E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSPARIS - Several hundred thousand people are expected to march through Paris on Sunday against the planned legalization of same-sex marriage in the first mass protest against the unpopular President Francois Hollande.
Strongly backed by the Catholic hierarchy, lay activists have mobilized a hybrid coalition of church-going families, political conservatives, Muslims, evangelicals and even homosexuals opposed to gay marriage for the show of force.
So many are expected to converge on Paris from around France that police had organizers split it into three separate columns starting from different points around the city and meeting in the Champ de Mars park at the Eiffel Tower.
Virginie Merle, an eccentric comedian known as Frigide Barjot, who is leading the so-called "Demo for All," insists the protest is pro-marriage rather than anti-gay and has banned all but its approved banners saying a child needs a father and a mother to develop properly.
"We're all born of a man and a woman, but the law will say the opposite tomorrow," she said last week. "It will say a child is born of a man and a man."
Hollande, who promised to legalize gay marriage and adoption during his election campaign last spring, has a comfortable parliamentary majority to pass the law by June as planned.
But his clumsy handling of other promises, such as a 75 percent tax on the rich that was ruled unconstitutional or his faltering struggle against rising unemployment, has soured the public mood. A mass street protest can hardly help his image.
Charles Platiau / Reuters
French humorist TV host Virginie Merle, left, also known as "Frigide Barjot," and activist Xavier Bongibault attend a news conference in Paris on Thursday. Merle says the protest is pro-marriage, not anti-gay.
Marriage or jobs for all?
Same-sex nuptials are already legal in 11 countries including Belgium, Portugal, Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, Norway and South Africa, as well as nine U.S. states and Washington D.C.
Gay marriage opponents such as Cardinal Andre Vingt-Trois, head of the Catholic Church in France, have asked why Hollande is pushing through a divisive social reform called "marriage for all" when voters seem more concerned about "jobs for all."
Vingt-Trois spearheaded the opposition with a critical sermon in August. Other faith leaders -- Muslim, Jewish, Protestant and Orthodox Christian -- soon spoke out too.
Avoiding religious arguments that could put off the secular French, they struck a chord with voters by stressing problems they saw emerging from same-sex marriage rather than letting the government shape the debate as an issue of equal rights only.
Opinion polls show reform zeal cooled somewhat once these arguments were heard. Support for gay nuptials has slipped about 10 points to under 55 percent and fewer than half the French now want gays to have adoption rights.
Under this pressure, legislators dropped a plan to amend the draft law to allow lesbians access to assisted reproduction techniques such as artificial insemination that are now limited to heterosexual couples with fertility problems.
Rival march
Organizers insist they are not against gays and lesbians, but for traditional marriage. "We are marriagophile, not homophobe," said Barjot, author of a book entitled "Confessions of a Trendy Catholic."
Most national faith leaders will not join the protest, but at least eight Catholic bishops have said they would march.
"I'm happy many Catholics will be mobilized, but this is not a church demonstration against the government," said Vingt-Trois, who plans to go meet marchers but not join them.
Opposition leader Jean-Francois Cope and other conservatives, as well as leaders from the far-right National Front, will march as private citizens without political banners.
Civitas, a far-right Catholic group whose protests have been openly anti-gay, plans a rival march that will run parallel to one of the "Demo for All" columns. Organizers say they will have about 10,000 volunteer marshals to keep order during the march.
Copyright 2013 Thomson Reuters. Click for restrictions.
Leave a Comment:
Good for them. I hope they prevail
I doubt it, there media is just as bias's as ours and shame people into agreeing with them or label them racist homophobes !
In Gods eye's gay matrimony isn't a thing.
in my eye (which is REAL), God isn't a thing.
In God's eye divorce isn't a thing. Where are the protests outside divorce courts?
In your eye, tompca, which God Almighty designed, and didn't consult with you, God is real. You simply refuse the evidence ,which is in your eye, everyday.
That makes you a rebel. Never a good idea.
Sounds like there's just as much evidence for your imaginary friend as there is for invisible pink unicorns.
What would you know about imagination with the same Ilk partner.
Wow, this is a rare instance of good sense coming from the French? Let's just hope this wisdom SPREADS, not just all across the EU, but the entire world, including back to the USA! If the gay community wants its own kinds of unions, fine, but DO NOT let them call it marriage, since it is NOT that.
You (and organized religion) don't own the word "marriage".
ROFLMAO! You, like all "good" bigots, ASSume that skrekk is gay because he supports equality.
There is a difference between "matrimony" and "marriage;" the former is sacramental, the latter, secular.
And theocrats of every religion still believe that they have the right to impose their beliefs in their preferred fairy-tale and people of other beliefs.
Seriously. Look how well it worked out for Jesus.
Ugh, Christians.
The unusual mix of protesters threw me. I thought every one in paris was gay.
That's why they call it "Gay Paree"
Here come Erin, Brucie, I think Lori, and there'll be one more defender of anything gay.
They'll use the same talking points and style of writing.
Be prepared people of good taste...they won't make a lot of sense, but, they are good at name calling.
Not that I believe that you speak for "God", but legal "marriage",
is not the same thing as religious "matrimony". The LGBT community is not asking for "matrimony".
So, if I don't go to you church, mosque, temple or club, why do I even have to know, let alone follow the
rules that you have chosen to follow?
Can you ban me from eating pork? or from playing baseball left-handed?
Why can't we get along?
Why do so many of you fundaMENTALists, presume to speak for God, as if he/she descended from on high and gave you, personally, tablets carved in stone? Or why do you presume to speak for all Christians, as if your extreme, hate-filled brand of it was the only one in existence? I am a Christian AND I support gay marriage. In fact, my Church, the Episcopal Church, has authorized the ordination of gay clergy and has liturgies for the blessings of same-sex unions. Jesus never speaks a word about homosexuality, but he says plenty about judgmentalness, lying, hypocrisy, and hatred. Unless you are willing to quit eating pork and shellfish, quit eating meat and dairy at the same table, quit wearing clothes made of two different fabrics, and quit shaving then don't quote me what the Old Testament says about homosexuality. It condemns all of those in equal measure. As far as the FEW passages in the New Testament that deal with this issue, they were all written by St. Paul, and the Greek word that he uses has the connotation of one who forces himself on a child or someone without power in that society, something like a child molester. He conspicuously does not use the Greek word that would connote two adults in a consensual, homosexual relationship, even though such a word existed in the Koine Greek in which he wrote. You would do better to remove the log from your own eye than worry about the speck in someone else's. Look at the Sermon on the Mount, specifically, Matthew chapter 7 before you decide what God's opinion is of homosexuals, or about any other person or group for that matter.
Really...your not going to tell us that Jesus would condone homosexuality and gay marriage now are you? And, I assume Episcopalians believe Jesus is God, something I think is a given if you are a Christian.
Cite the passage for me where God/Jesus condones homosexuality. Please, I can't wait.
Because, there are passages where God condemns homosexuality...and I don't believe he ever contadicts himself.
But, you might have a different bible.
To prove how bigoted some of your pro-gay activist are, apparently some of you didn't read there will be gay people marching against gay marriage. Go ahead and call homosexuals bigots,why don't you. I can't wait until pedophiles start asking for adult-child marriage...
They didn't have marriage equality when your Jesus was around, so all he could do was order his mother to treat his lover John as her son-in-law.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2012/apr/20/was-jesus-gay-probably
Ah, Vince... you cannot conform the bigots. Perhaps the reason that this is a topic is God's way. I usually say that I am Agnostic, but perhaps I am (like our forefathers) gnostic. I do know that I do not believe in or follow any established religion. Religion, for the most part, is for people who need to be told what to think.
skrekk
They reflect light silly, if you can see they are pink then they are not invisible!
and in rebuttal (hehe, I said butt) to RP's post
Um, you've got 13 men wandering around the countryside... what else do you think they did for relaxation? It isn't like they had female groupies to have sex with, RP.
Marriage, as a civil institution, should be abolished, no matter what your sexual preference. Let it be deemed a religious issue, not a civil one. Marriage, as a civil institution, has become little more than a tool of political, social, and economic oppression, a tool used to discriminate against those who do not embrace it or who want to embrace it but do not fall into some favored category. Marriage is obsolete. Don't say "yes" to same-sex civil marriage; say "no" to civil marriage, period!
All you heterophobes just can't get over this can you?
Normal is want brought you life as you are today.
Weird or not, your mother and father did it, and you are the end result.
I love how NBC loves to mention "far-right organizations." What happened to unbiased media and what happened to just giving us the facts without injecting your own opinion?
Gay people have a twisted sense of reality. I thank God there are people, such as the people in France, that have a correct perspective of the gift of procreation. And for the good folks here that are discouraged by the Athiest's and Gay's... Please do not be infuenced by their anger and hate, because that is exactly what they want. Ask yourself? As humans we are three part beings: Mind, Body, and Spirit. If we do not feed the body good things, what happens?.. We get sick. If we do not feed the mind, what happens?.. We are stupid and easily controlled. And if we do not feed our spirit with the goodness of God, what happens?.. It creates a void inside us that is filled by hate, discouragement, and especially ignorance. Read the Bible my fellow being's, and see how God feels about ignorance, and remember this was written thousands of years ago. By someone that had enough intelligence to read and write and figure that out, and then pass on that intelligence onto his legacy, which he procreated wth his wife. If we follow the advice of the Gay's and Athiest's, then no one will procreate, and we will all have defects that weaken us, and have no respect for one another. And instead of growing in (the power of)knowledge, we will disrespect our legacy(offspring) and be like animals, and turn them loose to fend for themselves to what conclusion?
Protesting equality and preaching hate, Bob. That's far right.
@RobCG
While I'm normally inclined to take anything written by someone who uses apostrophes to form plurals (e.g. "my fellow being's") at face value, I have to disagree with you here, Rob.
You seem to think that the "Atheist's and Gay's" are advising heterosexuals to abstain from procreation. They aren't. Therefore, what you have said makes no sense at all. Thanks for the laugh, though. I always love to hear the most hilariously ignorant and borderline illiterate people come here to talk about the gift of knowledge.
Hey WhatIsWhat,
You do realize that all of the Holy Books have multiple instances of heterosexual "adult-child" marriage,
and that most pedophiles including those who target boys are also "straight".
I don't think religion should be a part of this conversation at all. Both the US and France are secular nations.
Still, I find it bizarre when some on the "anti-gay-marriage" side try to use the bible to forward their position.
The Old Testament is pretty hard core on lots of things, some times you guys edit out half of a sentence!
And, when there is no proven link between adult consensual homosexual sex and pedophilia, and the bible is full of it old men marry and begetting with little girls.
Why would anyone even want to go there? You score points against yourself.
Sorry Bob, I over shot the reply button. I really didn't meant to score you point.
This is why your argument fails.
Your religion is irrelevant. If you can use your religious beliefs as fact, so can every other religion. Or any other type of belief for that matter. You do not have the right to dictate how others live based on how you think they should.
This is why organised religion is a fraud and a farce. It controls the weak minded.
You think everyone one else on the planet should conform to just your beliefs. That everyone must fall in line with your God. That everyone must hate all that oppose your beliefs.
You go right ahead and cling to your religion because you lack the will to do right by others on your own. And yet, with all the religious help you're getting, you are still being self righteous and judgemental.
Here is a clear example of why I have a hard time taking any religious zealot seriously. They lie and twist things out of it's entirety to do nothing more than spread their hate and brain wash the children into their lies of fear and obey and love is the reward.
Test tube babies aside, cloning has proven a male isn't really even needed to create a life.
LevTolstoy2, I gave my opinion and you responded with hate speech for a free citizen of this country, wanting to excercise their first ammendment right. So then you must know how much importance I place on your ignorant rants. And I am assured in my perception that your ignorance of other persons ideals, has a narrow scope of reality and its functionality in a civil society. I doubt you will ever comprehend the point I am attempting to make, for you reveal in ignorance and hate. Thus, I am wasting good intellectual speech on you, because civility is beyond your experiences. Please, feel free to correct my spellings, because I find it to have comedic undertones, to witness your persistence to point out vernacular misspellings of people you disagree with. It is only an opinion, but I doubt you have the capacity to love anything other than your HUGE ego. Good Luck with that!!
I guess being normal isnt bigotry after all......who knew?
Rob is saying he has access to the first amendment and no one else does!
How dare you question such an upstanding man who would never resort to a long diatribe of personal attacks and self-important sounding, yet oddly ironic quips. Disagreeing with Rob is against the Constitution! Why can't everyone just rise above and act like he does?
" I doubt you will ever comprehend the point I am attempting to make..." That's true. Your English is atrocious and at times completely nonsensical. Thanks, though, for your "good intellectual speech," professor. Very persuasive.
As much as I hate to write this, I will.
You must go onto the posts and post on everything gay since you know they post on everything gay.
As you know Jesus says nothing against gays and marriage. And maybe a little social context might do you some good here. I'm sure this will fall on deaf ears, but here goes.
1. Women were property
2. Their father's decided to whom they would be married through a marriage contract. The wealthier the dowery, the better the husband. This was a form of social status family bargaining.
Before you start citing Paul and TImothy, let's clear that up.
1. Whenever homosexual relations were mentioned they were not of the social context of committed relationships.
2. When it was mentioned, it had to do with pedarasts, not adult homosexuals. (For those of you that don't know, a pedarast is what we would consider a pedophile now. Back in the day, old men would take on young men for sexual and relationship purposes. This was correlated to temple worship and what they considered pagan.)
Lastly, while I will defend your right to your opinion, I cannot condone your use of personal belief to legislate.
Before someone goes the silly route.
1. A child cannot consent and sign a legal contract. Pedophilia is illegal. This is a red herring argument.
2. An animal cannot consent and sign a legal contract. Beastiality is illegal. This is a red herring argument.
3. Polygamy is illegal. This is a red herring argument.
4. Incest is illegal. This is a red herring argument.
5. Being gay is not illegal. (as much as some wish it were) Applying 1-4 into your argument only shows that you do not have a valid argument. Please stop trying to compare something illegal to something legal.
Rob, I think you might want a few passages directly from God that might help you on YOUR journey. You certainly go out of your way to judge and label those you feel are trespassing against you. Instead of convincing you of your error, I will let God do the talking for me.
Matthew 7:1-5
"Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.
Romans 14:12-13
So then each of us will give an account of himself to God. Therefore let us not pass judgment on one another any longer, but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother.
James 4:11-12
Do not speak evil against one another, brothers. The one who speaks against a brother or judges his brother, speaks evil against the law and judges the law. But if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge. There is only one lawgiver and judge, he who is able to save and to destroy. But who are you to judge your neighbor?
Romans 8:37-39
No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Romans 13:8
Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law.
Matthew 6:1-34
“Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven. “Thus, when you give to the needy, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you. “And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward.
May God bless you and forgive you for your sins. The same as every other man. There are no sins greater than another. But God does punish more severely those who use his name and cause harm.
jim, unless you are normally a bigot. Seeing as humanity took 50 thousand years to elevate the classification of women to sentient beings, I'm sure that "normal" isn't exactly the standard for non-bigotry.
Levtostoy2... I am amused that I have no need to prove my points, because yourself and another do it for me, with much more simplicity.
RobGC, all you did was call him hateful and claim that him disagreeing with you was infringing on your rights as a free citizen.
The reason no one can respond to you is because nothing you said made sense. You need to understand that Atheists reproduce, there are gay Christians, there are reproducing gay people, and no one is telling humanity not to procreate. Furthermore, trying to keep gay people from committing to each other in monogamy and staring a family doesn't make them straight and make them start having children. It just bullies people for no reason to no good effect.
If you want a good response, make a good statement. As it is, you need to first become acquainted with the simple facts of the matter.
Mr. RossJ503;
Thank you sir, for "As much as I hate to write this, I will." With the day after day vitriolic writings of posters such as Skrek, Vince, ErinNJ, Vermontguy, et al. You are a lone voice in the wilderness on your side of the table.
I appreciate your level headed writing in making your point and with a mild dash of flat humor thrown in, you provide a table for others to come to bring their side and are willing to go point / counter point (which I whole heartedly congratulate you on #1.36) with your own bibliographic evidence as you see it.
I would look forward to the day sir when we will sit down with our own choice of beverages, (mines french roast coffee) and openly exchange our views and perceptions, prides and prejudices, beliefs and faiths. Not that I believe we will change the world but maybe others will see us and start discussions of their own that are honest and open with out the bigotry and blatant hate (on both sides) that has come to be what I percieve as the norm lately.
And I warn you, I am FIRM in my beliefs but that dosen't mean that I will disrespect you or your beliefs, only that I look forward to an intellectual exchange that some might call enlightening.
Just something to ponder here. How many here like having other people judge your life everyday, the things you do in your life everyday, how you live your life everyday. and who you live your life with everyday? How many here are above all other peoples lives? How many were given the position of being the supreme judge over all others?
I doubt anyone here likes having anyone judging them at all. If that is correct, then remember that when putting yourself in the position of judging others. As for being above all others? Don't bet your life on the thought that you are, or, ever were. And the same goes for thinking they were ever given the position of being the supreme judge over all others.
It,s nice to have an opinion about anything in life, but that is as far as it goes, because they are just that, our personal opinions, and not judgements. We will all have our turn as a judge one day, over our own personal life when the time is right, not anyone elses. So let's just leave others to judge themselves.
What do they mean, "unpopular president"? I wonder why they voted him into office. They don't like his tax policy? I thought taxing the RICH was going to save the country. Now they don't like gay marriage? What do they like.
Good for the people of france!
After all the gay parades and demonstrations, it's about time someone marches for the beliefs of the majority.
h engbers @ 1.42: He's unpopular because he suckered too many people with distracting issues during his campaign, like Obama. The difference is that the French realized fairly early on they'd screwed up, whereas millions of Americans have not yet learned the true intentions of our own Fearless Leader. They will. The truth will come out, not this year or next maybe, but it's coming. The Austrians were slow learners too, before WWII. Not saying it will get quite that bad, but change is coming.
http://blog.beliefnet.com/on_the_front_lines_of_the_culture_wars/2011/04/she-survived-hitler-and-wants-to-warn-america.html
This is America, dammit. Everyone has a right to be just as miserable as me, in a marriage. Equality, not special rights!
I find it ironic that Christians are the most upset with this. Doesn't your bible also say, don't cheat, don't steal, don't covet/ lust, and lastly DON'T FRIGGIN JUDGE? How's those morals going for you Christian America?
The sheer fact there are people screaming and chanting for France of all places because they hate gays as much as they do is... terrifying, to say the least. Then again, it's backed by the Catholic Church, the ones who are too busy shuffling their Naughty Priests around, and trying to stop loving gays from getting married, enough so they'd rather bully their nuns into repressing human rights issues, including helping and feeding the poor, and fighting poverty.
