Originally posted by porgie I have a question that maybe some of you people who know a lot about the Bible can answer.
There are some who say that the Bible says that homosexuality is a sin. There are some who say that they are reading the Bible wrong or taking quotes out of context to fit what they want to believe is true. Then there are some that say the whole thing is a worthless debate because the Bible is just plain mistranslated.
My question is this. Of the other sins or things that are bad that are listed in the Bible (adultry, pre-marital sex, murder, covetting, working on Sunday, etc) is the reason that these are bad also in the Bible? I'm not talking about someone having to interpret something later on or reading into a story to figure out why God listed them as bad. I'm meaning does God specifically say why they are bad? Like murder for instance. Does God specifically say why murder is bad? Or adultry, does he tell you "adultry is bad because..."?
The reason I'm asking is because I'm wondering if he is specific in some cases if he is also as specific as to why homosexuality is bad. I'm not very up on the Bible, I admit that. But the reason I'm asking is because I've never heard anyone quote the Bible to say why being gay is bad. I've only heard some peoples personal thoughts about why it is and then them use the Bible to back up their personal beliefs.
And if God is specific about why other things are bad and not about homosexuality, then wouldn't that lend more to the people arguing that God really doesn't care if you're gay, as long as you get with the person you love and stay monogomous?
I don't think God ever says why it's bad. I could be wrong though. (Personally, I don't think he ever says it's bad, but that's another debate).
Next time someone tells you that homosexuality is a sin, ask them why. Then when they give you one of those lame ass reasons ask them to show you specifically where it says that in the Bible. Then you can find out.
Most likely they'll say just because after that. Or give you some drawn out reasoning behind them extrapolating there reason. I'm sure extrapolated completely free from any of their bias.
Originally posted by Vercades I don't support same sex marriage but, I'm also glad this bill didn't pass. Why you say? More reason for certain gays to be hateful.
Originally posted by Vercades I don't support same sex marriage but, I'm also glad this bill didn't pass. Why you say? More reason for certain gays to be hateful.
mmmm i was trying to understand that sentence, but strangely it made my head hurts
It never mattered if it was passed or not. It's just cotton candy for you idiots to keep your eyes off of the real issues. Same thing with the immigration debate. No one really cares. And if they do care, they need to get a life.
Originally posted by Dabble Look... It's called a "wedge-issue." It never mattered if it was passed or not. It's just cotton candy for you idiots to keep your eyes off of the real issues. Same thing with the immigration debate. No one really cares. And if they do care, they need to get a life.
It matters to me. I want to have the same legal rights as a man and woman. I don't like girls. Don't want to marry one. But I should at least have some kind of legal document that me and my partner can know will protect us. A civil union would be fine. You don't have to call it marriage.
Originally posted by gnomexxx Originally posted by Vercades I don't support same sex marriage but, I'm also glad this bill didn't pass. Why you say? More reason for certain gays to be hateful.
Originally posted by Vercades Originally posted by gnomexxx Originally posted by Vercades I don't support same sex marriage but, I'm also glad this bill didn't pass. Why you say? More reason for certain gays to be hateful.
Yeah, the world is loaded with hateful gays. lol.
And, black people just eat fried chicken.
Of all the groups that you could pick out to be the most peaceful, I think us gays would probably rank up on the top. Not trying to sound arrogant, but we really haven't engaged in too much violence or bloodshed in our existence. Yet we are the most demonized these days. Go figure.
Well.... there was that Alexander the Great thing and the Spartans. Sorry about that. But, you can't win them all.
Is that what everyone is so mad at us about. Alexander the Great and the Spartans?
Of all the groups that you could pick out to be the most peaceful, I think us gays would probably rank up on the top. Not trying to sound arrogant, but we really haven't engaged in too much violence or bloodshed in our existence. Yet we are the most demonized these days. Go figure.
Well.... there was that Alexander the Great thing and the Spartans. Sorry about that. But, you can't win them all.
Is that what everyone is so mad at us about. Alexander the Great and the Spartans?
