NationStates Jolt Archive

I just wanted to express my sympathy for Mary Cheney. She is Dick Cheney's gay daughter. She works as a Republican campaign manager, for which she gets $100,000 a year.

It must be so difficult to be a lesbian, yet to work for the political party that hates her.

Well, Republicans as a breed contain a number of homosexuals. It's the same with Conservatives in Britain. Not every initiative is the 100% view of Republicans- Remember, many people vote a certain way out of family tradition, and the Constitutional Amendment was directly advocated by shrub, so there's more impetus to vote for it.

I understand that some homosexuals would agree with the Republicans on other issues; I don't assume them all to be liberals. But I find it amazing that they would vote for the president who proposed such a radically anti-gay measure to the US Constitution.

The issue isn't whether the GOP is against gays. The issue is marriage. Marriage is the union of two people to create a family...ie: children. It provides a firm legal and social base to raise children. When gays demand marriage rights, they are flaunting the basic reason for marriage. This administration has not denied allowing gays civil unions for legal issues. Although the question has been made a state issue, eventually it is going to have to be ruled on at the federal level. When that happens, though, you are going to see groups popping up demanding marriage or civil unions for other than main-stream heterosexual pairings...beastiality, pediophilia, etc.

no
really
its not a gay marriage thing
even though the repubs are against that too
they dont like gay people
it doesnt mix well with their fundamentalist christian friends.

Zooke, are you saying gay people support this Amendment, not other issues? Find me one. We just believe it's got no chance.

Supporting a party that's generally in tune with your opinions except for something that will fail dismally isn't so mystifying to me, but I suppose supporting the Republican party is.

Never heard of the log cabin Republicans? They're a group of gay Republicans 12,000 strong.
It's not that many Republicans hate gays. I certainly don't, and I could care less about the gay marraige thing. It's that I think many gays see the proposed marraige amendment as I do: a political stunt designed to fail. Since it didn't make it passed the Senate, it mobilizes the Christian right against those God-hating Democrats. I'm not a fan of it myself, but hey, there's more important issues than gay marraige, like national security, or Social Security reform.

I just wanted to express my sympathy for Mary Cheney. She is Dick Cheney's gay daughter. She works as a Republican campaign manager, for which she gets $100,000 a year.

It must be so difficult to be a lesbian, yet to work for the political party that hates her.

Hell, I would work for Republicans for $100,000 a year!

Zooke, are you saying gay people support this Amendment, not other issues? Find me one. We just believe it's got no chance.

Supporting a party that's generally in tune with your opinions except for something that will fail dismally isn't so mystifying to me, but I suppose supporting the Republican party is.

What I'm saying is that this is a hot potato that no one wants to handle. As a predominantly Christian nation, the large majority of the people are opposed to gay marriage. Civil unions are acceptable to most folks, though. The problem there, is that you have several groups ready to demand rights for other unconventional unions. it's not a matter of the republicans hating gays. It's an issue revolving around marriage and it's original purpose. It's simply a political lose/lose situation.

Both parties have gay members, though most are Democrats. I would be very interested in seeing this land in a Democrats lap. Kerry has said that he doesn't support gay marriage, would prefer civil unions...but he has to keep the ACLU happy. Lose/lose again.

Hell, I would work for Republicans for $100,000 a year!

Good point, imagine the quantity of flavoured lube she could get with that...

Good point, imagine the quantity of flavoured lube she could get with that...
im so naive
i cant think of a reason why a lesbian would need lube

I'm not a fan of it myself, but hey, there's more important issues than gay marraige, like national security, or Social Security reform.

you got it bother!

im so naive
i cant think of a reason why a lesbian would need lube

Sensitive areas need moisturisation.

The issue isn't whether the GOP is against gays. The issue is marriage.
This is technically true. Bush is not proposing to outlaw homosexuality.

There have been many discussions on this forum about this topic. Many Republican supporters are against gay marriage. I notice that all of their arguments are also arguments against homosexuality generally, or show homophobia.

BTW, the ridiculous slippery-slope arguments don't make sense either. They were used by anti-interracial marriage activists 50 years ago, and came to nothing. Countries which have already legalised gay marriage have come under no pressure to legalise beastiality or paedophilia.

im so naive
i cant think of a reason why a lesbian would need lube

Um...how can I say this delicately....

Lesbians are...innies. Without an outie, sometimes they use artificial outies. ANd they tend to work better with lubrication. *nod*

Sensitive areas need moisturisation.
not from anything that can sense flavor

Um...how can I say this delicately....

Lesbians are...innies. Without an outie, sometimes they use artificial outies. ANd they tend to work better with lubrication. *nod*

Also... watch "Chasing Amy". You will never need to ask that question again.

Um...how can I say this delicately....

Lesbians are...innies. Without an outie, sometimes they use artificial outies. ANd they tend to work better with lubrication. *nod*
being a woman
id have to say
ive never needed lube with such things

not from anything that can sense flavor

Honey, sometimes when a woman's being made love to (by either a man or a woman), things get done that involve the partner's mouth and certain areas of her body. Flavored lube makes the experience more enjoyable for the partner, if they're not already enjoying themselves. Does that make it clearer?

Honey, sometimes when a woman's being made love to (by either a man or a woman), things get done that involve the partner's mouth and certain areas of her body. Flavored lube makes the experience more enjoyable for the partner, if they're not already enjoying themselves. Does that make it clearer?
i have a response
but i think ive already gone to far in this topic

but dont you wonder if mary cheney is REALLY republican or if she just has the job because of her dad?

What I'm saying is that this is a hot potato that no one wants to handle. As a predominantly Christian nation, the large majority of the people are opposed to gay marriage. Civil unions are acceptable to most folks, though. The problem there, is that you have several groups ready to demand rights for other unconventional unions. it's not a matter of the republicans hating gays. It's an issue revolving around marriage and it's original purpose. It's simply a political lose/lose situation.

Both parties have gay members, though most are Democrats. I would be very interested in seeing this land in a Democrats lap. Kerry has said that he doesn't support gay marriage, would prefer civil unions...but he has to keep the ACLU happy. Lose/lose again.

Erm, marriage doesn't have a purpose, unless as a contractual committment to another person and/or an affirmation of said committment. Seriously, if marriage were purely about procreation, why would we allow people unable to reproduce to get married?

but dont you wonder if mary cheney is REALLY republican or if she just has the job because of her dad?
Yeah, she undoubtedly has the job because of her dad. I don't know what her political views are, but they're probably free market, in line with the rest of the party. Maybe not as conservative though.

It must be so difficult to be a lesbian, yet to work for the political party that hates her.

The Republican Party doesn't hate homosexuals (this comes from a lesbian and a Democrat). Both parties, and all political parties, have their subdivisions which wish to subvert different ideologies, lifestyles, and what-not; the Republicans are no different.

Erm, marriage doesn't have a purpose, unless as a contractual committment to another person and/or an affirmation of said committment. Seriously, if marriage were purely about procreation, why would we allow people unable to reproduce to get married?

This is a valid argument. But, it is defendable. However, to do so, would expose an anti-gay sentiment...most likely based on a Biblical judgement that homosexuality is a perversion equal to beastiality. The truth of the matter is that you have a nation founded on Christian principles. No wonder conservatives are having fits over infantcide (abortion), sexual perversion (homosexuality), and numerous other liberal agendas. Throw it in that their tax dollars are being used to subsidize and promote agendas that go against their core belief, and you have a very upset moral majority.

The Republican Party doesn't hate homosexuals (this comes from a lesbian and a Democrat).