The entirety of the situation is just mind numbing. It's like the globe got some of that special water that made the South finally crazy enough to try and secede over slaves, and now they're taking people that are genuinely in love to task over what their imaginary bestest best friend says through the mouths of hate mongering, fear spewing old men that are bordering senile. I've done all I can to try and respect the religious, but sometimes people just take the silliest, stupidest little issues, make them the forefront, even though things like poverty and disease are ramping up.
Now tell me, do you really think Jesus wants you to fight the gays, that what they are doing will DESTROY the sanctity of marriage, even though you've fully embraced divorces, allowing Hugh Hefner to have a slew of wives old enough to be his great grand daughter? Or do you think the great savior, and healer, would want you fighting disease and famine, and helping your fellow man? You people seem to forget what sort of man your savior was. It's like we've barely budged out of the Dark Ages with there being people that still feel like this.
Then again, there are people that still believe blacks should be slaves, and I don't think there are any living slave owners... There are also those that firmly believe that women should be in the Kitchen, not out having a life or working to support their family. It's like stupidity continues on through genes, even after the originator of these ambitions has finally fallen. It's mystifying.
Hendy,
Just less than 55% of the French approve of gay marriage as indicated by the article. This information could be yours if you read it. March all you want, but the whole point is nonsensical. Gay people who want to marry are not against straight people marrying. There is no such thing as "defending traditional marriage" from gay people. The threat to traditional marriage is traditional divorce. Trying to ban monogamy and commitment doesn't even make sense unless you are some kind of radical hedonist. Is that what you are?
manninjapan, #1.15- I think you could maybe be banned from setting up a Bank, as a Financial Institution, if your criteria for set-up only reaches the level of "Credit Union", as a Financial Institution, instead. Just a thought. :)
GREAT! Article. Nicely informatively balanced and NICE DEMO (for ALL), France!!!!!!!!!
God made man and woman. Their bodies compliment each other perfectly. Jesus even talked about a woman and man leaving their homes and becoming one flesh before God. I see no reason what so ever why adam and even would not be considered married before God. It was meant to be that way, it is what works best for the family structure. People who shout the word homophobe just because other people cherish the traditional family value, really need to relax and find another word to use that is correct.
Vince-545056, #1.17- VERY INTERESTING about St Paul and whatever that Greek word is!
Also, I think, it's very interesting that Jesus said that "the One that arrives for the last hour of the workday is to be paid the same as for the whole workday"! Just sayin'. Certainly don't see a lot of THAT scripture and what it could possibly mean getting trotted out!
Again, VERY INTERESTING post of yours!
Harley Mike,
Thank you for your response. I do believe that simply because two, or more, people sit on the opposite side of this issue doesn't mean friendship and humility cannot be reached on both sides. Im having a cup of earl gray, bring your french roast and I welcome a conversation. Not a debate, but a conversation. You are FIRM in your beliefs and I have no reason to change your mind on them. I am FIRM in my reality. The point isn't to convert one opinion to the other, but to merely understand that event though we are vastly different, we can still reach a common goal.
Marmaduke,
While you are correct that man and women do compliment one another for procreation, I would like to give you a little social and historical context.
1. Marriages were not about love. They were a contractual function of society to keep social lines of power intact.
2. The average life span of a man, in biblical times, was about 30 years of age.
3. Tribes, such as the Tribe of Judah, were always a plague or battle away from extinction and depended heavily on procreation. (Not an issue we face today with over population and an alarming trend in scattered resources.)
4. Homosexuals have been a part of every society since the dawn of man. Cultures like those in China, the Celts, the Vikings, and the American Indians, to name only a few, had structure in place to deal with this issue. Because of reason #3, the expectation was that they would take a wife and make children but were not bound by love to be faithful to her. As you can see, our definition of marriage and what marriage meant has drastically changed.
5. Blood lines were very important to biblical time people. Crossing those bloodlines, due to incest and biologic reasonings, could bring about children with deformities and other issues. Do keep in mind though, it was a common practice for one man to have multiple wives and this was to help populate their tribes to assure their longevity. Monogamy is a new concept historically speaking.
As far as your comment about, "people who shout the word homophobe just because other people cherish the traditional family value," is at best inflammatory and intellectually dishonest. The word "value" indicates that you believe these people have no value for family or family bond and that you believe their way of accomplishing family and family bond is without value. A homophobic person is one that not only dislikes a homosexual, but tries to limit the participation of that person in society or limit the rights and responsibilities of those people in society and regulate them. Please keep in mind that our definition and tradition of family is vastly different than those of the bible and would be just as confusing to them as homosexual families are confusing to you now. From the way you dress, to the way you allow a woman to participate in society, to the way you worship God, they would see a world of confusion and most likely tell you that you are wrong and need to convert to their way of living.
One last thought here. With over 100,000 children waiting in foster homes and to be adopted, I think we have a problem. Remember, these children were created by two people who's bodies "compliment each other perfectly." Our culture and values have changed vastly since biblical times, as they should. Trying to live our lives based on a the social and historical context of those writings is foolhardy at best. Ignoring what science has to offer in explanation of human behavior is a mistake.
Ross
if you are going to spend a lot of time and effort to argue then you should learn to argue using logic and facts. Just a couple of holes in your lengthy bloviations:
1) Jesus said hate the sin, not the sinner. Jude 23
Rescue others by snatching them from the flames of judgment. Show mercy to still others, but do so with great caution, hating the sins that contaminate their lives
Judaism considers homosexuality a sin. Jesus was a Jew
2) Polygamy is illegal yet, presumably, a union comprised of consenting adults.
3) Same with incest. If you venture to use the argument of being physically detrimental (gene pool) then the same type of argument can be used against homosexuality (CDC).
There is no empirical evidence for what makes a person homosexual but the best explanation is one of pychological means.
rossj503, #1.53- I think you're being a tad bit harsh on marmaduke. And I'm pissed about AGAIN BEING UNDER A COLLAPSED THREAD! (Sorry, I just lost the comment I was 3/4 of the way done with because of these obnoxiously touchy and intrusive "older/newer" tabs right where you type in the comment box AND IT'S A LONG WAY BACK AFTER THE ENTIRE THREAD HAS BEEN COLLAPSED!!!!!!!!!!!!)
Basically, I think you're being a tad bit harsh on marmaduke and will try to get back to expand on that in a bit and ask you a couple of questions, if I can get myself back together!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I really don't care what makes a person gay, Simple Theory, and I really don't care if gays want to screw each others brains out.....behind closed doors, please. But, I do care that they want to shove their "gayness" in my face, demand that I accept it as normal and approve of their so-called marriages....and oh yes, complete with benefits!
Simple Theory,
While Jesus was a Jew, he was the fulfillment of the law (blood atonement.) Even contemporary Rabbi's will tell you that Levitical law does not apply to Gentiles. Secondly, there are sects of Jews, that do not consider Jesus as the Messiah as they are still waiting, argue that there is a a huge discord in what the Levitical law was stating. Taking social and history in context is a key component. I believe I already covered the New Testament scripture and the continued inaccuracy of using those scripture in the condemnation of homosexuality as we know it today. I would argue that you are not using logic or facts to support your argument and that you use one text as opposed to multiple texts. That's your right and belief. I wont demean you by stating I think you are any less resolute in your beliefs as I am in mine.
Polygamy is comprised of consenting adults, in most cases yes. But still illegal.
Incest is comprised of consenting adults, in most cases yes. But still illegal.
There is no empirical evidence to support why someone is left handed. Yet, we have left handed people. Does that mean it's psychological in nature? Or does it mean there are variations from the "norm." I do not need you to change your beliefs. However, belief does not belong in the forum of legislation of life.
Mystery Rhee,
My intention is to not inflame or cause harm. However, I will take issue that my family has no connection to a family value or that it doesn't have value at all. I will defend a persons right to an opinion and/or a belief. I will give value to that belief and opinion and will not demean it. I would like to point out that I have called no one a name or devalued their opinion or belief. I simply, and with respect, counter an opinion with facts and with reasoning. I welcome all discussion. And I will do it with respect.
spider,
I think there is a big difference between "accept" and "respect." I don't think an interracial couple cares if you accept them. I don't think an interfaith couple care is you accept them. I don't think an intergenerational couple cares if you accept them. However, every couple and family does care that they are respected legally and as human beings.
As far as putting their "gayness" in your face or keeping the sex behind closed doors, can you explain that to me? If you mean gay couples enjoying the same freedom of expression of their relationship, such as holding hands or having families, then I would say that is not a rational or reasonable argument. I don't know any of my gay friends or couples that invite their neighbors to come watch them have sex or anything of that nature. The only conclusion I can come up with is that you mean things like gay pride parades. While I agree with you that nakedness and those types of behaviors to be inappropriate, they certainly aren't secluded to the gays. Have you ever seen or been to a Mardi Gras parade? There are those that will use these events to "show off" but it does not happen singularly to gay events.
It makes you wonder where the heck the Catholic Church in the USA has been on Homosexual Marriage? Few mainstream Christian Churches are organizing resistance. IT"S TIME FOR US TO BE HEARD!! And you churches are supposed to lead . Start leading.
Ross
Without trying to rain on your long windedness; it was decided Jesus was the "fulfillment" after he was gone. You may argue he never said any of what we attribute to him but I'm going with the assumption he did. But, regardless, that was not your point in using the Bible to buttress your argument. You said:
There are many instances where Jesus encouraged the following of the Judaic Law. And yes, I am quite aware that there are Jews who do not consider Jesus to be the Messiah. There you go obfuscating the conversation again. I used the same text you used to refute your "points". I am not concerned whether you think I am "resolute in my beliefs", my argument is not based on "beliefs". Yours is clouded with conjecture. Nowhere did I "condemn" anyone.
Oh yeah, one more thing, a study done in the 80's on left handed people found that a leading component was....infantile stress. Imagine that, left handedness could be caused from psychological factors.
Spider, I don't either.
Simple,
And assumption is based on belief. And yes, Jesus did encourage it because he had not died yet. Only through his death was the law filled. Jesus also referenced the ten commandments as the laws that should be followed. As far as my presenting an alternative view as "conjecture," I'm not assuming anything. I try to use facts and quotes to back up my opinion. It's called a discussion.
The research project you quote from the 80's is dated and more recent research shows that it is inherent brain wiring.
I would encourage you to look at research from more than one perspective and point of view.
Ross
if you are not concerned with the "civil rights" of the polygamists or the incestuous, why should the 98% of the world be concerned whether marriage between gays are legal or not? Are they not equal?
Simple,
Im not sure why you want to compare things that are illegal to things that are legal. So, no, they are not equal. Simply because people want to make that comparison to try to validate their argument, doesn't make it so. It's a reaching argument made when desperation of point is reached. Instead of taking my points and looking at them for what they are, addition to conversation, you want to argue personal validity. Im not attacking anyones beliefs or opinions but simply offering another point of view. I try to use quotes and other forms of validation of my thoughts so they are not based purely on assumption or belief. If you find that to be long winded or conjecture, I'm sorry you feel that way. I try to be even keeled and show reference material to back up my beliefs and opinions.
Okay, I was saying that this issue, as it's presenting in this Article, has similarities to the "abortion" issue along the line of an imbalance in focus; that being with the imbalance again almost entirely tipped to the side of "procreation" with no, or not enough, regard to "post-procreation". I.E. after "procreation and being born", and it's more than rather flatly stated in the Article, A CHILD NEEDS A MOTHER (Female) AND A FATHER (Male), as "Traditional" Family Structure. This is not my statement, I'm paraphrasing between the Article and at least what seems to be implied in marmaduke's post; along with also implying something about "Family Values". Not that I have formulated an answer to any of that, at this time, because I haven't. I don't know....it's just finally been added to the discussion by this Article......I have to think about it. But that is where I saw a lot of legitimacy in marmaduke's post and wanted to ask you if you picked up on any of that in the Article; and if so, do you see any point where "Family Structure" might translate to being one in the same with "Family Values", based on Mother (Female)/Father (Male) prototype of the actual structure? (Please, answer only if you'd like or can)
And secondly, I wanted to ask you about what I was under the belief was the "first marriage" in the Bible; that being between Whomever was Rebecca's Husband and Rebecca. (I'm rusty, sorry) but didn't whomever he was simply see Rebecca from a distance and go over to her tent and enter into the tent and spend the night with her and then They emerged the next morning as Husband and Wife? (Again, please, answer only if you'd like or can)
Simple Theory, #1.54- Much SIMPLE BEAUTY and EXCELLENCE in your post!!! I see now that there are more and look forward to going back and reading them.
You gotta love how people who do no research impose their own viewpoints on things. At least one of these 13 men (Peter-yes, THAT Peter) was married-plus they weren't just a bunch of men traveling around alone. They had a whole retinue with them, and they often stayed in peoples' homes.
For Simon Peter to have a mother-in-law he would have had to be married.
There were obviously women who travelled with the disciples. For those of you whose minds are in the gutter about this, you have obviously done no research at all about first century Judaism. There is no way a single Jewish man of that time would have been accepted as a rabbi or teacher of any kind if he had hooked up with women he was not married to. No one would have ever listened to him. First century Jews also did not typically practice homosexuality. There are sources other than the Bible for this info, BTW.
It was customary at this time for people to open their homes and offer hospitality to strangers. There were some inns, but not nearly as many as today-and Jesus and his gang weren't exactly rich.
Again, it wasn't always just 13 guys hanging out alone in the wild with nothing to do. Also, they often stayed in peoples' homes. I didn't include verses about this, but there are many that talk about how crowds of people were frequently following Jesus and his disciples and not giving them a chance to rest and even to eat at times. Please do some research before you try to impose your own 21st century viewpoints on everything.
Mystery Rhee,
i would agree with you wholly that Gay Marriage tends to fall into the same passion levels as abortion as far as strength of opinion and conviction go. As far as family values go, with a 50% divorce rate and 100,000 plus children without any family at all, I would have to question the ideal of "traditional family values." We have seen throughout history that mothers, and in some case fathers, raising their children after the other parent has died or left. To say only a bio mom and dad is acceptable is to say that single parents, remarried families, grandparent raising grandkids, etc are invalid should really cause an uncomfortable feeling in anyone. "Family Values," was a coined term in the 80's and 90's to signify a Christian movement to vilify gays and lesbians. So, there is some negative connotation to the term. Every family should have value. Not just ones that subscribe to a certain belief system.
As to your second point, when a man penetrated a woman, they became "married." Officiated services were often times left for those with money and was a social class function. Love inspired matrimony didn't happen until much much later in human history. The evolution of marriage has changed drastically over the last several centuries much less the last two thousand years. Variations of tribal marriage and custom varied widely.
Ross
My assumption was based on your belief since you used the Bible. As I explained I merely sought to use the same source as you. As you well know gay marriage is not universally legal. I was asking why you consider some causes of the same genre greater than others. The fact is gay marriage is illegal in far more places than it is legal. Your assertion as to the extent to which gay marriage is legal could be construed as conjecture. Again, not an attack. It appears that the prevailing argument for gay marriage is "because we want it". Which is fine but I would submit it's also why there is much opposition to it. Do you advocate for polygamist and the incestuous? Are you aware that there are those who are seeking to "normalize" pedophilia? Will you advocate for them?
Thank you, Mystery Rhee.
Simple,
I will start with the big one, pedophilia. It is a bit offensive that you are comparing my loving relationship with a consenting adult with that of sex with a child. But I will leave that feeling for a moment and say that i wont advocate for something that causes physical and emotional harm to a child. I think that clears that up.
Incest based relationships already hold more legal clout than a gay couple has because they are considered family and blood family at that. Gays have wills and legal documentation overturned because they are not considered family or a spouse. Incest relationships don't have to go through the hoops to secure their wealth or family because the court already considers them family.
Being married isn't just about "wanting it" for wanting's sake. Children are being raised in same sex families. Wealth and property are being amassed in same sex relationships. Inheritance and tradition are being created in same sex families. However, these families go unprotected legally. The children grow up hearing how their family is not a valid one. This does damage to a child growing up thinking that they aren't in a "real" family. A child born out of incest is already guaranteed legal and inheritance protection. But a child in a same sex family is not. I would submit that of all the families that are and can be created, gay families are the most vulnerable to the legal system with the possibility of loss of wealth and property as well as the harm it does to the children in the family as it being seen as not valid.
I suspect you no more speak for all Jews (like Conservative or Reform Judaism) than you do for all Christians (like the Episcopal church, UCC, or ELCA).
Sounds like you must be a Mormon or Southern Baptist. Not all religious folks share your hatred of gays.
And it's strange that you think your religious views are relevant in any way to a secular legal contract.
ross
You really enjoy projection. I hold no particular view of "your loving relationship". I plead guilty to misreading the extent of your ignorance even with all the examples you demonstrated. Allow me to apologize. My point is that there are people who using the "they are born that way" to seek to decriminalize pedophilia. Glad to hear when they make the push to do so you will be holding a sign in protest.
Your second paragraph is conjecture. Blood related family members have had wills overturned. So to imply that is strictly an issue a gay person has is easily discounted. There are numerous legal tools available to unmarried couples. My siblings or other relatives wealth does not revert to me simply because I am related to them. Dependents are entitled in the case of unexpected death, that is true.
A person can leave their wealth to whoever they choose. After the state gets their cut, of course.
Shrekk
no weirdo, i don't speak for all the Jews. I was referring to the Jews at the time of Jesus I made no claims to being religious nor did I display a hatred of the "gays", freakshow.
Take your little bitty brain out for a walk. Make sure to use a short leash and clean up the droppings. You'll need lunch later.
Simple,
I will ignore your need to name call by calling me ignorant, and using a fake apology, but I will continue to address your points.
I will be holding up a sign. Children should be protected.
My second paragraph was not conjecture. I have seen many couples have wills overturned with the reason, they are not spouses or family. A person can leave wealth to whomever they want, but it can be overturned by a judge and this has happened with gay couples at an alarming rate. It's not conjecture that a child of incest is still considered blood family. It is not conjecture that they already enjoy the legal benefits of blood family. As an ICU nurse, i have known couples that were separated while their loved one died because they weren't considered family. I speak of what I know personally. Not conjecturing of what could happen or has happened. Simply because you choose to not believe these things happen with frequency does not mean they don't happen.
Simple,
Here's why your pedophilia argument is laughable....
A little something called legal capacity for informed consent. Gay people have it, children don't. That's why there IS a good reason to criminalize pedophilia, but there ISN'T a good reason to ban gay marriage. That's why your argument is ridiculous.
Legal marriage is a contract, that's it. So are mortgages. Did gay home ownership lead to child home ownership???
sarah
You usually enter into conversations leading with your ignorance. I was not making an argument concerning pedophilia. If you were half as knowledgeable as you like to pretend on this board then you would know that there are people in positions of influence who are making the argument that pedophiles should not be locked up for the act because that is how they are wired. Google it.