Well, since homosexuality has yet to define itself in any major way, it is hard to determine if they have engaged in much violence or bloodshed. It's not like there are statistics on gay violence like there is for teen violence, [insert race] violence, etc. Stating that gays are most "peaceful" is misleading also, but no need to get into that.
Gays are the most demonized? Hmm, I think Muslims or immigrants might argue with you there. And considering that gay marriage is even recognized as an issue is a step up from where "you" were 20 years ago.
Alexander the Great.... IMO pretty irrelavant. Many military societies from the Middle East and Far East have considered acts of sodomy to be a part of service and acceptable for quite some time.
Of all the groups that you could pick out to be the most peaceful, I think us gays would probably rank up on the top. Not trying to sound arrogant, but we really haven't engaged in too much violence or bloodshed in our existence. Yet we are the most demonized these days. Go figure.
Well.... there was that Alexander the Great thing and the Spartans. Sorry about that. But, you can't win them all.
Is that what everyone is so mad at us about. Alexander the Great and the Spartans?
Well, since homosexuality has yet to define itself in any major way, it is hard to determine if they have engaged in much violence or bloodshed. It's not like there are statistics on gay violence like there is for teen violence, [insert race] violence, etc. Stating that gays are most "peaceful" is misleading also, but no need to get into that.
Gays are the most demonized? Hmm, I think Muslims or immigrants might argue with you there. And considering that gay marriage is even recognized as an issue is a step up from where "you" were 20 years ago.
Alexander the Great.... IMO pretty irrelavant. Many military societies from the Middle East and Far East have considered acts of sodomy to be a part of service and acceptable for quite some time.
Has yet to define itself in a major way?!?!?!
What do you mean? We define ourselves in a mumbo jumbo major way. We love people of the same sex. If that's not a big defining factor then I don't know what is.
I think I may have missed your point there. Have heterosexuals defined themselves in a major way? Well, just reverse that, and presto!!!
And since we have been persecuted, ostracized, and had major acts of violence placed upon us all throughout history, I think we've learned a little bit about what it feels like to be shunned. I know it's hard for you to imagine that feeling, but it ultimately ends up having a very liberating effect on your perspective of the world and human nature. Suddenly you see things and want to make them equal and peaceful. It's a really bad feeling being in a positition we're in, but it's also very enlightening.
What do you mean? We define ourselves in a mumbo jumbo major way. We love people of the same sex. If that's not a big defining factor then I don't know what is.
I think I may have missed your point there. Have heterosexuals defined themselves in a major way? Well, just reverse that, and presto!!!
And since we have been persecuted, ostracized, and had major acts of violence placed upon us all throughout history, I think we've learned a little bit about what it feels like to be shunned. I know it's hard for you to imagine that feeling, but it ultimately ends up having a very liberating effect on your perspective of the world and human nature. Suddenly you see things and want to make them equal and peaceful. It's a really bad feeling being in a positition we're in, but it's also very enlightening.
Um, yes you missed my point. In context, that statement is regarding statistics. So I guess I should have said: Sexual preference statistics are not factored in gathering most of the data available on violence, unlike race, sex, previous criminal convictions, and age. Saying that "we haven't engaged in too much violence and bloodshed in our existance," is unverifiable and stereotypical to say the least.
I didn't say or imply that heterosexuals were defined in the context above. Originally I stated age and race as examples of defined areas of data.
Lastly, I am slightly offended that you imply that I cannot be "liberated and enlightened" without being gay. I find that an extremely ignorant comment for someone of such a higher plane of existance than me. For the record, I had a brother-in-law that died of AIDS in August 1997 after a difficult 3 year battle, of which my wife and I cared for him during a significant period. And my closest cousin happens to be in a civil union / same-sex marriage. No, I do not always share their social views. Yes, at times it has caused tension. But I am certainly enlightened and sympathetic to their hardships.
EDIT: And I in no way meant for that to come across as harsh as when I reread it. I just don't like when people feel that their own experiences must be unique to people who have encountered the exact same hardship. Hardship comes in many different forms and can be equally enlightening.
For the record, since I was off-topic in my post, I will always be against the discrimination of any identifiable "minority" regardless of whether they are statistically "defined."
