Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Since I'm forced to listen to talk radio, I can't wait for this to blow over so those blowhards can move to something else. Last friday, Rush was making a "point" by taking a call from a woman who wanted to marry her dog. Of course she wasn't sincere, just a Dittohead. Rush, the master of the logical fallacy. I'm for people finding happiness wherever they can. Sure, the idea of having sex with another guy is still kind of disturbing to me. But so is the idea of having sex with Mimi from the Drew Carrey Show. Or one of her stretchpant wearing counterparts from the local Wal Mart. So I try not to think of these sorts of things. Since we do live in a secular society, there should be no problem with gay marriage. If churches don't like the idea, they are within their rights to not allow them. But that shouldn't effect anyone who doesn't want to get married in a church.
I also find it morbidly ironic that the main supporter (or most visible) person for a gay marriage ban is also the same person seperating thousands of families and killing hundreds by sending them to other countries. I dislike the use of large graphics to get your point across, but I have to agree with the statement in the one above.
Persol, the rejection of gay marriage is that it's not the definition of marriage. If someone thinks that words such as marriage don't indeed change, they only need to look at other examples such as the word "gentleman", which used to mean a rich land owner but now means practically anyone. Eventually, the term "marriage" will mean both heterosexual and homosexual marriage. In fact, we already see this happening, and unless if that is someone's goal, he or she would not support gay marriage. It's not our right to put down others, but we are obligated to call what is abnormal behavior "abnormal" and what is not marriage not marriage. At the same time, rejecting gay marriage in no way infringes on homosexual rights since they may still have valid marriages. Gays must reject the entire "equal rights" argument since they do have equal rights. The state can't recognize my marriage with a gay man, and neither can it recognize your's. Now, most people support civil marriages for gays which makes most of the benifits of allowing gay state marriages null. The only other doubtful "benefit" is that you will be unable to say the state married you, which won't even be a benefit if marriage loses its place in society. Vatican 2 is fairly liberal on this matter. I believe that catholics can be married within Protestant or Jewish churches and synagogs as long as the marriage is approved by a priest.
Persol, the rejection of gay marriage is that it's not the definition of marriage. Definitions were also the way minorities and women were descriminated against. Eventually, the term "marriage" will mean both heterosexual and homosexual marriage. Your definition of marriage is in itself descriminatory. It's not our right to put down others, but we are obligated to call what is abnormal behavior "abnormal" and what is not marriage not marriage. I wouldn't call it abnormal, and see no reason for you to do so. At the same time, rejecting gay marriage in no way infringes on homosexual rights since they may still have valid marriages. Well no, they can't. A valid marriage is based on love. I 'hope' you agree with that. Gays must reject the entire "equal rights" argument since they do have equal rights. The state can't recognize my marriage with a gay man, and neither can it recognize your's. First, this is the same argument that was used for divorce, inter-racial marriages, womens suferage, and now gay marriage. Your argument was flawed then, it is flawed now. Second, neither of us are attracted to the same sex so this doesn't harm us. What it does do is isolate another group of people who you can give no good reason to descriminate against. Arguing definitions is a very weak position. By definition policemen, firemen, and doctors were all white men. The definition didn't make it any right.
I don't believe I've given you my definition. Nevertheless, it does not really matter. My definition discriminates by disallowing polygamist relationships. Persol, don't appeal by previous issues you believe are somehow connected to this without explaining how they are. Definitions do matter. If they didn't then we could just as well redefine what your rights are. The core issue is that you must redefine what marriage means to some people or convince them their definition does not matter. Otherwise, it seems that civil agreements give all the benefits without all the fuss.
you say that god shouldnt be mandatory in the country and i respect that...but...why would bush make it mandatory that a book on how the flood that killed the world, except noah and the arc, that made the Grand Canyon be sold in the gift store? he takes god out of the country then puts in illusions of god...Noahs flood was WAY to early for the Grand Canyon...so i believe that God should be mandatory in the country because when he was taken out, ETHICS DISSAPPEARED...look at the sixties...God was once in schools, when he was taken out...i dont wanna think about what happened...now people lie cheat and steal just to get on top for the extra buck...i dont mind if u wanna be a homosexual muslim or jew...but sir...God should be in this country
A man with a ? So your equate god with civility? I see that as system of fear rather then independant thought. God is removed from school and the real civility comes through....no matter how repugnant it maybe atleast it isn't mostly fed by an Illusion. Illusion to tame to the masses is how we do things but rather an Illusion of free will and thought is more real than a Illusion of a god fearing society...if that makes any sense. God is a belief, not a strength. As for the gay rights issue....this behavior is expected. The real problem is that the social norms are being challenged, especially norms related closely with religion and god....that is poking the lion with the stick: you have to expect a roar and a bite or two. Most people can not wrap their head around the concept of same sex love, it frustates the mas to how is it possible, in this frustration they fear that this unexplainable activity will spread around them, changing their world...this change makes them leery. They aren't fighting and protesting gays...they are fighting their fears...
