not that i think anyone cares.

I'm of the opinion that since 50% of marriages end in divorce, it appears that us heterosexuals are not exactly doing a bang-up job of keeping the sanctity of marriage, either. So we should probably give homosexuals the opportunity to be miserable and hate their spouses, too

Oh and also it's none of my business what other people do in private, so why try to legislate it? {/libertarian}

MG Bryan wrote:

mtn wrote:

MG Bryan wrote:

SyntheticBlinkerFluid wrote: Oh great, the born-again Christians on my FB from high school are throwing their religious two-cents in. And no, it's not positive towards the subject.

Oh heavens no, not a differing opinion! The humanity.

Point here is that any arguments based on religion SHOULD be immediately null and void. Separation of church and state. Same reason I stopped going to mass at the closest church to me, the priest wouldn't stop talking about politics.

The concept of separation of church and state doesn't mean that no-one's opinion should reflect his religious beliefs. It just means that we won't/shouldn't adopt an official state religion or have a theocracy.

It also means we should not make laws based upon religiously-dictated morality.

The issue of abortion opens up the very real and fundamental question of when the fetus/baby acquires human rights. There is strong need for very careful consideration on this in determining the legality of abortion, and while it is a moral issue, it is entirely possible for that debate to be held completely outside the arena of religion. The fact that opinions fall largely along religious lines is in fact irrelevant. The appropriateness of the law is based upon when the future citizen becomes an individual with rights to be protected by law.

But homosexual marriage is something else entirely. Here there is no proto-human who needs to have rights protected. Here there are only two consenting adults who choose to marry. The objection to it is PURELY based upon a religious foundation, indicating that homosexuality is a sin and an abomination. Therefore it has no place in consideration of whether it should be legal or not. Those who object to gay marriage are free not to get married to someone of the same sex, and free not to associate with gay people. But considering that marriage is between two consenting adults, NO ONE ELSE's rights except those two parties are involved in any way. There is no validity to preventing that marriage by law.

Duke wrote:

MG Bryan wrote:

mtn wrote:

MG Bryan wrote:

SyntheticBlinkerFluid wrote: Oh great, the born-again Christians on my FB from high school are throwing their religious two-cents in. And no, it's not positive towards the subject.

Oh heavens no, not a differing opinion! The humanity.

Point here is that any arguments based on religion SHOULD be immediately null and void. Separation of church and state. Same reason I stopped going to mass at the closest church to me, the priest wouldn't stop talking about politics.

The concept of separation of church and state doesn't mean that no-one's opinion should reflect his religious beliefs. It just means that we won't/shouldn't adopt an official state religion or have a theocracy.

It also means we should not make laws based upon religiously-dictated morality. The issue of abortion opens up the very real and fundamental question of when the fetus/baby acquires human rights. There is strong need for very careful consideration on this in determining the legality of abortion, and while it is a moral issue, it is entirely possible for that debate to be held completely outside the arena of religion. The fact that opinions fall largely along religious lines is in fact irrelevant. The appropriateness of the law is based upon when the future citizen becomes an individual with rights to be protected by law. But homosexual marriage is something else entirely. Here there is no proto-human who needs to have rights protected. Here there are only two consenting adults who choose to marry. The objection to it is PURELY based upon a religious foundation, indicating that homosexuality is a sin and an abomination. Therefore it has no place in consideration of whether it should be legal or not. Those who object to gay marriage are free not to get married to someone of the same sex, and free not to associate with gay people. But considering that marriage is between two consenting adults, NO ONE ELSE's rights except those two parties are involved in any way. There is no validity to preventing that marriage by law.

I'm not going the argue about abortion in this thread. Suffice to say, my opinion there stems from long before I was religious.

Don't misconstrue my position either. I really don't care if they get married or not. Yeah, I think their life choices are immoral, but, like you said, those choices are theirs to make.

Complaining about Christians disagreeing with gays marrying is stupid though.

Renaming the concept of civil "marriage" really does strike me as a good idea.

wait - I guess Im missing the point...how is this going to make my car faster on track?

