California ban on same-sex marriage struck down

~Jennifer - posted on 08/04/2010 ( 126 moms have responded )

4,164

61

365

(CNN) -- The California Supreme Court struck down the state's ban on same-sex marriage Thursday, saying sexual orientation, like race or gender, "does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights."



In a 4-3 120-page ruling issue, the justices wrote that "responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation."



"We therefore conclude that in view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship, the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples," Chief Justice Ronald George wrote for the majority.



The ruling takes effect in 30 days.



Several gay and lesbian couples, along with the city of San Francisco and gay rights groups, filed a lawsuit saying they were victims of unlawful discrimination. A lower court ruled San Francisco acted unlawfully in issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

The ruling surprised legal experts because the court has a reputation for being conservative. Six of its seven judges are Republican appointees.



San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera said he is "profoundly grateful" for the decision and for the court's "eloquence" in its delivery.



"After four long years, we're very, very gratified," he said.



Shannon Minter, attorney for one of the plaintiffs in the case, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, called the ruling "a moment of pure happiness and joy for so many families in California."



"California sets the tone, and this will have a huge effect across the nation to bringing wider acceptance for gay and lesbian couples," he said.



Neil Giuliano, president of the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, issued a statement saying, "Today's ruling affirms that committed couples, gay and straight, should not be denied the duties, obligations and protections of marriage. ... This decision is a vital affirmation to countless California couples -- straight and gay -- who want to make and have made a lifelong commitment to take care of and be responsible for each other."



Groups opposing same-sex marriage also reacted strongly to the ruling.



"The California Supreme Court has engaged in the worst kind of judicial activism today, abandoning its role as an objective interpreter of the law and instead legislating from the bench," said Matt Barber, policy director for cultural issues for the group Concerned Women for America, in a written statement.



"So-called 'same-sex' marriage is counterfeit marriage. Marriage is, and has always been, between a man and a woman. We know that it's in the best interest of children to be raised with a mother and a father. To use children as guinea pigs in radical San Francisco-style social experimentation is deplorable."



The organization said that a constitutional marriage amendment should be placed on the November ballot and that national efforts should be made to generate a federal marriage amendment.



"The decision must be removed from the hands of judicial activists and returned to the rightful hands of the people," Barber said.



A constitutional amendment initiative specifying that marriage is only between a man and a woman is awaiting verification by the secretary of state's office after its sponsors said they had gathered enough signatures to place it on the statewide ballot. The parties cannot appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, Herrera said, as federal courts do not have jurisdiction over the state laws. "This is the final say," he said.



In a dissenting opinion, Associate Justice Marvin Baxter wrote that although he agrees with some of the majority's conclusions, the court was overstepping its bounds in striking down the ban. Instead, he wrote, the issue should be left to the voters.



In 2004, San Francisco officials allowed gay couples in the city to wed, prompting a flood of applicants crowding the city hall clerk's office. The first couple to wed then was 80-year-old Phyllis Lyon and 83-year-old Dorothy Martin, lovers for 50 years.



"We have a right just like anyone else to get married to the person we want to get married to," Lyon said at the time.



San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom called the ruling a victory not just for the city "but for literally millions of people. ... What the court did is simply affirm their lives."



CNN's Ted Rowlands reported that "huge cheers" went up in San Francisco when the ruling was announced.



In California, a 2000 voter referendum banned same-sex marriage, but state lawmakers have made two efforts to allow gay and lesbian couples to wed. Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed both bills.



"I respect the court's decision and as governor, I will uphold its ruling," Schwarzenegger said in a statement issued Thursday. "Also, as I have said in the past, I will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling."



Massachusetts legalized same-sex marriages in 2004, and gay couples need not be state residents there to wed. However, then-Gov. Mitt Romney resurrected a 1913 law barring non-resident marriages in the state if the marriage would be prohibited in the partners' home state.



Subsequent court and agency decisions have determined that only residents of Massachusetts, Rhode Island or New Mexico may marry in the state, unless the marriage partners say they intend to relocate to Massachusetts after the marriage.



New Hampshire, Vermont, New Jersey and Connecticut permit civil unions, and California has a domestic-partner registration law. More than a dozen other states give gay couples some legal rights, as do some other countries.

"It's a throwaway line, but I think it's true: As California goes, so goes the rest of the nation," Newsom said. "And I don't think people should be paranoid about that. ... Look what happened in Massachusetts a number of years ago. Massachusetts is doing just fine. The state is doing wonderfully."



The state law in question in the case, which consolidated six cases, was the Defense of Marriage Act, Proposition 22. Oral arguments in March lasted more than three hours.



"There can be no doubt that extending the designation of marriage to same-sex couples, rather than denying it to all couples, is the equal protection remedy that is most consistent with our state's general legislative policy and preference," the ruling said.



"Accordingly, in light of the conclusions we reach concerning the constitutional questions brought to us for resolution, we determine that the language of Section 300 limiting the designation of marriage to a 'union between a man and a woman' is unconstitutional, and that the remaining statutory language must be understood as making the designation of marriage available to both opposite-sex and same-sex couples."



Newsom compared the ruling to the 1967 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in a Virginia case overturning that state's ban on interracial marriage.



"This is about civil marriage. This is about fundamental rights," he said.







http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/05/15/same.se...

MOST HELPFUL POSTS

Jenny - posted on 08/17/2010

4,426

16

126

I wasn't referring to free speech in my comment Diane. I was referring to allowing gay marriages and you know that damn well.



How about this reply to Sara? "And where are all these places Sara? How many states legally can do it? And I disagree we are a country of sex crazed freaks. What are the stats now on marriage? I think for every marriage there is one divorce. "



She is also referring to COUNTRIES but you are so myopic in your view, you immediatly think state because the only place that could possibly matter is America right? Well sorry deary but the rest of the world is moving on and refusing to support hate. Jesus taught to embrace a culture of love and acceptance. Time for the last of extremists to stop holding out and join the club. Mexico is now on the list too. Better secure that southern border when god freaks right out. Oh right, that's never happened in ANY of the other countries with accepted gay marriage. You know what's changed since we passed it? Gay people can get married, that's about it. It will all be ok.

Rosie - posted on 08/10/2010

8,657

30

315

diane you keep quoting scripture, but your religion has no avenue into the laws of the land. i respect your religion, and your right to believe what you want (however foolish i may find it) none the less i respect your RIGHT to believe whatever you want to. at the same time-other people have rights granted by the constitution as well. i fail to see how scripture has ANYTHING to do with why gay marriage should be illegal. i say it over and over again, and i just don't understand why christians apparantly believe in freedom of religion, but forget that it goes both ways. other people have the freedom to believe what they want to as well. and shouldn't have their constitutional rights taken away from them because someone elses religion says so.

Pamela - posted on 08/18/2010

1,496

104

41

I found a thoughtful article on Huffington Post on this whole subject - regarding gay marriage & Christianity. It probably represents my view of the whole thing more closely than Diane's take:



"http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rita-nakashima-brock-ph-d/judge-walker-and-the-bibl_b_682595.html



I'm not sure that I would really want the traditional "biblical" view of marriage. Women in that time and culture were nothing more than property. I for one have something of an issue with that. I ain't property. I'm curious what you ladies think...



Okay, here's the text. The link isn't linking...



Judge Vaughn Walker's decision to allow resumption of legal same-sex weddings in California has right-wing Christians claiming his ruling against Proposition 8 threatens "Bible believing Christians." I've read the Bible pretty carefully myself (I read it cover to cover when I was in high school) and even taught it as a college professor. It is not a source I'd turn to in order to defend traditional marriage, but I think it does offer ways to think about ethical marriage.