Actually, a good portion of the GOP does I'm pretty sure.( Sadly :-( ) At least the evangelists and rather biblical ones, which make up a rather sizable portion of the organization. I'm sure the Dems have a few bigots in their ranks too, but no one does ' insane crazy bible thumping we all must live by God's will' like the Republicans do. I know, I've met some.

Actually, a good portion of the GOP does I'm pretty sure.( Sadly :-( ) At least the evangelists and rather biblical ones, which make up a rather sizable portion of the organization. I'm sure the Dems have a few bigots in their ranks too, but no one does ' insane crazy bible thumping we all must live by God's will' like the Republicans do. I know, I've met some.

What you call "bible thumping bigots" are people who have based their lives and morals on their Christian beliefs. They're not bigots...they merely believe in and hold to God's word. The Bible specifically addresses a number of the moral issues being debated today. As the Republican party is made up primarily of "conservatives", devout Christians are naturally drawn to it. The Democrats and their "Whats Happenin Now Church" philosophy goes against the beliefs that they have grown up with and repels them.

Actually, a good portion of the GOP does I'm pretty sure.

Then, provide the evidence with sources and documentation, now.

What you call "bible thumping bigots" are people who have based their lives and morals on their Christian beliefs. They're not bigots...they merely believe in and hold to God's word. The Bible specifically addresses a number of the moral issues being debated today. As the Republican party is made up primarily of "conservatives", devout Christians are naturally drawn to it. The Democrats and their "Whats Happenin Now Church" philosophy goes against the beliefs that they have grown up with and repels them.
The Right has hijacked Christianity. If you hold yourself to those Biblical doctrines, the fact remains that others will probably label you a liberal.

http://www.dearmary.com/
Damn she's ugly.

Damn she's ugly.

What does that have to do with anything? Beauty's on the inside.

Beauty's on the inside.
Yeah. Your right. They are all pink on the inside. And I was just saying she's ugly.

"What I'm saying is that this is a hot potato that no one wants to handle. As a predominantly Christian nation, the large majority of the people are opposed to gay marriage. Civil unions are acceptable to most folks, though. The problem there, is that you have several groups ready to demand rights for other unconventional unions. it's not a matter of the republicans hating gays. It's an issue revolving around marriage and it's original purpose"


I agree with this. Many of us (Republicans), would support legal civil unions. Just don't call it marriage.

The issue isn't whether the GOP is against gays. The issue is marriage. Marriage is the union of two people to create a family...ie: children. It provides a firm legal and social base to raise children. When gays demand marriage rights, they are flaunting the basic reason for marriage. This administration has not denied allowing gays civil unions for legal issues. Although the question has been made a state issue, eventually it is going to have to be ruled on at the federal level. When that happens, though, you are going to see groups popping up demanding marriage or civil unions for other than main-stream heterosexual pairings...beastiality, pediophilia, etc.

Excuse me?

I'm sterile.. and have been married for 13 years.

We allow people in their ninties to get married. We allow people serving life without parole to get married even though they will never even touch their new spouse.

There isn't a state in the Union that requires fertility, or even the intention to have children for marriage.

As for beastiailty and pedophilia.. let me introuduce you to a friend of mine: informed consent. You cannot get married unless both parties can legally consent to the act. To give consent, you have to be an adult.. and human. (Minors can marry in different states at various ages with parental consent.)

So this arguement is pointless. Bob and Mike getting married is an act betwen two adults.

The truth of the matter is that you have a nation founded on Christian principles.

Really? Then perhaps you can show me the Biblical support for representative democracy, trial by jury, freedom of religion, the abolishment of slavery, etc.

This country was not founded on Christian principles. Read the bloody Treaty of Tripoli if you don't believe me.

Some times i wonder if it would just have been better to have two countries. A liberal ameica, and the Bible Nut nation. (no offence to christians) But then we wouldnt be strong, but then yet again at least i wouldnt have to put up with consertvatives trying to tell me how to lead my life.

I just wanted to express my sympathy for Mary Cheney. She is Dick Cheney's gay daughter. She works as a Republican campaign manager, for which she gets $100,000 a year.

It must be so difficult to be a lesbian, yet to work for the political party that hates her.
Right... The GOP hates lesbians... sure...

"Marriage is the union of two people to create a family...ie: children."

So I guess that infertile people and the elderly can't get married, since they can't produce children.

But wait, my grandmother got married when she was in her 60's. She can't have kids!

So...maybe...marriage is based on love, NOT procreation?

What a weird concept!

And yes, separate-but-equal institutions for minorities ALWAYS work, right?

"Marriage is the union of two people to create a family...ie: children."

So I guess that infertile people and the elderly can't get married, since they can't produce children.

But wait, my grandmother got married when she was in her 60's. She can't have kids!

I thought invitro could also be used on elderly people?

Civil Unions are worth a try,

These countries have Civil unions or something like it:

France has a Civil Solidarity Pact which grants same or opposite sex partners rights of next of kin, inheritance, social security, and tax benefits.

Portugal grants partnership rights to same and opposite sex couples. Partnership rights include next of kin, inheritance, property, social security and tax benefits.

Denmark has registered partnerships for same sex couples. They are granted all the same rights as marriage.

Germany recognizes next of kin and property inheritance rights for same sex couples who register as partners.

The newly elected Prime Minister of Spain has promised to give same-sex unions the same rights and priviliges as heterosexual unions.

The Right has hijacked Christianity. If you hold yourself to those Biblical doctrines, the fact remains that others will probably label you a liberal.
How do you figure? The Dems are pro-abortion, pro gay rights, pro government subsidized families, against exhibit of Christian symbols, anti-Israeli initiatives....key points that go against Christian doctrine. The right has not hijacked the Christians...the Christians are the right now. The Dems used to represent Christian values, but it's moved so far to the left that it abandoned the conservative members. Naturally, they have joined with the Reps who have maintained old fashioned values.

Really? Then perhaps you can show me the Biblical support for representative democracy, trial by jury, freedom of religion, the abolishment of slavery, etc.

This country was not founded on Christian principles. Read the bloody Treaty of Tripoli if you don't believe me.

This country was founded by people looking for freedom of religion, not from religion...not to mention the whole tax debate. The Bible does not deal with politics. It deals with principles upon which to lead your life. When people try to lead their lives on those principles and you have a political party trying to force feed them ideals opposed to those beliefs, then the party that supports those same beliefs will be their natural choice.

Excuse me?

I'm sterile.. and have been married for 13 years.

We allow people in their ninties to get married. We allow people serving life without parole to get married even though they will never even touch their new spouse.

There isn't a state in the Union that requires fertility, or even the intention to have children for marriage.

As for beastiailty and pedophilia.. let me introuduce you to a friend of mine: informed consent. You cannot get married unless both parties can legally consent to the act. To give consent, you have to be an adult.. and human. (Minors can marry in different states at various ages with parental consent.)

So this arguement is pointless. Bob and Mike getting married is an act betwen two adults.

I too could not have children. So, I married a man and adopted...providing a balanced home with a mother, a father, and 4 loved kids. The point is that marriage was originally created to name the children of a union as the legal heirs...as opposed to bastards with no legal claims. The practice of marriage has been adopted by almost all religions and sects proclaiming the union to be blessed by God or whatever deity is served. Our conventional marriage ceremony pleads for God's acceptance. When Bob and Mike have sex, that is an act between two consenting adults. When Bob and Mike have a civil union then they are granted the same legal rights as married people. When Bob and Mike are married then they are asking for a blessing from the God that in no uncertain terms denounces their union as a perversion.


Some times i wonder if it would just have been better to have two countries. A liberal ameica, and the Bible Nut nation. (no offence to christians) But then we wouldnt be strong, but then yet again at least i wouldnt have to put up with consertvatives trying to tell me how to lead my life.

