Before you make your summer plans to visit the Outerbanks ofNC

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What a terrible leap at logic. But you get points for trying.

I don't agree with homosexuality...I think it is unnatural and a perversion. I also believe it is a sin. HOWEVER, Christians are charged with hating the sin, but loving the sinner. Jesus Christ reached out to SINNERS, not believers. So, while I don't have to agree with your sin, I do have to love you as a person.

Everything is not so black and white. Like it or not, this isn't an either/or situation.

Please point out the logical fallacy.

You left something out - hate the sin, love the sinner - but what about enacting laws that prejudice the sinner? What is the churche's position on that?

And I think you'e confused about the definition of bigotry - it has nothing to do with hatred (although there is often a lot of overlap). - a bogot is, "a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, esp on religion, politics, or race." That intolerance manifested itself most recently in NC.

Finally, in all your platitudes about Christianity (I notice you left out tolerance), you never addressed WHY holdign those attitudes isn't bigoted.

Your post is the problem with some people.

Why is it necessary for Christians (or any religion for that matter because Judaism and Islam condemns homosexuality) to accept homosexuality? Is it not enough that some Christians don't agree with it, but still respect your right to pursue happiness?

I can't speak about Christians who don't support gay marriage because I am not one of them. Every person has their own reasons for why they do/don't support a particular issue. Being Christian does not make you of the same mindset of other Christians on all issues.

I believe in the Bible's stance on homosexuality. Period...there is no room for negotiation on this point. BUT, this is my personal belief system and I recognize that my personal beliefs shouldn't dictate another person's right to liberty.

I'm really not sure why you are persisting in arguing with me on this issue. I am not one of the anti-gay marriage Christian people that you are thirsting to argue with.

I'm not the PP you're arguing with but this is where the paths do not cross. What this thread is about is a bunch of people who did the exact opposite. If people just sat around and held onto their beliefs, whatever, fine, I probably won't like you very much but you don't infringe on me and my rights. That's not what happened here. People got off their couches and went to a voting booth and cast a ballot that said the exact opposite of what you said here. That's what people are upset about. What you wrote is just a red herring. It didn't happen here. They categorically disrespected the rights of gay people to pursue happiness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, And to those who dislike comparing marriage equality to the civil rights movement, please check out the July 2011 issue of black enterprise. There was an enlightening article about black political leaders who support the gay rights equality on the exact same tenants and principles as black civil rights. Why? Because equality is equality.

This is a funny (and inaccurate) line of reasoning. So, because some black people agree that the CRM/GRM are the same, all of us should fall in line? Sorry, but the days of speaking on behalf of black people are over. You don't get to say what we should and shouldn't believe. And we aren't going to be "guilted" into supporting something that we don't agree with. Get over it.

You don't get to own discrimination and persecution, honey.

Signed,
A German Jew

Who said anything about owning discrimination and persecution? I didn't realize we were in a contest of suffering and degradation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Maybe this doesn't resonate with you and others, but it does with some. You don't get to define a movement or someone's motivation. You, my dear, are not omnipotent. Entitled to your opinion? Yes, but you are not the sole source who speaks for everyone. Get over yourself.

Again, I'll repeat:

If that's the tactic you like to employ, continue. But I'm assuming I have greater insight into the community than you do. I see how it works (or doesn't). As long as you care about mostly about yourself and doing what you want to do, continue. If you care more about furthering the actual cause, you might want to employ different tactics.

We get it, we get it. You've repeated this same mantra for 50 posts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, And to those who dislike comparing marriage equality to the civil rights movement, please check out the July 2011 issue of black enterprise. There was an enlightening article about black political leaders who support the gay rights equality on the exact same tenants and principles as black civil rights. Why? Because equality is equality.

This is a funny (and inaccurate) line of reasoning. So, because some black people agree that the CRM/GRM are the same, all of us should fall in line? Sorry, but the days of speaking on behalf of black people are over. You don't get to say what we should and shouldn't believe. And we aren't going to be "guilted" into supporting something that we don't agree with. Get over it.

You don't get to own discrimination and persecution, honey.

Signed,
A German Jew

Where did the PP even say that? Where did she (or he) even mention discrimination or persecution?

Perhaps you should get over whatever chip you have on your shoulder, since you're irrelevantly bringing up the fact that you're a German Jew.

Signed,
does my ethnicity even matter in this discussion?

She's mentioned several times that she's an AA woman. Keep reading.

