jump to last post 1-25 of 25 discussions (141 posts)

Hate in America, how history will judge us.

  1. Josak profile image60
    Josakposted 4 years ago

    I struggle with the gay rights issue, with most partisan topics I can see the other side of the argument and even have doubts about my own position, this is not one of them. The congregation of people getting together to celebrate their hatred of gays and equality at Chik Fila makes my bile rise I see not only the same feeling but the same people who I saw at KKK rallies many years ago and that is because they have the same aim and a new target, promoting inequality and second class citizenship.
    I saw it all before too, in the interracial marriage debate years ago. I even hear the same argument all the time "soon we will be letting dogs marry" because somehow two people who love each other wanting to be bound together for life is the same as someone raping a dog, I guess in certain minds it is. I hear the same excuses too "I don't hate blacks/gays I am just defending marriage/our way of life"
    In a few decades people will look back at this with revulsion and shame like we look back at Jim crow and interracial marriage supporters until then I will be remembering that every man is born equal. To people struggling with the hatred they face as homosexuals, especially gay youth who have a suicide rate six times the average, all I can say is I am sorry my countrymen are so ignorant and hateful I hope you can forgive them.
    My last message is for the hubber who shall go unnamed who posted a video showing how god had punished with fatal natural disasters areas that supported homosexuality. Sir I extend to you what you as a Christian are supposed to extend to others, forgiveness, even though you don't deserve it, you use your faith as an excuse for hate but I am sure of one thing, if Jesus knew his followers were celebrating natural disasters which killed innocents, including children, as divine retribution he would weep.

    1. 0
      JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I grew up being taught that gays were basically evil.

      Now I support their rights. Have hope for people who are stuck in the worldview of their childhood.

      1. Josak profile image60
        Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Wonderful to see people of the conservative persuasion expressing the same sentiment smile

        1. HowardBThiname profile image90
          HowardBThinameposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Add me to the list of conservatives that supports gay rights.

      2. kirstenblog profile image78
        kirstenblogposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        It is lovely to see someone reject teachings that can be so damaging to society, I applaud you for it! big_smile

        1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
          Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Bravo! also.

    2. rcrumple profile image84
      rcrumpleposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I completely agree.  Growing up in the 60's, many of us believed that all men, were indeed, created equal, regardless of race, creed or color.  This led to much discontent for those that had made attempt to raise us in a land of white superiority.
      If we were created in God's image, why then, are some acceptable and others not?  The logic simply isn't there!  It has to be an all or none issue.

      1. Paraglider profile image89
        Paragliderposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Re "race, creed or color" - that raises an interesting question:
        Race and color, we are born into and can do nothing about. Most people now accept that both are irrelevant in matters of equality, i.e. discrimination on the basis of either is unjustifiable.
        But creed? Literally that which someone believes? Though we may be brought up within a belief system, as adults it is our responsibility to examine such belief systems critically and make personal choices for which we should then take responsibility. For belief systems are not all equal by any means. Some are better than others, by any normal ethical standards, and are therefore to be preferred.

        As an example, I think that anyone whose creed includes honour killings or stoning for adultery or picketing funerals should be discriminated against rigorously and prevented from accessing any position of authority.

        1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
          Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I agree. All religions and all civilizations aren't created equal. Some who call themselves civilizations aren't civilized at all. I wrote the Taliban off because of the way women are treated and because of their destruction of the ancient Bamyan Buddhist statues. Not to mention the fact that they provided a safe haven for Al Qaida.

    3. mp2525 profile image59
      mp2525posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Hear, hear!

    4. undermyhat profile image60
      undermyhatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      How is it hate to resist government undoing a human institution that has transcended cultures, societies, governments and history itself?  Would anything have been blown up to this proportion if politicians didn't seek to punish a company for its president's personal opinion - in clear violation of the 1st Amendment?

      i understand the emotions involved and the desire to see all people equal but I have yet to hear a compelling argument for removing the definition of marriage.

      No one is barred from getting married, as long as one is marrying a member of the opposite sex.  That is the sole definition and criteria for marriage.  One man, one woman.  It does not bar people based on race, sexual orientation, income, wealth, ethnicity, national origin, age(except the age of consent), number of working limbs, blindness, deafness, disease, etc....

      If anything marriage is one of the most inclusive institutions in America.  Time was when a man could not marry a woman if they were of different "races."  That is long gone.  Now it is perfectly inclusive.  The government doesn't ask if  you love each other, if you want children, if it is all about publically validating your sexuality, if it is about property, or income or what ever - as long as it isn't about fraud.

      Simple and objective marriage is one man and one woman and no other issues at all.  How could it be more fair?

      1. Josak profile image60
        Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        No institution is being undone it in no way affects your marriage or my marriage if gay people can get married end of story, the institution is shot to hell anyway given the divorce rate etc.

        I did not see government punishing Chick Filla if they did I don't support it, that has nothing to do with this issue or the boycott. It was people excersizing their rights to boycott.

        No one is barred from getting married except gay people, which is pure discrimination.

        Great so marriage is open to most people just not gay people, being somewhere around 5% of our population.

        There is absolutely no reason to continue to use government to force someone elses definition of marriage on people.

        1. undermyhat profile image60
          undermyhatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          [No institution is being undone it in no way affects your marriage or my marriage if gay people can get married end of story, the institution is shot to hell anyway given the divorce rate etc.

          1)divorce rates are unrelated to marriage itself as an intitution but rather reflect societies undervaluing of marriage and the presence of alternatives that have been made acceptable by changes external to marriage itself.  Domestic partnerships, cohabitation, sexual liberation, women's independence, abortion, adoption, welfare, etc...have all for better or worse changed society so that alternatives to marriage exist where there wer none before.

          I did not see government punishing Chick Filla if they did I don't support it,
          2)http://www.examiner.com/article/chick-f … gay-stance

          that has nothing to do with this issue or the boycott. It was people excersizing their rights to boycott.
          3) I believe people should be able to patronize or not patronize who they wish - here you and I could not be in more agreement - but I do not choose to ascribe to those boycotting a business a visceral and brutal hatred.

          No one is barred from getting married except gay people, which is pure discrimination.
          4) homosexuals are not barred from marrying, the government does not ask if you are gey before issuing a marriage license.