Yet, you have no problem trying to tell them how to lead their lives. You believe that they should pay for abortions that murder children, they should embrace gay unions that are specifically named abominations in the Bible, they should hide their symbols of Christianity and rejoice that other beliefs are allowed to exhibit theirs, they should accept that they are the hated majority and should give up their freedom of speech because their opinions don't agree with everyone else's? You call them Bible Nuts and yet mean no offense???? Labeling anyone is offensive.

How do you figure? The Dems are pro-abortion, pro gay rights, pro government subsidized families, against exhibit of Christian symbols, anti-Israeli initiatives....key points that go against Christian doctrine. The right has not hijacked the Christians...the Christians are the right now. The Dems used to represent Christian values, but it's moved so far to the left that it abandoned the conservative members. Naturally, they have joined with the Reps who have maintained old fashioned values.



This country was founded by people looking for freedom of religion, not from religion...not to mention the whole tax debate. The Bible does not deal with politics. It deals with principles upon which to lead your life. When people try to lead their lives on those principles and you have a political party trying to force feed them ideals opposed to those beliefs, then the party that supports those same beliefs will be their natural choice.



I too could not have children. So, I married a man and adopted...providing a balanced home with a mother, a father, and 4 loved kids. The point is that marriage was originally created to name the children of a union as the legal heirs...as opposed to bastards with no legal claims. The practice of marriage has been adopted by almost all religions and sects proclaiming the union to be blessed by God or whatever deity is served. Our conventional marriage ceremony pleads for God's acceptance. When Bob and Mike have sex, that is an act between two consenting adults. When Bob and Mike have a civil union then they are granted the same legal rights as married people. When Bob and Mike are married then they are asking for a blessing from the God that in no uncertain terms denounces their union as a perversion.




Yet, you have no problem trying to tell them how to lead their lives. You believe that they should pay for abortions that murder children, they should embrace gay unions that are specifically named abominations in the Bible, they should hide their symbols of Christianity and rejoice that other beliefs are allowed to exhibit theirs, they should accept that they are the hated majority and should give up their freedom of speech because their opinions don't agree with everyone else's? You call them Bible Nuts and yet mean no offense???? Labeling anyone is offensive.
if God is such as bigot as you claim then why were there two gay lovers in the Bible named Johnathan and David who homophobic father angered God when he put his sons male lover on the frontlines in battle in order to kill him to break them up?

Yeah. Your right. They are all pink on the inside. And I was just saying she's ugly.
she is a woman who is not looking to entice a man
there is nothing wrong with the way she looks, you just expect all women to try to be a man's idea of attractive.

and WHY does ever freaking thread have to get into a "should gay marriage be allowed" debate??

she is a woman who is not looking to entice a man
there is nothing wrong with the way she looks, you just expect all women to try to be a man's idea of attractive.

and WHY does ever freaking thread have to get into a "should gay marriage be allowed" debate??

Then shouldnt she be looking to entice a woman? Which beckons the question, why do lesbians end up with women who look like men? Doesnt that defeat the purpose? Perhaps Freud was right.

you just expect all women to try to be a man's idea of attractive.
She's still ugly.

and WHY does ever freaking thread have to get into a "should gay marriage be allowed" debate??
Dunno.

Then shouldnt she be looking to entice a woman? Which beckons the question, why do lesbians end up with women who look like men? Doesnt that defeat the purpose? Perhaps Freud was right.
:D This reminds me of an episode of Dark Angel. Where Normal was dating a woman who used to be a man. And in the end she dumped him cause she found out she's a lesbian.

The issue isn't whether the GOP is against gays. The issue is marriage. Marriage is the union of two people to create a family...ie: children. It provides a firm legal and social base to raise children. When gays demand marriage rights, they are flaunting the basic reason for marriage. This administration has not denied allowing gays civil unions for legal issues. Although the question has been made a state issue, eventually it is going to have to be ruled on at the federal level. When that happens, though, you are going to see groups popping up demanding marriage or civil unions for other than main-stream heterosexual pairings...beastiality, pediophilia, etc.


ok...1: children are not the basis of marriage, and that has to be the most idiotically conservative thging Ive ever heard. 2: The gays have been denied civil unions for legal issues. 3: how dare you compare homosexuality to pedophilia and bestiality you hating motherfucker.

If you think that gays asking for marriage is tantamount to them asking for the blessing of a god that considers them an abomination, maybe you should try and figure out why you associate your God and only yours with marriage. Have you considered that the gay people trying to get married don't consider themselves abominations, or that they might not believe in a God that considers them to be, either?

Are Hindu marriages wrong since the bride and groom are worshiping false idols?

Should Atheists not be allowed to marry since they don't even believe in God at all?

Getting married gives you a whole range of privileges and powers that monogamous couples can't don't get by default. If you're willing to give them civil unions with all the legal protections are responsibilities, then what's stopping you from giving them marriage outright? The reason people are offended by the government only giving civil unions is because this smacks of 'separate but equal' segregationism.

Civil Unions are worth a try,

These countries have Civil unions or something like it:

France has a Civil Solidarity Pact which grants same or opposite sex partners rights of next of kin, inheritance, social security, and tax benefits.

Portugal grants partnership rights to same and opposite sex couples. Partnership rights include next of kin, inheritance, property, social security and tax benefits.

Denmark has registered partnerships for same sex couples. They are granted all the same rights as marriage.

Germany recognizes next of kin and property inheritance rights for same sex couples who register as partners.

The newly elected Prime Minister of Spain has promised to give same-sex unions the same rights and priviliges as heterosexual unions.


NO, NO NO! Why must we compromise to bible-humping psychos? Gay people deserve the right to be married and to call it marriage, and whomever doesnt like it should go get fucked!

NO, NO NO! Why must we compromise to bible-humping psychos? Gay people deserve the right to be married and to call it marriage, and whomever doesnt like it should go get fucked!

I don't think governments should recognize marriage at all, gay or straight

"The gays have been denied civil unions for legal issues."

There was never much US press on this. The big issue covered has been Gay Marriage. Polls have suggested that most US Citizens would be for civil unions. If gays can get legal protections with civil unions why are they (the ones with publicity) insisting it has to be marriage? Most of us agree that there is no good reason to deny happiness and legal rights to same sex couples. It seems to me, an abrupt switch to a civil union cause, would be championed by the majority.

I don't think governments should recognize marriage at all, gay or straight

or, maybe, they should recognize them all. because a lot of economic policies are way too deeply rooted in marriage to change them now.

CRACKPIE: "whomever doesnt like it should go get fucked!"


Thank you! lol, I do with regularity! Ha,ha!


You have so much pent up anger, you should try it. lol!

"The gays have been denied civil unions for legal issues."

There was never much US press on this. The big issue covered has been Gay Marriage. Polls have suggested that most US Citizens would be for civil unions. If gays can get legal protections with civil unions why are they (the ones with publicity) insisting it has to be marriage? Most of us agree that there is no good reason to deny happiness and legal rights to same sex couples. It seems to me, an abrupt switch to a civil union cause, would be championed by the majority.

But there should be no reason to compromise when we are right! That's like if in the civil rights movement, they agreed that schools didnt have to be segregated, but classrooms did.

whats the difference anyway? Your just playing a stupid game of semantics


Amen brother! ( ps, its also degrading to gay people, especially if theyre religious)

Amen brother! ( ps, its also degrading to gay people, especially if theyre religious)
the christian right are really just closet bigots hiding their hatred behind a veil of self righteous hypocrisy and they do it all in Gods name which makes them blasphemers as well

or, maybe, they should recognize them all. because a lot of economic policies are way too deeply rooted in marriage to change them now.

