Make your own using our Graph Builder or upload your own files, images or videos. All our charts are user-submitted.
« Previous Zits by Social Engagement | Relative Distance from Teacher VS. Me Doing Work Next »
 |
 |  |  | | | | | | |  |
Music & Culture for
People Who Love Charts
Make your own using our Graph Builder or upload your own files, images or videos. All our charts are user-submitted.
« Previous Zits by Social Engagement | Relative Distance from Teacher VS. Me Doing Work Next »
Win. Simple as that.
My thoughts exactly.
Best. Graph Jam. Ever.
wurddd
they forgot “Baby jesus cries”
They also forgot “the rapture”.
Still, awesome graph
If California wants to protect the sanctity of marriage, they should ban celebrity marriage.
and close the border with Nevada
I live in Nevada; this would be cool with me.
Pro gay-marriage, just anti hippie. ^_^
Hah. Nevada is home to Burning Man. There’s no way to rid yourselves of hippies. It’s not even like they do damage. I can think of way worse groups of people.
I’m in Nevada, and am tired of Californian ways seeping over here.
border closure idea Win.
they also forgot “The Wolrd Blows Up”
hey, what wrong with californian ways? is being cool not a good way for you? hmm?!?
Nevada is EXACTLY like California. This is all one country. Act American, not….. Nevadian…. xD Nevada sucks. The only good thing you have is gambling and whores.
hey im from california and i completely disagree with the prop. 8 choice…
Prop 8 choice is an oxymoron
*falls out of chair laughing*
*Falls off of airplane laughing, lands in ocean laughing, shark eats laughing, becomes laughing poop*
WIN.
He also forgot Ragnarök, the blashpeming idiot :p
Holy shit, Oden’s gonna be pissed…
Odin is pissed that you spelled his name wrong.
I think he was talking about Greg Oden.
In swedish, it’s Oden. As the vikings, I am nordic, so I don’t think Oden minds how I spell his name…
In swedish, it’s Oden. And the vikings were nordic, so I don’t think he’d mind the way I spell his name.
odin is pissed at you either way–having only one eye does that to a guy, and does it even more when that guy’s nordic.
wow off topic much? lol
they 4got nuke bomb blows up da world
jason, at this point, do you think odin is EVER happy?
hey molly, is fenrir portrayed as evil by nordic people? he seems more misguided than he is completely evil.
Judgement Day Begins = The Rapture, silly
they did say judgement day
I’d have included it as “John 11:35.” Just to get a Christian dog-whistle in there
BOOYAH.
BANG!
Brilliancy on it’s own!
You have summed it up perfectly my dear.
I respectfully disagree.
http://graphjam.com/2009/04/23/song-chart-memes-rick-astley/
so youre saying that gays marrying is a bad thing?
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/consequence
Consequences aren’t always bad, it’s like a synonym to result.
It’s just the effect of something.
Best graph ever. I agree!
You can graph the same with Civil Unions.
This is also a stupid pissing contest. They can enjoy of the rights of legal “misery” by calling this a civil union. Eskimos have over a 1/2 dozen names to describe snow, “marriage” is between a man and a woman. Stop being whining about it.
THEY?!? Is that not similar to “that one”?!? Whining?! F you. How dare you insist that I get less than what you do. Try reading the Constitution of this country. Civil Unions = Civil Marriage moron.
P.S. Try looking into your heart and see why it is you hate gay people so much.
Take that other fella dingy out yo mouth and think! It’s because you had another fells’s dingy in your mouth. GAY means happy. What you are is QUEER, and illiterate since you don’t know queers are not gay.
Ummm…. lesbians would like to get married too, and there are no “fella dingies” involved.
And the word you are searching for is homosexual. And for the record, the use of the word “gay” to mean “homosexual” has nothing at all to do with one’s ability to read.
And many homosexuals are very happy.
Hey Jay Bell, if you want to properly insult someone (or at least have them take you seriously) you should try typing full words and come from an intelligent standpoint. What you’re saying sounds more like an emotional response driven by the desire to fit into a society thats just now starting to realize it’s flaws after a whole century of stupidity. It’s okay to like people just as people. Nobody is going to make fun of you for befriending a homosexual person and if they do make fun of you for it then you need to find new people to hang out with. This world is filled with beautiful people, we just need to open our eyes and hearts so that we can make this obsolete “hate” way of thinking in the past.
WOW…. that reply was the gayest thing I’ve heard. thanks for the life lesson thou mom!!
Since intelligent arguments aren’t working, let’s try this one for all the cranky homophobes out there: “Suck it Bitch!” Let people live their lives the way they want. As long as you’re not harming someone, there’s no reason to ban a behavior or life choice. People don’t try to sue you for screwing your farm animals. Reciprocate and allow other people to make their choices for themselves. Word.
What I don’t get is why some people are so threatened by gay marriage. They are going to only date other gays anyway; it’s not like some Bear is going to chase you down and drag you to an alter or something. Why make them unhappy? My husband and I have never felt like our gay friends are trying to convert us, or take away the importance of our marriage (in fact, they were all about helping us celebrate it), or threaten the foundations of our sexuality, sow WHAT is their problem? They just want what everyone else gets when they say “I do”: a reassurance that this person is MINE, and that our lives are now inextricably entwined.
Word.
Because to some of us, Marriage is a sacrament; a sacred oath made before God.
Asked and answered.
How about the separation between church and state, you cunt?
What does your phony “god” have to do with people getting LEGALLY married?
See, your church can marry whoever the fuck they choose to.
But getting LEGALLY married has nothing to do with religions or that kind of stupid shit.
Next time you go give an opinion based on your personal set of meaningless beliefs, think for a moment and then, shut the fuck up. Dumbass.
Word
If you want to argue the morality of getting married, you should think: people have been getting married in churches, in front of God (where the preist reads from the bible, the same book that says homosexuality is a sin), for thousands of years, long before the idea of getting married in the town hall. Also; you, me, and everyone else here, is here because of a man and a woman (who SHOULD be married before having kids) not homosexuals.
why the high divorce rates
Was the overnight marriage of B. Spears a sacramemt?
Some straight people get married by the justice of the
peace, the ship’s captain, or “Elvis”. These marriages doen’t
seem special at all. All gay (queer) people
are asking for is legal rights, and the privlege of standing
before family and friends and pledging their love and
commitment. If certain churches grant their blessing, so much
the better. But, that is up to the church doctrine. Why should
that bother some people so much anyway?
…and some of, who have duly undertaken that very sacrament, don’t see how our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters taking that very sacrament, BEFORE GOD, has changed our lovely heterosexual marriage one whit.
Even after attending duly sanctified by state and God ceremonies RIGHT THERE IN CHURCH.
My husband and I are… hold onto your hats people… still married. Still filing our taxes, jointly. Still raising our children. Really… still functioning as always.
Yea. You read that right. Our gay and lesbian friends were married in a church. A Christian church. Before God.
And what God has brought together, let no one rend asunder.
Apparently God loves everyone equally, right?
So why should he place heterosexual couples any higher than homosexual couples?
If everyone is equal in God’s eyes, then why should Christians be prejudiced against gays?
I’m not saying that all Christians are homophobic, or that all homophobes are Christian, but it seems to me that being homophobic is technically against Christian religion. Judge not lest ye be judged, right?
Not that I’m speaking from any sort of position of experience. I’m a straight atheist, but if anyone can give me an answer, I am genuinely interested.
But God, like you’ve said… Doesn’t exist
Then I guess you not-so-forward-thinking Christian folks (not all Christian folks, just the not-so-forward-thinking ones) should not have written your religious sacrament into secular law, where it is now legally required to be applied equally to all citizens per the Constitution. Duh.
Hegemeny-bites-you-on-the-ass. Win.
hey wizprang.. that “marriage is a sacrament.” is a pile of b.s. and you know it. it’s so so gay!
also, why yall so down on cali?!?! i think its only the nevada people because they are deprived of the magnificent ocean!! I see it right now!!
and btw… you can marry anyone you want in church at elvis, at city hall. love is great no matter who you are or who you love…let’s celebrate it. and the ignorant fool who said that marriage is responsible for babies..what are you smoking!! I agree that you prolly got married after you were pregnant!!!
That holy sacrament only works if you believe in the teachings from which sacraments are drawn. By that reasoning, non-religious marriages of any strip would be forbidden. Precluding others of the civil benefits of marriage equality by codifying religious criteria is barred by the US Constitution. Unfortunately, a complaint has to reach the US Supreme Court before it can be adjudicated. And, I’d be loathe to have it heard in front of the same court, or close enough with even more disingenuous conservatives sitting it, that claimed GWB earned the presidency in 2000. Regardless, it’ll be eventually overturned, but on the equal protection clause, privacy and the same issues that overturned Jim Crowe, school segregation and interracial marriage.
It’s only a matter of time. You see, religious prohibition to marriage equality are not enough reason to bar civil marriage equality according to the US Constitution. Mere public opinion has been proven time and again to fall short as reason enough to deny any group of people living in the US of rights enjoyed by any others without a compelling reason to do so. The separation of church and state essentially means that religion does not exist as a reason to deny anybody any manner of rights whatsoever.
i have a feeling that your a homosexual.
I have a feeling YOU’RE not a grammarian… and you probably smell bad.
Try reading the constitution yourself. There is no mention of marriage whatsoever, and there is a clause that says any powers not specifically given to the federal government is delegated to the states
Sorry, I am not against gay marriage, but it annoys the shit out of me when people say read the constitution, and what they mentioned is nowhere in the constitution
the part that says, anything not specifically mentioned is delegated to the states is written there though, quite clearly.
Oh I know, Im just sick of hearing “Gays have the right to marry, it is in the constitution”
Constitutional reference fail
I would like you to grab the nearest copy of the Constitution (here is some assistance: http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html), open it up to Amendment One (for lazy folks: http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am1), and read. People in this country have the legal right to freedom of religion, and therefore freedom from religion. The Constitution calls for seperation of Church and State, and declares that every law in this country must be base solely upon legal merit, and not upon religion. Saying that same-sex couples are unable to take advantage of the benefits provided by civil unions is a denial of Constitutionally granted, unalienable rights.
Another quick note: Along with marriage comes civil union, but not the reverse. Civil union is a legal term, while marriage is a religious one. The point is that same-sex couples are legally entitled to civil unions. The marriage portion of the ordeal is up to the religious establishment, and whether or not they choose to allow it or not.
Constitution Fail. Constitution never mentions separation of church and state… that was written in letters from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists outlining that the government wouldn’t create any laws pertaining to religion… (eg: naming a religion, telling churches what to do, and churches not telling the state what to do — because you can’t have separation of church from the state without having separation of the state from the church, it’s not a one-way street.).
However, you’re right. Marriage is up to religious establishments… but since there is that clarification of separation of church and state, the state cannot tell churches “you have to marry homosexuals.” Give ‘em civil unions… and if there’s churches out there who will perform a MARRIAGE… so be it… but don’t cry “separation of church and state!” and be a hypocrite by not acknowledging the fact it’s a two way street. (that’s not meant towards you Anthony.)
Wrong:
“no state shall … deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”.
Well the Constitution says the separation of church and state, so the issue of gay marriage should be straight forward. That means that people who say “marriage is a holy union” have no basis if someone else does not believe in that religon.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/10/keith-olbermanns-prop-8-s_n_142862.html
It does NOT say that! Go back & read the 1st Amendment.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
NOWHERE does it say separate, only not established. This was done to make sure we didn’t have the establishment of a state church like the Church of England.
It doesn’t use those words, but the intent, as Thomas Jefferson stated, was to create a wall of separation between church and state.
Well stated Exatron. Moreover, what jwdoke is saying is that the intent of this statement (in the first ammendment) was to keep the government from making laws regarding religion so that religion could be freely exercised by individuals, i.e., there would be no government telling them what they did or didn’t have to believe in. By legislating against gay marriage, the government is essentially telling everyone they have to abide by the rules of the Bible or other religious texts. Sorry, but the framers of the constitution definitely intended for the government NOT to be basing their laws on religious texts.
There was nothing in the constitution about slavery. Amendments had to be written into it in order to ban the practice. A strict interpretation of the constitution prior to the emancipation proclamation may have led one to view the constitution as being in support of slavery, as Justice Taney interpreted it in Dred Scott v. Sandford.
The constitution must change with adapting social norms.
I think you are wrong.
Meyer V State of Nebraska:
“The problem for our determination is whether the statute, as construed and applied, unreasonably infringes the liberty guaranteed to the plaintiff in error by the Fourteenth Amendment. “No State shall . . . deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”
While this Court has not attempted to define with exactness the liberty thus guaranteed, the term has received much consideration and some of the included things have been definitely stated. Without doubt, it denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint, but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”
Also, in Cali, Perez V Sharp makes it more explicit (If you didn’t see the word “marry” in the paragraph before) by saying that marriage is a fundamental right under the fourteenth amendment.
It also advocates the separation of church and state, meaning that the government shouldn’t be involved in sactioning OR criminalising any kind of marriage, gay or otherwise. The government should give EVERYONE, gay and straight, Civil Unions. If you want to get married, go to a church/synagogue/other house of religion, etc. I’m sure homophobic bigots will have no problem finding a church that refuses to marry gay people, and likewise, gay couples won’t have trouble finding sensible, open minded churches willing to marry them.
Thank you. Well said.
and black people were supposed to enjoy the same water as whites when they drank from separate drinking fountains, and enjoy the same buses as whites when they rode in the back of them. separate is NOT equal, and it is amazing that people like you still exist considering the history of our species and the numerous examples of your thought process being proven wrong with decades, if not centuries of guilt and resentment that follow the end of such stupid intolerance towards a given group.
WIN
Believing that marriage is a union between one man and one woman is not intolerance for a gay person. As a people we have determined that there are behaviors that are abnormal, behavoirs that are born, innate, but still abnormal, and we treat those behaviors. To say that a gay person is abnormal is not my intention, but I do believe that the human body’s essential function is reproduction; and any variant to reproduction, no matter how pleasurable, is abnormal.
Also, you can hardly make an argument that banning Gay Marriage is the equivalent to Slavery. Those who are opposed to Gay Marriage are not opposed because they feel gays do not deserve the same rights as non-gays; they are trying to preserve marriage as our biological nature has determined.
I realize that this next statement is pretty extremist, but humor me if you will. If being gay was the norm, after time, our species would cease to exist; if supporting gay rights wasn’t so popular right now I think more people would see that.
KELLY –
I do believe that the human body’s essential function is reproduction
You do not believe that the human body eats?
You do not believe that the human body breathes?
You do not believe that the human body produces waste (from eating, breathing and reproduction)?
Is not the essential function of the human body to sustain it’s own life?
People are not saying gay marriage is the equivalent of slavery – they are saying that the same argument applies – namely that the basic right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness trumps the imposition of non-sensical, exclusionary and discriminatory practicies of the State.
If being gay was the norm, after time, our species would cease to exist
Furthermore, being gay (or homosexual, more accurately) does not mean you cannot reproduce, it means that you like to have sex, find happiness and conduct your life from a same-sex centered world view.
Homosexual does not mean you are infertile. And, there are enough people in the world (but perhaps not enough consumers…).
“(People) are trying to preserve marriage as our biological nature”
According to your comment in the entirety, you would prefer to be a female human being, living in a harem, where your sole function would be to get farked – and then rationalize this as human being’s “biological nature”.
Does this not sound extreme to you?
Ehh every one of your rebuttels are quite flawed. I’ll start by saying I support gay marriage, but from a COMPLETELY logical standpoint all humanity/emotion aside, Kelly is correct.
We eat, breathe, and as a consequence yes we produce waste. The reason we eat and breathe is to grow to maturity and produce offspring. That is the ultimate purpose, the culmination of our entire existence. It’s why we go to school and get jobs, so we can support a family and pass on our genetic information as a species. Homosexuallity is an abnormallity.
Someone DID compare banning gay marriage to slavery.
Two married males or two married females might as well be infertile. Kelly’s argument was the hypothetical that if gay was the norm. Elementary biology, it takes a fertile MALE and fertile FEMALE to produce a child. The only way for humans to continue living would be to force couples into in vitro fertilization, and have the women carry some other person’s child. Think that would go over well? And what do you mean there are enough people in the world lol yes maybe, but if all were homosexual they would ALL be gone in one lifetime.
Preserving monogomy to preserve our species is the exact opposite of what you described. We thrive on monogomy because it leads to more investment in the well-being of the offspring. I don’t know where you got this harem idea..
Banning gay marriage on the basis of fertility and preservation of the
species is illogical. Many men and women are infertile, and we allow
them to marry if they are part of a heterosexual couple! Marriage is
more than for reproduction. Many couples also choose not to have
children and they use birth control or even have permanent surgeries
to make children an impossibility. Legalizing gay marriage would not
make everyone in the world gay. Nobody is saying everybody has to
be gay. We’re just advocating for a different way of life. There will
be plenty of monogamous couples and plenty of gay couples whether
gay marriage is legalized or not. It’s not about reproduction, but about
their rights as human beings capable of loving, committed relationships.
