Before you make your summer plans to visit the Outerbanks ofNC

[Anonymous]

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".

If marriage has so many religious implications, why on earth is the government in the marriage business? If it is all about legal rights, why do churches get so much say? I'm not religious. I don't care what the Pope says about marriage, civil unions, birth control or anything else.

I think the states should only be allowed to offer civil unions to everyone. Marriage should be a matter left to the churches to officiate over as they see fit.

Do you know what a civil union is? Please look it up.

I'm fully aware of what a civil union is. If people want to hang on to the religious aspect of the word "marriage", what options do we have? Or, are civil unions not good enough for straight people?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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)?

How do you know what she does? How do you know that she didn't work in DC hard to lobby the City Council to allow marraige to be a right for homosexual partners? How do you know she doesn't work for the Human Right Campaign and lobbies on behalf of people for equal rights? Just because YOU are not active in voting or equal rights, doesn't mean that most people are not. In fact, most people I know are very active in equal rights for all.

You may want to step outside your shell - try a little "give a shit" and care about those other then yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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)?

And, I thought it was very witty.

[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.

Christians don’t have to accept homosexuality (although it would be in keeping with many of the tenets of the Church to do so). But it’s a big leap from not accepting something to actively introducing and supporting legislation that discriminates against whole classes of people. That’s the really unconscionable part of this (well, one of them) – how purported “Christians” wail “we are entitled to our beliefs,” then try to pass laws that deprive others of THEIR rights to believe what they want. Christians’ beliefs are their beliefs – great – but why should the government prefer those beliefs over others?

[Anonymous]

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.

That’s fine, I suppose – but are you consistent? Do you believe on the Bible’s stance on everything, with no room for negotiation? Slavery? The roles of women in society? Penalties for infidelity?

I suspect the answer to that question is no, of course you don't believe strictly with EVERYTHING the Bible says. So how do you pick and choose? Why do you support some Bible stances unconditionally and not others? Do you think homosexuality is more evil than slavery? The subjugation of women?

My point is not to attack you, but to illustrate that the reason many Christians and other religious people oppose gay marriage is NOT because the Bible says so - the Bible says a lot of things are anachronisms. That's just camouflage - a fig leaf to cover up the fact that the individuals in question, for some reason, are opposed to gay marriage and homosexuality.

[Anonymous]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/pam-spaulding/the-n-bomb-is-dropped-on_b_142363.html?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/pam-spaulding/the-n-bomb-is-dropped-on_b_142363.html?

disgusting

[Anonymous]

"Yes, there are similarities in the civil rights movement and the gay rights movement. There are similarities in our struggle for equal rights and each group has historically dealt with discrimination, hate crimes, and intolerance. Blacks have been murdered for no reason other than the color of the skin. Gays and lesbians have been murdered for no reason other than loving someone of the same gender. Housing and employment has been denied to members of both groups. There’s no denying that there are many similarities and while our struggle for equality can learn and be enriched by the history of the black civil rights movement we do an injustice by blurring the lines by saying “Gay is the new black.” Gay is not the new black. Gay is gay and that alone is reason enough to pursue our fundamental rights without riding the back of another movement. The bigger picture in all this is that it’s not about civil rights for blacks or marriage equality for queers but human rights for all. Whatever the minority group to which we belong all are human and are to be treated fairly and equally under the law and that’s there’s where I believe our focus would best to directed."

http://www.sisterfriends-together.org/gay-is-not-the-new-black/

[Anonymous]