I have to agree with most on the board - its no ones business who is schtupping who...its certainly no ones place to make rules about it.

And I like the point that most Hetero marriages fail, so we dont really have any "high ground" to stand on while shaking our fingers at the homosexuals.

But anyone who is unable to see the political motivations behind the timing of the statements coming from the candidates is seriously impaired, and probably should have a designated driver come pick them up at the bar.

MG Bryan wrote: Don't misconstrue my position either. I really don't care if they get married or not. Yeah, I think their life choices are immoral, but, like you said, those choices are *theirs* to make.

Not trying to troll but honest question where in the new testament does it say that? I will admit it has been a while since I read the bible but I don't remember anywhere in the New Testament where it says that.

spitfirebill wrote: First Obama was for it. Then he was against it. Now he is for it again. Sound like John Kerry? I think this all to get the focus off the sucky economy.

That was mentioned a few times in the NPR article this morning.

But who is the one changing focus? From what I see that happened, Robin Roberts asked the President a question, and he answered. Part of the answer that it's a state issue, implying that he has no intention of doing anything more than what they are doing now.

So all he did was answer a question that was asked. I'm not sure how that becomes changing the focus off the economy.....

Granted- the entire media has changed focus. But it's their nature to find things that make people read or listen....

(I'm hoping that more states accept Gay Marriage. I voted against the restrictions that people in my state decided to slap down on. Funny thing- being the level of rights we are talking about, Congress and the President may end up doing nothing, but the Supreme Court could just say- "equal rights"- and everyone will scream that Washington is poking their noses into state rights... watch that happen)

MG Bryan wrote: I'm not going the argue about abortion in this thread. Suffice to say, my opinion there stems from long before I was religious. Don't misconstrue my position either. I really don't care if they get married or not. Yeah, I think their life choices are immoral, but, like you said, those choices are *theirs* to make. Complaining about Christians disagreeing with gays marrying is stupid though. Renaming the concept of civil "marriage" really does strike me as a good idea.

Sorry, I had no idea what your opinion was on homosexual marriage; that wasn't really directed at you. It was directed at people who are willing and eager to vote away the rights of others over something that doesn't concern them IN ANY WAY except that they make it concern them.

And I am in fact supporting the validity your stance on abortion in that part above. My point was to illustrate that abortion (for whatever reason it appeared in this thread earlier) is a completely different issue in all ways from homosexuality, despite the fact that many who are against one are against the other, and usually for religious reasons.

Duke wrote: My point was to illustrate that abortion (for whatever reason it appeared in this thread earlier)

Sorry, my fault. It was just something that was handy to illustrate my "all politicians are flip floppers" point.

93EXCivic wrote:

MG Bryan wrote: Don't misconstrue my position either. I really don't care if they get married or not. Yeah, I think their life choices are immoral, but, like you said, those choices are *theirs* to make.

Not trying to troll but honest question where in the new testament does it say that? I will admit it has been a while since I read the bible but I don't remember anywhere in the New Testament where it says that.

I suck at quoting verse, but my recollection is that you'll find it in 1 Corinthians.

Edit: Checked for you;

1-Corinthians 6:9 said: Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! The sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, passive homosexual partners, practicing homosexuals,

Foamy the Squirrel's take on Gay Marriage.

http://www.illwillpress.com/GAYM.html

His rants crack me up :)

N Sperlo wrote: I didn't know Obama endorsed gay marriage. That's great news. I did hear about Tom. I hear he will begin on hormones and they will actually be making an album while he does this. Should make the voice changes interesting. Really I thought Obama would be endorsing a national CCW program first, since he has only supported gun rights since he has been in office. I would support either one of those steps.

hate to burst the bubble but an mtf trans persons voice does not change naturally from hormone treatment. female to m yes male to female no. so any voice changes tom/laura goes through will be purely on her to work on with a voice coach.

and wow so did not expect a response like this to me posting these 2 lil things.

turboswede wrote: Foamy the Squirrel's take on Gay Marriage. http://www.illwillpress.com/GAYM.html His rants crack me up :)

Bravo. Bravo.