          Great so marriage is open to most people just not gay people, being somewhere around 5% of our population.

          5)marriage is open to everyone except those who seek marriage for fraudulent reasons - like getting protection for deportation or because they are closely related - brother/sister, mother/son, etc...or already married or seeking marriage for multiple partners.

          There is absolutely no reason to continue to use government to force someone elses definition of marriage on people.

          It is an objective definition with no abiguity and no one is compelled to marry or not marry - it is perhaps, the least regulated and simplest activity in which people can engage with government attention

          1. Josak profile image60
            Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Obviously gay people don't want to marry someone of the opposite gender being as they can't mary who they wish they are effectively banned from marriage.

            I don't understand how you someone who talks endlessly about excessive government control can support using government to mke it illegal for gay people to get married.

            Denying people equality under the law (which includes marriage law) is always wrong.

            1. undermyhat profile image60
              undermyhatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Obviously gay people don't want to marry someone of the opposite gender being as they can't mary who they wish they are effectively banned from marriage. I

              --- many people want to "marry" who cannot "marry" who they choose - does this mean all relationships that do not meet the definition of marriage should be permitted the state sanctioning of their contractual relationship?

              don't understand how you someone who talks endlessly about excessive government control can support using government to mke it illegal for gay people to get married.

              ---it is not illegal for someone homosexual to marry

              Denying people equality under the law (which includes marriage law) is always wrong

              ---many people are not allowed to marry, even when they are one man and one woman

          2. peeples profile image90
            peeplesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Last month in NC two men went in and filled out their form for a marriage license and were refused. "homosexuals are not barred from marrying, the government does not ask if you are gey before issuing a marriage license." So there goes that.

            1. undermyhat profile image60
              undermyhatposted 4 years ago in reply to this



              Marriage is between a man and a woman - the government does not ask either if they are gay - so there goes that

              1. peeples profile image90
                peeplesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Marriage is only between a man and a woman to some, so the rest should be punished because our heavy handed government and the select over religious think they have been bad by being gay? Let's be honest here. WHO CARES WHAT SOMEONE DOES IN THEIR BEDROOM? Really why does keeping gays from marrying matter SO much to some. Is it a lack of their own lives? Is it boredom? Really? Please explain to me why you think the government should be allowed to tell people who they can marry. Are you in denial about that part? Your definition of marriage is limited since there are already some places where marriage is between man and man or women and women.

                1. undermyhat profile image60
                  undermyhatposted 4 years ago in reply to this



                  Because marriage isn't about the bedroom or sex

                  1. peeples profile image90
                    peeplesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    I'd say it is considering the religious extreme is saying the reason marriage for gays shouldn't be allowed is because God said it was a sin for two men to have sex. These same people are saying it is the ACT of being gay that is a sin. So they are fighting against gay marriage because of what's going on in stranger's bedrooms.

                  2. Josak profile image60
                    Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Then Christians should have no objection to gay marriage since it is never mentioned in the bible only intercourse is.

          3. HowardBThiname profile image90
            HowardBThinameposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Things like Brittany Spears getting married for a couple of hours does way more to damage the antiquated institution of marriage than does two gays who commit for a lifetime.

    5. JSChams profile image60
      JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Why is disagreement considered hatred?
      In similar fashion you are called racist if you disagree with our President.
      I don't hate anyone but I disagree with a lifestyle. I am not a hater. I just know what I like.
      I certainly don't agree with whomever whatever video you refer to had to do with. Nor the fools from Westboro Baptist.
      I suspect most of the folks yesterday weren't haters either but that's the politically correct thing to call them so there it is.
      They set a world record yesterday so I suspect I am not the only one who feels that way. No I didn't eat there.
      Couldn't get anywhere near the place.

      1. HowardBThiname profile image90
        HowardBThinameposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        JS - when disagreement holds others in a negative judgmental light, despite the fact that they've done nothing harmful - it borders on hatred.

        It creates divisions and attempts to set one group of people above another group, for no valid reason.

        Imagine if the protests were not against gays, but about Christians. Then, imagine that you were a Christian who had to walk quickly past the protestors for fear they'd single you out - as an evil one. Then, multiply that experience by about 500 and you'll be closer to seeing the harm done to others. A similar thing happened about 60 years ago - there was a disagreement about Jews and whether they were good for society. That disagreement led to some hateful actions, indeed.

      2. 0
        Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I like you JS.  I think you are a decent guy.  However, I don't think you are fully comprehending how you come across to someone who is gay, or a supporter of gay rights.  I don't equate you with someone who is completely bigoted towards homosexuals like others I have seen on here.

        You see homosexuality as a choice, just like being drunk, or committing a violent act against a helpless victim.  It's easy to say you aren't hating anyone, because it would be absurd to say you hated a drunk or someone who had anger problems.  You would just hate the particular acts (not every act) they were performing when they were drinking or fighting.

        The thing is, homosexuality is not a choice at all.  Just ask yourself when you chose to be attracted to women, and also, if you could ever be attracted to a man.  I think the answer will help clarify where gay-rights supporters are coming from.

        1. HowardBThiname profile image90
          HowardBThinameposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I don't think being gay is a choice. I have a gay child. My child has been traumatized by unthinking and unfeeling people who say that he is wrong or bad for being who he is.

          You cannot judge a person and pin labels on them without causing them emotional damage. I've done more to support gay rights in the past decade than most gay people have.

          I think you may have misread my intent - because I might be one of the staunchest supporters of gays on these forums.

          1. 0
            Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            NOOOOOOOOOOOO.  I wasn't referring to you.  I took you as supporting gay rights.  I have a gay brother.  I'm extremely grateful that your son has a father that will accept him as he is.

            I don't think being gay is a choice either.  All I was saying is, some people look at it as a choice, and attempt to equate homosexuality to other "immoral" actions.  When they do this, they are unwittingly condemning part of the person's humanity, even if they do not MEAN to do so.

            There are the bigots and homophobes, and there are people who just need to reflect on the issue a little more.

    6. kathleenkat profile image90
      kathleenkatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Although I recognize that I cannot speak for an entire group of people, I believe that the VAST majority of these people did not gather at Chick-fil-A to hate homosexuals. I believe the main focus of the gathering was to support Chick-fil-A and their upholding of Christian views.

