jump to last post 1-7 of 7 discussions (69 posts)

Gay Marriage - Maryland

  1. Dale Hyde profile image87
    Dale Hydeposted 5 years ago

    I am amazed that the passage of legalized gay marriage in Maryland is heavily contested by the "churches".  What does gay marriage have to do with "faith"? And... why do they care or even want to move forward to stumble this milestone?

    Equality is guaranteed....by that piece of paper called The Constitution.... Who do the "Churches" think they are?  They run NOTHING.... you want to be a Christian, be that, but leave the REST of us alone... YOU do NOT dictate nothing in this day and age...and certainly YOU do NOT dictate anything to this Pagan/Wiccan High Priest.

    1. kess profile image60
      kessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Well it all depends on your idea of the marriage.

      If you consider marriage to be the union for the perpetuation of Life (as in the specie of humankind), then of course gay couple have no place in such.

      So therefore it is not surprising that there are those strongly against it.

      If your idea is that marriage is the union of two to share whatsoever benefits that either one or both thinks is relevant to them ...then who should stop them...?

      The state whose responsibility is to the community of which it serves, can only initiate guideline/laws to accommodate the prevailing existing mindset of the community.

      Now since in this day, both mindsets are prevalent, the laws should obviously reflect that...and so it is... and that is that.

      Now since God is synonomous with Life as  in the  perpetuation of species and also in lifestyle of the same species, then how come the two are at odds?
      Is God divided against himself?

      For if you go against perpetution of the specie you go against God...but also.....if you go against the lifestyle of the specie you also go against God.

      I will tell you truly, the answer to this paradox lies not in either one of the two separated...but is the both of the two combined.

      For neither of the two fully understand the concept of God and in extension Life...

      So they hold hard to what they know to be true....and kick hard against what they do not know to be true...

      But there is a God that incorporates the two in perfect working order.
      For he leaves room for both and neither....

      The man that understands this God understands Life because he fully understand exactly what the marriage is....to the extent that he by his own self find that it is fully accomplished in himself and by himself alone.

      He finds that promoting the  perpetuation of the specie of humankind does not neccessarily promote Life....

      Neither does promoting the gay lifestyle promote Life.

      Also rejection of the perpetuation of the species (rejecting traditional marriage) does not promote Life... neither does rejection of the gay lifestyle  promote life.

      The only thing thats promotes Life is allowing one to be exactly who they think they are...

      For each in his own way for this season, does his part in the promotion of Life and God as he understand it to be.

      And it can be only One Way as it presently is.

      1. Raptorcat profile image61
        Raptorcatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Actually, Kess, there is more to it than just the procreation aspect.  A gay couple can make as good or better parents than a straight couple, when raising children.  They can be there for children that are orphaned, in the cases of so many children that are up for adoption, and they actually tend to be better prepared for raising children both emotionally and financially than many straight parents are.

        Fact is that as long as there are parents that surrender their children for adoption or die with no one else to raise the child, Gay couples can fulfill the role and even reduce the numbers of children already rotting away in foster homes instead of growing up with a loving family.

        Yes, it is true that natural procreation in needed to continue the population, but in the case of a gay couple, there are also surrogate mothers (and why not? straight couples do it all the time) and adoptions and artificial insemination.

        We live in a universe of infinite diversity in infinite combinations and nature does not make something that is not needed.  Only society does that, as it is doing with Gay marriage, wasting the potential on an agenda based in a religious (the 2 religions that are the bastard children of Judaism) agenda.

        1. kess profile image60
          kessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Your response in its entirety is irrelevant to the point I am making.....for surely we are not looking into the  beneficial reasons in being gay... which is where you have divulged.
          So I am thinking you had a point to make and so youve made it. Ok

          So now to answer specificly about the issue raised.....

          A child is the creator of his own identity / destiny and the circumstances of life comes in to assist him in that respect.

          As you already know "good" ( as defined in the generally accepted terms ) children are the product of bad parenting and "bad" children the product of good parenting.

          And a child will be what he is ...no matter the circumstance...

          You will merely add frustration to yourself in judging to determine the advantages/ disadvantages of the  life and styles of  "parents"  upon  their children.

          1. Raptorcat profile image61
            Raptorcatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            It is you who are not getting it.  Bad parenting results in bad children and good parenting results in good children.
              The gender/sexuality combination of the parents are not what matters, it is the QUALITY of the persons raising the child.
              Neither gender nor sexual identity of the parents matters one bit in that.  Study after study, over the past 40 years has proven that.
              And the sexuality of the parents has no bearing on the sexuality of the children, which is another issue that opponents of Gay marriage make up from whole cloth.
            But I diverge on that point.
              What is at issue, as per your statement, is that children are the product of the parental qualities exhibited during the period in which they are being raised and they learn those qualities over the time that they are being raised.
            As a parent, and grandparent, I know this to be true, so I am not just talking from the perspective of clinical data, I have 26 years of experience on this particular issue regarding parenting.
            The only frustration seems to be coming from you.
              My frustration is trying to convince people that don't get it, what the truth is when their inexperience and false beliefs want to get in the way of facts.

            1. kess profile image60
              kessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Its ok to vent here and use me as your whipping boy.

              So tell me what constitute as good parent and good children?

              Maybe its a good idea to start a new thread if you really want to get into it?

              1. Raptorcat profile image61
                Raptorcatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Raising them to be honest, honorable, tolerant, hard-working....do I really need to define it for you?
                It seems that most people get it as to what is and is not good parenting.

