If gay marriage does not infringe on the first amendment why are christians trying to stop it from becoming legal?
Maybe those same Christians should try to stop divorcees being remarried. Of course they won't because the Church contains so many of them, even though Jesus explicitly condemned it.
I'm concerned about all the hype surrounding the President's backing of gay marriage. The government is set to repeal the DOMA act and replace it with the Respect for Marriage act which will include same sex marriages.
That is a valid point, Disappearinghead. Human beings have a knack of twisting scripture to support their chosen sins."What God put together, let no man put asunder." Do you believe that God put all marriages together? That's an argument that many divorced people use. I believe that a gret majority of divorces should have been avoided. Because scripture speaks against it, I also believe that homosexuality is wrong, but everyone has a God-given right to choose the road he/she wants to travel. I believe in dusting feet and moving on down the road rather than fight with people about their choices. God is the judge of us all. In the end all accounts will be settled by the Accountant, not by us.
Because they somehow think what the Bible says should effect the laws of a country...
Agreed, but the First Amendment states that they the government shall not establish laws affecting them. So why should they affect government laws? I think this should be 'outlawed'. I'm sure it won't be possible however considering how organized religion cannot think without its holy books. I'm starting to think that even though I do have faith, I will not affect the established laws. I just trust that as long as I respect them, they will respect me as they are made for my benefit.
The federal government needs to leave men of God alone too. If men of the faith do not wish to marry gays and lesbians, so be it.
It is, afterall, A Separation of Church and State.
Gabgirl, You said, "organized religion cannot think without its holy books." That is true and not surprising since true Christians try to live by the holy book. Do you know what happens when citizens think and act without considerations of the holy laws of the land? All humans follow and think according to something they believe in.
They also can't think without their leaders' guidance. When they do this they block themselves off from society completely. They don't see people in the same way anymore. They are trained not to listen to the 'enemy' or 'the opposition'. I used to be on that side. Now I'm considered the opposition and I'll have people praying for something evil to happen, praying that I get healing, or praying that this 'influence of the devil' begone. I've seen it all, and nothing surprises me. But I will not be silent. I have lost my hope and my heart and I will never get it back. My life has changed forever. I will never step foot into a church again.
As I've watched the forums, I can see that many of the christians who post here do it with such evil and hatred for those they consider to be 'the enemy' that they stopped looking at those who oppose them to actually be 'people'. They are not debating as much as they are 'hijacking' on the basis that they believe its a sin against God. So I wonder if the stone throwers are going to mimic the Pharisees in the Gospels and throw real rocks when gay marriage is legal.
It makes me think, I could never return to a religion that has them predisposed to seeing the 'sin' of others. Or any religion for that matter.
The problem is not necessarily the religion, but the people who blow things out of proportion. If the salad is nasty, do not dislike the bowl. People will never be perfect no matter who or what they are. We all should accept and embrace/love all gays, Christians or non-Christian. We humans will always disagree, and that is normal, but we often have a problem doing it without being bitterly disagreeable. Love is a significant key here.
Because they are busy bodies and don't know their place within society. Anyone can tell that these people have nothing better to do with their life because their actions are so petty and controlling, it shows how they all lack character if the oppose other people's basic rights.
Common sense tells one that here in the U.S., the vast majority of the people who are "crusading" for the legalization of same-sex marriage are Christians.
As examples, both Barack Obama and Joseph Biden are Christians.
And so far as that goes, the majority of homosexuals in the U.S. are Christians.
So, the way the question should have been worded is, "Why are a considerable number of Christians, Jews, Muslims and others trying to stop same-sex marriage from becoming legal?"
Maybe because it's not completely true? 81% of Jews support gay marriage, 44% strongly so:
http://publicreligion.org/research/2012 … -marriage/
You'll see the opposite end of the spectrum - white evangelicals - 75% of whom are opposed to marriage equality, 46% strongly so.
Muslims aren't included in this survey, so we don't know. Do you have statistics?
I do not respond to quizzes.
Furthermore, if you expect me to believe statistics which, for the most part, are compiled by left-wing outfits with their own agendas, you've got another thing coming.
Like getting statistics from any right-wing source is any better.
Debating 101: Put words into your opponent's mouth, then go about the business of shooting him down for saying what he did not say.
The point is, where in the hell did I say anything about my believing in "right-wing statistics?"
For your information, I hardly ever believe the statistics that are published by the right, the middle, the left, or whoever.
No debate required to post something which was obviously opposite of what you said.
Since YOU only included "left-wing" and NOT what you have said to me in the above post, then I wouldn't have said what I said.
You PICK an argument with anyone who would have "left-wing" ideologies by stating what you did. Was that your intention?
Trust me, you were not attempting to try to debate anything, because your actions spoke loud and clearly.
You know, I have no idea what you're talking about. Really, I don't.
No, it is not a surprise. A whole lot of things fly way over my head.
Cagsill, what do you expect? I am a product of substandard inner-city public schools that were ran by incompetent left-wing liberals.
In the 50s and 60s schools were not run by the left-wing...
I don't know where you went you to school in the '50s and '60s, but back in those days, I attended primary and secondary school in inner-city Los Angeles -- in the "ghetto." And those facilities were teeming with left-wing, socialistic educators.
The only reason why I was not brainwashed -- like most of the other students were -- is my parents and grandparents were level-headed, pragmatic people who "counteracted" all of the "pie-in-the-sky socialism" that most of my teachers tried to drill into me.
Yes... I always blame the schools for my inability to understand a concept.
Not much, actually.
Interesting statement. I am the product of willful ignorant society which wants to control my life as if they had some authority to do so.
It doesn't matter where you come from, what race you are, how you were brought up by parents, when you lived or why you live.
What concerns me is the fact that you appear to be one-sided in view.
You call it "one-sided in view," I call it having strong principles.
Principles? Or those like "ethics" or "morals"?
Or is there something to life I am missing out on and you can teach me?
I have a basic understanding of a universal methodology/ and Ideology of Life. Nowhere, are "principles" involved. Maybe it's just me.
I see a human's most basic understanding of self is solely based on one's character and how they present that character to others. Now, I know, I'll be the first to admit, I am blunt and speak my mind, which can skew a person's view of my character, but I've also come to understand that when I write things, as I am now, I usually use too many words to describe what thoughts are consciously running through my mind at the time I write.
I am very conscientious about being consciously active with regards to my actions. I'm grateful that I know what I know and realize I know so much more than I know I know.
However, having said that, where you grew up isn't a concern. Who brought you up? Isn't my concern either. My concern is that your actions speak volumes about how one-sided your view is and the damage it has on those around you. Most likely, without you yourself seeing it.
I do care about Equal Rights and nowhere should anyone be discriminated against, including sexual preference. The fact that someone's rights are being denied because of their sexual preference is a requirement is a individual civil rights violation.
Under NO circumstance is anyone to be allowed to dictate who someone has a right to marry. Marriage has a dual meaning now and has for quite sometime now. You want to marry in a church, then so be it. You want to marry outside of a church, then so be it.
Marriage is NO longer a singular defined word with a specific requirement.
Cagsill, lighten up. What I wrote was clever and amusing, in my opinion. And a "good sport" would have seen it that way.
Most people who worship statistics do not realize how unreliable they can be.
I agree with UW: you're entitled to believe whatever you want, "left-wing" statistics be damned.
Obviously, you responded to what I wrote just for the sake of saying something or the other.
Lies! The forums are here purely for me to say what I want with no one ever replying in the negative. In fact anyone who posts an opinion even remotely contrary to what I have posted is in clear violation of the TOS and shall be castrated and/or eviscerated at my earliest possible convenience.
Ah, well, what do I know. I was brainwashed by a liberal upbringing.
You mentioned 'white' evangelicals in your statisics as 75% being against marriage equality livelonger.
So its clearly a 'race' united against a particular 'sexual' orientation. Or would you call this coincidence?
Why was this important enough to mention in the statistics? As opposed to just saying 'evangelicals'. Hmm..
While whites are now a minority, it certainly is the majority in regards to opposition. I also noticed a higher statistic in opposition coming from Mormons. Are they fundamentals? I'm not surprised considering Mormonism has come a long way in part due to their practices of polygamy.
I'm also of the idea that its not only 'sexual perversion', lack of reproduction seems to be the main issue with regards to their stance against homosexuality and lesbianism.
If they are of the mind that homosexuality is predominantly white, it would explain why they are even more terrified of its legalization. Hollywood's gays are predominantly white.
Neil Patrick Harris
And it doesn't stop with the many, many bi-sexuals out there.
Honestly I think to fight 'willfull ignorance' its necessary to do to the Bible Belt what has been done to many Islamic countries, educate and support their 'weak'. In Islam, its women, in the Bible belt...the children.
Left wing.. right wing.. They both use slanted poles and twisted statistics to push their propaganda and drive their agendas...
feenix, you have a point. I chose Christianity because of the outspokenness recently by the North Carolina Pastor and the support he's received from various leaders since Obama endorsed his support of gay marriage. None of those leaders support repealing the DOMA act but they did condemn his behavior.
Another reason is because in Islam has no legal punishment in the Qur'an for homosexuality. And in this country, they have not influenced much in the political arena.
I did not single out the Judaism because Christianity is their 'offspring'. To me both are the same 'organized religions' that do more than just function as an established religion. I do believe organized religion should be prohibited from influencing politics, especially in light of their weight and behaviour concerning Obama's decision to endorse Gay Marriage by repealing the DOMA act and replacing it with the Respect for Marriage Act.
The First Amendment needs to be modified to make Separation of church and state a 'legal' affair worthy of convicting them of treason or terrorism. This is especially due to the fact that the Dominion Ideology is growing within the organized facet of Christianity. They are becoming more and more resistant and showing rebellion by taking advantage of laws that protect their beliefs and affect other individuals.
I fully understand the point you are making.
Specifically, I am well aware that the greatest opponents of the legalization of same-sex marriage are Evangelicals and other deeply-religious Christians (which includes a great many devout Roman Catholics).
It is just that when it comes to views on the "issues," I do not believe that all Christians should be thrown into the same pot. That is the same league as saying that all blacks have the same views as the members of the "New Black Panther Party."
At one time organized religion was ALL for apartheid, many of them Christians. Organized religion looked to their Bible during the slave trade to keep their 'slaves' in check. Now that it is 'irrelevant' gee whiz who does this apply to? Does this portion of the word not live on, somewhere?
It's very tiring to have to hear 'well don't put us all together, because we're not all bad'. Why not? Until some smart christians prove otherwise. Are we on our way to becoming a 'Christianic' country emulating the 'Islamic nations' which have enough religion and state mixed that its frightening to know the level of ignorance that must exist in all areas of their governments.
But no one fights against these crazy leaders. I was under the same yoke and mentality. I've reached my point of tolerance. They need to stop hiding behind their Bibles. I stopped hiding behind mine and learned to accept that I made a god damned mistake.
Christian leaders never taking responsibility for their own actions. They'll say they are sorry, but they don't change or admit they screwed up. Especially if they are well organized and sitting on a seat of inescrutable power called 'the Ministry'. Another example Franklin Graham to Obama:
I apologize to him and to any I have offended for not better articulating my reason for not supporting him in this election.
