| THIS IS A READ-ONLY ARCHIVE FROM THE SORABJI.COM MESSAGE BOARDS (1995-2016). |
|---|
YET? And Frist supports amending the constitution to ban same-sex marriages. Some one needs to sit these folks down and gently explain what separation of church and state really means. It's just disgusting - the same ol' arguments that were being made in the early-mid 20th century against mixed race marriages are being made now against same-sex marriages. I guess gays are the new 'Negro Problem' if you know what I mean. |
sodomy laws being overturned from the case in Texas is HUGE. |
|
2) Since in my humble opinion, marriage is a commitment between a man and woman to join togeather to form a family. And, since gays can not produce children they therefore can not get "married". Gays can commit to each other. They just can't get married. I know there are a lot of dissenting opinions to this. It's just my personal oppinion. The federal and state governments will do what they please without consulting me or do anything more than file any letter I might write (which I won't) in column a or b depending how they count these things. Then totally ignore the results anyway. |
on behalf of all the hetero couples that: a- can't have kids or b- won't have kids, may i humbly refer you to my middle finger. Nevermind that gay couples can adopt if they want to. ----------- As we've discussed many times before, too many people get hitched not for love, but for the dress, for the ring, for the show. Because they just think they have too. But gay people have to fight for this most basic thing that we all take for granted, and that's bullshit. There was a debate on tv about this the other day (on the christian channel, the only media here that doesn't like it) and some guy phoned in moaning about how if gay people are allowed to get married, what does that say about his parents marriage??? They've been married for 60 years! It'll tarnish the whole idea! My parents know this couple, older than them Sweet people, very much in love. But the 40+ years they've been together meant shit to the government until a few weeks ago. I'm not married because i think it's pointless but these two guys have been together longer than my parents and they couldn't get married because it was illegal for them to do so. It would be criminal. They would be criminals. Because of who they love. How wrong is that. The truly heartless (and i mean the editorial writers of a certain Toronto newspaper) say things to make it sound like they're fighting for our democracy when they speak out against same-sex unions being legal now. They're doing Canada a favour by being against it! They love fags, they just love democracy more! They say it's not fair that a little court ruling and a vote in parliment was all it took to change things. Even though that's how ALL LAWS ARE MADE, but it's not fair! We should be offended! The canadian people should have had a vote on this! They always whine for a vote on it, because they have these supposed surveys that say our country is still 50/50 on the issue. That is the saddest idea of all, having a vote on a flat-out human rights issue. I would see that as a point of national shame. It doesn't matter if half the population think it's wrong, it doesn't matter if 99.9% of the country thinks it's wrong. You don't vote on basic rights and freedoms. They must simply exist. Should we have a vote about women being allowed the same jobs as men? Should we vote for or against slavery? Of course not. Oppressive laws or behaviour must be corrected on sight. Decent people and governments will do this without waiting for anything. They do this to hide the fact that they truly hate gay people and can't admit it. I wish they'd just admit it. I find it impossible to believe someone could be against this and claim to not be a big huge cowardly homophobe. And even then, they can hate gay people all they want, but anyone who cares about humanity as a whole should be able to spot the oppressive crap, and appreciate equal marriage laws as a measure of freedom and equality in their country. Something to be proud of either way. I mean, i sure as hell don't like racism, but i don't think white power newspapers should be shut down or anything. Free speech is free for all. Equal rights for everyone. i uhm, fell pretty strongly about this subject. |
The ruling of the supreme court DOES NOT equal a democratic process. |
|
not that i really know what you're referring to. |
Your going to fall into a huge trap. Is it ok to change the constitution, but not to rule in an appeal to a judgement of an inferior court? I realize your canadian, but come on. |
For fuck's sake. There was recount after recount after recount. Every time the same result. Gore did not like it, and he said, and I quote "I am suing to be declared the winner of the 2000 Presidential Election". It should have NEVER been brought to any court at all. |