                But you brought it up, so...........

                1. kess profile image60
                  kessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  The goodness of an individual lies squarely on His own personal integrity... You both seem to have echo this sentiment with the use of the terms "honest and morals"  ( though morals  is a more community based rather than individually based perspective)

                  This apply to both the "parent" and child. Ok.

                  Now intergrity is simply being who/what you KNOW yourself to be ....or in otherwords to be true to oneself.

                  If you insist that good parent makes good children, it leads one to conclude that gay person is  the product of bad parents. Or.... Is he a bad child for he goes against the  good teachings of his good parents?

                  Noting that a child can only be the product of  first parents (male-female) . So a good child is so because his  first parents maintained their own intergrity and taught him proper.

                  Remember I say a child is a product of his own making despite his parents teachings.

                  I tell you truly the ultimate lack of intergrity is for the male to deny his own maleness and the female to deny her  own femininity and if any cant see that it because of the same.

                  1. Raptorcat profile image61
                    Raptorcatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Well, none of those things have to do with religion, so the argument that gay marriage doesn't teach good qualities to children is disingenuous and insulting to everyone.

                    It is a given that a dishonest parent with no integrity is not capable, except as a fluke, of raising a child to be honest, honorable and to have integrity (which is part of honorable behavior).  So when you say:
                    "This apply to both the "parent" and child." you are just restating the obvious.

                    Now here is where your thinking has left reality and gone far afield of the truth:
                    "If you insist that good parent makes good children, it leads one to conclude that gay person is  the product of bad parents. Or.... Is he a bad child for he goes against the  good teachings of his good parents?"

                    Since it is a well documented and proven FACT that sexuality is in the genes, it has NOTHING to do with the parenting.  That statement alone makes demonstrates how askew your belief on this subject really is.  It is quite clear that your opinion is based on religious conviction and not on any real factual information.

                    You know, instead of focusing on gay marriage as the "demon du jour", you religious types should just focus on abolishing divorce.  only that will "protect heterosexual marriage".
                    But again, I digress.
                    Here's another point where your understanding of integrity and honor/honorable behavior goes awry:
                    "I tell you truly the ultimate lack of intergrity is for the male to deny his own maleness and the female to deny her  own femininity and if any cant see that it because of the same."
                    Do you honestly believe that to be the ultimate expression of integrity?  Do you HONESTLY believe that gay men and lesbian women DON'T admit to their own gender?
                    If you do then you need to get out and meet a few.  As a veteran, I served with them, back long before DADT, when they had to be deeply in the closet.  The men knew their gender identity and were "real men" and some were even highly decorated combat vets; the women knew that they were women and never denied that fact.
                      But, and here is where you are being disingenuous, they had to behave, by your standard, in a dishonorable manner to still be able to serve their own country.
                    They never told their parents because, simply put, people back the, like you, didn't understand that sexuality is NOT SOMETHING THAT YOU CHOOSE (I really wish I could write in a bold font for emphasis rather than all caps to highlight) and not something that is a product of bad parenting.  This is also why that fraudulent practice of "ex-gay" therapy doesn't actually work; sexuality is in the genes, not the mind.

                    In case you were unaware of this fact, we humans are part of nature and homosexuality does, in fact. occur in nature.  And in human society, as in nature, gay parents can and do raise offspring, most often adopted or, as in the case of humans, from previous hetero relationships, or through artificial insemination and surrogate mothers or fathers to make this happen.
                    They raise good children that are better suited to adapt to this changing society (in case you haven't noticed society is constantly in a state of change) and end up being better, more honest people.

                    You are being dishonest when you use the same dishonest arguments that have been used before, and which failed under even the most cursory scrutiny, so how honest does that make you?

                    There is a lot more to being honest than just knowing and "owning" your own gender/sexuality.  The integrity to be honest with yourself, to debate based on fact, not fiction, the strength of character to admit when you are wrong and the humility and respect for yourself to respect that your way is not the only way, but one of many ways.
                    Your own words show dishonesty, or they show a lack of knowledge, or they show a serious prejudice.  It could even be 2 or more of those things.

                    I am not the one to judge that and while you may think that your arguments are valid, every piece of evidence has already shown that they are not and they are based in monotheistic religion and homophobia (even if that homophobia is at the most cursory level).

                    Children are not a product of their own making, unless they raise themselves without any parents to show them the way.
                    Children are the product of the parents that raise them AND the experiences that they have growing up in society.

                    This is DOCUMENTED fact and not some religious or anti-religious hype.  It is the truth and to deny truth, even to yourself, is an offense against yourself and to future generations.

              2. EinderDarkwolf profile image60
                EinderDarkwolfposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                1.) Your not a martyr so quit acting like it. I mean really, being used as a whipping boy is the best you can come up with? Seriously though, no one is treating you like a Martyr and you don't need to act like one. Unless your just doing it to try and make yourself feel better, in which case, go for it.

                2.) What constitutes Good Parenting? Morality does. Your Morals will determine what you decide to teach a child and how you decide to teach them.  At least a Gay couple has a good standing point here. They can't teach someone to be bigots and hate Gays when they are Gay. That's more than I can say for a lot of people today.

                3.) If you feel the need to start a new thread about it, then go for it. It's just going to be the same thing over again, only this time you might get a wider audience to play Martyr too.