Nor did I say everyone had to be gay if it was legal. It was hypothetical to show that being gay is an abnormallity. Just like many other inherited conditions. I believe in giving equal rights to gays the same as a Down syndrome person. A key part of my whole post was “all humanity/emotion aside” ie strictly logical and evolutionarily speaking. (And mainly, it was meant to refute a lot of the improper assumptions and accusations made by PNug at Kelly)
I mean, without humanity and emotion where would we be? We would simply kill off people with physical and mental retardations because they’re a burden on society. From pure logic, the reason I could see for keeping gays around, although not contributing directly to propogating the species, could be to care for others’ offspring. So you see, even from a logical standpoint there is good reason for a gay marriage; to foster children that need it. But it still is not “normal”..
And on a side note, in my opinion couples who choose not to have children baffle me. Coming together and creating something that is uniquely a part of you and your spouse is the greatest feeling and most meaninful thing you can acheive in life..
sorry guys…..but i believe your well-thought-out arguments would be better off heard somewhere else besides a forum for funny pictures…..
I agree with yeah’s comment. These are all thought-out arguments, but they do belong on another site. Or blog. Or whatever/wherever. This site is for viewing funny pictures of cats or dogs or inopportune political moments. Let’s keep it that way
So why are you guys reading the comments and commenting on them instead of looking at the picture and moving along?
Homosexuality actually occurs frequently in other species, as an evolutionary safeguard when a population threatens to outgrow its habitat’s sustainability.
It is “normal,” just not incredibly common percentage-wise. Furthermore, there is no non-religious reason to deny homosexuals the same rights afforded by legal marriage as heterosexuals. And no, civil unions do NOT have the same rights; they have a portion of them, but are still severely limited.
Thank you. A smart one among the rest.
We don’t outgrow our habitats. We just make new ones.
As to your second argument, we don’t need “gay marriage” so much as we need “gay partner rights”…
Baffled or not, it is still our right to choose whether we breed or not. Just like gays have the right to choose to pledge their life to someone of the same sex.
I’m sure it is, but my husband and I are happy being child-
less. Hell, we’re both 25. Having a husband AND a child, at this
point in my life, would be redundant!
Besides, adoption is meaningful too, especially for the adopted
child. The adopted child knows that he or she didn’t wind up with
this family by choice; this child was chosen specifically by parents
who were ready to welcome a child into their lives.
I have another comment that talks about homosexuality being
convenient–here’s another way it is. A lot of gay couples want to
adopt. They have to meet the same standards of heterosexual
couples or singles regarding financial and other stability. Also,
many gay couples are willing to adopt special needs children. I’m
not saying calling homosexuals themselves convenient. That would
be arbitrarily assigning them a purpose. But their homosexuality
is. They usually don’t have kids of their own, and they’re willing
to raise the orphaned and abandoned children of straights.
“And on a side note, in my opinion couples who choose not to have children baffle me. Coming together and creating something that is uniquely a part of you and your spouse is the greatest feeling and most meaninful thing you can acheive in life..”
Not everyone feels that way. I would rather a couple stay childfree than conceive a child they may never grow to love. And there are other reasons for marrying than children.
This entire argument is missing the reality, which is that the human race is in NO DANGER of going extinct due to lack of reproduction. The things threatening our species are our own wasteful practices, not gay marriage. To insinuate that gay marriage threatens the survival of the species is flat out ridiculous. We’re swarming this planet. We’re in no danger of dying off simply for lack of reproduction.
Furthermore, if there were a nuclear holocaust, and 10 people left on the planet, there would STILL be no reason from a species survival standpoint to ban homosexual activity. It would be reasonable to ENFORCE heterosexual activity that could lead to reproduction, but whether or not people also had gay relationships would be irrelevant
Only 10% or less of the world’s population is exclusively
heterosexual. There are roughly seven billion people on the planet.
Absolutely a homosexual can pair with someone of the opposite sex
for the purposes of reproduction, but most don’t have children of
their own blood. From a population, and population density, issue, this
is incredibly CONVENIENT. The world does not need seven billion
people. There will always be couples who have more than two kids,
and they balance out the numbers. A lower birth rate would mean a
lesser population, and a lesser population makes it easier for there to
be enough food to go around.
Ignore the stupid, irrational concept of sin. Homosexuality is
CONVENIENT.
Where to begin? I guess I’ll start from the top. The completely logical standpoint is more flawed then the completly emotional standpoint. Homosexuality is no more an abnormality than Democracy was back in the late 1700s. I won’t even touch the comment on effective infertalisation of homosexuals. The harem idea came from him\her using logic. Is the harem, where they only live for sex, any better then a homosexual couple?
A pair of lesbians I know in San Francisco had a circle jerk party among their gay friends and used a turkey baster. Keeping tabs on her temperature, they timed it just right and it took on the first try. Little Maia is fifteen now. She also has a younger brother and sister, too.
That means IVF is unnecessary. Nobody forced anybody into anything. It was a party and a great time was had by all. The baby had the biggest group of godfathers in history and every birthday, Christmas, Easter, and July 4th have been jam packed with love and familial sharing. Think of all the presents!
My sister and her wife have finalized adoption of my sister-in-law’s nephew whose unmarried mother was unable to care for the child due to medical issues. Two working, responsible, loving mommies are better than one unstable, medically challenged one, don’t you think?
It’s that kind of stuff that proves anti-gay marriage sentiment and claims at its destructive propensity toward the common good to be alarmist tripe. These families deserve all the protections and advantages recognized heterosexual unions enjoy. The equal protection clause of the US Constitution will someday soon assure that they shall.
So, Kelly, what you’re saying when you say that “any variant to reproduction, no matter how pleasurable, is abnormal” is that you’re against, pre-marital sex, contraception, and any kind of sexual pleasure unless it is with the end goal in mind of making babies?
Cause if that’s what you’re saying, THAT is abnormal. Abnormal has a statistical definition, meaning that it is within a certain chunk of a bell curve, if you will. The idea that sex and sexual pleasure is ONLY appropriate when you’re wanting to babymake is a fringe idea, to say the least.
Using your argument….
Infertile people shalt not enjoy the sacrament (AND legal benefits) of marriage either.
People who, for whatever reason, have determined they would make lousy parents and have done whatever is necessary to insure they do not reproduce… not qualified for marriage?
I am very clear on the biology of boys and girls. But I would argue, probably more like tilting at windmills, that on an evolutionary basis, homosexuality is more evolved for our species at this point in time. We have, most certainly, gone forth and populated the earth. But that’s really a specious argument to say that if there were only gays then the human race would cease to exist.
The point isn’t whether or not the human race will survive. I’m pretty sure we’re going to do ourselves in long before the entire world is born homosexual. The point is, do we deny rights to people on the basis of the simple fact that they are homosexual? Your answer may well be that it is indeed sufficient reason.
But when your rights are denied because a population has deemed YOUR preferences to be incompatible with their sensibilities, you need to sit down and quietly accept that POV and go along with it.
I can choose which house of worship I walk into. I cannot choose which gender I am attracted to.
The logical argument is that because I worship at the altar of Tiddlywinks, I should be denied the right to… {fill in the blank} because I have made an abnormal choice.
No?
Adding gay marriage to the governmentally recognized family structures in now way limits heterosexuals from practicing marriage the way they see fit. Breeders can keep on breeding. Religious people can keep looking down their collective noses at everybody who doesn’t accept their ‘true faith’ and can keep bending their impressionable children to their way of thought.
Adding gay marriage to governmentally recognized family structues merely increases the options among the population. Any claims that marriage equality threatens heterosexual unions is disingenuous, magical thinking, fear mongering nonsense.
I can think of a half-dozen words for snow in English. Snow, blizzard, sleet, slush, hail, frost. They’re all frozen precipitation, aren’t they?
And Eskimo is a very arbitrary word, it can be used to refer to pretty much any northern Native American tribe, not necessarily speaking the same language.
And whoever said that marriage is between a man and a woman? People also say a marriage between melody and rhythm in song, and unless you’re speaking French I’m pretty sure they aren’t men and women.
No, YOUR marriage is between a man and a woman. Perhaps even the Christian marriage is between a man and a woman. Yet, you can have a ceremony everyday in a different church for a year, but if you don’t have the marriage certificate, which is administered by the STATE at the local level, you’re still not married. Churches can and do refuse to perform marriage ceremonies all the time. Upholding rights for homosexual unions does not change that. So if you don’t want your church to perform weddings for gay people, then that’s your church’s business. It is NOT a religious institution’s place, however, to say who can receive the state’s permission to enter into matrimony.
Very well said! I wish more people realized this fact.
I would just like to put out there that Christian marriage does not have to be between a man and a woman. There are plenty of Christian churches that happily officiate marriages regardless of the sex of the newlyweds.
Just from someone who becomes sad when she hears people claim anything is “Christian” when what they really mean is either “christian extremist,” “Roman Catholic,” or “crazy.”
I am a Christian. I believe in God, Jesus, the Holy Ghost. I believe that we are not alone. I believe is that Jesus loves. Everyone.
I am a supporter of EQUAL rights for everyone. That means a state can define either: (a) civil marriage between any two consenting adults or (b) civil unions between any two consenting adults. Never both, and never with restriction. If civil union is good enough for homosexual couples, it’s good enough for me and my opposite-sexed husband.
My christian church officiated my marriage. And would happily officiate yours, regardless of the gender of your spouse-to-be.
You give me hope. Thank you.
On a slightly more cynical note, people waste loads of time complaining along the lines of ‘if you don’t believe what I believe, you’re going to Hell.’
People need to understand that (I’m Christian by the way.) EVERYONE deserves to go to Hell. Why? Because if you watched the activites on ANYONE who has ever walked this Earth, (with, in my opinion at least, the exception of Jesus) not ONE has managed to get to the other end of the road without breaking the rules. Tell me, can anyone who happens to read this comment tell me HONESTLY that you have never told a lie? Never stolen ANYTHING, even an extra cookie from the jar?
When God created Adam and Eve, he gave them one rule: don’t eat from that tree. You live in paradise, and you can do whatever you want, EXCEPT eat from that tree. And you know what they did? Ate from the damn tree. Later, he came to Moses and handed him new rules. 10 of them. And guess what? We went and broke those too.
So, in this seemingly unrelated rant, I have a point to make. Next time one of you braindead wastes of carbon decide to complain that gays should go to Hell, guess what? SO SHOULD YOU. Just be glad the only person who DIDN’T fuck up died for your ‘get into heaven free’ card.
And anyone who is non-Christian or simply doesn’t agree with me? Well, you’re entitled to your wrong opinion, as am I. See you in Hell.
well said. Jesus rocks. Christianity is a lie which shames the memory of Jesus.
I’m actually an atheist – so I do disagree with you, but I wanted to say that it’s really nice to see a thinking Christian! It’s rare to see (not in general, just on the internet). I respect your beliefs- and its good to hear an opinion that’s different than my own and not total gibberish.
Maybe I will see you in Hell. We should chat.
Just because the “church” endorses it, does the Bible? That is the standard of Christianity, not man’s decisions. In the end times, there are going to be a lot of false prophets in the pulpits leading people astray, and saying things that the people want to hear instead of the truth.
Leviticus 18:22
You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.
Romans 1:24-25
Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised.
Old and New Testament, the message is pretty clear. Christian marriage IS between man and woman.
I don’t hate gays. I have people who I love who are gay. God loves them, too. Anything that strays from HIS perfect standard is sin; whether it be stealing a pencil, gossipping, murder, or homosexuality. There is no “lesser” sin, it all misses the mark. That’s why Jesus came, to make a way for ALL people – “for all have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God” – to get to heaven and have reconciliation with God.
How many times did we think our parents were unfair when we were growing up when they wouldn’t let us do something? Just like a playground has rules to keep kids from getting hurt, so God’s rules are here to protect us. To protect us from disease, to protect us from physical, emotional, and spiritual hurt, and to protect us from hell and eternal separation from Him. That doesn’t sound like a killjoy to me.
How many times do the religious need to be told that the non-religious
don’t consider the Bible an authority? Quit quoting that moldy old book.
The Bible has no bearing on the law. Go read the constitution. That’s the
relevant document here.
Your view of a paternalistic deity is childish. Grow up and take
responsibility for your own morality, and quit trying to dictate someone
else’s. Even the Jesus of the gospels would tell all you homophobic
twits to get the beam out of your own eyes first.
Rock. The fuck. ON.
Leviticus 11:9-12 says:
9 These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.
10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.
Deuteronomy 14:9-10 says:
9 These ye shall eat of all that are in the waters: all that have fins and scales shall ye eat:
10 And whatsoever hath not fins and scales ye may not eat; it is unclean unto you.
Therefore, those who eat shrimp are sinners, and Christian churches should not endorse marriage between shrimp eaters. The bible says so! See?
The bible was also used to support laws prohibiting interracial marriage and integration. The bible can be selectively quoted to support almost any position.
Plus, there are some bible scholars who say that the Leviticus quote probably referred to pagan ritual male prostitution. Plus it doesn’t say anything about lesbians, so why not at least let women marry each other?
Thank You for that sensible comment
Here’s the thing – it’s all fine and good that the Bible says that, but not everyone believes in the Bible! Even if most of us do, this country is founded on the principle of NOT forcing people to believe what we believe, for any reason. Not everyone believes that God even exists, let alone that he is here to protect us from hell (or that hell even exists). Adhering to religious belief is an admirable thing, and so is trying to share that belief with others in a reasonable way. However, LEGISLATING one particular religion’s definition of sin simply goes against what the founding father’s intended.
Alluding to the Bible for us who don’t believe is like trying to convince us of something using a made up friend as proof.
“Yes water can turn into gold”
“No it can’t.”
“Yes it can, Jim right here says so.”
Jesus died to wash away the Old Testament sins. Rabbinical laws no longer applied to the followers of Christ.
Just sayin’……
There probably is no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.
After reading many of the coments thus far – I would like to just interject, for those who do believe in God (and those who don’t, too) – I find it impossible to reconcile what the Holy Bible teaches about homosexuality (it is called “an abomination”) with any Christian church condoning such a lifestyle. I question what that church calls Christianity. Jesus taught to hate sin – not the sinner. I do not hate or judge homosexuals – or heterosexuals – but the lifestyle they have CHOSEN is the issue. If they choose to openly declare they are living in a manner contradicting God’s law, they judge themselves.
WORD.
Same-sex marriage doesn’t affect my opposite-sex marriage in the slightest.
The only people who can harm my marriage are my husband and myself.
As for me and my home, the only effect of legalizating same-sex marriage
would be that my husband and I would be happier, because we would be in
a freer America. An America that both of us have taken the oath of enlistment
(at different times) to protect.
Marriage isn’t misery.
Well, it’s not something I support, but I don’t see why everyone’s getting in a tizzy over this.
(Then they’ll get divorces, and be sad like everyone else. DON’T DO IT!)
Uh… there is no such thing as “Eskimos”, unless you are talking about the Canadian Football League team in Edmonton, and I don’t think they give a rat’s arse about snow (unless they have to play in it, and thankfully they botched that up).
Northern peoples call themselves Inuit.
Excuse me, if you have so many issues with Homosexuals, you should take them up with your therapist. As for publicly stating your opinions: I don’t mind you doing so, just use proper English. “Stop being whining about it.” is not English, so until you can actually speak your native language properly, shut up, and butt out.
“Eskimo” also means ‘Raw Meat Eater’, and the Inuits don’t take too kindly to being called it.
I’m just saying.
marrage is between two people wh love eachother and want to spend the rest of their lives together. not just between men and women. you cant change how you feel about people in tha way.
we will stop fighting for our rights when people stop trying to take them away. we are just as much people as anyone else just with different interests that never hurt anyone
Thats alot of quotes…
okay so I was having this conversation with one of my friends, think of it this way. Interracial marriages weren’t supported just a few decades ago – and yes I know it was between a man and a women – but the point is, is that they didn’t believe their ‘marriage’ was not a real marriage either. Also, if some people think that gays are ‘unholy’, doesn’t god create everyone? he created them that way, so who are we to discriminate them? they are just like you or me or any one. I’m Catholic by the way. I really have no problem with Gays marrying.
they forgot ‘more AIDs’ and ‘higher divorce rate’ because we all know gay relationships last like 6 years. even gays acknowledge that.
HEY! Don’t be an @$$
loved that.
haha.
Okay, someone said this a while back, and this is directed at them but…I think it was Leviticus, thou shalt not lie with a man as one lies with a woman? Something like that.
Well I’m a woman.
If we interpret that as literally as you seem to be interpreting the bible, I can only have sex with women…
Or just lie in bed, but either way, I can’t do it with a man.
The bible is either sexist, or lying…
GAY!!!
LAME!!!!!! first
Nevermind… STILL LAME!!!!!!!!!!!
Yes, you are indeed very, very lame. Thank you for the notification.
So lame you are causing the polar ice caps to melt.
Lamer than an outgoing president.
I think Obama’s pretty outgoing… You saying he’s lame?
Understanding a common idiom fail.
[ducks]
ducks?
o i c wat u did their
Ducks? Where?
FIRE!!!!!!!!
OH GOD NOW THERE’S A FIRE TOO?!?!?!?!
Can we use the fire to roast the ducks? I have some oranges, we could make a nice sauce…
nom nom nom
mmmmmmmmmmmm roast duck!
I sure WISH the next four disastrous years were already over and he was outgoing.
Funny, I said that four years ago. Or was it eight???
you are an idiot this graph is not funny at all. It’s just hatefull.
How is it hatefull[sic]?
Well, if you’re a fundy, every disagreement is either hate-speech or persecution.