while first of all, everything Bush did to steal Florida was done well before the election itself(forget the 'confusing ballots') by Katherine Harris and Jeb (a whole other story), but what is most important is that Bush himself signed a law in Texas putting manual recounts over recounts by machine... so why stop a recount? Gore was doing the right thing by arguing, and as he was 'holding up the process' (which is a lie I'll get to) there was absolute undeniable 100% proof that a large amount of those overseas ballots that were counted for Bush were not valid - they were double counted, not postmarked, names not filled in, etc - yet they were counted - THIS is why Bush's lead slipped away. Bush stopped the election because his lead was slipping - legitimately. There is a law in Florida for state election that theres a 'voters intent' that determines the winner in cases that close. Based on the counts that were recorded, Gore would have actually won. For reals. This is what Bush was stopping, overruling the law of the state, meanwhile Floridas own secretary of state allowed Republicans to set up a 'war room' in her very own office! How can she supervise the recounts when she is co-chair of the campaign? Bush's team collected private contact information for military voters, violating the impartiality of the military and directly involving Congress to get more votes. The Supreme Court ruled on some equal protection of voters, but they allowed the Republicans to canvas and allow proven illegal votes, yet ignore proven legal votes for Gore. The very basis of the decision that gave the election to Bush, in other words, was a sham. Noone will ever know who really won because Bush stopped the recounts before they were really complete, and no actual honest and impartial recount ever happened, because Florida officials were unprepared for this close a count. Gore only conceded because his lawyers were outsmarted, and because Gore is a pussy Democrat. he should have kept fighting, but like I mentioned before, the media made him to look like he was 'holding up the process', just prolonging the inevitable, because while many networks said it was 'still too close to call', conservative groups claimed victory for Bush. Might I remind you that the first network to call victory for Bush was FOX News, whose election coverage was being run by BUSH'S FUCKING COUSIN!!!! clearly, the Supreme Court stayed Florida Court's order for a recount on grounds that it "may cause irreparable harm to Bush." Which presumes Bush will prevail before the Court, showing Supreme Court bias. So the republicans, who fight for years for states rights, go over their head? Huh? The count they based their decision on was Katherine Harris' certification, which is a clear conflict of interest. Speaking of conflict of interest: Clarence Thomas' wife was employed by the Bush campaign to help screen cabinet appointees Antonin Scalia's son was employed by one of the law firms representing the Bush campaign before the Supreme Court The other three justices in Bush's five vote court majority are all on the public record as having said they could not leave the court unless Bush were elected as they did not want Gore to appoint liberal or moderate successors. now go through everything I wrote and switch Gore and Bush's names around. If it would have happened the other way around, you'd be outraged and absolutely right. Bush was never democratically elected. It is a sham. |
I'm ignoring the last 5 posts before this one. i suggest we all do the same. |
spunk, would you like it if the US held a referendum on gay marriage, and voted against it? What do you think that would look like? Right now, the homophobia in America is still rampant but kind of hidden, through doublespeak, 'hate the sin, love the sinner' excuses they dont really believe in, sex laws, etc - but if it came to a vote, the US would be 'the country whose public voted against human rights' - you know, if you let the public vote on every little issue, crazy shit is going to happen - imagine if the public voted on how their taxes are broken down, picking and choosing where they went... this is why you elect representatives, this is why you give them the power to appoint these judges, because its admitting the public is too ignorant to govern itself. Whether or not they make the right or fair decisions, the courts are not filled with pussy judges. They act and they give a clear reason (even if its faulty reasoning, its clear), unlike referendums, which are just politicans way of passing the buck to the people on an issue they are too scared to touch. |