Yes, because the first poster quoted in this discussion was talking about black people and civil rights leaders. So the second poster responded to the first poster, again talking about black people and civil rights leaders. Then a third poster enters the discussion and whines about persecution and discrimination as a German Jew.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Maybe this doesn't resonate with you and others, but it does with some. You don't get to define a movement or someone's motivation. You, my dear, are not omnipotent. Entitled to your opinion? Yes, but you are not the sole source who speaks for everyone. Get over yourself.

Again, I'll repeat:

If that's the tactic you like to employ, continue. But I'm assuming I have greater insight into the community than you do. I see how it works (or doesn't). As long as you care about mostly about yourself and doing what you want to do, continue. If you care more about furthering the actual cause, you might want to employ different tactics.

We get it, we get it. You've repeated this same mantra for 50 posts.

You don't really get it, since you continue to do whatever makes *you* happy instead of what makes people see that marriage equality is the right thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'll elaborate. A lot of it comes down to religious freedom. If "marriage" can be expanded, the worry is how does that affect churches that don't believe marriage is possible other than between a man and a woman? Is the govt going to make catholic charities allow gay adoptions? Are they going to make them offer gay couples marriage housing at catholic universities? Are they going to make priests officiate at gay marriages? The separation of church and state is not as absolute as many as you think and would like.

Civil unions are fine, the issue is calling it "marriage".

This is a tired old argument. No one is saying that a gay couple can come into your church and you have to marry them. Gay marriage means that a couple who DOES find an open-minded church that wants to marry them, get to be as married as anybody else.

Your church is still free to be as bigoted as it wants.

If catholic charities and catholic universities are not churches, then yes, they are subject to the same laws about discrimination in housing as anybody else. Rather than rehash this, do a search on dcurbanmom.com and birth control +catholic.

Not the pp, but I will say this. You're fooling yourself if you believe that churches won't be forced to marry gay couples if gay marriage is made legal on a federal level. I can just see the lawsuits coming from gay people who were denied their personal freedom to marry at a church.

And again, just because a person has viewpoints that are different from your own does not make them bigoted. It makes them different. Please grow up and realize that we all don't have to think and/or feel the same to get along and have respect for one another.

Doubtful - "the church" whatever that is - I'm sure you know there are about a ZILLION of these things, wouldn't marry my brother and sister-in-law because of their interfaith beliefs. They had to go to another "the church" -

WHA???? There are more then one? Gasp!

Your post is damn near incoherent (too emotional, perhaps?). Please calm down and try again.

Emotion on this topic? Surely you jest - let me see if I can find people whose rights you are denying and tell them to calm down. I'm someone who things this is exactly the type of thing to get emotional about. I'll tell you that you can't visit your child in the hospital because you don't have the same rights as me and see how "calm" you take it.

Whose rights am I denying? When have I voted to ban gay marriage? Yeah, you didn't need to chill out.

I've done the same thing that you've done re: gay marriage. Nothing, because I have never voted on the issue. So, if I am denying rights to someone based on my (in)actions, so are you.
Are you able to discuss this issue without exaggeration?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

NotSoAnonymous wrote:Today I told my mom that I was disappointed about the NC vote, but that I had my chin up. Then I said something to the effect of "I don't care if they hate me, but they'd better not say anything nasty to my kid." (I am a gay parent)

She replied, "Oh honey, don't you get it? That feeling of wanting to protect your kids from the ugliness... That's how *I* feel, because I'm *your* mom."

I think it's this- parents friends and families of gay people who will turn the tide. Tell me my life is illegitimate all you like- I just hope you don't say it when my 60 year old mom is around. She'll mama bear your ass.

My midwestern-union-loving-blue-collar-bar-brawling family is like this. They love my gay brother, and if you dare say something negative his homosexuality, they will beat the shit out of you.

I doubt it. Otherwise, your family sound like savages.

They're forthcoming, honest, and fearless. And I happen to admire people who aren't afraid to kick the asses of bigots.

Saying something negative about homosexuals, doesn't automatically make you a bigot. Please broaden that blue collar mindset.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, And to those who dislike comparing marriage equality to the civil rights movement, please check out the July 2011 issue of black enterprise. There was an enlightening article about black political leaders who support the gay rights equality on the exact same tenants and principles as black civil rights. Why? Because equality is equality.

This is a funny (and inaccurate) line of reasoning. So, because some black people agree that the CRM/GRM are the same, all of us should fall in line? Sorry, but the days of speaking on behalf of black people are over. You don't get to say what we should and shouldn't believe. And we aren't going to be "guilted" into supporting something that we don't agree with. Get over it.