Originally posted by daeandor Originally posted by upallnight
Has yet to define itself in a major way?!?!?!
What do you mean? We define ourselves in a mumbo jumbo major way. We love people of the same sex. If that's not a big defining factor then I don't know what is.
I think I may have missed your point there. Have heterosexuals defined themselves in a major way? Well, just reverse that, and presto!!!
And since we have been persecuted, ostracized, and had major acts of violence placed upon us all throughout history, I think we've learned a little bit about what it feels like to be shunned. I know it's hard for you to imagine that feeling, but it ultimately ends up having a very liberating effect on your perspective of the world and human nature. Suddenly you see things and want to make them equal and peaceful. It's a really bad feeling being in a positition we're in, but it's also very enlightening.
Um, yes you missed my point. In context, that statement is regarding statistics. So I guess I should have said: Sexual preference statistics are not factored in gathering most of the data available on violence, unlike race, sex, previous criminal convictions, and age. Saying that "we haven't engaged in too much violence and bloodshed in our existance," is unverifiable and stereotypical to say the least.
I didn't say or imply that heterosexuals were defined in the context above. Originally I stated age and race as examples of defined areas of data.
Lastly, I am slightly offended that you imply that I cannot be "liberated and enlightened" without being gay. I find that an extremely ignorant comment for someone of such a higher plane of existance than me. For the record, I had a brother-in-law that died of AIDS in August 1997 after a difficult 3 year battle, of which my wife and I cared for him during a significant period. And my closest cousin happens to be in a civil union / same-sex marriage. No, I do not always share their social views. Yes, at times it has caused tension. But I am certainly enlightened and sympathetic to their hardships.
EDIT: And I in no way meant for that to come across as harsh as when I reread it. I just don't like when people feel that their own experiences must be unique to people who have encountered the exact same hardship. Hardship comes in many different forms and can be equally enlightening.
For the record, since I was off-topic in my post, I will always be against the discrimination of any identifiable "minority" regardless of whether they are statistically "defined."
Hey, no offense taken.
But what I meant was that you can't completely understand something until you've experienced it yourself. It's got nothing to do with being elite or whatever. It's just experience.
You lost someone to AIDS. I've never known anyone who has it (believe it or not, even though I'm gay). I couldn't know what that is like. I could imagine how bad it hurts and the struggle dealing with watching them die, but I'm not even going to begin to say I can know exactly what it feels like.
I have gone through a lot being gay. From mild stuff like being called names to being hospitalized in high school for two weeks and almost dying from being beaten up by some kids from my school. That stuff wears on your self-esteem after a while. It also changes your perspective of the world.
I don't think I'm better than you for having gone through that. So please don't get that idea.
And as far as homosexuals being violent. C'mon man. Just use personal experience. When's the last time you saw a gay guy start a fight or commit any kind of violent act. About the worse violence that we're usually bound to commit is on ourselves.
Looks like the Constitutional Ammendment to bag gay marriage failed miserably. In fact, it did worse this time around than the last time it was voted on back in July of 2004.
If anything it's refreshing to know that the discriminating bigots of this country are still outnumbered.
i still find it amazing that in the land of the free you are everything but.
As a straight male i have zero problem with "gay marriage" in the uk its called a civil partnership and it gives you the same legal rights as a hetro couple but then you have to say why are the god bothers fighting this, IF its a sin and they belive god gave us "free will" then they will all burn in hell anyway? so just what is there problem?
oh for the one or two of you that sometimes miss the point the burn in hell bit was a joke
Originally posted by freethinker I consider the whole "Civil Union" a seperate-but-equal policy. Look how well those wen't over in the 60's
I agree with you.
But, believe it or not, I can understand where the religious groups are coming from. And I know that they hold their "marriage" truly to their hearts. I'm okay with that though. It's their interpretation of something important to them.
But what I don't understand is that if you ask people who are against gay marriage what they think of civil unions, most of them are against that also. That's where they lose me. It tends to make me think that most of the people who are saying they're against gay marriage are using the religious thing as a window dressing for their true emotions towards the issue. I think those people who are against civil unions as well are just being mean and hateful. Why else would they want to deny a group basic rights, whether they agree or disagree with their lifestyle?