      *sigh*

      But I do not fail to see your point. I don't think there is hope for humanity to ever be fully accepting of everyone and everything. Are you Ghandi? Are you Jesus? Then you probably aren't without judgement and hate.

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
        Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        "their upholding of Christian views."

        In my book those weren't authentic Christian views at all. The Christian church that I grew up in has gay and women priests and bishops.

        1. kathleenkat profile image90
          kathleenkatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I don't care about your book or your church. The point I was trying to make is that these people were supporting what they thought was a good cause, and I sincerely doubt that millions of people buy chicken at Chick-fil-A because they hate gays. Yes, some people do, but the majority? Probably supporting free speech, Christianity, and a business they like.

          1. Josak profile image60
            Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Freedom of speech does not imply one should support the speaker monetarily, those people gathered to celebrate that this organization opposes equal treatment under the law and contributes a lot of money to making sure that equality is prevented.

            As for Christianity I must have missed the "thou shalt support businesses who discriminate against gay people".

            1. kathleenkat profile image90
              kathleenkatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              They are supporting a CHRISTIAN business because they are CHRISTIAN.

              You don't have the right to speak for a large group of people any more than I do. I think it's sad that you (others) would honestly believe that THAT MANY people gathered to support an organization because they hate gays. They likely support the organization for the good things it brings to the table, such as honoring their faith by giving all employees of Sundays, or they think the business has a right to say that they "support traditional marriage" under the Bill of Rights, or maybe they just like chicken? I'll patronize Chick-fil-A or KFC simply because I will enjoy some Southern style chicken every once in a while.

              Making a blanket statement about a large group of people like this honestly just makes what is probably a majority of GOOD people look evil. Yes, I am not saying that there weren't homophobes and gay haters that gathered at Chick-fil-A just because they hated gays. But many people probably just happen to like Chick-fil-A.

              *Edit: Let me sum this up for you.... I'll eat at Chick-fil-A. That does NOT mean I hate gay people. It means I like chicken and I find the price to be acceptable. Having someone telling me that I in no doubt hate gays because I patronize a business is a little hateful, don't you think?

              1. Josak profile image60
                Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                You do realize all this was referring to Chick Filla appreciation day right? When they sold record quantities. Now I would still not support spending there on any other day knowing the business subsidizes anti gay organizations but it's different, the people I was referring to were those who went to the day designated for celebrating the "traditional marriage" comment and yes they were hateful, from what I saw and from the many interviews and reports from employees.

                1. kathleenkat profile image90
                  kathleenkatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day was just that.... Chick-fil-A Appreciation. Appreciation.

                  Do you honestly think the media would bother interviewing the regular, boring person, who says "I appreciate Chick-fil-A"? They interview extremes. Makes the news more interesting. I would argue that most of the people who attended Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day probably were there to appreciate Chick-fil-A.

                  And another problem I see with both sides of the argument is that people assume this:

                  Supporting Traditional Marriage >>> Hating Gays
                  Supporting Gay Marriage >>> Hating Christianity

                  I think it is very possible for people to support something without hating the other thing. I can support Democrats without hating Republicans, and vise versa. How is this any different?

          2. Ralph Deeds profile image69
            Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Chick Fillay has every right to support what ever they wish, and I have every right to refrain from patronizing them. They apparently have made a business decision that they will gain more customers who oppose gay equality than they will lose from supporters of gay equality. My impression is that the tide is running out on them.

          3. Ralph Deeds profile image69
            Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Many people used to believe that school, employment and housing discrimination were a good cause, also.

      2. Quilligrapher profile image91
        Quilligrapherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Hey there, Ms. Kathleen.

        I truly believe all people are entitled to embrace their own opinions. I recognize your right to willingly believe “that the VAST majority of these people did not gather at Chick-fil-A to hate homosexuals,” even though you and I both know you have no way of knowing if this is true. You are also willing to believe that contributing money to oppose and to obstruct the rights and liberties of a segment of Americans is upholding Christian views. Surely, you realize such “Christian views” are un-American, undemocratic, and, to say the very least, so un-Christ-like.

        Many Christian churches recognize and preside over same-gender marriage ceremonies and many denominations ordain gay ministers and install them and their spouses in hundreds of congregations around the world. Consequently, what you believe is not a universally accepted “Christian view” but rather a widely held personal view.

        All the same, Ms. Kathleen, I welcome your perspective and I thank you for submitting it for our consideration.
        http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg

    7. 0
      Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I have sympathy for people who WANT to accept homosexuality, but have a psychological journey to travel before doing so.  I am young, and have a gay brother, so I don't deal with those hurdles.  But for those working on themselves, I am open if you need to talk.

      However, I do not have any sympathy for people who are against it, and are not trying to change.  It is homophobia, plain and simple.  Like you said, history will severely condemn these people, and I will not feel bad for them when their legacy in history is known for discrimination.

  2. kirstenblog profile image78
    kirstenblogposted 4 years ago

    It staggers the mind.

  3. BobbiRant profile image60
    BobbiRantposted 4 years ago

    I think too many people thing 'might is right' which has been America's creed for far too long.  Why Americans have turned to bitterness and hate is beyond me, but it is wrong on so many levels.  Great topic.

  4. peeples profile image90
    peeplesposted 4 years ago

    I too find it sickening. People picking and choosing which parts of their bible they want to use to justify their hate. Had chik-fil-a donated the 5 million to the KKK instead the media would be treating this like what it is. Sadly homosexuals are the new "easy" target. Even sadder is how many black people also go against gays. Considering what their ancestors went through it would seem they would take up for the homosexuals. Instead they pretend what they are doing is somehow different. Truly sad!

  5. 0
    Tawadiposted 4 years ago

    Josak, perhaps what the people who participated in the Chik-fil-a appreciation day were doing was standing up not against gays but rather free speech, the First Amendment.

    Dan Cathey, while you may not agree with his words, has just as much right to say them as you do in support of your favorite causes.

    Do you not support the freedom of speech? For everyone? Even those you don't agree with or vise versa?

    Would it not make your bile rise as well if your words were attacked as Cathey's were because it's your right to say them?

