OT: Proposition 8

[lowdbrent]

Gay people do not threaten my sexuality, so I could care less if they get married. I don't have anything against interracial marriages either.

I've heard some very bigoted arguments against gay marriage, such as "Where do we draw the line... should we let people marry animals?" That is ridiculous! We're not talking about animals, we're talking relationships between two human beings.

I don't see any valid argument against it. I am a heterosexual, and I was allowed to marry my wife. Why should I try to stop someone else from marrying their loved one? I just don't see where it is any of my business or anyone else's.

Most of the opposition comes from the religious right who feel the obligation to tell other people how they should live their lives. To me that is crossing the line between church and state.

I think we have much bigger issues than this for our government to be focusing on... like the 1.2 million jobs that have evaporated in the USA this year.

Here is the problem with this mindset. And, I will agree that they do not threaten me either. But this is a big problem. The whole gay rights thing is not moral issue like it used to be. The medical profession still considers it a mental disorder. This has become a civil rights issue. As a result, children may be and are being taught about this life style as early as third grade. Because it is a civil rights issue, most states will not allow an "opt out" clause for parents to use. The children will be taught about this whether the parents like it or not. Sounds like communism to me. Where is the freedom here? We are FORCED into something because less than 12% of the population wants it? Good thing we do not elect people to office that way. Last I read, we are a REPULIC that PRACTICES democracy. So judges should not make laws. They should unbiasly interpret who is on the wrong side of it and nothing else. This is out of control.

[bluejeangirl76]

The medical profession still considers it a mental disorder.

In that case, are we about to say that people with anxiety disorders, psychotic disorders, mood disorders, eating disorders, developmental disorders, or personality disorders should be denied everything that gays are denied. "Sorry, you suffer from depression so you're not equal to us normal folk... no marriage for you." Please. Gays are discriminated against the same way blacks were (and still are depending on where you go).

[Ehwmatt]

The medical profession still considers it a mental disorder.

In that case, are we about to say that people with anxiety disorders, psychotic disorders, mood disorders, eating disorders, developmental disorders, or personality disorders should be denied everything that gays are denied. "Sorry, you suffer from depression so you're not equal to us normal folk... no marriage for you." Please. Gays are discriminated against the same way blacks were (and still are depending on where you go).

First of all, homosexuality was stricken from the DSM a long time ago. So watch what you're saying brent, that's false.

But, I don't think gays require any special protection. There is no comparison to blacks, biracial people, mentally ill people, or any other category to be made. They are their own unique category. Argue all you want about tolerance, acceptance, political correctness, empathy, the genetic nature of homosexuality, what have you. To many people, homosexuality will always be a deviant behavior, as evidenced by the outcome of the vote on Prop 8.

I have no problem with gay people at all, I would never go out of my way to legislate against them, but I would never go out of my way to condone homosexuality at all. Even in this age of diversity, integration, and tolerance for pretty much everything, people still ultimately have a right to choose who they want to associate with. There are still all white country clubs. There are still all black colleges. Gay bars. Straight bars. Swinger bars. Historically black corporations. Jewish societies. Etc.

I think many people on the more liberal side of the issue lose people that might meet them in the middle when they urge 100% acceptance of homosexuality in itself. Many, many people will never see homosexuality/homosexual relationships on the same level as heterosexual ones. I really think it'd be best if people on the very conservative side of the issue would say "Ok, you are a human being with free will and are free to live your life as you/your genetics see fit, just don't ask me to encourage it or like it," and if people on the very liberal side stopped well short of trying to force an equivalence/acceptance of homosexuality down the formers' throats.

[Enigma869]

The medical profession still considers it a mental disorder.

You're an idiot! Where did you go to medical school? I happen to have MD's in my family, and I can assure you that you will NEVER find it written in a credible medical journal that homosexuality is a "mental disorder". I think you may be suffering from one! You are a complete jackass to even write such a comment!

Is Homosexuality A Mental Disorder?
No. All major professional mental health organizations have gone on record to affirm that homosexuality is not a mental disorder. In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association’s Board of Trustees removed homosexuality from its official diagnostic manual, The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Second Edition (DSM II). The action was taken following a review of the scientific literature and consultation with experts in the field. The experts found that homosexuality does not meet the criteria to be considered a mental illness.

