New York State passes gay marriage bill

[KarlMarx]

ALBANY, N.Y. – At New York City's Stonewall Inn, the Greenwich Village pub that spawned the gay rights movement on a June night in 1969, Scott Redstone watched New York pass a historic same-sex marriage law with his partner of 29 years, and popped the question.


"I said, `Will you marry me?' And he said, `Of course!'" Redstone said he and Steven Knittweis walked home to pop open a bottle of champagne....


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_gay_marriage_ny

[abso]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_gay_marriage_ny

it's sad to learn how morals and religion are disappearing in USA more and more each year.

[darin]

So unfair to opposite sex couples. :(

[Missileman]

So unfair to opposite sex couples. :(

In what way?

[Gunny]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_gay_marriage_ny

Big deal.

[revelarts]

Sadly we're become more and more a Post-Christan Culture.
We're not Europe yet but we're moving in that direction.

Also It goes to show what an Irate minority can do. With the help of big media conglomerates and public schools of course.

May God be merciful.

[Gunny]

In what way?

Still trying to play this same "dumb" argument, huh? The answer's the same as the last 1000 times you've tried to wordsmith your way around the argument.

It's STILL the tyranny of the whining minority and or people progressives like yourself determined to argue that abnormal is normal and our laws should cater to the aberrant minority.

[Missileman]

Still trying to play this same "dumb" argument, huh? The answer's the same as the last 1000 times you've tried to wordsmith your way around the argument.

It's STILL the tyranny of the whining minority and or people progressives like yourself determined to argue that abnormal is normal and our laws should cater to the aberrant minority.

It wasn't some judge ruling from the bench, the bill was passed through proper legislative channels by duly elected officials. You can whine about tyranny until the cows come home OR if you don't like what happened, you can vote out those who passed the bill and go for a repeal. Either way, take the knot out of your panties and attempt to answer the question I asked instead of attempting deflection.

[Dante]

Sadly we're become more and more a Post-Christan Culture.
We're not Europe yet but we're moving in that direction.

Also It goes to show what an Irate minority can do. With the help of big media conglomerates and public schools of course.

May God be merciful.

Irate minority? Here is Madison speaking about majority factions like the Christian right

Federalist 10/Madison: "By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens..."

People like you are dedicated and highly motivated to go against the 'rights' of other citizens

[revelarts]

Irate minority? Here is Madison speaking about majority factions like the Christian right

Federalist 10/Madison: "By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens..."

People like you are dedicated and highly motivated to go against the 'rights' of other citizens

Hmmm

Somehow I imagine Madison would agree with me on this one.

[logroller]

Irate minority? Here is Madison speaking about majority factions like the Christian right

Federalist 10/Madison: "By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens..."

People like you are dedicated and highly motivated to go against the 'rights' of other citizens

The Federalists papers are a great source for interpretation, but aren't law; what you are referencing is codified in the Ninth Amendment.

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


Sadly we're become more and more a Post-Christan Culture.
We're not Europe yet but we're moving in that direction.


Rev, I agree with your commentary, that we are moving away from dogmatic conditions; however, no legal or policy concerns present themselves. Conversely, gov't promoting, condoning or preventing same sex marriage based on dogmatic beliefs would be unconstitutional irregardless of public sentiment. If marriage, by covenant, is restricted to only a certain class of persons, be they gay, straight, black or white, govt should have no role in it; for our government is founded upon equality of its citizens, in direct opposition to the enlightened despotism which plagued Europe in the time leading to our independence. To say we are becoming like Europe is misleading for, in many ways, they have become more like us, inspired by our freedom from govt oppression, and not the other way around.

[DragonStryk72]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_gay_marriage_ny

Alright, way to go NY. More liberty is a good thing.

[DragonStryk72]

Sadly we're become more and more a Post-Christan Culture.
We're not Europe yet but we're moving in that direction.

Also It goes to show what an Irate minority can do. With the help of big media conglomerates and public schools of course.

May God be merciful.

I'm starting to think Christians in general are starting to decide they know God's mind, and that's just not possible.

[revelarts]

I'm starting to think Christians in general are starting to decide they know God's mind, and that's just not possible.

Some things in the Bible are very clear others not so much.
This issue is clear.
God says it's perversion.
Atheist and other non-Christians agree on that reading pretty much.

I'm not sure why you would think it's not possible for anyone (but especially Christians) to know God's mind on this.