You don't get to own discrimination and persecution, honey.

Signed,
A German Jew

Where did the PP even say that? Where did she (or he) even mention discrimination or persecution?

Perhaps you should get over whatever chip you have on your shoulder, since you're irrelevantly bringing up the fact that you're a German Jew.

Signed,
does my ethnicity even matter in this discussion?

She's mentioned several times that she's an AA woman. Keep reading.

What does mentioning you are AA have to do with owning discrimination and persecution?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'll elaborate. A lot of it comes down to religious freedom. If "marriage" can be expanded, the worry is how does that affect churches that don't believe marriage is possible other than between a man and a woman? Is the govt going to make catholic charities allow gay adoptions? Are they going to make them offer gay couples marriage housing at catholic universities? Are they going to make priests officiate at gay marriages? The separation of church and state is not as absolute as many as you think and would like.

Civil unions are fine, the issue is calling it "marriage".

This is a tired old argument. No one is saying that a gay couple can come into your church and you have to marry them. Gay marriage means that a couple who DOES find an open-minded church that wants to marry them, get to be as married as anybody else.

Your church is still free to be as bigoted as it wants.

If catholic charities and catholic universities are not churches, then yes, they are subject to the same laws about discrimination in housing as anybody else. Rather than rehash this, do a search on dcurbanmom.com and birth control +catholic.

Not the pp, but I will say this. You're fooling yourself if you believe that churches won't be forced to marry gay couples if gay marriage is made legal on a federal level. I can just see the lawsuits coming from gay people who were denied their personal freedom to marry at a church.

And again, just because a person has viewpoints that are different from your own does not make them bigoted. It makes them different. Please grow up and realize that we all don't have to think and/or feel the same to get along and have respect for one another.

Doubtful - "the church" whatever that is - I'm sure you know there are about a ZILLION of these things, wouldn't marry my brother and sister-in-law because of their interfaith beliefs. They had to go to another "the church" -

WHA???? There are more then one? Gasp!

Your post is damn near incoherent (too emotional, perhaps?). Please calm down and try again.

Emotion on this topic? Surely you jest - let me see if I can find people whose rights you are denying and tell them to calm down. I'm someone who things this is exactly the type of thing to get emotional about. I'll tell you that you can't visit your child in the hospital because you don't have the same rights as me and see how "calm" you take it.

Whose rights am I denying? When have I voted to ban gay marriage? Yeah, you didn't need to chill out.

I've done the same thing that you've done re: gay marriage. Nothing, because I have never voted on the issue. So, if I am denying rights to someone based on my (in)actions, so are you.
Are you able to discuss this issue without exaggeration?

Honey, you need to realize you are arguing with multiple people - not just one. You do understand how a forum and the internet works right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Honey, you need to realize you are arguing with multiple people - not just one. You do understand how a forum and the internet works right?

I'm going to quote this because it is a good point. We're all anonymous here, but I see several people assuming that they are speaking with the same person.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'll elaborate. A lot of it comes down to religious freedom. If "marriage" can be expanded, the worry is how does that affect churches that don't believe marriage is possible other than between a man and a woman? Is the govt going to make catholic charities allow gay adoptions? Are they going to make them offer gay couples marriage housing at catholic universities? Are they going to make priests officiate at gay marriages? The separation of church and state is not as absolute as many as you think and would like.

Civil unions are fine, the issue is calling it "marriage".

This is a tired old argument. No one is saying that a gay couple can come into your church and you have to marry them. Gay marriage means that a couple who DOES find an open-minded church that wants to marry them, get to be as married as anybody else.

Your church is still free to be as bigoted as it wants.

If catholic charities and catholic universities are not churches, then yes, they are subject to the same laws about discrimination in housing as anybody else. Rather than rehash this, do a search on dcurbanmom.com and birth control +catholic.

Not the pp, but I will say this. You're fooling yourself if you believe that churches won't be forced to marry gay couples if gay marriage is made legal on a federal level. I can just see the lawsuits coming from gay people who were denied their personal freedom to marry at a church.

And again, just because a person has viewpoints that are different from your own does not make them bigoted. It makes them different. Please grow up and realize that we all don't have to think and/or feel the same to get along and have respect for one another.