Ok, so he just didn't 'say' it right. Good grief.
Haven't you read what this Pastor in NC said about putting all gays and homosexuals in a cage and dropping food to them? I find that rather 'sadistic'. So up to what point should organized religion be allowed influence in matters of state if you don't single them out? And tell me why does the majority of this influence just happen to be Christian? As you said, you are well aware of the opponents. Until they all get organized under this crazy idea of dominion and continue keeping the LGBT community from being recognized at a level where they have equal rights?
Another case...Creflo Dollar arrested for Child Abuse just yesterday. And just look at his statement.
"As a father I love my children and I always have their best interest at heart at all times, and I would never use my hand to ever cause bodily harm to my children," Dollar said in a statement released by his lawyer Nikki Bonner. "The facts in this case will be handled privately to further protect my children. My family thanks you for your prayers and continued support."
No, the truth is going to come out no matter what. He hurt his kid and she called the police. Well done! And none of this man's cleverness or moral convictions will save him. Possibly repentance.
Religion should stay out of the government arena period. They are there to inrcrease faith, not start a rebellion and certainly not overthrow the government. It's obvious they have forgotten there place.
You are wrong on so many levels. This is what happens when you attack an entire religion thoughtlessly.
gabgirl, I am just the sort of "Christian rebel" you would convict for treason and imprison. That you would punish me or anyone who dares engage in the political conversation with a point of view that differs from your own identifies you as an LGBT fascist. Since you say all of us "dominion crazy Christians" are the same, should I understand that all liberals are fascists just like you?
LMGDAO... She's a Christian going against the loudest of the bunch. The ones that are making us all look bad. I would applaud if I could get my keyboard to do such a thing.
Religion has no place anywhere but your own damn home. It certainly shouldn't be in politics.
When it comes to every society in the world today, what exactly gave birth to the manner in which it governs and to its political system?
The answer is, they all grew out of some form of religion, whether it is Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, paganism, fascism, atheism, socialism, communism, etc.
And contrary to the way many view things, paganism, fascism, atheism, socialism and communism are, in fact, forms of religion. And that is because each is a system, philosophy, belief, or "non-belief" that many practice quite religiously -- or quite conscientiously and scrupulously.
You need to learn the definition of religion, I would further point out that all those religions were born from other religions and their morality was born from non religious sources.
Josak, you need to stop telling other people what they need to do.
By telling someone else what he/she NEEDS to do, you are displaying what is often described as a "dictatorial attitude."
Besides, because the U.S. is a free society, each of its members has the right to define a particular word in any way that he/she pleases.
And when there is a dispute over what the actual definition of a word is, we, in the U.S., have to option of having the matter settled in a court of law -- even if it has to be appealed all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court.
I'm not sure that it's quite correct to link government/economy types such as communism and socialism in with religions. There are some pretty significant differences.
But to answer your point... yes many (but not all) governments started with religious ideas dictating laws. Medicine also used to use leeches and our computers started as abacuses. Just because something started with something doesn't mean it should always stay that way.
There are inherent problems-especially in America/Canada/UK-ish type countries with a lot of cultural diversity- with basing politics on religion. America is rapidly approaching the line where Christianity may be the dominant religion but it is not the majority religion. In short, the combined number of other minorities is soon going to overcome the number of Christians. You cannot run what conservative Christians are essentially attempting to make a theocracy in a country where most individuals are not part of that faith.
Agreed. Just because we descended from neanderthals, doesn't mean we are neanderthals. (at least not all of us.)
In response to your comment, the only thing I will say is the largest and most rapidly growing "minority" in the U.S. is Hispanics. And the reality is, the vast majority of Hispanics are Christians -- and a considerable number of those people are profoundly devout Christians (including the ones who are Roman Catholic as well as the ones who are Protestant).
In fact, I predict that largely because of America's rapidly-growing Hispanic population, much of the nation will undergo a "dramatic Christian revival" in the very near future.
Furthermore, please point out where it says in The Constitution of the United States of America that there is supposed to be "separation between church and State."
Which one of the amendments contains that wording?
Separation of church and state in the United States
From Wikipedia( View original Wikipedia Article ) Last modified on 2 June 2012, at 02:38
"Separation of church and state" (sometimes "wall of separation between church and state") is a phrase used by Thomas Jefferson (in his 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists) and others expressing an understanding of the intent and function of the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The phrase has since been repeatedly cited by the Supreme Court of the United States.
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...." and Article VI specifies that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." The modern concept of a wholly secular government is sometimes credited to the writings of English philosopher John Locke, but the phrase "separation of church and state" in this context is generally traced to a January 1, 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson, addressed to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut, and published in a Massachusetts newspaper. Echoing the language of the founder of the first Baptist church in America, Roger Williams—who had written in 1644 of "[A] hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world"— Jefferson wrote, "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."
Jefferson's metaphor of a wall of separation has been cited repeatedly by the U.S. Supreme Court. In Reynolds v. United States (1879) the Court wrote that Jefferson's comments "may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [First] Amendment." In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), Justice Hugo Black wrote: "In the words of Thomas Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between church and state."
However, the Court has not always interpreted the constitutional principle as absolute, and the proper extent of separation between government and religion in the U.S. remains an ongoing subject of impassioned debate.
Thomas Jefferson said there is supposed to be "separation between Church and State?"
So what! Who should give any credence to what he said?
After all, the man OWNED black people and he was a slave driver who used at least one of the black women he OWNED for his own "convenience."
Furthermore, I will ask one more time: Where, exactly, in The Constitution of the United States of America does it say, "There shall be separation between Church and State?"
Like the article finished off...it stated that it's still much of a debate inside and outside of the courts.
Do you know why? If not, then take your one-sided view and add a second side to it.
There's a reason why there should be a separation of church and state. Oppression.
Church is nothing more than oppression, complete domination over the individual and that violates a person's individual rights, liberty and overall freedom.
That cannot be allowed. Sorry, but you need to quit living in the past. Yes, there were men who owned slaves. But, are you a slave today? I say you are a slave to your own mind.
And I say, You do not have any business telling a black man how to think and the ways in which he views himself.
Furthermore, although I am not a slave, I -- like all other blacks in U.S. society -- am reeling from all of the highly-disproportionate cruelty, injustices and other damage that has been been inflicted on "my people" from the 1500's to the present.
I'm not telling you how to think. I'm pretty sure you already have trouble doing it and my telling you anything isn't likely to change you or how you perceive yourself. What I can tell a black man is that he is irrational in his thought process.
Oh wow! Ever thought you bring it on yourself at this point?
Cagsill, what do you have to say about all of the Jews who are still "upset" over The Holocaust, and all of the American Indians who are still "upset" over having their land stolen from them and being slaughtered by the millions?
Come out and say it is time for Jews to stop belly-aching over The Holocaust, and for American Indians to end their bitterness over being nearly wiped out and permanently confined to concentration camps that are presently called "reservations."
Do you have the courage to openly apply the same standard to those two groups that you are applying to blacks?
Something wrong with the Christian family values of founding a country on slavery and theft? And of course doing God's work to rid the planet of Jews.
That last part (About Exterminating Jews) is not a Christian issue.. but a Catholic issue.. large C intended.
Ummmm Germany was largely Protestant during WWII. Luther was not a big fan (of Jews) far as I recall. The Catholics were culpable also.
It is not Germany as a whole that was doing the extermination... it was a small radical element.. That part of Gov involved that had a Concordat with the Vatican... It was not the Protestant side of that country.. Remember also that anyone hiding the Jews was subject to gross persecutions... that was mostly protestants. Protestants were also victims in the camps to one degree or another...
Nonsense. You religionists really will stoop this low to defend your religion?
Educate your self.
Nonesense? Ok here.. read it for yourself... Or as you said... "Educate yourself".
And by the way... My opinion of Protestant Churches: is that they are Daughters of their Mother. When they came out of RC they brought with them a certain number of her hatreds etc.
So to some degree you are correct.. but to place the blame in the lap of the entire Christianity is going to far. Not all Protestants and half Catholic still.. and not all Christian Churches are either Catholic or Protestant.
Don't take whatever you read on Wikipedia as gospel truth.
Sorry - lost me. Yes - Catholic Christians were culpable. So were Protestant. Both as disgusting as each other as far as I can tell.
What is your point? It is OK that Protestants helped murder Jews because Katholics did as well?
Seriously - educate yourself instead of pointing teh finger some where else.
Actually it looks like we are saying the same thing.. almost. Ok Sorry..
No not OK at all...
But not all Protestants were involved with it... and Christianity is not "Catholic and Protestant" There is also Christianity Outside of those two areas which has never approved of anti semitism.
Hmmmm Let me think about that...
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_qRIP6ClHPUo/S … oseEye.jpg
It has been the minority in that case. Luther was loudly anti-semite. So were many in the UK at the time. I was shocked to discover how much support there was for Hitler in certain quarters in the UK.
You guys must be the smallest religion on the planet in any case.
Anyone who lives in the U.S. today and believes that this country was "founded on slavery and theft" is a hypocrite -- big time.
Personally, if I believed that the U.S. were that evil and wicked, I could not bring myself to live here, and I would have the courage to fold my tent and move to some other country.
Weird - you just finished telling us about the black slaves and the Native American's having their land stolen. So - this is not how the USA was founded after all? The land was not stolen from the Native Americans and there were not thousands of black slaves used to build it?
Make your mind up.
No, Knowles, I just cited the facts.
However, opposite of what you just did, I do not ever put down my country for mistakes and missteps it made in the past, nor do I ever put it down for its present defects.
Because I am a grownup, I am a pragmatic person who accepts the fact that the world is what it is.
I am not a pie-in-the-sky, left-wing Peter Pan who is a wide-eyed and idealistic child in an old person's body.
Odd - you are still reeling, but don't hold it responsible for the past?
Which is it?
Great job on dodging the facts.
Knowles, I am not "holding the past responsible" for anything. I merely cited a dynamic behind certain aspects of my being as a black man in America.
In a wide variety of ways, the members of all contemporary groups are adversely affected by what occurred among their ancestors.
As specific examples, a great many whites are presently rabid racists because that characteristic was passed down to them by their racist forebears -- and a great many contemporary blacks are greatly impeded by feelings of self-hatred and inferiority because those characteristics were passed down to them by their enslaved and "isolated" forebears who were brainwashed to hate themselves for being black.
Weird - you just said you don't hold the past responsible for anything then went on to explain why the past is responsible for today's problems.
Doesn't alter the fact that the USA was built on land stolen from the Natives, using slave labor. Good Christian family values.
Knowles, where, exactly, did I write that the "past is responsible for today's problems?"
What I wrote about were some of the dynamics behind the problems suffered by various members of contemporary society.
I respectfully request that you stop twisting what I say and trying to put words into my mouth.
And as I stated before, if I had the same negative attitude that you have towards the U.S.A., I would not be living here. I would be man enough to pack my bags and leave this country for good.
Mark is not American and does not live in the US.
Well, because of that, he has no business putting down this country.