[revelarts]

Rev, I agree with your commentary, that we are moving away from dogmatic conditions; however, no legal or policy concerns present themselves. Conversely, gov't promoting, condoning or preventing same sex marriage based on dogmatic beliefs would be unconstitutional irregardless of public sentiment. If marriage, by covenant, is restricted to only a certain class of persons, be they gay, straight, black or white, govt should have no role in it; for our government is founded upon equality of its citizens, in direct opposition to the enlightened despotism which plagued Europe in the time leading to our independence. To say we are becoming like Europe is misleading for, in many ways, they have become more like us, inspired by our freedom from govt oppression, and not the other way around.

What you call "dogmatic conditions" I'd call simple culturally Christian morality.

And as you mention conversely there are "Legal and policy concerns" from gov't promoting those marriages, related to freedom of religion. Gov't stationed marriage carries with it legal obligations on businesses and institutions that may be compelled "religiously" not to recognize it.
bit of policy problem, just to name 1.

And your Right Europe has changed in some ways to be more like the U.S. Freedom wise. But I was talking about their almost complete loss of a spiritual Christian perspective. They once were , for better and worse, an extremely religious if not always spiritual people. At the very least they gave respect and held the Christian ethos , derived from their understanding of scriptures, was basically true and good. Now Europe is twisting in the wind morally with no common anchor for justice or morality except the smoke of the old Christian culture found embedded in thier laws and languages.

[logroller]

What you call "dogmatic conditions" I'd call simple culturally Christian morality.
I was intentionally broad in my description, as a wide variance of morals exist within a religion, let alone between them. To be more specific, America is judeo-christian, not merely Christian.


And as you mention conversely there are "Legal and policy concerns" from gov't promoting those marriages, related to freedom of religion. Gov't stationed marriage carries with it legal obligations on businesses and institutions that may be compelled "religiously" not to recognize it.
bit of policy problem, just to name 1.
I'm sure interracial marriage drew a great deal of controversy too, with people who rejected it "religiously"(culturally), but few today would say blacks and whites shouldn't intermarry.



And your Right Europe has changed in some ways to be more like the U.S. Freedom wise. But I was talking about their almost complete loss of a spiritual Christian perspective. They once were , for better and worse, an extremely religious if not always spiritual people. At the very least they gave respect and held the Christian ethos , derived from their understanding of scriptures, was basically true and good. Now Europe is twisting in the wind morally with no common anchor for justice or morality except the smoke of the old Christian culture found embedded in thier laws and languages.

It's weird for me because, like abortion, I'm personally against it, but I can't justify any govt intervention. The only solutions I see as just would be removal of civil marriage or its openness to all. If it doesn't promote "liberty and justice for all", then its not the business of govt to intervene.

[logroller]

Some things in the Bible are very clear others not so much.
This issue is clear.
God says it's perversion.
Atheist and other non-Christians agree on that reading pretty much.

I'm not sure why you would think it's not possible for anyone (but especially Christians) to know God's mind on this.

We agree on what the Bible says, but is the Constitution unclear on separation of religion and state? What is the "compelling interest" of government in state-recognized marriage?

[logroller]

it's sad to learn how morals and religion are disappearing in USA more and more each year.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't morals disappearing everywhere, even among avowed religious peoples?
Sad indeed.

[DragonStryk72]

Some things in the Bible are very clear others not so much.
This issue is clear.
God says it's perversion.
Atheist and other non-Christians agree on that reading pretty much.

I'm not sure why you would think it's not possible for anyone (but especially Christians) to know God's mind on this.

We're not supposed to get drunk or have pre-marital sex. In fact, it's technically sinful to have sex for any reason other than procreation, or in any position aside from missionary. Hell, it's a sin to eat meat on a Friday. As Jesus taught, we are all of us sinners from the day we are born to the day we die. Trying to make it like homosexuality is somehow worse than all the others various sins is more than a little dishonest, don't you think?

Because "You Cannot Know God" is a quote from Christ. Yup, six years of Catholic school talking here. You can't know God, that's why it's called faith and not knowledge.

[Missileman]

Some things in the Bible are very clear others not so much.
This issue is clear.
God says it's perversion.
Atheist and other non-Christians agree on that reading pretty much

I'm not sure why you would think it's not possible for anyone (but especially Christians) to know God's mind on this.

How about for starters that there is no mind to know?

[darin]

In what way?

Normal couples cannot get 'partner' benefits from most states / companies. Gives benefits to queer couples; another law to protect special interests/class/group of citizens.



it's sad to learn how morals and religion are disappearing in USA more and more each year.

At LEAST we don't KILL folks we think as 'sinners', as do Islamic-lead societies.

