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.

It makes you bigoted if you act on those beliefs, i.e. go to a voting booth. Then you're not just "different." You're a bigot. And no, I don't have to respect anyone who does that.

No, it doesn't make you a bigot. I understand that it's easy to stoop to name-calling when you're frustrated, but try to rise above.

Yes it does. I know you have to find a way to reconcile yourself with yourself, but what people are doing is simply pointing out the facts. If you're free to have beliefs about things, well, that goes both ways and I don't have to respect you. That does make me frustrated. But it's not "name calling" when people are simply responding to the fallacy of how you choose to define something. You're trying to pound a square peg into a round hole and come out unscathed. Doesn't work that way. Bigotry is what it is, plain and simple.

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.

Anonymous wrote:Got cut off.

3. Being gay as a choice: no one would dare ask a heterosexual woman why she dated or married an Indian man. No one cares why a Latino may marry an Asian woman. Sure, everyone chooses to express their sexuality by being in a relationship, but does it matter whether or not it is a choice when the right to be in a marital relationship is fundamental to all? Again, if you don't find it acceptable...do.not.engage.

Hm, have you ever been in a serious, long-term relationship with someone of a different race?

Because people would and do ask, and people would and do care.

Part of the problem that some supporters of marriage equality have is that they like to talk about racism as if it's a dinosaur- something made extinct long ago. That's just not true, and you saying so makes me think you've never been in a relationship with someone of a different race. I support marriage equality, but some supporters can be really off-putting in some of the ignorant things they say.

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.

+1

I'm all for gay marriage, but I am so tired of the large segment of abrasive supporters who love telling black people how they should think.

Anonymous wrote:http://unicornbooty.com/blog/2011/08/19/a-few-words-on-gay-marriage-gay-lunch-and-gay-parking/

Why do we keep calling it "gay marriage" - isn't it just marriage?

And I love how we sign our names -

Signed -

A white, hetrosexual, married women, with brown hair and brown eyes, maybe 5'6 and 5-6 lbs overweight, I like rainbows and puppydogs, I wear size 7.5 shoes but sometimes lie about wearing 7 and have freckles on my nose and have a brown cockerspaniel and a 2.5 year old and I just finished eating a poptart.

Does that make my opinion on marriage more relevant then yours? I think the fact that I had a poptart for breakfast does.

So why is interracial marriage called interracial marriage? Why isn't it just referred to as marriage?

Some people are really focusing on the wrong thing. Adjectives are used to describe a noun. Of course we could just use the noun, but the adjective makes it more specific.

Of course marriage is marriage, whether it's a marriage of a black woman to a black man or a white man to an Asian man. But because the discussion is specifically about the rights of gay people to marry, it's referred to as gay marriage.

being black is not the same as being gay

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.

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.

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.

I guess y'all just won't get that telling people how they should feel based on how some others in their culture feel doesn't work.

Should I tell a white woman who thinks that contraceptives should be covered under all health insurance plans to pick up a copy of Forbes magazine so she can read an article about a feminist leader from the 60s who's against mandatory coverage of contraceptives?

To be clear, I support same-sex marriage, but if you're trying to get people who don't support your cause to support it, saying "Hey! This black person agrees with me so you should too!" is ineffective. But if you don't care about actually effecting helpful change, keep right on...

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.

Really? Are there lawsuits now against, say, Catholic churches that refuse to marry non-Catholics? This line of argument reminds me of the anti-ERA crowd who claimed that the ERA would lead to lawsuits forcing unisex bathrooms. Wacky!

What's wacky is that you missed my qualification about federal legalization.

Anonymous wrote:For those who went to UNC, Duke, NC State, Wake Forest, etc etc are you tearing up your diploma and saying you didn't go there?

Why would I? I support same-sex marriage, but most states in the US don't allow same-sex marriage.

If you parents (or grandparents) went to school in state where racial segregation was the policy, did they tear up their diplomas and say they were ashamed to have attended?

Don't think so.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If you like vanilla and I like chocolate, we have a difference of opinion, but you're not a bigot. (Wrong, but not a bigot.)

If you vote Republican and I vote Democrat, we have a difference of opinion, but you're not a bigot.

If you are in favor of denying equal rights to a group of citizens, we have a difference of opinion, AND you're a bigot. Surely you can see the difference?

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.

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.

Really? Are there lawsuits now against, say, Catholic churches that refuse to marry non-Catholics? This line of argument reminds me of the anti-ERA crowd who claimed that the ERA would lead to lawsuits forcing unisex bathrooms. Wacky!

Anonymous wrote:It's times like these I'm glad I'm not an American.

Although, it is interesting to see you argue about "rights" when you claim these things in your own Decleration of Independence. I guess you really are not the land of the free, or you are the land of the free as long as you are white and christian and don't want to marry someone of the same sex? Do I have that right?

The US is far from being the only nation where same-sex marriage is banned.

I am not a huge patriot, and it's great that (I'm assuming) same-sex marriage is legal where you are, but let's not pretend the US is the last homophobic nation on Earth.

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.