So judges should not make laws. They should unbiasly interpret who is on the wrong side of it and nothing else. This is out of control.

Let me say it again, in the event I wasn't clear in the first paragraph...You're an idiot! Judges don't make laws. They do interpret laws and take direction from previous case law. There is a concept in the legal community called the "Doctrine of Stare Decisis". It basically means that many decisions that are reached by judges set a legal precedent and that subsequent judges may follow previous case law. That doesn't prevent judges from interpreting a case as he or she may see it!


John from Boston

[Blueskies]

The medical profession still considers it a mental disorder.

In that case, are we about to say that people with anxiety disorders, psychotic disorders, mood disorders, eating disorders, developmental disorders, or personality disorders should be denied everything that gays are denied. "Sorry, you suffer from depression so you're not equal to us normal folk... no marriage for you." Please. Gays are discriminated against the same way blacks were (and still are depending on where you go).

First of all, homosexuality was stricken from the DSM a long time ago. So watch what you're saying brent, that's false.

But, I don't think gays require any special protection. There is no comparison to blacks, biracial people, mentally ill people, or any other category to be made. They are their own unique category. Argue all you want about tolerance, acceptance, political correctness, empathy, the genetic nature of homosexuality, what have you. To many people, homosexuality will always be a deviant behavior, as evidenced by the outcome of the vote on Prop 8.

I have no problem with gay people at all, I would never go out of my way to legislate against them, but I would never go out of my way to condone homosexuality at all. Even in this age of diversity, integration, and tolerance for pretty much everything, people still ultimately have a right to choose who they want to associate with. There are still all white country clubs. There are still all black colleges. Gay bars. Straight bars. Swinger bars. Historically black corporations. Jewish societies. Etc.

I think many people on the more liberal side of the issue lose people that might meet them in the middle when they urge 100% acceptance of homosexuality in itself. Many, many people will never see homosexuality/homosexual relationships on the same level as heterosexual ones. I really think it'd be best if people on the very conservative side of the issue would say "Ok, you are a human being with free will and are free to live your life as you/your genetics see fit, just don't ask me to encourage it or like it," and if people on the very liberal side stopped well short of trying to force an equivalence/acceptance of homosexuality down the formers' throats.

Well articulated post. Regarding the last paragraph...people are steadfast in their opinions and if they have something forced on them they will balk and become firmer in their stance against it. People also have fears and misunderstandings of the unknown and they will look at others by only the generalized stereotypes that they have heard and come to believe. Until people have a one on one good experience and gotten to know someone that is "different" then themselves to change their thinking they will continue to view others as groups and judge and lump them accordingly and consider them to all behave the same way. Once they know someone " different", in whatever way, by personal experience is usually when people either change their view's from being shown a good example or get more entrenched in being against the group by a bad one.

[Blueskies]

I say let gay people get married. They have the right to be as miserable as everyone else.
( since no one said it yet it had to be said)

[annpea]

Why should gay people, get to enjoy life? I say let them get married then ban divorce.

[Blueskies]

Why should gay people, get to enjoy life? I say let them get married then ban divorce.

Gosh, I said the right to be just as miserable. Punishment but not a life sentence with no possibility of parole! Your harsh!

[Jana]

Blueskies and AnnPea, cute posts. And just think about it, if gays are allowed to be married, then there will be more showers to go to, more weddings, buying more gifts, gifts, gifts. This might be a really bad decision . But, wait, I'm a court reporter. More divorces means more depositions and divorce trials; hence, more income for me. Yay.

Just trying to add a little humor.

[Blueskies]

Blueskies and AnnPea, cute posts. And just think about it, if gays are allowed to be married, then there will be more showers to go to, more weddings, buying more gifts, gifts, gifts. This might be a really bad decision . But, wait, I'm a court reporter. More divorces means more depositions and divorce trials; hence, more income for me. Yay.

Just trying to add a little humor.

Yeah! It will help stimulate the economy! Many think first by their wallets anyway so show them the ways it will enrich them and mindsets will change real quick!

[StevePerryHair]

I was thinking about this too. One of the arguments against gay marriage is that employers will have hardships if they have to provide their spouses with benefits. The way I see it, that is a lame excuse. I mean when an employer hires a single male, he COULD get married to a woman and the employer would have to shell out those benefits anyway. How is that a fair argument just because that same man decides to marry another man instead? That argument makes no sense really. It sounds more like an excuse to me.