if it were, then there should be no age of concent laws. I never said that I was against gay marriages. as a matter of fact, I beleive I said could care less if someone wanted to marry a goat. My point was this. There is no constitutional right to any type of sex what so ever. nor is there any constitutional right to marriage. Never has been, never should be. This was not about gay marriage, it was about a type of sex. I do not think that the government, fed, state, local, whatever, has any business saying anything about any type of sex between two consenting adults. However, I am against any constitional change that provides those specific rights. |
amen, Wisper! You do such a good job of expressing my opinions for me that I never have to do it myself. |
|
so then be clear here spunk... if marriage should not have anything to do with the constitution, what do you think about an amendment that would actually ban gay marriage. to Watcher, marriage is a committment to start a family? Its a commitment between two people to share their life together, I dont remember ever, EEEEEVER hearing any wedding vows that mentioned children. |
Age of consent laws are completely different, its a matter of what age has been determined when society deems a person responsible to make their own decisions, same as voting age and drinking age (which btw, is a couple years too high in the USA). Its not discriminating against a young persons lifestyle, its a protective act that goes beyond morals. Sodomy laws aren't an act of protection, they are there specifically to enforce morality, which is retarded. |
No way. There should not be any amendment to the constitution about marriage in any capacity. According to articles 9 & 10, it would be up to the states. What do you care anyway, maple leaf? |
there are far more important issues that need to be addressed then been able to legally stick your dick in someone's ass. |
Will you die if you cannot marry, and have to settle for living with someone? Are you being deprived food? oxygen? physically or mentally harmed? Keep it in perspective, here |
|
If certain groups have a constitutionally given right or are exempted from certain restrictions or laws, and other groups are not, then it is a human rights issue. period. |
Main Entry: human rights Function: noun plural Date: 1791 : rights (as freedom from unlawful imprisonment, torture, and execution) regarded as belonging fundamentally to all persons. That is exactly how I define it. The rest are freedoms or rights, but not HUMAN rights. Let's handle the torture and unlawful imprisonment, and slavery issues handled before we work on pleasure rights, ok? Not to mention famine and disease. There are far more important things that need to be addressed on a global scale, versus a single country's constitutional definitions. The US Consititution does not apply to anyone who is not a citizen of the US, so our policy towards homosexuals does not have a thing to do with any other countries. There is no reason to get all bent out of shape unless you are part of this nation. |
Morality is what governs those who are not governed by a theocracy, dictatorship, or monarchy. I cannot beleive you even said that. Just because something is ok around 'the rest of the globe' does not make it moral. That is probably one of the most offensive things I have ever read on this board. Morals are what this country, and any decent society is based on. As far as the norm in the rest of the world, Canada is only the second one on earth to consider gay marriages. Morality is what seperates humans from the animals. |
|
equality isn't a human right? equality is the basis of all rights. (are we debating words now?) i don't think sex has to do with just "pleasure rights". Sex is a big huge important part of being human. We have a natural drive for it like eating or peeing. We simply have to fuck, eventually, and most just happen to like it as well. To lawfully deprive someone of a natural nessecary life function is like a form of torture. what i'm trying to say is, laws (any laws!) that make it okay for one group of people to do something, but make it illegal for an identical group of people to do the exact same thing, a law that discriminates people for no other reason,.. should be of GRAVE concern for everyone and must be fought. Kinda as Rowlf said, WWII should have taught us this. We should all be paraniod as hell about this shit. |
websters is on my side, foo. recognize. back that ass up. g-ride. fo sheazy. DAMN! |
har har, too true - so even if spunkys 'definition' is right he's still wrong. poor guy. |
There is NO LAW, giving any sexual rights to anyone. This is not an opinion, this is a fact. |
there are laws disallowing certain sex acts. It doesnt MATTER if there is a law 'giving' sexual rights, those rights still exist, because people are denied equality the moment their specific groups' bedroom privacy is made criminal. |