And I don't know where he's from, but more than likely, it is some country that the U.S. has had to rescue and protect over the years.
Or, it could be said, If it were not for the U.S., he would not have reached the ripe old age that he has, and he would not have the luxury of sitting around casually typing out hubs and comments on the forums.
I didn't put it down. I just told the truth.
I have the legal right to live and work in the USA, but choose not to.
And to a certain degree, you did tell the truth. However, for the most part, the United States of America is a magnificent nation that has contributed far more positive things to the well-being and advancement of the world and civilization than negative ones.
After all, if it were not for the U.S., there would be no HubPages.
I didn't twist what you said:
As specific examples, a great many whites are presently rabid racists because that characteristic was passed down to them by their racist forebears -- and a great many contemporary blacks are greatly impeded by feelings of self-hatred and inferiority because those characteristics were passed down to them by their enslaved and "isolated" forebears who were brainwashed to hate themselves for being black.
Is pretty clear.
So - are you know saying that the USA was not founded on land stolen from the Native Americans and built by slave labor?
Because you started out complaining about that.
I'm curious how the statement you responded to has anything to do with gay marriage?
I would love to see a connection.
Look, it is impossible for you and I to have a civil exchange, because we just do not like one another.
You are kinda stating YOUR experiences only though... such things cannot be said for every black man in America. Please understand that those aren't what every black man in America goes through. You life is not universal.
Apparently, the above statement has nothing to do with the topic. Therefore, it's not worthy of an answer. Do try to stay on topic.
WOW! You really don't have any clue how to stay on topic, do you?
I have a simple way to apply the same standards for every person on the planet, considering I am of the understanding that a Universal Truth exists. So yes, I could apply the same standard to every person.
The old "you're-getting-off-the-topic game."
The perfect place for those who get "stumped" to hide.
No hiding at all. Nothing to hide from. I have come to accept that there are plenty of things wrong with society and humanity as a whole. I've learned about the past and I know the underlying problem which causes 95% of the problems on the planet. Do you? Probably not.
The topic of this forum is about man and woman individual rights to marry whomever they choose, even based on sexuality or sexual preference, which ironically shouldn't matter. Yet, only the gullible believe it matters.
You bring up being a black man, as if it matters to the topic of the forums. It doesn't.
If I feel that discussing that I am a black man is pertinent to the discussion, then it is, whether you agree with that or not.
Your authoritarian, "higher-and-mightier-than-thou act" is wearing very thin.
You are not the referee here.
Really? http://hubpages.com/help/forum_rules Maybe you should read the rules of the forums.
If you don't make a connection between what you are saying to the topic at hand, then you are in violation of the rules.
Authoritarian? WOW! Talk about foolishness. And, the fact that you think it's wearing thin is irrelevant. Just to let you know.
No I am not. But, just like any member, when another member goes off topic, it's a member's duty to point it out. If you don't like that, then go sit in a corner and suck on your thumb, and pout.
Other than that, for now on, every post you go off topic, I will report to the moderators of the forums. And, we'll see how they view your posts according to the rules.
On a side note- I cannot tell you how much your true character is showing.
Cagsil, you know as well as I do that the contributors to many, in if not most, of the forums do not steadfastly "stay on topic."
What we have here is a situation in which two people do not like one another at all. And since that is the case, I am checking out.
Do you understand how the Supreme court works Feenix? It's job is to attempt to understand what the founding fathers meant when they wrote this particular passage, Jefferson made it very clear in that letter that they intended to provide with the first Amendment a separation of church and state and the supreme court has affirmed that several times so for all legal purposes we have a separation of church and state, end of story.
The Supreme Court of the United States has NEVER ruled that there is supposed to be "separation between Church and State."
In fact, if that court had ever ruled in such a way, it would be illegal for U.S. coins to bear the phrase, "In God We Trust;" there would be no prayers at the beginning of each session of the U.S. Congress, and it would be against the law for people to sing "God Bless America" at governmental, political and other official functions.
And politics should not be in religion. And like it or not, people who are politicians also believe in God. So the two may be inseparable.
If politicians are at home and they want to worship, its no one's business. Involve it in the governmental arena where laws are to be made for 'all', not just the religious, then perhaps they should seek another 'day job'. A Pastor, Apostle, Prophet, Teacher or Evangelist might do if they feel they are called to do it. Otherwise, religious views should not affect nor influence the way laws are made.
The United States is a 'free' country, not a religious one. No laws can be established concerning religion, and neither should religion influence its laws.
1stCitizen, I'm a child of God. Thanks! You don't intimidate me, neither as a woman nor as a heterosexual. And if you take the hostility any further I will report you to the hubpages Admin. Stay on subject or refrain from posting period. Thanks again! Much appreciated.
Just what is the subject? Isn't it that Christians who try to stop gay marriage should be convicted of treason and put in prison? Isn't that your position? Please tell me that I misunderstood you.
Where exactly did she say that? I am pretty sure she just said she disagreed with their position, personally I don't think they should be thrown in jail, people have a right to oppose gay marriage just as they have a right to be racist or sexist or to hate members of other faiths and countries and the rest of society which is more enlightened in that respect has every right to consider them nothing less than scum and celebrate their rapid extinction.
Having said that denying people their right to equality should be a crime so maybe being opposed to gay marriage should not be a crime but taking action against it should be under discrimination laws, just like I am free to disagree with what you say but not free to prevent you from saying it, that would be a crime.
Josak, in case you missed it, I'll quote gabgirl:
"I do believe organized religion should be prohibited from influencing politics...The First Amendment needs to be modified to make Separation of church and state a 'legal' affair worthy of convicting them of treason or terrorism...They are becoming more and more resistant and showing rebellion by taking advantage of laws that protect their beliefs..."
Is this what you want?
If you are OK with a government that throws people in jail for their dissent, you would be foolish to expect to have much freedom, or rights to equality or anything else.
If you are against respecting marriage when the LGBT becomes legal, and you continue to call them 'fascists', then yes there would be 'crimes' attached.
If they become organized, they'd be equated to the KKK. It's internal terrorism of its citizens.
The KKK was smart during the last election. Not only did they take their masks off but they also spread pamphlets documenting that any country under an african american would not flourish. They adapted. I don't agree with them at all. I'm stating facts. No matter what their belief structure they 'acted' accordingly in the face of change and modified their stance.
You can call it foolishness, or extreme measures taken to protect those who act according to the laws established...but you will never admit to fear, or that your fear has led you to hate. And to assume I was a lesbian because I show support.
Gabgirl, you ask a question which I and others answer, and yet it is evident that you have no interest in hearing the answer.
Marriage between man and woman is the traditional practice of our world. You want to change it. OK but then you have the burden of proving that it should be changed. Many of us are not swayed to your way of thinking. I am not.
You've framed your question as though we can only defend traditional marriage on religious grounds. I've shown that there are good secular reasons why marriage should stay as it is.
You describe those of us who do not want your change as religious rebels and terrorists and you advocate that we be convicted of treason and put in prison. And yet when we point out that you are a fascist, you demand that we tone it down. If you do not want to be called a fascist, then stop behaving like one. Rather than a nationalistic cause, yours is the LGBT cause. Otherwise, as one who advocates the use of force against anyone who disagrees with you, the term fascist does seem to fit.
Gabgirl, it is disingenuous of you to ask a question under the banner of the first amendment, then attack and threaten to silence anyone who answers in a way you do not like.
The cause is equality simple a that, fascists are people who would deny people their rights and maintain inequality that means you, there are no secular arguments against same sex marriage with any worth and enforcing religious dogma is what people sis in the middle ages, everything about that is wrong, in the future this will be judged as harshly as racial inequality is now for the same reason, because some deluded weak minded people felt it was within their rights to deny others their, such people are always wrong.
Yes it's traditional and it's enforced by a religious belief mentality which is not valid anymore due to individual rights.
Change? More likely evolve.
Yes, it's obvious many religious have your way of thinking and prefer to oppress other people. Yeah, we get that. Did from your first post.
Too bad more people don't actually understand (a) what is a right?, (b) what is equal rights? and (c) what is equality?
So please...the most average person doesn't have a clue.
This is primarily why laws exist, to punish those who don't because they 'cant' learn. Ignorance is so willful and fear so dominant that the laws must be just as tough.
I'm not sure where you got this particular train of thought, but it would be wrong.
Why Laws exist? They exist to dish out consequences for actions. Government acts as a higher authority, a duplication of religious construction- As religion perpetuates- all humankind must be made to answer to a higher authority.
It was concluded thousands of years ago because those who were consciously active and dishonest at the time. They knew that people would tend to be more dishonest. How did they know? Because they were dishonest...self reflection sort of thing.
There is no rhyme or reason for any individual human would be required to answer to a higher authority when the highest authority is self to begin with. If a person is honest with themselves, then they will know and understand what right is for the sake of it being right. An honest person will live by their conscience more than their ego. They will have learned which actions they make that are ego driven and which ones are not.
Ignorance? I hope you do realize you are ignorant, just as much as others, possibly more than some and less than others. Everyone is ignorant in some aspect. No offense. Yes, I realize I am included. I just don't let my ignorance get in my way of learning.
Fear? This is exactly how most humans are controlled, yet don't know it. Would a greater number of people be more inclined to voice their thoughts or fight for more freedom, IF they didn't believe in an afterlife? Just something to think about.
Fear? This is also a tactic used in scriptures before Jesus arrived on scene. Jesus' teachings were about love, mercy and compassion, which automatically makes it about self and no longer about an external G/god or authority.
One has to love themselves before they can love anything else deeply. One must have wisdom to know that mercy(tolerance) and compassion are a requirement for a peaceful society(species). You(and everyone else too) are in control of your actions. Those actions will describe a lot about you as a person to others. If you're honest with yourself, then you will learn to love yourself. If you're dishonest with yourself, then your ego will hide important things you need to learn.
Yes, gabgirl is a anti religious fascist. She would be like Stalin.
You are right. But who cares? It will happen.
Great, another 8 hubtivity I must run off.
It is simple because it is unnatural and because of homosexuality most of the sexual diseases such as hiv positive and aids are spreading. So it is quite natural for the natural beings to oppose such unnaturality.
Unnaturality? Despite the fact that it is found throughout nature? Also while gay men are more at risk of some STD's Gay women are far less at risk than not only gay men but straight people, so much in fact that if you even the two out gay people are less exposed to STD's than straight people. maths FTW.
Homosexuality is actually quite natural. I guess hate, bigotry, and oppression is natural too. I'd prefer to combat those.
WonderfulCounsel, its called a sexually transmitted disease for a reason. It's not limited to just homosexuals. HIV can affect anybody. They were singled out because the transmission of HIV is through penetrative sex. Penetration is the factor, hence also why higher incidences of HIV transmission happened through drug use using needles. This has been a common misconception and likely how many religious folks view the higher incidences of transmission between homosexuals as being a form of punishment.
Lesbians almost never get sexually transmitted diseases and their incidence of AIDS is second only to abstinence... far far rarer than transmission among heterosexuals...
Proving once again that God loves lesbians.
And, what exactly makes you say it's unnatural, when the natural animal world has the same.
