The Planned Kiss In at Chck-fil-a On Friday,

[billvon 3,120]

>Why does it have to be "anti-gay-rights forces?"

Because they oppose gay rights. Specifically the right to marry. If they supported "the sanctity of marriage" and lobbied to ban divorce, but did not lobby to deny rights to gays, then you could legitimately call them "pro sanctity of marriage forces."

>You do realize that all of the "rights" that are being "oppressed" are all new benefits
>that have evolved with our society, specifically (insurance, etc...) over about the last
>70 years, and can be given without calling it marriage?

Sure, and if states were doing that, a lot of this would go away.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Also, lets be honest, the only reason this is an issue right now is because of all the legal benefits/ entitlements that our society has developed. That's what the whole marriage thing is about, getting their greedy little hands on them.

ignoring entirely your claim of their motivation....how can it be considered greedy to want the same benefits/entitlements that 90% of the country is eligible for? Aren't you the greedy bastard for insisting that gays subsidize these benefits for you or I?

This is by far the lamest reason to deny equal access to marriage - saying it will cost us money admits that we've been stealing it from gays all along.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

If you were to go back and talk to people who truly have had their rights stepped on, they would tell people now a days to stop their whining.

You know gays have had their rights stepped on, right?

I guess I was asleep in school when the taught us about how gays were brought over in slave ships and how Lincoln freed the gays with the emancipation proclamation....

so slavery is the only way rights can be stepped upon? As long as discrimination against blacks has lasted, discrimination against gays has lasted longer. As in beat to death events. Or proposals to quarantine them (HIV) only 20 years ago....no one would suggest that against blacks, or even Japanese.

It's petty to try to claim otherwise.

[jgoose71 0]

Quote

fuck if I can see the difference.

Kind of hard for the conversation to go any further until you do.

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[jgoose71 0]

Quote

>You do realize that all of the "rights" that are being "oppressed" are all new benefits
>that have evolved with our society, specifically (insurance, etc...) over about the last
>70 years, and can be given without calling it marriage?

Sure, and if states were doing that, a lot of this would go away.

Which, I'm pretty sure will happen as soon as the supreme court rules, and then it will be the law of the land. Problem solved. Here, have a puppy....

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[jgoose71 0]

Quote

so slavery is the only way rights can be stepped upon? As long as discrimination against blacks has lasted, discrimination against gays has lasted longer. As in beat to death events. Or proposals to quarantine them (HIV) only 20 years ago....no one would suggest that against blacks, or even Japanese.

It's petty to try to claim otherwise.

Yes, I do see a difference between closed minded, individual bigots and legal and legitimized actions by an entire country. Your point?

Or are you suggesting that there actually was laws in the U.S. to quarantine and enslave the gays because of HIV?

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[billvon 3,120]

>Or are you suggesting that there actually was laws in the U.S. to quarantine and
>enslave the gays because of HIV?

Nope. But there were laws to deny the right of blacks to marry whites, because the people of the time felt that did not meet the definition of marriage. We now consider people who believed that to be prejudiced against blacks.

[jgoose71 0]

Quote

>Or are you suggesting that there actually was laws in the U.S. to quarantine and
>enslave the gays because of HIV?

Nope. But there were laws to deny the right of blacks to marry whites, because the people of the time felt that did not meet the definition of marriage. We now consider people who believed that to be prejudiced against blacks.

You kind of made my point. There were laws against. This is more of a legal over site that will soon be corrected. Just that a lot of people think that marriage, as it originally was conducted over the last several thousand years should be protected in the process.... It can be done.

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Just that a lot of people think that marriage, as it originally was conducted over the last several thousand years should be protected in the process.... It can be done.

Same sex marriages date back thousands of years.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jgoose71 0]

Quote

Quote

Just that a lot of people think that marriage, as it originally was conducted over the last several thousand years should be protected in the process.... It can be done.

Same sex marriages date back thousands of years.

If you are going to make a statement like that, please elaborate with references please to enlighten the rest of us....

While gay couples have been around and even well documented (especially during the roman empire) I do not know much about the history of gay marriage.....

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[Coreece 190]

Quote

I know many are trying to hold on to the old "well the Bible says so," but that's such a cop-out. The Bible says plenty of things that Christians choose to ignore when their own sense of morals (or perhaps what their pastor tells them) contradicts or overrides.

I apologize, but I've pretty much givin' up on the vanity of posting at length, plus I've been hosting heathen from all over the world in my house for the past month...add to that my unforgiving work schedule, traveling, and personal family problems of epic proportions...I'm just beat. I just want to have a few beers in peace around a bonfire, therefore I'll just post some comments from a sermon that pretty much identifies with how I feel about the subject:

Quote

"...this effort at cultural morality becomes selective as to the sins it attacks...I don't notice that they're really hard against pride, do you? I haven't seen a great effort in the Religious Right against materialism. I haven't seen a great effort even against divorce. In fact, they rarely say anything about adultery. They're really against homosexuality, that's so bizarre and abnormal. They're really against pedophilia, that's sick and abnormal. They're against killing babies, that's safe, who can imagine doing that? They're against filth and pornography. And there's a certain satisfaction in their morality about that but there's a lot of other things they don't talk about. At one point in America, the greatest advocate for the Religious Right, the national spokesman, well-known politician, was while he was developing the contract on America involved with a woman who wasn't his wife. It's a selective thing.