I think some people just can't stand the whole "land of the free" thing. I really don't think they want it unless it suits them.
Originally posted by upallnight Originally posted by freethinker I consider the whole "Civil Union" a seperate-but-equal policy. Look how well those wen't over in the 60's
I agree with you.
But, believe it or not, I can understand where the religious groups are coming from. And I know that they hold their "marriage" truly to their hearts. I'm okay with that though. It's their interpretation of something important to them.
But what I don't understand is that if you ask people who are against gay marriage what they think of civil unions, most of them are against that also. That's where they lose me. It tends to make me think that most of the people who are saying they're against gay marriage are using the religious thing as a window dressing for their true emotions towards the issue. I think those people who are against civil unions as well are just being mean and hateful. Why else would they want to deny a group basic rights, whether they agree or disagree with their lifestyle?
I think some people just can't stand the whole "land of the free" thing. I really don't think they want it unless it suits them.
Strangely men and women can marry without even entering a church (divorced couples for example CANNOT marry again in any church) so tell me, what does marriage have to do with religion/faith... everybody should be able to MARRY, why find another word for it, it's just more of the same discrimination... i dont see what the religious zealots have anything to do with marriage anymore, since times changes, as we can see by the acceptance of divorce, 2nd marriage childs are no longer bastards anymore too, and ppl arent burn down for believing another religion, using herbal medicine or even having a black cat...
So how are Bi-sexual marital relations to work? They have a natural predisposition to both sexes. It would be a terrible thing to force them to reject that in order to marry, right? They'd have to choose only one gender of their sexual identity, after all. So, should it be worked out that each bisexual is able to marry two people? One of each gender? Surely the arbitrary notion that two people make a marriage should be pushed aside? It would seem to me that the number of people is more of a whim then the gender.
Originally posted by upallnight Originally posted by freethinker I consider the whole "Civil Union" a seperate-but-equal policy. Look how well those wen't over in the 60's
I agree with you.
But, believe it or not, I can understand where the religious groups are coming from. And I know that they hold their "marriage" truly to their hearts. I'm okay with that though. It's their interpretation of something important to them.
I don't care what they want to do with their marriage. It's the point that they want to do what they want with your marriage. I can understand it too...it's the same attitude these people have with pressing their religion on others. It's about power and spreading their religious dogma....freedom be damned.
And then of course all the less extreme sheep go along with the flock because their leaders bend the argument in such a way as If You're For Gay Marriage You're Against God....*shock* *gasp*....who could be against god??????
hehe..those sheep will believe anything, I tell ya.
Anyway..that's my opinion on the matter.
But what I don't understand is that if you ask people who are against gay marriage what they think of civil unions, most of them are against that also. That's where they lose me. It tends to make me think that most of the people who are saying they're against gay marriage are using the religious thing as a window dressing for their true emotions towards the issue. I think those people who are against civil unions as well are just being mean and hateful. Why else would they want to deny a group basic rights, whether they agree or disagree with their lifestyle?
The problem is, you're thinking rationally about it when the situation is anything but.
It's all about pressing their religion on to you. They don't like homosexuality because (in their belief) god hates it. Now you (whether or not you subscribe to their POV) will suffer for their idiocy.
I think some people just can't stand the whole "land of the free" thing. I really don't think they want it unless it suits them.
BINGO! It's really "land of the free"*
*applies only to those whom I believe deserves it.
Originally posted by lardmouth So how are Bi-sexual marital relations to work? They have a natural predisposition to both sexes. It would be a terrible thing to force them to reject that in order to marry, right? They'd have to choose only one gender of their sexual identity, after all. So, should it be worked out that each bisexual is able to marry two people? One of each gender? Surely the arbitrary notion that two people make a marriage should be pushed aside? It would seem to me that the number of people is more of a whim then the gender.
Well marriage doesnt force the couple to make sex ONLY with each other , in fact there is more and more swingers around... and some of them up to man-man girl-girl swaps
Comments
Next time someone tells you that homosexuality is a sin, ask them why. Then when they give you one of those lame ass reasons ask them to show you specifically where it says that in the Bible. Then you can find out.