Untrue. Homosexuality is a very small portion of society, as compared to the whole. Heterosexuals are more in numbers and probably having more sex, considering their numbers than homosexuals or lesbians do. Not to mention, a lesbian isn't likely to pass along AIDS considering AIDS is a sexually transmitted disease and intercourse between two females isn't possible without help. The 'help' they would have wouldn't spread such a disease. Yes, homosexuals do seem to have an attachment to the AIDS virus but, it's the wrong perception, skewed by those who advocate against homosexuals and lesbians, and transgenders. The advocates are religious based.
It is natural for humans to explore while they live and to do so is to explore oneself, learning about ourselves and what we prefer to have in our life that makes us happy and peaceful.
What is unnatural is the opposition in which tries to dictate otherwise. Willful/chosen ignorance is no longer bliss because it reveals a low character within that person.
First of all, I would like to point out that not all christians oppose gay marriage. I am a practicing christian and I definitely support gay marriage. And for you to include all christians is a tad offensive.
And furthermore, the fact that many christians oppose gay marriage has nothing to do with the First Amendment. It's their personal beliefs. That's democracy. BECAUSE we live in freedom, those Christians are allowed to oppose that with which they disagree. Just as you are allowed to oppose what you disagree on. And to suggest that that is treason or even terrorism, is a direct violation of everything on which this country is based.
Opposition of gay marriage should not include churches condemning the President's support of Gay Marriage or reacting in a fashion where they advocate violence against them. You can't just take that back.
Once gay marriage is not considered illegal, and Christians respect their legal right instead of opposing it, then yes they are within the confines of the law. At the moment they are not.
I suggest terrorism because gays and lesbians are not welcome in various parts. I suggest treason because churches are advocating violence against a group that has the backing of the President and the Federal Government. This is a direct violation of everything on which this country is based, which includes the freedom to marry. Religious opposition brings to light how the government will react and establish laws in lieu of the First Amendment.
The question is: If gay marriage does not infringe on the first amendment why are christians trying to stop it from becoming legal?
The answer is that objections to gay marriage are not necessarily religious. It is true that many, including myself, oppose gay marriage on some religious grounds. Yet there are other reasons why support or promotion of gay marriage is bad policy.
I wrote this hub about that a few weeks ago:
url=http://lstcitizen.hubpages.com/hub/A-Defense-for-Traditional-Marriage]A Defense for Traditional Marriage[/url] A Defense for Traditional Marriage. I make the case against gay marriage completely from a secular point of view.
Most people object to gay marriage on religious grounds, the non religious anti gay marriage argument you put forward makes no sense at all, it talks about falling birth rates and not having enough young people to defend our country like not allowing gay marriage will cause people to turn straight get married and have kids which all evidence demonstrates it does not, indeed states and countries that have legalized gay marriage have seen no drop off in birth rates at all.
Your only other point was that kids turn out better if raised in traditional homes, all research thus far has found that kids raised in same sex homes have higher self esteem, better academic ratings and better mental health and happiness, so that whole argument is baseless.
The question is why Christians want to stop gay marriage from becoming legal.
I've answered the question by showing that gay marriage is bad policy for reasons that aren't necessarily religous. I understand it isn't the answer you want to hear. You may be right that most people object on religious grounds. And while I understand that you may have no use for organized religion for yourself, you make a mistake by dismissing religion as though it has no social purpose.
Christianity, and Catholicism in particular, objects to gay marriage for a number of reasons, and among them is the social harm that it causes. Since the sexual revolution of the 1960's, all of the social problems that the Church warned against have materialized. The divorce rate and broken homes, children raised in disfunctional families, the objectification of women, poverty and failing economies etc... These were all predicted by the Church. The underlying cause is how we've downplayed children as the purpose for marriage. This is what the Church teaches. When we prioritize the sex act as the reason for marriage, all these social problems are sure to follow.
Some Christians might answer the question with biblical quotes about Sodom and Gomorrah, fire and brimstone, etc. While these stories do factor in to the Church's position, you don't have to be religious to recognize that what she teaches has merit from a purely social perspective.
You say that you don't have to be religious to recognize that being against marriage for all orientations has merit on a social perspective. However you also say that this same perspective was taught and predicted by the church. So what's the difference? It still seems all based on religious views.
My point is that opposition to gay marriage isn't necessarily based on a religious view. You are correct that it happens to coincide with a religion's view.
For example, let's say I belong to a church that preaches 'peace' and 'love thy neighbor'. And let's say you happen to hate my church. Does that mean that you hate 'peace'? Does that mean that you must automatically believe the opposite, or 'hate thy neighbor'? Probably not.
So even an Atheist and a Catholic can and often do come to the same conclusion although they get there in different ways. In my hub, I've shown why gay marriage is bad policy without any religion as the basis. The question of this hub implies that the opposition to gay marriage has to be religious. It doesn't.
It does not infringe YET.
But the writing is on the wall that it will... that very soon the "Human Rights" movements will be used to abrogate the constitution and either overrule the highest law of the land or undermine it to the point of making it mute so that private interests may be pursued and The Churches controlled or put out of operation... Or driven Underground...
It is not difficult to understand the "Christian" stance on the issue for their reference is focused on the Bible. Take the concept to a broader scale and consider rolling same-sex under the definition of marriage. As it stands now, marriage is between a man and a woman. Take the step and expand it to include same sex couples then ask the question where does it stop in terms of expanding the definition? Marriage has many "legal" connotations which come into to question when things get so ludicrious that farmer Jones demands to "marry" his cow which he seems to have fallen for totally. Yes, that sounds absurd, but keep in mind that "same-sex" marriage also sound "absurd" to many people. The other aspect which comes to mind is the question as whether this is about the legal aspect of "marriage" or is it about "acceptance"? The resistance encountered comes from a lot of different possibilities and many of them have nothing to do with what the Bible has to say about it. I, for one, could care less as long as it does not infringe of my life and my marriage. Others do not necessarily feel that way just as there a divide on the "same sex" side as to why the recognition of "marriage" is so important....for some, it truly is the ceremonial bond, for others, it is clearly the step towards "acceptance". All definitions, in the legal sense, must have limits if they are to have any "meaning" in the true sense of the word. That aspect becomes part of the complexity even if one disregards simple bias or the religion slant. WB
Hi being a christian myself i can give you my opinion, and i do not understand why!!!!Witout going to far into the bibles teachings, I say god gave us the ability to love, no other wether animal or creature was given this gift,a passion in expressing ones love, love conquer's all.Love as power to move mountains and build fondations for the family we are going to bring up and love, wether you are guy straight black or white if you fall in love happy days thank you god...love and peace we all need so group hugs to hubs ...
True Christians are trying to show people salvation. They donot intend to hurt anyone. It is true that they need to stop beating people over the heads with the Bible, though.
True Christians are sinners on their knees trying to follow Jesus, and, in the process, making more mistakes than the law allows. That's why the law cannot save us. It magnifies our sins and shows us how pathetic we all are. That's why Jesus died for us and all others who would accept him. We humans need a WHOLE LOT of mercy and grace. We cannot be saved without His coverage of our sins. Christians are sinners who found some coupons that can redeem us, and they are excited about it and want to share. Real Christians do not aim to hurt, although we do sometimes. We are in need of the Redeemer, too.
To begin with. The term "Gay Marriage" is incorrect as well as impossible.
"Marriage" is a contract entered into and agreed upon by a man, and a woman, and not by a man with a man, or a woman with a woman. Gay people are just trying to legitimize their lustful attraction with a same sex partner.
Furthermore God destroyed two whole cities, because the people were living in abomination and practicing lustful, same sex actions.
When I married my husband I was just trying to legitimize my lustful attraction as well.
Did you marry someone you weren't attracted to? Cause if you did that's pretty damn sad.
You cannot tell two consenting adults be they man and woman, woman and woman and man and man that they cannot get married. The United States is not a religious government, as that would be violating the first amendment concerning establishing laws regarding religion. This is unconstitutional as is the DOMA act. The DOMA will be repealed in place of the Respect for Marriage act.
You cannot bring 'God' into the equation because Marriage does not belong to religion. Marriage is a contract entered between two people and can be defined as whatever government sees fit to define it.
Islamic countries also observe marriage. Some are even polygamous. God didn't destroy them and they thrive. Polygamy has been seen since biblical times, so has incest. And in Sodom and Gomorrah even after they were destroyed both Lot's daughters had children from their own father. It's documented, so I'm thinking there was more of a 'reason' for why God passed judgement on those cities, since it obviously had no effect on the ignorant thinking of Lot's daughters.
Sodom and Gomorrah may have well been ignorant since it was God's decision to destroy them 'without warning'. It was unlike Nineveh which did have time to be warned. It was only the intervention of Abraham that saved Lot and his wife.
It's apparent that Christians believe that punishment is either obliteration or 'lack' of something and that they are the clean ones, looking good in God's eyes. It's because of Christians like this that Atheism has been growing more and more popular. Christians believe this is a 'spirit' but they never take responsibility for their behavior.
I have never seen ministers repentant for the hypocrisy in their churches, nor for their own actions. They are nothing like Jeremiah who was repentant for his own nation. And they are nothing like Abraham who upon seeing the imminent destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, begged God for mercy.
It saddens me that Christians these days are all about dominion and subjugating the Earth. They are all about prosperity. They care nothing for their fellow man. They judge upon lustful actions rather than look at themselves and the cruel intentions they have inside of them, according to what 'they' believe...is just.
Flopping around with no control trying to fight the inevitable. The best course of action is to stay out of the way until this corpes finally realizes it is dead.
Oh my goodness, gabgirl, this is a scorching hot topic!
Not all Christians give a crap about this subject. You might want to review the rules of capitalization of proper nouns.
Because they care for the gays and want them to be as happy as they are...
LOL. Or as 'holy' as they are. From a biblical stand point the only person who made this requirement was 'God' from his people. It's shouldn't be a demanded from 'people' to other 'people'. This is what they call spiritual rape.
Real Christians do care, Ron. Who would undergo all of these insults unless they cared? It would be easier to close shop and go home, otherwise. Christians are not perfect!
Because they believe it's morally wrong and sinful and that marriage should be only between a man and a woman.
And they want the government to legitimize their religion.
Agreed. I can tie it in with the legalization of gay marriage to give them the jitters that eventually the First Amendment to be modified. This reasoning is due to the growing 'dominionism' ideology in the Christian world.
...the government should not be making any laws for or against any kind of marriage, period.
just like it shouldn't have gotten involved in the abortion issue.
Constitutionally, these are the kinds of things that are to be handled in the individual states so that the people have more say on the civil issues
Equal rights are a national issue, no state should have the right to deny anyone equal rights under the law.
You're right they shouldn't, hence why the DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) needs to be repealed. Except it is to be replaced to protect 'marriage' because while the concept of marriage comes from religion, it is still the foundation on which the country is attempting to solidified itself in regards to 'civil' rights. In this case that of the LGBT.
DOMA is on a federal level, not a state. Since this was taken up at a federal, it needs to be fought on a federal level. There will be no other way. You can't go back to just handling it on a 'state' level when the government has created a law that defines marriage as the 'legal' union of one man and one woman.
