believe that it's about more than that, since this could have been settled a long time ago had that path been taken.

and that whole black rights thing would have been settled if we'd just started calling the back of the bus the front.

simple, really

Yeah, except what I said had nothing to do with what you said. I don't see the 'comparison' at all. If you want a 'civil union' with some kind of 'legal rights', then call it that and move on. If you want to get 'married' in a church, then find a church that will do so. Simple, really.

 

[Newby]

It's not your choice to "let" gays do anything.

Not in my opinion at least, obviously we disagree.

My point wasn't about letting or not letting gays do anything. My point was about the implication that since the Bible/God/Jesus calls for us to love one another that that somehow means that the meaning of love is to accept and allow any behavior that anyone wants to exhibit, and if you don't then you don't 'love' them. In a nut shell, it's an empty argument.

Really quick again though.

I mention that our lives are incredibly short, and that we all deserve a shot at happiness.

If allowing gays to marry will make a certain group of people much more happier, and improve their lives drastically, all while not changing the lives or legal rights of straight people one bit (as they will still be allowed to marry people of the same sex and call it marriage), how can that possibly be a bad thing?

I’m not saying that the church should be barred from speaking their opinion – as I believe in freedom of speech – but what I am saying is that they are only working to make the humanity worse off. No one’s benefiting from banning gay marriage. There’s only losers. So what’s the point?

On most of your points I agree with you. And if there's such a 'bad feeling' from a majority about having it called a marriage, then call it something else and move on. You get what you want, do you not? Unless that's not what they want?

 

[Dr.Drock]

My point wasn't about letting or not letting gays do anything. My point was about the implication that since the Bible/God/Jesus calls for us to love one another that that somehow means that the meaning of love is to accept and allow any behavior that anyone wants to exhibit, and if you don't then you don't 'love' them. In a nut shell, it's an empty argument.

Oh ok, i better understand now.

Still not sure how gay marriage being legal hurts religion in any way. All a religious person has to do to get around this is go to a church that doesn't perform gay marriages.

I've always believed that gays should have a legal union of some sort, and I'd get on board and support it if they'd leave the word 'marriage' out of it. Like I said earlier, if it's so important to them, then lobby for a 'legal civil union' and take the word marriage out of the picture. They'd get what they supposedly want, and I think most christians would be okay with that as well. That's why I believe that it's about more than that, since this could have been settled a long time ago had that path been taken.

But that's still forcing your religious views on them. If there was a religion that said only gays can get married, would you support them coming over here and saying straights can't have the title marriage but can have "legal unions?"

A Breakdown of Gay Marriage Support by Religion - National - The Atlantic Wire

Also as we see there are groups of christians where the majority support gay marriage. Catholic and white mainline protestant for example.

 

[KevinWestern]

On most of your points I agree with you. And if there's such a 'bad feeling' from a majority about having it called a marriage, then call it something else and move on. You get what you want, do you not? Unless that's not what they want?

How about this (as Doc mentioned, but a point I make quite frequently as well) we just get the government out of the “marriage business” altogether, and simply call all unions (same or opposite sex) “civil unions” or something like that under the law (public space), and then leave the word marriage left to be defined by whatever institution the couple is a part of (private space).

Because as we've seen in the past, the concept of "separate but equal" simply doesn't work that well. No matter how hard you try, the two are not going to be the same, and there are going to be unfair differences that extend beyond simply what you call it.

In the way I suggest, everyone wins, and we can go back to focusing on policy making that will actually improve humanity as a whole, rather than make humanity worse off as a whole.

If they’re gay and want to be married in a Catholic Church, too bad, move on.

 

[jillian]

On most of your points I agree with you. And if there's such a 'bad feeling' from a majority about having it called a marriage, then call it something else and move on. You get what you want, do you not? Unless that's not what they want?

How about this (as Doc mentioned, but a point I make quite frequently as well) we just get the government out of the “marriage business” altogether, and simply call all unions (same or opposite sex) “civil unions” or something like that under the law (public space), and then leave the word marriage left to be defined by whatever institution the couple is a part of (private space).

If they’re gay and want to be married in a Catholic Church, too bad, move on.

That way, everyone wins, and we can go back to focusing on policy making that will actually improve humanity as a whole, rather than make humanity worse off as a whole.

no. everyone doesn't win. that would allow religious types to be "married" and force everyone else to be "civil unioned".

i don't think so.

how about we leave marriage where it is and just apply marriage laws equally?

no church or any other facility has to marry anyone they don't choose to...

 

[Newby]

Oh ok, i better understand now.

Still not sure how gay marriage being legal hurts religion in any way. All a religious person has to do to get around this is go to a church that doesn't perform gay marriages.

I've always believed that gays should have a legal union of some sort, and I'd get on board and support it if they'd leave the word 'marriage' out of it. Like I said earlier, if it's so important to them, then lobby for a 'legal civil union' and take the word marriage out of the picture. They'd get what they supposedly want, and I think most christians would be okay with that as well. That's why I believe that it's about more than that, since this could have been settled a long time ago had that path been taken.

But that's still forcing your religious views on them. If there was a religion that said only gays can get married, would you support them coming over here and saying straights can't have the title marriage but can have "legal unions?"

A Breakdown of Gay Marriage Support by Religion - National - The Atlantic Wire

Also as we see there are groups of christians where the majority support gay marriage. Catholic and white mainline protestant for example.

How is that forcing 'religious views' on them? Supposedly, what they want is the United States government to give them an avenue under the law to legally create a union. It has nothing to do with religion or the church. They go to a JOP and create their legal union that gives them their tax breaks, their shared insurance, inheritance, etc... Really, there's not that much more to marriage in the legal sense. If they find a church that will bless their union as marriage under the eyes of God, more power to them. Everyone keeps bashing the christians by insisting that this is ONLY a legal matter. If that's the case, then put your money where your mouth is and make it ONLY a legal matter.