If you have read my posts here you may have noticed I have not taken a position on banning gay marriage.
That's why you are ridiculous. You think with your genitalia instead of your brain.
You remind me of a radio host I was listening to while I ran to the store at halftime on Sirius left. He stated that people who did drugs were the same as people who had the unfortunate luck of contracting tuberculosis. That's about as idiotic as it gets. Congratulations
Ross
I was not insulting you and my apology was sincere. Ignorance is what it is, we all suffer from it to an extent. Witness sarah
Simple,
Yes, and MY point is that YOUR point is ridiculous, because of legal capacity for informed consent. In short, YOU HAVE NO POINT, because it doesn't matter WHO is making the argument, the argument FAILS. That is, unless you can explain how those "people" making that argument will get around legal capacity for informed consent. Can you??? If not, it's pointless to even bring up.
Really? That's weird, because the last time I checked I was a female.
By the way, do you get paid for every time you call someone a name and/or ignorant, or do you just do so for @!$%#s and giggles?
sarah
You are simply creating a point to argue. I was not arguing for the rights (or wrongs) of pedophilia. If you are so naive to believe that the argument will not be made as to their diminished responsibilty due to their "illness" then I've got a bridge in Brooklyn you might be interested in. Because it already is. I understand your point you are making concerning consent as it relates to children. That is not the point I am making. They argue that pedophiles should not be held criminally accountable due to their "sickness".
Very extreme rulings of such liberal thinking are available as real life examples exist.
Dena Schossler comes to mind. Cut off her baby's arms and yet she was not held accountable and released.
Such examples lead me to believe that the harm to the children may not be a primary factor.
As for the banning of marriage between homosexuals. It's a state's right issue and not the business of the federal government.
rossj503, #1.66- Thank you for the reply and especially for what seems like a really EXCELLENT! and straightforward answer to my second point, as you called it.
I really need to back up from there, to the first line of your reply, and almost "object" (as you would in a Courtroom:) because you are wholly agreeing with me on what is not my opinion to be agreed with! or so it seems, to me. I'm not and never was talking about "passion levels" or "strength of opinion" or necessarily even "conviction"; but was actually talking about, "in the most simplest of terms", as a beginning point, but specific, Imbalance and Focus. And my belief that there is an imbalance in focus being tipped too far to the subject of strictly the act of procreation with no or not enough regard for "post-procreation"; neither of which having anything to do with "emotionality", as in "passions" and/or "opinions and convictions that are driven by emotionality". I'm a real stickler for not allowing words, meanings or intentions to be put into my mouth; and there, also, in your reply is an example of just why it's so important to be a stickler, like that, because misconstruing my words, meaning and intent is being used to set up support to your next supposition about 100,000 kids and all of that, so forth, which I also do not agree with, at least in your context. (I'm not being trite, in any way, either so please don't take it that way) I guess I'm just now saying that your having taken me out of my own context, right off the bat,also simultaneously put me into yours!
Okay, that said, I need to take some more time with your reply and read some more posts that have obviously come in since I was here last and try to come back to it, again.
sarah
FYI. Females have genitalia. They don't have ding-a-lings. Perhaps a fact you are well aware of. If I did get paid for the ignorance of others I would be well compensated from you alone.
Simple,
Well than you're sorely lacking in your knowledge of criminal law in regards to "diminished capacity" and insanity. Neither of those fly, right now as defenses to pedophilia, because their definitions include that the perpetrator must not be aware of the criminality of what he/she is doing...
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Criminally+insane
See, the problem with that thinking is STILL there. What applies to homosexuality, does not apply to pedophilia, because one is legal and the other is not. They have nothing to do with each other. If they want to worry about bad precedents for pedophilia, than look to pedophilia cases.
So again, that point just doesn't matter. It's, well, pointless to even bring up.
Also, gay marriage is NOT a states rights issue. It's a civil rights issue. That means it belongs squarely in the hands of the federal courts to overturn the federal legislation, banning it.
FYI, apparently irreverence goes right over your head. Nothing worse than a stranger on the internet lauding their own self praises.
Jesus absolutely DOES NOT condone gay marriage. First of all we'd have to look at Genesis 5:2. I'm not going to copy/paste all of these scriptures as I'm sure you've read them before (seeing as how everyone seems to know the bible so well). The gist of it is, he created them male and female. Second, the infamous Sodom and Gomorrah...Let's not argue about WHY God destroyed them, let's just look at the scriptures.
Genesis 19:5-6.
5 And they called to Lot and said to him, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may know them carnally.”
6 So Lot went out to them through the doorway, shut the door behind him, 7 and said, “Please, my brethren, do not do so wickedly!
Apparently Lot found that knowing the angels carnally was wicked.
Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination.
Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
Deuteronomy 22:5 The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.
Romans 1:26-27 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
These are just some of the scriptures.
By the way correction and judgement are two different things. If I know the difference between what is right and what is wrong then telling you that what you're doing is wrong is not judgement. Not only that I see how people that like their sin tend to use scriptures on God telling christians not to judge. I find that to be self condemning. You don't want people to judge you because you know you're doing something wrong, otherwise what's the big deal? not that it matters since those aren't the only scriptures on judging . God also says:
Leviticus 9:15 'Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly.
John 7:24 Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.
You can put words in Gods mouth all day long but at the end of the day...
Hebrews13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.
God doesn't mince his words, he says what he means. Just because you don't like them doesn't mean you can make up any meaning for them that you'd like...that's called idolatry. Only those who try to justify their sin change the meaning of Gods word to fit their sinful nature. This is how we know that we are in need of a Savior.
Once again sarah, you are creating points irrelevant to the discussion. And, at the risk of being repetitive and risking the appearance of a big meanie, ignorant. Homosexuality was at one time illegal. In the seventies there was a push to present it as "they can't help it". Any bells starting to ring?I would say that homosexuality has nothing to do with pedophilia but that would be unfactual. Pedophilia runs rampant in the homosexual community.
Marriage has nothing to do with civil rights as far as our Constitution is concerned. The federal govt has nothing to do with marriage except to punish it thru taxation. It is not specified in the Constitution therefore it falls to the states.
Of course, I realize that a person who doesn't understand that women possess genitalia cannot comprehend the depth of these arguments.
N33,
I'm sure that's all well and good in your world, but it must suck that you can't force it on the rest of us. Your "god" doesn't mean @!$%#, when it comes to our secular laws.
Simple Theory- Your Welcome. I just went back and gave you a Vote on each of your posts! (not claiming responsibility or ownership of any of your words, though. But, of course:)
Simple,
Well now we're getting somewhere, your theory that pedophilia is rampant in homosexuality is just straight up wrong...
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2010/winter/10-myths
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html
http://www.livescience.com/13409-myths-gay-people-debunked-sexual-orientation.html
http://guymeetsworld.wordpress.com/2011/04/06/gay-myth-7-gays-are-pedophiles-molesters/
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474978430711
http://www.wcupa.edu/_SERVICES/stu.lgb/Documents/MythsandRealitiesofGayMenandLesbians.pdf
And again, homosexuality was made NOT ILLEGAL, for the reason I've already brought up that distinguishes it from pedophilia. Informed consent and legal capacity. Homosexuality is victimless and consensual, pedophilia is not.
Now any sources for YOUR claims?
I was sooooo hoping you would say that.
First, there are certain "protected classes" laid out in the 14th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act. Two of them are race and gender. In the Supreme Court case Loving v Virginia, SCOTUS ruled that,
Now this case was based on race, BUT to support gay marriage, all you have to do is change race to GENDER, another protected class. PLUS, the 14th Amendment has a little something called the "Privileges and Immunities" clause. Which means, you can't deny the citizens, their privileges, or immunities, based on those classes. In this case, that'd be gender.
So, since marriage is a legal (that means law) contract, that comes with PRIVILEGES, you can't deny citizens, without a damn good, already been shown to exist, reason, based on gender, among other things. So, if the state can't prove a reason, to deny privileges to people based on gender, they can't make that particular law.Now, put it together. If two gay people want to enter a contract, and the state tells them they can't, because of the gender of one of the parties, THAT'S A BIG NO NO.
Also, the logic that gay people are free to marry, just as you are, i.e they're free to marry one of the opposite sex, is the EXACT same defense that Virginia used in their defense, again just turn gender to race.
The court ruled, AGAINST that logic.
Second, you have an implied right to privacy, mostly through the 9th and 4th Amendments. In a the SCOTUS case Lawrence v Texas, the court said this...
Third, AGAIN, marriage is a civil contract, that comes with over 1,000 benefits granted by the state. Most of these benefits deal with property, insurance, tax and probate law. Civil unions, do NOT grant equivalent benefits. In order to enter a legal contract, the parties have to have LEGAL CAPACITY FOR INFORMED CONSENT.
Furthermore, marriages are NOT religious, that's Holy Matrimony, which a church can NEVER be forced to perform against its dogma, due to protections in the 1st Amendment. This is why people can, and do, get married any day without ever stepping foot in a church.
Also, marriage has NOTHING to do with procreation. After all, we let people have kids OUTSIDE of marriage, and NOT have kids while married.
Fourth, there are very few limited reasons for the government to discriminate in law, against one of these protected classes, and in order to do so, the government has to pass the test of strict scrutiny, which is that compelling state interest mentioned in Lawrence v Texas.
Really??? That joke went over your head THAT badly??? Let me see, how can I explain this. It was about how men are commonly thought of as thinking with their genitals, not about women lacking them.
Wow.
Thank you Mystery Rhee. Very gracious of you.
While your Jesus was unable to marry his beloved friend John under the laws at the time, he did order his mother to treat John as her son-in-law. He was otherwise entirely silent about gays, as any closeted gay man would be in a profoundly homophobic society where he risked being stoned to death.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2012/apr/20/was-jesus-gay-probably
And I'm still not sure why you think your bible-babble is relevant in any way to civil marriage in France.
Hey
Hey Sarah: Would yot please post a new avatar so we can see your lover's face?
Imnotlost,
What you choose to fantasize about is none of my business, but on a side note...
People like you and yours are always talking about how homosexuals are "perversions", yet the only people who've ever made any creepy, sexual comments to me on here are STRAIGHT MEN. Yup, not one creepy comment from a lesbian.
sarah
I have reached the point of boredom with you. I will not bother to dig up "studies" to refute your points. You are not open minded as you wish people to believe. You belong to the most closed minded group to have ever walked the earth. The loons from the left. Enjoy.
shrekk
LOL. Homosexuals want people to believe so much that Jesus was homosexual they will grasp at anything. There is no evidence. Quite the contrary. Theo Hobson is a homosexual with an agenda, nothing more. Did you read the nonsense he wrote? Of course you didn't. Here's a taste:
He finds it impossible that Jesus could have had a relationship with Mary. He bases his assertion on one lone passage in the gospels. That is where he told his mother to recognize John as her son. And, lest I overlook it, centuries later religious paintings. Now that is rich. Yet, he discounts the many references to Mary and to the fact that it was Mary who was at the crucifixion and Mary who visited the tomb. The Mary of legend who travelled to France and had Jesus's baby and began his bloodline. Why not? If we are going to believe that one homosexual priest is going to use one lone passage to decide Jesus was homosexual. Delusion is also a common psychological trait among homosexuals. Hilarious.
Simple,
Wow, I'm totally shocked that you won't provide a single source to back up anything you've said, or provide a legal argument to substantiate your claim of "states rights". Seriously, shocked.
FYI, since you had such a hard time grasping the sarcasm before. I'm really NOT shocked. This is just normally the time where people who try to proclaim to the world how "smart" and "right" they are normally realize that insults and self proclamations will no longer cut it, and they turn tail and run.
AS USUAL THE LIBERALS/PROGRESSIVES DEVOLVE EVERYTHING INTO THEIR TYPICAL HATE AND ANGER!
So, Libbies, why do you all hate blacks so much?
What is always striking is these same Liberals/Progressives don't realize how dramatically they expose their racism, especially black racism.
You do realize that blacks are predominantly (79%) very religious. Blacks are also more likely (64%) than whites (48%) or Hispanics (43%) to say homosexuality is morally wrong. These are both from the PEW Research Center.
Your hate, anger and vitriol expressed here can only be extended to blacks for their beliefs, thus making you racially intolerant, or in your words, you are racists.
We all know your desperate diatribes of compassion and tolerance are as fake as your anti-racism, secularism and other manufactured beliefs to appear concerned.
As far as all you atheists, agnostics and other pagans are concerned, when you belittle those of Faith do you ever think of what you’re doing? Let me ask you this, when Adam Lanza was massacring all those poor people at Sandy Hook Elementary, what do you think those in hiding were doing?
Do you think they were hoping Barrack Hussein would save them? Do you think they were hoping the government would ride in and save them?
No, they were praying. Every person, teachers and students, who survived that tragedy, admits they were praying to their God. Their Faith was what saved them.
I’ll wager, all of you hypocrite pagans have or will pray someday.
It’s OK, you don’t have to admit it, we who have a belief understand.
Because, there are passages where God condemns homosexuality...and I don't believe he ever contadicts himself.
There are passages where Paul condemns homosexuality. Show ME one verse where Jesus does. No, what Jesus said was, "Judge not lest ye be judged yourself" and "He who is without sin, let him cast the first stone" and "Do unto others as you'd have done unto you". He hung out with lepers and prostitutes - people that were considered outcasts by society. Jesus was actually quite liberal for his time, and that's why he was murdered. If so-called Christians would truly behave as Jesus did, we would be living in a completely different world.
n33s3
I agree, arguing is not good. But let’s take a look at the scriptures you brought up and talk about them applying social and historical context to them.
In those days, it was a common custom in many of the lands and tribes to humiliate and to show dominance over an enemy, that was male as women had no power, by raping them in front of a town or a fallen army. We know that Sodom was under King Bera and Gomorrah was under the king Birch. However, they were both under the rule of King Chedorlaomer. The two Kings Bera and Birch rose against Chedorlaomer and it was lots Uncle Abram that gathered up forces to defeat Cherdorlaomer. The towns were in a state of war. Lot knew that these were the Angels of the Lord, however, the towns people did not, nor did they care. They wanted to show dominance and humiliate them. This was not just an wanton act of lust and desire as the entire town town showed up.
4 But before they lay down, the men o fhte city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter.
I add this to show that every person in town showed up. Why would every person show up for regular sex? They were coming to see the spectacle and humiliation of a stranger in their midst. God’s greatest commandment to his people of the time was to show hospitality to strangers that came looking for refuge. So if the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah wasn’t one of gay sex, what was the sin?
Ezekiel 16:49 Behold, this was the iniquity of they sister Sodom, pride, fulnes of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.
"Ritualistic, or Levitical Law can be broken down into the Sacrificial Law, or Law of Atonement and the Law of Purification. There are, among Christians, those who still subscribe to following one, or both, portions of the Law of Leviticus, Ritualistic Law. However, as we look at both portions of Levitical Law, it will become clear that the Child of God no longer need be concerned with the requirements of this Law. At the same time, it needs to be understood that the Mosaic Law, the Ten Commandments of God, God's standard of conduct for His people, must be followed."- Ed
One also must question the sincerity of using these passages as what about the other Levitical Laws: Shellfish, mixed fibers, corners of the crops harvested, etc
Women were seen as property and had no legal rights or any say in their lives. For a woman to impersonate a man was a high sin as it was a deception. Men who wore womens things was unheard of because why would a man step down from his position of power to be a lowly woman?
Again using scripture out of context is easy, but full of peril.
“Instead, Paul chooses the worst possible transgression of pagan Gentiles so that the Jews in his reading audience will be saying, "Yes, Yes, they're guilty!" Then Paul will spring his rhetorical trap in 2:1 when he declares that Jewish idolatry is just as sinful as Gentile idolatry and therefore, everyone is guilty.”
What does Romans 2:1 say?
Romans 2:1 1 You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.
I believe this also satisfies your scripture on judgment as well.
One last word on New Testament and Homosexuality. When you read the scripture and put it into context, what you will find is that the intention of the scripture is against pederastry and not against homosexuality.
Mystery Rhee,
I apologize if I assigned any emotional tie to your argument that you did not intend. My goal is to have discussion and to not offend. Please accept my apologies.
According to God's Holy Inspired Word there is NO SUCH THING as a GAY CHRISTIAN.
Rom. 1:26-28, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."
Since you're a totally non-GAY CHRISTIAN, it's heart warming to see you quote the Old Testament.
I trust you obey Deuteronomy 21:18-21 and kill you children when they're disobedient?
Well I just hope the will of the majority prevails whatever that may be.
Rose,
Yeah, we don't give a @!$%# about your God either.
"No such thing as a gay Christian" -- ah, the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. You're so consistent with your inaccuracies, Rose. Since approximately 70% of homosexuals consider themselves to be Christians, who are YOU to say that they're not?
BTW, your God is irrelevant to our secular laws and government -- and always has been.
Leaving many comment collapsed for being religious derails.
Not hows its defined.
Our laws , made by men who led Christian lives and Christian values, and built this country in a way where we should be free to express out Christian Values with out fear of the government.
You guys amaze me with such wild theories. I want to make one thing clear here. From a biblical point of view, if Jesus was the son of God, and Jesus was with out sin, led the perfect life we all could not, then he would not be doing anything that would be putting him in danger of a sinning nature. Homosexuality is just as sinful as any other sin, lying, stealing, slander, ect ect . I find it impossible to come to any final conclusion to say that Jesus was Gay. I understand people think differently, and that is fine. These kinds of articles seem no different than those conspiracy theories of say 9/11 attacks that we knew when and where, and used our own explosives, and how many other wild theories. The bible Holds true, and will always be that way. It is the inerrant word of God, nobody can change that, no matter how much babble goes on like these wild theories.
Wake up people, forget the bible, this is Paris, where Muslims are the majority of the population, you need to be quoting from Qu'ran, book of Islam
I hope they pass the gay marriage bill. I'm all for two consenting adults who want to join their lives legally in an institution called marriage. It's not like the world religions really have a great leg to stand on when talking about the sanctity of marriage. (Fair warning - raised in a religious household so yes, I do know my religious scriptures. And - I'm a lot more stricter than those rabid fools who think homosexuality is the ultimate sin but don't think anything about the other sins listed in the Bible. Hey - if you look with lust at a woman, you should pluck your eye out. Why do so many men still have both eyes, or are we going to ignore the words that Jesus himself spoke instead of through an intermediary? When I start seeing anti-homosexual Christians start following all the rules, then I will actually give them the time of day to discuss their views on homosexuality.)
Not only that - I am secure enough in my sexuality to not be threatened by another person's sexuality. Nor am I naive enough to think that biological parents are the best choice to raise children. I've read to many true accounts of mothers and fathers who abused their innocent children to fall for that crap. I live in the real world.