The Bible presents multiple views of marriage, and most actual marriages it depicts are terrible by modern standards. "Traditional marriages" in ancient biblical times were arranged as transfers of the ownership of daughters. The tenth commandment lists wives among properties like houses and slaves: "You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor" (Exodus 20:17, also found in Deuteronomy 5:21). Marriages occurred via deception, kidnapping, adulterous seductions, theft, rape, and murder, and were often in multiples so that the pater familias could amass land, flocks, and progeny and cement political alliances. Abraham, David, and Solomon had marriages that would be illegal today. The book of Hosea likens the mercy of God to a husband who has the right to beat or kill his adulterous wife, but spares her -- for this, she was supposed to be grateful. When women seek marriages, such as Naomi arranged for Ruth, it was to avoid an even worse fate such as destitution.



The ideal of a housewife that Diana Butler Bass recently lifted up in Proverbs 31 suggests that a decent married life for women might have been possible in biblical times, but actual examples are rare. It's a telling fact that at Christian weddings today, passages of scripture used in the service mostly avoid marriage texts. They extol love between two women ("[M]y people shall be your people" [Ruth 1]) or communitarian values ("The greatest of these is love" [I Corinthians 13]) or erotic passion between unmarried lovers ("[S]et me as a seal upon your heart" [Song of Songs]). (Some people are shocked to find Song of Songs in the Bible at all.)



In the Christian section of the Bible, Jesus and Paul disagreed about what marriage was supposed to be. The difference between them is striking: Jesus thinks of marriage as divinely sanctified while Paul thinks of it as an option for the morally weak who need to avoid fornicating. They lived around the same time, and both were Jews, so it's a bit puzzling why they differ so radically, perhaps as puzzling as why, today, some Christians vehemently oppose marriage equality while others like myself support it. Even evangelicals differ; poll data show that in 2008, 84 percent of those under age 30 supported same-sex civil unions or outright marriage equality while only 54 percent of their elders did.



So let's at least get clear about one important fact: there is no Christian view of marriage; there are different Christian views, even if you follow the Bible. For over a millennium, the Christian church in Europe leaned toward Paul. It did not sanctify marriage but regarded it as a civil ceremony instead.



Paul, a citizen of the Roman Empire, spent time in jail for opposing that Empire, and his negative view of marriage was probably another form or resistance. Other celibate religious movements of his time also saw avoidance of marriage and procreation as a form of resistance to the Empire and a sign of a new kind of religious society. Why was marriage such a huge political issue during Paul's time?



During the two decades before Jesus was born, the Roman Empire passed a slew of marriage laws that forced marriage on all Roman citizens. To have enough tax revenues and soldiers for its military legions, the empire needed an expanding citizen population, but the population was shrinking. The situation was dire because average life expectancy was only 25 years, and two thirds of all infants died. Just to stay even, the state required a five-child birthrate per woman. Many elite Roman families resented military conscription of their sons and found the tax burdens excessive. Hence, refusing to marry was a way to resist imperial exploitation.



In addition to such political pressures, Paul may also have rejected marriage because it separated sex and love. Under Roman marriage laws and customs, sex was a function of male domination and aggression. Princeton historian Peter Brown, in his study of this period, The Body and Society, wryly remarks that the Romans viewed male adolescents as "human espresso machines"; they were always near a sexual boil, ready to erupt. In her careful study of documents from this period, Bernadette Brooten, in Love Between Women, notes that a pater familias could have sex with anyone under his authority and economic control, which mean virtually any female, as well as boys and male slaves. The only people a head of household could not have sex with were his equals or superiors, including female superiors, like goddesses or his mother. E. J. Graff in her book, What is Marriage For?, notes that rape of the bride was commonly expected, and in wedding ceremonies, the groom and father-in-law exchanged the vows, since women were exchanged as property and could not take vows. While marriages might have love in them, this was not expected.



For women in marriage, sex was for procreation -- a dangerous destiny at a time without reliable birth control or adequate maternal medical care. That women had sexual desires and enjoyed sex was not doubted, but respectable women confined these to the marriage bed. Brooten found that while homosexual orientations were regarded as immutably determined by astrological influences, lesbianism was regarded as a medical disorder because sex as domination and subordination were crucial. Women's sexual relationships lacked a dominant inserter and subordinate receiver and were, thus, an unnatural disorder. The construction of sex as male dominance may be why conservatives obsess over rare biblical texts against homosexual practices, while, like the C Street "Family," they think of male heterosexual adultery, condemned in their beloved 10 commandments, as a lesser sin, since so many biblical patriarchs were adulterers. The sin more frequently condemned is usury, but I digress...



Paul believed love was the highest value, whereas sex was a problem. Paul advocated abstinence, though this suggestion has led some to regard him as psychologically disturbed. Ironically, current condemnations of his version of ascetic Christianity exist side-by-side with great admiration for monastic figures such as the Dalai Lama. But religious abstinence is another discussion.



Jesus' view of marriage in Matthew 19 was not the Roman version. He turned to the Jewish scriptures in Genesis 2. Conservatives like to use Genesis 2 to defend marriage as between one man and one woman for procreative purposes only (i.e., as authorizing sex between one dominant inserter and one subordinate receiver). However, I don't think this is what Jesus meant.



A careful look at Genesis, provided by scholar Phyllis Trible, offers an interesting alternative to the conservative view. She notes that God creates an earthling, adam (i.e., a being made of earth, ha'adama; adam in the Hebrew is not a proper name until later in the story), and breathes divine spirit into him to make him come alive. All the animals are insufficient to satisfy the adam's needs for a helper. Ezer kenegdo, translated "help meet," literally means an equal helper. Help, by itself, referred to a superior, such as God. Hence, the addition of kenegdo, surrounding, modified ezer to suggest an equal. So God divides adam into ish, male, and issha, female. Made of the flesh of adam, Eve is neither superior nor subordinate to Adam. Given that the woman's subordination to the man and painful childbirth were a punishment for the two having sinned in Genesis 3, I think the decision goes against "traditional marriage" as divinely ordained. Inside paradise, God intended relationships based on equality.



Jesus had to go back to the paradise garden to find a model of what he thought marriage ought to be. Given that model, he observed that Moses created divorce because men behaved badly (he calls them hard-hearted, which suggests unloving), which might be understood as a condemnation of traditional marriage. He also conceded that the demands of marriage were not for everyone, and remaining unmarried was OK.



Arguments for California's Prop 8, which Judge Walker overturned, narrowed the purpose of marriage to procreation. Neither Paul nor Jesus explicitly mentioned procreation as a reason for marriage. While I don't think Jesus was talking about same-sex marriages, his reference to Genesis 2 grounded marriage in equality and companionship. While Jesus and Paul differ on marriage, they differ for the same reason. They uphold love as the highest divine good, not women's subordination. In fact, because of the nasty history of institutional marriage in the Bible and heterosexist civil laws that are built on male dominance and female subordination, I think marriage equality means such gender inequality will no longer be inscribed as a necessary basis of marriage.



In his carefully written decision, Judge Walker remarked on changes that have eliminated most of the values and reasons for traditional marriage. He noted that marriage had recently been transformed "from a male-dominated institution into an institution recognizing men and women as equals" (p. 112). The changes also reflect cultural ideas that marriage is a union of sex with love. They do not nullify marriage per se:



The evidence shows that the movement of marriage away from a gendered institution and toward an institution free from state-mandated gender roles reflects an evolution in the understanding of gender rather than a change in marriage. The evidence did not show any historical purpose for excluding same-sex couples from marriage, as states have never required spouses to have an ability or willingness to procreate in order to marry. Rather, the exclusion exists as an artifact of a time when the genders were seen as having distinct roles in society and in marriage. That time has passed. (p. 113)



Judge Walker ruled that the state's interest in marriage is guided by the rights of equal protection, not by religion, and that religious ideas should not determine marriage law. He has, for the time being, restored legal same-sex weddings as a right than cannot be decided by majority vote.



A number of Christian groups in California, as well as Reformed Jews and Unitarian Universalists, would agree. Prop 8 denied us our religious freedom by prohibiting us from authorizing same-sex marriages, but, even worse, it denied the basic human right of marriage to a group of people based on unfounded biases about their sexual orientation. Same-sex couples, like heterosexual couples, offer each other love, companionship, and a stable family environment for raising children. If marriage is good for society, and equality is the ethical basis for marriage, then gender difference is irrelevant. Marriage equality is good for everyone, including Bible-believing Christians.

