jump to last post 1-7 of 7 discussions (76 posts)

LGBT's should start a church.

  1. spellbinderdk profile image59
    spellbinderdkposted 5 years ago

    If gays and lesbians started their own church, then they could get married.
    And nobody could stop them, because they would be protected by the first amendment, the freedom of religions act.
    And of course they would also be able to save a lot of money, because most religion do not pay taxes.

    1. livelonger profile image95
      livelongerposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      There are already many churches (and synagogues) that will marry gay people. Mine does.

      The issue is that these marriages are not recognized by most state governments or the federal government. There are over 1,100 rights associated with marriage that gay couples don't have access to.

    2. Cagsil profile image60
      Cagsilposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Start a church? Why bother.

      The most basic right of any individual is the right to marry whomever they decided and it isn't actually government's job to dictate otherwise. Regardless of whatever religions exist in America.

      Every man and woman have the right to marry. This is not to be interfered with. The fact that people make sexuality a requirement for marriage is absurd and infringes upon that person's most basic right.

      Who each person marries is their choice and again not to be dictated by anyone else who isn't them.

    3. profile image0
      Motown2Chitownposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Two problems with that.  Not all homosexuals share the same spiritual beliefs, and just because the marriage is blessed in church, doesn't mean it's legal.  How are they going to get a marriage license unless their state approves same sex marriage.

      1. calpol25 profile image73
        calpol25posted 5 years agoin reply to this

        As a gay man I am torn in this debate you see on the one hand I can understand where your coming from spellbinderdk but at the same time I can also see the point of Motown2Chitown.

        If all the gay and lesbian people were to start a church it would be the third largest religion in the world, but as Motown2Chitown has pointed out not all homosexuals are of the same spiritual belief.

        Then there is livelonger's point too with the many other churches and synagogues  who will marry gay people too..

        Its very complex.....

        I guess we just need to give all this hype against and for gay marriage time, as at the minute its all relatively new to heterosexuals and to us homosexuals too and when something is new people can get quite contrary towards it..

        Look at the hell women went through to get the vote, and the hell they got afterwards, look at the hell black people went through in the 50s,  60s and 70s for equality and their right to vote and to be counted as equal as everyone else... Now we are all the same and we do not see colour, gender etc but at first it was met with a wall of opposition just as we are facing right now, we just have to be patient and hope that these mixed feelings will die down and acceptance will come in time...

        Sorry but I am torn on this debate... smile

      2. BrianMI6 profile image61
        BrianMI6posted 5 years agoin reply to this

        On the flip side of this, just because the government considers a homosexual union to be a "marriage" doesn't mean that it is one.  Marriage was invented by God and it consisted of one man/one woman for life.  Sodomite unions are a joke because God doesn't recognize them as marriages.  It's like a bunch of fat people running around swearing up and down that they're bodybuilders when they are anything but. 

        Shouting louder doesn't make it any more true, it just makes you look silly.

        1. calpol25 profile image73
          calpol25posted 5 years agoin reply to this

          Excuse me Brian but your statement is disgraceful - Sodomite unions are a joke because God doesn't recognize them as marriages. If you are going to input in this debate can you at least use the correct term which is Gay Or Homosexual not sodomite that is quite offensive and hurtful...!

          then you state - It's like a bunch of fat people running around swearing up and down that they're bodybuilders when they are anything but. 

          So you are not only against gay people but you are also against larger people who are fat - you dont realise how stupid, nasty and offensive you have made yourself look. A fine example you have set for your children .... NOT!!!!

          1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
            MelissaBarrettposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            But again in his argument Lesbians get off Scot-free (If you look real hard you can see a pun in there somewhere)...  Sodomy is kinda not what we do... 

            That's good for most Christian males however... since where would they be without their lesbian porn?

            1. calpol25 profile image73
              calpol25posted 5 years agoin reply to this

              Melissa - I am ROFL I did not see that lol hahahahahaa smile lol lol

              I love you Melissa xx lol

              1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
                MelissaBarrettposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                Love ya too hon.