And let me put it down where it really needs to be. It doesn't deal with the worse sin in the world....What is the greatest commandment? "To love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength." Therefore what's the greatest sin? To break that commandment. How you doing? You've committed the greatest sin.

You want to talk about morality? Let's talk about that. You want to talk about sin? Let's not pick out five that we can easily assault because it, you know, we don't do those five. Let's talk about the fact that you have broken the greatest commandment, therefore you've committed the greatest sin that any human being can commit and that is the sin that sends you to eternal hell. You have failed to love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength. And, as R.C. Sproul one time said, "And you know you haven't kept that commandment at any time in your life for five seconds." You can't keep that commandment. It's impossible. Well let's talk about that.

If you want to go after America's immorality, then let's indict the whole nation for not loving God. That is not only the first and great commandment, that is the sum of the commandments. And the second commandment is to love your neighbor as...yourself, and you can't keep that one for five seconds. So if we're going to get moral, then let's go where we need to go because that, wrote the apostle Paul, the sum of all the law. Why do we have to pick these selective ones?

.... cultural morality brings persecution and hatred of Christians for the wrong reasons...not because we're preaching the gospel.

...People who call themselves Christians today are getting vilified by the world for their political positions and for their animosity and hostility toward the people who are the people we're supposed to reach."

Now there is more to that...if you want to read/listen to the whole sermon it can be found here:

The Deadly dangers of moralism:
http://www.gty.org/resources/sermons/80-257/The-Deadly-Dangers-of-Moralism

Just to note...though those words may seem harsh to christians, never does Johnny Mac ever condone the sin of homosexuality. This sermon really gets to the heart of true christianity without being politically biased...and it's sincere - there to edify the brethren, unlike atheists who share similar sentiments.

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Just that a lot of people think that marriage, as it originally was conducted over the last several thousand years should be protected in the process.... It can be done.

Same sex marriages date back thousands of years.

If you are going to make a statement like that, please elaborate with references please to enlighten the rest of us....

While gay couples have been around and even well documented (especially during the roman empire) I do not know much about the history of gay marriage.....

Start here.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

how can it be considered greedy to want the same benefits/entitlements that 90% of the country is eligible for?

Having lived in San Francisco for 3 years, I have met a lot of gay people. One of my college friends was gay, and he's one of the few people I personally call a "genius". Outside of the Castro, a lot of gays are monogamous. To not allow them to pass on the wealth they have accumulated from a life time together isn't reasonable.

We are all engines of karma

[Coreece 190]

I still think this is all about the word "marriage."

Just curious...is there any christian here that would have a problem with gay couples having a civil union with the equal legal disadvantages of traditional marriage without actually calling it "marriage" and putting you in the position to condone homosexual behavior?

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

I still think this is all about the word "marriage."

Just curious...is there any christian here that would have a problem with gay couples having a civil union with the equal legal disadvantages of traditional marriage without actually calling it "marriage" and putting you in the position to condone homosexual behavior?

I think you're right, re: "marriage".

I'm not a Christian, but I can't sit here and say I don't have reservations about state sanctioned marriage wrto gays. Does this mean they'll be able to adopt kids? Yes, probably in legal terms. Is that a good thing? Ahck, makes me twitch. I look at parents I know, and think they shouldn't have been allowed to have kids. I look at some committed gays I know and think their adopted-kids would have incredible advantages in life because of the accomplished individuals their parents are. Then, there are other "gay-couples" that simply want to fuck anything that steps in front of them. Incredibly tricky stuff here.

We are all engines of karma

[Coreece 190]

Quote

I look at some committed gays I know and think their adopted-kids would have incredible advantages in life because of the accomplished individuals their parents are.

Adoptive parents whether straight or crooked are almost always more qualified because they are actually judged to posses certain qualifications for the most part.

Quote

Then, there are other "gay-couples" that simply want to fuck anything that steps in front of them.

Most gays I've met are depraved, cynical horrible pricks just like me...the only difference is that they think it's cool.

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

Most gays I've met are depraved, cynical horrible pricks just like me...the only difference is that they think it's cool.

My experience has been different. And, yes, you're right, those that live that lifestyle do think it's cool, and there's a sub-set of those people that genuinely cannot see another lifestyle. Those people are outside the bell curve, and thankfully so.

We are all engines of karma

[Coreece 190]

Quote

Quote

Most gays I've met are depraved, cynical horrible pricks just like me...the only difference is that they think it's cool.