Doubtful - "the church" whatever that is - I'm sure you know there are about a ZILLION of these things, wouldn't marry my brother and sister-in-law because of their interfaith beliefs. They had to go to another "the church" -

WHA???? There are more then one? Gasp!

Your post is damn near incoherent (too emotional, perhaps?). Please calm down and try again.

Emotion on this topic? Surely you jest - let me see if I can find people whose rights you are denying and tell them to calm down. I'm someone who things this is exactly the type of thing to get emotional about. I'll tell you that you can't visit your child in the hospital because you don't have the same rights as me and see how "calm" you take it.

Whose rights am I denying? When have I voted to ban gay marriage? Yeah, you didn't need to chill out.

I've done the same thing that you've done re: gay marriage. Nothing, because I have never voted on the issue. So, if I am denying rights to someone based on my (in)actions, so are you.
Are you able to discuss this issue without exaggeration?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What a terrible leap at logic. But you get points for trying.

I don't agree with homosexuality...I think it is unnatural and a perversion. I also believe it is a sin. HOWEVER, Christians are charged with hating the sin, but loving the sinner. Jesus Christ reached out to SINNERS, not believers. So, while I don't have to agree with your sin, I do have to love you as a person.

Everything is not so black and white. Like it or not, this isn't an either/or situation.

Please point out the logical fallacy.

You left something out - hate the sin, love the sinner - but what about enacting laws that prejudice the sinner? What is the churche's position on that?

And I think you'e confused about the definition of bigotry - it has nothing to do with hatred (although there is often a lot of overlap). - a bogot is, "a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, esp on religion, politics, or race." That intolerance manifested itself most recently in NC.

Finally, in all your platitudes about Christianity (I notice you left out tolerance), you never addressed WHY holdign those attitudes isn't bigoted.

Your post is the problem with some people.

Why is it necessary for Christians (or any religion for that matter because Judaism and Islam condemns homosexuality) to accept homosexuality? Is it not enough that some Christians don't agree with it, but still respect your right to pursue happiness?

I can't speak about Christians who don't support gay marriage because I am not one of them. Every person has their own reasons for why they do/don't support a particular issue. Being Christian does not make you of the same mindset of other Christians on all issues.

I believe in the Bible's stance on homosexuality. Period...there is no room for negotiation on this point. BUT, this is my personal belief system and I recognize that my personal beliefs shouldn't dictate another person's right to liberty.

I'm really not sure why you are persisting in arguing with me on this issue. I am not one of the anti-gay marriage Christian people that you are thirsting to argue with.

I'm not the PP you're arguing with but this is where the paths do not cross. What this thread is about is a bunch of people who did the exact opposite. If people just sat around and held onto their beliefs, whatever, fine, I probably won't like you very much but you don't infringe on me and my rights. That's not what happened here. People got off their couches and went to a voting booth and cast a ballot that said the exact opposite of what you said here. That's what people are upset about. What you wrote is just a red herring. It didn't happen here. They categorically disrespected the rights of gay people to pursue happiness.

This is what you fail to realize...the people who voted to ban gay marriage don't hold my same viewpoints. Remember that whole thing about people having different viewpoints?

So, while I don't agree with gay marriage, I would support it in a vote. Some people won't support it at all....I wouldn't have if you asked me a few months ago. Do you think all Christians should/do think alike? I can assure you that they don't.....and this is a shame for many different reasons.

Although I don't agree with those who voted the way they did in NC, I respect their decision to vote based on their own personal beliefs and opinions. I hope there comes a time when people can separate their religious beliefs (whatever the religion) from decisions that will negatively affect others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
She's mentioned several times that she's an AA woman. Keep reading.

In the same vein as the posts at 10:48 and 10:49, there's more than one black person posting in this thread. You're speaking with more than one person, so you can't really say with certainty that she's said she's AA several times.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'll elaborate. A lot of it comes down to religious freedom. If "marriage" can be expanded, the worry is how does that affect churches that don't believe marriage is possible other than between a man and a woman? Is the govt going to make catholic charities allow gay adoptions? Are they going to make them offer gay couples marriage housing at catholic universities? Are they going to make priests officiate at gay marriages? The separation of church and state is not as absolute as many as you think and would like.

Civil unions are fine, the issue is calling it "marriage".

This is a tired old argument. No one is saying that a gay couple can come into your church and you have to marry them. Gay marriage means that a couple who DOES find an open-minded church that wants to marry them, get to be as married as anybody else.

Your church is still free to be as bigoted as it wants.