No. No matter what, I want the federal gov to stay the fuck out of my bedroom, and out of state law. I want the state to stay the fuck out of my bed room. I dont want any law or amendment saying anything about any adult's sexual behavior. The government's job is not the legislate morality. No matter what. It is not a human rights issue, i dont care what kind of twist you try to put on it. Life & liberty are human rights issues. Sexual behavior is not. Nor is marriage. Nor is parenthood. Life & liberty. Freedom from slaver, torture, unlawful execution, unlawful imprisonment. Governments are going to have to get past legislating morality, but they cannot until man kind, all man kind, regains some sort of responsiblity for themselves and their own actions. No law should cover sexual behavior or sexual preferences. Marriages should be up to the person officiating the union (clergy, justice of the peace, etc.). Who you marry is up to you, your significant other, and your god. There are a lot more pressing issues that face this planet, or have you not noticed? While we argue about sexual "rights", 14 people are killed in moscow because a faction does not want a governemt to rule them. What about the 14 people's human rights? What about the human rights of those who will die or suffer as a retaliation for the bombing? You think they are going to care where you choose to stick your tounge or your pecker? |
"Article 16 Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State. " |
does it make you feel superior to marginalize the opposition by relegating them to an outsider status? how could anybody from another country possibly understand the almighty constitution? fuck, man. 80% of americans don't understand it. |
I want to know why he is so pissed off about the US if he does not even live here. I was expecting that reaction from you anyway. Why get your nose bent out of shape over another cuntry's domestic policy? |
no matter how detailed, the map is not the territory, trace. |
|
Everything the US does affects us, and the US sticks its head in on our laws too... decriminalization, for example. Considering the topic was about same sex marriage, and right here in Canada at the exact same fucking time its an issue because we're changing our definition of marriage, wisper and Bigkev and I are just as relevant to the conversation. And jesus christ trace, me getting mad at the US for perhaps making an amendment that futher oppresses a people is bad, but you had post after post about how crappy women have it in Iraq, and Nate right now is talking about how the Arabs are treated in Israel... its all good. Injustice is injustice. Find it, point at it, make it known, fuck the borderline. IN THIS SAME FUCKING THREAD YOU POINTED OUT ISSUES IN RUSSIA. Thats fine, and it should get coverage, but you can't tell me that because someone is being treated poorly in another country, it nullifies how 10% of the population of EVERYWHERE are treated. Get a clue trace, gay people are treated as jokes, even the people so nice to say they 'tolerate' them see them as lesser people, as a one liner, as an adjective to make fun of their friends. Its not very fun, and when people make laws and amendments to further the idea that their way of living, talking, fucking, and committing to other people, its a fucking human rights issue. The way they are looked at and treated and joked about, legally prohibited of their means of sexual release is your "torture", and they kill THEMSELVES because of it. Theres your fucking life and liberty, asshole. ...as if me living slightly outside of your border means that the things in the US don't happen in other places... I also care because I have gay friends in the states who have to deal with these horseshit laws, with dated attitudes. Because I know people who have been physically gay bashed. Because there are people who have to flee life in the US to come here and get married, where they will be treated with a little more respect. How about Matthew Shepards life and liberty trace? think he'd stand at least a little better chance of being alive if his own governments laws didnt reinforce the idea that he is a lower human being? jesus... |
|
Trace, I seem to recall a little war or two that was all about "another cuntry's domestic policy" that got your panties in quite a wad. Whaddevah. |
pointing out whats going on in Russia and wherever? cool, fine, glad you're paying attention... but if theres a fire in my backyard and my neighbors backyard, I'm going to be more concerned about the fire in my backyard, and work to solve that problem first. And I am. I'm more concerned about gay rights issues in Canada than in the US and abroad. However that does not and should not stop me from also calling out to anyone who can do something about the fire in the neighbors yard. Trace, before you think so, I'm not calling you a homophobe. You might even not care if they end up getting certain rights or privileges they do not now have. I don't however, think you see homosexuals as equal to you. for example, as you have likened supporting their form of marriage to supporting marrying animals. I don't know if that clearly indicates support or simply apathy. I do know they aren't the same. |