[Missileman]

Normal couples cannot get 'partner' benefits from most states / companies. Gives benefits to queer couples; another law to protect special interests/class/group of citizens.

Are you referring to non-married couples?

[Kathianne]

Truth to tell, I don't care who sleeps with whom. That's their problem or not. Personally I really hate couples that make others uncomfortable with public displays of affection. Again, it's a matter of common decency and a bit of restraint I guess.

With the whole issue of gay marriage, I'm glad to see that states deciding if they will legalize or not-not the fed.

The DOMA should never have been passed, this was a case of Clinton caving for polling with the far right. Folks, if Roe was wrong and it was bad law, then so was DOMA.

[revelarts]

We're not supposed to get drunk or have pre-marital sex. In fact, it's technically sinful to have sex for any reason other than procreation, or in any position aside from missionary. Hell, it's a sin to eat meat on a Friday. As Jesus taught, we are all of us sinners from the day we are born to the day we die. Trying to make it like homosexuality is somehow worse than all the others various sins is more than a little dishonest, don't you think?

Because "You Cannot Know God" is a quote from Christ. Yup, six years of Catholic school talking here. You can't know God, that's why it's called faith and not knowledge.

If you can't know what God thinks how do you know about drunkenness pre-maritail sex etc.. And SIN in general. we do know plenty.
Dragon, No one is trying to make one thing worse than another.
Extramarital sex is Grounds for divorce. It's a sin too.

Murder is a sin in the Bible
it's also the Illegal.
should that be thrown out?

Stealing is a sin in the Bible
it's also the Illegal under U.S. law.
should that be thrown out because of "separation of Church and state"?

Adultery is a Sin in the Bible.
Adultery used to be illegal in the old days in many parts. It still has legal consequences in divorce proceeding. The adulterer is "at fault" . Or the adultery is a grounds for divorce. As it is in the Bible. Should that be thrown out because of "separation of Church and state"?


See here's part of my point. there used to be a general cultural agreement on what was right and wrong. That there was a universally accepted right and wrong.
And it was codified in our laws. In the U.S. the core of those Ideas of right and wrong came powerfully from various understandings of the the Bible.


There was no such thing as no fault divorce in this country, Why? because people thought it was wrong to divorce for no reason. Why did they think that? Well way back somewhere people read the Bible and it said so and that's why.

Over the past 70 yrs many laws that clearly came strait out of Scriptures have been ignored or nullified. For instance sabbath day laws, no one thought of separation there, why, because most everyone thought it was the right thing to do. God said so. AND even if not Christian. a day off. rest . It's from the Bible sure but it's a good practice a positive for the community.

Biblical practices are not necessarily solely of religious benefit, they do have universal community benefits. They were built that way. Very few would argue that celibacy before marriage, fidelity in marriage, a day of rest once a week, not murdering, not lying, not stealing, honoring your parents, watching your tongue, loving your neighbors and encourage you children and neighbors to do the same is BAD for you.
Many may not like it, but most wouldn't say it's negative.

BACK in the DAY people thought those things and many other Godly Items should be put into the law.

But now people don't "see" the value of many of the rules. And have little understanding of the reality of the source. Imagining that it's just old men 1000s of years ago instead of the God who made us and has a decent idea of how humans behave and how we should behave for His and our mutual benefit.

But people imagine that some nice guy God, who we can't know anything about, will give us the benefits of a safe and civilized society without promoting personal virtues, like self control and sexual purity etcc.

Hows that working for us so far?
Children born out of wedlock, STDs, Abortion, porn, sexualzation of children etc etc..

I lived in a city where sexual freedom in the form of prostitution was allowed in the downtown area's for years without any real legal crack down. there were seddy bars, no tell motels and other crime. Nobody went there unless they were looking for that type of thing. the whole area became blighted. the rest of the city got fed up and elected council to clean it up, it took a few years but now you can take your kids downtown and eat and go the freaking park.
Some may like the freedom of the before, but personally I like the freedom of the After.

[Missileman]

If you can't know what God thinks how do you know about drunkenness pre-maritail sex etc.. And SIN in general. we do know plenty.
Dragon, No one is trying to make one thing worse than another.
Extramarital sex is Grounds for divorce. It's a sin too.

Murder is a sin in the Bible
it's also the Illegal.
should that be thrown out?

Stealing is a sin in the Bible
it's also the Illegal under U.S. law.
should that be thrown out because of "separation of Church and state"?