I’m not a fundy I just believe that there are some things that are funny and some that aren’t, this is one that isn’t to me.
Learn how to spell or else no one is going to take you seriously.
I wonder if you misunderstand the graph. It supports the idea that people in love should have the basic human right to marry, just like anyone else…
You know what is not funny? Having rights stripped away by “religious” BIGOTS. that is NOT FUNNY.
Its only bigotry when you hear something you don’t agree with right? Oh ok, I get it. I can’t say that I morally opposed to gay marriage without being a bigot, but we can bash the fundys out there because there route to happiness (religion) is not yours… I see.
bigots are people who are close minded. intolerant. like a zealot. the person above you had nothing against religious people, just bigoted religious zealots. and no, it’s not because we disagree with them. it’s because they aren’t for equality.
The problem with that line of reasoning is that your “path to happiness” seems to require that other people are less happy (i.e. they have the right to marry taken away). When that is the case, yes, your line of thinking is bigoted. I’ll grant that lumping all the “fundys” into the same group may also be bigotted (sp?), but I think in this case, when we’re talking about liberties being stripped away from gays by “fundys”, the latter bigotry is pretty understandable…
Actually the problem is when you decide to impose it on the rest of us. The fundamentalist route to their ideal world restricts even private behavior as well as choices that in fact have little to no impact on how you live your life. It does not leave room for others to embrace other value systems and attempts to co-opt their view of the world as “mainstream”. You also being awfully presumptuous, by the way. “Bigotry” does not cover all instances of disagreement.
I don’t know what a fundy is, so I’m not going to comment on that part. It’s not bigotry if you disagree with anything; bigotry is disagreeing with certain matters that have to do with civil rights related to race or sexual orientation. Disagreeing with desegregation (an effort to afford the same education to blacks as to whites) is easily classified as bigotry. Likewise, disagreeing with affording the same legal rights in the arena of marriage to straight and gay people is bigotry.
Moreover, you can disagree with it all you want, and the best way for you to do that is to NOT ENTER A GAY MARRIAGE. No one is forcing people to get gay married. The point of this graph is that other people getting gay married is going to have no effect on you whatsoever, which is why it’s strange that anyone other than gay people have an opinion on it at all. If you’re not gay, any law regarding gay marriage has no effect on you whatsoever, other than to possibly feed your bigotry.
you DID say hateful. plz to splain.
THIS GRAPH MAKES A TRUE STATEMENT!!!! and no you’re not HAHA fail
It isn’t a true statement. Gay’s being married = change the definition of marriage. Yes, I’m fundamental and proud of it. AND we don’t cry foul every time someone wants to do something different.
I have a right to believe that marriage is sacred, holy and the definition is not to be changed because someone thinks it ought to be. What gives them the right to be upset and intolerant of my beliefs? They want tolerance but give none? Hypocrisy! Tolerate gays? Sure. Love them? Sure. Allow them to force their theological changes on me? No way.
Saying they are getting married is a complete misunderstanding of the sanctity of marriage, the purpose of family and spouse. They can have their own religion that ignore my beliefs, and make their own biologically unsound decisions that goes again how many billion years of evolution and not choose to pass on their genes and infect eachother with incurable diseases…and thats fine. Straight people do stupid stuff like that all the time…and when they do, we try to tolerate that too. However, it is logically backwards to say that I must tolerate their beliefs and not say that they must tolerate mine. Who wins when to beliefs are polar opposites? To demand that one party is allowed to force their beliefs on someone else is heavily biased. Marriage is a religious belief. The state should butt out…and you should tolerate my right to believe as I do.
“I have a right to believe that marriage is sacred, holy and the definition is not to be changed because someone thinks it ought to be.”
–You are confusing religion with government.
Sure, you have that right, but I have the right to believe that a union between two people of the same sex is sacred & holy. What gives YOU the right to be upset and intolerant of MY beliefs?
Exactly. You do NOT have that right.
.
It is YOU who are changing the laws. All same-sex couples want are the same rights we should already be receiving.
.
Legislating same-sex marriages has NOTHING to do with religion. Get your church out of my house.
Thank you.
No, there is no seperation of religion and goverment. To say so would be to say that goverment enforces no moral value or judgement, but it does, and it must. So whose judgement and moral value will it support? Those whose moral values fall outside the voting people’s norm won’t be supported. Like prop 8 in california. Now those people are upset. Well, the majority voted to support the moral values and belief that MARRIAGE is the sacred union of a Man and a woman. For some it may not be a religious value. I could just be their personal value. In any case, the majority has spoken…and to the majority we will stand up to the preservation of our moral values.
Separation of Church & State, one of the cornerstones upon which the United States was founded.
Love it leave, my friend.
The Seperation of Church and State does not mean that the government can never mentin God, or that kids can’t pray in public school, or pledge allegiance to “one nation under God.” It means that the government can’t declare a Church of America, or say that Catholics or Jews or whoever can’t vote, etc. I think that people should get to vote on this issue. Let the majority decide it. I don’t understand the difference between a civil union and a marriage, since all churches/temples/mosques/etc. don’t perform gay marriages (they sometimes do blessings, however.) If you aren’t religious, what’s the difference between marriage and a civil union? None. The legal benefits are the same. Many people became unhappy with the changes made to public education, workplace hiring policy, and even bathroom use which followed in the wake of the legalization of gay marriage. It’s a valid concern.
Well, first off, separation of Church & State means that the US government canNOT legislate religion into law, which is exactly what VD is proposing.
.
There are two major reasons that the civil union idea fails.
.
#1 There is no form of civil union in the United States that grants ALL of the rights, privileges, & responsibilities that a marriage gives the couple. Therefore the idea that a civil union = marriage is incorrect. I know this to be a fact, because I cannot get my boyfriend a K-3 spouse visa.
.
#2 On a more ideological level, there is no way to avoid the inevitable Separate but Equal comparisons. For example…
“Many people became unhappy with the changes made to public education, workplace hiring policy, and even bathroom use which followed in the wake of the legalization of gay marriage.”
This statement might as well have come from 1950s. The Jim Crow laws didn’t work & neither do civil unions.
.
#3 “bathroom use”? wtf!?
Nobody wants to catch gay from the toilet seat. Which of course will only happen once gays are allowed to marry, then the gay disease will become even more virulent and resistant to all types of religious brainwashing and anti biotics!!!!
Honestly. What a crock of shit. Is understanding “separation of church and state” so damned hard?
Also, why can’t “marriage” be a sacred union between two people who love eachother? Isn’t love the most sacred thing of all? Or supposed to be anyway.. If I understood the bible correctly. It does say you can catch gay from the toilet seat in there, right?
*mutters under breath* moron
“I don’t understand the difference between a civil union and a marriage, since all churches/temples/mosques/etc. don’t perform gay marriages (they sometimes do blessings, however.)”
.
I could be wrong here, but I take this to mean that you think there are no churches that will marry a gay couple, right? Well, I know of at least one in my area that does. This is in a fairly rural, generally conservative area, so I have a hard time believing that there aren’t more churches like it in more liberal areas.
.
“If you aren’t religious, what’s the difference between marriage and a civil union?”
.
But some homosexuals are religious. I actually know one gay man and two lesbians who are pastors, and most of the homosexual people I know are churchgoers. You may not agree with their church’s stance on homosexuality, but it is still a church, they are still Christians, and they don’t feel like they’re nitpicking to ask for a marriage instead of a civil union.
GreatScott, what changes could possibly be made to public education, workplace hiring policies, and bathroom use as a result of gay marriage? What are you talking about?
Also, you seem to be describing what the separation of church and state means to YOU. What Jefferson meant by it, however, was something much more specific. To some people, it is offensive that they are made to pray to “God” or say the pledge of allegience including “God”. You better believe that if we tried to replace “God” with Allah or Yahweh people would freak out, because they don’t believe in these things! Well, guess what? Not everyone believes in a Christian God! There are people that do believe in Allah living in our country, and they have every right to be here. Why should we be forcing them to speak to a christian God?
Sure, where do you draw that line? The terrorist religiously believe they should be able to come kill us…so, we should stop all political action from stopping them, otherwise, the Govt is legislating religion. Hmmmm. So, there is a line eh?
You have that completely ass backwards. No one is saying their religion is wrong and no one is legislating their religion. Ok, well maybe SOME people are saying their religion is wrong but that is beside the point.
In fact, what we are doing, is preventing them from forcing their religion on us. If we say it’s ok for them to kill us because their religion says so, than we are making their religion law. Favouring their religion.
Oh, also anyone and any entity has the right to protect themselves from any form of violence, wherever that violence is coming from. You can sure as hell bet if someone tries to rape me because their religion says it’s ok that I am going to cut their balls off if I have to in order to protect myself.
Defense does not equal legislation.
Also, “holy wars” are not an excuse for war.
Here’s your line. When the religion decrees that it is going to infringe on the rights (the right to not be killed, for instance) of other people, that is where you draw the line. Legalizing gay marriage doesn’t infringe on anyone’s rights. If Adam and Steve or Mary and Jane are allowed to get married tomorrow, it doesn’t affect your rights one bit in any way. You can still practice your religion in the exact same way you did yesterday, vote, speak freely, bear arms etc. Why is this so hard for people to grasp???
The line is that we’re not making their religious BELIEF that it is justifiable to kill us illegal – what is illegal is the ACT of them actually killing us. It would be the same for any religious organisation. You better believe the government would have a problem with some offshoot of mainstream Christianity if they starting making child sacrifices. It’s when they DO THINGS that are illegal that we can intervene.
“No, there is no seperation of religion and government. To say so would be to say that government enforces no moral value or judgement. ”
Seriously? Moral value is exclusively religious for you?
As far as I know the United States are not necessarily Christian. In practice, yes, but not legally. Read your own constitution sometime.
Marriage is a social contract, and it’d be discrimination to deny a couple that just because they happen to be of the same sex.
(I’m Dutch. I’m proud to say we were the very first to legalize gay marriage. Hell has not broken loose since.)
Golly, Prince Valiant, didn’t you know that there are some Christian churches that marry gay couples? You probably did not, in fact, know that.
So, yes I do truly believe that the government should have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with marriage. It is, like you say, a religious institution. Therefore, the government should not deem some marriages legal and others illegal.
If the government ceased having anything to do with marriage, gay marriage would exist. Which is a good thing. Why is it bad if 2 gay people “marry?” What skin is it off your back. In the eyes of everyone they’re in some sort of “union” no?
As a raging lesbian who does intend to have a legal marriage one day, I submit that ValiantDefender doesn’t understand what we’re asking for at all.
We aren’t asking to be married in your churches. We don’t want anything to do with your ignorance. Make no mistake of that.
Aside from that, you’re arguing semantics. Definitions change all the time, especially those in the constitution. If the constitution never changed, we’d still have a lot of horrible things going on in this country.
You are more than welcome to have your opinion, and you are more than welcome to hold to your beliefs, but at least have the wherewithal and just plain BALLS to admit that your beliefs are discriminatory against an entire group of people.
Aside from that, how have heterosexuals kept the sanctity of marriage? Last I checked, the divorce rates were sky high.
Forgot to add — VD (teehee), if you find yourself able to define marriage in such a narrow, cold and, frankly, calculating manner?
You’re missing the point of marriage.
Read his posts. Its not ignorance to stand for what one believes. Just because others have bent over in the face of such peer pressure, there are still those who believe that the “lifestyle choice” of this group of people is just wrong.
Religiously = forbidden sin. To many this is absolute truth and has nothing to do with “ignorance”. In fact, your calling it ignorance means that you have no idea what those beliefs are. I have the Balls to tell you that Prophets of GOD have been saying this is wrong for 1000’s of years. Just because this is the modern era doesn’t mean that religion is suddenly discriminating. Those who truly believe in Jesus would feel that they are helping you to stop sinning. Even in the face of such hateful response. We don’t expect better treatment…after all, they crucified Jesus, and he was perfect.
Biologically = backwards. This is the opposite of passing on genetics. Sure, with modern knowledge you can go clone yourself, or use someone’s donated Gametes. But the whole “partner” is the same gender goes against biology.
Society – Well a vote was taken and we see the results. Stop trying to tell the majority they cannot have their right to stand by their belief.
You could try having the humility to admit that your lifestyle choice is your choice and its against years of moral values, norms, etc. This means your choice is going to make you stand out and be different. The more you stick it in other people faces or try to force them to acknowledge that they think your choice is OK, the more they will vocally tell you, they DON’T think its ok.
Personally believe people are free to make their own choices….just not free to choose the consequence.
“You could try having the humility to admit that your lifestyle choice is your choice and its against years of moral values, norms, etc.”
As long as there have been humans (and long before then, actually, as many species of animals exhibit homosexual behavior) there has been homosexuality. The “years of moral values, norms, etc.” of which you speak are a relatively new thing. So it might be more correct to say that the moral values which hold homosexuality to be wrong or abnormal are against EONS of nature.
And by the way, Jesus never once mentioned a word about the evils of homosexuality. He had a lot to say about loving your neighbor and not judging them… and as such, my guess is he probably would have been ok with gay marriage.
Okay okay okay…. Jesus did hang out with prostitutes, tax collectors, and other sinners (and yes, homosexual acts are sinful according to God (and let us not forget that Jesus was God’s son). And yeah, he said to not judge people. But he never said it was okay to sin. He hung out with the sinners, very simply put, to be a good influence on them. To show them of God’s love and the importance of living a Godly life, and to repent of that sin. He didn’t say, “Say Mary, I’m totally cool with you being a prostitute.” No.. it didn’t work like that.
But you’re missing out on the judgement part. If you believe it is a sin, don’t engage in it. Not judging means allowing other people to decide for themselves what sin is, and being accepting of their decisions whether or not you would choose to do the same.
And just to make it clear, unless the above insinuated this: homosexuality is not a choice.
Even if sexuality is a lifestyle choice, then it should enjoy the same legal protection that other lifestyle choices enjoy. For example, RELIGION is a lifestyle choice which we rigorously protect under the law. Homosexuality should recevie that SAME protection based on the precedence set by religion.
“Personally believe people are free to make their own choices….just not free to choose the consequence.”
–Don’t be gay, or we’ll kill you.
See, charro? I win, lol.
.
This argument is fail because the fault (the hate & violence) comes from ignorance, NOT homosexuality.
Therefore, there is no negative consequence from choosing to be gay.
I’m going to toilet paper your house.
so am i
No, not “Don’t be gay, or we’ll kill you.” That’s not what he was saying at all.
He meant, “If you choose to be gay, you won’t ever be able to be considered married.”
Stop trying to say that ALL people who do not want homosexuals to be married are homophobes and are going to be violent towards them. It’s simply not true.
If only it were a choice. Did you choose to be straight by actively choosing not to be gay? I did not choose not to be straight. If I could have, I may have chosen to be straight because it would make my life easier. Being gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered is not a choice. Belonging to a religion, however, is. Please do not impose your talk of God and Jesus in my legal rights. I believe in both, actually, and my relationship with God tells me that he loves me for exactly who I am. And isn’t your personal relationship with God the most important measure for whether or not he accepts your marriage? And either way, I’m not after a religious marriage. I am after the same legal rights with my future wife as any man would have with his. Legal rights, full stop.
Are you straight?
If so, when did you CHOOSE to be straight?
Are sure you just haven’t found the right same-sex lover yet?
Yes, I’m straight.
I chose to be straight when a bi girlfriend really wanted to go out with me and I never had a boyfriend. I had a choice. If I wanted to swing that way, I really could have.
I think the way females are designed is absolutely beautiful and I really do enjoy watching how they bend and move, the curves and bends… simply beautiful.
But I chose to be straight because I like men as well, and… well… men fit women. My SO had the same crossroad as well. He thought he might be gay but he ultimately chose to be straight…. and he chose me… and we’re together.
I’ve had plenty of close girlfriends, but I chose to be straight and I’m absolutely, wonderfully, ecstatically HAPPY with being straight. (Yep and not bi. Girls are wonderful, but I like being with my man the best.)
About this:
“Well a vote was taken and we see the results. Stop trying to tell the majority they cannot have their right to stand by their belief.”
Did you actually see the polling results? 2% margin isn’t much of a “majority” – the fact that nearly half of the population of California disagrees with you should tell you something. And the next time we get to vote on this issue (there will be a next time), it will pass because at I can guarantee you 2% of the people that voted FOR Prop 8 this time will be dead. (A majority of the people who voted for it were old people while a majority who voted against it were young people).
@ Absolute:
“Biologically = backwards. This is the opposite of passing on genetics. Sure, with modern knowledge you can go clone yourself, or use someone’s donated Gametes. But the whole “partner” is the same gender goes against biology.”
I don’t think you get it. You don’t CHOOSE to be gay. Why the fuck would I
choose that, with all the discrimination that gay people face. I’ve always been
gay, I was BORN THAT WAY. I am BIOLOGICALLY GAY, so how does that go
against nature? Also-If god didn’t want me to be gay, then would he have
not made me straight? I’m not going to let you force your personal
beliefs on me, just because your interpretation of the bible says
it’s wrong to be gay (so is it “wrong” to be black, or to have curly hair?)
doesn’t give you the right to take away my civil rights. Maybe you should
think for yourself, instead of letting your religious dogma control your
brain (by fear of divine punishment). The bible was written 2000+ years
ago, some of what it said applied to the context of that time, and is
now outdated. Wanna argue? So is slavery ok? Is beating you wife and
stoning your children if they misbehave? We now understand a lot more
about homosexuality then they did back then. I think the fear was
that everyone would “turn gay”, but we now know that only about 10% of the
population is exclusively homosexual. I like to think that homosexuality
is gods way of population control. We already can’t feed the 6 billion people
on this rock, what makes you think we need to pop out any more babies?