This thread makes me want to pray for NUCLEAR HOLOCAUST" Lack of tollerence, much? |
You are wrong, but that is fine. I am not going to argue that point with you, there is no reason to. Your judgement of my character is of little consequence to me, as my judgement of yours should be to you. As far as what happens in the US effects you, maybe sometimes, but that is not the rule of thumb. Canada, as of recently, has taken pride in ensuring her viewpoint is not the same as the US. As she should. As for Gay rights, they are a civil issue, not a human rights issue. Did I not say that all marriages are a civil, not human rights issue? In some counties, daughters are still sold to bidders. Some are still betrothed at birth. They have no choices. If they are caught with knowledge of a man, and unmarried, they could get stoned. Being bought and sold, and imprissoned for adultry or premarital relations are more of a human rights issue then marriages. Any adult can choose whom to live with. True, some states still have laws on the books against "sodomy". Existing Same-Sex Laws (4) and Their Penalties States with sodomy laws that target only same-sex acts: Kansas is upto 6 months and/or $1,000 fine. Missouri is up to 1 year and/or $1,000 fine. Oklahoma is up to 10 years. Texas was up to a $500 fine. Existing Same-Sex and Opposite-Sex Laws (9 + Puerto Rico) and Their Penalties States with laws prohibiting sodomy between both same-sex and opposite-sex partners Alabama (1 year/$2,000) Florida (60 days/$500) Idaho (5 years to life) Louisiana (5 years/$2,000)* Mississippi (10 years) North Carolina (10 years/discretionary fine) Puerto Rico (10 years)* South Carolina (5 years/$500) Utah (6 months/$1,000) Virginia (1-5 years)* 26 states have repealed any laws that were on the book. Texas looks like the most lax. Source: ACLU |
"because the contstition is when it comes to borders" what the fuck does that even mean, troglodyte? same sunshine, same air, same gravity, same chromosomes. how many political borders have changed in the last 20 years? does that mean suddenly all the people affected are now fundamentally different? no, it means some group is now writing history favorable to itself and some other group is their bitch. but the kids still run around trying to play the same way as your kids do. are you gonna dismiss their rights because they were born ½ way around the globe? that's where nationalism sickens me. i'm glad this weekend is over. |
|
As for nationalism, it sickens me to think that you feel so lowly about the country you live in. I do not think everyone has to be flag waving, red white and blue wearing freaks, but god damn does your post reflect some deep seeded loathing for the US. |
|
The constitution, for the most part, DENIES power to the federal government. Some ammendments (2nd for example) exist to ensure certain rights can never be revoked. All other rights, it is assumed, (read pre-amble for clarification) are "inalienable rights, endowed by the creator". This means that everyone has the right to do anything unless there is a law that specifically provides a punishment for that particular activity. In that case, in that sense, no ammendmendment should be made to the US Constitution. instead, any so called state sodomy laws should be repealed. The decision if wether or not (I know I have said this on this very thread) a marriage would be preformed, shoudl be up to the officiator (clergy, JOP, etc). If the marriage has been preformed, as proscribed by law, then all companies and gov agency should treat that as a legal marriage. As for going away, no way am I going to give you the satisfaction. |
|
You look like you fell asleep, just sit down and beat your meat, I don't want no satisfaction, I just want to get some action! From your feet down to your hair, bodies flyin' through the air, Comin' off the fuckin' wall, get off your ass and show some balls! I don't want no satisfaction, Just wanna get some action! Just gimme some action! (x8) |
|
|
Well, now that I'm here: Got struck by the first volley Of the war in the corps Never held my service Send em a wire, give em my best This ammunition never rests No one serves coffee, no one wakes up Stop breathin’ Stop breathin’ Breathin’ for me now Write it on a postcard: Dad they broke me. Dad they broke me. I can see the lines open shutters And the leaves flocked on a grid That’s what they made my hero say But nothing gets me off so completely But when you put it down Ten feet down in the ground Call and response in the negative home Stop breathin’ Stop breathin’ Breathin’ for me now Write it on a postcard: Dad they broke me. Dad they broke me. |