Why not? Get rid of them. It would make taxes easier too.

Then shouldnt she be looking to entice a woman? Which beckons the question, why do lesbians end up with women who look like men? Doesnt that defeat the purpose? Perhaps Freud was right.

lesbian women dont look like men
they dont act like men

you are reacting to the artificial look that straight women put on in order to be attractive to men. without that artifice, women just look like women.

If it is just semantics, then why are gays insisting it must be so. It appears it's just inorder to tear down an institution that has been around for a thousand years. Marriage = a man and a woman. This is not just a "gay rights" issue. This is an in your face issue. If gays wish to battle for something they could easily have under another name, that is their right. But it is not a cause that I can champion.

women just look like women.
Not Mary Cheney.

the christian right are really just closet bigots hiding their hatred behind a veil of self righteous hypocrisy and they do it all in Gods name which makes them blasphemers as well

and the sky is blue, tell us something we dont know.

"The gays have been denied civil unions for legal issues."

There was never much US press on this. The big issue covered has been Gay Marriage. Polls have suggested that most US Citizens would be for civil unions. If gays can get legal protections with civil unions why are they (the ones with publicity) insisting it has to be marriage? Most of us agree that there is no good reason to deny happiness and legal rights to same sex couples. It seems to me, an abrupt switch to a civil union cause, would be championed by the majority.

"Exactly my point. The "moral majority" will never sanction gay "marriage" but they will accept civil unions. Most of them believe that gays should have the same legal protection as marriage allows, but, due to religous teachings and beliefs, refuse to accept gay marriage.

ok...1: children are not the basis of marriage, and that has to be the most idiotically conservative thging Ive ever heard. 2: The gays have been denied civil unions for legal issues. 3: how dare you compare homosexuality to pedophilia and bestiality you hating motherfucker..

1. OK, Once more...try to understand the origin of marriage. It was meant to determine the offspring between one man and one woman to be legal heirs. Bastards were not allowed to claim a father's name, property, title, or standing.
2. Gays have not been denied civil unions. They are insisting on marriage and won't consider civil unions. As the civil unions would provide them with the same rights and privileges as a marriage, then it has to be assumed that they are demanding marriages because it does upset a majority of the people.
3. NEVER, and I mean NEVER use that kind of language with me!! No one deserves to be spoken to that way and I won't tolerate it. And, in case you didn't know, it makes you appear crude, ignorant, and not worth talking to. I was merely pointing out some of the activities that the Bible councils are perversions and abominations. So, DO NOT call me names..try listening to and considering what other people are saying. You might learn something.

Why not? Get rid of them. It would make taxes easier too.

itwould just take too much work, and leave possibly thousands of bubbles in the new laws.

Not Mary Cheney.


Heh heh...dang, I am in agreement with you - not sure how I feel about that

itwould just take too much work, and leave possibly thousands of bubbles in the new laws.

Is that a good reason to keep a ridiculous law in the first place?

"Well, these Jim Crow laws are wrong, but it would take too much work to change them...." Does that make sense?

It would take a good deal of work, initially, but would make things easier afterwards.

Not Mary Cheney.
yes even mary cheney

If it is just semantics, then why are gays insisting it must be so. It appears it's just inorder to tear down an institution that has been around for a thousand years. Marriage = a man and a woman. This is not just a "gay rights" issue. This is an in your face issue. If gays wish to battle for something they could easily have under another name, that is their right. But it is not a cause that I can champion.
first of all how is it tearing down the institution by EXPANDING the definition of it to incorporate more people? If anything that STRENGTHENS it. Bush is the one that made it an in your face issue with his constitutional amendment which was a blatent appeal to the homophobia of christian fundies

"Exactly my point. The "moral majority" will never sanction gay "marriage" but they will accept civil unions. Most of them believe that gays should have the same legal protection as marriage allows, but, due to religous teachings and beliefs, refuse to accept gay marriage.



1. OK, Once more...try to understand the origin of marriage. It was meant to determine the offspring between one man and one woman to be legal heirs. Bastards were not allowed to claim a father's name, property, title, or standing.
2. Gays have not been denied civil unions. They are insisting on marriage and won't consider civil unions. As the civil unions would provide them with the same rights and privileges as a marriage, then it has to be assumed that they are demanding marriages because it does upset a majority of the people.
3. NEVER, and I mean NEVER use that kind of language with me!! No one deserves to be spoken to that way and I won't tolerate it. And, in case you didn't know, it makes you appear crude, ignorant, and not worth talking to. I was merely pointing out some of the activities that the Bible councils are perversions and abominations. So, DO NOT call me names..try listening to and considering what other people are saying. You might learn something.

ok..see, I dont live in the us, not anymore, but this is the way it looks like down south.
Gay people have been denied civil unions. are there gay people getting them now? right now? as we speak? if they are, iIapologize, as I was wrong on that point.
I could not give a flying fuck about the "origin" of marriage, right now, it is an issue of love between two people, of legal rights and privilege, and of dignity to have the union called marriage just like everyone else's

If my language offends you so much that it makes my point seem less valid to you, then maybe you and all others who think the same are just wasting my time, seeing as how you cant see a point past the words used to express it.

Not Mary Cheney.
true lol

Is that a good reason to keep a ridiculous law in the first place?

"Well, these Jim Crow laws are wrong, but it would take too much work to change them...." Does that make sense?

It would take a good deal of work, initially, but would make things easier afterwards.


jim crow laws were a lot easier to change. And I still dont see how it wouldmake things any easier. if you can enligten me on that point, then you will, hopefully, forgive my ignorance.

1. OK, Once more...try to understand the origin of marriage. It was meant to determine the offspring between one man and one woman to be legal heirs. Bastards were not allowed to claim a father's name, property, title, or standing.


seems to me that the origins of marriage were to establish a mans PROPERTY rights over a woman and her offspring.

shall we go support that fine tradtion?

"Exactly my point. The "moral majority" will never sanction gay "marriage" but they will accept civil unions. Most of them believe that gays should have the same legal protection as marriage allows, but, due to religous teachings and beliefs, refuse to accept gay marriage.



1. OK, Once more...try to understand the origin of marriage. It was meant to determine the offspring between one man and one woman to be legal heirs. Bastards were not allowed to claim a father's name, property, title, or standing.
2. Gays have not been denied civil unions. They are insisting on marriage and won't consider civil unions. As the civil unions would provide them with the same rights and privileges as a marriage, then it has to be assumed that they are demanding marriages because it does upset a majority of the people.
3. NEVER, and I mean NEVER use that kind of language with me!! No one deserves to be spoken to that way and I won't tolerate it. And, in case you didn't know, it makes you appear crude, ignorant, and not worth talking to. I was merely pointing out some of the activities that the Bible councils are perversions and abominations. So, DO NOT call me names..try listening to and considering what other people are saying. You might learn something.
at one time in the not too distant past the "moral majority" didnt sanction human rights for blacks either-didnt make it right then just like it doesnt make it right now. Secondly your still stuck on stupid semantics. Theres no difference at all between the word marriage and civil unions. Your being absurd.Also if marriage was ONLY for child rearing then are you saying that married heterosexual couples who dont have kids should lose their status as a married couple?

"Bush is the one that made it an in your face issue with his constitutional amendment which was a blatent appeal to the homophobia of christian fundies"

No, the majority of US citizens are against gay marriage, while for civil unions. This is not just a christian fundies issue, no matter how you try to spin it.