What about taking care of the ones that all the straight people made and then
forgot about, first?
“Stop trying to tell the majority they cannot have their right to stand by their belief.”
Here we go again-the argument of “majority”. So you really think the majority is
always right? How come Hitler was democratically elected to power by the
MAJORITY, then? Or what about George W. Bush? Or even the White majority
in the US-Would it be ok to take away all rights from Black people by
referendum, because they’re not the MAJORITY? Prop 8 is basically the
same thing, you’re proposing that straight people take away the right
for gay people to marry the person they love.
I really think you need to re-evaluate your positions, or stop calling
yourself a Christian because you’re preaching nothing but hate
with you outdated, questionable arguments (are they even yours
or did someone brainwash you to think them?).
You nailed every point, m’dear.
“Its not ignorance to stand for what one believes.”
You have a way with putting words in people’s mouths, don’t you? She called his *views* ignorant.
“Just because others have bent over in the face of such peer pressure, there are still those who believe that the “lifestyle choice” of this group of people is just wrong.”
Of all the arrogant, sanctimonious, statements, this has to be one of the worst. This is a very loaded statement. You have absolutely no idea why people have made of their minds to embrace an idea that opposes your own. Furthermore, you’ve in a way made the same mistake as you accuse the poster to whom you respond. “Peer pressure verus ignorance.” Pot Calling Kettle Black Fail.
“Religiously = forbidden sin. To many this is absolute truth and has nothing to do with “ignorance”. In fact, your calling it ignorance means that you have no idea what those beliefs are. I have the Balls to tell you that Prophets of GOD have been saying this is wrong for 1000’s of years. Just because this is the modern era doesn’t mean that religion is suddenly discriminating.”
She has every right to consider what you say ignorance. You’ve boiled down millenia into one simple statment, patently ignoring any historical context. Secondly, no one’s saying that the religion is suddenly discriminating; it’s ALWAYS been discriminating. The issue is you assume that you have the right to define lifestyles for the entire population of this country, despite the fact the Constitution tells you to mind your own business.
“Those who truly believe in Jesus would feel that they are helping you to stop sinning. Even in the face of such hateful response. We don’t expect better treatment…after all, they crucified Jesus, and he was perfect.”
Get over yourself. Jesus told his apostles to shake the dust off thri feet and leave behind those communities that chose not to accept what they had to offer. It’s lack of humility that drives this effort, not a Christlike vision. As for Christ’s crucifixtion the Romans executed him for political reasons, not religious ones.
“Biologically = backwards. This is the opposite of passing on genetics. Sure, with modern knowledge you can go clone yourself, or use someone’s donated Gametes. But the whole “partner” is the same gender goes against biology.”
Men and women are able to pass on their bilogical material, even if they are gay. You are artificially limiting the arguement by presuming that a marriage is for procreation. Perhaps your marriage is, but you can speak for everyone, even if they are heterosexual.
“Society – Well a vote was taken and we see the results. Stop trying to tell the majority they cannot have their right to stand by their belief.”
No one even know what those beliefs are; we only know what the polls show. Furthermore, she has every right to feel the say she does. That vote says that she has all of the obligations of a citizen but not all of the rights. And you think that line of reasoning is sound!
It is ignorance to believe something just because your parents told you to, however.
“Its not ignorance to stand for what one believes.”
You have a way with putting words in people’s mouths, don’t you? She called his *views* ignorant.
“Just because others have bent over in the face of such peer pressure, there are still those who believe that the “lifestyle choice” of this group of people is just wrong.”
Of all the arrogant, sanctimonious, statements, this has to be one of the worst. This is a very loaded statement. You have absolutely no idea why people have made of their minds to embrace an idea that opposes your own. Furthermore, you’ve in a way made the same mistake as you accuse the poster to whom you respond. “Peer pressure versus ignorance.” Pot Calling Kettle Black Fail.
“Religiously = forbidden sin. To many this is absolute truth and has nothing to do with “ignorance”. In fact, your calling it ignorance means that you have no idea what those beliefs are. I have the Balls to tell you that Prophets of GOD have been saying this is wrong for 1000’s of years. Just because this is the modern era doesn’t mean that religion is suddenly discriminating.”
She has every right to consider what you say ignorance. You’ve boiled down millenia into one simple statement, patently ignoring any historical context. Secondly, no one’s saying that the religion is suddenly discriminating; it’s ALWAYS been discriminating. The issue is you assume that you have the right to define lifestyles for the entire population of this country, despite the fact the Constitution tells you to mind your own business.
“Those who truly believe in Jesus would feel that they are helping you to stop sinning. Even in the face of such hateful response. We don’t expect better treatment…after all, they crucified Jesus, and he was perfect.”
Get over yourself. Jesus told his apostles to shake the dust off their feet and leave behind those communities that chose not to accept what they had to offer. It’s lack of humility that drives this effort, not a Christlike vision. As for Christ’s crucifixion the Romans executed him for political reasons, not religious ones.
“Biologically = backwards. This is the opposite of passing on genetics. Sure, with modern knowledge you can go clone yourself, or use someone’s donated Gametes. But the whole “partner” is the same gender goes against biology.”
Men and women are able to pass on their biological material, even if they are gay. You are artificially limiting the argument by presuming that a marriage is for procreation. Perhaps your marriage is, but you can speak for everyone, even if they are heterosexual.
“Society – Well a vote was taken and we see the results. Stop trying to tell the majority they cannot have their right to stand by their belief.”
No one even know what those beliefs are; we only know what the polls show. Furthermore, she has every right to feel the say she does. That vote says that she has all of the obligations of a citizen but not all of the rights. And you think that line of reasoning is sound!
“You could try having the humility to admit that your lifestyle choice is your choice and its against years of moral values, norms, etc. This means your choice is going to make you stand out and be different. The more you stick it in other people faces or try to force them to acknowledge that they think your choice is OK, the more they will vocally tell you, they DON’T think its ok.
Personally believe people are free to make their own choices….just not free to choose the consequence.”
Once again, YOUR lack of humility is very evident, as is your use of generalizations, which artificially conveys the notion that yours has always been the prevailing view of what is socially acceptable. Second of all, you’re conflating simply living one’s life in the open with “forcing it down someone’s throat”…it’s you who then has the problem, if you cannot accept the fact that there are other ways of living and being that is not your own, and that you can have a full life without trying to control how other people live. As for the consequences, are you saying that people don’t have the right to live without being harassed and physically intimidated if their lifestyle doesn’t agree with others’ world view?
The seperation of church and state was created so that beliefs like this couldn’t happen anymore. Remember when lovely church-going people would go from one end of a contry slaying and destroying the lives of all those who didn’t believe in their oh-so-loving God? Oh yeah, I think thats why we decided to seperate the two. The government should not mention god because there are millions of people out there who don’t believe in a mystical figure who watches your every move and loves you but will cast you down to hell if you mess up. This god who also allows things like wars, poverty, greed, corruption, hate, destruction, hunger, segregation, and in some cases genocide. Sounds like a pretty cool ‘guy’ Well, have fun believing that homosexual people can’t get married. I think the world is ready to progress and grow but as long as hate like this continues to be spread I fear that people will take much longer to understand the reality of this situation. In order for there to be peace and happiness in this world we must learn to love each other equally. I can promise you that future generations will look back upon us and laugh at how primitive our way of life and thinking was.
There’s no separation of church and government? Pardon my French, but are you retarded or have you just never taken a history class? The United States was founded by people coming from a religiously oppressive country who wanted to establish a separation of church and state. Separation of church and state means that we are all free to practice any belief or nonbelief we choose, and putting religious ideals into the law infringes on the rights of anyone who doesn’t subscribe to those particular ideals.
It’s possible for the government to enforce moral value without religion, just like it’s possible to refrain from raping and pillaging because you have a conscience, not just because you’re afraid of some divine punishment. Morals do not depend on religion.
And speaking of morals, homosexuality is immoral only from a religious standpoint. Who does it hurt? No one. Would gay marriage infringe on your right to practice your religion? Nope. Churches already have the right to refuse to marry anyone for any reason (case in point: Catholic churches that marry only Catholics, churches in the south that still refuse to marry interracial couples), and making gay marriage legal doesn’t force you to be gay, does it? Nope.
So how ’bout you do your thing, and let others who don’t necessarily share your beliefs do theirs, huh? I know a major facet of Christianity is to impose your beliefs on as many people as you can manage, but it’s getting a little old. Chill out, live and let live.
The US was founded by PURITANS — the most religiously uptight jerks ever to walk this spaceborne nightmare of a planet. They were mad about not being free to be super-uptight and not dance and not have fun. This is what we refer to as a Bad Example.
No, it was colonized by Puritans. When it broke away from England, the founders were not primarily Puritan.
Jefferson et al were mostly Deists, in fact.
Since when can the majority change the rights of others? If the majority wanted to take away freedom of religion, would it (taking away religious freedom) not be a bad idea anymore?
Just because the majority wants it doesn’t mean it’s a good idea.
The government legislates morality when the well being of others is at stake. Rape, murder, stealing, money laundering etc – these are crimes where there are victims. If they legislated morality at large, in all cases it would be ridiculous. The majority of a given state, for example, might not believe in sex before marriage between two consenting adults. Does this mean they should be able to make a law saying that you can’t have sex before you’re married? No. It means don’t do it if you don’t believe in it.
If you’re going to say that by this logic polygamy should be legal, you got me. I think it should be legal – laws against it are antiquated, and have an undeniable root in bigotry against Mormons. As long as only ADULTS are involved, and consenting, and providing a loving environment for any children involved, and no one is making me share my husband (or have more than one husband), I really don’t care.
Nobody has their church in your house. Be mad all you want, but the obvious fact is that the MAJORITY of people in California don’t want gay marriage legal. Quit whining and moaning about it, and just deal already.
At one time the majority of people in this country didn’t want women to have the right to vote.
At one time the majority of people in this country didn’t want blacks to go to the same schools as white children.
…just sayin’.
Wouldn’t mind having that women’s vote thing back. We really let that one slip through our fingers.
Bad. Bad AM. No!
Yeah, and those blacks were pretty good workers. We let that one slip too.
Very bad AM, VERY BAD.
Actually, the majority of people -that voted- voted yes on Prop 8. And there were quite a few that thought Prop 8 SUPPORTED gay marriage, as evidenced by the outbreak of posts on blogs and Yahoo Answers saying as much.
“Legislating same-sex marriages has NOTHING to do with religion.”
You are totally and completely missing ValientDefenders point.
I am gay and do not believe in the right to same-sex marriages.
Oh, and this trite little statement: “Get your church out of my house”?
I say YOU get out and stop trying to force religion out of this country when it is A HUGE PART OF OUR FOUNDING FATHERS AND AMERICA’S HISTORY.
You people make me laugh.
Legalizing same-sex marriage has exactly ZERO impact upon the freedom of religion.
.
Whereas making same-sex marriages ILlegal ruins the lives of hundreds of thousands of American citizens.
.
Do the math.
Welcome to the internet. Where anyone can claim their gay, or female, or black, or what have you in a attempt to gain leverage in your arguement.
I would like to claim my gay please…. I have this internet coupon… and can I also get a black and a female… I want to collect the whole set.
Perhaps you meant anyone can claim THEY’RE gay.
OMG, that is wonderful. WIN.
And just so I’m saying something a little more insightful, I love this grpah; it is fantastic!
Hey, I said A LITTLE more insightful.
Ah, many of the founding fathers were Deist. Some were atheist or agnostic. Very few of the signers of the Constitution were hardline Christians.
“Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting “Jesus Christ,” so that it would read “A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;” the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.”
-Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography
Intolerance is so underrated.
rofl
Marriage (in the sense that is covered by law) is NOT a “religious belief”. It is a social contract, defined by and administered by the state.
And I have never understood how the fact of one couple’s marriage affects the quality of any other couple’s marriage. That just totally escapes me. Your marriage is your own responsibility, not the society’s at large. (Same concept as “your children are your own responsibility”.)
Marriage is, and always has been, a religious belief. Their marriage doesn’t effect my marriage. It does, however, take the societies moral scale and lower it another notch. Eventually the liberal left will be fully in support rampant free sex anywhere with anyone. And why not’? I know several people that practice that set of beliefs as well. And what is society? Its a collection of individuals, families, etc. So, every individual choice does effect the society. What I would like to do is preserve the right for my children live in a society of values and morals. I think I have that right. When I don’t, it will be time to take up arms.
Hey Prince Valient. I’ll say it again, there are some Christian churches that marry gay couples.
Then those “christian” churchs are NOT practicing Christian beliefs. A duck can call itself a moose all it wants, in the end its still Foul
Gee, that’ll be news to the Episcopal Church…
Actually, they’re practicing a different interpretation than what you believe. I guess they’re placing more value on “love thy neighbor” and “thou shall not judge” than you do. Jesus was about acceptance and love, and that is exactly what those churches are practicing.
If a “christian” church marries a woman who is not a virgin than it is NOT practicing Christian beliefs as well, but this happens, literally, on a daily basis.
“take up arms”
.
lol, reminds me of that conversation you & I had, charro.
.
I think VD just proved my point.
Venereal Disease? Yes, that is a possibility when you have rampant free sex anywhere with anyone.
So in other words, because of your religious beliefs–for which you have no secular justification–you wish to deny other people their civil rights. This in a country with was founded on the principle of separation of church and state.
Um, by the way, “Marriage is, and always has been, a religious belief” is one of the stupider statements I’ve seen in a while. Marriage is a contract, a relationship, an institution–it is not a “belief”. You are free to believe that marriage should only be between and man and a woman, and your church is free to not marry gay people. But you have no right, under our Constitution, to impose your religiously-based beliefs on the rest of us.
And if I ever have to take up arms to defeat totalitarian prudes because they think their imaginary friend disapproves of icky unconventional sex, I’ll be more than happy to do my part. And I’m a 50 year old straight woman. That ain’t hate speech, honey. That’s just the truth.
Was founded on Freedom of Christian worship, no matter how you try to color it.
Obviously the issue has polarized people. We see those who will change their opinion based on any modern “popular idea” and those who stick to moral principles.
If I called your “love” imaginary just because I couldn’t see it, you’d probably get upset with me. I know that you have personally been to every corner of the known universe and through every dimension of space and time and can prove the non-existance of my God. I personally know that there is such a being. I happen to know that he loves us…even those who fall short, for we all fall short. I also know that while he is just and merciful, his laws don’t change on the whim of his children. Even when he is unpopular, he is still all powerful.
Um.. So doesn’t that mean that only god has the right to judge us? If he loves us all equally, even when we “fall short” as you have so eloquently put it, then shouldn’t we all love eachother and when we die submit ourselves to his judgement? Are you not supposed to love thy neighbor? Love thy sinner but not the sin?
If, as you are asserting, that homosexuality is in fact a sin; it is up to god to judge us for that sin. Not you. Not your religion. Not anybody’s religion. If when I die god tells me that all my lesbian sex was a sin and I will spend my afterlife in a lake of fire, I will submit to that. But I will submit to it from no human being, as no human being has the right to judge me (and that is from your own book).
As has been said many times, keep your religion out of my house and I’ll keep my icky girly sex out of yours.
I think god would be ashamed of you.
Oh, um, also. Marriage has been around for millenia. Many many more years than has Christianity or religion. Though, I’m sure you also believe that the Earth is only 6000 years old and that we are all descendents from 2 people. Wait… isn’t incest a sin? Hmmmm?
Charro Charro *sigh*
.
Much like a patient parent trying to guide their wayward child away from playing with fire, guns, drugs, porn, etc. Those who know better, try to warn those who are playing with fire. Just like a child, you don’t want to be warned. Don’t want to be protected from mistakes. You want to do, what you want to do. *shrug*
.
But, pout how you will. Marriage means a sacred covenanent between a man a woman and god.
.
You want equality in the rights given to a couple who is married? Then, try fighting for those rights, and don’t try to get them to call it marriage.
.
PS – 100 years ago a group of people wanted to be married to multiple spouses. This is something done the world over. They were arrested and persecuted for that belief. 100 years later everyone still thinks of Mormons as the Polygamists. Maybe if you fought for Govt butting out of Marriage you’d get them on your side. Who knows….maybe that addtional 2% needed to sway the vote?? *LOL* Seperation of church and state. Its an illusion. ITS STILL illegal for people who live and believe that way to openly practice and legally wed. And we’re not supposed to legislate against or for religion…yet there it is. Just this last summer they took how many kids? In the end most were sent back because nothing illegal is going on…except a few people trying to follow their beliefs. There was once a standing order to “shoot a mormon on sight” yeah, our country rocks. So excuse me if I don’t dearl protect whats left. They’ve removed God from Coins, schools, etc, etc. Even for people who freely want to do so. Can’t say a prayer at a game? *rolls eyes* its rediculous. So, where do we take stand and stop anti religious jerks from steam rolling us? When all freedom is gone and none are left to defend them? No way. There is RAMPANT change in the meaning of family, parenthood, etc. These things which are core to our society.