                Don't worry he got me on the fat thing even if he didn't hit the sodomite thing...  If I went around with a highlighter and marked every anti-gay post made on these forums you would see how many of them are directed at men only.  I have lots of theories about why that is... a heterosexual man's natural tendency to become aroused by lesbian sex is but one of them... might write a hub about it one day.

                1. calpol25 profile image73
                  calpol25posted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  I agree Melissa, if you do write a hub on it come and get me I wanna read it lol xx smile

                  Your quite right though, always directed at gay men, a study was comprised here in the UK a few years ago the results found - that homophobic men became aroused over gay sex yet they continue to repress those feelings into hatred against gay men.. Strange??


                  Motown2Chitown - love you too smile

                  1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
                    MelissaBarrettposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    Bah... you and I will argue over that study and what it means...  I have slightly changed my view based on a debate here on the board but I still don't draw the same conclusions that everyone else seems to draw from it.

                    I don't see repressed homosexuality in these subjects... but I do see a repression of the natural tendency of humans to become excited when any bits used for sex are exposed.

                  2. profile image0
                    Motown2Chitownposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    Thanks, calpol, I love to be loved - and right backatcha! wink

            2. profile image0
              Motown2Chitownposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              What, Lesbians are gay?  OMG?!?

              1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
                MelissaBarrettposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                Yep... but we are a good gay...  Our relationships don't have to involve men being reminded that other men have penises...(or is it peni?) or anuses (or is it ani?)

                As a matter of fact lesbianism is great because it completely removes those icky parts of anatomy right from the picture and lets men focus completely on girl parts in their fantasies.

                1. profile image0
                  Motown2Chitownposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  This is something that has always confused me...men love lesbian porn.  But men also love straight porn.  Straight porn has penises...do they look away when they appear on camera?  I think not.

                  1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
                    MelissaBarrettposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    The addition of girl parts makes it socially acceptable and non-threatening... as long as the ration of girl parts to boy parts hovers around 1-1 (put preferably 2-1 or higher)

                    Edit...  My husband's contribution is (and I quote) "As long as the guy's **** isn't bigger than mine.  Then I don't want to watch"

                    Edit again... the stars were mine... he didn't say "four asterisks"... in the sake of correct quoting I must confess to that change.

            3. Shelly McRae profile image82
              Shelly McRaeposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              Can't stop laughing!!!!!

        2. Billjordan profile image71
          Billjordanposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          Brain I have to agree with you.

        3. profile image0
          Motown2Chitownposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          I am of the opinion that NO civil union is a marriage (heterosexual OR homosexual).  It is my belief that a 'marriage' is indeed a sacrament between a man and a woman.  My church would not bless a union between a homosexual couple.  Others do.  Making gay civil unions legal means that the two share the same LEGAL rights as a heterosexual couple, which indeed they should. 

          Want to make your union a marriage - find a church that will bless it.  BUT, the church, a church, any church, every church in the US could find it in their hearts to bless your union, but it will make literally NO DIFFERENCE at all if it is not LEGALLY recognized.

          Therefore, I'm a firm believer that the law should allow for gay civil unions, as the law allows for heterosexual civil unions.  I don't believe that it should, however, be called a marriage, as I do believe that marriage is a sacramental union between a man and a woman instituted by God.  Whether it were legalized or not, it will never be recognized or blessed by my church - but other churches will recognize it - IF it is legal.  That's the whole stupid misconception that churches will be FORCED to marry same sex couples.  That isn't going to happen as it is never the CHURCH who creates the union to begin with - it is the law and the consent of wills between the individuals.  The MARRIAGE is recognized and then blessed by the church, which makes it sacramental.

          1. livelonger profile image95
            livelongerposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            But the term is already being used by the government to define a union between two people; what constitutes any specific church's definition of a sacramental marriage is irrelevant in the government's definition. Divorced people are allowed to get married under civil law (and use the term "marriage"), even though the Catholic Church does not consider this a marriage, just as one example.