    1. Josak profile image60
      Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Free speech has a very clear definition, it means the governemnt can not punish people for expressing themselves or prevent them from doing so, it does not say that individuals do not have a right to respond to that expression, the CEO's rights were in no way violated, he made an ignorant comment and people are upset at him for it. None of that violated the first amendment full stop. Same goes for the KKK rallies, should they be arrested for spreading their filth? No, should they be ignored and boycotted? Yes.

      No it would not upset if people disagree with me and even if it did, it's their right to do so.

      The people there were supporting hate not the first amendment which was not in any way relevant.

      1. 0
        Tawadiposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I understand where you're coming from, Josak. However, I don't think the appreciation day was anything more than support for the First Amendment. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

        As for the KKK rallies, no, they shouldn't be arrested but I wouldn't mind seeing them get a good ole country ass wuppin' either. I dislike racism in all forms.

    2. Ralph Deeds profile image69
      Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      "Josak, perhaps what the people who participated in the Chik-fil-a appreciation day were doing was standing up not against gays but rather free speech, the First Amendment."

      Perhaps, but very doubtful.

      1. 0
        Tawadiposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        So for a person to say they don't support gay marriage is the same as that person saying they hate gays? To me, that appears to be a huge, and might I add ridiculous, leap. Knee-jerk, childish, and immature also come to mind.

        I don't mean you but rather this whole conversation.

        1. Josak profile image60
          Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I don't hate black people i just think they should live separately/have different rights/we should protect our own culture. See how that goes? I remember those same excuses, now it's I don't hate gays I just don't think they should have the same rights and equality under the law as straight people.

          Call it hate, call it discrimination, call it evil (I do) but the result is the same this group of people whoever they might be don't deserve the same treatment they should be second class citizens.

          1. 0
            Tawadiposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Okay, lets get this out there right now.

            I have a family member that's gay. I'm not against gays as I believe a majority of them are born "gay." I do not believe in gay marriage as it is against my faith.

            1. Josak profile image60
              Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Several things
              #1 Where in the bible does it say gay people should not be married?

              #2 In the bible it says you should kill them yet you presumably are not.

              #3 Where in the bible does it say you should decide on other people's behalf if they can get married or not, I would understand if Christians don't want to get same sex marriages but that is no excuse for reaching into the personal lives of others and forcing them to comply with your beliefs.

              #4 how is it any of your business what someone else wants to do with their lover?

              #5Why do you think it's Ok to deny people equality under the law based on your personal faith?

              #6 Discrimination and hate is still discrimination and hate whether your faith tells you to do it, a book tells you to do it or a person tells you to do it. Just because it's in your faith is absolutely no excuse.

              1. 0
                Tawadiposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I will get back to you, Josak. I'm at work and training someone. I did not want you to think I was ignoring your good questions.

          2. Ralph Deeds profile image69
            Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            +++

  6. Wayne Brown profile image86
    Wayne Brownposted 4 years ago

    Free speech is a right under the Constitution afforded to all American citizens but I must say that many abused that right yesterday in light of the comments coming out of the gay/lesbian community with regard to the Chik-Fil-A Appreciation Day Event, which by the way, was not in any fashion driven by that business.  Some of the commentary was unfit to publish on many social sights and ran a gambit filled with hate and ill-will like, "I pray that everyone who eats there gets sick and dies".  The right to free speech also comes with an element of responsibility for what is said.  Had such words been spoken in reverse I cannot imagine the rage that would have ensued.  This CEO simply established in interviews with a Christian publication the basis for the beliefs within the company beginning with why the business was closed on Sundays. The CEO tied those actions to the founding families deep belief in the teaching of the Bible and his statements were simply an example of what is going on in the world today versus the Christian teachings of the Bible.  His statements did  not condemn the actions so much as it questioned whether those actions would stand up to God's scrutiny in their challenge to the Bible. Certainly, there was no basis to say that the business had any desire to classify its clientele or interfer in their lives.  Amazingly, all the ruckus coming out of this has been from the gay/lesbian side.  Had it not been raised, the whole inteview would likely have seen little exposure limited primarily to the readers of such publications.  The fact that Chik-Fil-A saw an outpouring of customer base yesterday indicates the level to which an extremely large portion of this nation agrees with those same teachings of the Bible.  In effect, what you are calling for here is for organized religion to pick and choose the parts of the Bible that they like and toss the rest aside all the while claiming to following the teachings of the Lord.  It simply does not work that way and it is the obvious reason why there is a distinct separation between church and state. WB

    1. Josak profile image60
      Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      #1) No actually the company donates millions to groups interfering in people's lives by fighting against gay rights.

      #2) No one is asking people to change their faith, marriage is no longer a religious institution but a state one, all anyone is asking is for people to mind their own business and their own lives and stop denying others equal rights.

      #3) there is not a single christian who follows American law who does not pick and choose from the bible, I don't see women being stoned for not being pregnant on their wedding day for example, so that argument is completely groundless.

      #4) In the bible it says we should kill gay people is that OK too?

          "If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives."  (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)

      But if this charge is true (that she wasn't a virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father's house.  Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst.  (Deuteronomy  22:20-21 NAB)

      Yes any moral society absolutely expects religious people to pick and choose.

      1. 0
        Tawadiposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        #4) In the bible it says we should kill gay people is that OK too?

        Please provide book, chapter, and verse for this one, Josak.

        1. Josak profile image60
          Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          "If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives."  (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)

          Done.

      2. undermyhat profile image60
        undermyhatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        #1) No actually the company donates millions to groups interfering in people's lives by fighting against gay rights.

        ---do they actually seek to deny homosexuals the vote, freedom of movement, employment, speech, religion, keeping and bare arms, etc... if so than you may have a point

        #2) No one is asking people to change their faith, marriage is no longer a religious institution but a state one, all anyone is asking is for people to mind their own business and their own lives and stop denying others equal rights.

        ---marriage is neither a religious nor state institution, it a civilizational one, no one is denied marriage, only the conditions of marriage are defined


        #3) there is not a single christian who follows American law who does not pick and choose from the bible, I don't see women being stoned for not being pregnant on their wedding day for example, so that argument is completely groundless.
        #4) In the bible it says we should kill gay people is that OK too? "If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB) But if this charge is true (that she wasn't a virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father's house. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst. (Deuteronomy 22:20-21 NAB)

        When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." John 8:7

        Last I checked Christians were following Christ Jesus


        Yes any moral society absolutely expects religious people to pick and choose

        Hardly

        1. Josak profile image60
          Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Last I checked Christians were following Christ Jesus


          Yes any moral society absolutely expects religious people to pick and choose

          Hardly

          for...