As for whether Jesus was gay or not - do I care and does it really matter? The message of love and reconciliation, forgiveness, mercy, charity, kindness is a wonderful message and that's what I take from the New Testament. Not some hate-filled uncharitable hard-hearted people who can't show love like Jesus did.
Mr. Ross J503 -You -ARE- FUNNY!- we -should- "hate" the whole idea of "homosexualmarriage" -because- the future is in peril if we do not. I mean, a new blorn child is only gonna be impressed by what came in front of them. a little air in THEIR FACE and, "it is All the world". Homosexuality brings death to the door. Obama is a FOOL to proclaim that "life style" anything other than what it is and what it is is a "Freak show".
CORRECTION: Post 1.40 - - Harley Mike - - TO Mr. Ross J503. 'Getmadstaymad' is on the RIGHT SIDE OF THE ARGUMENT HERE -EXACTLY- "Sarah-3043284" One of -the MANY- "miss-guided liberals". Homosexuality is death in disguise. WE DON'T WANT IT/ "Changing the norms of Society" in that such a respect. OBAMA our idiot -president- brought gays into the military "Openly" using a deceitful hand to do so. ANYONE AGAINST HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE/ OR "Unions" may join my fb ForJim WilkinsonfromJohn which began at FightGayMarriageUniteBoxing WinLeadershipNowand-forever [fb "locks-me-out-there"]/ OTHERWISE: JohnWilkinsonMy Bidforoffice is a second fb. I'm "willing" to run for president ("hA") and it is IMPORTANT that a President would to stand against "Gay Marriage" because this way the COURTS will not be able to SPRAY ALL UP & DOWN ON THE -GOOD PEOPLE- and RUIN -Everything- [Obama is -pathetic- but, we are "stuck with the A- h" for the next three & 1/2 years,,] (860)515-7680 -from Connecticut-
Ross J503 I am planning to look further at you and your Posts. Incredible energy you put into these! the post befor my own here, by jh-2945581 you, REALLY LOSE ME when you make it a question mark if Christ was a possible GAY? what are you talking about? Christ never sinned in any form. You have a serious problem when you speak as you do. I'm GLAD THAT ISN'T MY OWN PROBLEM and also, Dude, you are "On Your own", I can't show you anything other than "closure".
It's good to see some people feel the same as I do!
Yeah, bigots and homophobes exist all over the world, just like racist, sexist and anti-Semites. Don't worry, a lot of other people are as full of hatred as you are.
Vince, he might not be filled with hatred, just clouded by ignorance, for which the simple cure is accurate information.
Question for those who are certain that every child needs to live with his/her father and mother to avoid catastrophe: If one parent dies, should the surviving parent be forced to marry someone else (how much time do they get?), or should the child be relocated to a two-parent home?
Justme- No, they shouldn't be forced to marry somebody else, but permanently putting a child in a situation where they are missing a father/mother is ludicrous.
You know what's ludicrous Bob, your speaking from pure unadulterated ignorance.
Would you rather a child be raised in an orphanage (perhaps one run by Catholic priests?) or be homeless on the streets or live with two loving parents who happen to be of the same gender. The best studies where children are raised from infancy or early childhood in a stable household with two same-gender parents do JUST as well on every measure as those children who are raised from infancy or early childhood by two opposite-gender parents.
However there is ONE group of people, religious fundamentalist ignoramuses (who cling to a book that advocates slavery and the death-sentence for pretty much everything), who want to PURPOSELY keep or make same-gender households less stable, by denying them access to the civil institution of legally recognized marriage.
A book of fables written by ignorant barbarians is NOT what we as a society should rely on for ANY thing. In the 21st century we should rely on reasoned rational thinking based on study and scientific data. That data demonstrates that same-gender household are just as valuable to a child as an opposite-gender household and that any hardships that such households may experience are due exclusively to societal bigotry and discrimination against them. (That's YOU Bob).
Bob, denying children of two loving parents? That's your objective? In the name of what? Making sure we have the correct genital balance? Why? Is a child better off an orphan than not being around a mix of genitals? What exactly does a child gain from it?
Is every father and every mother now a better parent than every gay couple only because of what they keep in their underwear? This is ridiculous.
danta2308- PFFFT... What a stupid comment....lmao!
Packinp40 yours is the stupid comment. What makes a heterosexual couple more competent to raise a child?? Look over the years and see how much abuse various "heterosexual couples" have done to their children. I believe everyone has the right to marry and have children whether it is a man & a woman or 2 men, or 2 women. I have worked with many very well adjusted children where both parents were of the same sex instead of a heterosexual couple. Prejudice and hatred is not the reason to demonize people because they don't fit your cookie cutter image of a family.
Question...
How does gay marriage effect heterosexual marriage? It's not like it cheapens it. With an over 50% divorce rate, heterosexual marriage has nothing to brag about. Look at your own kids, how many step parents, half siblings, step siblings, does your kids have in their lives?
Just saying...
America has gone the way of ancient Rome-- homosexuality---drugs---Gays have to recruit young people--and drugs---Marijuana prevails--with child abuse being high under the influence
I'm thinking of flying to Paris tomorrow and participate against the gay perverts
Now, if they will have a huge demonstration against the large Muslim influx, Paris would be acceptable again.
Alan, how unbelievably stupid can you and other people be? Gays don't "recruit" young people. Gay attitudes towards pot mirrors those held by straight people, being both for and against. Most instances of child abuse are perpetrated by STRAIGHT people, so why don't you yap about THAT? Giving marriage rights to a small minority of the population changes NOTHING. Most people will still be heterosexual, most will marry, and most will have children. Life will go on.
I'm not anti-Catholic but will note that a small percentage of people in the world also become celibate priests and nuns. Are they a threat to "marriage"? Are they "unnatural"? And what of straight couples who have sex but who don't have children, because of age, disability, or because they don't WANT kids? Are they unnatural? At one time, it was UNNATURAL to marry someone outside of your race, religion or social class. You were perceived as being a THREAT to social order and an affront to the laws of GOD by doing so.
And if you want to see instances of real "perversion", look at some heterosexual marriages: wife beating, murder, child abuse, spouse swapping, infidelity.....heterosexuals like you do NOT have a monopoly on "normal", not by a long shot. You do seem to have a monopoly on ignorance.
The next time you need the assistance or services of a neighbor, stranger, doctor, nurse, soldier, firefighter, paramedic, teacher, lawyer, or carpenter; the next time you want to enjoy a good book, play, or song; the next time you stand to benefit from a state or federal project funded by tax money; be sure to find out of any of these services and benefits come from people who happen to be GAY or LESBIAN. If they do, opt out of enjoying them. People who won't extend equal rights to others are hypocrites when they take from them nevertheless. Your miserable lives should not be enriched by the efforts of others who you disparage and marginalize.
Alan still believes this is unnatural!
How many commenting have read the most important and most extensive study on child development and single parent homes? It is called "The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce." The conclusion is that children need a father and a mother living in the home for healthy psychological development.
Dante
True Story, i was adopted by a homosexual couple from a foster home. they were wealthy and could provide for me. however i was always ashamed of them to the point i did not want to bring any friends over to the house or want my adopted parent attending any pta meetings because i was embarrased of them. Long story short, one of them got sick from aids and went to california were he eventually died. i lived with the remaing parent for a year until one day he made a pass at me(I was 15 y.o who says gays arent pedophiles?) i punched him in the face as hard as i could grabbed my things & left town. i choose to be homeless rather than live in shame & harrassment.
Gay adoption shouldnt even be an option your agument falls on deaf ears.
Rather than focus on the economy, the Church would rather form a mass protest to take on people who already live together.... seems legit.
@8theeuclid ... assuming that your story is true, I'm sorry for your situation. But, I wonder how many children adopted by heterosexual couples can tell similar stories. More than a few, I'm sure. So, I guess that means that we should ban heterosexual adoption, too. Right?
This is what you get when the population is simple-minded enough to give religious leaders that much sway over them (witness the South as well). They've convinced themselves that they're pro-marriage instead of repugnantly and virulently anti-gay. Which population will they be persuaded to target next?
The government should stay out of the marriage business and all other areas with consenting adults, that is the part of living in a free country. That is why we should not only support gay marriage but marriages with many women or men, people should be free to marry who they want and as many as they want. The Mormons were right all along and then the government stepped in and screw things up. If two parents are good for a child then 10 has got to be better. California has changed the law to allow more than 2 parents and so should the other states. If a child can have many parents then they should also have the right to marry!
8theuclid,
You are quite the ungrateful wretch. You were ashamed of the people who adopted you and provided you? What kind of a child maintains that level of hatred? I don't believe your story. No one is capable of that level of indefensible wretchedness.
In the slim chance that was true, you have yourself to blame for your feelings. If one of your foster parents died, then that's a tragedy and my condolences though you don't seem too heartbroken (because of the wretchedness). If someone made a pass at you, then that person should be punished. That doesn't make it okay to ban every non-child molesting straight or gay couple from adopting.
You shouldn't have shared your story. I can't stand you now.
There is so much wrong with this arguement, but two things first; are they saying gay marriage is ok as long as there are no children? And there is no study that shows a child is more likely to not thrive when the parents are gay. It would seem the Catholic church would save more children from a lousy life if they worked helping parents instead of wasting there time attacking loving relationships and birth controll.
As a gay foster/adoptive parent myself, I have to say that myself and my husband have taken in the children that you so called righteous god fearing people will not. We have provided them with a loving home, where they are safe.
How many of you can say that you would adopt a child with fetal alcohol syndrome? Or for that matter handle a child with ADD? Not many, they are the last ones to be adopted. Shame on you and your self righteous BS. And you call yourselves children of GOD.
Love makes a family
<quote>Is every father and every mother now a better parent than every gay couple only because of what they keep in their underwear? This is ridiculous.</quote>
No, what they keep in their butt is. Not what it was meant for. Only a sick demented mind would even think of such perversion. And you call that normal? If your mind is that off track it will do other weird things.
"This is not a church protest against the government" says it all, just like Nixon said, "I am not a crook."
mictchell1204,
Clearly, your mind is thinking of that prevision right now. Your argument is that only couples engaging solely in missionary-style intercourse are capable of raising children. Anyone considering any other style of intercourse will not love and provide for their children because really, child-rearing is a function of sexual positions.
Teaching your child how to play baseball or teaching him or her to read is something that only missionary-style sexual intercourse can accomplish?
Here's my opinion to add to the frenzy - People need to leave one another alone. Personal lifestyle, ethics and decisions are just that - PERSONAL. Folks, making these things a government decision is a scary thing. Step back and imagine how this slippery slope might progress. How much intervention are we asking for even inviting into our lives by politicizing these types of issues?
While bigger problems loom - hunger, poverty, starvation, lack of clean water, violence, war, corruption, we WASTE energy on something sexual in nature? The stupidity of our species continues to amaze me.
Bottom line: Live and let live.
Jeff, good comment. I notice that no one responded to you. While I am sure that some gay parents do a adequate job raising children, I believe that it is best for the child to be raised by a mother AND a father!
I am also against gay "marriage". So is my gay brother. He has taken legal steps to protect his assets in order for his partner to both inherit everything and to be in charge of his health care should something happen. I love my brother. Although I do not agree his lifestyle, I would do anything for him and he means the world to me. I also love his partner. I just don't see why people against gay "marriage" are called haters.
Linda,
Could you explain clearly why gay people should be barred from marrying each other, why this affects you, and what you or anyone gains from that stance?
Exactly what kind of made-up, bull$hit word is marriagophile?
LOL......you'd do anything for your "gay brother"......except let him have the same civil rights you enjoy.
And if your "gay brother" and his partner think they've been able to protect their assets in the same way that marriage automatically does, he might want to read Windsor v US.
God did not make Adam and Steve. God made male and female for the purpose of marriage and to make a family, to procreate. He ordained it. Sin is still sin no matter how any vain attempts are made to step around it by anyone, and sin is ruining this nation. The wages of sin is death. Just because someone chooses not to believe it doesn't change the Truth. The Christians hate the sin not the sinner. Some just refuse to get that.
All this time, energy and money spent putting ones nose into other peoples private lives and bedrooms...
It plain stupidity... Why are priest interested in someones sexual behavior when their own rules on sex is not natural... and the Catholic church of all institutions with the thousands of pedophiles living under the Catholic doctrine is the last institution that should have any opinion on adults doing as they chose...
For all you straight people out there that are against the LBGT community.
The Question is: When did you decide to be straight?
What you've always known......Well so have we. If you think this is a "choice" or a "lifestyle"...Think again. My life is no different than anyone else's. You don't hear us ranting about the Heterosexual lifestyle do you?
The younger LBGT community has enough problems with acceptance, they often turn to drugs, alcohol, & attempting suicide. Is this what you want?
George Carlen: "I don't know why the church would be against gays.....It seems to me they would support them, after all this is one segment of the population guaranteed not to have an abortion".
As for all you religious nuts....Take a good hard look at King James (yes the one accredited for your modern Bible), he was Bisexual. And you have no problem using quotes from that.
I have news for you......Your God may be punishing and you may fear God all you please, My God loves me for who I am, not what I am. My God is loving, caring and always forgiving.
To those of you that think we go around recruiting.....We don't cause they quit giving out S & H green stamps and Amana Microwave ovens for doing so a long time ago. (Joke in case your humor is that dry)
Gay marriage brings the relationships out into the open and provides support for the partners involved. In doing so, it strips secrecy away and takes from the catholic priests who have been preying on gays in their congregations, blackmailing them by holding the "sin" over their heads for fear of someone finding out.
With a partner and community support, they can tell this corrupt church to go to hell, figuratively and literally, and find spiritual solace somewhere else where they are accepted.
Too bad gay Muslims can't break away from Islam and be free. I'm beginning to think that is probably the segment of the faith where most of the suicide bombers come from. What do they have to live for? If their fellow Muslims find out they are "different" they will die any way. May as well go out in a blaze of glory. If Muslims were to accept gays, it would take away their suicide base.
mitchell1204
There are loads of straight people that like anal......Us gays didn't create sex shops....So stick that in your ass.
John-1620041
Yes he did.....He created man first.....and more than one of them......Eve wasn't created until later if you want to get literal about it.
My 11 year old daughter is being raised by two women...me and my mother. The whole "child needs to be raised by a man and a woman" argument is ridiculous. My daughters father was not in her life for her first 10 years (HIS choice, and horrible misfortune, not mine,) and when she met him for the first time at HIS fathers memorial, when she was 10, he promised to never leave her again. That lasted for 5 months! She is an honor roll student, who is compassionate, loving, and has a great sense of humor, and knows the difference between right and wrong,and KNOWS that she is just fine without her father!!! Yes, she has male influences in her life (my brother and my sisters husband,) but they do not RAISE her. So how is my situaion any different from a gay couple who want a child to love and raise together? Here's a hint: THERE ISN'T ONE!!!
There are so many children looking for good, loving homes in this world. Why woud anyone want to be so cruel as to deny them that? What right does ANYONE have to tell them they can't have it because the couple wanting them are gay? Get off of your high horses people, before you get thrown off and trampled under the hoofs!!!
High Fives thefavamama !!!!
@Shrekk, Homosexuallity is an immoral right not a civil right, and the need to understand that fact is never been so prevalent. Just because certain persons feel the need to act on their deviant sexual preferences, it does not mean moral sexual persons should have those decisions thrown in their faces.
Favamama
Kudos to you but you know little girls want and need (emotionally) a daddy. And a mama. Of course, this issue has become so political one cannot trust the various "studies" done because the results vary widely as to the mental health of the children involved.
Congrats to you and your mother for your success.
God also says that eating shellfish is an abomination (equal to male homosexuality) and should be punished by death. Things also equal to (at least male) homosexuality include working on Saturday, wearing clothes of two different fabrics, having sex with a woman not your wife, witchcraft, a woman not being a virgin on her wedding night etc.
God also is very clear - if you see someone working on Saturday or eating shellfish and you don't kill them immediately, you're just as guilty as them and you should be killed yourself. If your daughter is not a virgin on her wedding night, your God commands you in the bible to stone her to death personally.
So I ask you religious types - how many people have you stoned to death for working overtime on Saturday? If your answer is zero, why do you hate God so much and why do you deny his commandments.
VIVA LA FRANCE! Civil Unions not marriage. The label of Homosexual is because of the ACT.
@realworldproggresive, did you make that up? state sources and where to find those sources?
The word isn't straight people. It is the majority of normal people.
GO realworldprogressive and all the other SANE people that are not filled with hate/ignornance! These comments are indications of very ignorant, sheltered and uninformed views. Equal rights for all! I too was raised by two women and I am educated, loving, tolerant and well adjusted. I have a family of 6 cousins that were also raised by two women...they had plenty of healthy influences all around...who needs a father who is unhealthy just because he is the father? Please. HEALTHY parents(or single parent) who love, support and nourish is what is needed. I am living proof. So to ALL the ignorant people who sit and judge when they have NO idea- shut your ignorant, sheltered mouths. Thank you.
Jeff Henderson
BS. There is no mention of gender in that study and no suggestion that a same sex couple can't fulfil the role of a traditional "father" and "mother".
So why do so many heterosexuals engage in anal sex -- more than homosexuals who do?
Too bad that medical and scientific experts disagree with you -- and their word on this trumps your pathetic excuses.
BTW, are you trying to tell us that your children sniff your bed?
Sorry, GARRY, but that's how it is: you have proven that YOU are the "sick person" who must not be allowed to twist and damage the minds of innocent children.
WRONG. It was used for same-sex marriages since ancient times, and our own Native Americans also recognized and performed them. YOU are not deciding how and when it can be used for everyone else.
You're so right: bigotry is a "filthy habit" -- find a cure for yours.
WRONG. Look up Lawrence v. Texas, for a start. And you do not decide what is "immoral" for everyone, since clearly you lack the judgment and discernment necessary for such decisions.
What exactly is being "thrown in your face"?
ROFLMAO! Bob is still living with his delusions.
Garry Ward
Thanks but I use a condom....Our children are not invited to have sex with my husband and myself...that's sick.
Last time I check the DMSR took Homosexuality out as an illness, and is no longer recognized as such. I would suggest that you look at your own mental status or that of your family before you place any judgement on me or mine.
I would suggest that you might want to look at your own habits, as my sexual orientation is not a "habit", it is who I am....Who I've always been, and will be.
I like straight people.....That's where gay people come from.
Our children are healthy, happy and most of all loved. I might add they would even treat you with respect, however so undeserving.