Most likely they'll say just because after that. Or give you some drawn out reasoning behind them extrapolating there reason. I'm sure extrapolated completely free from any of their bias.
This site really needs work. dbl post.
===============================
Look...
It's called a "wedge-issue."
It never mattered if it was passed or not. It's just cotton candy for you idiots to keep your eyes off of the real issues. Same thing with the immigration debate. No one really cares. And if they do care, they need to get a life.
I want to have the same legal rights as a man and woman. I don't like girls. Don't want to marry one. But I should at least have some kind of legal document that me and my partner can know will protect us. A civil union would be fine. You don't have to call it marriage.
--------------------------------------
Yes should be able to marry your loved one ...
Sadly this country is becoming less and less tolerant and the tide wont turn back..
Unfortuanately, it is easier to be hateful and ignorant then face the real issues.
I hear the Netherlands are nice
And, black people just eat fried chicken.
Actually, if gays were allowed to marry, wouldn't that ruin the homosexual culture?
You guys and gals would get boring
And, black people just eat fried chicken.
Of all the groups that you could pick out to be the most peaceful, I think us gays would probably rank up on the top. Not trying to sound arrogant, but we really haven't engaged in too much violence or bloodshed in our existence. Yet we are the most demonized these days. Go figure.
Well.... there was that Alexander the Great thing and the Spartans. Sorry about that. But, you can't win them all.
Is that what everyone is so mad at us about. Alexander the Great and the Spartans?
--------------------------------------
Well, since homosexuality has yet to define itself in any major way, it is hard to determine if they have engaged in much violence or bloodshed. It's not like there are statistics on gay violence like there is for teen violence, [insert race] violence, etc. Stating that gays are most "peaceful" is misleading also, but no need to get into that.
Gays are the most demonized? Hmm, I think Muslims or immigrants might argue with you there. And considering that gay marriage is even recognized as an issue is a step up from where "you" were 20 years ago.
Alexander the Great.... IMO pretty irrelavant. Many military societies from the Middle East and Far East have considered acts of sodomy to be a part of service and acceptable for quite some time.
Yes they have.
Haven't you ever heard of:
FAAABULOSSSS!!
Well, since homosexuality has yet to define itself in any major way, it is hard to determine if they have engaged in much violence or bloodshed. It's not like there are statistics on gay violence like there is for teen violence, [insert race] violence, etc. Stating that gays are most "peaceful" is misleading also, but no need to get into that.
Gays are the most demonized? Hmm, I think Muslims or immigrants might argue with you there. And considering that gay marriage is even recognized as an issue is a step up from where "you" were 20 years ago.
Alexander the Great.... IMO pretty irrelavant. Many military societies from the Middle East and Far East have considered acts of sodomy to be a part of service and acceptable for quite some time.
Has yet to define itself in a major way?!?!?!
What do you mean? We define ourselves in a mumbo jumbo major way. We love people of the same sex. If that's not a big defining factor then I don't know what is.
I think I may have missed your point there. Have heterosexuals defined themselves in a major way? Well, just reverse that, and presto!!!
And since we have been persecuted, ostracized, and had major acts of violence placed upon us all throughout history, I think we've learned a little bit about what it feels like to be shunned. I know it's hard for you to imagine that feeling, but it ultimately ends up having a very liberating effect on your perspective of the world and human nature. Suddenly you see things and want to make them equal and peaceful. It's a really bad feeling being in a positition we're in, but it's also very enlightening.
--------------------------------------
You go girl!!
What do you mean? We define ourselves in a mumbo jumbo major way. We love people of the same sex. If that's not a big defining factor then I don't know what is.
I think I may have missed your point there. Have heterosexuals defined themselves in a major way? Well, just reverse that, and presto!!!
And since we have been persecuted, ostracized, and had major acts of violence placed upon us all throughout history, I think we've learned a little bit about what it feels like to be shunned. I know it's hard for you to imagine that feeling, but it ultimately ends up having a very liberating effect on your perspective of the world and human nature. Suddenly you see things and want to make them equal and peaceful. It's a really bad feeling being in a positition we're in, but it's also very enlightening.