          Christ never mentions homosexuality at all so that is complete and utter hypocrisy, homosexuality is condemned in the old testament which is where it says we should kill gay people and non virgin women etc. etc.

          We absolutely without any doubt expect and demand people pick and choose from their faith, be it Muslims not getting Sharia or Christians not killing gay people.

          It is a simple fact.

    2. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image60
      Wizard Of Whimsyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/409613_457900790911010_659994902_n.jpg

      1. undermyhat profile image60
        undermyhatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        It is the effort by Chicago government to bar Chik Fil A from Chicago because of the personal views of its president.  That is a clear infringement of the 1st Amendment.

        1. Josak profile image60
          Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Nope Congress passed no law to abridge the freedom of speech so the first amendment was not violated, as the mayor pointed out, free speech is a right but zoning is not and local governments are fee to not allow businesses they don't want in their area, many places have done that with Walmart for example.

          1. undermyhat profile image60
            undermyhatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            States and localities are bound by the 1st Amendment.

            If the expressed purpose for the zoning is to punish someone for their expressed position - as this was - than it is a violation.  That would be fun to see fought out in the courts - I am betting against Chicago government on that.  Also, if you find a business objectionable, protest them until they leave.

      2. Mitch Alan profile image84
        Mitch Alanposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Wizard, Both have the right, as individuals, to boycott any company, for any reason...with their money...don't like a company? Don't buy their products or services.  What you can't have is a business denied the right to open or operate a business because of their religious beliefs...
        Besides, as I have written ina hub, the marriage licensing by the State is the real issue.

        1. undermyhat profile image60
          undermyhatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Boycott who you wish.  Liberals are not a large enough group to bankrupt Chik Fil A - especially now.

          1. Mitch Alan profile image84
            Mitch Alanposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Under, I support them and ate there 2 times this week...2nd Amendment.

  7. Mitch Alan profile image84
    Mitch Alanposted 4 years ago

    Gay Rights? The Constitution does not guarantee ANYONE, gay or straight, the right to marry...in fact the whole concept of a marriage license was not instituted until the 1920's and it was for racist reasons.  The government should not be in the marriage business at all. I wrote a Hub on this very topic. It is a simple fix.
    There should be no debate over the what the government says is marriage, as it it not the federal governments job, nor Constitutional jurisdiction, to do so.

    1. peeples profile image90
      peeplesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I couldn't agree more with this. Sadly the government does have their nose in it. Until they no longer do many of us with have to keep fighting to assist all people in having the same abilities in life.

  8. Mitch Alan profile image84
    Mitch Alanposted 4 years ago

    As to the concept of "hate" being at the heart of the overwhelming financial support shown at Chick-fil-A yesterday (world record fast food single day sales)...it isn't about hatred, but rather support of his 1st Amendment right to freedom of speech and religion.  He has the right to answer a question posed to him in an honest fashion and people have the choice to either eat there or not. It's that simple.

    1. peeples profile image90
      peeplesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      And people have a right to disagree with his stance also!

    2. Josak profile image60
      Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      The first amendment prevents federal government from restricting free speech, celebrating intolerance at a fast food restaurant has nothing to do with that. That was about a group of people getting together to support keeping others as second class citizens.

      1. Mitch Alan profile image84
        Mitch Alanposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Second class citizens? What actual Rights have they been denied? 1st Amendment? No...2nd Amendment? No...etc? No...
        Please explain what Rights a gay person has been denied...marriage is not a right, whether gay or straight.

        1. undermyhat profile image60
          undermyhatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          clearly not a right

        2. undermyhat profile image60
          undermyhatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          It occurs to me that if marriage is a right than why does it require a license?  I want to be a funeral director and the government is denying me the right to be a funeral director, hair dresser, lawyer, chiropractor, dog, private investigator, etc....

          1. Mitch Alan profile image84
            Mitch Alanposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Under, read my hub on that subject...

        3. Ralph Deeds profile image69
          Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          ''The gay rights movement is NOT about “equality' or “love”.  They have, indeed, hv ALWAYS had, those. Gay rights is about MONEY.

          "Monetary Benefit #1:;Tax returns : For those who file , hv you seen the difference between 'married filing jointly' and 'married filing separately'? This benefit is to help those who produce and raise children.  And what do societies NEED to perpetuate themselves? Children. Naturally, gays do not produce children

          "Monetary Benefit #2:: Pension plans that go to spouses after death.  This benefit is primarily for those moms out there who gave up careers to produce and raise children.  And what do societies NEED to perpetuate themselves? Children.

          "Monetary Benefit #3: Medical Plans for the spouse. Again, this is to benefit the family unit.  Gays do not produce families.

          "The ave. child will cost over $220,000 to raise from birth to 18.  Naturally, gays , on ave., have a MUCH higher standard of living than heterosexuals ... since they do not have to bear the financial burden of raising children."

          It is about equal treatment under the law as required by the 14th Amendment.

  9. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image60
    Wizard Of Whimsyposted 4 years ago

    http://cdn.front.moveon.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/GL15.jpg

    https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/524516_486252771386227_2080044242_n.jpg

  10. S Leretseh profile image77
    S Leretsehposted 4 years ago

    The gay rights movement is NOT about “equality' or “love”.  They have, indeed, hv ALWAYS had, those. Gay rights is about MONEY.

    Monetary Benefit #1:;Tax returns : For those who file , hv you seen the difference between 'married filing jointly' and 'married filing separately'? This benefit is to help those who produce and raise children.  And what do societies NEED to perpetuate themselves? Children. Naturally, gays do not produce children

    Monetary Benefit #2:: Pension plans that go to spouses after death.  This benefit is primarily for those moms out there who gave up careers to produce and raise children.  And what do societies NEED to perpetuate themselves? Children. 

    Monetary Benefit #3: Medical Plans for the spouse. Again, this is to benefit the family unit.  Gays do not produce families.

    The ave. child will cost over $220,000 to raise from birth to 18.  Naturally, gays , on ave., have a MUCH higher standard of living than heterosexuals ... since they do not have to bear the financial burden of raising children.