LaCi - posted on 08/10/2010

3,361

3

171

Why bother quoting the old testament at all, since it is null and void?

Krista - posted on 08/23/2010

12,562

16

842

Right, but to accept your premise that God created marriage to be between a man and a woman, then one must also accept your premise that God created marriage. And to accept THAT, then one must also accept your premise that God exists.

And I accept none of those premises. So your reasoning is perfectly acceptable as to why you are personally against gay marriage, but it is not an acceptable basis upon which to establish laws.

And Shannon, would you also outlaw marriage between infertile couples? Or the elderly? They can't procreate, so is their marriage wrong?

If you see this, leave this form field blank.
Powered by RESPECT not THUMPS

126 Comments

View replies by

Rosie - posted on 08/23/2010

8,657

30

315

so since marriage is a christian idea then hindus,muslims and buddists and atheists shouldn't be married then either? i am an atheist walking around happily married right now. the whole logic that your particular religion should be law is ludicrous. it is complete bigotry toward homosexuals to not allow them to marry, and it needs to be stopped.

Pamela - posted on 08/23/2010

1,496

104

41

Because if it does then we have a theocracy, not a democracy. Last I looked we have a democracy.

[deleted account]

I'm sure I'm the only one here.. But I'm against it. Marriage was created by God to be for a man & a woman. If gay is so right, then mankind would cease to exist. Man & man can not pro-create, either can woman & woman. Therefor it is not right, it' is wrong.

Pamela - posted on 08/20/2010

1,496

104

41

I was just re-reading through all this...wow.

Jen, I've read many of your posts and though we may not agree on the subject of religion, I have always found you quite knowledgeable, respectful and thoughtful in your posts. Now I must go watch Furry Vengeance.

Dana - posted on 08/19/2010

11,264

35

489

I get your point Sara, though I think it has to do with more than hunting. ;)

Pamela - posted on 08/19/2010

1,496

104

41

Oh exactly Sara, I agree with you on that. You certainly don't hunt with an Uzi. You wouldn't have much meat then...

Sara - posted on 08/19/2010

9,313

50

584

Pam said:



Whenever we read any ancient texts, we really have to put them into that time and place. What was the author addressing at that time to that particular audience? That's why a literalistic reading can really get us in trouble. Sometimes what we think the author is saying is not what he is saying.





This might be a bit off topic, I agree wtih you, but I feel this way about how people interpret the US's constitution at times. Can we really say with total certainty that in 1787 they meant for the second amendment to mean that people can buy an Uzi? People had to hunt for their food back then...

Pamela - posted on 08/19/2010

1,496

104

41

Not really, Krista. A shallow reading of his writings will lend to that idea, but Paul actually acknowledged women as apostles, church leaders etc. and worked with them as equals. Even his treatise in Eph. 5 regarding household codes (which includes marriage), was pretty radical - for those times. A closer reading of the text lends more of an egalitarian view of marriage. The 1 Tim 2 passage is so obscure that we really don't know what Paul (or whatever author wrote it) was talking about. The total context of the letter is more specific towards heresy and false-teaching, so the author was probably addressing that in the offending passage.

Whenever we read any ancient texts, we really have to put them into that time and place. What was the author addressing at that time to that particular audience? That's why a literalistic reading can really get us in trouble. Sometimes what we think the author is saying is not what he is saying.

Krista - posted on 08/19/2010

12,562

16

842

A VERY thought-provoking and interesting article, Pamela -- thanks!

I'm not surprised that Paul and Jesus disagreed on marriage, though. Paul always seemed to have a bit of a bee in his bonnet about women.

LaCi - posted on 08/17/2010

3,361

3

171

Okay so seriously now. Diane. How does it affect you if two of my lesbian friends, whom you never have met and will probably never come in contact with, get married? How does that affect your values, your life, etc? I really want to know what devastating effect on your life there will be from people you will probably never meet being allowed to share legal rights in various situations, death, accidents, insurance, etc.

Rosie - posted on 08/17/2010

8,657

30

315

Are you saying you disagree with group marriages kati? Not you kati……you are tolerant aren’t you? Why wouldn’t you be for this as well. Why wouldn’t you demand justice for any combination of people who want their idea of marriage to be legal. And again…..you demean me simply because we disagree.
I have been drinking to much koolaid you say? Another way to bash me right Kati…..you sweet little thing you.

as for group marriage, i'm much like you in the way i feel about group marriage, as you feel about gay marriage. except the BIG difference here diane is that i can still be against something but don't think it should be illegal-since IT GOES AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION. i don't get why someone would get married vow to love and be faithful to that one person and then go off and bring another person into the mix , and vow the exact same thing to them. dosen't make sense to me, won't get it never will. however i can see plain as day that it shouldn't be illegal.

as for all of us hating christians, you are making shit up again! i don't hate christians i hate organized religion. those who follow the bible to a "t" and don't realize that they actually aren't (sound familiar anyone?) then spout on and on about how others aren't "real" christians. in all my years of christianity the ONE thing i remember the most is that to be a christian all you have to do is believe in christ. that's it. i love people who are christians, in case you missed it my whole family is amish/ mennonite. my father is the only one in my entire family who doesn't believe in god. i have 23 aunts and uncles, one is a pastor, and at least 2 of my many cousins (i'd have to sit here and think too long about how many i have, lol) are on missions right now as we speak. one of my best friends went on a mission to your state of arizona to some indian reservation a little while back. i am VERY tolerant of the christian faith- seems like you aren't tolerant of your faith, or anybody elses if it doesn't fit what you want it too.
i am sweet, my mommy and daddy think so too. :)

ME - posted on 08/17/2010

2,978

18

190

“I will still continue to state that I am glad we do not follow the morality laid out in the Judeo-Christian bible because it is anti-gay, anti-woman and just plain barbaric. In fact, it's almost as if it were written by a Bronze Age tribe of nomads.’

Thanks for re-posting that Diane...Both times now, I've laughed until my sides hurt :) Bronze age tribe of nomads...*wipes away the tears*

Dana - posted on 08/17/2010

11,264

35

489

Diane of course you would tell us all "what it really means." Why on earth do you think you're the authority on everything. How can you turn a simple sentence into something so different than what it says? I'm beginning to think it's because if that's all there is to it, you can't bitch about it, so you change what someone is saying. It's like a never ending circle, except I'm not staying on the ride. Please move on.

[deleted account]

Good Morning Diane, I hope you are having a pleasant day.



"Hey honey bring up the bible…my favorite subject. I am not mad whatsoever with anyones questions. I have how many women coming at me? I try to answer everything but it takes me forever on each conversation just to get through them. I will debate ANYTHING WITH YOU, ANYTIME OVER ANY SUBJECT. "



Then would you please explain to me why it was once moral under your god's laws for a bride to be stoned to death if she did not bleed on her wedding night? Here's the passage just in case you're not familiar with it and with all these posts, it might be hard to find my previous entry.



Deuteronomy 22:13-22 (King James Version)



13If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her,



14And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid:



15Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate:



16And the damsel's father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her;



17And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city.



18And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him;



19And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days.



20But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:



21Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.



Thank you very much for so kindly offering to address these questions. I know you have a lot of posts to answer and I appreciate your time greatly.



Moving on.



"You are vocal how you hate Christians ………..and I have the right to believe that those who reject the Word are lost. What I actually see today are people who have rejected God, that rely on their own set of morals values, their own compass....they don’t want to be judged by God or anyone else, in fact they think it’s wrong to judge anyone … but they turn around and judge others, (like those that think homosexuality is sin) but THEY DONT SEE IT. They imply that faith and intellect really are not, can’t be compatible. They want to force people to accept something that they believe to be wrong. They want to force churches to cave in on what the scriptures really say, what they really imply."