    2. Raptorcat profile image61
      Raptorcatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Being Bi, LGBT issues matter to me, so I try to keep track of all of this and being a veteran, Issues of Constitutional import also matter to me, so this issue affects me on 2 levels.

      The Church has allowed marriage to be redefined before and will have to adapt to a return to this concept of "gay marriage".
      Yes, I said "return".
        There is some archeological evidence that has come to light in some medieval churches where Gay marriage was not only performed, but was sanctified by the church.

      http://www.gaychristian101.com/Gay-Marriage.html

      http://www.randomhistory.com/history-of … riage.html

      (here's an interesting, but lengthy, one from Yale University)
      http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/ … tianity%22

        There are even stained glass depictions in a few medieval era churches that do show  this to be true, so it must have been sanctified by the Christian church at one time.
      However, the subject is very popular on Care2.com and here is what I wrote about it:

      "These people are pissing and moaning about "re-defining marriage", yet that has happened many times before, and not just in this country.
      Originally, marriage meant an arranged coupling to insure power, money or political expedience and was polygamous.

      Then it was re-defined and includes the divine institute of love.
      Then it was re-defined to monogamy.
      Then it was re-defined, here in the US, as well as other countries that had previously held slaves, to include allowing blacks to marry.
      Then it was re-defined, here in the US, as well as other countries, to include inter-racial marriage.
      Now it is being re-defined again, to suit the changes in our society, just as it has been before and ALL of the same arguments that the religious nuts and the "traditionalists" used against those cases, are being used today.
      ALL of those arguments were hollow and without real substance and they still are hollow and without substance. Society is in a constant state of change and our laws and rules need to either adapt or die.
      The ones opposed to this change are unaffected by it, but would rather see society collapse than allow this change to come, based on religious grounds. It is THEIR time to either adapt or die off, because society will no longer wait for them to grow up."

      All of that Proves, beyond reproach, that the evangelical Christo-fascists have it wrong.  Gay marriage is as old as civilization, has always existed and always will.
      To date, the biggest threat to straight marriage has been Adultery and divorce.

      1. Dale Hyde profile image87
        Dale Hydeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I appreciate your comments and links Raptorcat, and will be going back and reading up as time allows. smile

    3. ib radmasters profile image60
      ib radmastersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      What do gays have to do with marriage.
      They are different than heterosexuals for which marriage was created, so why don't they do something gay with their love relationship instead of trying to fit a square into a round hole. Gay = orange  Non Gay = apple.

      1. Castlepaloma profile image24
        Castlepalomaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        How about degree of gayness
        Like 1 -being very straight
        Or - 6 being very gay

        I'm rated about a 2, with no interest in having sex with a man, should I be getting a warning from God for supporting Gay Marriage?

        1. Raptorcat profile image61
          Raptorcatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          What you are talking about is bisexuality; neither gay nor straight......and there are a wide variety of variations on that, from mostly preferring men to mostly preferring women and, naturally, every variance in between.

          It is also the most invisible of the sexual orientations, neither side seems to want to accept us fully.  But that is another topic for a long, drawn out discussion and article.

  2. Shiningstar4u2c profile image60
    Shiningstar4u2cposted 5 years ago

    What does gay marriage have to do with "faith"?
    Well there is no such thing as "gay marriage".
    Being gay is an abomination in the sight of God.
    God is the one who sanctifies a couple and joins them in marriage.
    Marriage is only for Christians, not those who call themselves Christians but the truly born again ones.
    God instigated marriage for his true followers. No one else.
    So regardless of whatever is said here, it is but rubbish and sick people thinking they can be married.
    Go ahead with your perversion, but know for sure it is just a ceremony performed and nothing more than just the act of the motion of marriage, the real true marriage where God joins two Christians together will not happen.

    1. Dale Hyde profile image87
      Dale Hydeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Lol, Shiningstar, where do you come from? This is a "pagan" thread.  You speak of a "Christian" God... do you not realize that Christianity is a "new" religion and that there are many Gods and Goddesses that far predate "your" so called "Christian" God?

      In the sight of "God"?  You people do amaze me!

      1. Jerami profile image74
        Jeramiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I sometimes amaze myself ...  and that's a good thing!

           But   ...  I gotta admitt ...   sometimes I ????   for lack of a better word  I am appalled  ?    but only when I'm paying attention to myself.

           I really am goina get outa here in a munute!

      2. Dave Mathews profile image60
        Dave Mathewsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I agree with shiningstar. The union of same sex couples, is an abomination to Almghty God and to me. You cannot name and substantiate with documented written proof, even one of your so called gods or goddesses, that has the awesome power of My God Yahweh.

        1. profile image0
          jomineposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Great morals of god
          http://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20090308.gif

          "The union of same sex couples, is an abomination to Almghty God and to me."
          It is an abomination to me, hence it is an abomination to my god too. Obey or else you will burn in hell!!

          1. EinderDarkwolf profile image60
            EinderDarkwolfposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I'll meet you there then. If however, you try to steal my rock (the biggest one) I'm going to have to throw you into some boiling lava for your effort. You try and steal my pepsi, and I feed you to the Leviathan.

            1. Castlepaloma profile image24
              Castlepalomaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Seems to be in the extreme range of being Biblical fair, because every word is written true

              1. Paul Wingert profile image79
                Paul Wingertposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                "The union of same sex couples, is an abomination to Almghty God and to me."
                It is an abomination to me, hence it is an abomination to my god too. Obey or else you will burn in hell!!" Get over it! Although I will admit that the Bible came in usefull the other day. I have a table that wobbled and I found out that by tearing the cover off and folding it in half, and using the cover as a shim, worked perfectly.