If catholic charities and catholic universities are not churches, then yes, they are subject to the same laws about discrimination in housing as anybody else. Rather than rehash this, do a search on dcurbanmom.com and birth control +catholic.

Not the pp, but I will say this. You're fooling yourself if you believe that churches won't be forced to marry gay couples if gay marriage is made legal on a federal level. I can just see the lawsuits coming from gay people who were denied their personal freedom to marry at a church.

And again, just because a person has viewpoints that are different from your own does not make them bigoted. It makes them different. Please grow up and realize that we all don't have to think and/or feel the same to get along and have respect for one another.

Doubtful - "the church" whatever that is - I'm sure you know there are about a ZILLION of these things, wouldn't marry my brother and sister-in-law because of their interfaith beliefs. They had to go to another "the church" -

WHA???? There are more then one? Gasp!

Your post is damn near incoherent (too emotional, perhaps?). Please calm down and try again.

Emotion on this topic? Surely you jest - let me see if I can find people whose rights you are denying and tell them to calm down. I'm someone who things this is exactly the type of thing to get emotional about. I'll tell you that you can't visit your child in the hospital because you don't have the same rights as me and see how "calm" you take it.

Whose rights am I denying? When have I voted to ban gay marriage? Yeah, you didn't need to chill out.

I've done the same thing that you've done re: gay marriage. Nothing, because I have never voted on the issue. So, if I am denying rights to someone based on my (in)actions, so are you.
Are you able to discuss this issue without exaggeration?

Honey, you need to realize you are arguing with multiple people - not just one. You do understand how a forum and the internet works right?

How does your post change the fact that this person probably has not (like me) participated in a vote re: gay marriage. In essence, what is your point (in your attempt to look witty, I think you lost it)?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What a terrible leap at logic. But you get points for trying.

I don't agree with homosexuality...I think it is unnatural and a perversion. I also believe it is a sin. HOWEVER, Christians are charged with hating the sin, but loving the sinner. Jesus Christ reached out to SINNERS, not believers. So, while I don't have to agree with your sin, I do have to love you as a person.

Everything is not so black and white. Like it or not, this isn't an either/or situation.

Please point out the logical fallacy.

You left something out - hate the sin, love the sinner - but what about enacting laws that prejudice the sinner? What is the churche's position on that?

And I think you'e confused about the definition of bigotry - it has nothing to do with hatred (although there is often a lot of overlap). - a bogot is, "a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, esp on religion, politics, or race." That intolerance manifested itself most recently in NC.

Finally, in all your platitudes about Christianity (I notice you left out tolerance), you never addressed WHY holdign those attitudes isn't bigoted.

Your post is the problem with some people.

Why is it necessary for Christians (or any religion for that matter because Judaism and Islam condemns homosexuality) to accept homosexuality? Is it not enough that some Christians don't agree with it, but still respect your right to pursue happiness?

I can't speak about Christians who don't support gay marriage because I am not one of them. Every person has their own reasons for why they do/don't support a particular issue. Being Christian does not make you of the same mindset of other Christians on all issues.

I believe in the Bible's stance on homosexuality. Period...there is no room for negotiation on this point. BUT, this is my personal belief system and I recognize that my personal beliefs shouldn't dictate another person's right to liberty.

I'm really not sure why you are persisting in arguing with me on this issue. I am not one of the anti-gay marriage Christian people that you are thirsting to argue with.

I'm not the PP you're arguing with but this is where the paths do not cross. What this thread is about is a bunch of people who did the exact opposite. If people just sat around and held onto their beliefs, whatever, fine, I probably won't like you very much but you don't infringe on me and my rights. That's not what happened here. People got off their couches and went to a voting booth and cast a ballot that said the exact opposite of what you said here. That's what people are upset about. What you wrote is just a red herring. It didn't happen here. They categorically disrespected the rights of gay people to pursue happiness.

This is what you fail to realize...the people who voted to ban gay marriage don't hold my same viewpoints. Remember that whole thing about people having different viewpoints?

So, while I don't agree with gay marriage, I would support it in a vote. Some people won't support it at all....I wouldn't have if you asked me a few months ago. Do you think all Christians should/do think alike? I can assure you that they don't.....and this is a shame for many different reasons.

Although I don't agree with those who voted the way they did in NC, I respect their decision to vote based on their own personal beliefs and opinions. I hope there comes a time when people can separate their religious beliefs (whatever the religion) from decisions that will negatively affect others.

I didn't fail to realize that which is why I actually pointed that out.