Adultery is a Sin in the Bible.
Adultery used to be illegal in the old days in many parts. It still has legal consequences in divorce proceeding. The adulterer is "at fault" . Or the adultery is a grounds for divorce. As it is in the Bible. Should that be thrown out because of "separation of Church and state"?



How many of the 10 Commandments are codified in US law? BTW, if homosexuality is such a huge sin in the eyes of God, wouldn't it stand to reasin it would make a list of "commandments"?

[fj1200]

... culturally Christian morality.

... spiritual Christian perspective.

If a "Christian morality" deigns to tell a segment of the population that they are limited in their options and morally bankrupt then that "Christian perspective" shouldn't have the force of law. You can't on the one hand tell people that they are a sinner and on the other expect them to come running back to a church that rejects them.

[fj1200]

Gives benefits to queer couples; another law to protect special interests/class/group of citizens.

I don't believe there were any laws mandating those benefits, rather private businesses expanding their benefits packages to include partner benefits.

[logroller]

I don't believe there were any laws mandating those benefits, rather private businesses expanding their benefits packages to include partner benefits.

My wife is the only benefis provider in my household, and yet we are all covered. So actually, when I think about it; some, if not many, benefits given to married couples exceed the costs of those of the individual. Sure they might pay a little less, but I'm a family of five and I'm quite sure my wife doesn't pay five time s more for her benefits. so single people have an exceedingly greater tort regarding benefits than do married couples, gay or straight. But that's a private business matter; at least it should be.:thumb:

Likewise, if the establishment deems promoting family values over the more "generally applicable" right to marry because marriage is inextricably tied to a specific religious practice allowing for only a man and woman, then the protected interests, as dmp scorned, are more specifically the hetero-sexual married persons and not the individual, gay or straight. Constitutionality...FAIL.

[darin]

Are you referring to non-married couples?

absolutely. These kinds of laws grant special rights to select groups.

[fj1200]

absolutely. These kinds of laws grant special rights to select groups.

Such as?

[Missileman]

absolutely. These kinds of laws grant special rights to select groups.

NY just passed a law to allow gay couples to marry...I fail to see how that is unfair to unmarried straight couples as they are allowed to marry also.

[jimnyc]

It's been a VERY embarrassing few days to be a New Yorker. First they pass the bill, then they celebrate with the annual queer parade. 80% of them must have been dressed like the abnormal nuts they are. Men dressed as women, women as men, makeup on men with chaps and asses hanging out... The display they put on in the city was nothing more than disgusting and pure filth, and in normal times past would have been banned.

If they want to be accepted, and be treated equally, why not fucking ACT AND DRESS that way instead of making believe they are fruit loop martians?

Fuck 'em, I'll still treat them as 3rd class shitheads if they want to act that way.

[darin]

Such as?


NY just passed a law to allow gay couples to marry...I fail to see how that is unfair to unmarried straight couples as they are allowed to marry also.


The gov't is now showing it caters to behaviour of a select few residents/citizens. The government, thus allows a certain group (those who like same-gender sexual relations) to enter into legal marriage while denying that to other citizens (young, people-animals, etc).

[Missileman]

The gov't is now showing it caters to behaviour of a select few residents/citizens. The government, thus allows a certain group (those who like same-gender sexual relations) to enter into legal marriage while denying that to other citizens (young, people-animals, etc).

It sounds an awful lot like you're pissed off that you can't marry a goat. Gay marriage does nothing more than include ALL consenting adults in behavior previously reserved for SOME consenting adults.

That said, you still haven't explained your original complaint that gay marriage is unfair to un-married straight couples.


It's been a VERY embarrassing few days to be a New Yorker. First they pass the bill, then they celebrate with the annual queer parade. 80% of them must have been dressed like the abnormal nuts they are. Men dressed as women, women as men, makeup on men with chaps and asses hanging out... The display they put on in the city was nothing more than disgusting and pure filth, and in normal times past would have been banned.

If they want to be accepted, and be treated equally, why not fucking ACT AND DRESS that way instead of making believe they are fruit loop martians?

Fuck 'em, I'll still treat them as 3rd class shitheads if they want to act that way.

What happened to the sentiment that the only thing that made a display offensive was public funding?

[darin]

It sounds an awful lot like you're pissed off that you can't marry a goat. Gay marriage does nothing more than include ALL consenting adults in behavior previously reserved for SOME consenting adults.

That said, you still haven't explained your original complaint that gay marriage is unfair to un-married straight couples.