                1. EinderDarkwolf profile image60
                  EinderDarkwolfposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  LMAO!

        2. EinderDarkwolf profile image60
          EinderDarkwolfposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          You just used a double edged sword Dave Matthews. You went and claimed there is no documented proof of any other God besides Yahweh, when in fact, there are many scrolls, tablets, and hieroglyphs that talk about such. You take them away then you must also take away your Bible. Then what are you left with? A whole lot of nothing just like everyone else.

          You consider being Gay and Abomination. I consider willful ignorance an Abomination, yet there are still many willful ignorant and I'm not out with a gun trying to pick them off. You can do what you will, but attacking anothers beliefs in favour of your own which have the same amount of evidence is willful ignorance.

          Most people grow old within a small circle of ideas, which they have not discovered for themselves. There are perhaps less wrong-minded people than thoughtless. - Marquis de Lue Vawcenargues

          1. Raptorcat profile image61
            Raptorcatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Even the Old testament speaks of multiple gods, so the Bible, in it's original Hebrew, says that not only was the God of Abraham/Abrahim not the only, he was not the first.
            Excuse me while I quote from the original book of Genesis (just a few pertinent passages):

            "Genesis 1:26 - The [Elohim] said, "Let us make humanity in our own image, in the likeness of ourselves, and let them be masters of the fish of the sea, the birds of heaven, the cattle, all the wild beasts and all the reptiles that crawl upon the earth."

            >>>Elohim is a plural word, including male and female, and should properly be translated "Gods" or "Pantheon."<<<

            27 The Gods created humanity in the image of themselves, In the image of the Gods they created them, Male and Female they created them.

            28 The Gods blessed them, saying to them, "Be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth and conquer it. Be masters of the fish of the sea, the birds of heaven and all living animals on the earth."

            >>>Now clearly, here we are talking about the original creation of the human species: male and female. All the animals, plants, etc. have all been created in previous verses. This is before the Garden of Eden, and Yahweh is not mentioned as the creator of these people. The next chapter talks about how Yahweh, an individual member of the Pantheon, goes about assembling his own special little botanical and zoological Garden in Eden, and making his own little man to inhabit it:<<<

            Gen 2:7 - Yahweh God fashioned a man of dust from the soil. Then he breathed into his nostrils a breath of life, and thus the man became a living being.

            8 Yahweh God planted a garden in Eden, which is in the east, and there he put the man he had fashioned.

            9 Yahweh God caused to spring up from the soil every kind of tree, enticing to look at and good to eat, with the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the middle of the garden.

            15 Yahweh God took the man and settled him in the garden of Eden to cultivate and take care of it."

            Take note that everything prior to the creation of Eden, the Gods are mentioned as "Elohim" (plural) and The Hebrew/Christian/Muslim God comes along at the creation of Eden and is mentioned singularly, by name.
            After that it just goes on to show how that single God, Yahweh, lied to Adam and Eve about the apple and the tree of knowledge and how the serpent told the truth, but the gist of the old testament is that The God that the Christians worship is NOT the Gods of the rest of the world.

            The sooner that the Christians relax and acknowledge that and allow the rest of the world to worship their god/Gods & Goddesses/ spirits in the ways in which they wish to, the better off all of us will be.

            In addition to that, as I posted before, at one time the Christian church did, in fact, sanction and endorse gay marriage just the same as it did and does straight marriage.

        3. Dale Hyde profile image87
          Dale Hydeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Well Dave, congratulations on "owning" your own God! Well done. 

          However, there are many pieces of history that speak of other gods and goddesses....very well documented, discussed, fought over and history has been made involving persons who acknowledged these gods and goddesses.

    2. EinderDarkwolf profile image60
      EinderDarkwolfposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      A God of love cannot be a God of hate as well. Either your God is love, or your God is the most vengeful and spiteful God in the history of the planet as we know it. The actions of the church, and those that claim Christianity such as yourself are a walking contradiction to the very values you try to impose on others. It is ok to be whatever your going to be. However, it is not ok to try to punish others for being different. Thus however has been the legacy of the church and christianity. Thus will morons like you not understand what your doing to yourself and this "religion" that you seem to hold so dear.

      For the Record, Marriage predates Christianity and the Government. Technically speaking it is something outside the scope of what anyone who's been married in the last 200 years or more really understands. Marriage is the bonding of two incomplete souls to form one whole soul. Its truly sad that people have become so corrupt as to forget such things.

      1. Dave Mathews profile image60
        Dave Mathewsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        If you bothered to read the "Old Testament" of the Bible you would see that God, My God is a God of many different emotions including both love and hate. One cannot limit God to just one emotion.

        1. A Troubled Man profile image59
          A Troubled Manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Then, your God is not really considered a loving God if He cannot be limited to just one emotion.

          Hitler also was a man of many different emotions, including love, yet we don't consider him a loving person.

          1. Castlepaloma profile image24
            Castlepalomaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Hitler had a great hate/love relationships thing going on too.

    3. Castlepaloma profile image24
      Castlepalomaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      If we just keep pumping in reasoning, maybe christian will have to live in a world of live and let live

      1. Raptorcat profile image61
        Raptorcatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        They would have to undo more than 1800 years of false profit teachings before that happens.

        But it doesn't mean that we can't hope.