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
      Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      True. And that's where their legal argument based on equal treatment under the law comes into play.

  11. Xenonlit profile image60
    Xenonlitposted 4 years ago

    The haters think that "freedom of speech" allows them to bombard us with outrageous speech. We have to let them know that we will come right back and bombard them with viral exposure and with zero money for their unnecessary junk food and other useless business interests.

    I will go to Popeyes and KFC or I will make my chicken sandwiches from scratch, including the bread. It will all taste better knowing that it will keep that trashy brand confined to the welfare states.

    As for gay marriage, everyone has a right to their opinion and belief, including those perverted deviants who are calling themselves "christians". Everyone has a right to love who they love, but only if the lover chooses to love back.

    No one has the right to demand that I join them in their deviant religious beliefs. Also, how many of the "christian right" are child abusers, child molesters, rapists or closeted gays themselves?

    How hypocritical that would be! Closeted gay "christian" extremists who push anti gay hatred!

    They usually have an excuse for every evil that they do, so I won't be surprised to find out that there are more scandals to be revealed.

    They do not have the right to incite hate, to suborn violence, or to divide a nation that was once great before they started mouthing off.  All they are doing is setting themselves up for another fifty years of being irrelevant big shots confined to dirty dealings in deteriorating welfare states.

    The rest of us will still call the real shots in this country.

    1. Mitch Alan profile image84
      Mitch Alanposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Can you quote one thing that the owner of Chick-fil-A said in the interview that was able to "incite hate, to suborn violence"?
      As to your "bombard...viral exposure" and "zero money"...I'm sure they thank you for the free advertising and the World Record breaking sales on August 1st.
      Freedom of speech is alive and well...

      1. undermyhat profile image60
        undermyhatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        So if a Chik Fil A is fire bombed this week end whose fault will it be? 

        Saying "I think we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say ‘we know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage’ and I pray God's mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about.”

        Is that hate?  Sounds like concern for our lack of humility - something everyone should be concerned about.

        1. Jane Bovary profile image88
          Jane Bovaryposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          It's an absurdity, that's what it is. This is the 21st century, not the dark ages and it's about time we stopped pretending we know what God [whatever that means] thinks about anything.

          How  *arrogant* to  believe we have any special insight into God's opinion about marriage, or anything else for that matter. We...us humans, created that institution and we can redefine it to be inclusive of gays if we have the will. The whole gay debate is a striking example of how religion can cast such a murky haze over clear moral thinking.

  12. udontnomi profile image60
    udontnomiposted 4 years ago

    It doesn't matter how history remembers you, History forgets more than it remembers. it is important how you live today.

  13. Cody Hodge profile image84
    Cody Hodgeposted 4 years ago

    Mitch makes a great point regarding marriage licenses.

    Typically, people are denied rights, or excluded from certain practices because of fear.

    So, what are the Christians scared of?

  14. Wayne Brown profile image86
    Wayne Brownposted 4 years ago

    Marriage is not a right...it is a priviledge just as driving an automobile is a priviledge and not a right...it requires a license which can be taken away if abused.

    1. 0
      Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      So the heterosexual community has severely abused that privilege.  It's time to revoke!

    2. NubianGoddess profile image61
      NubianGoddessposted 4 years ago

      this is a truth by truth. I agree that creed is not equal, because in American if your creed follows somekind of Christian belief then it is ok. but if your creed fall outside then you are now subjected ti inferiority complexes. you have to justify why, when ither don't have to justify why.

      1. undermyhat profile image60
        undermyhatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        You will have to include Isalm and many other religious traditions because homosexuality is not condoned by most religions.  Though that is really immaterial to the conversation about marriage as a secular thing.

    3. kaykaymarie profile image60
      kaykaymarieposted 4 years ago

      I believe that religion, your parents, your friends, no one, should hold you back from being with the one you Love. It does not matter what gender you are; Love is Love. Period. I'm glad that you're doing this. It probably means a lot to people, who are out there, struggling with this... I'm a Christian; a Baptist, actually. Some things in the Bible just aren't right, to me, and probably, a lot of people out there. I'm speaking for myself when it comes to that. I don't believe that you should stay with someone, even if, they're beating on, just because you made vows to stay together, in the name of The Lord. I hope this goes well for you. Bye.

    4. kaykaymarie profile image60
      kaykaymarieposted 4 years ago

      they're beating on you, *

    5. Suzie Crumcakes profile image61
      Suzie Crumcakesposted 4 years ago

      It isn't that anyone hates gays, it is just that they don't liked to be creeped out. I don't understand why gay people like to think people hate them. Most people don't care one way or the other what you do behind closed doors. I think it is more intimate and romantic to keep it there. If you knew what I did for my man, then you would never be happy with what you got now.

      1. 0
        Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I wish you were right.  Many religious conservatives do care though, unfortunately, as is evidenced by their voting to outlaw same-sex marriage. 

        You're obviously not going to enjoy being with a person of the same gender if you are heterosexual, but homosexuals wouldn't enjoy being with someone of the opposite sex.  There's no hate in that aspect, only in the fact that people call it immoral, and vote to discriminate against homosexuals.

        This did make me laugh though, for whatever that's worth :p.

        1. Suzie Crumcakes profile image61
          Suzie Crumcakesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Well, I don't hate gays, and I want them to know it. Remember this though. If you show all kinds of public displays of affection, like kissing and getting jiggy, then it just isn't cool. I don't need to see that. My Mama told me it looks cheap. It is cheap. Grownups should know better. If you are trying to shock someone, then don't be shocked when they are shocked.

          I'm glad you laughed. Everyone is so serious anymore.

      2. Josak profile image60
        Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Then why exactly are people attempting to prevent gay marriage and even constitutionally outlawing it in several states?

    6. Suzie Crumcakes profile image61
      Suzie Crumcakesposted 4 years ago

      Wait a minute, Josak. What do you mean us. You are not an American.

      1. Josak profile image60
        Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        #1 Yes I am
        #2 Why would that matter
        #3  It's pretty offensive

        1. Suzie Crumcakes profile image61
          Suzie Crumcakesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          1. You are a citizen of the USA? I don't think so. An american? Yes . . . South American.