            Right now, a marriage between a same-sex couple consecrated by my synagogue as a fully religious marriage is not recognized as a civil marriage by the government. I believe this is the point Melissa made in a thread she started a couple of days ago.

            1. calpol25 profile image73
              calpol25posted 5 years agoin reply to this

              Hi Livelonger

              I am torn again on this debate - on one side I can see Motown2chitown's point and on the other I can see yours too..

              My head is gonna explode as you are both right...

              I best leave this one as its really hard to decide....  smile

              1. livelonger profile image95
                livelongerposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                I know that in the UK you have marriages for straight couples, and civil unions for gay couples. I don't pretend to know the history or social dynamics there, but here, "separate but equal" never means equal, and is an outmoded concept that I thought we had moved past.

                1. calpol25 profile image73
                  calpol25posted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  Your right of course livelonger, I guess we never really will move passed that concept as no matter where we turn its always there - even here in the UK  and there in the USA .

                  1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
                    MelissaBarrettposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    There are actually two questions here... what the joining of two lives should be "officially" called and whether churches have to consider it marriage.

                    If gay marriages are "civil unions" then all marriages should be "civil unions" officially (i.e. for government work) there should be no differentiation at all because any differences are rooted in religion... which shouldn't come into a government decision at all.

                    However no church should be required to recognize gay marriages as marriages if it goes against their beliefs.  For the g'ment to force such churches to do so would violate religious freedom.

                    However...again... if churches are given the power to perform these joinings and have them legally recognized then my church marrying two men is just as valid as Billy Bob's Rural House of God marrying third cousins.

              2. MelissaBarrett profile image61
                MelissaBarrettposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                Actually... they are both right... they'll figure out why in just a second...

                1. calpol25 profile image73
                  calpol25posted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  Yeah Melissa I hope so too smile

                2. livelonger profile image95
                  livelongerposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  It's just a minor disagreement on terminology. I don't think civil unions for straight people (under civil law) would be in any way feasible, even if that would make things equal. Whether we like it or not, government also owns and operates the term 'marriage' and religious groups were all fine with this until those uppity gays came along and wanted access to it, too.

                  1. calpol25 profile image73
                    calpol25posted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    Yeah I see what you mean Jason that is quite true,, It was the same here until like you say the uppity gays got their knickers twisted and wanted the access to it.

            2. profile image0
              Motown2Chitownposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              Jason, maybe I worded it differently (or even poorly), but that's my point exactly.  Regardless of whether or not one's church calls it a marriage - it will not be until the government recognizes the union legally (as with heterosexual couples).  And, as far as I'm concerned, once it is legal, it is left only to the couple's church as to whether or not it is blessed and retitled a marriage.  My church wouldn't recognize it as such, but others will.  Maybe I'm not making it clear enough - I'm all for the legalization of gay 'marriage.'  After that, it's completely up to the couple's church as to whether or not it's recognized religiously.

              Does that make sense?

              smile

              1. livelonger profile image95
                livelongerposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                Yes, absolutely. smile I think I misunderstood your post where you said "I don't believe that it should, however, be called a marriage" - I thought that was a statement of what the government should call it, instead of your own opinion based on your religion's doctrine. Thanks for the clarification.

                1. profile image0
                  Motown2Chitownposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  Anytime.  smile  I think what most opponents of gay marriage fall into is the trap that the government should dictate according to the tenets of religion, when nothing can be farther from the truth.  You can't legislate morality - especially when its definition varies so widely from faith to faith to un-faith, you know?

                  1. livelonger profile image95
                    livelongerposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    I agree completely. smile

                    I think whether a house of worship chooses to allow gays to marry is entirely an internal matter. I personally couldn't care less if any other religion other than my own considers a marriage "religiously valid."