Thank you ErinNJ
@ robgc.....holy bible...leviticus... you can find one in any store or motel dresser
bob-2476682
Define "Normal" as it pertains to sexuality. I took Human sexuality in college. The abnormal sexual behavior is defined by things like Rape, Pedophilia, Bestiality among the few....No where does it describe Homosexuality, Bisexuality, or Heterosexuality as abnormal. See the DSMR
Such sad and hateful people on this subject. For those of you that are carry on about the anal sex, a hell of a lot of heterosexual people are really into anal sex. Gays should have the right to marry and have children with their partners. As has been stated same sex marriages have been around since ancient times. I believe there is a supreme being but I also believe that the bible was written by bigoted men who wanted control of the masses by using religion as a tool of fear and to force their beliefs on others. There was a statement above that even races at one time were afraid of marrying outside their and that is very true. My grandmother eloped with my grandfather because they came from different worlds and they knew their parents would not allow the marriage otherwise. What was the difference? My grandmother was Irish and my grandfather was Polish, how sad its that. We have found over the years we were wrong in discriminating against Afro-Americans, Chinese, Muslim, etc. NOW IT IS TIME TO STOP DISCRIMINATING AGAINST THE LBGT AND ALLOW THEM THE SAME RIGHTS AS THE REST OF US. Oh and this is for the idiot who claims the the LBGT Community is using drugs to bring children into their fold and brainwashing them to become "GAY" that is what pedophiles do, LBGT are not pedophiles they are PEOPLE LIKE YOU AND ME!!
Thank You MINAMEME
Here is something to consider. Straight men that watch porn and whack off to it is in and of it self a homosexual act.
Logic: Your watching a man penetrate a woman and fantasizing about it, while masturbating (IE touching a penis that is erect). yes you can also throw masturbation into the same category. (See Masters & Johnson study on Human Sexuality).
steve: Not anymore. To many graduates like yourself who went into the teaching profession. This led to indoctrination of the acceptability of any type of sexual activity is fine as long as it is not forced, unlawful, or done without consent. Most gays have a problem with rejection of any kind, including their ideals. Sociological bases for your statement concerning sex is natural act? I would counter humans differ from animals and primitives because of many reasons. However, the assumption debauchery is to be an accepted norm is debatable.
Unbelievable! Seriously, why are you people SO unhappy/upset over gay marriage? What possible difference does it make to those who are NOT LGBT? None, near as I can tell. People, really, the LGBT community is NOT RECRUITING. Straight people - you are in no danger of becoming a member or being accosted by a member of the LGBT community. Get over yourselves.
For all you bible thumpers, what ever happened to live and let live? Or turn the other cheek or you reap what you sow? In other words, it is not your place to tell other people what to be or how to live.
Are you so shallow that you simply cannot accept anything "different"? You might want to look around the world. A lot of people are "different": they are male or female; they are black, white or brown; they are straight, gay, bi or tranny; they have hair that is blonde, brown, red, blue-black and blended colors; their eyes are blue, green, multi-hued or blind; they are able-bodied, mentally or physically challenged; they are young, middle aged or old; they worship God, Ala, no one or something else; they are American, European, Middle Eastern, Asian, Latin American, Native American, Eskimos, etc. Are you getting the point, yet?
Dante, wow. I don't know anyone who has been sexually abused by a homosexual parent, though I know quite a few people who have been abused by heterosexuals-and many of them wound up hating their parents. I was personally abused by a parent; and, while I'm not into hate myself-I find forgiveness much more to my liking, to be honest-I would never BLAME the abused child for what happened to him or her, no matter how he or she felt about his or her parents. Sometimes kids hate their parents for being poor, for being addicts or alcoholics, for not giving them what they want, for whatever. It's not always something the parent can help. Sometimes kids are just brats. Kids can be very ungrateful at times-they have to learn how to appreciate things, it's not like they will absorb those lessons out of the air. Some kids never do get it. Regardless, the parents are the adults, and THEY are the ones who are supposed to deal. It doesn't matter if the kids are ungrateful-there is no excuse for abuse, NONE. The child is never to blame for the adult's wrong actions-whether that adult is homosexual or heterosexual.
I can see why you would be upset that this person felt ashamed of his parents for what they were even before he was traumatized-but, as I said, a lot of kids are horribly ashamed of their parents and don't want them to come to PTA meetings for a large variety of reasons such as poverty, alcoholism, disability, etc. (A parent often can't help being poor or having a disabiity.) I'm not saying he was right to be that way, but he was just a kid at the time-and his situation may have made him stand out. Kids, especially teens, hate to stand out and to be the only one who is different. This person you are so quick to hate is also responding to a situation that traumatized him, not wanting others to be traumatized like he was. If you understood trauma, you might see that traumatized people can be very triggered by ANYONE who is similar to their abuser(s) and can find themselves unconsciously hating people who even look like them. Can you at least try to understand that or are you convinced that no homosexual EVER abused anyone? Considering that some heterosexuals abuse children, I think there is a good chance that some (though certainly not all) homosexuals do also-unless we are not equal after all and homosexuals are somehow superior.
No offense, but tell that to the straight people I know who HAVE been accosted. And please don't insult me or them by saying they must be in the closet-I think they know their sexual orientation better than you do. None of you like stereotypes or misinformation like "Gays choose to be gay," and I don't blame you. Now please spare me this one.
Sorry to keep posting; but, Real World, since you seem to know so much about what God says, I'm really surprised you didn't read the parts in the New Testament that explain very clearly why Christians don't follow those parts of the Jewish Law. Maybe you should read a little more before you start telling us what "God says."
bob-2476682
The sociological & biological study of human sexuality has been going on far longer than I have been alive & I'm 54.
The Kinsey Institute, Masters & Johnson and the likes have been studying human sexuality for a long time and by the way all those people where straight. Where would they benefit from coming to the conclusion about Homosexuality in a culture at the time who thought as you do.
I might add at the present time 67% of all Americans think positively about equal rights for the gay community. They are not special rights, not an agenda to recruit, they are equal rights and nothing more.
Your use of the term "debauchery" is used in much the same way as you used "normal". It doesn't apply here in this context.
How does me having equal rights effect you personally (not how you feel but on a daily bases)?
Why are you worried what I do in the bedroom?
Do you have children, and do you know for a fact that they themselves are not gay or their children won't be gay?
I think that someone you know or love is gay and they won't dare tell you because of your narrow views, and hate.
I would also suggest that is you that are full of self loathing & have a problem with rejection (people in these situations often say things they need to hear for themselves).
seen too much
I would be asking where your friends hang out.....I don't know the situation but that rarely happens. It's usually the other way around.
Pick and choose what you want to here. That is not uncharacteristic of people with agendas. Special sexual rights are not equality issues but behavioural ones. I have know interest in denying civil unions, debauchery is the correct term whether you approve or not. P.S. By your post you seem to have inadvertently proved my statement. Lots of Americans think positively of the Gay community. How does that apply to my view? It doesn't, so you are trying to indoctrinate the masses into a belief you are being persecuted for your sexual lifestyle. The only defining difference of your lifestyle to others is the sexual practices. Here is your logic point; I am not right because everyone has natural urges, and I don't embrace your dogma.
seen too much
Could it be that here in America someone else has a different religion than you do and doesn't recognise the New Testament? Or is it that because you recognise it and maybe even practice it that you think everyone else should too? Imposing someones stuff on someone else is a little on the hypocritical side don't ya think?
bob-2476682
Thankfully most Americans don't embrace your dogma, and have evolved...If you want to live with blinders on it's your choice.....See that's a choice.....Our sexuality is not driven by desire or a choice nor a lifestyle anymore than your own......I might add we don't need to create more gay people......Straight people already do that.
If you can't base your outrage towards us in fact, then lie to yourself and others, sounds more like an agenda to me. Your wanting to push your God fearing BS on us...trying to convince me and others is an agenda. I posted facts. One of them being it's already legal for me to have sex.....Equal rights under the law means the same rights as you do in that your allowed to marry anyone you please. So I am not trying to indoctanate anyone sexually. Nor do I think that's the bases of equal rights under the law.
you have the right to feel the way you do...It's a free country here.
I hope you have made plans for maybe going somewhere else when this all turns to "hell" because the gay community got equal rights. It doesn't look like your gonna have your way this time bubba.
@pugsley1234...Read it, and as I suspected. RealWorldProgressive made it up, he took things out of context and twisted them into misconceptions, just to make a point. This really makes you think, as to the levels Gay activists will stoop too, just to debase Christian idealogy. It feels like the hate is promulgated by the gay right activists.
WOW! I didn't insinuate what you practice was illegal. Feel guilty? Partial facts as they pertain to the study of animal husbandry. I have not seen it written any where that sex is a right. Indoctrination is a big word so in simpler terms you are trying to convince others that your practice of homosexuality should be acceptable to all. I won't even bring up the denials you made about your sexuality. That would prove you are still trying to keep things in the dark, because you are ashamed of some of the things you do. I know with the perception available to you this observation I have made and have not challenged will easily become apparent if you reread your post. P.S. WOW is wide open weddings.
Steve i watch girl on girl porn..and whack off. will that make me a lesbian? is that also an act of homosexuality in itself? or do i have a more serious problem?
Excuse me Bob & seen too much I know may members of the LGBT Community and they are open about who they are and they are not looking to induct people into their "little group" as you think they are. I have also had several propositons made to me by members of the community and I have told them no and stated I am heterosexual & married and they left me alone. Yes there are some who are going to keep pushing because they may have had one too many drinks or they are just like some of the heterosexual jerks who tried to me pick up and wouldn't take no for an answer. Every group of people have a few of those jerks hanging around. It seems to me you enjoy demonizing people you just don't want to understand and accept, which is really sad. You might as well get use to it the LGBT Community are not going away and hopefully really soon they will accepted for who they are and have the same civil rights as they rest of us.
Steve 3564431 I can tell you for sure if you've met one vagina you've met them all. i can also say i've never met one i didn't like!
mina: You are an adult, I'm guessing. Not as impressionable as a child or young adult. The attitude everything is OK if it doesn't bother me is narcissistic. All those people wanting to pick you up. WOW! I have only made statements to those who would have me agree with them. Those who are of birds of a feather flock together. The experience you have is not indicative of the majority. Your opinion. I do not demonize, but point out the reason the gay community is different from all others. The act. Sex is not a right, nor can it be a minority. Special interest group seeking privileges easily obtained through contractual law. All other demands are for rights of sexual practice acceptance.
Looks like the people of France have more brains than their elected Socialist President.
Mr. Warden-2811265
LMFAO.....It's ok, your just a lesbian in a mans body.
bob-2476682
If you can't handle the truth about yourself, you need to seek professional help. You sure do have a lot of pent up fears and feelings about gays.....Makes me wonder if your not trying to tell us something.....It's ok...You can come out of the closet.
I'm openly gay and married to a man & we have kids. I give less than a @!$%# what you or anyone like you has to say about it. My marriage is legal in the state I live in.
The more I carry this debate on with you the more people are convinced that your a total wad and you don't know what your talking about.
So you see that is really how we go about indoctrinating others to our side......They see the stupid @!$%# your writting and run to our side. Thanks
Please roll the dice again, cause your stuck on stupid.
Steve..Great! i can deal wih that!
steve: Started out all charismatic and offering enlightenment to all. Then when faced with the truth of arrangement and the addition of varying opinions, you become all hostile. This is prevelant in your community as you call it. I am not insulting you only carrying on a dialoque about civil unions. I know why someone has the label, it describes what they do. That was what I am talking about. On one hand you admit it, then another time deny. What you said was your sexuality was not a desire. What does that leave? Duty, urge, habit, pleasurable carnality or is there a different term gays use I am unaware of? P.S. do you rearange statements to support what you say? Yes you do. I said in first sentence what you do is not illegal, yet you imply I said the opposite.WOW!
seen too much,
You misunderstand. I was not blaming anyone for abuse. It is clear to me by now no abuse occurred and the whole story was fabricated. Inside that fiction, he said he felt ashamed of his parents from the get-go and I was indicating that something like that would be a personal flaw on his own part. I applaud any parent for putting up with such a wretched adopted child for so many years, were it not a lie.
I also don't know what an episode of abuse would have to do with banning adoption rights to millions of people cart blanche. That would seem to be selfish, vindictive, and consistent with everything he has said on this subject. Please don't indulge his lying. It isn't becoming. Don't let a person scream rape just to make a political point and take it at it's word. Consider the possibility that he was just tying a bunch of stereotypes together in a narrative to feed his anti-gay ego.
Steve, sorry if I was unclear. Because the quote I referenced was about certain things God said in the Bible (note that I specified Jewish Law and New Testament), in my comment I was only referring to the God of the Bible when I said the commenter might want to read more about THAT PARTICULAR GOD before telling us what THAT PARTICULAR GOD said. You seem a bit sensitive about this, and I have to wonder if you may have had experiences with Christians who you felt were ramming their beliefs down your throat or judging you. I know that many people do that, and I'm sorry. I have a real problem with how badly many in the church have treated the gay and Lesbian community in particular. It is not at all my intention to judge or ram my beliefs down peoples' throats. I just get frustrated when people who don't believe in my faith seem to want to take it upon themselves to teach me how to practice it or what it's teachings "really" are as if they know better than those of us who practice it-it's kind of like if I were to go to Mecca and start telling Muslims what Muhammed REALLY wrote.
I realize that there are other religions in America-I've even looked into the teachings of a number of them. I'm also quite aware of the atheist community. I fully acknowledge their rights and their freedom to state and practice their beliefs, and I'm not aware of anything in my post that says otherwise or that says that everyone should or must believe as I do.
Steve-3564...
I have read your comments on other posts on varying topics, and I had the misconceived notion that you were a real hard-assed, redneck tough guy. However; I have again realized that no one should be quick to judge another.After reading today that you are not only in a committed marriage, but along with your spouse have opened your heart and home with love to children who may never know what it is like to truly be accepted, embraced and assured everyday that there are two people in their lives who love them because they are who they are, I only have great admiration for you.
Those of you who have only derogatory, judgemental things to say about gay people, take a good look at yourselves, and be humble enough to hang your heads in shame. If you want to bring the Bible into every discussion, and claim to know what God wants for people in your sanctimonious way, at least remember that the biggest teaching of Jesus was to love; not just a few you think are worthy, but everyone.
I don't understand how it is "demonizing" to respond to a comment and say that some of my experience proves otherwise. (As to Steve's other comment-come on, that was a real cheap shot-the person I was referring to likes to hike in the woods. He doesn't hang out in bars, if that's what you're implying. He's gotten hit on near the areas where he hikes.) Am I not allowed to share objective experiences of others without it being considered "demonizing" to gays? Is it somehow shameful for a gay person to hit on a straight person-and, if so, why is it shameful? Why would my pointing out that people I know were hit on by gays be "demonizing" or "bad"? I honestly didn't mean this in a disparaging way. People hit on other people they are attracted to. I'm not naive, but I don't think people ALWAYS read the chemistry of attraction right, whether gay or straight. If it's not "demonizing" to point out that heterosexuals sometimes misread chemistry, then why would it be "demonizing" to point out that gays can.
My daughter went to a leadership conference as a teen, and the first few days were spent with most of the straight girls struggling to discover who was gay and who was available. This was all pretty new to my daughter, who came from a small school. One guy who wound up being her summer romance was initially also pursued by another guy. Because he was straight he liked her. No one "demonized" the gay guy for hitting on a straight guy-at least not as far as I knew. In fact, the kids were all pretty accepting of each other. I don't get why it is assumed that I am "demonizing" gays just by saying that some gay guys apparently got their signals crossed. Heterosexuals certainly get their signals crossed! Would I be demonizing them to point that out?
@ Simple Theory:
You are right. Little girls do want a daddy, and a mama...but my little girl got her wish only to be extremely disappointed and now knows that it wasn't worth all of the fuss. She also wants a mansion and a little sister or brother, but what she doesnt understand is that if I was to get a bigger house, she wouldn't be able to have all of the fun stuff she has, like wii, nintendo ds, her own laptop, an Ipod, aquarium membership, vacations, etc. and if she was to get her wish for a little brother or sister, she would no longer get those things either and would also no longer be the baby of the family, nor the get sleep that she loves so much. Just because a child wants it, doesn't mean it's the best thing for them.
Dante, I understand why you are upset about this being tied to the adoption issue. I agree with you that it is a poor argument against gay adoption. However, I don't see how you can see clearly that no abuse occurred unless you were there. Just as gay adoption is an important issue to you, child sexual abuse is important to me; and there have been far too many cases of legitimate abuse that were denied because they "couldn't possibly have happened" or because someone felt or said the victim had an agenda. I wasn't there either, so maybe the guy is lying to further his agenda. You never know on the internet. But it is not CLEAR to either of us.
The catholic church is taking action against gay marriage,How come they never took action against priests raping little boys?
Thank You Seen too much for clearing that up. I had hoped you where not generalizing and lumping all gays into one pile. As I would hope that not all would lump me and my family into one bunch. Please understand that we get attacked when we are discussing this by over zealous fanatics from the hard christian right. It gets a little old after a while. Sorry if I did the same and lumped you into a category.
jerseyshoremarie
Thank you. I know I tend to come off a bit strong and that may turn a lot of people off. There is noting I will not do to protect a child from harm if I can help it.
I cooked dinner with my family and sat down watched a good movie.....Kids taking baths and getting ready for bed. School comes early....Some times it's hard to get them out of a warm bed.
Bob-
the only thing I can say to you is you want to be right, and in your mind you think your right.....Nothing I'm going to say to you here is going to matter much. I'll pray for wisdom and guidance for you....maybe somewhere in your soul you will find peace with yourself so that you may share it with others.
I have to go tend to my children now.....Good Night all
((((Hugs))))thefavamama
seentoomuch,
Thank you so much your words of understanding & compassion your reply to dante hit the nail right on the head!
Dante,
I really dont care if you like me or not. your insensitivity & lack of compassion already prove to me that you are not a nice person. your attitude only reinforces what i think about gays adopting. Just look at how you responded to my post. doubting it ever happened which alone is hurtful to a victim then you call me names and finally to add insult to injury you tell me that i probably deserved what happen to me (at 15!) if this is the kind of reaction expected towards someone who has been molested/harrassed by a gay parent then it is safe to assume that victims will have difficulty coming forward for fear of being ridiculed by people like you. Also i would like to correct that i was more ashamed of my situation (having gay parents) than i was of them. & to be fair to my adopted parent (the one who died) he was one of nicest most compassionate persons i had ever met and his passing DID sadden me. if he were alive today i know he would've defended me with the same level headed humanistic approach that "seen to much" so eloquently demonstrated in his reply to you.