Two 17 year olds. or a 17 year old and a 24 year old. Or open relationships with 4, 5, or even 20 'loving, consenting adults'. I'm saying, NY created a special law to address a very small - but zealous - part of their population, while thumbing their nose at OTHER groups with other sexual preferences, regardless of gender.

[jimnyc]

What happened to the sentiment that the only thing that made a display offensive was public funding?

When did I say that, genuis? I stated back then that I wouldn't protest displays by the filthy queers, unless it was a display put up by public funding, which this was not. Trouble remembering your details, queer lover? :laugh2:

[Missileman]

When did I say that, genuis? I stated back then that I wouldn't protest displays by the filthy queers, unless it was a display put up by public funding, which this was not. Trouble remembering your details, queer lover? :laugh2:

Not near as much as you have remembering your last post it appears. Pretty sure this


Originally Posted by jimnyc
It's been a VERY embarrassing few days to be a New Yorker. First they pass the bill, then they celebrate with the annual queer parade. 80% of them must have been dressed like the abnormal nuts they are. Men dressed as women, women as men, makeup on men with chaps and asses hanging out... The display they put on in the city was nothing more than disgusting and pure filth, and in normal times past would have been banned.

If they want to be accepted, and be treated equally, why not fucking ACT AND DRESS that way instead of making believe they are fruit loop martians?

Fuck 'em, I'll still treat them as 3rd class shitheads if they want to act that way.

is textbook protestation.

[logroller]

Such as?

Abolition and suffrage. Keeping the white man down:laugh:

[logroller]

The gov't is now showing it caters to behaviour of a select few residents/citizens. The government, thus allows a certain group (those who like same-gender sexual relations) to enter into legal marriage while denying that to other citizens (young, people-animals, etc).

Animals are citizens???

[revelarts]

Animals are citizens???

If they enlist in the military they are.

(You know after I wrote this and Reread it I thought, Some people here might get the wrong impression. Let me be clear, I'm talking about dogs, cats and horses etc.. not any brand of people. )

[fj1200]

The gov't is now showing it caters to behaviour of a select few residents/citizens. The government, thus allows a certain group (those who like same-gender sexual relations) to enter into legal marriage while denying that to other citizens (young, people-animals, etc).

The government is now showing it is NOT keeping a select group of citizens from the automatic benefits of marriage. Personally I think the government should no longer sanction marriage but rather review "marriage" disputes as a matter of contract law.

BTW, the "young" and "animals" do not have the capacity to enter into a legal contract.

[jimnyc]

Not near as much as you have remembering your last post it appears. Pretty sure this



is textbook protestation.

Don't be a dickhead and just admit you remembered incorrectly. 99 out of 100 people would hear the word "protest" and immediately think of people standing outside "protesting" or writing to their local or federal politicians. I simply voiced my disgust. You're playing semantics because you played the game of "gotcha" and lost.

[jimnyc]

The government is now showing it is NOT keeping a select group of citizens from the automatic benefits of marriage. Personally I think the government should no longer sanction marriage but rather review "marriage" disputes as a matter of contract law.

BTW, the "young" and "animals" do not have the capacity to enter into a legal contract.

And what do you say about those who want to marry relatives, or have multiple wives? Why can't they do what makes them happy? Equality for EVERYONE damnit!!!

[Dilloduck]

The government is now showing it is NOT keeping a select group of citizens from the automatic benefits of marriage. Personally I think the government should no longer sanction marriage but rather review "marriage" disputes as a matter of contract law.

BTW, the "young" and "animals" do not have the capacity to enter into a legal contract.

well there's another "injustice" that needs to be rectified. I'm sure the libs are on it already

[jimnyc]

well there's another "injustice" that needs to be rectified. I'm sure the libs are on it already

The libs are in hiding now that Obama is running wars and trashing our constitution. They'll be released again when the next (R) president comes around.

[gabosaurus]

When did I say that, genuis? I stated back then that I wouldn't protest displays by the filthy queers, unless it was a display put up by public funding, which this was not. Trouble remembering your details, queer lover? :laugh2:

I am waiting for one of your kids to come out of the closet. Please remember to post your reaction.


The gov't is now showing it caters to behaviour of a select few residents/citizens. The government, thus allows a certain group (those who like same-gender sexual relations) to enter into legal marriage while denying that to other citizens (young, people-animals, etc).

Good to see dmp support the rights of pedophiles to marry their conquests.

[jimnyc]

I am waiting for one of your kids to come out of the closet. Please remember to post your reaction.

I'd really rather you don't bring my son into this discussion, unprovoked. But my kid will never have to come out of any "closet". He's already on his way to being a MAN as he's been taught properly and brought up properly.