        4. j-u-i-c-e profile image96
          j-u-i-c-eposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          Actually, it's more like a bunch of homophobes running around swearing up and down that they're not bigots.

        5. spellbinderdk profile image59
          spellbinderdkposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          BrianMI6: Did God married Adam and Eve.?
          If he invented marriage, and did not married Adam and Eve, then we are all bastard kids.?

          "Do not judge, and you will not be judged.
          Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned.
          Forgive, and you will be forgiven."
          Luke 6:37

          Look into the mirror before you tell somebody else to live their life.

    4. Cardisa profile image93
      Cardisaposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      My problem with the whole issue is this: Why should a law tell me who I can or cannot marry? It makes no sense to me. No Government should have the right to prevent people from marrying.

    5. nightwork4 profile image60
      nightwork4posted 5 years agoin reply to this

      here in Canada that isn't needed as we not only allow gay marriages, we accept them as the norm. to me, if a couple is in love, that's all that matters.

    6. Felixedet2000 profile image58
      Felixedet2000posted 5 years agoin reply to this

      To the original question, when are we ever going to get tired of this controversy?
      Is this the kind of marriage the best for the world?
      If yes, then i suggest everyone should be encouraged to go into same sex marriage for posterity sake.
      May be the world would be a better place if everyone is involve in same sex union.
      I believe we have made our choices known, by telling God that his ideas and plans for our life is invalid henceforth; anyway this assertion is mainly to those of us that still believe in his existence anyway.
      Humanity is doom with this same sex controversy, i think it is time for us to make this clear once and for all and that is, marriage is better if it is same sex.
      Wow; what a wisdom!!!i doubt if it is a good wisdom anyway, if it is not of God it will crumble like a pack of card for sure.
      Is this how it was in the beginning? Marriage is God ordained institution, when you go contrary to the laid down guidelines, then you can be sure of problems and difficulties just the same way same sex couples are having a difficult time trying to argue their case.
      Do we have to undo what has been done?
      Are we better than those before us? I mean our ancestors?
      i think so, that’s why we are so scientific in our approach and understanding of marriage? But please if any one care to listen to this; don’t take it personal..I think we all ought to live the church out of all this controversies and smears. The church of Satan is the best place for same sex couple to get their marital blessing. Please don’t go to desecrate the temple of God, and by that I mean a place where the creator of Heaven and Earth is worship, whether we believe he exists or not is irrelevant.

      1. Cagsil profile image60
        Cagsilposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        roll

      2. Cardisa profile image93
        Cardisaposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        First of all the temple of God are our bodies and man is the church. A building is just a place for gathering.

        Next, those without sin let them cast the first stone.

        Next, who made man judge and jury? Didn't the creator himself give man freewill? Who are we to decide what is right for someone else?

        Let's talk about sin, since you brought God and the bible into the picture. Are you perfect and have never sinned? If you are then by all means condemned these people, but if you have sinned who will you answer to, man or God?

        1. calpol25 profile image73
          calpol25posted 5 years agoin reply to this

          I was thinking of what to write there Cardisa but you said it perfectly a massive +1  smile

        2. Felixedet2000 profile image58
          Felixedet2000posted 5 years agoin reply to this

          Good Cardisa, and this applies to you too Calpol. Well said and i must admit i am a little bit impress.

          No one said he/she is holier than the other, the simple thing is; if they (Churches) reject same sex couples then, they can go find a suitable place to fit into. And I can suggest another church that is not Bible base…Church of Satan for sure.
          The Bible is against same sex marriage from the beginning to the End, any Christian who is sympathetic with same sex people is doing that base on personal reason, and not Biblical is all I am saying ok. I think the context of the message was not well digested before the comment.

          1. kerryg profile image88
            kerrygposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Plenty of Bible-based Christian churches perform same sex marriages.

          2. calpol25 profile image73
            calpol25posted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Perhaps I was a little judgemental Felixedet2000 but Satan we know is a negative entity and to compare us to that is quite distasteful when alot of LGBT people have done many great things, and live good christian lives, the only thing that differs us is who we fall in love with.