Please cut and paste exactly where I said I hated Christians. I'm afraid a simple opinion will not suffice ma'am. If you are implying that I hate Christians because I find much of the bible reprehensible,then that is sheer folly on your part. Think of it as my version of 'hate the sin, love the sinner'. I don't approve of religion in general, any kind. Several years ago I had a vast youtube channel with about 2K subscribers. I spoke on these topics at length. I did not just address Christianity but Judaism, Islam and some very strongly worded opinions on the concept of karma. I received death threats after one video on Islam was attached to a very popular video. My vid had over 56K views in one day (pretty big back in 2006 for a video blogger). So I know my topics well. I do not hate the individual believer, unless they are doing something to be worthy of hatred. Ex. hurting people. To suggest that I hate all Christians truly is just silly and is more of an emotional comment than a rational one. In addition, I can't think of any of my religious friends who would agree with you.



Case in point. I have a long time friend whose screenname is Narnia. She is a very very devout Roman Catholic. She and I have been online buddies for years. We have had more fierce debates and discussions than I can count. Our favorite is on exactly what was the nature of the crucifixition. i.e. atonement, blood sacrifice, etc. We have even been angry with each other but I have never hated her.



So do us both a favor and don't go there because in all honesty Diane, it makes you look foolish and I do not believe you are a fool.



As to people laying out their own morals, I believe we would need to go back to my question above. Only once you address those can I really go into this further on relativism (sp it's early and I'm in pain so my spelling is lousy today.)



And just an fyi, you asked me earlier to show where your god ever approved of same sex marriage. I have stated previously that there is no question at all that homosexuality is a big no-no in the bible. Which is why I often wonder why gays would ever want to be a Christian or a Jew. The book openly calls for their death so it's like seeing an African American want to join the KKK. It just doesn't gel to me. Now before anyone gets their knickers in a knot, I am not saying that either religion is the KKK or that they run about lynching people....anymore.



What is the precedent for making a church marry a gay couple? There isn't one. A church can refuse to marry anyone, even members of their own parish. A priest can refuse to marry two Catholics who are divorced unless they are able to obtain an annullment (which is another rant of mine but that's another day.) Until you show how this will be possible by bringing up case law, and not just what one person or one organization says, then it's unfounded fear.



And if you do say that one person speaks for the entire gay population, then why not pick one of the ladies here? Me even? I'm not gay but I guess I could be a good spokesperson.

[deleted account]

"No…only those that are ignorant to what THE LAW SAYS. And the people who owned slaves were not practicing what Jesus commanded."

Ephesians 6:5 (New International Version)

Slaves and Masters
5Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ

1 Timothy 6:1-2 (New International Version)

1 Timothy 6
1All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God's name and our teaching may not be slandered. 2Those who have believing masters are not to show less respect for them because they are brothers. Instead, they are to serve them even better, because those who benefit from their service are believers, and dear to them. These are the things you are to teach and urge on them.

In the following parable, Jesus clearly approves of beating slaves even if they didn't know they were doing anything wrong.



The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. "But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given." (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)

LaCi - posted on 08/17/2010

3,361

3

171

In other news, of the random crap that doesn't really matter, apparently if a boy's hair swirl is counterclockwise he's like 3x more likely to be gay. My son is a counter-clockwise swirly, I'm already training him in world domination. Maybe he'll figure out how to rub the gay off on everyone. ;x

Speaking of tila tequila, she got a surprise when she attempted to perform at the gathering over the weekend.

My girlfriends have had to go to canada to get married. ridiculous.

I enjoyed the article heading in my local leo that said something along the lines of "I 'm not the marrying type, but I hate knowing a guy with a 'God hates fags' sign has more rights than I do."

It's early and I haven't slept; that's all I have right now. :)

Diane - posted on 08/17/2010

694

18

30

Dana number thirteen says this…” “ We want to go to a church/synagogue/temple/mosque to worship God as we see fit.”



As we see fit would mean probably mean that homosexual sex and same sex marriage would be acceptable to God. So if for example they went to a church that did not believe that…there would be division. Muslims do not believe that it is acceptable either as their God Allah does not condone it either.



Dana,,,,,,,,,NEWS FLASH!!!!!!

I am well aware that there are gay pastors that condone it. The thing is…they are going against the Word and what God says. So IMO it certainly would not be a spirit filled church. That would be like going to a church that condoned adultery and stealing.



SaraB said, “Honestly, with all the places where gay marriage is legal and the 7 Horsemen of the Apocolypse haven't arrived and society hasn't degraded into a bunch of sex-crazed freaks who don't give a shit about the sanctity of marriage, I think the arguments against gay marriage in this country hold absolutely no water, at all. FAIL.”



And where are all these places Sara? How many states legally can do it? And I disagree we are a country of sex crazed freaks. What are the stats now on marriage? I think for every marriage there is one divorce.



Choice awards. I watched it on television with my niece. Isn’t Nelly the one Pornography has very much become a part of normal life in 21st Century America and the producers of porn are shaping and taking over Mainstreet USA….

Hollywood and television both have streamlined pornography into everything. Heck todays sexual relationships are as disposable as used condoms. Today being a ho and a pimp…is celebrated, and our kids heros are porn stars and ganstas in the music industry.



A few years back Nelly won the Kids Nickelodeon award. He wrote this song called…..Pimp Juice? Just Google a list of his popular songs and lyrics……..check this out. Pimp Juice (She only wants me for my pimp juice) Thicky thick Gurls (Lookin like a lollipop waitin for the lick girl) Wrap Sumden (Weed is actually a medicine for me, you know) And the kids of America who watch Nickelodeon voted this rapper as their favorite. Boys learn that its ok to treat gilrs like dirt and girls learn that boys want girls who look like prostitutes and strippers. Tila Tequila…wife swap…..Flava Flav…. I love New York….Rock of Love… trash shows like the Kardashians, the Osbournes…The Hogans????



Find love and a wife and husband in just nine weeks with the Bachelor…now the Bachelor Pad where they all are sleeping in one room. How about Date My Mom? The Real Housewives shows….Watch Bethanny Frankel pee in a bucket before walking down the aisle to be married.



Oh yes we have such good family values in America don’t we? Sex sells and it sells products. Singers can’t just sing a song anymore they have to simulate sex on stage while doing it.



I went shopping last fall with my niece….did you know they make “thongs” for kids who are like 5 years old? I mean every kid should worry about panty lines. Yes we have it all together………our college students think oral sex isn’t sex. We can thank Billy Clinton for that one.



Journal of the American Medical Association, published a survey in which 60% of college students claimed oral sex was not real sex.

“Medical journal raps AMA editor firing,” United Press International, 10 February 1999.



Yes sex feels so good that we should start as early as Kindergarten teaching sex so they will be ready by third grade.



And every little girl should know that if her boobs aren’t big enough..they can be remedied with surgery. Because big boobs are better.



We are freaks who care more about sports and sex than education and morals and respecting our elderly, about standing up and taking responsibility

for ones actions. Kids learn from watching their parents to blame others…to believe they are entitled that the government owes them. That hard work doesn’t pay off ……but cheating will.



Laci said, “We've already pointed out that the church will never be forced to marry gays as a church will never be forced to marry people who aren't members of the particular church. No one will every force you to be silent about what you believe is right or wrong, we only maintain that our society is made up of a wide variety of beliefs that do not all fall in line with yours and we will not force your beliefs, or anyone else's, on society as a whole.”



You can not say with 100% certainty that this will not happen. I posted many examples where the gay agenda, have made comments that shoot down what you say.



Jenny said, “Sara, that's because god is mainly concerned with America. He doesn't care if Canada, South Africa or Argentina allow equality or not.”

No he is not and the topic is America not any other nation. And you don’t allow freedom of speech in Canada.

Iris said, “Women would still be stoned to death and we would still either have slaves or be slaves.”



No…only those that are ignorant to what THE LAW SAYS. And the people who owned slaves were not practicing what Jesus commanded.