Um, yes you missed my point. In context, that statement is regarding statistics. So I guess I should have said: Sexual preference statistics are not factored in gathering most of the data available on violence, unlike race, sex, previous criminal convictions, and age. Saying that "we haven't engaged in too much violence and bloodshed in our existance," is unverifiable and stereotypical to say the least.
I didn't say or imply that heterosexuals were defined in the context above. Originally I stated age and race as examples of defined areas of data.
Lastly, I am slightly offended that you imply that I cannot be "liberated and enlightened" without being gay. I find that an extremely ignorant comment for someone of such a higher plane of existance than me. For the record, I had a brother-in-law that died of AIDS in August 1997 after a difficult 3 year battle, of which my wife and I cared for him during a significant period. And my closest cousin happens to be in a civil union / same-sex marriage. No, I do not always share their social views. Yes, at times it has caused tension. But I am certainly enlightened and sympathetic to their hardships.
EDIT: And I in no way meant for that to come across as harsh as when I reread it. I just don't like when people feel that their own experiences must be unique to people who have encountered the exact same hardship. Hardship comes in many different forms and can be equally enlightening.
For the record, since I was off-topic in my post, I will always be against the discrimination of any identifiable "minority" regardless of whether they are statistically "defined."
Damn byotch dat aint no friggn moon fool, dat be a friggn space station byotch.
What do you mean? We define ourselves in a mumbo jumbo major way. We love people of the same sex. If that's not a big defining factor then I don't know what is.
I think I may have missed your point there. Have heterosexuals defined themselves in a major way? Well, just reverse that, and presto!!!
And since we have been persecuted, ostracized, and had major acts of violence placed upon us all throughout history, I think we've learned a little bit about what it feels like to be shunned. I know it's hard for you to imagine that feeling, but it ultimately ends up having a very liberating effect on your perspective of the world and human nature. Suddenly you see things and want to make them equal and peaceful. It's a really bad feeling being in a positition we're in, but it's also very enlightening.
Um, yes you missed my point. In context, that statement is regarding statistics. So I guess I should have said: Sexual preference statistics are not factored in gathering most of the data available on violence, unlike race, sex, previous criminal convictions, and age. Saying that "we haven't engaged in too much violence and bloodshed in our existance," is unverifiable and stereotypical to say the least.
I didn't say or imply that heterosexuals were defined in the context above. Originally I stated age and race as examples of defined areas of data.
Lastly, I am slightly offended that you imply that I cannot be "liberated and enlightened" without being gay. I find that an extremely ignorant comment for someone of such a higher plane of existance than me. For the record, I had a brother-in-law that died of AIDS in August 1997 after a difficult 3 year battle, of which my wife and I cared for him during a significant period. And my closest cousin happens to be in a civil union / same-sex marriage. No, I do not always share their social views. Yes, at times it has caused tension. But I am certainly enlightened and sympathetic to their hardships.
EDIT: And I in no way meant for that to come across as harsh as when I reread it. I just don't like when people feel that their own experiences must be unique to people who have encountered the exact same hardship. Hardship comes in many different forms and can be equally enlightening.
For the record, since I was off-topic in my post, I will always be against the discrimination of any identifiable "minority" regardless of whether they are statistically "defined."
Hey, no offense taken.
But what I meant was that you can't completely understand something until you've experienced it yourself. It's got nothing to do with being elite or whatever. It's just experience.
You lost someone to AIDS. I've never known anyone who has it (believe it or not, even though I'm gay). I couldn't know what that is like. I could imagine how bad it hurts and the struggle dealing with watching them die, but I'm not even going to begin to say I can know exactly what it feels like.
I have gone through a lot being gay. From mild stuff like being called names to being hospitalized in high school for two weeks and almost dying from being beaten up by some kids from my school. That stuff wears on your self-esteem after a while. It also changes your perspective of the world.
I don't think I'm better than you for having gone through that. So please don't get that idea.