I believe marriage should not be be handled by neither the state nor the federal government. It should be given back to be handled by those from whom it had originated...organized religion. And let them duke it out with their own. If you believe in marriage, then you are religious. If you don't, then its common law.
True that! It is not a national issue but individual States matters. If you do not like the laws of your State... Change them or go somewhere else.
But on the National Level: leave the Constitution alone.
Elizabeth sez: Jack can't keep his mind on the missionary position because he's obsessed about what Joe and Harry are doing in the next house.
Because they consider gay people less of a human being that shouldn't be provided equal rights like them.
Because I have been black for nearly 70 years, being someone that is considered to be "less of a human being that should not be provided equal rights" is the story of my life.
Perhaps one day things will change, then we can all understand others and treat them with respect for whatever their choices and skin color are. Being a sociologist, I see this as a hard thing to achieve, but it will start from us! Wishful thinking
I am very pleased to have made your acquaintance, because it is obvious to me that you are a good person with a good heart.
And if it were not for "wishful thinking," many of us would not be free and successful today.
Agreed prettydarkhorse. And in part due to the perverted minds of those who run the organized religions of the Earth. It's them who condemn them on the basis of their acts, but fail to recognize them as human beings who deserve the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of 'happiness'. Legalizing them would complete their happiness, but unfortunately it would ruin others who cannot exercise control over them. It would also put organized religion in a very delicate position to have to adapt or rebel.
I just hope history doesn't repeat itself. Historically when dealing with civil rights will still have those who will show even more hatred when the government decides a particular treatment of a group that was otherwise widely accepted is now unconstitutional.
African American's who have been freed from both slavery and apartheid.
Women being allowed to vote.
Now gays and lesbians being allowed to married.
There really is no reason, it seems to me. I think those who are still trying are blinded by their hate and lack of thinking. But that's really for a separate discussion; it has no bearing on the law. Sep of church and state makes this issue pretty obvious.
In Leu of - don't you mean "In Spite of" as that seems to fit your context better. In Leu of means "In Place of" You cant make a law in place of the First Amendment as the First Amendment begins by stating "Congress Shall Make NO LAW..."
You have three major sides to this issue.
Legal: Dealing with what the Law Allows.
Moral: What the Morality of the Nation chooses to allow.
Church: Has the Right to its Moral Opinions and also the Right to be left alone... Not dictated to by Government agencies...
Christians Object on grounds of Religious Morality issues... and also for the prime reason that they see an oppressive Government which is already overstepping its bounds... that is about to overstep its bounds (First Amendment) and try to dictate to the Church... or its leadership... things like:
A) Who the Church can marry. B) Who the Church HAS TO MARRY. C) Who the Church Must Marry.
They are concerned for a future where the Government tells the Churches that they Must allow the premises (Sacred Sanctuary) to be used like a marriage chapel with no control over who does what...
The Answer to the Legal matters are in the Laws itself...
Civil Marriages are a matter of Civil Law.
If you want a Civil Marriage.. go see a Civil Judge.
Meet the Requirements of a Civil Marriage.. and get married in a Civil Courthouse or in some other place that you rent for the occasion.
But Churches... are not to be encroached upon for this type of activity.. this is where the importance of that Historical Statement (It is Not in the constitution) comes in to play... "The Separation of Church and State" and the Constitution protect the Churches from the Government telling the Churches that they have to cater to any specific groups of people that would encroach upon the Churches.. try to make the Churches do things against the will of the Church.. or against the tenants of the Church.
You are going to do what you are going to do... Do it without getting in other peoples faces with it... Do it without encroaching upon other peoples ideals as much as is possible...
There are two sides to this issue... Both sides can say:
"Why are you trying to force feed your ideologies to people who do Not believe that way?"
Your Rights End... where another persons rights begin.
Gay marriage violates natural law. It turns a moral wrong into a civil right and it violates other people's beliefs. Especially reverends or rabbis who are ordered by the secular federal government to marry two men or women. Even Muslims are against that sort of thing.
"Especially reverends or rabbis who are ordered by the secular federal government to marry two men or women. "
That is where it is headed... and that is why they are fighting it so hard... But it should be Civil matter. With No teeth against the Churches or their leadership... But because of the way the Government ignores the rules and does things IN SPITE OF the Constitution... that is the basis of the problem...
Muslims are not against marrying children to adults. Mohammed married a 9 year old child. So much for morals. But what exactly is the issue here? Morals or Rights? These are civil rights that need to be respected. Whether they be same sex, or opposite two people who are consenting adults and of the required age want to be 'married' it's not up to church, the state or the federal government to prevent them from doing it. People should mind their own goddamned business.
They aren't doing it in public. That's in the sick perverted heads of those who imagine what they are doing and condemn it.
To be even more brutal I'd think they are aware of the perversions on a variety of websites in regards to homosexuals, but do they talk about the exploitation of lesbians by the heterosexuals?
Why is it that a bare breasted woman in Hollywood is considered PG-13, and a naked woman Rated R? But if a man is naked its porn?
Either way perversions exist, but a man cannot love and want to have a relationship with another man because of the sick perverted minds of organized religion wants to condemn their 'sexual act'? How about women? Yet heterosexual men still find these women a turn on, so lets be fair.
It's not happening in front of your face, and you don't have to be hunting them down to condemn them. And if you see them in public, pass them by, don't pay any attention, but taking away their right to function as a couple is WRONG. They are adults, and they have made their decision.
Good grief, when are some of you people going to 'grow up'.
Not happening in front of you??? You don't get out much do you? Been to the Mall lately? There are some people.. and some of them happen to be "Gay" as well... who get a kick out of flaunting things that offend other people..
At the nations capital some of the "Gay" rights people where making and displaying Pornographic signs (with photos cut from magazines) with no other objective but to offend the Christian men who were there for a prayer meeting on the lawn.
When that was passed by with little or no comments.. they Made out... Graphically.. hoping to start some conflict.... and even threw Gravel at passers by hoping, just hoping... to get something they could use on Film... Some type of aggression they would then turn against whoever happened to fall for there scheme...
I was there. I Remember.
I don't go looking for gays to condemn them. Their 'scheme'? So you think this is a conspiracy against Christianity?
This will be turned into the 'persecution' talk that most organized religious people stand behind when they know they are wrong.
I was kicked out of church and labeled a Jezebel. I didn't return. So my question to you is, if this all happened, then why didn't you just leave? Why were you even there to begin with? To show a quiet protest of 'gay rights'? So you purposely went there and said lets pray right in front of them. Going against what Jesus said when he pointed out the Pharisee who prayed elevating himself in front of the Publican?
And what did you expect? For them say 'ok religious people are here, lets clear out'.
I'm sure you remember from your own personal opinion, but its apparent you don't speak the truth.
Muslims have enough sense to know that gays/lesbians do not marry or produce human beings. At least they know that their very actions violate natural law.
You seem to not understand it, Jezebel.
Truth! Gays have rights, but churches and the leaders do not! Now, who is violating whom?
Who exactly is trying to make churches who don't wan to marry gay couples? Some churches will and some won't, that is fine, a church does not belong to the people of the country, legalization of marriage is very different, the law belongs to everyone, getting married in church has nothing to do with being married under the law.
TEST post. I wrote a few minutes ago and post has not appeared.Just checking- put a lot of thought into that one!
An unfortunate trait of humanity is that there are lovers and haters in every group of people: Christians, not Christians, heterosexuals, homosexuals, not sexuals, law followers, law breakers, law makers. Christ came and we are no longer under the Law; He fulfilled it. The First Amendment was not intended to cover same sex marriage. Gay Rights Activists are using the wrong vehicle to get their agenda accepted. Their problem is that there is really no vehicle for them to acquire this "right." It is God given, not man-made.
I have friend who come from all walks of life. I feel for those couples who can't have their union celebrated by the State and Church. The thing to keep in mind here is that even if these two entities DO give in; God will not. My role with these friends is to live a life that will make Jesus smile, be ready and willing to admit when I fall short, and to love them. Cuz' I KNOW He does!
As a people divided, we need to build relationships void of name calling and hysterics- even when we feel strongly about something. Christians, especially, should remember that He is in charge and that WE are His hands and feet in this world. Those who don't yet believe should come to the understanding that yelling the loudest or foulest doesn't make you right; just harder to get along with. So, after all this... Why are Christians against same sex marriage?
Point 1. Man was created in God's image. We are made to be, if you will, small creators. Man was given Woman- the first marriage- in order to accomplish this task. And the first children were born. This is the way we fundamentally work.
Point 2. As Christians we are called to be a light to the World. If we do not protest alternative life styles, we sit idle while our brothers and sisters stumble in the dark.
Point 3. The world was created to make sense to us. Think of something as simple as nuts and bolts. (And yeah, the visual works too.) They need each other in order to do the job they were intended to do; the job they are best at. It's the natural way of the world.
So, very simplistically, you have both the natural and supernatural (and natural again) reasons why Christians should be opposed to same sex marriages.
Respectfully & in Christ's Love
Yup - this is why Christianity causes so many fights all right.
Respectfully asking you to keep your irrational beliefs in your own head where they belong.
No... he has the right to freedom of speech just like you do. And like you he can also use that privilege for good or for bad... To edify others... or to insult and tear them down... to educate... or to express his own opinions...
Two way street Mark. Just be glad some of us treat you with more respect than you warrant by your treatment of us.
Two way street indeed. Keep your ridiculous beliefs and opinions as to what others should be doing to yourself and you would not open yourself up - would you?
Weird that you think treating me with condescension is "respect."
This is why your religion causes so many fights.
Respectfully - I ask you to keep your ridiculous beliefs to yourself.
You have a right to express your opinion, and others' do, too. Try to control how you angrily react to others' beliefs. Understand that they are attacking issues, not you.
What I notice, especially here in the forums, is that people tend to respond to others who approach them with the same level of respect, or disrespect, that they are offered in the beginning. In addition to that, few of us understand that speaking to others like they are adversaries can indeed make them - well, adversarial.
Were we ALL to speak to each other as though we were simply fellow human beings discussing something about which we may perhaps disagree, the tone of the forums would be much more pleasant. I think we also tend to react without much thought to what others are saying to us as though we are somehow being personally attacked - every time - when, in truth, what others are saying is not unique from what they say to others.
Lastly, the whole issue of respect boils down to what it is we're actually saying to people. It's all well and good to cloak your words in false piety, kindness, and concern when in fact you are doing your best to subtly insult folks. Most of us in the HP forums are fairly good with words, and can use what I've heard called "Irish Diplomacy" quite skillfully...I've heard it defined as the ability to tell others to go to hell and make them look forward to the trip. Believers on this forum do that all the time to unbelievers - and frankly, it makes us look like a$$holes.
I apologize to the OP for straying from the topic, but I find the whole issue of respect one that is dreadfully misunderstood by most of the folks on this site. Mark is not one to diplomatically approach the topic of religion. He is likely, from my experience, to say exactly what he means with no attempt to soften it for those who might be a tad sensitive. That should be a very respectable trait in any person, but so many of us believers on this forum vilify him because he doesn't back down and we haven't seemed to change his mind.