[annpea]

Why should gay people, get to enjoy life? I say let them get married then ban divorce.

Gosh, I said the right to be just as miserable. Punishment but not a life sentence with no possibility of parole! Your harsh!

You know how before marriage your love is so all that then after marriage the that become ' why that @#$$$#' and that's the last &@#$%% time i'm going to tell you or Get that @&$#outta my face and finally 'That's it you're dead meat Mr.' yes i feel that if gay people want to be married they should be allowed to suffer the same as everyone else.

[annpea]

All joking aside, sure gay people should be allowed to marry, If you love someone and I mean truely love that someone it shouldn't matter what the gender is. Love is still love no matter what the sexual orientation is, We truely have no right to tell two consenting adults what to do with their time, body, or love; because I wouldn't want anyone telling me who and how to love someone that I am happy with.

[Enigma869]

But, I don't think gays require any special protection.

I agree that they don't require "special protection", but do believe that they are entitled to everything that heterosexual couples are entitled to. It is beyond arrogant to believe that you're entitled to have more rights, because of who you happen to be sleeping with!

There is no comparison to blacks, biracial people, mentally ill people, or any other category to be made.

Your opinion, but many certainly don't agree with this position.

To many people, homosexuality will always be a deviant behavior

So is shitting on the salad bar at Wendy's, but that doesn't mean the nut doing it isn't entitled to the same rights that everyone else is entitled to!

I would never go out of my way to condone homosexuality at all.

I think this statement really speaks to the nature of the problem. I'm quite sure that those who are homosexual don't really give a shit what you condone and what you don't condone. It's really not your place to tell people how they should live their lives. They're not in your bedroom telling you who to play "hide the salami" with. Stay out of theirs! And save me this nonsense of "Hey, I have gay friends...I don't care what they do or who they sleep with". It's all a bunch of nonsense if you think they're not entitled to the same rights that you have. Your sexual orientation shouldn't put you ahead on the food chain!

I think many people on the more liberal side of the issue lose people that might meet them in the middle when they urge 100% acceptance of homosexuality in itself.

Nobody is telling you to accept anything. Accepting something and just allowing basic human rights (and yes, I believe that medical insurance is a basic right as well as being able to see your loved one in a hospital) are two entirely different concepts that are not mutually exclusive!

Many, many people will never see homosexuality/homosexual relationships on the same level as heterosexual ones.

Right, and many white people will never view non-white people on the same level as them! It's every bit as ridiculous and hateful, as far as I'm concerned!

I really think it'd be best if people on the very conservative side of the issue would say "Ok, you are a human being with free will and are free to live your life as you/your genetics see fit, just don't ask me to encourage it or like it,"

Again, save this arrogance of "Hey, don't ask me to like or encourage it". I don't think homosexual couples care about your endorsement any more than a heterosexual couple does! Nobody is asking you to "like or encourage" anything. It's not about making everyone happy. It's about offering all human beings the same rights and entitlements and not discriminating for no other reason, other than sexual orientation! As for your last point about shoving an idea, lifestyle, or relationship down someone's throat, I'm not sure I even get your point. I personally haven't interacted with any homosexuals that are attempting to force their way of life on anyone. Just because they are seeking equal rights doesn't mean that their trying to force their way of life on the world. There was a time in this country (and in the grand scheme of things, it wasn't all that long ago) that women were second class citizens and couldn't even vote. Just because the social mores' are the way they are doesn't mean that people shouldn't challenge the conventional thinking. Nothing great has ever happened in this country without people challenging ideas and questioning the establishment. In my opinion, this country shouldn't be one where people believe that if someone doesn't life their life the way they do, they should not have the same rights and entitlements!


John from Boston

[X factor]

Leviticus 18:22
(King James Version): "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them."

More highly selective bible quoting. That's chapter 18... long before they ever deal with that issue... chapter 11 says:

Leviticus 11:9-12
9 These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat. 10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you: 11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination. 12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.

Ever eat a shrimp? Oysters Rockefeller? That's a SIN.
Isn't is lovely how people turn to the bible only when they personally don't like something and want backup from the man upstairs?

Here's a better one... chapter 15... still a more urgent matter than gays way back in chapter 18...