And as far as homosexuals being violent. C'mon man. Just use personal experience. When's the last time you saw a gay guy start a fight or commit any kind of violent act. About the worse violence that we're usually bound to commit is on ourselves.
--------------------------------------
i still find it amazing that in the land of the free you are everything but.
As a straight male i have zero problem with "gay marriage" in the uk its called a civil partnership and it gives you the same legal rights as a hetro couple but then you have to say why are the god bothers fighting this, IF its a sin and they belive god gave us "free will" then they will all burn in hell anyway? so just what is there problem?
oh for the one or two of you that sometimes miss the point the burn in hell bit was a joke
Tin Foil hats dont work.. its all a conspiracy
I consider the whole "Civil Union" a seperate-but-equal policy. Look how well those wen't over in the 60's
==========================
But, believe it or not, I can understand where the religious groups are coming from. And I know that they hold their "marriage" truly to their hearts. I'm okay with that though. It's their interpretation of something important to them.
But what I don't understand is that if you ask people who are against gay marriage what they think of civil unions, most of them are against that also. That's where they lose me. It tends to make me think that most of the people who are saying they're against gay marriage are using the religious thing as a window dressing for their true emotions towards the issue. I think those people who are against civil unions as well are just being mean and hateful. Why else would they want to deny a group basic rights, whether they agree or disagree with their lifestyle?
I think some people just can't stand the whole "land of the free" thing. I really don't think they want it unless it suits them.
--------------------------------------
But, believe it or not, I can understand where the religious groups are coming from. And I know that they hold their "marriage" truly to their hearts. I'm okay with that though. It's their interpretation of something important to them.
But what I don't understand is that if you ask people who are against gay marriage what they think of civil unions, most of them are against that also. That's where they lose me. It tends to make me think that most of the people who are saying they're against gay marriage are using the religious thing as a window dressing for their true emotions towards the issue. I think those people who are against civil unions as well are just being mean and hateful. Why else would they want to deny a group basic rights, whether they agree or disagree with their lifestyle?
I think some people just can't stand the whole "land of the free" thing. I really don't think they want it unless it suits them.
Strangely men and women can marry without even entering a church (divorced couples for example CANNOT marry again in any church) so tell me, what does marriage have to do with religion/faith... everybody should be able to MARRY, why find another word for it, it's just more of the same discrimination... i dont see what the religious zealots have anything to do with marriage anymore, since times changes, as we can see by the acceptance of divorce, 2nd marriage childs are no longer bastards anymore too, and ppl arent burn down for believing another religion, using herbal medicine or even having a black cat...
But, believe it or not, I can understand where the religious groups are coming from. And I know that they hold their "marriage" truly to their hearts. I'm okay with that though. It's their interpretation of something important to them.
I don't care what they want to do with their marriage. It's the point that they want to do what they want with your marriage. I can understand it too...it's the same attitude these people have with pressing their religion on others. It's about power and spreading their religious dogma....freedom be damned.
And then of course all the less extreme sheep go along with the flock because their leaders bend the argument in such a way as If You're For Gay Marriage You're Against God....*shock* *gasp*....who could be against god??????
hehe..those sheep will believe anything, I tell ya.
Anyway..that's my opinion on the matter.
But what I don't understand is that if you ask people who are against gay marriage what they think of civil unions, most of them are against that also. That's where they lose me. It tends to make me think that most of the people who are saying they're against gay marriage are using the religious thing as a window dressing for their true emotions towards the issue. I think those people who are against civil unions as well are just being mean and hateful. Why else would they want to deny a group basic rights, whether they agree or disagree with their lifestyle?
The problem is, you're thinking rationally about it when the situation is anything but.
It's all about pressing their religion on to you. They don't like homosexuality because (in their belief) god hates it. Now you (whether or not you subscribe to their POV) will suffer for their idiocy.
I think some people just can't stand the whole "land of the free" thing. I really don't think they want it unless it suits them.
BINGO! It's really
"land of the free"*
*applies only to those whom I believe deserves it.
==========================
Well marriage doesnt force the couple to make sex ONLY with each other
, in fact there is more and more swingers around... and some of them up to man-man girl-girl swaps 