Steve,
I would be equally suspicious of a heterosexual parent commiting abuse as i would a homosexual one. but to say that there are NO or gays who molest thier adopted children or that it is a rarity only makes it the more difficult for those that have been victims to identify thier offenders.
if this is really about the welfare of children & not some agenda then NO ONE group people should be excluded from being a possible suspects.
seen too much,
His comments are inconsistent and highly ignorant. It is impossible to conceive of a human being being raised by a gay couple and having the exact same views as someone who's only interactions with homosexuality were the kids they picked on in middle school. There is simply no perspective there. Nothing nuanced. Just a cookie cutter visceral (as opposed to intellectual) reaction to the concept of gay marriage as if no deep thought had ever occurred. Could anyone be in such a state after what sounded like a decade-long narrative of expose in one's own home and with one's own parents? The answer is no.
This is highly suspicious. I am not one to dismiss child abuse, so it is only with great confidence that I could here. The entire narrative was just a melody of negative stereotypes and zero personal emotional connection. Don't go to bat for this one.
As for the existence of abuse, I'm not denying it. I'm just denying an empirically obvious case of deceit.
8theuclid,
You can think I"m nice or naughty to your heart's content. Again, maybe it was a misreading, but I never implied anyone deserved abuse.
Your comments there were inconsistent. You have degraded gay people to being undeserving of marriage, of children, of basic human familial life and I am to believe that this is an outcropping of the love you felt for your adoptive father? If your story is true, you are parading death by aids around like a badge of honor to prove your crusade. If your story is false, it is even more grossly indefensible.
How you could have gone about being ashamed of and being so bigoted against someone you just now claimed was good and loving and took you in when you weren't even his child only to turn back and splash his death about a blog to prove gay people should never adopt is impossible to reconcile. You are either a horrible person, or a horrible liar.
If someone made a pass at you, it doesn't automatically make the way you behave excused. You should take some responsibility for how you affect the lives of other people with your little crusade against gay people having families. If you can't bring yourself to treat others with dignity and respect as human beings, then you can't be a perpetual victim. At some point you simply become a bully.
If you didn't intertwine your story a whole narrative about how horrible gay people are, then maybe it would have resulted in compassion. Since you were trying to use it to attack an entire population of people made up of some very, very decent and capable parents then you've failed to resonate. If I decided to prove black people were unfit human beings because I was robbed by one, then I would neither expect sympathy nor would I be immune to response.
Beyond the "pass" at you that happened at then end chronologically, can you really look back at your narrative and see anything there that wasn't simply a description of your disgust for your adoptive parents before anyone had given you any reason to feel that way?
You have given me every reason to believe that you are not capable of treating a gay person reasonably and therefore and only therefore, I cannot accept that you were raised by a pair. This is based on my own faith in humanity. If it is true, and you have not learned compassion for gay people after all that time, then you better learn to present yourself in a way that isn't continually offensive.
8theuclid
I don't know how old you are, but under the current foster parent & adoptive programs for both hetro & gay there are back round checks and visits by social workers who follow these cases. More things have been put into place to protect children from abuse than in the past.
What I said is that it is very rare to have a pedophile Identify himself as gay, as most ID themselves as Hetro. That's not to say it doesn't happen. Abuse happens. The goal is to prevent it & go after the perpetrator no matter what the person identifies as sexual orientation.
I currently have a child that was mentally, physically, & sexually abused by one of his step fathers. In order for me to better understand how to help this child I had to go threw classes. The child sees a therapist to talk, not just about the abuse but anything. So we (my self, my husband, the school, his therapist), are all on the same page to give this child all the support needed to be healthy.
Not to get to much into my child's case, but the situation was that he himself became a abuser within his home when he was with his mother and step father.
At the age of 10 he was taken out of the home due to sexually abusing his younger half sister, and labeled a sex offender. This is something that he grew up with and was the normal in his home, he didn't know differently.
What we do know is that if left untreated people that where themselves abused as children often become the abuser.
So I get it 8theuclid.
steve: I hear you sing a different tune now. I did not insult you or call you names. I even did not say that your preference is bad or illegal. I made two points the entire conversation. Neither of which you addressed in rebuttal. One; civil unions "article" two; definition of label. Also made no mention of religion. How you might have answered is 1) don't agree 2) I can do as I please in private. Both acceptable as valid responses. I have an opinion and I vocalise it by pointing out basics of situational stances. The inclination by some is to dismiss or deny when confronted by opposing viewpoints. P.S. Any escalation in rhetoric has been initiated from you. As far as I think I'm right;You think your right. We agree we disagree. I had one sentence you began banter, remember? Normal?
In response 2.81 above
bob-2476682
In the first place you started this off by attacking....Go back to re-read what you posted.
Just in this statement alone where insulting, disrespectful and you refer to religion.
You have tried as best you can to make this about sex.....I have more than once said that the right to marry is an equal right and not a special right. It has no more to do with sex than a hetro marriage does. It's a legal document.
Realize that in some states it is impossible for both names to appear on adoption papers for us. That presents a whole lot of problems having to go get several legal documents giving the other partner legal rights to make decisions for the child . That is a right you don't have to worry about when your in a hetro marriage. There are a lot more.
I have tried to address you rationally, yet you want to try and twist things around to suit your stand, without anything to back it up other than your agenda.
You have some problems that go far beyond the topic at hand here, and maybe need to think about getting professional help.
The topic: Gay Marriage & The rights of gays to adopt.
I have covered those topics as a gay married person and an adoptive parent.
steve: You are confused! That would have been Gary ward a different person altogether. I do not insult people nor do I use foul language as you do. The topic was marriage of gays, and a mention of adoptions. The admission by me that civil unions can be modified through the courts giving certain privileges of property, and power of attorney in some instances is probable. How is that statement making it seem I would deny what you do in private as your own affair? What you do or do not admit is your choice. P.S. Please do not bear false witness as I again have not insulted you nor degraded you in any way. P.S.S. What pray tell is the agenda I have? Oppression?
Comment # 3 deleted, derail.
bob-2476682
In all fairness this was for garywards deleted comment, However in looking over the post I made I'd have to say that the following text applies to you too.
You have tried as best you can to make this about sex.....I have more than once said that the right to marry is an equal right and not a special right. It has no more to do with sex than a hetro marriage does. It's a legal document.
Realize that in some states it is impossible for both names to appear on adoption papers for us. That presents a whole lot of problems having to go get several legal documents giving the other partner legal rights to make decisions for the child . That is a right you don't have to worry about when your in a hetro marriage. There are a lot more.
I have tried to address you rationally, yet you want to try and twist things around to suit your stand, without anything to back it up.
The topic: Gay Marriage & The rights of gays to adopt.
I have covered those topics as a gay married person and an adoptive parent.
What you do or do not admit is your choice Steve. However, if I choose to make a statement that the act defines the label, that is my opinion. If I had wanted to bring up sex I could. What I have said is that rights should not be applied by sexual preference's. Again that is my opinion. A contractual union can be the same as a marriage certificate. P.S. Text that applies to me is your opinion. It is true many more states don't than do recognize gay marriage, therefore contractual unions would have greater support.
bob,
Separating gay people into a different class because you think it would taint the world to consider them equally with the same descriptors is an untenable position that cannot be justified. It benefits no one and simply feeds the need of people to discriminate. It would then be as simple as saying that x event or x rule or x law applies only to marriages to exclude gay people from it. Intellectually, it would feed the notion of gay people as a subclass and sub-human. This could only damage the condition of being gay as compared to being straight and put social and institutional stress on gay people and their families.
Those are the risks and realities, now then what are the rewards of separate classification?
If you say it provides a faster track to legalization, then I would respond that while a law providing for interracial civil unions might have gained support a year or two earlier in some places (and that year might not have come yet), but it doesn't change the fact that entrenched discrimination against a group is fed by institutional discrimination. Until the institution stops discriminating, the population will rarely come around willingly.
The end of bans on gay people even having relationships ended as recently as 2003 and only by an act of the court. Had that action not happened, there would, no doubt, be laws on the book literally criminalizing having a same sex partner in any capacity. This is not about what is more popular, this is about discrimination verses not discriminating.
Given this, the only goal and only objective should be equal, not separate or non-existent recognition for couples regardless of gender.
Me thinks he likes to spin words for his (bob-2476682) own enjoyment. Some call it mental masturbation.
I'm not impressed.
I have stated to remove marriage from government. All inclusion is there. Of course always making inuendos and jumping the gun is expected from those who believe its all or nothing. More insults before you have even asked what I thought or what I would suggest. I do not live to impress others, I am flattered who hold me to a higher esteem. P.S. Minority?
dante: I do not need you to interperate my statements nor do I need you to add narrative. It is obvious you would rather insert what you think, I think. Think again.
I'm disappointing Bob.
The whole cover story about suddenly being against counting couples as couples as it pertains to law any time gay marriage comes up is tiresome. Marriages are voluntary. If you wish to be treated as single, then do not marry. If you want to force the government to dissolve all marriages and marriage contracts against the will of the parties involved, you could only be advocating this position as a way to justify the rejection of gay marriage without specifically singling it out. I have never seen someone go up to a married straight couple and declare that they should not be recognized as such. Having the government pretend there is no association between anyone is silly and counterproductive.
Give yourself a rest, you cannot just decide one day to divorce an entire country. Personal freedom would dictate that such a decision should rest with the individuals involved as should the choice as to whether to enter into a marriage to begin with.
Until such a time when we are ready to divorce everyone, we should have equal status for gay and straight people.
Sounds like a non-solution we can use for other civil rights issues too..........blacks can ride at the front of the bus, but only after the government ends bus service.
That's the Ron Paul solution when any minority starts expecting equal rights......just get rid of the legal right entirely.
Marriage is not now or ever has been a right.
Not only does the supreme court disagree with you, but too bad for you bigots that equal protection is a civil right. No wonder you guys keep losing in court........you don't even understand the basics of the 14th Amendment.
paris has more practicing muslims than catholics, the last two years. the book of islam does not recognize homosexuality.
the vatican should be ashamed of themselves if they condemn gay marriage, how hypocritical. since the seventies you see open flirting in rome with gay priests.
But....but...47% of Parisians are gay, so I'm a little confused. The protesters must be mostly women. =D
Strange,
That's the first good reason to ban gay marriage that I have ever heard. Unfortunately, I don't think it will help. Gay men just don't want to sleep with straight women. It's a trial. lmao
You want to know something really funny......I've had more straight females want to try and convert me....They think It's because I just haven't met the right vagina.....Sorry but I like females for friends, not lovers. I've also slept with a lot of straight women, they don't mind cause they know I'm not going to try and jump their bones. We gay guys get to hear so much dirt on you straight boys at sleep overs.....If you only knew....LMFAO!!!!
Killing terrorist's lately and protesting this abomination France is earning alot of cool points lately.
I agree. The French are beginning to get smart, and cool.
I also AGREE, the French are full of suprises. They must have a clear understanding of the history of our beautiful world, and the downfall of great nations that give into sexually deviant and immorral persons. Much respect FRANCE, and I hope we can follow suit.
And for all those that say, they were born with this depravity, on the same premise I was born with the depravity to have relations with unconsenting women. Consequently, I refrain from such tendacies, because that is uncivilized and immoral, and I respect and hold sacred a womens capabilty to create and nurture life.
It's weird....The French use to love their drag queens....WTF happened.
I have a question for all of you whoi are invoking the "depravity" etc that led to the fall of Rome. You do realize that the Roman Empire was Christian when it fell to the barbarians. You do know that, right?
Muslims are what "is happening" to France...for starters...Bohemia Paris...oh lovely Paris, where have you gone? You know what an "abomination" is? That this many people come out to protest this when we all should be out protesting this due to men raping, violating and destroying this world with their greed. How about that? You people are SO ignorant to hate gays SO much when you do not have the ability to look at the male gender to see what ruin you have brought to this world. I ask, what in the hell is going on with certain men? Anyone care to answer?
@bobber, when Constantine was converted, the roman empire prospered for almost a millennia, but then the depraved and immorral individuals began to plague the psyche of the empire, which consequently weakened it. Thus, gave way to the domination, of the morally crippled society, by a another superior blood thirsty depraved society. Furthermore, the barbarian society were then annihilated, cast out, and rejected by civil societies almost immediately, which factually askews your chronological order and train of thought.
@H3321278, your "Wo Man" men haters club femenist slip is showing. You act as if women played no role in the eradication of morallity in societies, and are completely free of blame. Seriously, you just lay in the weeds while the man takes the blame for everything, then lie about your involvement in the actions taken. That double standard is becoming a discovered reality and is bieng dealt with accordingly. Read the article more carefully also, for it is the Catholic and Christian constituencies that are staging these protests.
Rob---Are you familiar with the term, "apples to oranges"? Comparing rape to consensual sex is like comparing apples to rocks. It's not analogous in any sense whatsoever. If you really think you have a point, you would do well to study classical argument so that you can find more meaningful and sensible ways of articulating it.
Do you understand why rape is immoral, fundamentally? The fact that you're making such a comparison tells me you really don't. It has nothing to do with civilization, it has to do with the recognition that other people deserve the same rights and respects that you do, which means, inherently, the freedom to determine their own lives and to make their own choices. Rape is an act that forces a choice on someone else against their will---coincidentally (or perhaps not so coincidentally, considering you admit a predilection for it), the very thing you seem to be in support of with regard to government actively taking away the right of adults to make their own choices. In short, your ethics are a muddled mess because you derive them from a book that is constantly contradicting itself.
I hate to burst your bubble, but when 100k or 200k out of millions protest, it don't mean much. Like when Fox says it has the largest base with 5 million people watching them, in a nation of almost 500 million it's around 1%. hardly a mandate lol.
I really disliked Hollande when he ran and came into office. His idea of socialism was revolting, as most socialists/communists are. But aside from that, he's actually begun to do some good in the country. He's begun to stomp on Islamists and grant civil liberties to minority groups. It's actually impressive and i'm starting to like him. Hope he drops the socialist agenda and continues on with the humanist agenda.
I'm confused, I thought it would be the other way around......
France has finally had enough.
France is a largely Catholic country, but in reality most Catholics both in France and in America support marriage equality. This demonstration sounds like the last indignant sputterings of outraged bigots. As the article notes it's far-right political groups which are organizing the march. Groups like Civitas are notoriously anti-gay and xenophobic, not far removed from white supremacists.
And while in both countries marriage is explicitly a secular legal contract, in France no marriage is permitted to be performed in a church.
The can whine and howl all they like...the change is done and in a year it will all be forgotten.
In what reality is that Shrekk ?
About 80% of any given population outside of a few homosexual friendly hubs find it thoroughly repulsive, and an abomination no matter what religion they are, and even a vast majority of atheists feel the same way.
Should we give people who like to cross dress tax breaks and allow them to marry themselves as well ? Maybe people who are into bestiality should receive discounted insurance as homosexuals try to get under married status.
All sexual relations that are outside of heterosexuality are a deviation, or also known as a perversion. Should we give all perverts special treatment ? Or are you against all other perversions as well ?
You can't have it both ways. You either have to embrace all of them or you yourself are hypocritical.
Rocky, please back up your "80%" statistic.
"but in reality most Catholics both in France and in America support marriage equality"
Oh really? So you're an expert in Catholicism now?
Just enough of an expert to have read polls of American Catholics which show that 71% of American Catholics support civil marriage equality. Apparently their cult's teachings about divorce force them to understand the difference between a secular legal contract and an irrelevant religious rite, as the pews are filled with divorced and remarried Catholics who can't get either their divorces or their second marriages blessed by their church...........and yet they're still legally divorced and legally remarried.
http://publicreligion.org/research/2011/03/for-catholics-open-attitudes-on-gay-issues/
One interesting item from that report is that before the question is clarified to only be about civil marriage, 43% of Catholics support it. While it's not exactly clear that would tend to indicate that 43% of Catholics also support "holy matrimony equality".
Reports from France indicate the support for marriage equality amongst Catholics is similar there, upwards of 65%.
France revolted against both the monarchy and the Roman Catholic Church in 1789.
One of the first things it enacted was to decriminalize homosexual relations.
Rocky Rhode
Where do you get your statistics from? Wishful thinking? To state here that 80% of any given population (outside homosexual hubs)find homosexuality to be repulsive is an outright lie. I will give you a CBS poll taken in Nov. of 2012...51% of the overall population believe in same-sex marriage...In the range of age of 18-29 year olds 71% believe in it; a slightly smaller majority of 30-45 year olds believe in it, 44% of 45-66 year olds believe in it...It is only when you get to age 65 and over that it drops to 33%.
If you want to go by gender, 53% of women overall and 48% of men believe in it.
Feel free to go to look at the Pew Poll of Dec.2012. Geographically, the majority of mid-Atlantic, New England and Pacific coast states are in favor of it. In the mid-West and south Atlantic states, opinion is basically evenly divided. It is only in the central South that the majority are against it. This is from the New York Times report discussing the poll.
Go look up the most recent Gallup poll of a nation-wide sampling of people. You get roughly the same results.
Where do you get your statistics from? Fox News or the 700 Club? Certainly non-biased reporting, right?
Jersey,
Go look up the definition of marriage it is between a man & a woman.
Being pro-marriage IS being anti-gay. Face it if you don't want gay couples to get married because it's against your religion . . . YOU ARE A HOMOPHOBE. In the Bible, a man can have more than one wife, if your older brother dies and you are the younger brother, no matter how young you are, you HAVE to marry your brother's widow, you can beat your wife for what YOU perceive as disobedience, you can hold slaves that you may also have sex with, your wife (all your wives) is chattel. However if you are Christians, Christ NEVER said anything about what consistuted a marriage nor did he say ANYTHING about homosexuality. Why do you have to go to the Old Testament to find things that match your bigotry, if you are Christians then follow the teachings of Christ. He was silent on this issue and so should you be!
Dulcevida - wow so well stated. Very very well stated. Silent on the issue. . . I so agree.
Inviting, or even demanding the government to pass laws on such issues is frightening. How far into our personal lives will we tolerate such invasion?
Shrek, although it was a catholic country, a small percentage actually practice their faith by going to Mass and receiving the Sacraments. CINO...Catholics in name only!
"Although officially more than 75 percent of the population in France is
Catholic, participation in local parish life has declined steeply over the last
50 years. Studies have shown that probably no more than 12 percent of French
Catholics attend weekly Mass, and a majority of Catholics go rarely or not at
all."
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0804420.htm
Shrek, the Catholics that actually attend mass in the US would strongly disagree with your statement! It is a MUCH smaller percentage than 71%!! Again, CINO!
In a way that's kind of the point - it always tends to be the hyper religious and religious extremists who are most likely to oppose equal rights and be Christofascists. So while most French people identify as Catholic and most Catholics support marriage equality, very few of them are hyper religious.
The protest marches against marriage equality are primarily coming from the Opus Dei wing of Catholicism and neo-Nazis. The same thing happened in the US when mixed-race marriage became a reality.....the nutjobs who whined the loudest were the KKK, the Southern Baptists, and Mormons. We see the same thing happening again in the US on the gay marriage issue. No surprise that the bigots 50 years ago are the same folks this time around - the KKK, Opus Dei, the Catholic hierarchy, Mormons, the SBC and other evangelical Protestant extremists. All of those groups have always wanted our secular government to enforce their sharia laws.