            The Quaker religion will marry gay people also, so you do not need to mention satan as its quite hurtful, even though its meant as an example its still puts a negative onus upon lGBT.

            I do understand what you mean that the churches should be left alone as it is religious freedom after all but if we strip away all this and forget for a moment that we are religious, spiritual or whatever and come together as human beings to have a serious discussion on what we feel inside not what any outside source tells us we should feel such as the bible or media then maybe then we might find some common ground we can all agree on! Dont you agree?

          3. Cardisa profile image93
            Cardisaposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Felix, my comment was bible based, based on acceptance of other regardless of who they are and their sexual practices. My response bible based, based on love thy neighbour as thyself. My response bible based, based on Jesus loving the prostitute and the adulteress regardless.

            The point I am trying to make is not telling any church what to do or not to do but rather as people love each other and stop this foolishness.

            It seems to me that we ram religion and bible down people's throats when we feel uncomfortable rather than embrace them regardless.

            Maybe  I am just soft hearted but wasn't Jesus soft hearted as well? I am always so disappointed with this whole gay thing. Why it has to be such as big deal. I don't hear as much about murderers and paedophiles. We make movies about such things and highlight them as if they were something great. The movies that bring in the most money are based on murder, mayhem and some destructive actions and we aren't debating banning movies like that from being made, but we spend time as Christians debating whether or not gays should marry as if they are the worse people on earth.

            Why aren't' we fighting against lotteries and horse-racing? Why are there so many young men and women naked on screen selling merchandise in advertising, are we so blind to everything else?

          4. profile image0
            Motown2Chitownposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            I've been through the bible from beginning to end, more than once.  As far as I recall, there is NO mention at all of same sex marriage.  Therefore, it is not condemned and that argument is moot.

            As an aside, why don't we fight the legality or illegality of marriages entered into for the sake of citizenship, fraud, or as a simple financial arrangement.  THOSE marriages aren't biblically acceptable.  Why aren't we throwing fits about those?

            1. Cardisa profile image93
              Cardisaposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              Actually Mowtown2Chinatown, there are actually several places in the bible that references are made to man to man relationship, see link:

              http://bible.cc/romans/1-27.htm

              And I could't agree with you more about the fraud marriages!

              1. profile image0
                Motown2Chitownposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                Same sex relations, yes, but marriage between individuals of the same sex is NEVER mentioned. 

                I think many of us Christians tend to read into the bible whatever suits our opinions, rather than trying to correctly interpret what's actually there.  Too many Christians try to interpret the words God never spoke, with a major tendency to ignore the ones He did.

                The other thing that gets me sometimes is the references to all these passages that seemingly condemn homosexuality - what they condemn is lust and the giving over of humanity to their carnal appetites, regardless of how they're satisfied.  A gay married couple who are faithful to each other, and do their best to raise their children well?  I don't believe God condemns that.  If one were to cheat - that might be the bigger issue.

                That's just my take on it.  I don't need to read the verses most often referred to.  I know them by heart.

                big_smile

      3. AM Hanson profile image78
        AM Hansonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        I understand where you are coming from, but try applying that logic to your own religion:
        If your religion is what is best for the world, then all others should be abandoned and we should all convert to your religion, which I'm going to guess is an Abrahamic religion.  If my guess is correct in saying you are a Christian, then you should know 1 Corinthians 13:13, which states that LOVE is greater even than faith.  And who are you to say that one person's love is less valuable than another's?  Also, do you really think that simply keeping LGBTs from marrying will remove the "controversy"?  Do you think that those fighting for equal rights will simply give up?

        When Jesus came to Earth, he spent his time among the undesirables.  Ask yourself this: If Jesus would have come to Earth in 2000AD instead of 6BC, who would he have spent his time with?