"Don't deny the hot lesbian couple."

Salanis wrote:

turboswede wrote: Foamy the Squirrel's take on Gay Marriage. http://www.illwillpress.com/GAYM.html His rants crack me up :)

Bravo. Bravo.

Check out the other toons on that site. The Self-important parents is a good one :)

1-Corinthians 6:9 said: Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! The sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, passive homosexual partners, practicing homosexuals,

Corinthians is just some ramblings from Paul, not any kind of divine guidance.

Otto Maddox wrote:

1-Corinthians 6:9 said: Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! The sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, passive homosexual partners, practicing homosexuals,

Corinthians is just some ramblings from Paul, not any kind of divine guidance.

What an educated, insightful thought.

KATYB wrote: and wow so did not expect a response like this to me posting these 2 lil things.

Of all my friends since high school, the most loving couple is a pair of lesbians. One is MtF. They stayed together through her transition. That's berkeleying love.

They recently got "civil unioned". That is bullE36 M3. They should have gotten married. If my friend were not MtF they would be able to. It is only that one little identification preventing them. This is further bullE36 M3.

They love each other as much as any two people I've ever seen (probably second only to my grandparents). They've been together for almost 13 years. Their relationship has survived all kinds of crazy things. They can't get married because both of their identifications say "Female". berkeley that.

what i wanna know is what ever happened to above all else love thy brother? im sorry i just dont get how all these so called christians who hate on lgbt people use religion to hate on us when its said they should love us and that it is not thier job to judge.

sincerly- A lesbien transwomen who also happens to be a christian.

KATYB wrote: what i wanna know is what ever happened to above all else love thy brother? im sorry i just dont get how all these so called christians who hate on lgbt people use religion to hate on us when its said they should love us and that it is not thier job to judge. sincerly- A lesbien transwomen who also happens to be a christian.

It's entirely possible to disagree with a choice without hating the person that makes it.

MG Bryan wrote:

Otto Maddox wrote:

1-Corinthians 6:9 said: Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! The sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, passive homosexual partners, practicing homosexuals,

Corinthians is just some ramblings from Paul, not any kind of divine guidance.

What an educated, insightful thought.

Thanks. I've read several books on Paul and his writings. Interesting stuff.

MG Bryan wrote:

KATYB wrote: what i wanna know is what ever happened to above all else love thy brother? im sorry i just dont get how all these so called christians who hate on lgbt people use religion to hate on us when its said they should love us and that it is not thier job to judge. sincerly- A lesbien transwomen who also happens to be a christian.

It's entirely possible to disagree with a choice without hating the person that makes it.

yes i know. tho ill disagree on the choice part. but so many wanna hate the person for being true to themselves.

KATYB wrote:

MG Bryan wrote:

KATYB wrote: what i wanna know is what ever happened to above all else love thy brother? im sorry i just dont get how all these so called christians who hate on lgbt people use religion to hate on us when its said they should love us and that it is not thier job to judge. sincerly- A lesbien transwomen who also happens to be a christian.

It's entirely possible to disagree with a choice without hating the person that makes it.

yes i know. tho ill disagree on the choice part. but so many wanna hate the person for being true to themselves.

I just look at women and I am really attracted to them. I look at guys. Nothing. I don't even remember making the choice to have my brain wired this way.

In reply to Otto Maddox:

exactly. its not a choice. its who u are.

alfadriver wrote: Granted- the entire media has changed focus. But it's their nature to find things that make people read or listen....

As I so often do, I feel compelled to correct this. It is not their nature. In fact, it is abhorrent to the nature of a journalist. However, if they work for a publicly traded, for profit company, it is their job. Objection to this sort of thing should be accompanied by ringing endorsement of publicly funded journalism.

WWJD?

"Love thy neighbor."

"Judge not, lest ye yourself be judged."

Find me two concepts more central to the teachings of Jesus than those.