The thing is kati summed it all up in a neat passage.



“i just love how you turn around everything and deflect the question and come back with something from the bible that we don't care about or believe.”



This says it all baby. No real dialogue can come from anything…because it does not matter what the topic is…what I say carries no weight. What I post carries no weight it is quickly dismissed as false of propaganda. You do not care what I say that much is obvious.



And kati follows that one with this…..” you are the one wanting to deny people a basic right based off of your own religious prejudices. as for personal attacks, you've directly called jen "hateful and mean spirited"



, and directly called carol "morally bankrupt and hateful" as well.”



This shows the intolerance for my worldview. I am to choke down your values…but you don’t even consider mine. She basically said I am a hateful person. And I will stand up for what I said…most here have been very mean

spirited towards me….because of my views. They hate what I stand for…so they hate me. And don’t say they don’t……because we both know this wouldn’t not be honest. I never reported anyone who said I was hateful….it goes beyond this and you know it.



“as for you asking me if i think you are a homophobe, or bigoted, or a freak. you asked for you get it..yes i think you are a bigot. but i don't think you are a freak, or a racist, or even homophobic actually. you want to deny a group of people rights based simply off of their sexual preference-that's bigotry plain and simple. using religion to do it doesn't make it any better, in fact for me it almost makes it worse. it's completely hypocritical.”



And your views reflect how you treat me.



“this "gay agenda" that you go on about is ridiculous. no gay person i know wants to be married in a church, and in fact the one couple i do know that got married, didn't get married in a church. they don't expect the church to either even though one of them is a christian.’



Wake up…it is not ridiculous…not when groups of gays are going around the country and attacking churches both inside and out. Why are they doing this? You say none of them want to invade churches to force them to accept their lifestyle. What is going on? You talk about hate speech……lol. Again I posted examples of times this has taken place in the past year……….NOT ONE OF YOU SAID ONE WORD ABOUT IT. YOU DID NOT AGREE OR DISAGREE.



Why are you ignoring it? You are so naïve and unrealistic if you think this will not happen. Many gay leaders have said it WILL HAPPEN.



"gays will not stop at gay marriage" ooh the horror of it all!! what will they stop at then diane? why would gay people want group marriage? what does that have to do with gay people? tinfoil hat for you my dear. you've been drinking to much koolaid lately....”



Yes it would be upsetting to a church who stands on the Word. You just don’t respect or get that. First gay marriage and then group marriage.



Are you saying you disagree with group marriages kati? Not you kati……you are tolerant aren’t you? Why wouldn’t you be for this as well. Why wouldn’t you demand justice for any combination of people who want their idea of marriage to be legal. And again…..you demean me simply because we disagree.

I have been drinking to much koolaid you say? Another way to bash me right Kati…..you sweet little thing you.



Jen said, “I actually was not going to bring up any of these bible stories until Diane said that the sexual morality found in the bible was superior. So, the gate was opened. Don't get mad at me because the source material opens itself to questions.”



Hey honey bring up the bible…my favorite subject. I am not mad whatsoever with anyones questions. I have how many women coming at me? I try to answer everything but it takes me forever on each conversation just to get through them. I will debate ANYTHING WITH YOU, ANYTIME OVER ANY SUBJECT.



“I will still continue to state that I am glad we do not follow the morality laid out in the Judeo-Christian bible because it is anti-gay, anti-woman and just plain barbaric. In fact, it's almost as if it were written by a Bronze Age tribe of nomads.’



And you have every right to feel this way and I respect your right to say it. Jesus was not anti-woman however and He hates sin. And some sex is sin.



You are vocal how you hate Christians ………..and I have the right to believe that those who reject the Word are lost. What I actually see today are people who have rejected God, that rely on their own set of morals values, their own compass....they don’t want to be judged by God or anyone else, in fact they think it’s wrong to judge anyone … but they turn around and judge others, (like those that think homosexuality is sin) but THEY DONT SEE IT. They imply that faith and intellect really are not, can’t be compatible. They want to force people to accept something that they believe to be wrong. They want to force churches to cave in on what the scriptures really say, what they really imply.



I am not alone…far more people stand with me in a God belief than not.

Johnny - posted on 08/14/2010

8,686

26

318

Well, if you are a person who hates having someone ask you questions that you are unable to answer, then perhaps you might find Jen's posts hateful & mean-spirited. But personally, I find them inspirational.

Rosie - posted on 08/14/2010

8,657

30

315

nope not at all jen. i think you completely have kept your cool, and used great debating tactics. nothing hateful or meanspirited about you. :)

Iris - posted on 08/13/2010

1,993

29

49

"Does anyone else think I was bring mean spirited and hateful?"
No. Reading your posts you have been very respectful.

Sara - posted on 08/13/2010

9,313

50

584

I'm just feeling really gay right now. And by gay, I mean happy. Thanks. :)

Sara - posted on 08/13/2010

9,313

50

584

I both Jen(n)s. The world would be a better place if there were more people like you. :)

[deleted account]

"i just love how you turn around everything and deflect the question and come back with something from the bible that we don't care about or believe. and then call everybody else hateful, when you are the one wanting to deny people a basic right based off of your own religious prejudices. as for personal attacks, you've directly called jen "hateful and mean spirited"

After all, I only quoted the bible and asked some rather pointed questions. Admittedly, I am extremely knowledgeable on the bible and I will ask these questions until the end.

I actually was not going to bring up any of these bible stories until Diane said that the sexual morality found in the bible was superior. So, the gate was opened. Don't get mad at me because the source material opens itself to questions.

I will still continue to state that I am glad we do not follow the morality laid out in the Judeo-Christian bible because it is anti-gay, anti-woman and just plain barbaric. In fact, it's almost as if it were written by a Bronze Age tribe of nomads.

So I am so pleased that gay marriage will be legal. I can't be happier because I feel everyone should have the ability to marry into misery just like I did.

[deleted account]

"wow...2 'mean spirited and hateful' Jen(n)s.....what IS this world coming to?"

Beats me.

Actually I'm used to it. When discussing the Bible with Christians from certain denominations, this is the reaction I usually get. Does anyone else think I was bring mean spirited and hateful?

~Jennifer - posted on 08/13/2010

4,164

61

365

wow...2 'mean spirited and hateful' Jen(n)s.....what IS this world coming to?

Rosie - posted on 08/13/2010

8,657

30

315

i just love how you turn around everything and deflect the question and come back with something from the bible that we don't care about or believe. and then call everybody else hateful, when you are the one wanting to deny people a basic right based off of your own religious prejudices. as for personal attacks, you've directly called jen "hateful and mean spirited" , and directly called carol "morally bankrupt and hateful" as well.
we all know you do, but you seem to think we should care what the bible says. why should we? what makes your god so much more important than equality? why would you even think your god is important to us or this discussion?
nobody is telling you you can't have your religious convictions, but you sure as hell are good at making sure nobody else can have their own.

as for you asking me if i think you are a homophobe, or bigoted, or a freak. you asked for you get it..yes i think you are a bigot. but i don't think you are a freak, or a racist, or even homophobic actually. you want to deny a group of people rights based simply off of their sexual preference-that's bigotry plain and simple. using religion to do it doesn't make it any better, in fact for me it almost makes it worse. it's completely hypocritical.
this "gay agenda" that you go on about is ridiculous. no gay person i know wants to be married in a church, and in fact the one couple i do know that got married, didn't get married in a church. they don't expect the church to either even though one of them is a christian. sounds like extremist behavior to me. i'm sure there are some feel that way, just as i'm sure there are some christians who feel that god hates fags, and 9/11 was a godsend (westboro baptist church) and we all know that those crazies don't represent all of christianity so why would you think that a few loose screws in the gay community would represent the whole thing? you almost make it seem like gay people are some big bunch of aliens out to get what they want at any cost. like it's going to be some big bloodbath or something. "gays will not stop at gay marriage" ooh the horror of it all!! what will they stop at then diane? why would gay people want group marriage? what does that have to do with gay people? tinfoil hat for you my dear. you've been drinking to much koolaid lately....