.
I don’t hate you Charro, I want to help. I don’t hate Gays, i just want to stem the tide of change in a direction that is very wrong.
.
I think its hilarious that you dare try to say that God would be ashamed with me. You claim to know so much but its obvious that if you have read, you have not understood the holy writ. It is clear that man with man, man with beast, woman with woman and woman with beast is forbidden. Also, it is all through his word that he asks those who love him, to try to show those who are lost a way back home. Grasp at straws, and you will end up with a hand full of hay and nothing more.
.
There is nothing more I can say as it is clear you are not seeking truth, repentance, guidance, etc. You wish to belittle, use intimidation and false accusation..
.
Clearly it is in our time that “good will be called evil, and evil will be called ood.” Thi
There is a difference between guidance and hate. I can understand that Christians would like to guide the gays away from their sinful lives. I am ok with that. What I am not ok with is banners and t-shirts saying “God Hates Fags”, because he most certainly does not. That is something people do. People hate fags.
I do not approve of the hate.
Your religion has no right to *tell* other people how to live their lives. Love is love, no matter what form it takes. I don’t believe in your religion so therefore, you are correct; I do not want to be “saved”. I don’t see that I need saving and there is nothing on this planet or on the ethereal plane that has indicated otherwise to me.
I am married, to a man, and the covenant is between the two of us and not your god.
Oh, also I didn’t say god would be ashamed of you, I said he would be ashamed of Absolute.
For the record, the Bible says nothing about lesbians. At all.
It does, however, go on about how shellfish, mixed fabrics, and planting diverse crops are “abominations” equal to male homosexuality…
According to the Treaty of Tripoli, approved and signed by John Adams:
“…the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion…”
Furthermore, many of the Founding Fathers were not Christian, and those that were tended to be Episcopalian. Jefferson, Adams, and several others were Deist; a few were atheist or agnostic.
Learning the actual facts would make you look like less of a fool.
“Marriage is, and always has been, a religious belief.”
I could be wrong, but wasn’t marriage first created as a way to deal with land ownership and inheritance? That’s not very religious.
… How does allowing people to marry, thus making them promise to only have sex with that one partner, support “rampant free sex with anyone”? Are you really so naive that you think people don’t have sex outside of marriage? Honey, I feel sorry for you and your lack of knowledge of how the world works…
You’re right, its a terrible tragedy that spouses would lie and cheat. I’ve been through a divorce because of such actions on the part of my spouse. It was horribly painful. And, no, I’m not naive. I know about that…no need to feel sorry for me!
See, adultery and fornication are also, very wrong…
“Marriage is, and always has been, a religious belief. Their marriage doesn’t effect my marriage. It does, however, take the societies moral scale and lower it another notch. Eventually the liberal left will be fully in support rampant free sex anywhere with anyone. And why not’? I know several people that practice that set of beliefs as well. And what is society? Its a collection of individuals, families, etc. So, every individual choice does effect the society. What I would like to do is preserve the right for my children live in a society of values and morals. I think I have that right. When I don’t, it will be time to take up arms.”
Valiant, you’re just wrong. First off, marriage isn’t a *belief,* it’s an institution and a practice. It’s also a legal, social and economic practice, carrying several distinctly non-spiritual benefits and responsibilities. If you want to, on behalf of all heterosexuals, surrender all of the tax and financial benefits and legal protections of marriage, then and only then might it be reasonable to discuss it as a solely religious issue. But at that point, legislation is unnecessary – without the support and protection of law, various churches can marry anyone they like and the state need no bother making a decision one way or the other. If your church won’t perform a gay wedding, there’s probably one nearby that will.
Second, when the state made marriage a legal institution that could be performed by state officials with no religious standing, marriage in the United States ceased to be a solely religious institution. Atheists and agnostics can wed, and even perform weddings. The legal permission of these unions has nothing to do with your beliefs. Your beliefs can choose not to honor the marriage of people who have been divorced, people of different races or people of the same sex, just as mine can choose to honor them, and neither necessarily has any bearing on the legal definition. I could get ordained tomorrow and perform a dozen same-sex marriages and no matter what the law says I’d consider them wedded in the eyes of God. In the right state, I could go to the courthouse tomorrow and marry a member of the same sex, and if you considered the union less blessed than a heterosexual marriage, the state would not fine you or throw you in prison.
I’m not sure what this crap is about every individual’s choice affecting society. There are choices that have a larger impact, and those that do not. While the choice to wed is considered to have a greater impact, that impact is generally considere desirable. I find it difficult to believe that, in the context of social impact, the choice to settle into a committed, long-erm relationship with a house and three cats – possibly even monogamous – is the choice you find it necessary to prohibit.
Besides which, I suspect that sue262’s point is more that, whatever its broader social implication, gay marriage doesn’t seem to affect anyone else’s marriage in any real way. Further, (unless they attended the wedding and were charged by the officiant to support it) other members of society are not required to take your marriage into consideration when they make decisions. Thus4, if gay marriage somehow undermine your straight marriage, so what? It’s your job to keep it together, not theirs. You’re the one who took the vow before God to love and cherish for better or for worse for as long as you live, not me – at least, not yet.
Your children have every right to live in a society with values and morals, though I find it very troubling and a little insulting that you seem to equate “a society where gays can marry” to “a society so lacking in values and morals that violent revolution is the only reasonable course of action.” What you do not have is the right – even for the sake of your children’s upbringing – to dictate to the rest of us the values and morals you find most appropriate. You get the same deal as the rest of us: try to live by your values, try your best to impress them upon your children, then hope for the best.
Well said, sir.
win!
“Eventually the liberal left will be fully in support rampant free sex anywhere with anyone”
Just a thought, but doesn’t your relgious marriage say “cleaving only to your partner, forsake all others as long as you both shall live?” As such, wouldn’t you want MORE people to get married, if you are so worried about the idea that sexual freedom is going to overwhelm us?
Besides, the problem with “rampant free sex” isn’t moral, it’s medical.
If birth control were 100% effective and there were no STD’s, “free
love” would not be a big deal in a secular society.
“When I don’t, it will be time to take up arms.”
=
Christianity FAIL
Unreal. I’ve always been confused about how SOME that are so religious can have so much hate bottled up inside. I honestly almost feel sorry for you, VD. So, if marriage is religious, what is a straight atheist to do? I mean, is their marriage just invalid or what? Are we banning that too? I need answers.
Oh, and by the way, regardless of what the bible says about homosexuality (which isn’t much, for the record), I think its pretty clear on genocide. “Taking up arms”…. please…..
Might want to ask the Midianites about that one.
It’s all in how you read the book.
Marriage? a RELIGIOUS institution? Don’t know how I could laff harder. Atter all, at least in my state, two atheists can get married by a justice of the peace… so how does religion play into this?
“Eventually the liberal left will be fully in support rampant free sex anywhere with anyone.”
1. … wait what?
2. We tried that in the 60’s and 70’s. Then because God Hates Us, we received the AIDS virus. Remember? ‘cos God Hates Us.
So this is what you’re all afraid of? Why didn’t you just say so?
Oh, and since when do the actions and morals of others influence and dictate the morals you teach your children?
Oh no! Two people who love each other are getting married! Yes, of course, this will lead to moral decay via…
…
Hm. Well, see, here’s where you’ve lost me. How, exactly, is sociaty going to completely fall apart? Because, well, I’m going to let you in on a little secret here:
Queer people? Have morals. Shocking, I know!
Allowing two people who love each other to marry, regardless of gender, is not even remotely related to suddenly allowing wild and crazy sex to run rampant in the streets. Just look at all the other countries that have legalized gay marriage. My home country, Canada, has had gay marriage since 2005 and look! We’re not blown up! In fact, we’re still one of the best countries to live in.
Maybe you should try looking at a little thing I like to call ‘the facts’ before you go posting “You are wrong because I say so, and I say so because you are wrong” comments.
So you’re saying that atheists who get married should have their unions nullified?
And what’s so immoral about being in love with another consenting adult? You ARE aware that homosexuals are no more likely to be criminals or immoral hedonists than heterosexuals, right?
Marriage is actually two things: the ceremony (which depends on the religion) and the legal documentation (the certificate). The certificate shows to the state that you and your spouse are a legally married couple entitled to certain rights and privelages. It’s the state’s choice whether or not to recognise same-sex as a legitimate marriage, as defined in the tenth amendment. The state doesn’t view that in a theological stand-point, but rather a “will that have a negative effect on our state?”
“Allow them to force their theological changes on me?”
-So…the government should be allowed to force YOUR theological beliefs on gays? …riiiight.
“They can have their own religion that ignore my beliefs,”
-Your religion shouldn’t be allowed to dictate what should and should not be legal– NO-ONE’s should.
“To demand that one party is allowed to force their beliefs on someone else is heavily biased. Marriage is a religious belief.”
-Now this, I agree with. So your church doesn’t believe in gay marriage. Fine, they don’t have to marry them. But I shouldn’t be shunned and forbidden from a state marriage/civil union if I so choose.
For the record, I am writing from Vancouver Canada. Same sex MARRIAGES (not civil unions, marriages) have been legal or 5 years and no church has collapsed, no chasm has opened up and swallowed up the sinners, no brimstone has reigned from on high. What HAS happened is a group of people who once felt like second class citizens now feel that they are as valid as the next person, that their expression of love is as important as the next. There isn’t a single church that has been forced to wed anyone and frankly, the whole idea of marriage being some sanctimonious union should be re-though. Marriages historically have been about acquiring land, settling wars, acquiring wealth etc. If you don’t believe it, read your history. Marriage has been redefined several times and every time, people are better off. If your religion professes love of your fellow man, let them love.
O Canada!
Hilarious. SO, I’ll be 100% tolerant of you and I can take my beliefs and shove them up my …….? *ahem* NO thanks, you can go shove stuff up yours, but I will stand by what I believe.
Believe. By all means believe. But your right to believe does not mean you have the right to railraod my rights.
and how christian…to respond to reason with hate. You really set a shining example you know that?
He just hates it when he is forced to apply his beliefs to himself.
Hypocrisy. Gotta love it.
Right, so when moral values win in a valid election and your SO loveing SO tolerant people don’t, what happens? You vandalize churches, harass, spew hate like you’re the devil itself…..all the while trying to tell me I’m hateful for stnaind by my belief?
Read the LA times. Churches, people, temples, attacked – physically – all in the name of your holier than thou “love”
This isn’t about moral vlaues. a right..a RIGHT that was protected has been stripped from a minority. that isn’t moral. It’s criminal. If you wade into the political arena, with your bile, expect a response.
Pece to you. You seem to need it.
*cough*cough*
You can’t “elect” a proposition.
Plus, there is doubt that the proposition should have been on the ballot in the first place.
Hrmn… so it’s not okay for US to vandalize your places of worship and homes, but it’s okay for you to protest our funerals and murder us?
….interesting….
No, no, you misunderstand. No-one is saying that “WE,” that is, all people on earth who do not absolutely agree with YOU, are loveing (spelling included) or tolerant. One specific person, alexyvr, I believe, is saying that you, SPECIFICALLY, are NOT loving or tolerant. That you, in the singular sense, are behaving in a hateful way. That you, a self-professed adherent to Christianity, a religion that preaches love and acceptance and forgiveness, have failed to live up to the standards you have set. The behavior of that segment of humanity whose religious and moral beliefs do not intersect with the religious and moral beliefs of YOU, in the SINGULAR, is not relevant to the statement that alexyvr has made, which by my reading is meant to be applied specifically and solely to you, the individual posting as ValiantDefender on this here forum.
If I am correct in my interpretation of alexyvr’s words, (and I might not be, as, contrary to what you, VD, seem to believe, alexyvr and I are not part of a magical telepathic collective mind that makes us believe and act in a way which reflects the overall collective beliefs and morality of everyone who is not YOU, VD, and those with whom YOU agree) I agree with him/her.
In fact, I would go so far as to say not only that, but also that you are a hypocrite, and further, a bad Christian (as I am given to understand the definition of Christianity.)
I have a bit of time on my hands. Probably not enough for 12 years of education, but certainly enough for a quick review of elementary logic and basic rhetoric. Your basic error, VD, is one of equation. To give a specific example, you equate ME (meaning yourself) with US, and US with CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALISTS. These are not in fact the same thing at all. All Christian Fundamentalists do not believe the same thing as all other Christian Fundamentalists. For instance, many Christian Fundamentalists- not all, but many- fit with my understanding of what would constitute decent, moral human beings. Given what I have read of your beliefs, VD, that subgroup does not include you. This is NOT the same as saying that you are WRONG, VD, nor is it the same as saying that you are a bad Christian, nor is it the same thing as saying that you are doing anything ILLEGAL.
In fact, being a bad Christian is perfectly legal under the United States Constitution, as is not being Christian at all, as is holding moral convictions which are contrary to those of the state or to those of your fellow citizens, as is expressing those beliefs in a non-violent manner. The State does NOT legislate morality, and never has; and if the State were to attempt such a thing, it would be going against the Constitution. This is NOT the same thing as saying such legislation would be WRONG; however, VD, it DOES mean that, by insisting that the state should legislate morality, you are saying that the Constitution of the United States is wrong.
Now, VD, this is not the same as saying that gay marriage should a protected right under the Constitution. I am simply pointing out to you where you stand, as you seem not to know. Your position, or rather, the reasoning behind your position, places you directly opposed to U.S. Constitutional law. And unlike some previous allegations I have hurled at you, VD, this is not a matter of opinion. It is verifiable fact. The right to live in a moral society is guaranteed nowhere in the Constitution. The right to freedom of belief IS.
Under the United States Constitution, you, VD, have the right to hate The Gays. You have the right to be a Christian while hating The Gays. You have the right to not hate The Gays but hate their gayness. You have the right to hate the fact that the State has allowed gay individuals to get married. You have the right to disagree with the State for allowing gay individuals to marry. You have the right to express your disagreement with the law in a non-violent manner. You even have the right to be WRONG, for any given standard of wrongness. You do NOT have the right to impose your own moral or religious standards on others, nor do you have the right to insist the State do it for you. I can’t force you, but I strongly suggest you know what your rights ARE before you start demanding them from other people at the expense of their own.
To sum up:
BELIEF does not equal RELIGION.
RELIGION does not equal MORALITY.
MORALITY does not equal LAW.
If they did, we would not use different words for them.
The gay marriage issue is not one of religious freedom, and never has been. The idea that individuals entering a legal contract under a State institution with infringes on the religious freedom of others, while having no direct effect on the ability of those individuals to hold or express those beliefs, is fundamentally ludicrous. The issue is one of equal protection under the law- another right guaranteed to citizens under US Constitutional law. THIS is where opponents of gay marriage might have a legal leg to stand on. If you could argue that marriage is NOT a fundamental human right & therefore that gays are not being discriminated against, or that marriage is a purely religious institution that the State should have no authority over, you might have a case, legally speaking.
I don’t expect you to forgive me for my nasty tone earlier in this post, but please listen to this. These are what your rights are, under the United States Constitution. I believe that you are morally obligated to know them, and that I am morally obligated to inform you of them if you are unaware of what they are. Legally, we are obligated to neither. But rights are important. Listen: I have no religion, but this I believe. Rights once given to the people should not be taken away. Rights should apply to all people equally. I can’t remember who said it, but I subscribe to this wholeheartedly: “I may not agree with what the other fellow has to say, but I will fight to the death for his right to say it.” And I will. To. The. Death. For you. If I thought your religious rights were being taken away, I would fight tooth and nail for you. I would spill blood for your right to free speech, to your own religion. Even if I hated you- though I do not. Do you understand yet? I am NOT your enemy. We just happen to be standing on different sides at the moment.
You don’t have to believe me. In fact, it’s your right not to. But I am not lying. This I believe- and as I have no religion, you are free to call it “nothing.” Please forgive me if I do not.
I hate to nitpick but:
BELIEF does not equal RELIGION.
This is like a rectangle is not square. Not in all cases. Ones personal beliefs may not equate to an organized religion. But a set of believes boils down to ones personal religion…be it athiestic, agnostic or what have you.
RELIGION does not equal MORALITY.
But one’s personal religion DOES dictate what is moral and what is not. A Christian will love you and tell you that what you’re doing is wrong. I’m not twisting your arm to agree with me. Just asking that people don’t tell me that i have to agree with them. I believe Marriage is religious. I believe that it is sacred. I believe that I should protect that value.
MORALITY does not equal LAW.
Laws are always based on some level of justice, or “fairness” and so it is SOMEONE’s opinion of fairness…someone’s belief that what they hold to be just and fair IS fair. Unfortunately this means that their morality becomes Law. Obviously not all moral choices based on their belief in god, however, it is always based on a belief about what is right, and what is wrong.
My arm remains untwisted. Perhaps these concepts are equivalent according to your beliefs, but they are not equivalent according to everyone’s beliefs. Therefore, they are not the same.
The tone of your response implies that you think we disagree, though in actual content, you have not contradicted me. For instance, I love to nitpick. That is a personal preference or opinion of mine, and I thank you for giving me this opportunity to exercise my skills in logic and rhetoric and to challenge my opinions about the universe around me and the internal consistence of my beliefs. You say that you hate to nitpick. I see no reason to dispute that statement. If you were to say to me, “No, you hate to nitpick,” I would have to disagree, because in my experience it is not true. But this is not what you said to me; you said that you hate to nitpick, which does not contradict my statement or any evidence currently available to me. Therefore, on this point, we do not disagree.