        1. Castlepaloma profile image24
          Castlepalomaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          In the last 150 years most people in this world believe the earth is millions and some billions of years old. Where a tiny amount of people believe in Creationism  which believes the earth is a few 1000s of years old,

          We got them on the ropes,

          1. Raptorcat profile image61
            Raptorcatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I love to get creationists into discussions on that subject.  It is so easy to punch holes in their arguments when you force them to discuss evidence instead of "belief".  It works the same  on the issue of gay marriage as well.

            It's tough to win an argument based only on belief with nothing to support it.

    4. A Troubled Man profile image59
      A Troubled Manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      WOW! lol lol <--- well earned double laughie award

      (the votes were split on a triple due to the insanity clause)

      1. Castlepaloma profile image24
        Castlepalomaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I accept the award base on that even question I could be  insane sometimes, in which many refuse to do so.

    5. Raptorcat profile image61
      Raptorcatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Shiningstar, you are pissing into the wind on this one.  Read my previous post on the subject and read the articles that I posted the links to.

      Your myopic and historically erroneous religion only perspective is not only outdated by hundreds of years, but totally without merit of any kind.

      Ignoring the fallacy of the "Marriage is for procreation and child-rearing" issue, which would nullify the marriage of ALL straight couples that cannot bear children or are beyond child-bearing years, there is no argument that will hold water against this SECULAR CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUE (read the 1st sentence of the 1st amendment to the Constitution)
      NO RELIGION GETS TO MAKE THE RULES FOR THIS NATION.  We are a secular nation founded on secular principles and marriage is, by law, a legal contract, not a religious one.  This is why Judges, notaries, Ships' captains at sea and Command Pilots in international airspace (rare but still legal) can perfome marriage ceremonies.
        The religious aspect is a matter of individual personal choice which no one may dictate to another, no matter what their religion is.

      By your logic, as you stated in your post, EVERYONE that is not Christian, whichever sect of that cult that you mean, is not married, but as Dale pointed out, your "god" is (according to your own bible) not only a jealous god, but only one of many (look up the Hebrew word "Elohim") according to the Old Testament, Genesis, chapter 1 (in it's pre-Christian Hebrew).

      The gay marriage issue is not one of religion, but of religious nuts trying to FORCE others to conform to a religion that is not their own and subjugation to lower class citizen status on that basis of a perverted doctrine that has changed to suit political agenda, starting with Constantinius I and the Council of Nicea.

      Why is it that Christians never study beyond the superficial and have to CONSTANTLY be educated on their own religion, and it's history, by others who have done the homework?
      As my one friend, a pilot and agnostic, would say "next time, come to class prepared".

      1. EinderDarkwolf profile image60
        EinderDarkwolfposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Not to mention in the Treaty of Tripoli, which took place 8 years after the constitution, the senate stated that we are in no way a Government of religion in any sense of the word. There for the senate itself has overruled religion in politics. And that after all, is what lays the laws of the nation, not a religion.

        1. Dale Hyde profile image87
          Dale Hydeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Nicely presented! smile

        2. Raptorcat profile image61
          Raptorcatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Nice catch, EinderDarkWolf.  I forgot about that one.  I have to remember that the next time some idiot tries to tell me that this was established as a "Christian nation".

          1. EinderDarkwolf profile image60
            EinderDarkwolfposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Thank You both. A lot of people don't know what the Government has said or done and make giant assumptions because they only think about those who left Britain to come here. Feel free to use it when you feel the need to, it actually shoots down most everything regarding religion and politics. It having been said only 8 years after the Constitution was written, it's also safe to assume that this is what the founding fathers wanted, not some back-wing, right handed, mightier than thou bs that tends to get thrown at us now days.

    6. DoubleScorpion profile image82
      DoubleScorpionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Sanctified by God??? Then why does one need to file paperwork with the courts? Why does one need to file paperwork and attend hearing to dissolve this union? If in fact only God can sanctify a marriage then why does the government need to be involved with marriage at all? And why would there be a need to make it lawful or unlawful within states? This wouldn't even be a topic of concern if marriage was only sanctified by God...As no-one would even know if a "gay" marriage happened or not.

      The Marriage Contract is controlled by the Government and offers certian "benefits" for those whoare married. And because of this it falls into a "Equal Rights" concern.

      I read something a few days ago, which said...The same argument one uses to take away the rights of others, will in turn one day be used to remove their rights as well.

      Equal Rights is Equal Rights...And it doesn't matter what your personal beliefs are...Live by your beliefs and allow others the freedom to live by theirs.

      1. Raptorcat profile image61
        Raptorcatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Also a very good point.

          A religious ceremony does not guarantee a marriage under the law of the land, except when the ceremony is officiated by a properly certified minister, priest,  Rabbi, Imam, HP/HPS, etc. and the proper paperwork is filed with the state.
        Without that certification (for the officiating religious person) from the state, even a religious ceremony is not legal.

        1. Castlepaloma profile image24
          Castlepalomaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Yes, there is no where in the USA Constitution  the word God, Yet many Muslim countries God is the law and 7 countries it's the death penalty for gays

          Not long ago it was illegal here, state by state the people will change gay marriage thinking, then tomorrow the Muslim Wall

          1. Raptorcat profile image61
            Raptorcatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            True, and the Declaration of independence only makes one generic mention of deity by saying ".......nature and nature's God......"  that is the only instance and the only theism- specific reference and they don't even mention the god/gods of man, it is Nature's god.