[deleted account]

"You are hateful, and you love to make fun and demean Christians. You can’t even discuss this in a civil way. This shows an attitude….

“As to why I'm asking you. I'm fairly certain you exist Diane. I think your god exists with the same degree of certainty that the Loch Ness Monster, the Flying Spaghetti Monster and Russell's Teapot exists.”

You are a very mean spirited person Jen. At least I admit that I do not know all the answers…………do you? Or do you have everything figured out? Do you know every answer to every question that I could ask you? I stand on the Word. "

Touched a nerve I see. I haven't done what you accuse me of. We had a discussion on another thread where you began accusing me of lying when I asked questions you chose to ignore.

What interests me is that my Christians friends with whom I often have these discussions (including very heated ones) never seem to share this opinion of me.

Is this the only way to go on? Insult someone in the hopes that they go away?

The mind works in interesting ways.

Iris - posted on 08/13/2010

1,993

29

49

"Sara, that's because god is mainly concerned with America. He doesn't care if Canada, South Africa or Argentina allow equality or not."

...or The Netherlands, Spain, Norway, Sweden and Iceland.

The Netherlands was the first country to legalize same-sex marriage back in 2000 and it hasn't boiled over 10 years later.

If we all had this mindset (follow the Bible), we would never had moved forward. Women would still be stoned to death and we would still either have slaves or be slaves.

Jenny - posted on 08/13/2010

4,426

16

126

Sara, that's because god is mainly concerned with America. He doesn't care if Canada, South Africa or Argentina allow equality or not.

LaCi - posted on 08/13/2010

3,361

3

171

"Laci said, “i cannot understand how you can spout on about the good ole us of a and spit in the face of equality for all. equality for whatever you deem important under your god, is what it SHOULD say, hmmm?”



Ok laci………..we have had the discussion about America the Christian nation before. Ninety nine percent of you said….none of the Founders were Christian and we were never a Christian nation…that our laws never reflected the bible. Let me point out to you my dear………that in America we have never allowed marriage between same sexes. Now if we were not Christian…but secular…then who is to blame for the law as it has stood from our first beginnings. LOL"





I didn't say that, not sure who did but it wasn't me. :)











Dana already covered number 13.









"Laci……..”I believe slaughtering animals in our time/society is wrong, but I have yet to tell anyone their carnivorous ways should be outlawed because of my own personal belief.”



Wow……but your pro-choice abortion...so compassionate of you. Those poor animals.



“You can live your life to your religious standards without forcing an entire society to succumb to your religious beliefs. No one called you homophobic. It's your religious conviction and you are entitled to it. You are not entitled to the creation of laws based on personal/religious beliefs. No one is asking you to honor or agree with their lifestyle, they only want the same rights and legal bonds heterosexual couples already have. The legalization of gay marriage has no impact whatsoever on your personal religious convictions.”



No I can’t if the law prevents me from standing up and saying what I believe is wrong. Not if my church is forced to marry gays…and you do not and cant know that this will never happen."







I am pro choice, because I believe, as with eating meat, it is someones PERSONAL choice. You seem to think it's contradictory but it's absolutely in line with what I believe. I don't eat animals and I don't have abortions, but I will not tell anyone else they need to behave/believe exactly as I do. so point out where I'm contradictory. We've already pointed out that the church will never be forced to marry gays as a church will never be forced to marry people who aren't members of the particular church. No one will every force you to be silent about what you believe is right or wrong, we only maintain that our society is made up of a wide variety of beliefs that do not all fall in line with yours and we will not force your beliefs, or anyone else's, on society as a whole.

Sara - posted on 08/13/2010

9,313

50

584

No church is ever going to be forced to marry gays...they aren't forced to marry anyone they don't want to now are they?



Honestly, with all the places where gay marriage is legal and the 7 Horsemen of the Apocolypse haven't arrived and society hasn't degraded into a bunch of sex-crazed freaks who don't give a shit about the sanctity of marriage, I think the arguments against gay marriage in this country hold absolutely no water, at all. FAIL.

Dana - posted on 08/13/2010

11,264

35

489

Diane, number 13 is about worshiping God, it doesn't say anything about marriage.
NEWS FLASH!!!! Gay people already attend church, some of the Pastors, Preachers, Priests, Ministers that lead churches...are GAY!!

Diane - posted on 08/13/2010

694

18

30

I asked you this Jen that you did not answer.

"I do not understand what you mean here. Why don’t you post examples of where God condones same sex unions. Use both the Old and the New Testament. Also cite where God says sex outside marriage is ok. Do you understand the law and its purpose? Do you understand what happened to the law after Christ came?"

“However, I wasn't speaking about gay marriage so please if you want to talk to me, stay on point. We were specifically discussing sexual morality in the bible as a whole.”

I am on point. This conversation is about gay marriage. And gay marriage has everything to do with the Bible and sex sin for me. It is sin for any heterosexual to have sex outside marriage. It is a sin for anyone to have sex and not be married. God does not condone marriage or sex between people of the same sex.

That in a nutshell is sexual morality in the bible. It is a sin to lust after another unless you are married unless you are lusting over your spouse. So strip joints, porn etc are sinful activities...laugh at those.......

“Then in your own words Diane, there is no such thing as absolute morality. If a god can change what is moral from one century to the next, regardless if he is omnipotent it nullifys an absolute. Therefore morality even in the bible is transitory. Thus, you have no way of saying that your god may decide 100 years down the road that homosexuals are in fact ok. There were women who died under the laws that you say he gave and you can't walk away from that fact. What is described in those verses is nothing less than what we now call honor killings. Hey don't get mad at me, it's your book after all.”

There is absolute morality and it is spelled out for us in the Bible. It does not however explain why God does the things He does. Just because a plan is changed does not make it wrong. Homosexuality has always been wrong. It is an abomination to God and it always has been. It has been this way from the beginning.
His plan is perfect even though we might not understand it. What has changed? Sex sin has always been a sin. Abortion is a sin, rape is a sin, sexual abuse is a sin, to lie is a sin, to lust, etc. Present cultures today change the Word to fit the lifestyle that is popular. The Word never has changed.

“Genesis 30:18 Then Leah said, "God has rewarded me for giving my maidservant to my husband."

That's the Biblical morality. You can dance around it but there it is, naked and embarrassing.”

What is so embarrassing about this? I’m dancing around it? Dream on…..I have answered everything.
This was a custom of the time when women were infertile and was socially acceptable. That did not make it right however and sometimes there are consequences.

“It also makes it crystal clear that women are chattel. Jesus states it is ok to beat your bondsmen Paul calls for slaves to obey their Christian masters.”

Not to God it doesn’t. He honors women. You know I could debate this, show scripture…and spend a lot of time doing it here….and I am not running. If you want to go at it I will. But what good would it do? I have not skipped over anything. I showed that no where in the bible is same sex unions approved of. I challenged anyone to show scriptures that prove me wrong. No one has done that.

You are hateful, and you love to make fun and demean Christians. You can’t even discuss this in a civil way. This shows an attitude….

“As to why I'm asking you. I'm fairly certain you exist Diane. I think your god exists with the same degree of certainty that the Loch Ness Monster, the Flying Spaghetti Monster and Russell's Teapot exists.”

You are a very mean spirited person Jen. At least I admit that I do not know all the answers…………do you? Or do you have everything figured out? Do you know every answer to every question that I could ask you? I stand on the Word.

What do you stand on?

I read this story the other day and I thought it was pretty awesome. It was about Muhammed Ali. Not sure it was factual....Of course Ali has never been associated with humility but during an airplane flight that ran into foul weather and mild turbulence the plane began to toss around in the air.The nervous passangers were instructed to fasten their seatbelts. Everyone complied but Ali. Noticing this a flight attendant approached him and told him to observe the pilots orders.. Ali replied, "Superman dont need no seatbelt.." The flight attendent not missing a beat replied "Superman dont need no airplane either."