Statement: MORALITY does not equal LAW.
Law is not always moral and just, according to all peoples’ definition of morality and justice. You say as much yourself. Therefore, LAW does not equal MORALITY. Law cannot force you to change your moral code or
Statement: RELIGION does not equal MORALITY.
A person’s moral code may be affected by the religion(s) to which they subscribe, but the moral code itself is not a religion. You say say yourself that all moral choices are not based on a belief in god, but on a belief about what is right, and what is wrong. This does not make morality equivalent to either religion or belief. Belief and morality may be part of what make up a religion, but they do not, in themselves, constitute a religion.
Statement: BELIEF does not equal RELIGION.
A belief may or may not be part of a given religion. A religion consists of a system of beliefs, and a system of behaviors based upon those beliefs. The behaviors based on the belief system may be described as moral, ritual, or some combination of the two. You may hold a belief that a given system of beliefs is correct. However, any single belief within that larger system, including the belief in the rightness of the other beliefs, is not in itself a religion.
You say yourself that belief in all cases does not equal religion. If a belief does not in all cases constitute a religion, then the concept of “religion” does not equal the concept of “belief.” Logic (which may not always be right, but is fairly useful if one wants to form any kind of coherent argument for or against a given proposition) dictates that if concept A is sometimes
equal to concept B, this does not necessarily mean that concept A is always equal to concept B. If concept A is always equal to concept B, then concept A equals concept B. If concept A is not always equal to concept B, then concept A does not equal concept B.
A square is always a rectangle. A rectangle is not always a square. Therefore, rectangle does not equal square. A triangle is never a rectangle. Therefore, a triangle is never a square. A triangle is always a polyhedron. A rectangle is always a polyhedron. If a polyhedron is sometimes a triangle, and is sometimes a rectangle, that does not mean that triangle equals rectangle.
So, in writing, you haven’t actually disagreed with me. You have specified some of the instances of “sometimes” in the condition of “sometimes, but not always.” If A does not always equal B, and B does not always equal A, even if A sometimes equals B, the set given as A does not equal the set given as B.
So, you have said nothing that contradicts my proposition that BELIEF does not equal RELIGION does not equal MORALITY does not equal LAW.
A written law (given the state of current technology) cannot change your beliefs, nor can it change your religion. Further, a law mandating that you change your beliefs or your religion would be illegal under the US Constitution. It is illegal under the US Constitution for the state to make a law “with regards to establishment of religion,” (I think that’s how the actual amendment goes,) which the Supreme Court later established to mean complete separation of Church and State. That means the State can’t prohibit individuals from belief in or expression of religion. That includes state employees and elected officials. However, an employee of the State and/or an elected official may not take action which is preferential or discriminatory towards a religious group in their capacity as a state official/employee. That means that, according to the United States Constitution, a senator may not write into law a provision that says that Protestant churches may advertise church events, but Catholic churches may not. It means that a school teacher may not say, during classtime hours or school-sponsored events, that Islam is better than Christianity, but also that a public school may not prohibit student prayer groups from meeting on school grounds during after-school hours, nor may it prohibit teachers from organizing or participating in any such group. It means that a school board may not prohibit science teachers from teaching from a curriculum including the periodic table of the elements because the religion of some families in the district equates chemistry with witchcraft. It means that a postal worker may not refuse service to a person because that person is a Sikh and the postal worker holds a religious belief that forbids him or her from assisting or interacting with a Sikh.
Summing up: Under the United States Constitution, The State MAY NOT refuse to confer rights or services to a citizen based solely upon the religious beliefs of that citizen, the religious beliefs of state officials, or the religious beliefs of members of the surrounding community. You may hold a religious belief that gays SHOULD NOT get married. Others may hold a religious belief that gays SHOULD get married. The State MAY NOT make a legal decision based SOLELY on those religious beliefs.
Under the Constitutional amendment guaranteeing equal protection under the law, the State may not refuse services or legal rights to any person based on that person’s racial/ethnic background, creed/religious afilliation, gender, or sexual orientation. This means that if the State offers the opportunity to enter a legal contract of marriage, that opportunity should be offered to all citizens equally. HOWEVER: You say that you believe marriage is a religious institution. If it is true that marriage is ALWAYS and ONLY a religious institution, then the State should have no legal say WHATSOEVER on the marital status of ANYONE, any more than they would over any person’s religious affiliation.
IF you say that marriage is ALWAYS and ONLY a religious institution, then your argument should be against all state-sanctioned marriage, because conferring or refusing legal rights to any person based on their religious status is illegal under the Constitution.
IF it is the case a contract of marriage is SOMETIMES but NOT ALWAYS a religious institution, and SOMETIMES but NOT ALWAYS a legal institution, then the State is obligated to take no preferential or discriminatory legal action concerning those aspects of marriage which are purely and
only religious, but may make legal decisions about those parts of marriage which in any way affects the legal status of those undertaking the contract.
IF, however, the State says to you that you may not prevent two citizens from entering a legal contract with the State, your religious freedoms are not being infringed upon. DO YOU UNDERSTAND YET?
You might not take civil liberties or constitutional rights seriously enough to understand what they are, but believe me, some of us do. When you say that your civil liberties are being infringed upon, you are calling us to
battle. When you start shooting your mouth off about infringement on your civil rights every time something doesn’t go your way, without making a serious effort to know what your civil rights actually are,
it makes us less likely to take you seriously in a case where you actually do need our help.
Now, the ability to shoot ones’ mouth off on subjects about which one has only limited understanding is not only a Constitutionally protected right and a fine old American tradition, it is a right that I feel personally and morally obligated to protect. This does not preclude me from advising against it in
specific cases, and in this particular case, for your own sake, I strongly suggest that you KNOCK IT THE HELL OFF.
One more thing. You, Absolute, say that a Christian will love me/us (you did not specify singular or plural in that statement,) and will tell me/us that what I/we are doing is wrong. In my past experience, this happens sometimes, but not always. Since a Christian is not equal to all Christians, I can agree with this statement as a logical one with a reasonable probability of becoming true.
But I wonder, Absolute- did you use “will” in a hypothetical sense, or in a predictive sense? And did you use the word “you” in reference to your readers as a collective group, or to one or all of your readers individually? In using the word “you,” were you perhaps referring to me specifically? Are you telling me my fortune, Absolute? Oh, I do so love having my fortune told!
If this is true, Absolute, then I wonder, who is this specific Christian (for it must be a specific Christian, in either the hypothetical or predictive sense, or it would contradict the evidence of my past experience) who will both love me and tell me that what I am doing is wrong? I am so excited, because I do like being loved. Being loved is very nice. And not only that, but this Christian who will love me will also tell me that what I am doing is wrong. If that is true, will this Christian tell me specifically what it is that I am doing that is wrong? Oh, I would love ever so much if this Christian tolde me what I am doing wrong, because sometimes I have trouble identifying my own errors, and having someone else point out your mistakes is often quite helpful. What will this action of mine be, that this Christian will respond to by telling me that it is wrong? Will this Christian perhaps correct my Sudoku puzzle? Or perhaps he or she will point out to me some spelling or gramatical errors I have made in something that I have written! Oh, I am all a-flutter with anticipation!
Or maybe… I don’t suppose, Absolute, that you might be a Christian? Are you a Christian, Absolute? Are you the Christian from the fortune that you gave me, who will love me and tell me that what I am doing is wrong? If you are that Christian, Absolute, how do you know that you will love me? I do not think we have interacted with each other outside of this forum. If you are that Christian from your prediction, how will you demonstrate your love for me, Absolute? Will you send me flowers on my birthday? Will you bring me lunch in bed when I am too sick to get it myself? Will you put up with my bullshit, Absolute, when it is the sort of bullshit that no reasonable person should expect another human being to have to deal with? In my experience, that is the sort of thing that people do for other people that they love, Absolute. But I have also heard it said that Christians are religiously obligated to love all mankind. In my experience, Absolute, loving even one person is very hard work. Loving all mankind would be very hard work times at least 6.5 billion. That is a lot of birthday flowers, Absolute. That is a lot of bullshit to put up with. However, saying that all Christians should love all mankind is not the same as saying that all Christians do love all mankind. And in my experience, given what I understand to be the definition of “love,” all Christians do not love all mankind. In fact, I have known Christians who actually hate large segments of the set described as “mankind,” though these Christians do not represent a majority out of all the Christians I have ever met. Many of the Christians I have met have said that they love all mankind. Often, these individuals are the same individuals who appear in fact to hate certain segments within the greater set “mankind.” This is not to say that to love an individual or group necessarily precludes also hating it at the same time… I have seen stranger things happen. Given what I know of love, though, and what I know of people, it seems likely that not all the Christians I have met who claim to love all mankind, are instead saying that they love all mankind, but in fact, do not. Which doesn’t necessarily mean they are lying, either; it might just mean that they’ve come to the logically flawed but understandable conclusion that since all Christians should love all mankind, and since they are a Christian, that means that they by necessity already love all mankind.
Or perhaps, by their definition, loving all mankind is a different thing from loving all individuals within the bounds of the set “mankind.” That the requirement to love all mankind refers to mankind as a
whole, and individuals only as far as they represent a part of that whole- therefore, a given individual may be loved in the abstract as part of the collective “all mankind,” but in the specific sense, a Christian may love, hate, or feel indifferent towards that individual without breaking the requirement that they should love all mankind. If this is the case, then it seems to me personally that that is a rather weak-sauce sort of love, but I suppose it is better than a kick in the face.
Now, if all those hypotheticals turn out to be true, Absolute, will you then tell me that what I am doing is wrong? How do you know that what I am doing is wrong? How do you know what I am doing, outside of disagreeing with and actively engaging in debate with yourself and VD? Can you see what I am doing? Are you reading my mind right now, Absolute? Or perhaps, Absolute, you believe that I am performing a wrong action in disagreeing and actively debating with you, Absolute, and VD. In that case, Absolute, I may come to a conclusion:
If you, Absolute, are using “will” in the predictive sense, and if you are using the word “you” specifically in reference to me, and if you are a Christian, and if you are the specific Christian in your predictive statement, and if you love me (by your given definition of “love”) in either the specific sense or only insofar as the object “me” is part of the object set “all mankind,” and if you will tell me that what I am doing is wrong, and if the thing that I am doing that you believe is wrong is disagreeing with and engaging in debate with yourself
and VD,
THEN I will say to you, “No, sir or madam, I believe that you are the one who is wrong,” and refer you to the article above.
vegacoyote, no one can even be bothered reading to find out what the hell your opinion is.
too damn wordy. i’m sure it’s interesting, but it’s not lol. why don’t you make a 672part vlog series about it instead.
I might give a shit if I thought you did. You don’t want to read it? Fine, then, I wasn’t talking to you.
So to quibble about your logical assertion that laws are not
about morality, following your assertions there would be no
law prohibiting public nudity, as it does not cause harm to others
and is a definite personal belief, or a part of a religion.
Sadly, there are a slough of laws that are still enforced based uipon
moral beliefs of a time period, and could be generally called
“decency” laws. A number of places criminalize spitting, types of
dancing, types of businesses, gambling, sports/contests like animal
racing or fighting.
It was after all only in the last decade that anal sex was even
decriminalized, and in a far from unanimous decision by the US
Federal Supreme Court, with the dissenting opinion quite based
upon “moral” based judgments. These are the ultimate decisionmakers
about the Constitution and Law. It is nice to consider the abstract
but the sad reality is that the legal world around us is far from
ideal, and a lot of laws still on the books are based upon moral
values. Even more disturbing than that are the number of judges
and DAs that base charges and sentencing upon personal moral
judgments rather than any kind of “logic” system.
OHHHH SNAP!!!! If I’m not mistaken, VD has just been SCHOOLED. Thank you, vegacoyote.
I would like to point out a very simple fact.
The VERY FEW people who did do awful things like vandalize churches are to the majority of LGBT people and supports as, say, the Muslim extremists who strap bombs to themselves are to the Muslim faith. They are not representative of the majority, and just like you would not like me lumping you in with Christian extremists (the KKK, for instance), I do not appreciate being lumped in with those few misguided people.
Yup, because when I peacefully vote, you attack my churches, deface my temples, attack my people physically…you can imaine this might make some people pretty upset. When a group peacefully demonstrates and the police have to come protect them because the “gay and lesbian” attack them, that is just sad. “We just want to show our love” written on their banners. Right.
Absolute, come on. What you’re describing has totally played both ways. Stop acting like your side hasn’t done the exact same thing. It doesn’t make it right on either side, but your side are NOT innocent victims. In fact, you’ve (meaning your side, not you personally) got FAR more to atone for than they do. And yes, I would imagine that marching in support of what is essentially a Jim Crow Law got some people a people pretty angry. It doesn’t justify them attacking you, but don’t act surprised either. Remember the Die Hard scene where Bruce Willis had to walk around Harlem (?) in nothing but a sign with an enourmous racial slur painted on it? Same situation.
Oh dear, Absolute. Did alexyvr attack your churches and temples? Destruction of property is illegal, you know. Perhaps you should go to the police and tell them that alexyvr attacked your churches and your temples, so that legal action may be taken against him or her. How many churches and temples do you own, Abs own, Absolute? And you say alexyvr also attacked your people? It is also illegal to attack people. If alexyvr attacked your people, you really should contact the proper authorities so that this violent criminal is put to justice. By the way, Absolute, how many people do you own? It may interest you that ownership of people constitutes slavery and that slavery is illegal. You might want to look into changing the legal status of the people you own before you contact the police about alexvyr’s violent and destructive behavior.
The greatest sinners of our day and age, are not the few who have destroyed, but the many who condemed them and also destroyed.
I think the issue is really more semantics than anything else. I’m a Christian, but I’m also a social worker. I believe that marriage is a religious institution based in Christianity as a union between a man and a woman. But I don’t believe that other religions don’t have marriages of their own. They don’t interfere with my beliefs.
On that same token, I don’t feel like a union between same sex couples interferes with my beliefs. I just don’t feel like it should be called “marriage.” This is simply because it doesn’t fit in the definition of marriage according to my religion, not because I feel like the rights of marriage should be withheld from any other group of people.
In my opinion, gay unions should be legal, and in most states they are. However, the legal aspects of a civil union should fully mimic the legal aspects of a straight marriage. It isn’t fair for people who have loved each other and devoted themselves to each other for life to have to fight for things that would have been legally theirs if the government would simply give equal rights to all people.
I know that some people feel that this is a separate but equal way of looking at things, but while I can’t see compromising my religious beliefs on the issue, I also can’t see allowing my religious beliefs to remove someone else’s rights. Legal rights in unions would still protect the religious sanctity of marriages.
That was beautiful. You have managed to explain why you wouldn’t call it a marriage, but you have also agreed that it is a right for everyone, everywhere to have the same rights in a “union”.
I like victimoftheswirl’s post.
Personally, I think the legal term should be “civil union” for everyone, granting the full rights of legal marriage while keeping it gender-neutral. “Marriage” should be taken out of the legal vocabulary and left to the usage of private individuals and religious organizations. That way, nobody can rail against gay/interracial/interfaith marriages based on semantics.
YES ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. Thank you.
If you believe that marriage is a religious belief then aren’t you forcing your beliefs on gays by telling them they have to believe what you do about marriage? You really should read what you are typing before sending it because you aren’t making much sense. All of that aside, why do you believe that two people who love each other and are committed to each other do not deserve the same rights you and your spouse do? I have been with my partner for 7 years. We are faithful to each other. We have not hurt anyone. We decided to have a child last year. So I should deny the way God made me, even though I have never infected anyone with anything other than the common cold and I have chosen to pass on my genes. You really are an idiot, but I tolorate you anyway because I believe you have the right to live as you choose. Have a blessed day!
If its not a religious belief, then why does it matter? Why do they want into the ‘Marriage club’ since its has no bearing on moral values, or any consequence. A tax status?
See, I know that there is one set of truth. Truth is truth whether or not you choose to believe. I am not forcing my beliefs on anyone. I am simply stating the truth. Thats like saying, here, let me force my gravity on you. The gravity is there no matter how you try to deny it. Morals don’t have the luxury of being relative to one’s personal set of values. Just like you cannot expect to bend the laws of physics, defy gravity or spontaneously get the ability to fly. Truth is truth and morals are not given to change based on situational ethics or sliding societal values.
Does it take a document to say you love someone? You misunderstand the purpose of marriage. Its a sacred commitment between a man and woman before god. That commitment goes to all their children as well. If all goverments fell today, marriage means the same thing. Those who have used marriage in the past for convenience are just as wrong s those who choose to try to change its definition now.
THE POINT IS> The graph IS wrong! There IS something that allowing gay marriage does. It changes the definition of marriage.
I just checked “misguided” on dictionary.com.
.
It said, “See: ValiantDefender”
the less popular my position is, the more I expect intolerance and hate to come from those who profess such. To love someone does not mean that you must agree with nor tolerate all their deviant behaviors. Otherwise, all loving parents should just allow their kids to do whatever they want…and the laws shouldn’t punish parents when kids don’t go to school, etc.
THERE IS a line in the sand. There are morals. Just because some set of peple choose to lower the standard doesn’t mean I’m letting mine drop. You can go live together and i won’t bug you. I won’t tell you to believe my belief. But hthis isn’t private domain anymore. You brought the argument to public domain by requesting a vote. In many states it was denied. You can accept the majority with your vaunted tolerance. Or you can continue to jibe and show how one sided your *cough* tolerance…really is.