It also seems to me that he, unlike many believers around here, tends to respect those who are much the same in their approach. He may not respect our ideas or our opinions, and he may think what we believe is irrational nonsense - but FFS - that doesn't mean he doesn't respect the people to whom he is speaking. And, if he doesn't, so what...what's your goal - to be treated respectfully or to proselytize? One requires that you offer the respect you wish to get back.
Other than your judgement, Mark, what evidence to you offer to prove that my beliefs are irrational?
More importantly, why do you feel the need to use emotion rather than logic-- especially since you brought up the "rationality" of my post? Do you know how to argue your beliefs, or are you just good at putting down people who don't share yours?
I think it's up to you to prove that your beliefs are rational don't you? But if you think that your beliefs are not irrational, then I am at a loss what to say. I mean–I think most religious people will admit that there is no rationality to their beliefs. Weird that you choose to be all emotional about this rather than address my points. What does logic have to do with supernatural beliefs exactly?
This is why your religion causes so many fights.
Did you join hubpages specifically to get involved in this argument? Because that seems to be the case.
You keep saying that religion causes fights... I bet you think that guns kill people and pencils write great novels, too. Huh?
It's PEOPLE- we create the good and the bad- the in between and the ignored. US; you, me, them. NOT religion, but what we say to whom concerning our beliefs about it---- and then how we choose to react. It's you and me. BAD NEWS: We are the problem. GOOD NEWS: We are the answer.
Trust me - I am a lot harder to kill when you don't own a gun. Terrible analogy by the way. How silly.
This is why your religion causes so many fights. But - OK - you cause the fights. You.
GOOD NEWS - get rid of it and be a human instead of believing in majik and you can start to think straight.
Me not believe in majik- me has the Almighty.
ME not causing fight- "walked" in on it HERE and couldn't resist messing witcha.
Me want you to live long, long time- long as it takes. That's why me pray for you.
Me is human, very very human. But me, I enjoy Life. What about you, Mr. K?
I'm done messing with you for the day. Spar manana? lol
You are easy to kill. Getting rid of guns will only mean deaths by knives, pencils and stomping will go up.
People kill. Guns do NOT kill.
Why don't you keep yours in your head as well. That goes for your irrational comments.
Unless Jesus was to come down and take over, using God's image as an excuse to keep gay marriage illegal is as pointless as those who use the identity of the BOC (Body of Christ) to call themselves His hands and His feet.
HE is here.
Why is it pointless to use God's plan for humanity as a reason for the resistance to same sex marriage?
He is HERE. No amount of bantering will change that. And if you flip to the end of the book- HE WINS!
I will refrain from asking the obvious cuz you probably don't believe in the Bible. But I am curious, did you start this hub to seach for answers, watch people argue, or get earnings? Hopefully you are seaching... At any rate, I've enjoyed the opportunity your quest has provided. Thanx.
HizChild - Why is it pointless to use God's plan for humanity as a reason for the resistance to same sex marriage?
Um because you have no head. The Body of Christ can't function if its not thinking straight. The Body of Christ doesn't own anyone, least of all itself. If you want to claim ownership of yourself than become a domestically dependent nation like the Tribal Communities that exist within these borders. Then there is a possibility the head will arrive and attach itself to the body.
He is HERE. No amount of bantering will change that. And if you flip to the end of the book- HE WINS! - That's very nice, but it would be appropriate if you actually waited until the final chapter occurs before claiming a victory. Do you consider me your opposer? Your opponent? That's ok I'm getting used to that considering I was kicked out of your side anyway.
I will refrain from asking the obvious cuz you probably don't believe in the Bible. - The Bible is a book with many wonderful stories. To say I believed in the Bible would be to say I believed in the Brother's Grimm. Do you not even know your own Bible states 'the letter kills' and if so, why would you believe in it? That doesn't make any sense.
But I am curious, did you start this hub to seach for answers, watch people argue, or get earnings? - Get opinions and information. Whether people argue or I get earnings is irrelevant. I'm sure you know that religion and politics is a hot topic no matter where you go. But they are also what moves and drives every society on the face of earth. While it is taboo in many circles to talk about either, we can't ignore the fact that they exist and influence people in everything they do.
Hopefully you are seaching...- I don't have any hope. All I have is a voice.
At any rate, I've enjoyed the opportunity your quest has provided. Thanx.- You're welcome, have a nice day.
Gays and marriage is an oxymoron. Marriage is between men and women. Gay marriage is against natural law.
Well, homosexual relationships do occur among animals in the wild, so presumably if there is such a thing as "natural law" then gay relationships are part of it.
I don't know what the legality of "gay marriage" would entail. Does it simply entitle gay couples to get married in church, if they can find a church willing to do the job? Or does it compel all churches to marry gay couples, regardless of the convictions of that particular church denomination or the clergy within it?
I definitely support the idea of choice, but I don't agree with compulsion. That's the thin end of a rather nasty and painful wedge.
In any case, why would you want to participate in any religion that was too bigoted to accept you?
I don't think anyone but the most insanely militant gay rights activist wishes to compel any specific church to marry gays. I have never spoken to ONE such person but I'm sure someone exists like that. It would never fly anyway... but it's the rallying call of homophobics everywhere. It's a terror tactic used to sway the uneducated and ignorant to their side and raise panic and hatred towards gays.
To be quite honest I wouldn't step foot in a so-called house of God that was bigoted against gays anyway... let alone marry someone in one. Churches that belong to homophobic hypocrites that pervert the words of Jesus to their own agendas are quite safe from my perverted abominable ways.
It would entail the government 'recognizing' gays as being married and them having the same benefits as everyone else. Its not about church. As it is churches are the ones who promote violence against them because of what goes in the bedroom.
In that case, I can't understand why anyone who claims to be compassionate is against it.
Churches are NOT promoting violence against gays- for any reason. There might be some nasty people who call themselves part of the church, but God's people are NOT promoting violence against any group of people.
If you have to lie to get support, you must not think your case is very strong, either.
For the most part, we DON'T CARE what anyone does behind closed doors-- AND WE DON'T WANT IT SHOVED DOWN OUR THROATS EITHER!
I don't appreciate being called a liar. Churches are advocating violence against gays by saying from the pulpits that they should be 'put in fences and wanting to drop food to them'. My case is very strong, considering churches across the nation have not taken action against the Pastors in NC, nor up in Indiana. Indiana had a child sing 'aint no homo's going to heaven'.
As it is, you are using caps to stress 'how you don't want it shoved down your throats'. What kind of language is this? Any why are you 'yelling' in caps? I would just assume you and many others have it in your minds marriage that if gay marriage is legal, you'd be influenced by it.
And in believing you'd be influenced by it, you'd fight against gays as people, not against anything 'spiritual'. If this is so, then its obvious your faith in God isn't very strong.
There is no such thing as 'natural law'. Natural is what we know, but things change and so do people. If we went with that kind of stupidity, there wouldn't be synthetic fabrics, in-vitro fertilization, or vaccines. Women wouldn't be allowed to take a morning after pill, nor would they take contraceptives. Men would have very long beards. Wood would be used for fire, not paper. There wouldn't be advances in technology.
You just don't like what gays do period. Just admit it.
Some folks are so stubborn in how they rationalize things because to them 'its not normal' or 'natural'. To them 'its just the way it is and they aint changing'.
I'm happy we have a president who doesn't really care about that. He'll run right over them if they stand in his way because of 'how strongly' they believe in something. It's refreshing.
Oh Dude, I DID use logic- points 1 & 2-- you just chose to ignore it. I have a question; if I was your unsuspecting, but still Believing customer, would you feel the need to shut me down? Or would you take my money and sell out?
Now I'm just having fun messin' witcha.
Seriously though, the only problem you have with me is that I know God loves me and I gladly follow Him.
GOOD NEWS: I am praying for you.
BETTER NEWS: God loves you too.
BEST NEWS: When you believe it, Life will be better (and eternal)!
No - the problem I have with you is you are an anonymous religious Internet troll with an opinion on how other people should live their lives.
This is why your religion causes so many fights.
Hope the praying makes you feel like you have achieved something in an otherwise empty life.
I am thinking you need to brush up on the meaning of the word "logic" as well. Prove god exists and you might have a point, because - rationally - we evolved and were not "created" in any image. Unless god is a bacteria?
One can lead a horse to water... but the darn thing can still die of thirst. lol You are so emotionally charged. Do you have a sense of humor; or do you save it for f2f only?
The fact that you exist proves God does. Scientist after respected scientist have proven that there is no way ordered, complicated life could have come from chaos.
BTW, I am not a troll; don't live under a bridge- but out in the country where the air and water are fresh. Lovely home, fantastic life, excellent future. Nope, not a troll. More of a Treasure! lolali
Why do you insist on treating me like an idiot? The fact that I exist proves I exist - nothing else.
No respected scientist has proven any such thing.
Of course I have a sense of humor - I am talking to you aren't I?
You are definitely not an idiot! I’m talking to you-aren’t I? lol I also checked out your profile, just to make sure.
Thanx for the head’s up on the troll definition; I don’t understand how it applies to me- except for the veering off topic to just “God,” but in my defense, that was in response to your posts. So, I’ll try to be less troll-like (giggle giggle).
My long answer to, “Why do Christians oppose same sex marriage?” was made in my second post. I posit that the reason is God- His design, His plan. You scoffed that respected scientists have proved that order could not have evolved from chaos.
Check out the site: http://www.godandscience.org/.
Professor Antony Flew , a legendary proponent and debater for atheism for decades, has stated the "onus of proof [of God] must lie upon the theist." However, in 2004, Prof. Flew did the unheard of action of renouncing his atheism because, "the argument to Intelligent Design is enormously stronger than it was when I first met it." In an interview, Flew stated, "It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design." Flew also renounced naturalistic theories of evolution: "It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism." In Flew’s own words, he simply "had to go where the evidence led."
Three more of the many modern day scientists who have made the connection to God (tons of earlier men as well):
~Vera Kistiakowsky (MIT physicist): "The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine."
~Henry "Fritz" Schaefer (Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia): "The significance and joy in my science comes in those occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, 'So that's how God did it.' My goal is to understand a little corner of God's plan."
~Arthur L. Schawlow (Professor of Physics at Stanford University, 1981 Nobel Prize in physics): "It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious. . . . I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life."
And I have to go do something not involving a computer! Until manana...
Correct this thread is not about God. It's a question to those who hide behind God while attempting to prevent gay marriage from becoming legal.
1. We don't hide behind Him. If our hearts belong to Him, He simply has our back.
2. Here I thought this discussion was based on a question about Christians opposing same sex marriage. You shouldn't ask why a group of people do/think/believe/advocate something in a public forum and expect them not to respond. We are ALL passionate about our beliefs. The way the query was framed indicated curiosity. I like to debate. But like anybody else, I'm not so fond of being silenced because I am in the minority. If you didn't want the "other side," you should have rephrased your question-- or banned the "defendants" from the discussion.
Very, very sad. Tolerance for some, but not for all. Is this the new American Way?