trace was only ever talking about the constitution vs sex laws, his point being there shouldn't be any in it. I think we can all agree on that. After that, a short debate on what a 'human right' is or is not, and then he questioned our concern for another countries laws. Sure, that last part is kinda silly, but otherwise i thought we were having a fine little time. I know trace isn't a homophobe at all, and i also know he doesn't mind if they can get married. He's a pretty fair dude on the subject. Where the idea that he was against these things came from, i don't know. He was talking about the constitution (i just read it 10 min ago!), he barely brought up gay rights, if at all. It's true, everyone only reads what they want. y'all really like turning friendly debates into personal arguments. are you on your periods? |
you just get more and more absurd in your confusion spunk. you're confused. you don't know it, but you are. |
|
krank und müde. |
patrick didn't even participate much... The torch has been passed. My work here is done. :) |
starting at this thread. one sentence, move on. ignore his lunacy on the gay marriage thread. then i get to the thread about Bush's cowboy talk. his lunacy and bullshit reach my boiling point. must expel. but likewise im tired, but at the same time its hard to brush off such insanity. |
That's about 2000 more people than 9-11. Pretty glorious huh? They certainly put up a lot of monuments to make you think so. That's the price of pride for you. |
|
|
1. procreation (or, SEX cause not all sex is to make babies...) 2. killing (if we werent so good at it, why is it the only other constant in human existance) 1B. advancing knowledge (which is really just making things, which we learned from #1.) 2B. Intolerance (which just leads to all the killing. Which, (if you're catholic or protestant you'll get this) is gods fault anyway, cause he made everyone speak different, and look different at the tower of Babel, remember?) |
|
My point on the whole concept of marriage is how it is defined. Society has, until now in Canada, defined it as a special union between a man and a woman. Specifically for the purpose of creating a family - ie. mother, father and children - in no way can a homosexual union create the same relationship. This is a simple truth of nature, homosexuality is an aboration to the norm. The above is not a homophobic condemnation of the homosexual. It is just a statement of biological fact. As far as I'm concerned they can do what ever they want in the privacy of their own homes. And, they can create whatever union they want just as long as they don't call it a marriage. It is only the institution of marriage and it's definition that I want to preserve. |
Spider, the re-enactment was called off due to all the wet weather they've been having (I was in a low spot in the field where Pickett's CHarge took place and it was still a little muddy even after all teh 90-degree temperature days). Yes, I did stand at the spot where the 20th Maine held the line, but since I had to use the toilet something awful, I don't think I appreciated it as much as I could have. |
there are a plethora of reasons people have married in the past, many which have NOTHING to do with biology or procreating. property and family names for example. marriage is NOT soley about starting a family. You don't know jackshit about the institution of marriage by your assinine statements watcher so stop acting the defender of it or moreover, stop acting as if two men or women under the sanctity of marriage is somehow a knock at your limitedm small world perception of it. |
|
Watcher, did you know that certain common pesticides, dumped into our environment last century, mimic the hormone estrogen in mammals? Estrogen is the hormone that promotes female sex attributes, both physical and behavorial. Most of these pesticides have now been outlawed in the US, but are still used around the world. They also were so widely used that there's no part of our environment they haven't spread to. Trace elements can be found everywhere. Put the pieces together. Biology is a strange, complex thing. Trying to box it into your silly little mind is futile. |
What's so bad about that? Should everyone be identical? I take it you're in favor of cloning, then? :) Besides, your spelling is an aberration to the norm. I still understood what you meant, though. Can you try the same for homosexuality? |
There are others besides Canada. Try using this "internet" thing to do a little research. |
again, I ask you to point out to me when a couple has ever included procreating in their wedding vows. ...and apparently, someone has never heard of the term "adoption" who the fuck cares if its the same relationship? Why does it have to be? Is it actually proven to be the best for the kid?, last the longest? Arranged marriages are said to work out better, maybe we should all do that, if being a man and a woman and raising a family is all that matters, fuck love and sex and commitment. I guess marriage and sex only exist to make your asshole mini-you. I suppose you believe then that sex only exists for the purpose of procreation? |