Same issue in the US, but it's simply a fact that polls show that 71% of self-identified Catholics support marriage equality. This contrasts sharply with other religions where the support tends to be lower, especially in evangelical sects. The only group with higher support is Jews at 73%.
Dulcevida,
You are incorrect that Christ was silent on the issue in the New Testament. When the pharisees questioned him on the subject of marriage in Matthew 19, Mark 10, Luke, John he always referred to a husband and wife. He even stated from the beginning he made them male and female and for that cause shall a man leave his mother and father and shall cleave unto his wife. In I Timothy 3:2 he said through Paul that a man in order to be a Bishop should be blameless the husband of one wife, NOT one husband. Therefore your statement is incorrect and misleading. There are numerous references to marriage being between a man and a woman in both the old and new. And it is clear that homosexuality is unnatural and corruption in Romans 1 and is a result for not retaining God in our knowledge, and that it would lead to a just penalty, which is most likely the plague of aids.
John, it's ironic that a homophobic bible-thumper like you has the the same name as the man Jesus really loved, and the same name as the man King David really loved.
shrekk
It's an established fact that the majority of gays suffer from delusion and self loathing. The rate of suicide among them more than doubles the rest of the population.
You are the evidence. Got suicide on your mind?
I can't imagine why that would be with ignorant bigots like you around. I'd hate to be gay and have a bigoted bible-thumper like you for a parent.
Simple theory, that is simply not true. the odd thing is that the group with the most suicides is Dentists, followed by police officers. check the insurance stats and get back to me lol
You seem to have read some of the Bible. You point out that it says various things about men having more than one wife, men having to marry their brother's widow NO MATTER HOW YOUNG THEY ARE, men being able to beat their wives for disobedience. Then you go on to say what Jesus did or didn't say about marriage and homosexuality. SInce you seem to feel that the words of Jesus have some weight in the matter, at least as far as marriage and homosexuality are concerned, would you mind telling me where Jesus says a man can have more than one wife, men have to marry their brothers' widow NO MATTER HOW YOUNG THEY ARE, men can beat their wives, and women are chattel?
While you are considering that, I'd like to point out a few things:
Note that Ruth is Naomi's daughter-in-law and that both lost their husbands. Both Ruth and Orpah wish to stay with Naomi, but Naomi tells them she is too old to have more sons for them to marry and thus fulfill the Levirate Marriage-and that even if she did have sons, they would HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL THE SONS GREW UP. Therefore, the men don't have to marry no matter how young they are-it appears they at least have to be adults. You don't have to like this law, but it was there to protect women from being cast out of society with no means of support.
It appears that Jesus did say something about what a marriage was after all. It also appears that he meant for it to be only ONE wife.
These aren't the words of Jesus, but they are in the Bible; and they say that all are equal-male, female, slave, free, Jew, and Greek (meaning Gentile). You could own slaves, but the institution of slavery would not last with a teaching that slaves were equal to their masters and fellow heirs of Christ, also that SLAVES were sons of God just as free men were. That was beyond radical in the Roman Empire, which was built on slave labor. Granted, Roman slaves were different from black American slaves and could purchase their freedom; but this declared them equal even BEFORE they had purchased it or received any documents. And slavery didn't last-most of the abolitionists were Christians precisely because they believed that all men were equal before God. Sure, Jesus could have freed all the slaves and brought down the whole Roman Empire; but he had a much bigger mission than that-he came to change the world. Others had led slave revolts and it only resulted in many crucifixions-you've heard of Spartacus, right? If slavery had only stopped right then and there, what would have stopped it from cropping up again somewhere else?
I couldn't find anything that says men could beat their wives. I think you have the BIble confused with the Qur'an on this issue. I am not trying to force anyone to believe the Bible or what I say about it. I am just responding to the initial quote that speaks of what the Bible says and what Jesus says.
Hope,
Inviting, or even demanding the government to pass laws on such issues is frightening. How far into our personal lives will we tolerate such invasion?
I Agree,except these same arguments should be used for our Constitution,My right to bare arms,and your right Not to bare arms if they scare you,Quit pushing your bias and agendas on the rest of us,I really don't give a hoot what you do or who you marry,and you should keep your nose out of our 2nd Amendment.
Anyone who disagrees with the lefts agenda are called names and they avoid answering questions they have no answers for,even going to criticizing the spelling of a post,that's when we know you got nothin.
It really is sad.Here in the US people think we're haters,but aren't.just don't believe in 'gay marriage' I like the term 'marriageophile'
To be fair, we need to put everyone's marriage up for vote and approval by others who don't know the two who want to get married.... right?
I believe in equal rights...That's all. Love the way bigots on here turn it around. Still don't understand how people could care so much about the love lives of others. No getting much? In the closet gay yourself? Afraid of an imaginary god? Which is it?
Sorry pain,
Another "empty" slogan won't help (or save) you. If 'marriageophile' means that you love marriage so much that you want to keep it all to yourself, and deny it and the rights that go with it, to others because you don't approve of them, then how are you not a "hater"?
America-ophiles are people who love America. Many of them are not "American" so are you going to exclude them from your club? I don't care if you are a "hater" or not. I think that you brought that word into the conversation anyway.
How about "Excluder"?
How about "privileged caste"?
How about "self declared elite"?
How about "bigot"?
Why should you be limited to "hater"?
Maninjapan,
gays can have all the rights married people have, except call thier union a marriage thats for NORMAL folks.
pained if you don't believe in gay marriage, then don't marry a gay person.
Being against something so vile, so disgusting and immoral is not bigotry. The left wing liberal/communists have NO truthful facts on the subject so all they can do is engage in name calling.
God hates homosexuals more than He does murderers. A Murderer kills the body, a homosexual kills the soul.
You are in denial, you are a hater. Why would you want to deny a human a right that should be given to them then? A tax paying citizen the same rights? Or wait you want to protect the straights who have shot-gun weddings and divorces AND protect that HIGH divorce rate that you straights have? What backwards logic you have. I think marriage needs gays to show straights how long-term relationships can work...for starters...live and let live and ce la vie-
What makes you and your ilk bigots is that you think civil rights should be denied to a group of people because YOU don't like their sexual orientation. Too bad for you! And you bigoted right wing nutjobs have no facts at all on your side, and you never present any.
BTW, calling homosexuals "homos," "fags," "fudge-packers," etc., and liberals "communists" is hardly an example of restraint. What a hypocritical bigot you are!
The hands of time are not going backward, folks. Go ahead and utilize your right to protest, but it will not stop the law from passing.
Try to be honest. God Almighty says homosexual behavior is fatal immoral behavior.
We're gonna' go with God, since He has all power and can throw rebellious humans into hell.
Which He said He would do to anyone that insists on their sin.
Rimshot
I'm not sure why you think that's relevant to a secular legal contract, especially since France doesn't allow marriage in any church.
Also, you must be a member of one of the bigoted cults like the Southern Baptists or Mormons. Most Christians don't share your homophobia, and there are many gay-friendly denominations like the Episcopal church.
And in America 71% of Catholics support marriage equality.
Now if god was real you'd really have something there.
Herald, if you act on the Bible literally you will be stoning your neighbors for eating shellfish or wearing clothes with two different fabrics. Adult, consensual monogamy is good for society in many ways. What is between peoples' legs does not change that. These folks are entitled to protest. It won't change the direction all advanced societies are moving.
"We're gonna' go with God, since He has all power and can throw rebellious humans into hell."
Your god isn't worthy of being called God. Your conceive of God as some sort of monster who will throw you into a pit of fire if you anger him. You might as well worship a minotaur. Your worldview is disgusting.
Herald9
So God made gay people, then God is going to throw them into hell to be damned for all eternity for being who God made them to be. Well I guess God isn't perfect, God made your flawed mind. Surely God couldn't expect us to be tolerant of God's creations, but you know God's intention's, when did God have a conversation with you and tell you to be intolerant of God's creations. Twisted logic from a minimally used mind
Actually, I just spoke with God and he says to tell you that he's changed his mind about homosexuality, just like he finally did about slavery and eating pork and scallops. So it's OK now and you can all stop fretting and worry about things that are even more important, such as ending wars. And yes, he did look a lot like George Burns.
The Catholic church does not support gay marrage, so how can anybody support it and still call themself a Catholic ??? it like saying I am a christen but I don't believe that Christ is God
The Catholic Church strongly opposes birth control and yet roughly 82% of American Catholics believe that birth control is morally acceptable. Catholics (to their credit) have a long history of selectively giving a hoot about what the church has to say.
Herald - Is god talking to you? Actually I believe some of the Apostles were gay - Paul for sure - Peter a good guess
I don't recall any of them taking wives - yet they were Jews and that was the norm in Jewish society
These same guys couldn't stand the special relationship that Jesus had with Mary Magdelan - so much so the Catholic Church called her a prostitute and it wasn't true
France is a country were there are church's named after St Mary Magdelan
And as far as male - female unions go - in the bible there were concubines - and multiple wives
So don't give me that god said - god never spoke unless his words were spouted through a person on their viewpoints of life
The Bible supposedly is written by man and inspired by god - prove it!
A little history about me. I was raised in a small country town that at some time had run all the blacks out of the town(something my father was very prud of). They started a community just outside city limits. I was taught to have no bigotry in my heart. She always encoureged me to read anything I could get my hands on. Now my mother does not want me to move back to be near her or my family bcause she is worried about what the neighbors will think. Yes, I am a gay white trade professional. I have never killed a man/woman, I have never stolen anything. And yet I am conidered an ebarrasment to my mother. She likes to quote the bible. I was created and given life in her eyes
God. I am NOT an atheist. I am spiritual.
The bible was written by man, and has been interpreted by Man how many tmes? If I remember right it as been interpreted 175 time(kings james version). Man is falible, man is not perfect. Man is filled with hate, greed, malice, murder, adultery, by Man's interpetation. And Man is not perfect.
So how can anyone say that the inspiration for the "bible" was interpreted correctly?
When in grade school, how many of you were put in a circle and the teacher wispered a saying in the first child and they were to tell it to next child in line until it was told to the last child.Then the teacher asked th last child to repeat out loud what was repeated to them. Funny it never was exactly what or how the first child was told. So how can people put so much stock into an "interpretation" asif it were law.
In other words I am agreeing with you, Barbara Adams Jackson
LSCWquilter - if you think laws and time can't run backward do a quick study of the muslim nations. Remember these were at the top of the learning curve in the middle centuries - giving us mathematics and astronomy second to none!
Take a look at where these are now! Think we can't follow a path backward? Think again. In fact, if religious zealots in America have their way we probably will backslide toward some dark age of our own making.
Humans (christians especially and other religious zealots) have a funny way of picking and choosing which 'words of god' they want to obey and force others to obey. We create tools of war expressly to KILL yet spout about the ten commandments. What a crock. Reading the old testament one is shocked about the 'legal' allowed marriage arrangements.
The Pendulum is swinging back and ALL organized religions that call themselves Christian will now get involved. The Catholic Church here in the US is full of homosexuals and pediphiles. IN Europe its different in that most priests there are heterosexuals. It stands to reason they would be 1st to organize opposition.
For those homos out there that think that any new legislation on the subject of queer marriage is a done deal think again. Do you hear that train in the distance? Its running at full speed and you're standing on the tracks. Within 5-10 years you all will be back in the closet where you belong.
Be careful that closet door doesn't hit you in the ass as you're going back in, Getmad!
Regarding Peter being married:
Simon Peter can't have had a mother-in-law if he wasn't married.
.
You may be to invested in your worldview to listen to me, but this is not at all how Bible translation is done. They take the oldest available manuscripts in Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic and translate from those. They don't translate from a translation from a translation. They have so many available early manuscripts of the New Testament that they can check for errors very easily by comparing them-far more than for Plato's works, for example.
we're talking about paris france folks, you need to be quoting the qu'ran, not the bible. huge mulim population. catholics? isn't that hypocrisy at it's finest? research suggests there are more practicing muslims than catholics in paris these past two years.
Will France surrender or do they only do that for the Germans?
You are such an idiot !
Ogviously "just a number" You never heard of the "French Underground or the French Resistance"?
Now I challenge you to go to Normandy where the French maintain the graves of our fallen American Soldiers
So just a number - go open some books and see how the French fought against the German occupation - until then just shut up - I frankly am sick and tired of uninformed people who feel they have the right - no obligation to drivel from their mouths - go drivel elsewhere!
Obviously you know nothing of the German Army.
My grandpa fought the Germans, he said that to be honest, the US alone would've had a hell of a time defeating them!!! It took all the powerful nations to kick their ass!! If they had invaded the US like they did the rest of Europe, we probably might've been speaking German for a few years!! It's not as if the Nazis didn't take on EVERYONE, they had a dumb leader or else!!! If Japan managed to drop their bombs kind of close to the mainland, and lead us into a bloody war, imagine what Germany would've been capable of!! France had no chance in hell against them! The Brits ran back to their island as soon as they tried to stop the German advance, and if it hadn't been for the US and expats from other European countries, hahaha, instead of their ugly monarchy, they would've had a guy w a funny moustache running their crummy lives!! You chickenhawks keep talking about kicking ass, I bet you have never served, so shut your traps!! Any French soldier risking his life out there has more balls than all of you combined!!! 11B Hooah, suck me sideways you queers!! Speaking of which, a large number of those protesters are from arab/muslim background, it's none of their business how Europeans want to live their lives! It is time to deport!!
So huge crowds are expected, huh? Here's a suggestion. Why don't you get back to us AFTER the event and then you can report on exactly how many people showed up. In the meantime how about reporting on real events that have actually taken place, not things that might happen, or is that concept of news reporting (as opposed to news forecasting) a bit too hard for you to understand?
Journalism has given way to sensationalism. I wonder what Walter Cronkite would have to say about today's excuse for journalism, and complete lack of journalistic integrity.
Stories about large crowds that are expected to engage in a massive protest have always been newsworthy. There's really nothing remarkable here. Do you really think that no one was reporting a large anticipated rally before MLK made his "I Have a Dream" speech? This is silly.
It's almost like the article author thinks the French never protest.....
One amusing point, Brian Brown of the NOM hate group has traveled to France for the weekend to join in the right-wing anti-gay festivities. That guy must have serious mental health issues.
http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you/2013/01/as-i-predicted-noms-president-brian-brown-is-in-france.html
Ah, I get it. this is like promise keepers, million mom march, Glen Beck's march for Armerica.
ROFLMAO
Sounds to me that any American who feels the urge to go protest against gays is probably in search of some dick himself!! Lots of closet homos in the GOP. The catholic church, don't get me started, it is teeming w fags and rapist mother@!$%#ers!!!
Hmmm. Before WW2 the French were also the most anti-semitic in Europe. If you can believe it, Germany had to earn the title.
so what's the connection???
take a good look at the jewish/israeli lobby in the USA and the $95,000,000,000.00 they got last year in aid as funding to food stamps, medicare and unemployment was cut... if the jews were like this in Germany and France before the war who can blame them for being against them?
BTW, European jews are not semites... all semites are from the middle east, but not all jews are semites... look it up!
The idea that anti-Semitism is par with anti-immorality is more irrational liberal nonsense.
B7 has it exactly right. The groups behind the march are from the far right of French politics and are notoriously xenophobic and homophobic, and include a lot of white supremacists.
So you have to paint the French as the most anti Semitic in Europe after the Germans were during WW II because they are disgusted by homosexuality ?
The English evicted Jews 3 times, the Spanish Inquisition was as bad as what Germany did, every country in Europe evicted all Jews at some point.
Yet because they don't suit you pro fag agenda, you label them as Nazis ?
If you ask me, I think the 3% of the populations that are homosexual perverts should just be exterminated rather than have the other 97% bend over every time the gays get upset. We should just get rid of them. Put all gays on an island where they can hump each others asses until their cocks fall off.
Sounds like you don't know anything about French politics or their right wing.
Yep, that's exactly what Hitler thought too.
Preaching hate and inequality. Yep, that's far right.
Rocky, boy we can be hateful. When they do the mental health check for your gun permits, I hope they tag you! You,re a threat to society. Do you sport a toothbrush mustache?
But to your point, anti-Semitism is a Western European (Christian) concept.
BTW, am a hetero Booomer who has worked with gay folks for 40 years including a couple of bosses. Guess what? At work they are just like you and me.
Hatred of sin is no vice and never has been. The clock is ticking and the pendulum is swinging back just like the door on that closet your about to occupy.
Be careful that closet door doesn't hit you in the ass as you're going back in, Getmad!
"Were????" They still are, especially w the massive influx of arabs and other types of tribal morons who have issues w the jews!! Been to Paris lately?? It is nothing but displaced Taliban pakis and sandc00ns!! DEPORT DEPORT DEPORT!!! Europe will lose its culture (as boring as it is), if they allow the 3rd World hordes to take over!! The Hijab shouldn't even be an issue, France has its culture and if the muslims don't like it, a swift kick in the @ss and back to their countries, and that is that! Some nerve to demand on foreign soil!! Enough is enough!
France, I'm starting to like you.
It took a while, remember France was part of winning our very first war.
Strange bed fellows,
The "we hate France" American far right (remember 'freedom fries'?), the Islamist extremists (this anti LGBT marriage thing is in lock-step with Sharia laws), the French Far-right (how do you spell Nationalist-racist-neo-nazi party?) and the Catholic church. What a group! And inside of the mob, rubbing shoulders and what ever else with these crusaders, everyday French folk that have been scared into believing that there is not enough happiness to go around.
"Out-Law LGBT people from being happy! They are sinners! and sinners should not be happy! It says so in my book(s)! Well, it depends on how you cherry pick the verses, and then on who is translating, and then on the interpretation, and then on the issue. But I have a right to be happier than these people! God has so decreed!"
Rocky Rhode
I doubt very much that France, in turn, would even begin to like you. You are so absolutely disgustingly full of anger and hatred. Let's just all hope that you are not privy to any guns. The way you speak about annihilation of a group of people that you don't even know, you sound like you may just be another potential mass murderer. The warning signs are there.
Please do not even try to use the Bible as a justification of your death to all homosexuals rhetoric. You will never find him EVER having preached anything about homosexuality. It did not appear to be much of a concern to him.
Rocky, I'm willing to buy you some moving boxes.
We need more of these rallys!
Comment # 14 restored for clarity.
It appears the log ride isn't so popular. Oh, wait .... this isn't the Schlitterbahn site is it?
good for france... maybe I'll move there.
When are all the true patriotic conservatives moving out of Commie/Socialist Obama Land?
If possible can you take them with you?