15:19 And if a woman have an issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days: and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even.

15:29 And on the eighth day she shall take unto her two turtles, or two young pigeons, and bring them unto the priest, to the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.
15:30 And the priest shall offer the one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering; and the priest shall make an atonement for her before the LORD for the issue of her uncleanness.

Two turtles or two pigeons? When I was 12 it was enough of a pain in the ass to sneak around an Always pad because we weren't allowed to carry purses in junior high. Turtles?!

Point being, either adhere to all of it or stop using just the convenient parts.

By the way Rick... good luck on having this not turn into a hateful thread.
But kudos to you for the way you presented your opinion. Very respectful.

I love how NO ONE has challenged this post! Way to go, BJG! This has always been my response to anyone who whips out the "abomination" crap.

[Voyager]

This has become a civil rights issue. As a result, children may be and are being taught about this life style as early as third grade. Because it is a civil rights issue, most states will not allow an "opt out" clause for parents to use. The children will be taught about this whether the parents like it or not. Sounds like communism to me. Where is the freedom here? We are FORCED into something because less than 12% of the population wants it?

Yeah, where is the freedom? Next thing you know, a minority of the population will force us to accept interracial marriages. They may even force us to allow African Americans to ride in the front of buses. Sounds like more communism!

[StevePerryHair]

Leviticus 18:22
(King James Version): "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them."

More highly selective bible quoting. That's chapter 18... long before they ever deal with that issue... chapter 11 says:

Leviticus 11:9-12
9 These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat. 10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you: 11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination. 12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.

Ever eat a shrimp? Oysters Rockefeller? That's a SIN.
Isn't is lovely how people turn to the bible only when they personally don't like something and want backup from the man upstairs?

Here's a better one... chapter 15... still a more urgent matter than gays way back in chapter 18...

15:19 And if a woman have an issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days: and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even.

15:29 And on the eighth day she shall take unto her two turtles, or two young pigeons, and bring them unto the priest, to the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.
15:30 And the priest shall offer the one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering; and the priest shall make an atonement for her before the LORD for the issue of her uncleanness.

Two turtles or two pigeons? When I was 12 it was enough of a pain in the ass to sneak around an Always pad because we weren't allowed to carry purses in junior high. Turtles?!

Point being, either adhere to all of it or stop using just the convenient parts.

By the way Rick... good luck on having this not turn into a hateful thread.
But kudos to you for the way you presented your opinion. Very respectful.

I love how NO ONE has challenged this post! Way to go, BJG! This has always been my response to anyone who whips out the "abomination" crap.

The unclean part from the bible is still practiced in some parts of the world. Not with a dove or whatever but I know the Catholic Church in Italy, don't know if they still do, but not long ago, a woman could not enter the church after having a baby because she is considered "unclean" for the same reason and they have to wait. It comes from a Jewish custom which comes from that part of the bible. I'm not sure if Jewish people still practice that or not, but it is a ritual. Thank God they don't practice that in the American Catholic church cause I would have had a problem with that BUT, that is the thing with my church. They dont' take the bible THAT literally and we get attacked by other Christians for that fact. If something like that is practiced it is because it is a RITUAL which is different than being a literal passage you must adhere to so that you can enter heaven. Things like that vary between Christian religions though. Like you said though, people pick and choose.

[lowdbrent]

The medical profession still considers it a mental disorder.

You're an idiot! Where did you go to medical school? I happen to have MD's in my family, and I can assure you that you will NEVER find it written in a credible medical journal that homosexuality is a "mental disorder". I think you may be suffering from one! You are a complete jackass to even write such a comment!

Is Homosexuality A Mental Disorder?
No. All major professional mental health organizations have gone on record to affirm that homosexuality is not a mental disorder. In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association’s Board of Trustees removed homosexuality from its official diagnostic manual, The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Second Edition (DSM II). The action was taken following a review of the scientific literature and consultation with experts in the field. The experts found that homosexuality does not meet the criteria to be considered a mental illness.

So judges should not make laws. They should unbiasly interpret who is on the wrong side of it and nothing else. This is out of control.