HA! I could probably get excommunicated for this, but I don't see anything wrong with same-sex marriage (if it's a civil ceremony or part of a religion that's got no beef with homosexuality. Otherwise it's kinda weird -- it's like me, a Catholic, insisting that the Freemasons bless my union or something. Why?). First of all, the government has no business making moral proclamations. For one thing, they're supposed to speak for the populace, and a good portion of the US isn't Christian -- hence, Christianity as the moral guide of US is not a good thing. They should enact laws to keep order and help us prosper, and that's it. (Didn't we just talk about this? I have a vague memory of writing a long post on this topic...) |
Will you idiots stop reading more into what I've posted. I don't give one whit what the homosexuals do. I would just prefer that they called their "unions" something else. That is all. So stop your rampages. |
|
I think some of us know what you are saying better than you do. |
Whether they should get the same benefits should be decided by the state legislatures. They probably won't get all of them. But, there are some things where the relationship should be treated in a simular manner. Such as estate and survivor duties/responsibilities/benefits. Even child custody. I think the relationships are different. So call the "union" something else. Create a new word to name it. Then define that word to precisely describe the commitment within relationship. |
|
What is the difference between what watcher said and what I said???? god |
According to articles 9 & 10, it would be up to the states." "The government's job is not to legislate morality." "In that case, in that sense, no ammendmendment should be made to the US Constitution. instead, any so called state sodomy laws should be repealed. "The decision if wether or not (I know I have said this on this very thread) a marriage would be preformed, shoudl be up to the officiator (clergy, JOP, etc). If the marriage has been preformed, as proscribed by law, then all companies and gov agency should treat that as a legal marriage. " By the way, thanks wisper |
Haveth not a bovine, yo. |
i have a tv but it only gets the WB WB in the morning= the 700 Club oh my god. i had no idea that people were still like this. i guess i thought that since i had decided that those teachings were insane and backwater, that everyone else had as well. like those ideas belonged to the 80's or something. but no. this morning they were praying for SODOMY TO REMAIN ILLEGAL. people write in asking if it's a sin that their husband doesn't want to wear his wedding ring. don't people have anything better, more dire, in these interesting times, to spend their energy on? ah. look at me. nevermind. |
me cry. |
|
|
|
No. It is just that most Christians, or really any one who is serious about thier religion, believes that God's law is far more important then man's law. Better to "offend" man then offend God. In the grand scale of things, your opinion has little bearing or interest to them. Your opinion does not dictate where they go or what happens to them after they die, regardless of how much self importance you think you have. |
Just because you know how to rip a baby from your womb does NOT give you the "right" to do it. Just because you have the physical ability to fuck some one in the ass does not mean you have the "right" to do it. Your body? Who made that body? Is it not in god's word that your body is to be treated like a temple? Titus 1:15 "Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled." 2 Timothy 2:21 "Flee also youthful lusts: but follow righteousness, faith, charity, peace, with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart. " 1 Corinthians 7:2 "Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband." THE POINT OF THIS IS NOT TO PREACH. THE POINT OF THIS IS TO DEMONSTRATE THAT YOU MAY SEE YOURSELF AS "ENLIGHTENED", BUT OTHERS SEE YOU AS FOOLISH. |
actually spunk, this past week I've been visiting a lot of Christian message boards, and I'm starting to find that most of these people believe that as much as homosexuality is an abomination to them, they think the government should stay out of the bedroom, that they should not discriminate against them... it really gave me a lot of hope. it made me very happy to be honest... then i looked around at the yahoo boards that responded to Michael Savage getting fired, and I see the hate, and they never mentioned the Bible... maybe the actual hatred of gay people comes from a different segment of society.. maybe most of these Christians are alright, are AOK... maybe its someone elses curb to climb... |
|
|