            And the only reason that is in there is to address the fact that a whole lot of people, then, as now, still follow some religion or another.

    7. EinderDarkwolf profile image60
      EinderDarkwolfposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      What does gay marriage have to do with "faith"?
         Nothing except to a bunch of close minded, backwoods, bigots.

      Well there is no such thing as "gay marriage".
         That's a lie. It's been around a lot longer than the Christian God and it's a severe shame that this is something that even needs to be legalised. When did the fore fathers say all mean were created equal unless they were gay? I don't remember reading that anywhere.

      Being gay is an abomination in the sight of God.
         This is a very short sighted delusion perpetuated by the Church in thinking that Gays were unclean. It appears in nature there for God deemed it fully ok.

      God is the one who sanctifies a couple and joins them in marriage.
         Wrong again! Marriage was around long before the Christian God and well be around long after him as well. A little study before one opens there mouth on something they don't understand would be fully appreciated.

      Marriage is only for Christians, not those who call themselves Christians but the truly born again ones.
         Besides the fact that this is pathetically weak as Marriage has been around since before the Christ child, but there is no such thing as a born again follower of Christ. I'm yet to see a true Christian (follower of Christ). If you think someone is a Christian simply because they believe what is spoon fed to them from someone else, your sadly mistaken and have a long way to go in your learning process.

      God instigated marriage for his true followers. No one else.
         God never instigated marriage. He was not the reason it ever began nor will he ever have a say in it.

      So regardless of whatever is said here, it is but rubbish and sick people thinking they can be married.
          You show a complete lack of education. Perhaps when you decide to become educated you can come back actually speak.

      Go ahead with your perversion, but know that for sure it is just a ceremony.
          The entire ceremony of marriage is exactly that, ceremony, even according to the bible. Again not understanding what your saying.

      The real true marriage where God joins two Christians together will not happen.
          At least you say something literate. Two people choosing to be together for the rest of their lives is their choice, and under free will, even God must adhere to it. Now to put you into perspective here, Marriage was never the domain of God. There's a place in the bible where Jesus says that if you consider yourselves married in your heart then married you are. Please note here that he didn't say if your a good little christian seeking to over populate and destroy the planet that you would be married. He said that if you are married in your heart then you are married. Nothing about what must sex you must be or what religion you have to follow for that. Quit listening to what someone tells you and stand on your own two feet and you may go far. If not then you are doomed to keep stumbling.

  3. Paul Wingert profile image79
    Paul Wingertposted 5 years ago

    It's nice to see Maryland entered the 21st century along with the othe 6 states and DC that recognized same sex marriage. Shouldn't Shiningstar4u2c be out there standing on some street corner passing out leaflets filled with crap about man-made god(s) and religion?

  4. Daughter Of Maat profile image98
    Daughter Of Maatposted 5 years ago

    What I always thought interesting about this issue, is that the Christians are saying that two people who love each other have less of a right to get married than a man and a woman who marry because of pregnancy or some other stupid reason, and don't really love each other. I really feel for the gays, they are being treated like second class citizens because of a relgion that wants to control the masses. All they want is the right to stand before whomever they believe in and commit themselves to their partner. I'm sorry, I just don't see anything wrong with that. But then again, I'm not christian.

    1. Raptorcat profile image61
      Raptorcatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Last night, they live-streamed, the play "8" which was written from the actual trial transcripts.
        After seeing that, one can easily see why Prop 8 lost twice and will lose again when it gets to SCOTUS.
        It also shows why the proponents of prop 8 didn't want the trial to be aired for the public to see.  It would show just how shallow and hatefully disjointed the argument against the "gay agenda" really was and that it is an issue brought to bear by a single religion trying to impose it's canon on a secular population.

  5. theravenspoke profile image69
    theravenspokeposted 5 years ago

    It just seems so ridiculous to me that in 2012 we still have to debate about gay marriage.  Not allowing gay marriage is DISCRIMINATION, end of story.

    If gay people are not allowed to be married and treated like any other decent member of society then they shouldn't have to pay taxes. Why contribute money to a society that does not support or recognise them?

    Heterosexual people have made a complete mockery of marriage so i don't feel they have the right to take the choice away from gay people becuase they are afraid it will 'damage the institution of marriage'. It's already damaged.

    At the end of the day is comes down to choice, and rights. Gay people have the RIGHT to a CHOICE. They also have the right to be miserable, like many married straight people wink

    1. Paul Wingert profile image79
      Paul Wingertposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Well put.

  6. Dale Hyde profile image87
    Dale Hydeposted 5 years ago

    Thanks everyone! I appreciate all the insightful comments made on this forum topic. The sharing of thought is a wonderful thing and a very learning experience for me!  Blessings!

  7. Greek One profile image78
    Greek Oneposted 5 years ago

    One would think a place named "maryland' would naturally endorse gay marriages smile

    1. Raptorcat profile image61
      Raptorcatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      ALLLLRIGHTY, THEN. :lol

      1. kess profile image60
        kessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Mr raptocat..... why are you so willing to be adversities personified?

        From your first comment until now, has only been on the misunderstand of my stand on homosexuality...and because you have eyes for only adversity, you have placed me squarely in the box of the religious antagonist and that perspective you have based all your communications.

        Your eyes prevents you from seeing that no condemnation is coming from me....the only condemnation you receive is that which you have created for yourself by your antagonistic world view.