        And finally, I do hope you will take another look at your last paragraph.  I find it extremely odd that you don't have any problem with someone being of different religious views, but you are so strongly against two loving people being married that you equate them with Satan worshippers.  I have a good number of LGBT friends, and all of them are strong Christians.  Which brings up another point.  Are you saying that God messed up?  The Bible states that God knows our every thought and our every move, that God knows all and loves all.  But by saying that an entire group of people isn't worth having the right to marry, then you're saying that God's creations are unworthy of his love and blessings.  This train of thought doesn't seem fitting of a loving, caring Christian.

        1. Felixedet2000 profile image58
          Felixedet2000posted 5 years agoin reply to this

          Good Christians are not same sex,Jesus will not sanction that type of a relationship if he were to be around physically, if the marriage he attended in Cana- Galilee was same sex, do you think he will go there?

          1. AM Hanson profile image78
            AM Hansonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Yes, I do think he would have.  Jesus constantly preached love and forgiveness, and even if he hated same-sex marriages he would have attended to perform his first miracle and to preach his message.

            But as to "Good Christians are not same sex,"  Why not?  What if a man strives to follows the example of Jesus Christ, forgives all who wrong him and preaches the word, gives to the poor and helps those around him, loves all and hates none, but is a homosexual?  Reversely, what if a man lies, cheats on his wife, steals from his work, but is a "devout Christian" who is straight as can be?  Which is the better Christian?  Which would you rather call a friend?
            I know too many people who call themselves Christian but behave in deplorable ways to accept that they can go to heaven while my best friend will go to hell, despite being an active and loving Christian all his life and a better person than I am, simply because he feels love differently than you or me.

      4. j-u-i-c-e profile image96
        j-u-i-c-eposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        "just the same way same sex couples are having a difficult time trying to argue their case"

        Seems like they're not the only ones.

    7. Greekgeek profile image96
      Greekgeekposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Why is everyone so bound and determined to tell us what to do about our marriages and personal lives? One mother is quite sufficient!!!!

  2. MelissaBarrett profile image61
    MelissaBarrettposted 5 years ago

    Here's how I see it in relation to Calpol's point...  I have a bi racial child...

    One Hundred years ago in 1912 I would have been lynched so would my son's father and likely my son would have been killed as well.  That was 7 years before my Grandmother was born.

    In 1945 I would have been terrorized and there would have been no conceivable way that I could have married his father. My son's father would have likely been beaten at some point but probably not to death.  My son would have been an outcast.  That was the year my Father was born.

    In 1975 I could have legally married my son's father. Chances are there would have been plenty of talk and nasty looks but all three of us would have likely been physically safe.  There also would have been quite a few in my situation to discuss the issues with.  That was the year that I was born.

    In 1993 in rural WV I was called a nigger-lover a few times and got a few dirty looks in stores.  My father flipped out for about 2 months then got over it. I could have easily with no questions asked married my son's father without a raised eyebrow from most of the community.  My son had plenty of bi-racial children around to play with.  That was the year my son was born.

    In 2012 I have had not one issue with who my son dates... the few problems that have come from unhappy white parents had absolutely nothing to do with his race but stem from the fact that my kid is an occasional ass.  He has been on the receiving end of exactly 2 racist comments that he or I can recall and both have came from the same family of extremely rural individuals (read Deliverance extras)

    Four generations and 100 years.  We are already 2 generations and 50 or so years into the gay right's movement.

    1. calpol25 profile image73
      calpol25posted 5 years agoin reply to this

      You have hit the nail right on the head Melissa I agree whole heartedly with you and your post really does capture the way things were and especially I love this bit so much that it needs repeated - Four generations and 100 years.  We are already 2 generations and 50 or so years into the gay right's movement.

      Just well put and a huge +1 from me x smile

  3. spellbinderdk profile image59
    spellbinderdkposted 5 years ago

    But here is the power. You do not have to be in the same church.

    But the church of LGBT wink, should just be acknowledge in your state.
    Because then the church could fill a lawsuit in that state for infringement on constitutional rights.
    And then if one or two gets the okay to marry same-sex, then the gate is open.