"Bush is the one that made it an in your face issue with his constitutional amendment which was a blatent appeal to the homophobia of christian fundies"

No, the majority of US citizens are against gay marriage, while for civil unions. This is not just a christian fundies issue, no matter how you try to spin it.

it is one, and I dont have to spin it. why is it that people are against marriage but for civil unions if theyre the same thing. two words: Bible thumpers!

sing along with me!!!!
B-I-B-L-E T-H-U-M-P-E-R-S!!!!!

"Bush is the one that made it an in your face issue with his constitutional amendment which was a blatent appeal to the homophobia of christian fundies"

No, the majority of US citizens are against gay marriage, while for civil unions. This is not just a christian fundies issue, no matter how you try to spin it.
the majority of americans are also against a constitutional amendment to outlaw gay marriage

it is one, and I dont have to spin it. why is it that people are against marriage but for civil unions if theyre the same thing. two words: Bible thumpers!
it is a rediculous distinction but also one gays should tolerate since they still get essentially what they want with civil unions that they would with marriage-so who cares what you call it

the majority of americans are also against a constitutional amendment to outlaw gay marriage

theyre nice, decent people who ( bad pun coming) love their fellow man, even if hes gay. See? bible thumpers can be nice, my mother is one. Point is, theyre still bible thumpers.

it is a rediculous distinction but also one gays should tolerate since they still get essentially what they want with civil unions that they would with marriage-so who cares what you call it

its a matter of dignity, dude, a matter of whats right.

CRACKPIE, lol, you don't give up easily. You are trying to change a thousand year history just because you want to, rather than claiming your rights to fair legal treatment.

theyre nice, decent people who ( bad pun coming) love their fellow man, even if hes gay. See? bible thumpers can be nice, my mother is one. Point is, theyre still bible thumpers.
Im sorry to note that your mom is sick in the head. These christian extremists are the religious descedents of those who crucified Christ

CRACKPIE, lol, you don't give up easily. You are trying to change a thousand year history just because you want to, rather than claiming your rights to fair legal treatment.
but isnt this how ALL change comes about?

MKULTRA, "These christian extremists are the spiritual descedents of those who crucified Christ"


Hmmm, that's a whole other discussion. Why don't you post that as a topic?

It's so sad that's she's being such a loyal soldier to our pathetic president. She's not even welcome inside the White House because Bush does not like the fact that she's a lesbian. I admire her determination in helping her dad and helping the party that she believes in, but is it really worth her effort?

MKULTRA, "These christian extremists are the spiritual descedents of those who crucified Christ"


Hmmm, that's a whole other discussion. Why don't you post that as a topic?
Ok

It's so sad that's she's being such a loyal soldier to our pathetic president. She's not even welcome inside the White House because Bush does not like the fact that she's a lesbian. I admire her determination in helping her dad and helping the party that she believes in, but is it really worth her effort?
her dad is a maggot--if she had any self respect at all she'd be making his life a living hell

at one time in the not too distant past the "moral majority" didnt sanction human rights for blacks either-didnt make it right then just like it doesnt make it right now. Secondly your still stuck on stupid semantics. Theres no difference at all between the word marriage and civil unions. Your being absurd.Also if marriage was ONLY for child rearing then are you saying that married heterosexual couples who dont have kids should lose their status as a married couple?

Look, I'm just trying to explain the origin of marriage and the basis for the objections that people have to gay marriage. Personally, I don't care what they call it...marriage, civil union, hokey-pokey-okey-dokey....I don't care!! I believe that if 2 people commit to each other and spend their lives together they should have full involvement in their partners life and share whatever they accumulate together. As far as the moral side of the question, that's between them and their maker...it's not for me to judge. I just don't understand why the semantics is such an issue for gays unless it is because it angers the by-the-Book Christians.

jim crow laws were a lot easier to change. And I still dont see how it wouldmake things any easier. if you can enligten me on that point, then you will, hopefully, forgive my ignorance.


Well, I'm no expert on the subject either...but as far as I know, marriage is used for tax purposes, and for things like insurance and unemployment pay.

However, if the government did away with recognizing marriage, people could still be listed as dependants. Furthermore, you can list anyone you want as an heir. For example, in my IRA account, I listed my younger brother as my main benefactor.

I suppose that my main objection is the fact that marriage is a man-made prison

if God is such as bigot as you claim then why were there two gay lovers in the Bible named Johnathan and David who homophobic father angered God when he put his sons male lover on the frontlines in battle in order to kill him to break them up?

Johnathan was King Saul's son and a childhood friend of David. Later, when David was king, he had an affair with Bathsheba. When she became pregnant, he sent her husband, Uriah, to the front lines, to be killed. After he was, David did bring Bathsheba into his house and was the father to Absalom. Now, if there is another Johnathan and David, please give me the scriptural reference.

Im sorry to note that your mom is sick in the head. These christian extremists are the religious descedents of those who crucified Christ

my mother is a little insane, Im afraid, but she didnt vote for bush, so we get along. Plus, shes one of the smart bible thumpers. You know, the ones that look up something in the bible, then find a reason of why its there, and if they cant find a reason, then they dismikss the whole passage. Thats my mother.

Look, I'm just trying to explain the origin of marriage and the basis for the objections that people have to gay marriage. Personally, I don't care what they call it...marriage, civil union, hokey-pokey-okey-dokey....I don't care!! I believe that if 2 people commit to each other and spend their lives together they should have full involvement in their partners life and share whatever they accumulate together. As far as the moral side of the question, that's between them and their maker...it's not for me to judge. I just don't understand why the semantics is such an issue for gays unless it is because it angers the by-the-Book Christians.
point taken--but its also a point that the Christian right is perverting the Bible for their own agenda

my mother is a little insane, Im afraid, but she didnt vote for bush, so we get along. Plus, shes one of the smart bible thumpers. You know, the ones that look up something in the bible, then find a reason of why its there, and if they cant find a reason, then they dismikss the whole passage. Thats my mother.
well as long as she didnt vote for Bush theres hope for her- shes lucky she has a kid like you to help her

point taken--but its also a point that the Christian right is perverting the Bible for their own agenda

The Christian right is not perverting the Bible for their own agenda. They take what the Bible says literally and are opposed to whatever goes against those teachings. By naming the sanctioning of a sexual practice they don't agree with "marriage", you are saying to them that their marriage is on an equal basis with a perversion.

BTW, still haven't heard from you where the Bible makes reference to a homosexual couple by the name of Johnathan and David.

The Christian right is not perverting the Bible for their own agenda. They take what the Bible says literally and are opposed to whatever goes against those teachings. By naming the sanctioning of a sexual practice they don't agree with "marriage", you are saying to them that their marriage is on an equal basis with a perversion.

BTW, still haven't heard from you where the Bible makes reference to a homosexual couple by the name of Johnathan and David.
meanwhile the Bible wasnt written literally--Johnathan and David are 2 homosexual lovers in the bible. Also King David wrote some gay love psalms

The Dems are pro-abortion, pro gay rights, pro government subsidized families, against exhibit of Christian symbols, anti-Israeli initiatives....key points that go against Christian doctrine.

This country was founded by people looking for freedom of religion, not from religion...not to mention the whole tax debate. The Bible does not deal with politics.

Yet, you have no problem trying to tell them how to lead their lives. You believe that they should pay for abortions that murder children, they should embrace gay unions that are specifically named abominations in the Bible, they should hide their symbols of Christianity and rejoice that other beliefs are allowed to exhibit theirs, they should accept that they are the hated majority and should give up their freedom of speech because their opinions don't agree with everyone else's? You call them Bible Nuts and yet mean no offense???? Labeling anyone is offensive.
The Democrats have stopped short of backing full civil marriages for homosexuals. I don't know where Jesus says anything against social welfare. JC was clearly a socialist if not an anarcho-communist. They are pro-secularism, you know, kind of like the Founding Fathers were? I don't know where you are getting the "anti-Israeli" bit from. John Kerry's Israel position sounds like Bush's, perhaps even more pro-Israel. If anything, IMO the Democrats are too conservative.