(this didn’t seem to take the first time around. Please forgive if this is a double post)
.
*shrug*
Feel better? Good.
Actually, I considered getting into why your opinions are flawed on a fundamental, logical level, but it’d take about twelve years of proper educatino to bring you up to speed.
And I’m not joking about that.
.
That’s why I chose the word “misguided.”
Look VD, I believe that everyone should have the same legal rights.
Don’t you?
What if you took out the word marriage hmm? Would you shut your intolerant mouth then?
If they’d make Domestic Partnerships the EXACT same as being LEGALLY married… taking all religious drivel out of the idea, then even MY straight ass wouldn’t get married.
The fact of the matter is that DPTs are not the same as marriage, and there for unequal, which is unconstitutional.
So fix it or let them marry, it’s as simple as that.
And YOU’RE beliefs can’t overpower MY beliefs under the law. So why shouldn’t gays get married? Their beliefs are just as equal being Americans aren’t they?
I love how you Christians whine about intolerance and hate everytime someone exercises their right to free speech and disagrees with your (utterly inflexible) opinions.
Yet no one’s trying to deny you your civil rights, now, are they? Wow, I do feel so very, very sorry for you, VD. *weeps sympathetically*
well… now you’re arguing about the quality of the graph. And I have to respond here. You must hate all the pie charts on this page. IF you were right, “that it needs to include a slice for changing definition of marriage” (a position I personally don’t agree with) then the graph is still not “wrong,” it might be incomplete, which is a different situation. But then ALL the pie charts on this page are incomplete.
it doesn’t belong on a site where things are meant to be funny. -nuff said-
Oh. I see. So just like your definition of ‘marriage’ HAS to apply to everyone who wants to get married, your definition of ‘funny’ HAS to apply to everyone else as well?
Well… that’s just plain selfish.
I thought it was funny.. Even true things can be funny.
It’s funny because it’s true!
Based on your definition, straight atheists shouldn’t be allowed to get married, either. I’m a straight woman, an atheist, and I’m married. That must really piss you off, huh? If it doesn’t then why the F*** shouldn’t ANY two people who love each other be able to observe the same kind of union?
Religion does not necessarily equal morality, nor does it necessarily equal truth, and vice versa. Stating that those two ideas are exclusive to religion is patently false and, as an atheist, I take offense that you would suggest such a thing.
What is true is that banning same sex marriage is discrimination, plan and simple, and discrimination is amoral.
Morality has little to do with religion. I know atheists who are far, FAR more moral than many Christians I know, thank-you-very-much, my friend.
So… marriage is a commitment before god. I suppose that means ANYONE who doesn’t believe in a god shouldn’t be getting married, then?
Wow, you believe in the theory of gravity? Are you sure that doesn’t contradict the Bible, the way the theory of evolution does?
“One set of truth”–lol
In the United States, federal marriage conveys 1,138 federal rights to those married. Civil unions convey NONE. All we want is the civil rights that same-sex couples can get by walking up to a justice of the peace 5 minutes after meeting each other.
I’ve been with my partner for 27 years. Can you explain why I don’t havethe same rights as you, sir? Can you do it in a way that would satisfy the courts? Can you explain this conundrum in a manner that would not take away the rights of anyone who is “different” to marry, such as blacks, or blacks and whites, or the mentally disabled, or the lower class, or those in jail, or people deep in debt?
Marriage isn’t about sex. Marriage is about a commitment to a partner. preferably a lifetime commitment. Marriage is about having the right to be by your partner’s side when they are critically ill or injured. Marriage is about inheritance rights. Marriage is about adoption rights. Marriage is about CIVIL RIGHTS.
Of course this is the definition of *federal marriage*, not a church wedding. And that’s what we (my partner and I and millions of other gay and lesbian couples) want.
Because I love her, and I want to protect her and be by her side for the rest of our lives.
Why do you tell me I can’t have that?
Aw, drat — I mentioned a lifetime commitment in the definition of marriage. that’s my personal belief… but it’s not part of federal marriage. Lots and lots of married Christian people fought to have the right to divorce, and it remains a sacrament-level institution today.
Despite the fact that Jesus said nothing about gays and quite a lot about divorce. Hmm.
“Morals don’t have the luxury of being relative to one’s personal set of values. Just like you cannot expect to bend the laws of physics, defy gravity or spontaneously get the ability to fly. Truth is truth and morals are not given to change based on situational ethics or sliding societal values.” I am not trying to be intolerant of you so don’t take it that way, however you are just WRONG. Morals are relative. they are nothing but relative. if they were not you would follow every law in the bible AS IT WAS ORIGINALLY WRITTEN…not as it has been changed and edited(by committee no less) Marriage was around long before Christianity and continues to be in many other societies that do not have a christian base at all. Your statements repeatedly show an ignorance of history and world politics. Just a question but are you a member of the flat earth society? How about a member of the group of people who believe “intelligent design” should be taught in SCIENCE class instead of theology where it belongs? The graph is not wrong. If anything changed the definition of marriage it was christians. And it continues to change…JUST LIKE EVERYTHING ELSE IN THIS WORLD.
ValiantDefender -
Your argument fails on a very fundamental level. It’s based on something youj refer to as “the” definition of marriage. That implies that there presently is only one definition of marriage. Even just in Christianity, that’s not accurate. If you start to take into account other religious traditions which include ritual marriage, it becomes even less accurate. Start to look at the thousands of cultures world-wide which don’t even codify their spiritual beliefs into a religion, and you’ve got more definitions of marriage than sailors have words for “motherf***er.” Look at the marriage laws for just the 50 different states, and there’s a significant degree of variation. Just because you can’t keep track of more than one concept of marriage doesn’t make your concept “the” definition of marriage.
On that note, I’m going to withdraw from this argument before I make myself even stupider just by dignifying it with a response.
Well, you guys can believe that marrige means whatever some guy in a robe with a gavel says. I’ll follow the one with the truth, thanks.
.
Call him imaginary. Thats great. Just becaues YOU haven’t seen him.
.
I haven’t seen you…perhaps you are imaginary. Hmmm.
.
2+2 = 14 in B-Dawg land because he doesn’t feel like it should be 4 and he hasn’t met the guy who said it is 4. Moral laws are, in truth, as solid and matter of fact. Or do you suppose that scientific discovery has pretty much disproved his existence. See we won’t get very close to agreement until the underlying motives for the disagreement are discussed. To you, God doesn’t exist, and/or moral law (eternal law) has no bearing. But it does. To toss out everything based on that idea simply because you don’t believe it just shows how far from “just” your decision can be. Marriage isn’t just some silly little ceremony where to young kids put their name on a line and thats it. Perhaps that is what it has become.
.
I agree, Law should not take away someone else’s rights to do something…and then many people add on “when it doesn’t take away someone else’s rights”
.
I want the right to clean air, you want the right to smoke. Its disgusting and unhealthy. So, I get a right to clean air on the bus and at the entrance to a building. But if I’m at the park or at the game or on the sidewalk, my rights are trampled on all the time.
.
So, if All the world’s religions believe that marriage is more than a civil ceremony, and its already been made into some political institution but bear some semblence to the original, we already don’t like this. Far too many people treat spouse and children so poorly. They clearly don’t hold sacred their “vows”
.
Its upsetting to take it another notch away from the true meaning.
.
I’m sorry the Govt doesn’t give Civil Union the same rights as marriage. I haven’t heard that was an option. Is it? Is it a tax break? They should rewrite the code. There are plenty of people share living space that could use tax breaks. College dorms come to mind.
.
I dont think thats the real issue here. I think the real issue is, the Gay and Lesbian groups want society to *nod* that being Gay and Lesbian is OK and Cool with us. Maybe I’m wrong.
.
I’m a white, straight, married guy. I’m have lost a lot of rights. If I say “god” at work, then I get fired. However, the resident lesbian gets full protection…the gay guys can be overheard discussing “fudge packing” and do you think I dare protest that? Oh, I must be some intolerant two faced jerk. No, i must say nothing. If someone asks me at work how I feel about something, and they bring up the G word, I have to look over my shoulder…because if I answer, the person overhearing may be SO offended they cannot possibly sleep that night and nearly die of a pnaic attack. I’m not exagerating. From these posts you might think i’m some kind of bible toting God Slamming zealot. Far from it. I have many many friends who are living contrary to my beliefs and they all tell me I’m the most tolerant and understan Mormon they have ever met.
.
Good night and goodbye. Don’t bother answering, I won’t read it. I’ll be looking at the cute lolcats and hoping no more politically oriented jabs at Religion are made on a site that I think is hilariously funny.
I hate to tell you, but you have NOT lost any rights.
It is not illegal to mention one’s deity of choice at work, UNLESS you are speaking in an official capacity as a government employee.
It is NOT illegal to pray wherever you want, provided you are not disruptive or intrusive.
I have never heard a gay man use the term “fudge packing.” And if they do use that term, or discuss sex at all in the workplace, it’s considered offensive and can get them reprimanded (at least, at any place I’ve worked, including gov’t offices).
Basically, you can’t preach to other people at work or tell them that they have to believe in your god. You can pray to whoever you like, as long as it doesn’t disrupt your work. You can carry your Bible with you everywhere you go, and the law does not say otherwise. You can NOT be legally fired just for mentioning your God unless you’re preaching, trying to convert, or chatting when you should be working.
Changing the definition of marriage WILL:
1. Make the definition “A union between two people who love each other”
Changing the definition of marriage WILL NOT:
1. Blow up America
2. Corrupt children
3. Destroy straight marriages
4. Destroy religion
Are you paying attention, VD? Gay marriage will not harm you. It will not screw with truth as most people see it and WILL NOT collapse society.
Hate to tell you, VD, but the definition of marriage has already changed many times. Even in the Bible, it shows marriage as being between a man and a woman treated as property, a man and many women, a man and many women and several concubines…
Not to mention the fact that atheists get married, too. Atheism = lack of religion. Are their marriages invalid?
And what about religions other than Christianity, especially those that have different definitions of marriage?
There are rights besides tax status that legal marriage grants, such as the ability to decide whether to keep one’s spouse on life support.
RE:
I have a right to believe that marriage is sacred, holy and the definition is not to be changed because someone thinks it ought to be.
Yes, you have the right to believe any number of silly things, but that does not demand that other people respect or adhere to your superstitions.
Marriage is a civil bond. “Sacred” and “Holy” are religious words. If you want your marriage to be “Sacred” and “Holy” go to a church and ask them to bless it. The Justice of the Peace is basically a paper-shuffler who doesn’t deal in Sanctity.
RE:
What gives them the right to be upset and intolerant of my beliefs?
I suspect that it’s not your beliefs that upset them, so much as your desire to take away their rights. That’s very valiant, by the way. Gay people have had the right to marry in California and you want to take it away…basically saying “No, you cannot have a recognized civil bond with the person you love because I don’t think it’s right.” If you just had the “I don’t think it’s right” part rather than the “No you can’t” part, I don’t think they’d mind so much. They probably wouldn’t invite you over for tea, but I don’t think many people would be crying themselves to sleep for lack of your company. This is basically an issue of telling other American citizens that they don’t deserve the same civil privileges you enjoy. Does that make sense?
RE:
Allow them to force their theological changes on me? No way.
Marriage provided by a government body is not theological in nature. It has to do with that pesky “separation of church and state” thing that our forefathers thought to be kind of important.
RE:
Marriage is a religious belief.
Here’s the problem! You don’t know what a marriage is.
Having performed three of them, I can assure you that marriage is a signed and witnessed civil contract between two people, that usually involves cake…unless it’s common law, then it’s not signed or witnessed and there’s no cake, it’s just understood to function similarly. I should probably mention that the cake isn’t holy or sacred either, in case you were unclear on the nature of cake as well.
I object. Cake is most certainly holy AND sacred. Mmmmm…. cake.
Cake is def. holy. CAKE OR DEATH.
No! The cake is a lie!
Can we ban the marriage and reproduction of people like you? I know it would make me happy.
OK, I do not usually reply in the comments like this, but I just can’t seem to help myself on this one.
I completely agree with you that we should be tolerant of each other and each other’s beliefs. I also completely agree that you have every right to your beliefs and opinions, and also that you have every right to express those in any manner that you see fit to do so.
But, in defending your right to hold your beliefs and to express them, you are doing the very thing that you are angry at others about. It is your belief, apparently, that marriage is and always should be between a man and a woman. And in defending that, you chose language that flew in the face of everything else you were claiming to want – mostly tolerance from homosexuals for your beliefs. Your comments are very disparaging towards homosexuals and dismissive of them as people.
Unfortunately, marriage is not a simple matter of religion. If it were, there wouldn’t be this great debate. Marriage is also a civil union and legally binding contract between two people. No matter if the couple in question are of different sexes or the same. If marriage was a matter of religion, then most of the gay people I know would be just as happily married as most of the straight people I know. And should “the state butt out of it …”? Well, probably, but before we make that kind of grand sweeping statement we should consider what rights the state keeping some sort of secular track of these unions provides. There are certain things I am entitled to as a “wife” (complete with breasts, vagina and XX chromosomes) from my “husband” (who is in possession of a penis and XY chromosomes) that I would not necessarily have if the state hadn’t at some point butt it’s nose into the matter. Health insurance for instance. The fact that no matter what, half of what we own is mine. The fact that if my XY partner to my XX self skips out on me and leaves me holding the proverbial bag then I have a legal recourse to collect on debts owed from him. Or if my XY partner is in an accident, I have every right to say “I’m his wife” and I’m allowed to be at his side. Or if anything happens to me, my XY partner has every right to make decisions for me if I am unable to do so. In my experience, most homosexual couples simply want the same rights that I enjoy as part of a heterosexual couple. And in the Land of the Free, I see absolutely no reason to deny them that. They are not, in my experience, demanding that I change my own personal religious or ethical views of marriage. Most of my homosexual friends would rather cut out their own tongues than deny anyone – include hatemongering, right wing fundamentalists – the right to hold and express their beliefs. They simply want to hold the same rights I do by being an XX bonded spiritually and legally to an XY. Because, in their hearts, in our religion, and in the eyes of all of our Gods and our friends they are just as spiritually married as I am.
but you are forgetting one major thing. God is imaginary
Let me help you out a bit Valiant Defender. This is the mindset that you have:
It isn’t a true statement. “Blacks” being married = change the definition of marriage. Yes, I’m fundamental and proud of it. AND we don’t cry foul every time someone wants to do something different.
I have a right to believe that marriage is sacred, holy and the definition is not to be changed because someone thinks it ought to be. What gives them the right to be upset and intolerant of my beliefs? They want tolerance but give none? Hypocrisy! Tolerate “blacks”? Sure. Love them? Sure. Allow them to force their theological changes on me? No way.
Saying they are getting married is a complete misunderstanding of the sanctity of marriage, the purpose of family and spouse. They can have their own religion that ignore my beliefs, and make their own biologically unsound decisions that goes again how many billion years of evolution and not choose to pass on their genes and infect eachother with incurable diseases…and thats fine. White people do stupid stuff like that all the time…and when they do, we try to tolerate that too. However, it is logically backwards to say that I must tolerate their beliefs and not say that they must tolerate mine. Who wins when to beliefs are polar opposites? To demand that one party is allowed to force their beliefs on someone else is heavily biased. Marriage is a religious belief. The state should butt out…and you should tolerate my right to believe as I do.
Personaly I’m fine with you tolerating each others beliefs. What bothers me is when these beliefs take away others rights. Personaly I’m all for gay marriage and I honestly think if you’re against it thats fine, but thats no reason not to let them. If its a mistake let them make it. Its not your mistake to make and not your life to live. Let them choose how to live, even if you disagree with it, and I hope they will do the same for you.
Yeah, only one problem with your little argument there. We’re not talking about race. So, while many of the arguments for gay marriage are valid, and even justified, comparing the current set of laws to Jim Crow laws doesn’t work. The fact is, many people only see marriage as a union between a man and woman. And since there is no scientific proof that homosexuality is genetic, or anything other than a choice, the majority of Americans see the gay lifestyle as a choice one makes knowing the consequences include the inability to legally marry. It is not a skin color, or a disability, or a disease. Is it right to give marital status to any who wish it, even if it is outside the bounds set by the laws of this country? Well, laws are changed every day, but it takes a majority vote on a state by state basis, since the states are responsible for this particular issue. But should polygamists be given the right to marry multiple partners? Should pedophiles be allowed to marry consenting minors? I don’t personally believe so. Many Americans see gay marriage in much the same way they view polygamy and pedophilia, as a form of sexual deviancy. I don’t agree to this extent, but I damn sure won’t equate the “struggle” for gay marriage to the civil rights or women’s rights movements. So come on, do a little better than make a bad comparison to racism when discussing this, because it just does not fit.
Here’s your proof that being gay is not a choice:
Did you choose to be straight? Didn’t think so. You were just attracted to members of the opposite sex. Gays/Lesbians are just attracted to people of the same sex. End of story, no choice involved.
Actually, Yurasuka, there IS scientific evidence that homosexuality is more than just a choice.