My experience has been different. And, yes, you're right, those that live that lifestyle do think it's cool, and there's a sub-set of those people that genuinely cannot see another lifestyle. Those people are outside the bell curve, and thankfully so.

Unfortunately, it's only those loud mouth douche bags that we hear about, who force their immorality on the rest of us - desperately demanding us to condone their depravity...it's not gonna happen. Even as young children we sense something wrong with depraved sexual acts such as masturbation and molestation, yet alone (pardon my french) buttfucking.

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[Coreece 190]

Quote

Planned Kiss at Chck-fil-a

Yep, figures...homosexuals once again fucking up the natural order of life...how romantic.

I really feel sorry for these people...even I wouldn't stoop so low. Truly reprobate.

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[RonD1120 62]

Quote

I still think this is all about the word "marriage."

Just curious...is there any christian here that would have a problem with gay couples having a civil union with the equal legal disadvantages of traditional marriage without actually calling it "marriage" and putting you in the position to condone homosexual behavior?

I'm OK with that.

My biggest stumbling block is this, if sex is great and same sex is as good or greater than heterosexual sex and we want to condone the homosexual perversion, why stop there? Why don't we condone all perversions?

Orgasm is orgasm, same-o same-o.

I suppose the answer is given enough time evil will triumph all over the world. Then one individual will establish world peace.

"Even so, come quickly Lord Jesus."

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[jgoose71 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Just that a lot of people think that marriage, as it originally was conducted over the last several thousand years should be protected in the process.... It can be done.

Same sex marriages date back thousands of years.

If you are going to make a statement like that, please elaborate with references please to enlighten the rest of us....

While gay couples have been around and even well documented (especially during the roman empire) I do not know much about the history of gay marriage.....

Start here.

Dude, I thought you were going to show me something new. Yes, I already new that same sex unions have been around forever. However, they are not the same as marraige nor have they ever had the same status.

Why you ask? It all comes down to legacy. If a ruler wants to have kids, he had to have sex with a woman... in her vagina.... plane and simple. If he didn't, his legacy died with him. No way around the family. Sorry.

Lots of rulers then and now have wives for show, but only sleep with them to produce heirs, and then send them back to their sad lonely neglected existence, (See Ruler of Oman, today), but that marriage is more legitimate than all his boy toys. This is also the argument to protect the sanctity of marriage.

Now today, we have sperm donors, egg donors, surrogate parents, and a bunch of other crap. My position has always been that same sex unions should not be called marriage. They need to be called something else so we can establish laws to protect the children of these unions.

It has been well established that when the gay "parents" of the child break up, unless there was paperwork establishing what happens next, typically the government goes after the good Samaritan that agreed to help the couple out. It's not right. the couple wanted the kid, they should be responsible.

The rules need to catch up with the times.

And if you continue to try to call same sex unions "marriage" and apply all the same rules, you are going to fuck over a lot of children and good samaritans, while "Parents" walk away from there kids scott free.

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[TriGirl 343]

Quote

I never said a thing about marriage.

Quote

Gays can have unions, have family's, have tax benefits

Are you sure? I'm pretty sure that they can't claim a federal 'marriage' deduction under the umbrella of a civil union.

Agreed. Here is an example: As a military member, I could get married to a man and start getting about $2500 in housing allowance, since he would be a dependent and I would be responsible for supporting him. He would also get access to the base there in Tampa, and be able to walk into the health clinic on base and get medical care and prescription medications on demand (for significantly less than what you would pay on the economy -- in some cases totally free of charge). He wouldn't have to hold a job. He could get a diplomatic passport and get free flights to visit me here in Turkey during my assignment. I could transfer my GI Bill education benefits to him.

If I had the same legal relationship with a woman, she would get NONE of that.

Now let's assume for the sake of argument that the relationship with the man is just a legal arrangement. Where is the outcry for the lack of a "traditional" marriage? Not existent. He could be less than half my age. We won't be having children. But as long as I'm not sleeping with anyone else, I'm not breaking any laws, and no one would be trying to take any of that away.

(Note, not all government institutions are that way. The State Department treats same-sex partners as full-benefit spouses)

See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus

Shut Up & Jump!

[Marinus 0]

Gay marriage existed in the Roman empire right until the Christians plunged it (along with the whole continent of Europe) into the Dark Ages. We should have fed them all to the lions I guess. Anyway, about time to go back to traditional family values.

[jgoose71 0]

Never said that gay unions didn't exist. All I am saying is that they never have, nor ever will have the same status as an marriage between a man and a woman because they can't have children. (Though they can now a days with help, but as I said earlier, that is a whole nother argument.)

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[TriGirl 343]

Quote

Never said that gay unions didn't exist. All I am saying is that they never have, nor ever will have the same status as an marriage between a man and a woman because they can't have children. (Though they can now a days with help, but as I said earlier, that is a whole nother argument.)

I can't have children. Does that mean any marriage I have would not have the same status?

(okay, that was for argument's sake. just making a point)

See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus

Shut Up & Jump!