Is this where I take a swipe at your daughter based on your beliefs and points of view? No thanks, I'll take the high road for once.

[gabosaurus]

I'd really rather you don't bring my son into this discussion, unprovoked. But my kid will never have to come out of any "closet". He's already on his way to being a MAN as he's been taught properly and brought up properly.

Is this where I take a swipe at your daughter based on your beliefs and points of view? No thanks, I'll take the high road for once.

All I am saying is that your son has as much of a chance of being gay as my daughter. Because homosexuality is genetic. Some of history's most heroic and masculine men have been gay. Also, some of the most conservative families in the U.S. have raised gay/lesbian children. Look at Dick Cheney. Are you saying that his family was not taught or brought up properly?

[jimnyc]

All I am saying is that your son has as much of a chance of being gay as my daughter. Because homosexuality is genetic. Some of history's most heroic and masculine men have been gay. Also, some of the most conservative families in the U.S. have raised gay/lesbian children. Look at Dick Cheney. Are you saying that his family was not taught or brought up properly?

Again, show me proof of this gay gene that the scientific community agrees upon.

As Fat Fuck Virgil would say, I'll wait...

[KarlMarx]

I'm starting to think Christians in general are starting to decide they know God's mind, and that's just not possible.
There's a fallacy to this argument. First, Christians do not claim to KNOW the mind of God. As in Isaiah 40:13 "Who knows the mind of God, who has been his counselor?".

Since we do not know the mind of God, then how do we know what He wants? . Christians (at least those who believe that the Bible is God's revealed word) believe that God speaks through the Bible.

Genesis 2:24 "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." - there, that's what the Bible says about marriage... see? Man.. wife... pretty obvious that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Since you don't expect gays to be straight or pretend to act as if they are attracted to members of the opposite sex. In fact, you expect them to express themselves as gay people. You would probably say that they are being true to themselves by acting as gays.

Nor would you expect a person who professes to love his country to turn and betray his own country, would you? No, you would call that man a coward and a turncoat.

If you expect gay people to act as gays, and a citizen of a country to stand for his country, then why do you expect Christians, who profess that the Bible is God's revealed word to act as if the Bible has nothing to say about the subject of homosexuality when, in fact, it makes clear statements about the matter (Leviticus 18:22, Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, )? Christians aren't hateful for standing up for what they believe is right any more than a person who loves his country isn't hateful for standing up for his country.

Furthermore, there have been many instances throughout history where Christians and figures in the Old and New Testaments have been pressured into compromising their beliefs in order to expedite some political end. For instance, in the Book of Esther, Mordacai would not bow to the king because Jews were not to bow to anyone but the Lord. Christians were tortured, exiled, beaten, and killed simply because they did not recognize the divinity of the Roman Emperor. Today's situation is no different. Christians refuse to compromise their beliefs that a politically motivated pressure group (the Radical Gay Left) is putting on them. The labels are pretty much the same, "hateful", "bigot", "religious extremist". That's the way of the World and always will be... but in the end, Christians believe that God and His way, as expressed in the Bible will win out in the end.

[gabosaurus]

We have had this argument before. More than once, in fact. People have posted scientific studies. You have chosen not to believe them. I believe RSR has posted right-wing responses
I have seen the studies and studied them in college.

There are people out there who don't believe in mental illness. They don't believe you can develop asthma. Or heart conditions. They believe determines who gets sick and who doesn't.

[jimnyc]

We have had this argument before. More than once, in fact. People have posted scientific studies. You have chosen not to believe them. I believe RSR has posted right-wing responses
I have seen the studies and studied them in college.

There are people out there who don't believe in mental illness. They don't believe you can develop asthma. Or heart conditions. They believe determines who gets sick and who doesn't.

No, sorry, a found and proven gene would be worldwide news and would be a day for ages, no? You can't find it in other than a few wackjob papers. You will not find a gay gene as it just doesn't exist.

Mental illness has been studied and peer reviewed - and they are in agreement.

Asthma can be scientifically "proven and shown" in the medical community.

Heart conditions can be found and shown, and even healed, which is pretty good proof of the existence.

Now show us a gay gene that the entire medical community stands behind and we'll talk. Otherwise, as usual, you are wrong.