No it's not new. People have not tolerated groups of people forever. If God doesn't tolerate gays having same rights as heterosexuals then his believers are going to defend that. Except that some believers don't. Maybe they are more tolerant. It's interesting.
LAWL The Christian minority?
Are you not afraid to............ - oh wait - we don't know who you are. Sorry - forget that.
Hiding behind God doesn't automatically mean He has your back. I never said I expected you not to respond. On the contrary I encourage it. The more the merrier. But stating that God is against it, when clearly God has not come down from heaven to assert his 'authority' and 'power' over whether gays should be considered legal IS Christianity hiding behind an authority that you don't have and cannot exert over anyone. The delegated authority is the United States of America of which you are a citizen and you must adhere to and respect. Christians want to point to God and to words in a book without God Himself having come down from heaven and manifesting His awesome power and glory. To me that is not only unwise that is a complete disrespect and lack of fear for the one you worship as the Almighty God. Who the hell do you think you are?
Yeah - trolls tend to cut and paste a lot as well.
My take on the original question:
Some Christians think everyone should be just like them, and those who dare to be different are evil. My church teaches tolerance and acceptance - not hate and division.
Wow, habee...your church's teachings are so...Christian.
My question on your take: What does the Bible teach? Cuz God didn't give us churches; he gave us life's little instruction book. If your church teaches the Bible, you're in a good place. If it doesn't, it's not teaching God's word.
There are people of intolerance EVERYWHERE; it's the human condition. Some are just better than others at disguising their feelings. And some really don't care.
BTW, as Christians we are called to be followers of the Word. We don't judge; the Word does that. We don't tolerate; doing so would leave the unbelievers in darkness. But we show the way in love- not hate.
We also aren't doormats; we are not just allowed, but obligated to share what we know to be truth. Jesus never promised easy. We love and we light the path for the world. Look at what your Baptismal blessings are.
No matter what it means to you, you have no right denying two consenting adult the right to get married.
Marriage is a contract between two people—their gender is irrelevant!
Not according to My God or the Holy Bible it is not!
Funny... it's fine according to my God and Bible.
I just think you personally think it's icky and don't like it so you're using MY god and bible to back up your opinions.
Shame on you.
If you can quote me one Holy Bible Scripture that shows an approval for a same sex liason, and I mean quote, and I also mean Holy Bible Scripture showing approval.
1 Corinthians 13:13
And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.
Sorry but where does that quote state that same sex love or marriage is approved by God?
My God considers a same sex liason an abomination. He illustrates this by destroying all of the inhabitants in Sodom and Gommorah. God will never say one thing and later change his mind.
Really? Ever eaten a bacon sandwich?
John 4:7 Clearly states that all love comes from God.
Like I said... you think it's icky and you don't like it so you are raping God's words to justify your bigotry. That's fine I guess but don't speak for MY God and Bible when you are doing it. I'll be here every time to tell you that you are using Jesus as a reason to explain your hate. Now THAT is an abomination.
The true reasons for Sodom and Gomorrah have already been explained. The true meaning of your so loved abomination quote have been explained. You choose not to hear them because it means that you stand without the backing of Jesus in your hatred.
If you choose to believe that he hates the people that you do then so be it. Whatever helps you sleep at night.
Melissa I have no hatred for you or for any other person, but I hate the sin, I hate to see anyone twisting biblical scripture to try and justify their own agenda. We are commanded not to lay man with man or woman with woman. You choose to ignore this or circumvent it, and that's your choice.
YOU might have been commanded that by your own interpretations but God never commanded any such thing of me or anyone I know.
You are not God. Stop speaking for him.
If YOU want to say that you don't like homosexuality... feel free. But most who hide behind the bible that they cherry-pick aren't brave enough to do that. Please don't speak for MY faith.
YOU are the one twisting the bible to your agenda. I'm just letting everyone know that it is indeed YOU doing it. You do not speak for God or Christianity in general. Your opinions only represent YOUR thoughts.
Your bible does not set civil and political rights in either the US or Canada. You can feel any way you want about it but it's not up to you to decide and judge how people live their lives.
Funny how you always find all the gay threads to post on...
Yes he does... I'd like to start a thread about eating rare steak and what should be done with people who do that... as it is considered sorcery by the same book (Leviticus) that he holds so dear to his heart. If you've ever eaten a hamburger that is still pink on the inside you have committed an abomination and are going to hell forever.
Why aren't there threads about that demmit? You would think we would need to get the word out that only straight vegetarians are going to heaven.
Uninvited Writer: It is not the gay threads per say that I respond to, but those that fly in the face of Christianity. As a Christian, a follower of Christ, I am obligated to defend my faith at all times and at all costs to me.
Sodom and Gomorrah was not limited to homosexual practices. They were degenerate in all areas. There was even a passage where Lot offered his own daughters to the men of the town because they were after the angels. Do you think God approve it?
What's more is God saved Lot. You'd think that after the angels would have seen this they would have been disgusted and left them all to perish. But they didn't.
Your argument about God's approval conflicts with God's decree. God decreed that Lot shouldn't perish, and even when Lot offered His daughters, He didn't change His mind, but do you think God would approve of this?
Afterwards Lot's daughters bore their father's sons. They did not perish. This is also not approved.
God's decree does not go hand in hand with God's approval.
And if our President makes a decision to legalize gay marriage, that will be God's decree. His approval has nothing to do with it, if it happens then its His will.
God also said 'Do not kill' yet Israel in certain instances had to kill. I'm sure He didn't approve it, but He allowed it.
So even though there are ten commandments, they are subject to man's free will. They have nothing to do with God's decree. God is a moral God, He's not a stickler. If that were so, Jesus wouldn't have a reason to die. Man is not perfect. If God were to bend man backwards He'd have to take back the fact that He gave 'man' a free will. So He bent himself backwards in favor of man.
It's not up to anyone to judge the acts of others. I don't even pray that they change. That's called witchcraft because you impose your will to influence something that is beyond your control. God's will be done no matter what we say or do. And if entails the humility of those who call themselves God's church before God to deliver them through it, then it is what it is.
How do you figure that it is God's decree if Obama legalizes gay anything. Obama is not God, though he might think he is.
God never gave man a "Free Will" not ever, but he gave man "Free Choice" there is a huge difference, and before you try to argue the two, you'd better learn the difference. I guess witchcraft must be involved in "Gay Rights" then because gay people are trying to impose their rights in an un-gay and anti-gay society.
If it's legalized by Man, and they are in agreement under Heaven, then God decreed it.
Don't tell me what I can't and can argue or use words like 'I'd better', thats a threat. I refuse to let you hijack this subject. Having a choice involves a 'will' . If you don't want to be believe in God, you don't have to. If you force a person to try and submit to a God when they plainly tell you they can't see 'Him' then you are imposing your will on them when they're will is not to accept it. If this doesn't make sense to you, then ask God to give you understanding. And do not make further threats, nor post in such a condescending way.
Witchcraft does not involve gay rights. Christians are trying to keep it illegal and against a person who has made a sexual preference for the same sex IS witchcraft. They are two consenting adults and its no ones business. This is not anti-gay society. You are discriminating. And this should not be allowed on these forums.
I agree with you, God usually uses poeple to affect change in the world. We're not to just passively sit back and say God did it so there's nothing we can do about it! If God is just going to do what he's going to do, why pray?
I don't know anything about Bible verses so I'm not qualified to debate with you on that level. But, there are stories from the Bible that everybody knows.
When God destroyed Sodom and Gemorrah, did he let all the straight people leave?
Why didn't God just solve the gay issue by not letting any of Noahs' gay children on the boat? As I see it; in his wisdow, God allowed two of everthing to survive. So while they're not specific Bible verses they are events that religious people refer to often. Can you help me with these questions with some other well known stories from the bible where God is Killing gays or a gay person just for being gay and having sex with another man. Because he didn't kill Noah and his son.
No according to YOUR G/god, he wants you be conflicted, he wants you to be bigoted, he wants you to do as you're told regardless of whether or not you understand....that's called blind stupidity.
Your "God" is a Stone Age invention, so is your bible and your thinking. Your dogma and your beliefs have absolutely nothing to do with gender, sex, marriage or women's health.
Too many Christians who can't shut up about other people's business are trying to hide their own dirty secrets most of the time. I can't count the number of them who have been caught in the most sickening of scandals!
Many of them pull random quotes out of a bible that they can't even read at the sixth grade level.
Marriage is both a religious and a civil institution. Religions have a right to restrict, discriminate and do as they please. But when an institution has a civil identity, religions need to back off and stay out of it.
Hubpages just closed down a very important study in the forum:"A New Study On Homosexual Parents Tops All Previous Research!
Please write your hub team members and demand that they reopen comments to this very critical Study from: The Friendly Word Institution of physichosis!
SAVE OUR CHILDREN!!!
Norah already told you why it was closed. I reported it because the OP itself was not inline with the rules of the forums. Go read her post and then if you want to continue the conversation, then follow her instructions.
I DEMAND! that forum be reopen. You are the smartest man on Hubpages! You tell them how important, well written, and critically important that study is! (I mean my study...of course) You write them! You write this minute!
Debating 101: Put words into your opponent's mouth, then go about the business of shooting him down for saying what he did not say.
Marriage has evolved. You used to be able to have more than one wife, that is not seen as okay now. Girls used to be married off by their fathers before they were even old enough to have children, we don't view that as okay any more.
Please give us good secular reasons gays can't get married. And don't pull out the fact they can't have children "naturally", many, many married couples cannot have children and many don't want to have children. And, everyone will never be gay so no point in the argument that our population will die out.
The Separation of Church and State keeps us all free. Why can't some of these fanatics realize that? Taking away somebodys' freedom because you believe God told you to do it is no excuse for you taking political actions to take away someones' rights. It's a betrayal of American Values!
"Christians" should be capitalized. As much as you might hate them, "Christian" is a proper noun, so you might still respect our language even if you don't respect that particular religion.
Christians are a large group of people. Not all of them have the same opinion. Strange as it might seem, they are individual human beings with varying opinions.
Some of them don't give a f*ck about gay marriage. Some agnostics think gay marriage is a boring non-issue that some fashionable, holier-than-thou, do-gooder conformists latch onto to make themselves feel superior. Go figure.
I can appreciate why you may bristle at being lumped in with some narrow-minded Christians, Chris—as well as respecting the rules of English.
What I can't comprehend is why you chose to ignore the central point of the discussion and then get just as insulting as you lump others into a pejorative and over-generalized group.
The fact remains that some folks who have dogmatic beliefs want to impose their values on fellow citizens who don't share those values . . . in a country that separates church and state as well as a bill of rights.
Marriage is a legal contract between two consenting adults and to prevent it is to trample upon others' rights.
Your indignant aside contributes nothing to the debate.
I can't stand proud christians. Not only do they go around wanting you to capitalize the name of god, but they also want to you capitalize their own name. I won't do that anymore. I don't do it for any other religion. christians hate being seen a 'mediocre'. I remember that from the church I was in. They would rebuke it as a spirit. After awhile it occurred to me that much the 'humility' I witnessed was them 'positioning' themselves for a 'greater glory'...in this case some form of promotion or monetary reward.