Good, so did the founding fathers, and that's why they wrote it into the constitution, and why-since this nation's inception-we have strafed for a secular government. We haven't always stayed 100% true to that ideal, but we've certainly got some valid grounds to raise a stink about any infringements. It's worked well enough that there's no significant government institutionalization of religion, save perhaps for Bush's faith based initiative programs, but even those have tight restrictions on what the money can be used for. First off, learn a bit about geology, the beginnings of the Grand Canyon was here long before any human civilization, so don't try to work it into any flood myth chronology. Aside from that this isn't even a coherent argument. In it's essence all you've just said is that you're a conservative and you're angry and you don't know what about. God has never been in our government, we have always strived to be secular in that regard. I assume that what your mis-guided attempt at an argument is trying to get at is that you think religious faith is declining in American society, and you're probably right. What you're wrong about is that it's had any negative impact on society, you've not backed that up at all with any factual information but instead offered up the base premise of conservatism "Things used to be better". The illusion that "things used to be better" is a tempting one, bit it's generally very vague, and allows one to retreat into some imaginary ideal of a golden age that never really happened, it blinds you to actually dealing with any specific issues, or thinking about how things used to be better and how things have changed. I'm pretty sure I've said this before, but this does nothing but create a rather ugly conservative paradigm in which a person generally becomes old and bitter, hates everything modern, and pines away over any past for any possible future. My advice would be to look at issues in their present context and truly evaluate them before forming an opinion, don't just base it off of how well it fits your golden ideal of the past, because that never happened, and you'll never get it back.
I think of central concern here is that anti-marriage types don’t really understand that a homosexual relationship isn’t just two sinners fooling around, It is ever bit as sincere and real as a heterosexual relationship. Gay partners cant visit each other in the hospital, oh who cares they are just fooling around, gay partners cant get home loans, oh who cares about what land they can or cant buy? They should just live in an apartment anyway because they'll just move on to the next relationship in a few months. This is completely wrong, These relationships aren’t fake, or for show, in fact they are just like a heterosexual relationship with the same emotions and commitments, but none of the support from society.
What kind of infuriating leftist hippy logic is that? Certainly homosexuals like members of the same sex because they want to piss us off! Or better yet they're all atheists or Satanists and want to piss off God. Or how about the fact that they're all just evil-doers simple as that, so it's natural that they'd be doing the evil they do! This is a black and white issue of right vs. wrong, I'm too poorly educated to see any grey areas.
Will you be my leader and lead my group of gay hating good Christians into protests in front of the YMCAs around the world?
Really? I'm not brushed up on the Bible, could you tell me where it says this? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
"I wonder which one wears the strap on dick? LOL!" Phyllis crocheted one to use on Del, but it just couldn't stand up to the task.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! right on my friend. I live in the US (not really, NYC) and I better love it or I could move back to Sweden, right. Also I happen to be gay, but as you imply, why bother with the church when the never bothered. Civil Union, be happy, nice and I don't like Bush
This is stupid really. A bunch of people who obviously like computers a little bit and there's a problem. For everybody's sake be more open minded and realize that everybody can do anything or we can stop developing. love
"Gays have their bars, beaches , lakes and other hangouts they go to" yes, but straight people dont!! how can it be equality, if they have places where we cant go, but if we had a place where they cant go, we would probably get sued? Before, you were discriminated against for being Black, Gay, Female or a Child nowadays you are discriminated against for being White, Straight. Male or a child
Like we can all do drugs if we want to without fear of arrest. Shag animals, molest youngsters, rob pensioners, steal cars, kill people you dont like. "For everybody's sake be more open minded and realize that everybody can do anything or we can stop developing." Yeah right Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! So very true. It is not acceptable to be Normal these days. Queer bastards rule! ps. In the photo above, have you seen that woman dressed in black crying, What a sad cow!