Freedom of religion includes the freedom to choose no religion. Stop pushing for a theocracy. If The Bible does not deal with politics, maybe Republicans should stop trying to politicise Christianity.

I a anti-abortion, by the way, but I'm almost certain that abortions are not paid for by the US government Medicare plans. The woman has to pay for that herself. It doesn't cost the taxpayer. Conservatives don't have to embrace gay marriages, just have to allow it - not the same thing. You make it sound as if liberals are the interfering ones. Hide Christian symbols while allowing other faiths to display theirs? Where does this one come from? No liberals have ever suggested giving up freedom of speech. That is the exclusive preserve of Republicans.

meanwhile the Bible wasnt written literally

Not literal? The Bible is The archive of history.
--Johnathan and David are 2 homosexual lovers in the bible.
I've reference David and Johnathan's friendship as children and that David sent Bathsheba's husband to battle so that he might marry her. Please give scripture and verse on your claim as I have NEVER read anything like this in the Bible.


-- Also King David wrote some gay love psalms

David wrote the Psalms of Solomon which were Psalms of phrophecy. In Psalms 22 he prophesized the coming of Christ. In Psalms 24 he prophesized the death of Christ. We all know the 23rd Psalms. Again, reference chapter and verse of the gay love psalms because those are completely unknown to me.

As I told you on another post....I'm a Jew converted to Catholicism married to a Pentecostal minister. I'm not going to let you slide on these ridiculous assertions.

This is technically true. Bush is not proposing to outlaw homosexuality.

There have been many discussions on this forum about this topic. Many Republican supporters are against gay marriage. I notice that all of their arguments are also arguments against homosexuality generally, or show homophobia.

BTW, the ridiculous slippery-slope arguments don't make sense either. They were used by anti-interracial marriage activists 50 years ago, and came to nothing. Countries which have already legalised gay marriage have come under no pressure to legalise beastiality or paedophilia.

the problem with bestiality argument is that animals can't give consent and do not have the mental capacity to love

the problem with the pedophilia argument is that with children they are to young to give consent and can not enter into legal contracts under 18.

Those two things will not be overturned.

The Republican Party doesn't hate homosexuals (this comes from a lesbian and a Democrat).
Are you sure? I'll reconsider my opinion when Mary starts appearing on stage with Dick and the rest of the Cheney family.

They're not bigots...they merely believe in and hold to God's word.
It's not the same. Believing the word of God is fine, no problems there. But when they start to force their interpretation of God's word onto others and non-Christians, I call it bigotry.

Not literal? The Bible is The archive of history.

I've reference David and Johnathan's friendship as children and that David sent Bathsheba's husband to battle so that he might marry her. Please give scripture and verse on your claim as I have NEVER read anything like this in the Bible.




David wrote the Psalms of Solomon which were Psalms of phrophecy. In Psalms 22 he prophesized the coming of Christ. In Psalms 24 he prophesized the death of Christ. We all know the 23rd Psalms. Again, reference chapter and verse of the gay love psalms because those are completely unknown to me.

As I told you on another post....I'm a Jew converted to Catholicism married to a Pentecostal minister. I'm not going to let you slide on these ridiculous assertions.they can all be easily referenced if I only knew the name of the guy who wrote theX-rated bible I used to have

they can all be easily referenced if I only knew the name of the guy who wrote theX-rated bible I used to have

The name of the guy who wrote the real Bible is God through his prophets. An x-rated bible is not a reference material...it's a piece of pornography. Note the offer I made on the other board. I'm serious. You need to read something of serious worth.

"The gays have been denied civil unions for legal issues."

There was never much US press on this. The big issue covered has been Gay Marriage. Polls have suggested that most US Citizens would be for civil unions. If gays can get legal protections with civil unions why are they (the ones with publicity) insisting it has to be marriage? Most of us agree that there is no good reason to deny happiness and legal rights to same sex couples. It seems to me, an abrupt switch to a civil union cause, would be championed by the majority.


mainly because there are certain legal protections only found under marriage, including some immigration laws etc.

"mainly because there are certain legal protections only found under marriage, including some immigration laws etc"

Why can't they be included? The only reason I can think of is they may not be recognized by other countries, but we could still have them on our books.

republicans and democrats are hiding behind hot button issues relying on Americans to argue rather then get anything done.

1. Jesus wanted everyone to give there money away and help the poor, not a very republican value
2. He was very angry with the pharisees and loved the prostitute
3. God gave us free will and then took away human rights to judge. In other words if you gay marry, it is between you and God and it is no one elses business.
4. Unless you can translate hebrew you don't know what you are talking about in concern to the bible. I can pick up three different translations and have a sentence mean three different things.
5. Some who have translated the bible from hebrew yes, have translated that there is reference to homosexuality in the old testament. However, since most people in the world do not sit down and read old documents and hebrew there is no way of proving or disproving this assertion.
6. Jesus preached a doctrine of love and understanding, even of those we disagree with. I would think christians would want to be like Jesus and love everyone even if their views are different. Jesus never converted through hate.
7. liberal economic views are much closer to the teachings of Jesus.
8. the only real things we ever seem to pay attention to is abortion, gay rights, and belief based views in picking our parties. That doesn't really address any real issues in the United States like...How do we keep jobs here so young people can still dream of having a brighter future.

The think I remember about one of the most horrible events in Americn history is that it united the American people. I could go to a place that used to fly Mexican flags and they flew American flags. I could go to a gay area and they took down the rainbows and flew American flags. People helped eachother regardless of their religous or moral values. I have never been more proud of our country and we got things done in New York together. For a few months it reminded people what was important.
Since then, certain people have pushed the United states into a polarized, religous value battle. It has created a bigger rift then ever I can remember. INstead of growing into a stronger nation we have chosen to fight with eachother. I don't even think George Bush cared so much about the gay thing, I think he did it to do one thing. To take the attention of the nation and shift it at eachother so our government would never have to deal with real issues. We are all obviously falling for it.

...most likely based on a Biblical judgement that homosexuality is a perversion equal to beastiality.

Well, according to Leviticus, so is wearing clothes made of two different materials, or cutting your hair.

18.22: You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.

19:19: You shall not let your cattle breed with a different kind; you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed; nor shall there come upon you a garment of cloth made of two kinds of stuff.

19.27:You shall not round off the hair on your temples or mar the edges of your beard.

19.28:You shall not make any cuttings in your flesh on account of the dead or tattoo any marks upon you

Source (http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/RsvLevi.html)

Lets just hope your not wearing any polyester-cotton mix clothes Zooke, or the big JC might want a word....

Another classic example folks of the modern Church's pick-and-choose Christianity.

republicans and democrats are hiding behind hot button issues relying on Americans to argue rather then get anything done.

1. Jesus wanted everyone to give there money away and help the poor, not a very republican value
2. He was very angry with the pharisees and loved the prostitute
3. God gave us free will and then took away human rights to judge. In other words if you gay marry, it is between you and God and it is no one elses business.
4. Unless you can translate hebrew you don't know what you are talking about in concern to the bible. I can pick up three different translations and have a sentence mean three different things.
5. Some who have translated the bible from hebrew yes, have translated that there is reference to homosexuality in the old testament. However, since most people in the world do not sit down and read old documents and hebrew there is no way of proving or disproving this assertion.
6. Jesus preached a doctrine of love and understanding, even of those we disagree with. I would think christians would want to be like Jesus and love everyone even if their views are different. Jesus never converted through hate.
7. liberal economic views are much closer to the teachings of Jesus.
8. the only real things we ever seem to pay attention to is abortion, gay rights, and belief based views in picking our parties. That doesn't really address any real issues in the United States like...How do we keep jobs here so young people can still dream of having a brighter future.