    Livelonger's church could do it, and that would turn the tide.

    Calpol25: Are you just sitting and waiting for somebody else to do something about it.
    Do remember that the reason the law and the mood change, was a lot of people working for equal rights.
    And yes somebody died, to get the freedom for others.

    Hey: what do I know, I am just a guy who lives in Denmark, and only knows US law from "Boston Legal."
    But When I see people suppressed, and I got and idea that may help...

    1. calpol25 profile image73
      calpol25posted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Spellbinderdk - Calpol25: Are you just sitting and waiting for somebody else to do something about it.
      Do remember that the reason the law and the mood change, was a lot of people working for equal rights.

      In answer to this - if you would take the time to read  my hubs you will find that you are most certainly wrong with that statement! I have been campaigning for gay rights in the UK and overseas for 10 years, I have written on HP for the last two years and have inspired quite a few people.

      I have done a lot of things and resent your remark very much!

      So no I am not sitting and waiting for some one else to do something, what I am suggesting is give it time! Thats all people dont accept things overnight and with the media painting gay people in such a bad light, with bigotry etc over the years, the people are scared of change..

      But they are accepting, its just with it all being new that people are trying to get their heads round it.. It was the same here in the UK when it first was announced, the amount of hatred against spewed everywhere from all directions (that was 7 years ago) now its gay marriage is the norm but we term it a civil partnership. There are still a couple of churches that wont allow Gay people to marry but they are slowly changing their minds. But it wont happen overnight.

      Its slowly happening look we have acheived in the past 50years - we have

      Homosexuality Legalised - here in UK 1967
      Homosexuality Age of consent reduced to 18 - 1980s
      Homosexuality Age of consent reduced to 16 - 1990s - I marched for this!
      Gay Marriage In Uk legalized In UK - December 5th 2005 - I campaigned for this too and was involved with the movement!
      Gay Adoption Legalized - Here in the UK In 2005 - I campaigned for this too!
      Hate Crime Laws - Here in UK it is against the law to make any homophobic attack against any one this can include - Physical, Verbal and any other form of attack outside.. That is quite recent and is punishable with a 7year jail term - Again I was involved with the campaign, I now work with the police and my local community as an LGBT Liason for the LGBT people in Carlisle... You see spellbinderdk it took many years to achieve these rights, and at first it was not met with acceptance immediately. It was a slow process!

      This is just some of the many laws and things we now have in the UK 



      Calpol25

      1. spellbinderdk profile image59
        spellbinderdkposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Sorry Calpol25, if I stepped on your toes. :-(
        I am not gay and not fight for anybody.
        And I am from Denmark, we have free sex, free porno, and free gay marriage, for many years.
        But when somebody start say let us wait, when there is something they could do...
        I have not read any of your hubs. I am using my time on my own spiritual enlightenment. And from time to time I get a mad idea...

        1. calpol25 profile image73
          calpol25posted 5 years agoin reply to this

          Hi spellbinderdk

          Apology accepted, I am sorry too for biting at you as well I did not mean to be so rude..

          I understand, and Denmark does lead the way in acceptance, the world needs to catch up, but it wont happen overnight as we would like to see it.

          We do have to wait, just until this media frenzy calms down.. But the activism can still go on its just the media that needs to show the positive more like Denmark's achievements. Rather than the negative that they keep focusing on.

          I know how you feel with mad ideas I do the same, and its a good thing to write them and share them.. I do the exactly the same, that is what makes a good writer unafraid to express what they feel inside no matter how wacky or strange on paper and to other people.

          Thanks for apologizing and I hope you accept mine too x

  4. Cardisa profile image93
    Cardisaposted 5 years ago

    I think starting your own church would defeat the whole purpose of acceptance and oneness that is the right of everyone. Why can't we as a people live as one? Why do you have to go start your own church so you can get married? This may create a whole segregation issue.