        Your defences you put are all unneccessary and ill directed. For they are merely the scripted reponses routinely offered to your religious antagonist.

        Therefore this is my stance as echoed throughout my all my post... Which you even use to benefit your "around thd world and back" arguments.

        A man will be who he is as per the sight of his own eyes... and what so ever he might be, it is very much allright with me and should never be condemned for he is merely exercising his very own God given freedom as with everyone else. And I see it Just as the Father sees it....it is all Good.

        Youve defended homosexuality as  it is encoded in the genes of the individual...

        Yes I agree as it is correlates to my main point all along...the man (child) makes himself.

        But can you also accept that it is those very same genes that is the cause if the growth and funtioning of his testicles and penis which are the definitive aspects of the  masculine human (maleness).

        So how come in one man with one set of genes grows hims himself testicles determining male but contrarily causes him to lie with the male as if he is a female?

        Is the genes divided against itself?
        Of course  a resounding Yes!
        And so is the man....
        Thus you would perpetually disagree with me for you are that divided man.. Adversity personified.

        I have told you the male who see himself as female denies his maleness and by such is lack a true perspective of himself ( intergrity).

        Youve gone and build a mountain of no account words about honor and wars so as to create so much confusion that the point itself is lost....but I will say it again....

        When the masculine despite his obvious masculinity assume the position of feminine he has denied that which is his own masculinity.

        Take that as you wish in acceptance or denial, it remains True from now until eternity.

        How then is one able to understand that it is the unity and division of the sexes is the blue print of the creation of this world and ultimate destruction, if he is in denial of his own sexuality.

        With that I will leave you, if you respond I am pretty sure it would be the same confused nonsense, where you find devils where there is none.

        If I dont respond further it cause it tedious to say the same things over and over again.

        1. A Troubled Man profile image59
          A Troubled Manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Ah yes, I see your confusion now.  You assert that genetics has something to do with the misogynist male ego.



          A resounding NO! Genetics does not follow the misogynist mindset of morality and divisiveness.



          That is a false conclusion based on a false premise based on a misogynist ego.

          1. kess profile image60
            kessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            And just like him, creates a divsion and then formulates an argument.
            Without those division formed by your words you would have had nothing to say...

            Divide the man as you will...this remains true.....

            The things of the man are present In that the man is his present worldly identity.

            1. A Troubled Man profile image59
              A Troubled Manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              We are simply pointing out your confusion regarding genetics.



              Notice that you are still confused.

              1. kess profile image60
                kessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Yes and will remain so....if genetics have the capacity to teach you about you   then boast in your knowing  of it...

                I have me who have taught me very well about the complete me.

                1. A Troubled Man profile image59
                  A Troubled Manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  And, we can plainly see that your guesswork about yourself has only caused you great confusion about the world around you.

        2. Raptorcat profile image61
          Raptorcatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I don't script my responses.  I happen to have my facts, correct and true and in keeping with a moral compass that actually points North.

          Instead of engaging me the way that you have, a smarter man would have reassessed their words and made it clear long before now.

          Again, as per the question of sexuality, it is not the same for a man that is attracted to men or a woman who is attracted to other women.  It is also not the same as a man or woman who is attracted to both men and women.

          Genes is more than just the physical qualities of a person, but I don't expect someone with a limited scientific understanding to understand that without it being explained to you.  Genes determine everything about a person, including having an effect on hormonal development of a fetus in the womb (there are other hormonal factors, but they are only an add on to what the genes direct).
          Remember that homosexuality is a part of nature.  It occurs in all species and there are even a few species that actually change gender depending on the male-female population balance (here's one of those transgender species to start with: http://www.nativefish.asn.au/barramundi.html).
          Genetics is not a simple subject to go into and, even though I understand how it works, it would take a geneticist  to explain it in the detail that you may need in order to understand it.
            Understanding genetics and it's complexities are not for the feeble-minded or closed-minded.  It takes a basic understanding of biology and scientific processes to go beyond the very basics.  I have neither the time, enough background in the field, nor the inclination to do your homework for you.

          For that, there are any number of Universities that you can go to in order to look it up.
          Your confusion is typical of the fool trying to sound like he wants to understand, but doesn't really want to understand while insisting on using terms and arguments that are almost guaranteed to incite a hostile response.
          If our awareness of that makes you feel like "a whipping boy", then that is on your ego, not on the behavior of the rest of us.

          If you do not understand homosexual/bisexual behavior then just man up and say so.  Say that you are ignorant about it and want to understand.
          I would wager that you know more LGBT people than you think, since many are still very much in the closet in so many places.

          If you are truly interested in the facts of it, both medical and anecdotal perspectives, then come out and ask.  Don't pussyfoot around it just to get a reaction.  You would be surprised at how many people do not get offended when you come out and ask a straight question, particularly amongst Pagan initiates/teachers, who expect the occasional "stupid question" which is not often as stupid as you may think.
          You will find that people are less (if at all) condescending to fools than they are to the willfully ignorant.

          I will tell you this much; As a BISEXUAL man, I have never had any desire to be a woman, nor had a desire to have a long term romantic relationship with a man.  I have children and grandchildren and a wife that loves me and has known from day one that I was BI.  I have had short term relationships with a very few select men and we were friends as well as lovers, just like my relationships with women.
          And I have known what I was since I was a small boy and spent much of my life "in the closet" because of the hate-mongers that had no interest in understanding and only either say me as gay (the attitude of the straight community) or straight (the attitude of much of the gay community).