The think I remember about one of the most horrible events in Americn history is that it united the American people.
Since then, certain people have pushed the United states into a polarized, religous value battle.
I agree with you totally, except for #7. I don't think Jesus had liberal econoic views, I think he was more socialist, maybe even communist.

Well, according to Leviticus, so is wearing clothes made of two different materials, or cutting your hair.

18.22: You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.

19:19: You shall not let your cattle breed with a different kind; you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed; nor shall there come upon you a garment of cloth made of two kinds of stuff.

19.27:You shall not round off the hair on your temples or mar the edges of your beard.

19.28:You shall not make any cuttings in your flesh on account of the dead or tattoo any marks upon you

Source (http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/RsvLevi.html)

Lets just hope your not wearing any polyester-cotton mix clothes Zooke, or the big JC might want a word....

Another classic example folks of the modern Church's pick-and-choose Christianity.
the passage on homosexuality also only refers to male on male and says nothing about lesbianism-isnt that inconsistent? or more likely wasnt it condemning the context of the sex rather then the act itself

Well, according to Leviticus, so is wearing clothes made of two different materials, or cutting your hair.

18.22: You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.

19:19: You shall not let your cattle breed with a different kind; you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed; nor shall there come upon you a garment of cloth made of two kinds of stuff.

19.27:You shall not round off the hair on your temples or mar the edges of your beard.

19.28:You shall not make any cuttings in your flesh on account of the dead or tattoo any marks upon you

Source (http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/RsvLevi.html)

Lets just hope your not wearing any polyester-cotton mix clothes Zooke, or the big JC might want a word....

Another classic example folks of the modern Church's pick-and-choose Christianity.

The Old Testament was the law of God. People were not able to obey the laws of God, so Jesus paid the price for their sins and ours with His blood. The New Testament is the new convenant with God sealed with Jesus' blood. Romans 1:26-32 and Timothy 1:6-11 from the New Testament are very clear about condemning gays calling them enemies of God and God haters.

The Old Testament was the law of God. People were not able to obey the laws of God, so Jesus paid the price for their sins and ours with His blood. The New Testament is the new convenant with God sealed with Jesus' blood. Romans 1:26-32 and Timothy 1:6-11 from the New Testament are very clear about condemning gays calling them enemies of God and God haters.
if thats true then why did God create gays?

I agree with you totally, except for #7. I don't think Jesus had liberal econoic views, I think he was more socialist, maybe even communist.


I miss stated, I agree...I used the wrong terminology.

The Old Testament was the law of God. People were not able to obey the laws of God, so Jesus paid the price for their sins and ours with His blood. The New Testament is the new convenant with God sealed with Jesus' blood. Romans 1:26-32 and Timothy 1:6-11 from the New Testament are very clear about condemning gays calling them enemies of God and God haters.


what translation are you reading, niv and king james do not seem to state this. Plus, I don't hate God, I love God and all his people. I am gay. hmmmm

The Old Testament was the law of God. People were not able to obey the laws of God, so Jesus paid the price for their sins and ours with His blood. The New Testament is the new convenant with God sealed with Jesus' blood. Romans 1:26-32 and Timothy 1:6-11 from the New Testament are very clear about condemning gays calling them enemies of God and God haters.


all fundamentalists quote the words of leviticus untill someone points out all the problems with it. Then, they all of a sudden disclaim it. The reason why, the new testament is not so exact in its opinion. Either you believe in it or you don't. Don't quote something and retract it when someone with actuall bible knowledge calls you on it.

doesnt sin involve free choice? Why would God create people to be gay without choice and then say their condition is a sin? Does this make any sense at all?

The Old Testament was the law of God. People were not able to obey the laws of God, so Jesus paid the price for their sins and ours with His blood. The New Testament is the new convenant with God sealed with Jesus' blood. Romans 1:26-32 and Timothy 1:6-11 from the New Testament are very clear about condemning gays calling them enemies of God and God haters.

Well lets do some reading, shall we:

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

Some have wandered away from these and turned to meaningless talk. They want to be teachers of the law, but they do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm. We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers--and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.

All they say is that homosexuals are as sinful as atheists, boasters, people who disobey their parents or people who gossip. Nothing about 'enemies of God'. Hell, (pun intended) I've disobeyed my parents too many times to count - show me someone who hasn't. Therefore I'm just as sinful in your eyes as a practicing homosexual, and shouldn't be allowed to mary.

doesnt sin involve free choice? Why would God create people to be gay without choice and then say their condition is a sin? Does this make any sense at all?

Ahhhh, the old theological nutshell, can free will coexist with Devine preordination?

But that's a seperate topic....

Some legal systems (Mexico's, for instance) have a solution which is far superior to any I have seen proposed here.

Just separate the Church and the State. The Church has no right to determine who gets the legal benefits of partnership and who doesn't. The State has no right to determine who is married (in the religous sense of a union between two individuals sanctioned by God) and who isn't.

In Mexico, when you wish to get "married", you undergo two ceremonies. First, you go to a church, kneel before a priest, and he gives your union God's blessing (a religious "marriage"). (The State doesn't give a shit about this part.) Then, you go to a lawyer (a public notary) and you sign a contract with which the state recognizes your union (a civil union). (The Church doesn't give a shit about this part.)

It is important to note that you can have one without the other. If you're only married through a church, you get no legal benefits. If you're only married (or civilly united, if the word married in an unreligious context gives you trouble) through the state, you're presumably living in sin.

With this solution, gay people could get all the legal benefits of a present-day marriage, but presumably without God's sanction, which is what drives some people nuts about allowing gay marriages.

However, if a gay couple finds a priest willing to marry them, they can have a religious marriage too. Any quibbles about the definition of a religious marriage can then be directed at said priest, without bothering the State about it.

(That said, Mexico does not currently give legal recognition to gay unions. However, I believe this system could solve the current debate in the US.)

The Christian right is not perverting the Bible for their own agenda. They take what the Bible says literally and are opposed to whatever goes against those teachings.
Well they take what the Bible says literally as long as it serves them well. Sure, they at least got abortion correct, and maybe even homosexuality, but they got everything else WRONG.

Well they take what the Bible says literally as long as it serves them well. Sure, they at least got abortion correct, and maybe even homosexuality, but they got everything else WRONG.
correct--and I know a possessed woman when I see one and Im going to do an exorcizm on Zooke

[QUOTE=Utopio]Well lets do some reading, shall we:QUOTE]
Yes, lets....
Romans ch1, v26-32
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters,insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

What is being said here is that, even though these people knew the truth of God, they chose to believe lies. They loved the things made by God, but not God Himself. So, he abandoned them to their sins, allowing them to practise their sins and create new ones and encourage others to participate. They do this in full knowledge of God's death penalty. If you continue on, however, we are told by Paul "You are just as bad, and you have no excuse". We should speak out against sin, but we should do it with a humility of spirit as none of us are without sin. For us to judge is a sin itself. As I've said previously on these boards, I do not deem to judge others. I have friends who are homosexual and I cherish them. They know and appreciate my beliefs and cherish me for myself. I sincerely hope that one day they will come to live by the word of God, but that is their decision.

1 Timothy ch1 v6-11 NIV
Some have wandered away from these and turned to meaningless talk. They want to be teachers of the law, but they do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm. We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers--and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.