Posing as Superman makes a crash landing certain.
I am not Superman but I have faith in God and I love Jesus Christ. I do not pretend to know all the answers but I look to the book that for me is about love and justice. I know that it repulses most of you...but i can't help that. I need a seat belt and I find it sad that other people pretend they dont.


You don’t get it…you have not been convicted of it……and people mock it to make themselves feel good. Those who mock are the ones who are not tolerant. I sat with a girl today who is a Mormon. I think the faith is a cult. She got married a few months back and is getting a divorce already. We talked about the Mormon faith and some bizarre stuff… husband calling the wife through…and a bunch of stuff that is not biblical at all. I respected her and did not say anything to hurt her. Oh I could have said a lot. I would never mock someone or make fun of anyone. You are not like that, not at all, because your goal your intention is to hurt and to make fun of someone.

“Your religion doesn't get to make the laws.”

You’re right today we don’t and it shows… How proud our nation must be to be able to say that we can kill unborn babies for no reason at all…..and who knows what laws will be next. That is the entire point I am trying to make. Who knows what laws because of this one…will be next.

kristaE said, “If someone's god tells them that same-sex marriage is wrong, then that's fine -- nobody is forcing them to marry someone of their own gender. And while there may be the odd lawsuit filed here and there, really, I wouldn't worry about churches being forced to perform gay marriage. Most gay people I know would not be interested in having someone perform their marriage who had to be sued or threatened into it -- it kind of puts a damper on their big day, no?”

Did you fail to look at the information I posted of the violent gays that went into the churches. This is happening all over the country and will get worse. Why wouldn’t you as a gay…who was raised lets say, Presbyterian…want to be married in that church? The law says they would be legal………so you don’t think they would have a case in any court room? Please. This will happen…and the gay agenda even said it would come down to either gay rights or religious liberty. It looks like gay rights are going to win eventually.

Laci,………..you laugh but there is a Gay Agenda………..google it my dear.

Here is one site…..
http://rainbowsendpress.com/ministry/age...

Now if you read about thirteen down…you will see one that says this.

“ We want to go to a church/synagogue/temple/mosque to worship God as we see fit.”

So do not tell me there will be no lawsuits…churches will be forced to marry them and cater to their lifestyle because to do other wise would be breaking the law.


You said this……. “but diane it is NOT in the best interest of society to be bigoted homophobic freaks.”

Now if the shoe fits wear it right. And that description you attribute to me I’m sorry. I am bigoted and homophobic because I do not agree with sex between same sex couples…and people who are not married. Oh and I don’t like Obama…that makes me a racist.
Basically you called me a freak....you were making a point and included me in it. That is how I read it…
You said, “(please read this carefully since you seem to have trouble with twisting things”

Maybe if you worded things better misunderstanding would not happen. The way I read your statement you included me in it.

I will just come out and ask…………Do you think I a bigot? Homophobic? Freak? Yes or no.



“did society think it was a good idea back then to let black people have equal rights?”

Well….since we were not a Christian nation and our laws did not reflect Christian values then, yes I think the humanists were wrong. Many people wanted the slaves freed…others did not.

“society hated the idea, much as society hates the idea of gays having equal rights right now. but did we turn into some horrible down trodden society with no hope? did the world end the day black people were given equal rights? of course not. it's silly to think so. so why would you think that would happen with gay people being given equal rights? it won't affect you in any way shape or form. and you do realize that gay people are married already in this country, and it hasn't affected you or your church one bit.”

It will affect the entire country and especially the family. Because with the passage of this will come group marriage. This will transform our culture. Gays will not stop at gay marriage.

In 1987 Steve Warren, a spokesman for the controversial homosexual group ACT UP, wrote an article for The Advocate, a magazine for the gay community. Titled "Warning to the Homophobes,”

Warren spoke of "the mean-spirited nature ofJudeo-Christian morality." Warren said, “We have at last come out, and in so doing have exposed the mean spirited nature of Judeo-Christian morality. You have been narrow minded and self-righteous. But with the help from a growing number of your own membership, we are going to force you to recant everything you have believed or said about sexuality.” …………….

Warren said the Bible, especially, would require a face-lift. "Finally, we will in all likelihood want to expunge a number of passages from your Scriptures and rewrite others:' he said, "eliminating preferential treatment of marriage and using words that will allow for homosexual interpretations of passages.”

Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen caused a sensation with their blueprint to "persuade straight America" to accept homosexuality. Their article was expanded into a book on the subject, the national number one best seller After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the '90s. But they also addressed the question of what to do with the hardened opposition – that is, at least in institutional terms, those following the "religious authority" of the church. Gay activists, the authors said, should take a two-pronged approach to neutralizing the threat of a vigorous Christian-led opposition.

First, to "confound" what Kirk and Madsen called "the homophobia of true believers," they suggested that gays "muddy the moral waters.” This would be accomplished in part by "publicizing support for gays by more moderate churches" and "raising theological objections of our own about conservative interpretations of Biblical teachings."

This has been done with amazing success in mainline Protestant denominations, such as in the Episcopal Church USA, United Methodist Church, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, and the Presbyterian Church USA. Homosexual activists in each of these major denominations have so clouded the issues regarding the Biblical view of homosexuality as to threaten each with schism and ruin.

For those churches which resist the siren call to complete moral relativism, Kirk and Madsen submitted a secondary strategy. They suggested that gays "undermine the moral authority of homophobic churches by portraying them as antiquated backwaters, badly out of step with the times. ..."

“In fact, gay and lesbian activists at the 1986 National March on Washington for Lesbian and Gay Rights made this demand: "Institutions that discriminate against lesbian and gay people should be denied tax exempt status.”

"All churches who condemn us will be closed." That was what Michael Swift, a "gay revolutionary,”

declared in a February 1987 issue of the Gay Community News.

Paula Ettelbrick is former legal director of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund and now executive director of the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission. Ettelbrick stated, "Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so. ... Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family, and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society. ...We must keep our eyes on the goal ... of radically reordering society's views of reality."

http://www.baptistbanner.org/Subarchive_...

"But people like myself, who feel that the bible is a fairly nasty, vile book with a few good lessons hidden amongst the idiocy should not be forced in any way to follow its belief system. No laws based purely on what is considered sinful by the bible should govern my life. I am not a Christian, and I should in no way be governed by its book. There are moral laws that are universal (no killing, stealing, etc.) that happen to also appear in the bible. No one who is not a believer should be dictated to by a book they do not see as a guide. I'd rather live my life by the rules of Harry Potter than the bible. I personally find many "Christian values" abhorrent.'

And you are hateful in the way you show tolerance.
Your worldview reminds me of Nietzsches.... morally bankrupt. We are drifting towards lawlessness..we are on a collision course. No absolute morality.. free from all moral contraints....the banishment of God.

Laci said, “i cannot understand how you can spout on about the good ole us of a and spit in the face of equality for all. equality for whatever you deem important under your god, is what it SHOULD say, hmmm?”

Ok laci………..we have had the discussion about America the Christian nation before. Ninety nine percent of you said….none of the Founders were Christian and we were never a Christian nation…that our laws never reflected the bible. Let me point out to you my dear………that in America we have never allowed marriage between same sexes. Now if we were not Christian…but secular…then who is to blame for the law as it has stood from our first beginnings. LOL

You cant blame Christians then……..the humanists have spit in the gays faces and kept them in the closet. Shame on you guys.

Equality was denied them by humanists and people who were not Christians. WONDERFUL. WOW.
We never were a Christian nation…….so that lets us off the hook right? We never forced anything on anyone.

Laci……..”I believe slaughtering animals in our time/society is wrong, but I have yet to tell anyone their carnivorous ways should be outlawed because of my own personal belief.”

Wow……but your pro-choice abortion...so compassionate of you. Those poor animals.