    The same law that was against homosexuality of any kind should be expunged! So that everyone has their own right. As I said no law should tell you who you can or cannot marry so those laws need to be done away with.....including the laws in my country.

    Why the hell are we speaking as if homosexuals are different from us.

    Women hate to be identified by their sexuality. When a woman walks down the street and man signals her she would prefer him calling her pretty than calling her "meat". So why on earth are we doing the same thing to homosexuals. The root of my problem is this: we are all God's children regardless of our sexuality. We don't hear people ridiculing people because they are heterosexuals. Why are heterosexuals not being kept from getting married?

    1. calpol25 profile image73
      calpol25posted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I agree Cardisa its this "them & Us Society" that has to stop!

      We are no different to each other, we are all Citizens Of The Planet Earth and are human beings with feelings and needs, each equal to the other.

      How can we have total acceptance for all when we still segregate?

      I wrote a hub about this "Them & Us Society" you may find interesting I cant post the link on here as you know with it being against forum rules but if you get time please do come and read. x

      Calpol25 smile

      1. Cardisa profile image93
        Cardisaposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        That's exactly my point Calpol. Forming your own church would create such segregation and all the work that this community has put in would be all in vain.

        Will stop by your hub soon smile

        1. calpol25 profile image73
          calpol25posted 5 years agoin reply to this

          Thanks Cardisa, if we were to form a church then it cant be based on one gender alone as that would form a biased opinion, it would need to be a united people's church heterosexual, homosexual the lot together side by side. But could you honestly see that happening in the "Them & Us Society" we have now? No I cant either, we need to address this them and us society and make it an "All Of Us Together Society " before real acceptance and equality can be achieved.. smile

          1. spellbinderdk profile image59
            spellbinderdkposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            The church of freedom, working for the equal right of every people.
            You can marry somebody if you are both consenting adults.

            I follow the way of Tao, which is the middle path.
            It is not easy and it does not always work...
            And it is more of a philosophy than a church...
            But maybe You could build it on that.
            Then you both has a basic religions idea, and a template form the churches that already follow the Tao.

            1. calpol25 profile image73
              calpol25posted 5 years agoin reply to this

              I like that  spellbinderdk.

              You have a very strong point there, perhaps we could build on that and perhaps Tao has a point.. smile

  5. Felixedet2000 profile image58
    Felixedet2000posted 5 years ago

    And i also agreed for the first time with issues like this, they ought to leave the Christians church alone, anyone can establish a church for sure.
    i will like that idea so much, honestly speaking.

    1. Cagsil profile image60
      Cagsilposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      The fact that you think that someone must establish a church in order to get married is utterly ridiculous.

      Anyone stepping into the way to two people marrying is completely absurd, unwarranted and based on fear(irrationality of religion) a G/god.

      Religion DOES NOT own the rights to marriage. Marriage is a human social construct. With rights playing a factor, Marriage is allow by two consenting adults or possibly between a minor and an adult depending on consent of parents in some cases.

      I find it very appalling that the religious folk find it okay to step all over a person's individual rights in order to push their irrational morality.

  6. charlotte44 profile image61
    charlotte44posted 5 years ago

    No i disagree i think they should be allow to live and worship any where they want to they should be allow to adopt kids because their are a lot of kids who need a loving home

  7. spellbinderdk profile image59
    spellbinderdkposted 5 years ago

    It is like this, as with a lot of stuff.

    It is the first 2-3 trailblazer, that has to make a path.

    When the first news paper in a country has the picture of two guys kissing, it is a big thing.
    But it change the world a little bit.

    If You can get somebody to make a newspaper or magazine with two guys kissing on the front page, then you get the world to change a little.
    It has to be 2 Guys, because 2 girls kissing is just hot.
    (I know my own beliefs, because I am awaken. And a little bit dirty. LOL)

    When You get 2 guys to get married, then the dam is breached.
    And You can do this by create a church, and demand the rights to married under the constitution.

 
working