Sorry but obama land is in the middle east with all of his buddies, You know the 57 states of Islam!!!! This country is the United States of America and odumbo and libs do not own it, even though they are trying there best to destroy it!!!!!! Hopeful;ly soon the majority of Americans will wake up and take their country back from the low life libs!!!!!
We want the 10% of the population to go to countries with their life styles. Go to China, Russia, Venezuala, Cuba, North Korea etc etc... I think all you libs will be much happier there!!!!!
Why use one exclamation point when you can chain together 5 or 6? It really helps you to make your point!!!!!!!!
I admire your kind spirit. I'll take the decidedly more bitchy road and point the obvious: the use of redundant punctuation is a sure sign of illiteracy, although the content provides proof positive.
Good riddance Timothy, although I believe that the French will hardly put out the welcome mat for you.
if you disagree now a days, they will tell how messed up you are, I really don't care what y'all (oops, better change that), you all, think, I know what I believe, & how I feel, & you can't ,make me feel bad enough to change my beliefs...& I have lots of gay friends, I dont know what the answer is, but most of my gay friends are so sad because they can't find a life-lover, & that makes me pissed off because they think they are doing something wrong for love, HA!, WE STRAIGHTS HAVE A PROBLEM FINDING LOVE, so, get over it!!!
The point you fail to comprehend is that, what you disagree with DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH YOU. Why do you take it upon yourself to "disagree" with someone else's inherent nature . . . or the notion that they should have equal protection of the laws?
By the way, why don't you tell your "gay friends" how you really feel?
/When you are less then 3% of a population you will have trouble finding anyone. Natural thinking would make finding hard for gays to begin with.
Another Glen Beck Klan rally. (next is those evil evil left handed people)
Klans and Democrats are one in the same, learn some real truthful history moron!!!!!!!!!!!!!
garrie, you are only talking before the Klan went Republican. And the Klan hates Catholics too.
Please don't forget the obvious hatred of the KKK for blacks, either. That just blew your equation, as most blacks voted Democrat and our Democrat president happens to be very proud of the black half of his heritage.
I'm left handed and I will eat your children! Bwaaaaaa haaaa haaaa
What herritage? Consertives in the 1850-1870's fought and died for Black rights. In the 1960's it was the Republican's that pushed and got the rights expanded, (the majorty of democrast in congress voted against ) The Republicans want all to have the same rights and choices, it is the democrats that sold Blacks on the Welfare system and promoting the brakeup of black families. Not to mention the notion of the black woman and the Government, instead of having a black husband. The KKK is still a liberal organization. Blacks bought into the notion of a black liberal president would give them more, so far it hasn't worked that way, Instead more blacks are out of work, and more are on the presidents plan on expanded food stamps and government handouts to keep them in line, and voting democrat.
Of the 6 trillion dollars in stimulas spent how much went to blacks and the poor? And How much went to Obama's personal rich friends?
I guess you must've skipped schooling altogether!! Your English is atrocious, you sound like every other dumb n!gger!! Yo yo yo brudda!!! Effing moron, you are probably some dumb mick who fancies himself White, you're nothing but Eurotrash leftovers!! Sorry to burst your bubble d!ckwad, but the title of superiority doesn't apply to anyone Irish or Slavic, that means you, peckerface! And yes, I am White, no Irish or Slav or even Mediterranean blood in my family! They hated the Irish as much as the n!gs!! As a matter of fact they considered the blacks more valuable than your types!!
Hey... good idea. Let's have a huge demonstration to get as many people as possible into one place to provide a target rich environment for the Islamic terrorists. I personally don't believe religion has any place in the law of the land and that there's nothing wrong with gay marriage but I'd hate to see the opposition taken out by suicide bombers. Have these people read the news? Don't they know their country is fighting against Islamic extremists in Mali and that these extremists have vowed revenge in France? Rather than bragging about HUGE crowds, I'd be advising people to stay home. This is dumb.
Wow, you are an incredible coward. You think that no one go to a crowded place because of the risk of Islamic terrorism? Do you realize that your risk of dying in a terrorist attack is considerably lower than your risk of dying from a lightning strike? Do you think it's "dumb" for people to go outside when there's a very slight chance of rain.
A coward through and through.
Yeah Mountainlady!,
Lev is right! Don't be such a sissy! Besides, "the Islamist terrorists" are also taking part in the march!
In fact, I think they're co-sponsoring it. So, not to worry! (wink!)
Did you know that the risk of dying of AIDS after an encounter with a gay is greater than dying from a terrorist attack?
I would imagine that your odds of dying of AIDS after an encounter with a heterosexual is greater than dying from a terrorist attack. That's because the odds of dying form a terrorist attack are extremely small.
Lady, Religion is the foundation of our laws, taking religion out of our law system would leave the law nonexistent. Even the laws of Nature are against Gays, so are you saying Nature must be changed too, that Nature is unfair? The problem is Gays want to use the religious terms like Marriage, but change the meanings of the word to allow for thier anti religous use of the word. Liberal then to change things to suit thier beliefs. You change the lanuage to suit your needs, like, the term "Bad" was ment for something "Good", and so on.
Some people believe in principals, and they are worth standing up for. You brag about when a couple of thousand gays march, but condem when a greater number of normal people march. I guess normal people do not have the same rights, in your book.
You are a mick, your input doesn't count!! By the way, what MOS? Getting through your illiterate comments is like pulling teeth, holy sh!t, you must've dodged that coat hanger like crazy!!!! No wonder you are an effing retard!! Why are you so concerned w gay sex? I bet you had your @sshole plowed quite a bit. Come out of the closet already, you dumb mick!!!
I would think the french would be more worked up about their unemployment being above 10% and their idiot leader taxing the rich at 75%...but hey, who they let get married and how bad their economy is...is, well, their problem.... for now. When more European countries get economies like PIIGS then it will start affecting the rest of the world because of trade and international investments.
Seriously, Europe... worry about your failing economies first.
I know! It's just astonishing that the French government thinks all their citizens deserve equal rights.
Why should they worry, our liberals don't care about our economies....they love gay love too.
And cons love sheep.
They are still a minority, it wont do any good. The world is changing, and you cant stop progress. Many have tried. All they can do is slow it up a little here and there. But this change is here now, and no amount of complaining will undo it. They should have won the election if they wanted a say. Oh wait, they dont have the support for that... Oh well, too bad, so sad.
This will solve the problem of over population but there lies another problem, which population will grow?
yeah make sure you and your new majority enjoy yourselves. keep sodomizing each other because the new more virulent drug resistant strain of hiv is coming and you guys will be dropping like flys once again. nature has a way to fix errors.
Nature seems to be extraordinarily bad at fixing the "error" of homosexuality, given that homosexual conduct has been observed in a number of highly successful and resilient species.
(By the way, Uncle Henry-- are you suggesting that a new strain of HIV is evolving????I Watch out, my friend! You're steering dangerously close to heresy. You don't want big bad old God to come and throw you in a lake of fire, do you?)
@Confussed. What an absurd argument. Gay people already exist. Legalizing their unions won't create MORE of them. They are already in relationships, adding a contract to those relationships won't change anything except to give them equal protection under the law.
I swear, the arguments you people come up with are INSANE. This will not lead to people being able to marry minors, animals or inanimate objects either.
Alicia, It would have been considered Insane just 50 years ago to say Gay marriage would be legal. Or that Pot smoking would be legal, or that Government would fine you for not having health insurance. Or the Government would control the types of firearms citizens would be allowed to have. Or that large parts of cities would be controlled by gangs. Need I go on? Shooting a cop would put you on death row, commiting treason would get you killed, killing children would be a death sentance, but no longer is that the case. A killer tends to get less then 3 years, and many less then that. liberials have gotten many out of mental institutions, because it wasn't right to keep ill people away from the public. now they run amock killing children. As for your it will not create more? Gays having children, tend to teach thier children the gay life style. This promoting it. Nature has a way of weeding out flaws, If you don't think so, try pluging in a toaster into your blender, or your bathroom outlet into your bedroom outlet.
Polyigamy, beastialty, Murderers and other insane issuea will soon ask why they are excluded, in these fairness laws. The problem is in liberial minds they would be considered the same as gay rights, after all everyone should have the same rights, right?
300Michael, you, like so many with the conservative mindset, obviously have no clue about what "legal consent" means. We liberals know what it means, which is why your stupid comment about polygamy, bestiality, and murder is so stupid. In fact, it's one of the same stupid arguments the stupid bigots tried to use against interracial marriage in the 1960s -- and it's just as stupid now as it was then, and just as unsuccessful. No wonder you people with conservative minds are LOSING in the courts.
300Michael, so gays teach their children the "gay liefstyle" and promoting it. Then explain how so many gays come from straight parents. And, if nsture has a way of "weeding out flaws", then I guess that homsexuality is not wrong or a flaw, since homosexuality has been around since the beginning of time and nature hasn't "weeded" it out yet.
300Michael
There have been many research studies on this subject. Since there does appear to be a gap in education on this subject, I would like to take this opportunity to present you with some information.
WebMD:
Children growing up in same-sex parental households do not necessarily have differences in self-esteem, gender identity, or emotional problems from children growing up in heterosexual parent homes.
"The vast consensus of all the studies shows that children of same-sex parents do as well as children whose parents are heterosexual in every way," she tells WebMD. "In some ways children of same-sex parents actually may have advantages over other family structures." (Ellen C. Perrin, MD, professor of pediatrics at Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston)
Sexual orientation of adult sons of gay fathers.
Bailey, J. Michael; Bobrow, David; Wolfe, Marilyn; Mikach, Sarah
Developmental Psychology, Vol 31(1), Jan 1995
The sexual development of children of gay and lesbian parents is interesting for both scientific and social reasons. The present study is the largest to date to focus on the sexual orientation of adult sons of gay men. From advertisements in gay publications, 55 gay or bisexual men were recruited who reported on 82 sons at least 17 yrs of age. More than 90% of sons whose sexual orientations could be rated were heterosexual. Furthermore, gay and heterosexual sons did not differ on potentially relevant variables such as the length of time they had lived with their fathers. Results suggest that any environmental influence of gay fathers on their sons' sexual orientation is not large.
There was a little boy in the late 1960's or early 1970's that had a botched circumcision and basically lost his penis. His parents were told to raise him as a little girl because he was not going to be able to live as a little boy. They put their new daughter in dresses, gave her dolls, and raised her as a little girl. Want to know what happened? She grew up liking trucks and wanting to be a little boy. She did not have romantic attachments to little boys, but did for girls. No matter what her parents told her, the amount of hormones, or in every way possible to convince her she was a girl, she felt she was a little boy. It wasn't until he became older that he was told the truth. He now lives a life of a man with a wife. You can't recruit or create a false sense of who a person is. Nature will override nurture.
You can also see this in adoptive studies where biologic children to a parent compared to the adopted children in the same household behave, react, and in many cases, feel differently on issues, even though they were raised by the same set of parents. To try to alter a persons basic makeup, which is biological, does not work.
Glad to see someone standing up for a principal
Ya, usually everyone hates the principal.. he's scary
So, you are glad that people are willing to stand up for the "principle" of denying others' equal rights? That's pretty sad...
Equal rights? The normal couple goes in and they can collect the sperm or egg from the couple. The gay couple goes in and they can collect a egg, and a egg, or a sperm and a sperm. The gay couple would always need an outside source for even a hope of having a step child. Not so with the normal couple. So even Nature is not Equal. Liberials have to get over the idea of Equal. It doesn't happen in nature, some animals are faster, stronger, and so on. The same is true with humans.
The Issue is Marriage, and if it should include people who stand for the very oppisite of what the word stands for. A union of a man and a woman. It is as simple as that. You liberals want the term but not the responsibility of the actions that give the word meaning.
What does procreation have to do with marriage, 300Michael?
And conservatives have to adapt to the idea of equality -- because homosexuality DOES happen in nature, in at least 1,500 animal species (besides humans). And in the case of our four-legged friends, they are not denied ANYTHING just because they happen to be homosexual.
Funny thing, though: ignorant homophobia only occurs in ONE species. How do you explain that?
I'm some what surprised with the attitude of the French towards gay marriage.
I think the issue is actually about adoption and the state paying for fertility treatments and surrogacy for gay couples. France is a little behind the US on those points, and their marriage equality bill levels the playing field on all those issues.
In general the vast majority of the French public supports marriage equality, but less than 50% support equal adoption rights.
Good point Shrekk. I am pro-monogamy/marriage (straight or gay) but I really don't want to pay for anyone's fertility treatments or adoptoin.
Justsayin, the problem though is that the French health system does partly pay for those treatments for straight couples.
In the end gays and straights will have to be treated equally under the law, and infertile people should have the same rights under the law regardless of their sexual orientation.
Shrekk, I understood your point from the outset. I am socially liberal and economically conservative. I agree that gay and straight marrige should be treated equally. I just don't think government should be in the fertility or adoption business. Marriage is a right- kids are not.
Well, that's an issue for the French universal health care system - which happens to be one of the best in the world and is generally considered far better than what we have in the US at a significantly lower cost.
When`s the last time you were treated there?
For me 6 years ago and unless you can provide conclusive proof of a radical upswing in care I was not impressed.
Mr. Patronie;
How many treatments did you receive, by how many practitioners, in the countryside or the city,etc..?
That is akin to saying I am not impressed with Mexican food because I tried it 6 years ago (not mentioning that it was a taco at Taco Bell in Eugene, Oregon).
Look at what the French pay in taxes, that is why thier medical is cheaper, their tax money goes to pay for it, the healthy subsudise the sick, or those seeking children, in this case. I would have taken our medical system over the French any day, From the first day I had a job and waited to get medical insurance. I got to choose my coverage, I could adjust my plan to cover what I wanted. Not the French, (or us now with Obamacare) Now we all have to take a Government Plan. Most of the innovation on medical equipment and discovery was in the US, now that innovations will be gone, becasuse no companys will pay for it.
Vive la France. Magnifique.
The catholic church is a fine one to talk against gays, since most of them are priests.
You list the countries where 'same-sex nuptials' are legal, but you forgot to include one of the first countries to make it legal: Canada, our northern neighbour. Same-sex marriage was legalized by Prime Minister Paul Martin of the Liberal Party of Canada in February 2005.
Wow, they should be proud...puke
You should really get over yourself, RP. You can like it or not but, in the end, it's just not about you.
And I wonder why I don’t go to church anymore. The hatred is
disgusting. Gay marriage. What’s the big deal? It won’t affect anyone’s marriage. Hell most
of us are divorced or getting one. My marriage lasted 9 years. And gays didn’t
cause it. Some of my best friends are gay. And all you bigots filled with hate.
I feel sorry for you. People have the right to love and be loved. I don’t want
to know what you do in the bedroom, so who cares what they do. Some people just
like to hurt others; they get pleasure out of it, and call them self’s people
of god. Right!!! Whatever….
Among many ethical reasons, the tax breaks intended for married couples with children will just be used by gays to take extravagant vacations. Those tax breaks are for the kids. How about increased insurance costs ? We will all have to pay more for that as well. There are very real costs the rest of us will have to bear for their sexual dysfunction. If we allow them to get married, how soon before polygamists earn the same right as the very same constitutional claims will have to apply to them as well ?
Any examples of "ethical reasons" to deny equal treatment under the law?
I don't know much about the French tax system but in the US you can only claim dependents if you have dependents, and marriage is irrelevant to that. Otherwise your nonsensical comment about "extravagant vacations" applies to any childless couple, gay or straight.
Gay couples have families too, and their children deserve the legal protections marriage provides.
The real question is: Why do you want to hurt gay couples and their dependent children?
Rocky, there are many more reasons for the tax breaks than having kids. When couples join their lives they strenghen our social safety net. By pooling their resources they are more likely to purchase a home. One partner can work while the other goes for higher education and raises their income. All these things benefit society as a whole. Even the "extravagant vacation" you dismiss will feed money back into our economy and help others. One more thing, I know gay couples that are raising kids and straight couples that chose to not have kids and are taking extravagant vacations!
Pal, you're probably making the right choice to stay away from " your " church.
If they endorse gay marriage, I'd leave.
Rocky,
It seems to me that the arguments you're making would apply equally to heterosexual couples that choose to remain childless. Do you think they're fleecing the system as well? Do we need a law to require every married couple to pop out a baby for the state to acknowledge said marriage?
You're clearly a very deep thinker, so I'd love to hear your response.
So gays don't pay taxes?
Yet again, one of the same dumb arguments used by the dumb bigots against interracial marriage in the 1960s rears its ugly head -- and it's still just as dumb as it was then, and just as unsuccessful. No wonder you keep losing in the courts. Why didn't opposite-sex marriage, or interracial marriage, lead to the legalization of polygamy, since polygamy is all about opposite-sex marriage, not same-sex marriage?
Playing the race card again, eh Erin? I bet they really enjoy you always comparing them to gays.
Gays can have civil unions with all the rights as Normal Married couples. (I used the word Normal, becasue that is how Nature designed us humans). Gays want to take a religious term Marriage and change it to allow anti religious conduct to be socially accepted. In normal law the wife tends to get custody of a child after a deforce for example, how would this be done for two wives, or fathers? I never figured out which bathroom gays use (thier physical gender or their prosumed gender (I just hope it is the first)). Or will we need to start to make additional restrooms for them? Governments have always, until lately wanted marriage, because it promotes families, and they inturn form the future population for the government. The trouble is when governments start giving special treatment to special groups.
WRONG. In the first place, the Supreme Court has ruled that "separate" is not "equal". Second, civil unions/domestic partnerships are expressly outlawed in quite a few states. Third, the approximately 1,100 federal rights and responsibilities that attach to marriage do not attach to civil unions.
The word "normal" will never be applied to anyone like you. FYI, homosexuality has existed in approximately the same percentage of the population since humankind has existed -- so tell us again how nature "designed us humans"? Moreover, since homosexuality has been documented in at least 1,500 animal species (besides humans), tell us again how "abnormal" homosexuals are, and how "unnatural" they are.
WRONG AGAIN. Civil marriage predates organized religion by thousands of years, and in this secular nation, marriage is and has always been strictly a civil contract.
Furthermore, gays don't give two @!$%#s about your acceptance; it's about equal treatment under the law.
STILL WRONG. The government has no interest in whether a couple plans to, or can, have children.
What "special treatment" would that be?
would you be ok with a civil union if it carried all the rights as a marriage ??? if so why don't you push for more rights under the term civil union instead of fighting for marriage ???
Johnny, civil unions aren't recognized between states, by the feds, or internationally. Plus, you bigots have passed laws in over 30 states banning them.
If you think civil unions are as good as marriage, why don't you get one? And why in hell should gays settle for anything less than full equality?
No! It's still a case of separate, but equal, which is unconstitutional! Is that so difficult to understand?