Let me say it again, in the event I wasn't clear in the first paragraph...You're an idiot! Judges don't make laws. They do interpret laws and take direction from previous case law. There is a concept in the legal community called the "Doctrine of Stare Decisis". It basically means that many decisions that are reached by judges set a legal precedent and that subsequent judges may follow previous case law. That doesn't prevent judges from interpreting a case as he or she may see it!


John from Boston

You are the idiot. Do you not read the news about the courts in CA? The people had a vote once. The SSC over turned that decision and legalized gay marraige anyway, against the will of the people. This last vote, the people spoke again.

In Maryland courts changed the law. It is happening all the time, but not just in this case. The USSC has been legislating from the bench for a long time.

As far as the mental illness remark. I miss typed. It WAS a mental illness. It however is not genetic. It is by someone's choice. If it were genetic, twins would be born gay. They are not. There are predispositions and choices. It is a behavior. Behavior is not a civil right. Screwing animals is a behavior. Do we allow someone to screw and marry a cow? Come on. Where does it end?

[lowdbrent]

Leviticus 18:22
(King James Version): "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them."

More highly selective bible quoting. That's chapter 18... long before they ever deal with that issue... chapter 11 says:

Leviticus 11:9-12
9 These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat. 10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you: 11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination. 12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.

Ever eat a shrimp? Oysters Rockefeller? That's a SIN.
Isn't is lovely how people turn to the bible only when they personally don't like something and want backup from the man upstairs?

Here's a better one... chapter 15... still a more urgent matter than gays way back in chapter 18...

15:19 And if a woman have an issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days: and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even.

15:29 And on the eighth day she shall take unto her two turtles, or two young pigeons, and bring them unto the priest, to the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.
15:30 And the priest shall offer the one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering; and the priest shall make an atonement for her before the LORD for the issue of her uncleanness.

Two turtles or two pigeons? When I was 12 it was enough of a pain in the ass to sneak around an Always pad because we weren't allowed to carry purses in junior high. Turtles?!

Point being, either adhere to all of it or stop using just the convenient parts.

By the way Rick... good luck on having this not turn into a hateful thread.
But kudos to you for the way you presented your opinion. Very respectful.

I love how NO ONE has challenged this post! Way to go, BJG! This has always been my response to anyone who whips out the "abomination" crap.

The unclean part from the bible is still practiced in some parts of the world. Not with a dove or whatever but I know the Catholic Church in Italy, don't know if they still do, but not long ago, a woman could not enter the church after having a baby because she is considered "unclean" for the same reason and they have to wait. It comes from a Jewish custom which comes from that part of the bible. I'm not sure if Jewish people still practice that or not, but it is a ritual. Thank God they don't practice that in the American Catholic church cause I would have had a problem with that BUT, that is the thing with my church. They dont' take the bible THAT literally and we get attacked by other Christians for that fact. If something like that is practiced it is because it is a RITUAL which is different than being a literal passage you must adhere to so that you can enter heaven. Things like that vary between Christian religions though. Like you said though, people pick and choose.

Then your church is not reading the bible for all it is worth. When God said for people of the same sex not to lay with another person of the same sex and have sex, he meant what he said. It is also in the same thought and book that says, "Oh, by the way, don't do it with animals either. It makes me sick to my stomache!" Taken in the context, the two behaviors are sins against God, and both of them make him sick. He is very clear.

Your church pastor needs to study the Hebrew and what Genesis 1 really means. God laid the foundations for life. He ordained only the family, with one male and one female. That family has spiritual symbolim throughout scripture. The male and female were made for each other and together they make one flesh. Any sex outside of marraige is wrong. So it is a double whammy. Gays are not to marry and they cannot have sex, IF they are true believers in God.

[Sarah]

Remember, years ago even if people accepted interracial relationships, most people thought it was selfish to have children who would be biracial and subject to ridicule and teasing in school. If people had followed that line of thinking, Barack Obama, Halle Berry, and many people like them would not be here in this world. And I'm sure they didn't have it easy all the time, but I guarantee you they're glad they're here and had great emotional support.

Yes, I was about to comment that if you replace "gay" in this thread with "interracial" it's the same argument people had decades ago.

The inevitable conclusion is that gay marriage is going to be legal. As someone else mentioned, gay people couldn't even be out of the closet in the 80s. Look how far they have come. Young people as a whole are entirely more accepting of homo/bisexuality, and as they become voters and the older traditionalists pass away, it'll be just as 'normal' as mixed-race couples are today...