          2. It's not your business.

          3. I suppose you are the only one allowed to be offensive. You are trying to bait the bear with this sketchy post. If you don't stick your nose in other people's business, then you wont get offended when they tell you to butt out.

          1. JSChams profile image60
            JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            The point of this post of course being if you don't think like we do it's hate.
            You should therefore be regulated.

          2. 0
            Tawadiposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Plain spoken and to the point. I like that, Suzie!!!

    7. JSChams profile image60
      JSChamsposted 4 years ago

      http://s3.hubimg.com/u/6995354_f248.jpg

      1. S Leretseh profile image77
        S Leretsehposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Very nice... The DEMS carved out 'aggrieved' groups in America (blacks, females,gays) ... they do  have their limit for support of the party's 'you done me wrong' agenda.

        1. JSChams profile image60
          JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Well it's silly. So a sandwich now has the ability to hate?

          The man didn't even say he hated gays. He just said he believes in traditional marriage.

          1. Quilligrapher profile image91
            Quilligrapherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Hi there, Mr. Chams. It is so nice to hear from you this evening.

            So, what is silly? If I may point out that no one has said anything about a sandwich having the ability to hate. No one, that is, but you.

            Corporate president Dan Cathy appeared on the Ken Coleman talk show. He said, “I think we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say 'we know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage' and I pray God's mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about," {1} Our nation will received God’s judgement and he prays for our generation’s prideful, arrogant attitude! His opinion and he is welcome to it.

            You say, “The man didn't even say he hated gays.” Many people are in denial when it comes to what this company says. Here is a situation where actions speak louder than words. Through its WinShape Corporate charity foundation, Chick-fil-A donates to the Family Research Council, an organization listed in 2010 as an anti-gay hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. {2} The FRC filed a report revealing it had spent $25,000 to lobby Congress against "CIVH.Res.1064 Ugandan Resolution Pro-homosexual promotion." This proposed congressional resolution condemned the Ugandan government's legislative efforts to make homosexuality an offense punishable by death.

            I guess some would say it is not hate to pay someone to oppose a US bill intended to condemn punishing homosexuals with death but, just the same, that is how Chick-fil-A pays others to speak for them. The president of FRC, Tony Perkins, has said publicly about gays, “They are intolerant. They are hateful. They are vile. They are spiteful...pawns of the enemy” {3} and Chick-fil-A supports that hate speech with cash donations.
            http://s4.hubimg.com/u/6995647_f248.jpg
            Thanks again, JSChams, for posting your opinions. I think I will just stick to the facts.
            http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
            {1} http://www.snopes.com/politics/sexuality/chickfila.asp
            {2} http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 … ate-group/
            {3} http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl … fNVgJ4rwMo   Mark 0:48

          2. Cody Hodge profile image84
            Cody Hodgeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Didn't a bunch of believers in traditional marriage just outlaw gay marriage in North Carolina and other states recently?

            A real tolerant bunch....

            1. Josak profile image60
              Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Absolutely, it clearly says in Corinthians "thou shalt sell chicken and use the proceeds to deny homosexuals equality under the law" so obviously they have no choice.

        2. 0
          Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          LOL.  Racism, sexism, and homophobia aren't problems?  If you say so.  Thanks for clarifying.

      2. Josak profile image60
        Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Who exactly is supporting buying oil from Saudi? When was the last time we had a Saudi apreciation day when they murdered some gay people?

    8. Six G Eddie profile image59
      Six G Eddieposted 4 years ago

      You don't know nothing about hate in America. That's what I hate about foreigners who want to step up and talk smack like they know something. Do gay teenagers commit a lot of suicide? Hello? They hate being gay.

      1. 0
        Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Xenophobic much?

      2. Josak profile image60
        Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Who is this even addressed to? If it is me I am not a foreigner, more to the point I think I know a goldfish with more humanity and compassion than you appear to have.

    9. Will Apse profile image91
      Will Apseposted 4 years ago

      I have problems with gay 'marriage'. I certainly have no problem with gay civil unions and full equality in the law etc etc. Gay marriage is another issue. 'Marriage' relates to an institution that is pretty much the property of christian churches around the world.

      So, convince the majority of Christians to accept gay marriage in their churches, fine.

      Impose a law that essentially appropriates an institution and offends so many worshipers- just wrong and deeply undemocratic.

      If you believe that  Buddhists, Sikhs, Hindus, Muslims, etc have the right to have their beliefs respected, how can you even think of showing such disrespect to Christians?

      1. Cody Hodge profile image84
        Cody Hodgeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I'm not sure if that was sarcastic or not. If not....

        It's not about accepting gay marriage in churches. It's about allowing gays to enjoy that full protection under the law.

        Christians are free to believe whatever they want in church. However, they don't get to decide who has rights under the law and who doesn't.

      2. 0
        JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Uh...

        Marriage, politically, is nothing more than a union. Any religious connotations for the word have no place in politics.

        And no, marraige is not a Christian-only topic.

        1. Will Apse profile image91
          Will Apseposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Christians clearly disagree. And marriage has a particular meaning for them. Civil authorities have respected Christian thought to date. If you want to make changes in that get some agreement first.

          1. Josak profile image60
            Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Whether they disagree or not is not the point, equality under the law is, it's not something we can skirt around it's fundamental to a moral society for everyone to be equally represented under the law and currently that is not the case.

            1. Will Apse profile image91
              Will Apseposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Laws rest on consent. If you want to bring all laws into disrepute (a serious possibility) go ahead and legislate in ways that alienate huge swathes of the population.

              1. Jane Bovary profile image88
                Jane Bovaryposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Designing laws around public opinion is just popularism. If this was the way things always got done,there would have been few social progressions.

                1. Will Apse profile image91
                  Will Apseposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  You can get beyond populism. Though it is difficult when media is dominated by special interest groups And even more difficult when the religious leadership of a country is of such poor quality.

                  I would suggest tackling the pressing issues of media moronity and religious leaders who can smile and smile and still a villain be.

          2. 0
            JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            It doesn't matter. Christian's don't have a monopoly on marriage.

            The law has respected the opinion of the people, in general. We have a form of democracy, that's what happens.

            Just because something has been law or tradition doesn't make it right.

            Any two adults should be allowed to marry each other. There is no logical argument otherwise.