[gabosaurus]

Genetic science in the U.S. is fairly unencumbered.. until someone tries to change ideas for sexual preference. Our society has a lot of pre-established medieval mindsets that associate homosexuality with evil deviancy. Anyone who attempts to prove otherwise is immediately discredited and often left unfunded.
Perhaps someday we will find someone who is not afraid to speak the truth. Without ignorant bigots slapping them in the face with religious artifacts.

http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-07/has-gay-gene-been-found-female-mice

[logroller]

Genetic science in the U.S. is fairly unencumbered.. until someone tries to change ideas for sexual preference. Our society has a lot of pre-established medieval mindsets that associate homosexuality with evil deviancy. Anyone who attempts to prove otherwise is immediately discredited and often left unfunded.
Perhaps someday we will find someone who is not afraid to speak the truth. Without ignorant bigots slapping them in the face with religious artifacts.

http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-07/has-gay-gene-been-found-female-mice

So far as evil deviancy, its difficult to separate this from human nature IMO. Religion, at its root, seeks to overcome the evil tendencies of man; but alas religion is a creation of man and succumbs to our errant ways.

I offer an explanation to your premise of medieval mindsets. In medeival europe, as throughout world history, war and disease decimated populations. In an effort to repopulate, encouraging certain behaviors (ie marriage and monogomy) and discouraging certain behaviors (ie philandry and homosexual sex) was viewed as necessary. There are biologic reasons for men and women finding eachother sexually compatible, as homosexual acts aren't biologically supportive of population growth. The fact modern medicine and technology now provides populations with greater control over reproduction and still our population remains stable, it calls into question the current necessity for promoting or condemning any sexual behaviors.

Similarly, while we now understand far better what causes STDs and pregnancy, their prevention and the like, we still must take heed of the potential and realized impact of fornication; not casting aside chaste as passe. I'm not suggesting we return to branding unwed mothers with scarlet letters; but rather recognize there are significant benefits to traditional family values. Benefits which are enjoyed by the children, parents, community and society at large.

Many of the hot topics between progressives and conservatives: abortion, traditional marriage and the ilk; can only be be abated by natural social means, made worse and expanding into new dilemmas through govt intervention. Somewhere govt became perverted from it's stated role of ensuring liberty and the pursuit of happiness, to behaving as though happiness shall be provided. Au contrare, happiness is a state of mind, made possible through free will, instilled by Our Creator, and not through govt provision. It's a subtle semantical difference, but the devil is in the details!

[Kathianne]

So far as evil deviancy, its difficult to separate this from human nature IMO. Religion, at its root, seeks to overcome the evil tendencies of man; but alas religion is a creation of man and succumbs to our errant ways.:link:

I offer an explanation to your premise of medieval mindsets. In medeival europe, as throughout world history, war and disease decimated populations. In an effort to repopulate, encouraging certain behaviors (ie marriage and monogomy) and discouraging certain behaviors (ie philandry and homosexual sex) was viewed as necessary. :link: There are biologic reasons for men and women finding eachother sexually compatible, as homosexual acts aren't biologically supportive of population growth. The fact modern medicine and technology now provides populations with greater control over reproduction and still our population remains stable, it calls into question the current necessity for promoting or condemning any sexual behaviors. So you are now agreeing with homosexuality being a choice? I mean that's where this leads...

Similarly, while we now understand far better what causes STDs and pregnancy, their prevention and the like, we still must take heed of the potential and realized impact of fornication; not casting aside chaste as passe. I'm not suggesting we return to branding unwed mothers with scarlet letters; but rather recognize there are significant benefits to traditional family values. Benefits which are enjoyed by the children, parents, community and society at large. Huh? Maybe I missed something, but did you bring STD's and scarlet letters out of left field?

Many of the hot topics between progressives and conservatives: abortion, traditional marriage and the ilk; can only be be abated by natural social means, made worse and expanding into new dilemmas through govt intervention. Why?Somewhere govt became perverted from it's stated role of ensuring liberty and the pursuit of happiness, to behaving as though happiness shall be provided. Au contrare, happiness is a state of mind, made possible through free will, instilled by Our Creator, and not through govt provision. It's a subtle semantical difference, but the devil is in the details!You get here from where?

[jimnyc]

Genetic science in the U.S. is fairly unencumbered.. until someone tries to change ideas for sexual preference. Our society has a lot of pre-established medieval mindsets that associate homosexuality with evil deviancy. Anyone who attempts to prove otherwise is immediately discredited and often left unfunded.
Perhaps someday we will find someone who is not afraid to speak the truth. Without ignorant bigots slapping them in the face with religious artifacts.

http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-07/has-gay-gene-been-found-female-mice

:laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2:

Gabs, that's fucking mice!!!