“You can live your life to your religious standards without forcing an entire society to succumb to your religious beliefs. No one called you homophobic. It's your religious conviction and you are entitled to it. You are not entitled to the creation of laws based on personal/religious beliefs. No one is asking you to honor or agree with their lifestyle, they only want the same rights and legal bonds heterosexual couples already have. The legalization of gay marriage has no impact whatsoever on your personal religious convictions.”

No I can’t if the law prevents me from standing up and saying what I believe is wrong. Not if my church is forced to marry gays…and you do not and cant know that this will never happen.

Johnny - posted on 08/11/2010

8,686

26

318

I find it to be incredibly ironic that so many Christians are happy and comfortable with forcing their biblical morality on the rest of the population that do not share their belief system and yet one of their biggest fear-mongering tactics oft used to argue against legalizing same-sex marriage is that they might be forced to perform those marriages. Even though that argument is a complete red herring, no church can be forced to perform any marriage, I find it funny that they utilize an argument that illustrates just how unfair and wrong it is to force others to comply with your own belief system. I guess its only wrong if it's not Christian, lol.



Yup, I do think that the bible makes it pretty clear in a number of different passages (not just Leviticus) that homosexual acts are sinful under the Christian god. So those that believe that the bible is the true word of god should clearly abstain completely from any situation in which a man would lie with another man (it does not, however, mention women I have noticed). Christians who hold that the bible is the correct and only guide to living a moral life should follow its tenets. But people like myself, who feel that the bible is a fairly nasty, vile book with a few good lessons hidden amongst the idiocy should not be forced in any way to follow its belief system. No laws based purely on what is considered sinful by the bible should govern my life. I am not a Christian, and I should in no way be governed by its book. There are moral laws that are universal (no killing, stealing, etc.) that happen to also appear in the bible. No one who is not a believer should be dictated to by a book they do not see as a guide. I'd rather live my life by the rules of Harry Potter than the bible. I personally find many "Christian values" abhorrent.



Like I stated in a previous post, here in Canada, where gay marriage has been legal for a while now, no one has forced any church to perform a gay marriage against it's will and they are protected legally from anyone attempting to do so.



Practicing ones personal faith honestly and fully does not require anyone to force that faith on others. And having full rights to live a lifestyle according to ones own feelings and truths does not need to impinge upon other people's rights to not live the same way. If it did, I'd be able to force everyone else to cloth diaper. Which would be great, and there are plenty of good reasons to support my beliefs & cause, but I still don't have the right to force it on others. And no one has the right to force me to use disposables.



And I'm sorry if this post is somewhat non-sensical, I'm typing with one hand and I'm not used to the smaller posting field.

Rosie - posted on 08/11/2010

8,657

30

315

ok, i just read a little more, and i wasn't in any way shape or form calling you racist either. i don't believe you are, and i never implied it AT ALL. my point was (please read this carefully since you seem to have trouble with twisting things around) black people were once viewed in society like homosexuals are now (excep probably a thousand times worse). that they shouldn't have the right to do anything, let alone marry a white person. you said we should think of society when making this decision. did society think it was a good idea back then to let black people have equal rights? society hated the idea, much as society hates the idea of gays having equal rights right now. but did we turn into some horrible down trodden society with no hope? did the world end the day black people were given equal rights? of course not. it's silly to think so. so why would you think that would happen with gay people being given equal rights? it won't affect you in any way shape or form. and you do realize that gay people are married already in this country, and it hasn't affected you or your church one bit.

[deleted account]

"You can live your life to your religious standards without forcing an entire society to succumb to your religious beliefs. "

Very true. Look at the Amish and Mennonite communities. They live completely by their own values and do just fine.

In fact on a side note. I remember when that crazy man went into an Amish schoolhouse and killed several of the girls inside. The older ones offered to be killed in place of the younger ones. He didn't and then killed himself. What struck me most about that awful situation was the reaction of that Amish community. They went to the family of the shooter to offer prayer and comfort as they felt it was a mutual tragedy and they wanted to offer what they could.

That to me was true Christian values in a nutshell.

LaCi - posted on 08/11/2010

3,361

3

171

Personal religious opposition to an idea and forcing your own religious idea on society are different. One can be completely opposed to gay marriage and still respect that it is their PERSONAL belief that it is wrong. I believe slaughtering animals in our time/society is wrong, but I have yet to tell anyone their carnivorous ways should be outlawed because of my own personal belief. I completely respect someone's right to believe gay marriage is immoral, I don't respect the belief in banning it based on one groups religious convictions. Goes back to the slogan "Don't agree with gay marriage? don't have one" You can live your life to your religious standards without forcing an entire society to succumb to your religious beliefs. No one called you homophobic. It's your religious conviction and you are entitled to it. You are not entitled to the creation of laws based on personal/religious beliefs. No one is asking you to honor or agree with their lifestyle, they only want the same rights and legal bonds heterosexual couples already have. The legalization of gay marriage has no impact whatsoever on your personal religious convictions.

Rosie - posted on 08/11/2010

8,657

30

315

WHERE IN THE HELL DID I SAY DIANE SAPIRO IS A BIGOTED HOMOPHOBIC FREAK? FOR FUCKS SAKE I DID NOT CALL YOU A NAME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

reread the fucking post. i thought i was being nice and civil, and we were having a good conversation. instead you have to derail it with imaginary attacks, and bullshit that you pulled out of your ass.

i can completely understand how some people can view it as wrong and not be out to kill every gay person they see. but don't you think you can still believe that gays are sinners even if they are marrying? you know the RIGHT that they have that has been taken away from them. nobody is taking away your right to believe what you believe, why must you want to do it to them? i cannot understand how you can spout on about the good ole us of a and spit in the face of equality for all. equality for whatever you deem important under your god, is what it SHOULD say, hmmm?

[deleted account]

"I believe I've told Diane before that what she espouses is the same thing as relativism Jen...It won't do any good..."

I'm ever the optimist.

ME - posted on 08/11/2010

2,978

18

190

"Then in your own words Diane, there is no such thing as absolute morality. If a god can change what is moral from one century to the next, regardless if he is omnipotent it nullifys an absolute. Therefore morality even in the bible is transitory. Thus, you have no way of saying that your god may decide 100 years down the road that homosexuals are in fact ok. There were women who died under the laws that you say he gave and you can't walk away from that fact. What is described in those verses is nothing less than what we now call honor killings. Hey don't get mad at me, it's your book after all."

I believe I've told Diane before that what she espouses is the same thing as relativism Jen...It won't do any good...

[deleted account]

I wish I had a copy of the gay agenda. I had a copy of the feminist agenda but I lost it in one of my moves.

I could use a good agenda, I need help scheduling my doctor appointments, bra burnings, burning churches and eating baby eating parties.

LaCi - posted on 08/11/2010

3,361

3

171

lol. the "GAY AGENDA"

I'm done. Pointless again. This started out like a good thread.

Krista - posted on 08/11/2010

12,562

16

842

The child marriage thing is a red herring. Wasn't it Senator Brownback who said all of that foolishness about how people would be allowed to marry their dogs?

I mean, come on.

Anybody who cannot see that it is VERY easy to draw a line in the sand saying that marriage must be limited to CONSENTING ADULTS is just fooling themselves.

So it's not a slippery slope at all, really. If two men are consenting adults and they wish to marry, then they should be legally allowed to do so, and their marriage, in the eyes of the state, should be identical to the marriage between a man and a woman. If someone's god tells them that same-sex marriage is wrong, then that's fine -- nobody is forcing them to marry someone of their own gender. And while there may be the odd lawsuit filed here and there, really, I wouldn't worry about churches being forced to perform gay marriage. Most gay people I know would not be interested in having someone perform their marriage who had to be sued or threatened into it -- it kind of puts a damper on their big day, no?

If you see this, leave this form field blank.
Powered by RESPECT not THUMPS

Join Circle of Moms

Sign up for Circle of Moms and be a part of this community! Membership is just one click away.

Join Circle of Moms