      3. kirstenblog profile image78
        kirstenblogposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Marriage does not belong to christianity, it is not the 'property' of christian churches. Marriage was around long before christianity, is an institution of union for muslims, hindu's, atheists, buddists, and EVERYONE else. How totally disrepsectful of everything non-chirstian to claim marriage to be christian property! Arrogance of the highest order.


        It's called separation of church and state, one of the foundation stones of democracy. What you do and don't do, what you allow and don't allow in your church is your business only, what is in LAW is everyones business. Religion dictating what is allowed to be law and what isn't is undemocratic. Keep your hateful beliefs to yourself, and keep them the hell outa law! I don't have to go to your church but I have to live with the laws of the land, so keep your church BS where it belongs, in church.


        It is christians showing such disrespect to everyone else by claiming the institution of marriage to be their 'property'.

        1. Will Apse profile image91
          Will Apseposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          The issue is why are gays so keen to use the word marriage? Why is civil union, even if it came with all the legal trappings such a second class institution?

          Some devout gays may be desirous of holy blessing for their sexual relationship. In other words only a church wedding with a preacher or priest assuring them of divine approval would satisfy.

          For others, it is the need for approval of the communities they live in. And in the US that will mean, in most cases the approval of Christians.

          You cannot legislate approval.

          1. 0
            JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Why not? Should black students who were finally allowed to go to white schools have been called 'school atendees' instead of students?

            By creating a different title for it, you are saying that homosexual unions aren't equal to heterosexual unions.

            It is the desire for equal rights. There is no good argument for not allowing gays to marry. Any argument against it is saying that they aren't equal to heterosexuals.

            You can legislate against approval. Not everyone approved of desegregation/integration. Not everyone approved of giving blacks the right to be their own person.

            You have to stop thinking of marriage as a Christian ceremony, it's not.

            1. Will Apse profile image91
              Will Apseposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              It is really about how much the state should get itself involved in religious issues. If the state offers full legal rights to gay couples, equivalent to the rights that married couple enjoy, that is certainly just and within its remit.

              If gays need the whole blessed in heaven thing they will need to change peoples attitudes by persuasion.

              There is also the issue of how much more bitterness you need to inject into politics. And also how many more wedge issues liberals want to offer conservatives on a plate.

              1. Josak profile image60
                Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                It's simply the justness of equality, gay people are equal in every way to straight people so they should be able to marry too. There is also a simple societal and personal value to being married it carries a gravitas and respect that a civil union does not. I can't blame gay people for wanting to feel that.

            2. Ralph Deeds profile image69
              Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              +++We can agree on this if little else.

          2. Jane Bovary profile image88
            Jane Bovaryposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I think that would be a bit much to expect.

            1. Will Apse profile image91
              Will Apseposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              This wish is the one I most have sympathy with. Sadly, it is unlikely to be realized anytime soon and until it is, the term 'gay marriage' will be pretty meaningless.

              1. Jane Bovary profile image88
                Jane Bovaryposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Not to those gays who don't require religious approval.

            2. Ralph Deeds profile image69
              Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Why? Several faiths have been performing same sex marriages for a while. The problem is the DOM and retromingent state laws.

    10. 0
      JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago

      I view gay rights the same way I view polygamy. I have no problem with either one.

    11. Jane Bovary profile image88
      Jane Bovaryposted 4 years ago

      *Agreeing with Jaxon 100%* (unusually). It's about whether or not there's any good reason why gays should be denied marriage, not about whether this or that group approves or not.

      1. 0
        JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Yeah, most people are surprised to know my social stances smile

    12. lone77star profile image90
      lone77starposted 4 years ago

      Any action based on hate, divisiveness or judgment is an abomination.

      Is homosexuality wrong? Likely it is. But any attachment to these Homo sapiens bodies is not good. The aim of the rescue mission is to use these human bodies to help in the extraction of the true, spiritual self from the darkness of physical reality.

      Love is the answer. Jesus promoted love even of thieves, whores and adulterers. But he also said to one adulteress, "go and sin no more."

      God's wrath came down on Sodom and Gomorrah, but I seriously doubt if this had anything to do with gays. The connection of sodomy to that event is likely a false relation or an incomplete one, at best.

      The reason for Noah's Flood is something that has troubled me for half a century. But a few years ago, I may have discovered the real reason for the Flood and the real date: 27,970 BC. The reason had to do with sex -- with the "daughters of man" -- but only because it threatened God's plan for spiritual liberation from this physical realm. Without Homo sapiens, we don't stand much of a chance at escape, because planning is nearly impossible while we are asleep -- and all of us are asleep, spiritually. Without a body to hold continuity of consciousness, all we have are disjointed dreams and nightmares. So, who were the "daughters?" They were enough like Homo sapiens to be "fair." But different enough to prevent the formation of religious dialog and perhaps even civilization itself. I discovered a new timeline in Genesis. And this led me to the identity of the "daughters," through science. Neanderthal!

      Just as Homo neanderthalensis proved to jeopardize our building of civilization, the actions at Sodom and Gomorrah also threatened civilization's future. Homosexuality would never have threatened civilization, unless everyone became gay (no offspring). But what would threaten civilization would be another hybrid species. If the Sodomites were committing bestiality (sex with animals), and if the unthinkable actually happened -- human-animal offspring, that would likely have been enough to warrant divine intervention.

      God still loves the perpetrators of evil, but He does not love their actions or the fruits of their evil labor. Those things are counterproductive. They don't aid in the awakening of the true spiritual selves (souls).

      1. Suzie Crumcakes profile image61
        Suzie Crumcakesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Excuse me, but they were into all kinds of stuff. You are smart.  You like to use big words and fancy concepts. How about a simple Sunday school lesson? The people were bent on all sorts of evil. Poor Abraham begged God to spare the city. I bet he was like you. He could not bear the pain of the destruction that they were bringing on themselves. There was only one righteous man, Lot. What happened when the angels came to get Lot out of there before the big blow? The men of the town, who were all hanging out on the streets looking for a party, told old Lot to send out the "strangers" (males) so they could sex it up with them. What did they say when Lot protested their deviant desires and bad manners? That's right, they said, "Who are you to judge us?"

        Sound familiar?

     
    working