Come back when you have a large peer reviewed and believable HUMAN scientific study. Scientists have been trying to give us this shit for years and years and years and are still unable to come up with this "gay gene". And why do you think that is? Because it doesn't exist! "cept maybe in mice and fruit flies! Yeah, hang your hat on that one! LOL :laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

[fj1200]

I offer an explanation to your premise of medieval mindsets. In medeival europe, as throughout world history, war and disease decimated populations. In an effort to repopulate, encouraging certain behaviors (ie marriage and monogomy) and discouraging certain behaviors (ie philandry and homosexual sex) was viewed as necessary. There are biologic reasons for men and women finding eachother sexually compatible, as homosexual acts aren't biologically supportive of population growth. The fact modern medicine and technology now provides populations with greater control over reproduction and still our population remains stable, it calls into question the current necessity for promoting or condemning any sexual behaviors.

I'll offer a different angle. In past times children were an economic asset that were necessary for survival for the parents, either as laborers on the farm or business or as supporting the aged later on in life. It's those that had the resources available that had the luxury of being gay. In today's world we don't have the same necessity of procreation and are generally more prosperous and as such gay "tendencies" to have the room to grow.

[logroller]

You get here from where?

Left field? perhaps, but still on the field. As a matter for public policy, a compelling public interest must be present to justify govt intervention into personal liberty. STDS(communicable disease) and children which cant be supported by the parents are of public interest. That's why I mentioned it.

[logroller]

You get here from where?

"Religion is a creation of man and succumbs to his errant ways."
It's a long list of wrongs committed by organized religions, The Inquisition for example. Try wikipedia on that one. There are actually stories from the Bible describing man's perversion of God's law by organized factions of worshippers.
http://www.gotquestions.org/organized-religion.html

Kath, I dont know where you come off saying "now I'm saying homosex is a choice", I never thought, let alone said, otherwise. Any sexual act is a choice; be it hetero or homo. So long as one can be asexual, being sexual is a choice. There's a hormonal drive to have sex and that varies between individuals; but voluntarily committing a sexual act, even masturbating, is a choice.

[DragonStryk72]

There's a fallacy to this argument. First, Christians do not claim to KNOW the mind of God. As in Isaiah 40:13 "Who knows the mind of God, who has been his counselor?".

Since we do not know the mind of God, then how do we know what He wants? . Christians (at least those who believe that the Bible is God's revealed word) believe that God speaks through the Bible.

Genesis 2:24 "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." - there, that's what the Bible says about marriage... see? Man.. wife... pretty obvious that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Since you don't expect gays to be straight or pretend to act as if they are attracted to members of the opposite sex. In fact, you expect them to express themselves as gay people. You would probably say that they are being true to themselves by acting as gays.

Nor would you expect a person who professes to love his country to turn and betray his own country, would you? No, you would call that man a coward and a turncoat.

If you expect gay people to act as gays, and a citizen of a country to stand for his country, then why do you expect Christians, who profess that the Bible is God's revealed word to act as if the Bible has nothing to say about the subject of homosexuality when, in fact, it makes clear statements about the matter (Leviticus 18:22, Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, )? Christians aren't hateful for standing up for what they believe is right any more than a person who loves his country isn't hateful for standing up for his country.

Furthermore, there have been many instances throughout history where Christians and figures in the Old and New Testaments have been pressured into compromising their beliefs in order to expedite some political end. For instance, in the Book of Esther, Mordacai would not bow to the king because Jews were not to bow to anyone but the Lord. Christians were tortured, exiled, beaten, and killed simply because they did not recognize the divinity of the Roman Emperor. Today's situation is no different. Christians refuse to compromise their beliefs that a politically motivated pressure group (the Radical Gay Left) is putting on them. The labels are pretty much the same, "hateful", "bigot", "religious extremist". That's the way of the World and always will be... but in the end, Christians believe that God and His way, as expressed in the Bible will win out in the end.

But remember that the pen holders were Men, ordinary human beings who are inherently fallible beings. This is the inherent reason you cannot know God, we can only know the interpretations of Him that we find in the Bible. I, however, go with Jesus as a default, "Judge not, by Judged Not".

Now, that said, the whole limp-wrist, lisping crap? Hundred percent bullshit. My own dad is gay, but nothing in his general attitude, or how he carried himself changed. If you didn't know he was gay, he would have to tell you.

[Missileman]

Now, that said, the whole limp-wrist, lisping crap? Hundred percent bullshit.

For some perhaps, but some of their mannerisms are so exact to one another it almost appears "instinctual".