The fact that homosexuals show brainwave patterns identical to straight people of the opposite sex. The fact that sexual attraction is a set of chemical and hormonal triggers, which do not activate when a homosexual interacts with someone of the opposite ses (but do activate with the same sex). The fact that dozens of other species have homosexuals in their populations.
Furthermore, the comparison IS valid. IF homosexuality were a choice, then you could substitute “gay” for “Muslim” and “straight” for “Christian,” instead of substituting “white” and “black.” The comparison is not about the TYPE of discrimination, but the fact that there IS discrimination based on nothing but a single group’s religious opinion.
You’re missing the point. People saw marriage as something that happened between two white people. No, it is not a 1:1 analogy – no analogy ever is (if it were, it would not be an analogy, just a replica). The similarity is that people are being descriminated against for something they can’t change about themselves. Now, if you believe people choose to be gay, I guess your argument holds. However, that belief is horribly mistaken – but I won’t even get into that.
The issue here NEEDS to be about the state recognizing the legal rights of two same sex people in a relationship… especially when there are children involved.
People want to use the term “marriage” because they are brainwashed by our society to want “The American Dream” which is flawed to begin with.
I agree that keeping religious and legal issues separate is the way to go here, but to deny civil liberties to ANY human being is completely uncalled for.
I have a right to believe that marriage is sacred, holy and the definition is not to be changed because someone thinks it ought to be.
Then shouldn’t you be telling Liz Taylor and Britney Spears to quit while they’re ahead? To me, they really cheapen the idea of marriage.
theological FAIL.
you don’t live in a theocracy, and marriage is a right that citizens have, that gives economical advantages and shows people that couples are serious about each other, at least ideally.
btw, if you believe in evolution then i guess you’re not as fundy as you say. or do you pull that card out only when it fits into your rant about what’s natural? it’s an unnaturally overpopulated world, so wtf do you expect? i can respect your religion and still think you personally are a jerk, for going off on a tangent about sexually transmittable diseases. gays shouldn’t have to be tolerated, like they’re really a pain in the ass for you or something. you just mind your own goddamn biz.
Hi, there.
My parents are lesbians.
They have to pay more taxes than you because they aren’t legally married.
They cannot both have custody of me at once, so if something unexpected happens to my mom [my legal guardian], her ‘wife’ [whom I also consider to be my mother] would have to fight for custody of myself and my big brother.
I don’t understand how you can say that all lesbians and gay men are intolerant. One of my mother’s very best friends is a Fundamentalist Christian, and we are friends with her entire family. Allowing the marriage of two women or two men would not in any way damage *your* marriage.
Having personally experienced quite a bit of religious intolerance, I would never ever inflict it on another person, nor would my mother or anyone else in my family. Your hypocrisy, however, is striking–you would force my family to abide by what we consider an unjust law because it is in keeping with your beliefs? What about my beliefs? Aren’t you displaying the intolerance of which you accuse lesbians and gay men?
For what reason can two different married couples have two different beliefs in what the word “marriage” really means?
For some it may be scared and holy, and you can keep that belief and not have it changed by anyone.
For those who are not religious marriage has a different meaning. For some of us marriage means a union between you and the one you love, a promise to love and care for and all those things said in wedding vows.
Even when two people of the same gender are married the meaning is not changed.
Just like wedding ceremonies can be different, there is no reason that your marriage can not be defined differently to someone elses.
For what reason can two different married couples have two different beliefs in what the word “marriage” really means?
For some it may be sacred and holy, and you can keep that belief and not have it changed by anyone.
For those who are not religious marriage has a different meaning. For some of us marriage means a union between you and the one you love, a promise to love and care for and all those things said in wedding vows.
Even when two people of the same gender are married that meaning is not changed.
Just like wedding ceremonies can be different, there is no reason that your marriage can not be defined differently to someone elses.
Observation fail.
Alright, I am Unitarian. My religion states that gay people should be allowed to get married. My religion teaches that a marriage is between any two adults who love each other. Why does your religion’s definition beat mine?
We’re not going to force your minister to officiate a gay marriage, you’re not required to accept an invitation to attend one, or even to think of those people as married if you don’t want to, religion or not, so their marriage in no way impairs your ability to practice your religion. On the other hand, you preventing their marriage impairs their and my ability to practice our religion, in the name of your religion.
You have every right to believe as you do, and I would take up arms and stand beside you to defend that right if it were threatened, despite disagreeing with you.
That does not mean that you have the right to impose those beliefs on others though.
I always think it is funny that people assume homosexuality does not occur in nature. Bonobos, for example, are ever presenting themselves as the closest in behavior to humans, and they greet one another with sexual contact. The most prevalent type of contact is called G/G rubbing, and it is exactly what it sounds like. Male/male contact is also quite frequent.
These are by no means the only examples in nature. Furthermore, often religious people seem to think that this only happened in Sodom and Gomorrah, and in present days. In fact, homosexuality has been far more prevalent throughout human history and in nearly all developed areas, only becoming what is modernly demonized within the last two centuries (See Foucault’s “History of Sexuality” . The only reason that it is less prevalent in under-developed areas are the practicality versus cost of a mate ratio.
Christ… I did it… Whoops. I promised myself not to do this comment/argument thing anymore. It makes me sad inside…
Wait a second…so you believe in evolution? Interesting…
Also, you’re misunderstanding the meaning of tolerance. We are not trying to change the way YOU do anything, at all. We not trying to change your beliefs, we’re simply asking that you don’t enforce YOUR beliefs on us through legislation – doing so is INTOLERANT. And we are not trying to force our beliefs on you – legalizing gay marriage doesn’t mean someone is going to kidnap you and force you into a gay marriage. You literally will not know the difference if you mind your own business.
Oh honey…. we DO tolerate you. And what you do behind your closed doors is your own business.
But here’s the problem…. you seem to have an inordinate interest in what goes on behind the closed doors of OTHERS. That’s the problem.
And really…. y’all gotta get off the “sancitity of marriage” deal. Heterosexuals haven’t had “sanctified marriage” for YEARS. It sure as hell wasn’t homosexuals who were getting in and out of marriage over and over again. Britney married a GUY for 54 hours. Sanctified? uh… ok. If you want to believe that, ’tis your right.
Christ’s command was to love one another as we loved him. He never once mentioned homosexuality. His death and resurrection rendered the old rabbinical laws obsolete.
How does homosexuality and/or their marriage violate his teachings again?
I’m a cradle Christian. I work for the church. I’ve gotta pretty darn good grasp of both old and new testaments.
I’m YET to read anywhere where Christ condemns the love of two people.
But we’ll TOLERATE your point of view. Just don’t use it as an excuse to deny rights to others.
the ice-caps are melting because Judgement Day is upon us because Russia is invading and all that is because my 20 yr marriage is threated by two people who are in love want to get married. 0_0
‘judgment’ spelling fail. both for the graph and for you.
Sanctimony fail.
Main Entry: judg·ment
Variant(s): or judge·ment \ˈjəj-mənt\
Function: noun
Date: 13th century
: the final judging of humankind by God b: a divine sentence or decision ; specifically : a calamity held to be sent by God
Welcome to British English.
What? There are other spellings found within the English language besides American slang …
HORRORS! That’s bloody unbelievable!
How do you think the English feel?
With their hands.
I’ll try the veal…
this is very good seal
Make the piggy squeal.
Then cook him for your meal!
haaa win.
Don’t ya mean “HORROURS!”?
No, that’s stupid.
That’s hardly fair. Judgment/Judgement is a very obscure variant. Hell, my spell ckecker doesn’t even like it. You can’t blame the man for simply assuming an extra E was added as a typo.
And I do hope that you’re not implying that all American English variants are just slang. That would be silly.
I’m American. It’s a joke.
Horrours. HEH!
Taking the man to task for not recognizing what in America is an obscure alternate spelling would indeed be harsh.
Taking the man to task for trying to tear someone a new one and getting sanctimonious, all while being wrong–entirely called for.
Actually, judgement is a generally accepted variant spelling. Like theatre and theater, color and colour, honor and honour.
in soviet russia..
ice caps melt your gay marriages
fail
I disagree. This made me giggle like an idiot.
But I guess that would explain itself.
IAWTC
idiot
Lame.
the humour or the content?
gimp alert
Bring out the gimp!
But the gimp’s sleeping!
How do you know what Davey is doing?
I’m his husband.
win!
All in favor of the Gnu Image Manipulation Program CHANGING THEIR SOFTWARE’S NAME ALL-FRICKING-READY, say “AYE”.
Suggestions: Gnu Professional Image Manipulation Program.
PIMP, or G-PIMP if you prefer.
I second the motion.
Motion carried!
AYE!
I oppose. I’m getting pretty tired of all the Iceweasels and Pidgins and Sawfishes goinf around.
Absolutely awesome, well done
Win!
Although..judging by the content of the graph and the willingness of people on here to argue political issues……..
Let the bloodbath begin.
I know what the problems are with gay marriage.
1. Super religious nut jobs don’t get enough sex and are therefore afraid they are gay.
2. They are afraid of this because since they don’t masturbate either they have no idea what their own genitals look like, therefore are afraid of same sex genitals because of the unfamiliarity.
3. Since any butt weaming straight couple can walk into a courthouse in Las Vegas and say “We would like a marriage license please” and then be married by Elvis in the middle of the night and gays have to fight for it; that means gays love eachother enough to fight for their right to lawful recognition. This is scary because straight people love is clearly different than gay people love. Therefore, gay people love is evil.
And that is what is wrong with gay marriage.
If you didn’t catch the sarcasm and irony, it’s in there.
I get what you say. I’v seen people with signs around saying “Gays Burn in hell” Well… Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
yeah, but, see, people never remember that part, because it would be terribly inconvenient to their need to hate something other than whatever they find troublesome in their own lives.
thus, they very conveniently forget it, and when brought up, they either quickly change the subject or quote some other part of the bible that “supersedes” original said quote.
something like that.
You mean like they forget the “love thy neighbor” part every time someone represents a different belief system?
not even necessarily a different belief system. from my personal experience, those who aren’t, shall i say, accepting, tend to quote the “you’re going to hell” parts of the bible rather than the “love thy neighbor” and “judge not lest ye be judged” parts.
luckily, the whole world isn’t like that, and not everyone takes it to extremes like the WBC. it just seems that way sometimes. anger gets more coverage than love and cheezburgers, in my opinion. ;P
one day my friends will be able to marry like i can. that would be “teh r0×0rz.”
Context check. “gays burn in hell” is not an action statement. it’s a judgement.
Try “judge not, lest ye be judged…” works a bit better.
amen to that
If you are against gay marriage: “Lame”.
If you are for gay marriage: “Win”.
Totally for it!!! The bible was written by man “(interpeting Gods word)”. That doesn’t mean we have all the answers!
Plus.. How many different languages has it been translated into and how many times was it copied by hand before it got to us?
*boggle*
I’d recommend Bart D Ehrman
So would I.
I prefer Danny Elfman, but thanks for the tip.
I’m a WINNER!!!
A winnar is you (& me). Even though I just lost the Game.XP
DAMMIT divided by zero, I just woke up. I didn’t want to lose the game quite this early.
DAMNIT I lost the game too.
And graph = win. (I’m a guy married to another, gogo same-sex marriage!)
(I just lost the game a couple more times since writing this post… yeah I’m horrible at it…)
damnit i lost the game!
WIN
I guess I’m win! Sorry had to say that…I don’t see why people care to hate gay marriage.. seriously if you don’t like it then ignore geez no ones forcing you to watch a gay couple get married… as for some states making it illegal… well screw that shit.. come to Canada then to get married.. we accept it.. its all pretty sad
If you are against equal rights: “Lame”
If you are in favor of everyone equally enjoying the protections of the law: “Win”
FTFY
That comment is a ‘win’
When I heard gays could marry in certain states, I knew my marriage was over. When my son asks me why mommy and I dont love eachother anymore, I’ll tell him, “Its not that, son. Its that gays could marry.” He’ll probably respond with something like “But dad, isnt marriage about love?” And I’ll just shake my head at his young mind and pat his head…
I bow to the Awesomeness that is you. ^_^ My thoughts exactly.
I lol’d, you two best be trolling.
sarcasm =/= trolling, but to the basic idea of your question: probably.
Dangerously close to Poe’s Law
Best parody EVER!
Lol. Well spoken.
are you trying to say that just because someone is gay it means that they can’t love? That just because a man loves another man it can’t compare to a man who loves a women? that’s just ignorant.
is today opposite day?
“A women”? How can you apply a singular article to a PLURAL noun?
EPIC PARENTING FAIL.
Your son is right. Marriage IS about love.
brilliant! and some great comments as well!
Get the government completely out of marriage. It shouldn’t be in the business of recognizing it or not recognizing it–gay or straight.
This has pi**sed me off since I was in the army, where people who are married got paid extra to live off post, while if you were stupid enough to be single, you not only didn’t get the dough, but also had to live in the barracks and be subject to inspection, clean-up details, etc.
The gov’t, and private business for that matter, should base remuneration the work you do, not your family status.
Got that off my chest—now I can die in peace.
Wow, didn’t know that…. That’s fucked up.
hopefully a slow painful death in a fire.
gtfo
Just like when I wanted to sign my gf living with me under my health insurance through my employer…..no go. But if I had a ’same sex domestic partner’ then its ok. Therefore, I was discriminated by being straight. What the fuck. I went and married her, now look at the position I’m in!!! HAHAHAH
Seeing how cunning you are, world domination can only be a matter of minutes.
If gays had the right to marry there would be no need for ’same sex domestic partner’ type clauses.
That’s not true. Just because they are allowed to marry, doesn’t mean they all will.
I am a girl in a relationship with a guy. We have a domestic partnership.
Yes, but what required is saying is that insurance companies could then fairly say at that point “you have to be married (or civil-unioned, or whatever) to your SO to sign him/her up for benefits.”
You should have sued. If they allow domestic partnerships, they’re not allowed to pick and choose which partnerships are ok.
Announcement to Shawn: Ahem….. Will you kindly get the fuck out of the gene pool. There are only a few banjo-playing cousin thumping retards with you and we’re asking them to leave, too.
Yeah I don’t think anyone even thought about gay marriage until some gay couple were like “We want to get married” and someone else said “Eek! You’re spreading gay!”.
Before that it was just marriage… I don’t even understand.. Where does it say gays can’t marry in the first place? Did that even exist before those gay people said they wanted to get married?
For the record.. i believe it is spreading “the gay”…
I think you’ll find it’s spelled ‘teh Ghey!!!111′
Nonono, you catch Teh Ghey, and becoma A Gay.
No. That’s why so many states have started making constitutional ammendments.
gonna print this graph and mail it to all my fundy family members on this year’s xmas cards (they are already ripped about the cards that say “happy holidays”; this one is gonna give out at least half a dozen coronaries!!
oh, charro, you might enjoy this:
http://www.amazon.com/What-Marriage-Strange-Intimate-Institution/dp/0807041351/ref=pd_bbs_sr_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1227208940&sr=8-4
Hahahaha! That’s great! My mom’s an anthropologist and I studied it a little in college, this fits right in.
My questions were mostly rhetorical though, you know, to get people to “think”.
Thanks for the book though, looks an interesting read.
Is it just me, or do people who claim that gay marriage is “Spreading the gay” sound a lot like kindergardeners claiming that girls have cooties?
By the way, I admire the number of thoughtful posters on this page. I am a lesbian and I am for equal-rights unions, and it ticks me off when ANYONE gets labelled a second-class citizen, whether that term is openly-used or not.
To think that this all started on a humor site is kind of humorous in and of itself
Strange to say, I agree. Folk getting married and folk breeding are their problem, not the govts, and certainly not mine…
You know of private businesses that pay more for married individuals? Dish it, the rest of us out here are starving!
Without at least some legal protection of marriage, married people could easily be discriminated against. Hire the single guy, he’s got no relationships that will get in the way of us working him long hours.
There are many legal contracts involved in marriage that are beneficial to society as a whole and offset some of the burdens that marriage comes with.
What the government could stand to get out of is the business of calling it “marriage”. Issue every ‘married’ couple a ‘domestic partnership’ license and let the religions call their partner sacrament what they want to.
Dude, bravo. That is the most perfect idea I’ve heard thus far. There’s got to be a way to petition it or something. Rally that idea up. although petitions are notoriously useless. But something to that effect.
i’ll second that.
Marriage, though (not to hijack total absurdity with reality) is actually a social contract, an agreement by a couple to certain property arrangements (mainly that two people will share the same stuff) and sanctioned and recognized by the social authority i.e. government. Religion is actually the latecomer to the field, initially providing blessings and a ceremony as the church did to just about everything, and finally becoming highly involved only when the church became the administrator to the state.
When marriage began it was a simple property arrangement – this woman that was once MY daughter is now YOUR wife. That was it – a bargain, in essence. Among people who didn’t deal in women-as-property (i.e. the poor) all “marriages” were what we would now define as “common-law” – they shacked up together, raised a family of similarly poor children, and carried on without any sort of ceremony or recognition.
My roommate and I spent a great deal of time wondering how our future potential marriages might be threatened by homosexuals marrying. All that we could come up with was this: in order to put themselves through this level of stupid and insanity, those homosexuals who wish to marry must be truly devoted to their partners and greatly in love. Thus, homosexual marriage is a threat to heterosexual marriage as it has two prerequisites not found in straight couplings: love and devotion.
WIN!!
WHOO HOO!!! FOR IT FOR IT FOR IT!!!