And when difficult circumstances come for christians, to them its a trial, to anyone else its 'punishment'. Going up their doctrine was the same as going up against god. Unfortunately, all you see is them. And I refuse to huddle in fear believing that god would be all for christianity.
That's the same mentality as believing we are the only ones in the universe, just because we haven't found anyone yet. They would tell me constantly, 'you have to believe you belong to to our church'.
I realized this: I don't have much of an ego. I like it like that.
Thankfully, all Christian's do not hate gays
Supposedly they are Mormons.
The Horse's Mouth . . .
http://mormon.org/faq/stand-on-homosexu … 4AodDDvq2g
What is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' attitude regarding homosexuality and same sex marriage?
Basically our belief about homosexuality and same sex marriage is that it is an abomination in God's sight. The Bible speaks out against this practice. Leviticus 18:22 says, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." These practices are just lustful desires from the body and we all know that lust doesn't come from God. The sad fact is that most do not realize that homosexuality completely destroys the plan that God has for everyone of us. God commanded Adam and Eve to "multiply and replenish the earth" and homosexual practices cannot complete with that commandment from God.
I myself deal with same gender attraction, but it doesn't matter to me. God has given me this challenge so I'm going to work with him to get through it. I've got family and friends that help me out and are always there to give me the help that I need. Just because I feel it, doesn't make it right. We're here to learn to follow Christ, and so if that is what he asks of me, then I will do it. God does love all of his children, but he has to give us trials so that we can improve and become better people."
Really? How do we ALL know that "lust doesn't come from God?" I wonder what Darwin would say?
Wow, christianity rejects attraction in all its forms as being that of the 'world'. How interesting that the very horses mouth is also confronted with the same desires and calls it a 'trial'.
Christianity takes it too far with their judgement. Speaking about 'destroying the plan that God has for everyone of us' does not speak for 'every ONE' of us. To say that He knows God's plan is crazy. Had this dominionistic type think been around since the time of Israel, they would have overthrown egypt. This is completely false, good grief!
Fortunately, when two men or two women are in love with each other, their union is already made. The churches and the christians and whoever wishes to object have missed out... they cannot undo the love which two people have for each other.
The basis for all religiosity is Fear. Fear of what might happen if something is allowed, or not controlled, or not demonstrated against. Ask any christian person what they fear. They will either nonsensically repeat something they have read from the bible; or they will bring up some superstitious nonsense about burning in hell; or they will deflect the subject onto something they can answer easily. But no one can give you a reasonable answer to the question.
Why? Because they are all in a belief system. The system is built up in order to allay their fears. The system becomes their social prop instead of facing their inner, real selves.
And here is the truth: The System feeds on the fear they can impart to others.
Yep, and after reading the news lately, its alarming the LGBT community on the 'violence' suggested against them. There have been higher incidences of murders among them. Some christians are condeming it urging them not to work against the person. They don't care about anyone except their personal witch hunt. It's disgraceful. I cannot associate myself with the body of christ any longer. And I'm sure before the year is out, megachurches and the bible belt will find the pews begin to empty and clear out. Who wants to serve the Lord under a Pastor who's trying to convince his flock of so much sin, yet all they inspire is for people to commit murder and spread hatred? I feel especially for the new christians...when they leave, they are not coming back. They are going to become atheists. Seriously? I'm half way there, because I can't BELIEVE this kind of behavior isn't stopped! The only thing that stops me is because I've seen miracles happen in my life that I can only say GOD did it.. But this madness?...Good grief.
God where are you??? This can't be beyond your power. Do something about these people!! Or let this be our Armageddon.
From what I understand, it's happening even worse in Uganda right now. Religious stuff taught to African people by "born-again" christians, bringing Hell Fire and Brimstone into the mix of superstition which is already there.
They can arrest, put on trial, torture, imprison, execute, do anything to cover up their own pathetic ignorance, yet they cannot change a homosexual person into NOT being a homosexual person.
You anti-gay mob: do you suppose a person with blood on their hands would be allowed past the Pearly Gates? Don't expect to find your "Jesus" waiting there to forgive you. You have already shut "Him" out of the equation, by your bigotry and blindness.
I love you hon but I call B.S.
You can't say that every Christian fears X any more than someone else can say that every gay feels Y.
I don't fear hell because I don't believe it exists. Not all Christians do. I'm also not going to nonsensically quote anything. I'm not sure my religion makes me fear anything except possibly beating the crap out of somebody if I didn't have Jesus's example to give me something to aim for.
Just saying so in the defense of Christians that aren't bible-thumping fear mongers... I sometimes feel the need to remind people that we exist.
I am very glad that all three of you non bible-thumping anti fear-mongering Christians are now properly represented.
The Bible is a living document that is always current. The problem is some of the people that read it are unable to evolve with it.
lol, if it is current than why are there so many versions?
The Bible itself says 'the letter kills'.
lol, if it is current than why are there so many versions?
The Bible itself says 'the letter kills'.
Some versions of the Bible have the words of God and Jesus highlighted. If you choose any of their verses at random; you will find words that inspire you in some good way. I you look at the words of fear and hate and nonsense, you will see they were written by...Who or what ever leviticus was(because he is just another crazy dead guy) and the other people that hijacked the Bible for their personal tool to control the masses. The word of God is Love.
Fear is the cause of all suffering. Fear of the unknown. Fear of relinquishing control. Acceptance of what is (on all counts and every level) is the only way to get past fear. Whenever someone seems to have a problem another, it is actually caused by an issue within themselves that they are resisting. Everyone deserves the same respect, love, choices, and rights! If only we could all detach from old mental patterns and the ego self, this world would be a much better place!!!
like I've said many times before if homosexuals weren't trying to force change with someones else's spiritual beliefs and making them accept their own, they wouldn't have problems from others
trying to change the definition of marriage is forcing change ...
trying to make others like you in your differences by forcing yourself on them in their business dealings and work places is forcing change...
forcing someone never works for good...what is the higher ground?
isn't it tolerance and self change? be the example you want of others
Homosexuals need to find where they are not being tolerant and are being tyrannical, they can create their own understanding of marriage instead of trying to take another's away from them(a spiritual aspect)- and work on the practical, the legal, aspects of equality
it really does boil down to the understanding of the natural laws of the universe-- to some life means something different than it does to others, and that is just where they are at this point in time.
To create compassion, and have kindness and justice are at the center hub of all that is truly love
it seems to me both sides of the issue have need to change- the onus is on the homosexuals to understand divine justice and on the heterosexuals to understand earthly justice
if abortion needed a legal ground to stand on, then marriage does, too
I don't think we are going to change the duality (human and divine) of life right away...
No body is forcing anybody to change their spiritual beliefs...
Who is "forcing" whom to change? Denying concenting adults their rights and recognition in a legal and civil contract has nothing to do with "forcing change."
Your logic is ludicrous! It is your beliefs that won't tolerate "change" and it's an issue of human rights vs. religious bigotry and intolerance.
So don't try to evade the point by accusing "the denied" of forcing you to be tolerant.
"like I've said many times before if homosexuals weren't trying to force change with someones else's spiritual beliefs and making them accept their own, they wouldn't have problems from others"
I would really like to hear from you exactly how this works. If it is actually happening, then you should be able to provide specific examples.
Do you REALLY believe this? With your whole heart? Or do you just quote things which sound nice?
You did not see fit to condemn or even comment on that photograph from Wizard Of Whimsy, showing the North Carolina Republican Party banner. I wouldn't mind betting lots of the members of that party consider themselves good, upright, god-fearing members of society.
So when the Supreme Court ruled that banning interracial couples from marrying was unconstitutional was that forcing change on the people who were for the ban?
This forum is still alive? What could still be unclear on a cut-and-dry issue after 2 weeks?
From the way i understood it, the original question wasn't whether homosexuality is immoral, which I understand could cause a ferocious debate, but whether people had the right to stop same-sex marriage from being legalized. I believe the answer is no, as long as we create an equal benefits marriage that's unrelated to the church, so their rights to not marry homosexuals are not infringed upon. I don't think there's anything debatable about that.
But legality aside, isn't is about time that we put hate aside and at least agree to disagree? Give everyone equal rights and equal protection and we can all go our separate ways if we'd prefer that.
According to the Bible, yes it is wrong. But also according to the Bible, we should love one another and be there for each other. It's not that difficult to love some one and want them to be happy, even if you don't agree personally about what they are doing or not doing. If you are a true Christian, then that doesn't involve you. Every one has a different relationship with God, even gay and lesbian people. They deserve to be happy and loved too!
What about the Christians that say they have nothing against gays and lesbians and love them but still think that they can be prayed for to change their ways? Isn't that contradictory? They deserve to be loved for sure but why do so many who say that still think they should not have the same rights to marry? I don't get it.
They should not have the right to vote because it's wrong, in the biblical sense. One guy, one girl
So your argument is that they shouldn't vote because they don't hate gays enough...
Cause your book... which says the same thing as mine... says something that might possibly be about homosexuality in the same book (Leviticus) that it says you shouldn't eat rare steak because it's a sign of witchcraft...
Well... great points.
I meant the right to marry, one guy one girl you know, like it was before Lady Gaga, just kidding. I have been on a woman's sufferage kick lately...another topic!
It's interesting that you bring up women's sufferage. Women have been a group that have been opressed since the beginning of time. People have used the bible and their warped interpretations of it to treat groups such as women and other races as less than. So why then is it ok to do to the gay and lesbian community? I have hope though. Things are changing and progressing like they have in the past for women and other minorities.
Same sex marriage doesn't change what goes in any straight marriage. So why is everyone so concerned about what goes in everyone else's bedroom. we all have the same hopes and dreams...
I think it's because they won't be able to marry each other as most of them could be gay themselves and if there is a law preventing them from marrying each other then God and Jesus have made it so....allegedly!
by herrypaul 2 years ago
I just want to know: Do you agree with same-sex marriage or gay marriage?Marriage is sacred, God created Men and Women to be one flesh.If you agree, why? If not, why?
by carpesomediem 10 years ago
It's been a busy week for gay marriage supporters, first Iowa took the step in the right direction and now this morning, Vermont followed suit. DC also voted to recognize gay marriage from other states within the last few hours.
by Grace Marguerite Williams 3 years ago
How do you feel about marriage equality? For? Against? Why?
by Tom Cornett 9 years ago
Because.....If liberal progressives are for abortion and gay marriage, then it makes sense that mostly progressive liberals will most often enact those rights...far more than conservatives.Which means...there will be far less progressive liberals in the future. Wouldn't it make sense to give...
by Elani-Lee 6 years ago
Why are you against gay marriage?This is more for the people against it, although those of you who are for it feel free to express your opinions. I am just interested in knowing why people so vehemently oppose it.
by James Smith 7 years ago
. . . hang around long enough to talk about how much of an idiot Rick Santorum is and then disappear when asked to provide principles they believe in. It's not enough any more! So tell me, my lefty friends, when you have your gay marriage and abortion rights, what do you believe in?
Copyright © 2019 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|