There are those who attempt to legitimize homosexuality as an acceptable alternative lifestyle. But the Bible is very specific in calling homosexual activity a sin. We must be careful, however, in condemning the practice, but not the people. They're not to be ridiculed or hated. They, too, can be forgiven by God, as we are for our sins, and be transformed. Judgement is not ours, but God's. Corinthians 6:9-11 also deals with a number of sins, including homosexuality, and the offer of forgiveness.

The Bible obviously compares homosexuality to much harsher sins than disobeying your parents...murder for example. The fact is, though, that wrong is wrong and right is right and there are no varying degrees. Judging and condemning another person for their actions is as much a sin.

As I've stated previously on these boards, I am not advocating the denial of gays to the right to marry. I do question why the semantics involved between marriage and civil union is an issue, but the resolution to this would not affect me or my marriage vows. Some of you have seen fit to condemn me as a Christian fundamentalist and bigot. You are wrong. Yes, I believe fully in God and the Bible. I believe that without faith there would be no hope and we would live in total chaos and anarchy. Cultures all over the world recognize that there is a Creator...it doesn't matter what name you call Him...and there is a repeating theme to His message in all of the world's religions.

If you choose to believe that the religions are all mumbo-jumbo and primitive superstition, that is your right. It is not your right, however, to call me insane, bigotted, and ignorant because I believe otherwise. It also is not right that you should paraphrase what I say and condemn me. I'm an educated woman and I do believe with all of my heart in God and I try (sometimes unsuccessfully) to accept and love everyone. I'm a sinner and I always will be...but Lord knows I try!

most likely based on a Biblical judgement that homosexuality is a perversion equal to beastiality.

it's also a perversion in the same way that eating shelfish or wearing a fibre-blended shirt is.

No wonder conservatives are having fits over infantcide (abortion),

if they're not infants, it's not intantcide, now is it?

correct--and I know a possessed woman when I see one and Im going to do an exorcizm on Zooke

FoR Zooke;
SATAN,I CAST THEE OUT--THE POWER OF CHRIST COMPELS YOU
SATAN,I CAST THEE OUT--THE POWER OF CHRIST COMPELS YOU
SATAN,I CAST THEE OUT--THE POWER OF CHRIST COMPELS YOU

This is cruel and hurtful. But, what can I say to make you understand the power of your words to either destroy or build, confuse or enlighten, to condemn or understand? You've even said hateful things about your own mother and her faith. You seem to have a lot of hatred and an intolerance for anyone who doesn't think the way you do. I hope you learn to look at all sides of every issue and learn a tolerance and appreciation for others' opinions as you get older. In the meantime, I'm not going to waste anymore time arguing with you. You don't want to debate, you want to insult and spew hate. Good luck.

if thats true then why did God create gays?
Someone has to be interior decorators, ballet dancers, hair-dressers and fashion designers. :p

it's also a perversion in the same way that eating shelfish or wearing a fibre-blended shirt is.

The first 5 books of the Old Testament, the Pentaeuch, are the laws of God recognized by Jews. Todays Jews who keep Kosher do not eat shellfish, or pork, or mix meat and milk. I was raised in a Kosher house and to this day I can't abide the taste or smell of pork. But, when it comes to shellfish....Nelly bar the door!! I could happily exist on a diet of shrimp, crab, lobster, and good ol' crawfish next to oysters on the half-shell. mmmmmmmmmmmmmm

The Old Testament was God's law. People were not able to keep His laws, so God, in his mercy, sent his son, to die (suffer the punishment) for our sins then and always. The new "contract" signed with Jesus' blood is the New Testament and the basis of today's Christian faith. The New Testament is also very explicit in it's condemnation of the practice (not the participants) of homosexuality. Romans 1:26-32, 1 Timothy 1:6-11, Corinthians 6:9-11. It is not correct to say that the Christian right's criticism of homosexuality comes only from Leviticus.

if they're not infants, it's not intantcide, now is it?

At what point does a child become an infant? Only after exiting its mother's womb? Or, is it an infant at the initial start of its development as soon as the first cell splits into two? Doesn't the Bible say that God first knew us in our mother's womb?

what translation are you reading, niv and king james do not seem to state this. Plus, I don't hate God, I love God and all his people. I am gay. hmmmm

King James, NIV, St Joseph, Nave's Topical....when my husband woke up this morning he was surprised to find me at our computer surrounded by chairs and barstools each with a different Bible or reference book opened on it. :D

I lost track of which thread you were posting to, so I'll include a post I made to you on another thread.

My main points are: (Kissingly please note because I feel I have offended you and I did not intend to.)

1. I am not condemning gays or representing my opinions, but simply presenting the reasoning behind the Christian right's opposition to gay marriage. I believe I have made it clear previously that I don't care if gays are permitted legally recognized unions. I do question why they insist on marriage as opposed to civil union unless it is because the term "marriage" does enflame some Christians. How can you hope to engage in discussion with another if you don't know and understand their opinions? If you don't want to listen to and consider their reasoning, then you don't want a discussion...you merely want to profess your beliefs above everyone else's.

2. Some insist on saying that Christian opposition is based all in the ancient laws of the Jews found in Leviticus when, in truth, there are numerous references in the New Testament. In each one it says that the act of homosexuality is to be condemned as well as other sins (murder, disobeying your parents, killing your parents, lust, lying, stealing), but not the people who practice it. They are God's children, too, and answer to Him, not us.

3. The New Testament does not say that God hates gays...just the opposite. It says that gays who profess to be Christians and love God, should re-examine their lives and determine if they really do love God and want to live their lives in His name. If they do, they should redirect their steps to follow His word and will know forgiveness and love and salvation. This same command and offer is made to all of us for all of our many sins.

4. If God didn't want homosexuals, why did he create them? I don't know. Why does he create people with no arms, or unformed brains, or epilepsy, or heart defects, or conjoined twins? Why are some people attracted to children? These aren't tendancies or problems by choice but something we're born with. Why does he allow children to suffer? Why does he allow us to be tempted to lie, cheat, steal, kill, commit adultry, lust? Just as I know that I am faced with temptation each day, I know that each time I need to ask myself "What does my Father want me to do?". My biggest problem is asking that question before I've gone ahead and done something stupid! Thank God He is so forgiving!

Our civilization today has made gigantic steps in progress. But, this progress has also made our differences more apparent. I hope I have helped to clear up a little at least where I stand on this issue.

This is cruel and hurtful. But, what can I say to make you understand the power of your words to either destroy or build, confuse or enlighten, to condemn or understand? You've even said hateful things about your own mother and her faith. You seem to have a lot of hatred and an intolerance for anyone who doesn't think the way you do. I hope you learn to look at all sides of every issue and learn a tolerance and appreciation for others' opinions as you get older. In the meantime, I'm not going to waste anymore time arguing with you. You don't want to debate, you want to insult and spew hate. Good luck.
I dont hate-I challenge

Someone has to be interior decorators, ballet dancers, hair-dressers and fashion designers. :p
LMFAO

I dont hate-I challenge

A challenge is to offer the basis for your opinions in response to someone whose opinions differ. Your whole exorcism/possession/crazy/bible thumper tirade is inflammatory hate speech. It's mean, cruel, petty and signifies a small person with small ideas. Otherwise, you would be able to support your opinions with rational, valid, referenced debate. Instead you slander people, call them names and try to reference unknown materials by unknown authors and refuse to reference known, accepted sources. Small person with small ideas and small ideals.

Originally Posted by Demented Hamsters
Someone has to be interior decorators, ballet dancers, hair-dressers and fashion designers.

LMFAO

This isn't funny either. It's hateful and it stereotypes a segment of people. You just don't have a clue, do you?