I often wonder about how those who are against gay marriage are going to feel in 10, 15, 20+ years. Views on gay marriage have been rapidly changing toward acceptance, and even one of the Republican members of the NC legislature (sorry, don't remember his name) admitted that this new amendment will be repealed in the next 10 or 20 years as views change and tolerance increases. It's funny because we see a lot of posts on DCUM about how posters are embarrassed by their racist grandparents or parents. What's funny is that YOUR kids are the ones who will be complaining about that in 10 years. I imagine that there will be a lot of future adults who will be both embarrassed and disgusted by their parents' views against marriage equality. Yes, YOU will be that embarrassing (grand)parent that the kids will whisper about, and will not want to spend time with.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I often wonder about how those who are against gay marriage are going to feel in 10, 15, 20+ years. Views on gay marriage have been rapidly changing toward acceptance, and even one of the Republican members of the NC legislature (sorry, don't remember his name) admitted that this new amendment will be repealed in the next 10 or 20 years as views change and tolerance increases. It's funny because we see a lot of posts on DCUM about how posters are embarrassed by their racist grandparents or parents. What's funny is that YOUR kids are the ones who will be complaining about that in 10 years. I imagine that there will be a lot of future adults who will be both embarrassed and disgusted by their parents' views against marriage equality. Yes, YOU will be that embarrassing (grand)parent that the kids will whisper about, and will not want to spend time with.

I doubt it. Homosexuality ebbs and flows throughout history. Sometimes it is tolerated, sometimes it is trendy, but then there is the inevitable backlash. Comparing it to civil rights is silly. Gays are not going to separate schools and drinking out of separate water fountains. All of the rights they are looking for can be solved via contact rights.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I often wonder about how those who are against gay marriage are going to feel in 10, 15, 20+ years. Views on gay marriage have been rapidly changing toward acceptance, and even one of the Republican members of the NC legislature (sorry, don't remember his name) admitted that this new amendment will be repealed in the next 10 or 20 years as views change and tolerance increases. It's funny because we see a lot of posts on DCUM about how posters are embarrassed by their racist grandparents or parents. What's funny is that YOUR kids are the ones who will be complaining about that in 10 years. I imagine that there will be a lot of future adults who will be both embarrassed and disgusted by their parents' views against marriage equality. Yes, YOU will be that embarrassing (grand)parent that the kids will whisper about, and will not want to spend time with.

I doubt it. Homosexuality ebbs and flows throughout history. Sometimes it is tolerated, sometimes it is trendy, but then there is the inevitable backlash. Comparing it to civil rights is silly. Gays are not going to separate schools and drinking out of separate water fountains. All of the rights they are looking for can be solved via contact rights.

Enjoy being looked upon as a relic by your own children when they grow up, and a bigot by everyone else.

[Anonymous]

Saying something negative about homosexuals, doesn't automatically make you a bigot.

Yes, actually, it does,

[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.

Christians don’t have to accept homosexuality (although it would be in keeping with many of the tenets of the Church to do so). But it’s a big leap from not accepting something to actively introducing and supporting legislation that discriminates against whole classes of people. That’s the really unconscionable part of this (well, one of them) – how purported “Christians” wail “we are entitled to our beliefs,” then try to pass laws that deprive others of THEIR rights to believe what they want. Christians’ beliefs are their beliefs – great – but why should the government prefer those beliefs over others?

First, Christians don't have to accept homosexuality. The Bible teaches us to love the sinner, but hate the sin. So, no we don't have to accept (i.e. love) homosexuality.

Second, Christians aren't the only anti-homosexuality folks. But this is good press, so it works for most folks to think this. There are many Christians who are for gay marriage, just like there are many who are against it. Newsflash: Not all people who claim to be Christians, are Christians. And not all Christians are good people. That goes for all religions. You are going to find your extremists...same goes with atheism...some have an "eh" attitude and some are rabidly anti-religion. And not all gay people are tolerant of others not like them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That’s fine, I suppose – but are you consistent? Do you believe on the Bible’s stance on everything, with no room for negotiation? Slavery? The roles of women in society? Penalties for infidelity?

I suspect the answer to that question is no, of course you don't believe strictly with EVERYTHING the Bible says. So how do you pick and choose? Why do you support some Bible stances unconditionally and not others? Do you think homosexuality is more evil than slavery? The subjugation of women?

My point is not to attack you, but to illustrate that the reason many Christians and other religious people oppose gay marriage is NOT because the Bible says so - the Bible says a lot of things are anachronisms. That's just camouflage - a fig leaf to cover up the fact that the individuals in question, for some reason, are opposed to gay marriage and homosexuality.

If you are talking about OT laws, then no I don't follow them. Christians follow the NT.

[Anonymous]

Just cancelled our duck trip. Lost the deposit but worth it.