          I did not choose to be this way, but it is what I am; something that is not chosen, nor can it be changed, any more than I can change the color of my eyes, my blood type or my ancestors.

          Does that answer your questions?  If it doesn't then here are some places to go for more information:

          http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/1925

          http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/homosexuality.aspx

          http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2 … l-joy.html

          http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/gay-s … aight-sex/

          http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/hijras.html

          http://www.rateitall.com/t-27401-famous … xuals.aspx

          http://hoperemains.webs.com/

          http://www.religioustolerance.org/mar_bibl0.htm

          1. Dale Hyde profile image87
            Dale Hydeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Well done Raptorcat! Most informative and an excellent post in itself. I would say as a Pagan/Teacher/Guide, that I am in full agreement with what you have shared in this comment.

            1. Raptorcat profile image61
              Raptorcatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Well, I only recently (just a few years ago) came out.  Most of the reason that I waited so long are the reasons that so many stay in the closet as both Bisexuals and as gay/lesbian persons; namely the prejudice of straights and, for us Bi's, many parts of the gay/lesbian community.
                LG and T's are very visible, but the B part is mostly ignored, covers a wide range of sexuality variations and is mostly invisible to everyone on both sides.  It is hard enough, even today, in the somewhat more tolerant era of enlightenment, but back when I was in the military, it was way beyond persecuted, so it made us all more than a little cautious about it, sometimes in fear for our safety, not just our careers.

              I can say, though that I am happy that our religion is a lot more olterant than orthodoxic ones.  I know of at least one BTW coven that is comprised almost entirely of gay/lesbian members.  The male/female dichotomy doesn't change, but the sexual preference also has no bearing on our practice for coven work.

              1. Dale Hyde profile image87
                Dale Hydeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                I agree about our Path certainly not discriminating against and LGBT family members.  One of the things that has intrigued me, is that many of the Native American Medicine Men were put in that position for being gay or bi. they were considered "sacred" beings in themselves.  This was simply because they were viewed to be able to see "both" sides and work with the masculine as well as the feminine aspects equally. I do classify Native American as Pagan......  to me any Path that is not Christian, Jewish or Muslim is Pagan.

                1. Raptorcat profile image61
                  Raptorcatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Living in very close proximity to 2 reservations (Miccosukee and Seminole), my experience has been that they tend to get rather put off when you call their culture Pagan.  They will, very clearly say that they are Shamanic, which while being under the very broad umbrella of Paganism, to us, they clearly feel they are not.

                  To a degree, I can see their point.
                  As to the sexuality thing, you are correct, in my early seeking years, I was trying to find teaching in 1st nations shamanism, but being only 1/12th Tsalagi, it was a line from the movie "fat chance" to find a shaman willing to even talk to me, let alone teach me; in my case, it may have been for the better.
                  But I digress.
                  I had read in some of the tribal histories that as part of many rituals, the tribes would use women or young girls for certain parts in many rituals, but when a Bisexual or Gay member of the tribe was available, they would use them for the same reasons that you mentioned, to mix the energies of both masculine and feminine.

                  Here, in western and Middle Eastern culture, we place far too much emphasis on sexuality and gender an not enough on humanity.

                  That tide is beginning to turn as society evolves away from primitive and prejudicial thinking toward a more enlightened perspective where people are truly judged on their words and deeds rather than their gender, sexual orientation, race or religion.

                  Of course, there will still be a few "hold-outs" like Kirk Cameron, Michele Bachmann and their versions of pseudo-Christian like the WBC, DWOC and other evangelicals, Rush Limbaugh and his hypocritical version of "being a man", as well as people that just refuse to adapt.
                  And like the primitive versions of human that came before us, they will die off as time passes.
                  To that, I say "good riddance". those outdated and backward thinking ideas are an anchor to society and to our own advancement as a civilization.

          2. EinderDarkwolf profile image60
            EinderDarkwolfposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            You are wholy and inexplicably right in this situation. People stand a chance to learn things when they actually decide to look for them. If you haven't yet, perhaps a hub on this would be nice.

          3. kess profile image60
            kessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            The man who reads to know, cannot write except from scripts...

            Who was the one boasting about genetics .....for a while I thoght it was me...lol

            Cant seem to get anything straight especially when I am agreeing with you

            1. Raptorcat profile image61
              Raptorcatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Spoken like a true non-thinker, young man.
              Don't confuse reading to know with reading to learn.
                Learning is what thinkers do.  We learn how to assess the knowledge that we read and draw conclusions based on that knowledge and on facts.
              That is the quality of the thinker and the learner.

                Clearly not what you have chosen to do.  Running with nothing but quotes shows no learning and, therefore, no thinking.

              And the off-handed, ad hominem, poorly slightly concealed minor snide remark is noted. (and very telling)

              Maybe once you see a few more cultures in the world and live amongst and associate with people that think differently, sometimes radically differently, than you do, you might just gain a little wisdom of the world.
              Not that any of that will help you if you continue to think that you know it all, when, in fact, you don't.  No one knows it all, but some of us know more than others.  Were waiting for you to show that you know more than just the usual canned responses.

              So either contribute or ask questions.  Don't presume that you have more experience than older, well traveled, better educated and more experienced people.
                I don't disrespect my elders the way you are doing, so I expect the same from you that I give to those wiser and better educated than myself.

              A little knowledge is a dangerous thing and you have demonstrated that you have only a little knowledge.

 
working