[StevePerryHair]

Leviticus 18:22
(King James Version): "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them."

More highly selective bible quoting. That's chapter 18... long before they ever deal with that issue... chapter 11 says:

Leviticus 11:9-12
9 These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat. 10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you: 11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination. 12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.

Ever eat a shrimp? Oysters Rockefeller? That's a SIN.
Isn't is lovely how people turn to the bible only when they personally don't like something and want backup from the man upstairs?

Here's a better one... chapter 15... still a more urgent matter than gays way back in chapter 18...

15:19 And if a woman have an issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days: and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even.

15:29 And on the eighth day she shall take unto her two turtles, or two young pigeons, and bring them unto the priest, to the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.
15:30 And the priest shall offer the one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering; and the priest shall make an atonement for her before the LORD for the issue of her uncleanness.

Two turtles or two pigeons? When I was 12 it was enough of a pain in the ass to sneak around an Always pad because we weren't allowed to carry purses in junior high. Turtles?!

Point being, either adhere to all of it or stop using just the convenient parts.

By the way Rick... good luck on having this not turn into a hateful thread.
But kudos to you for the way you presented your opinion. Very respectful.

I love how NO ONE has challenged this post! Way to go, BJG! This has always been my response to anyone who whips out the "abomination" crap.

The unclean part from the bible is still practiced in some parts of the world. Not with a dove or whatever but I know the Catholic Church in Italy, don't know if they still do, but not long ago, a woman could not enter the church after having a baby because she is considered "unclean" for the same reason and they have to wait. It comes from a Jewish custom which comes from that part of the bible. I'm not sure if Jewish people still practice that or not, but it is a ritual. Thank God they don't practice that in the American Catholic church cause I would have had a problem with that BUT, that is the thing with my church. They dont' take the bible THAT literally and we get attacked by other Christians for that fact. If something like that is practiced it is because it is a RITUAL which is different than being a literal passage you must adhere to so that you can enter heaven. Things like that vary between Christian religions though. Like you said though, people pick and choose.

Then your church is not reading the bible for all it is worth. When God said for people of the same sex not to lay with another person of the same sex and have sex, he meant what he said. It is also in the same thought and book that says, "Oh, by the way, don't do it with animals either. It makes me sick to my stomache!" Taken in the context, the two behaviors are sins against God, and both of them make him sick. He is very clear.

Your church pastor needs to study the Hebrew and what Genesis 1 really means. God laid the foundations for life. He ordained only the family, with one male and one female. That family has spiritual symbolim throughout scripture. The male and female were made for each other and together they make one flesh. Any sex outside of marraige is wrong. So it is a double whammy. Gays are not to marry and they cannot have sex, IF they are true believers in God.

I NEVER said the Catholic Church does not take that part of the bible literally. I said they do not see the bible as a whole as a literal everything in it is true, meaning everything happening EXACTLY as it says. The bible is a place to learn lessons and a place to look for direction in life yes. But there is a difference in how different Christian churches interpret these things. The Catholic church does have doctrine against a two people of the same sex being together. The thing being discussed here is how can one part be literal but other parts may not be so much. THAT is what our posts were about. How different religions pick and choose what they see as literal. My pastor who puts out the church doctrine would be the Pope's past and present. Pretty sure the church has studied those passages for centuries My experience and what I have been taught is that we accept and love everyone. It is for God to decide what will happen to these people when they die, not me. All I can do is love them as Jesus taught us. They are people, NOT animals.

[StevePerryHair]

Remember, years ago even if people accepted interracial relationships, most people thought it was selfish to have children who would be biracial and subject to ridicule and teasing in school. If people had followed that line of thinking, Barack Obama, Halle Berry, and many people like them would not be here in this world. And I'm sure they didn't have it easy all the time, but I guarantee you they're glad they're here and had great emotional support.

Yes, I was about to comment that if you replace "gay" in this thread with "interracial" it's the same argument people had decades ago.

The inevitable conclusion is that gay marriage is going to be legal. As someone else mentioned, gay people couldn't even be out of the closet in the 80s. Look how far they have come. Young people as a whole are entirely more accepting of homo/bisexuality, and as they become voters and the older traditionalists pass away, it'll be just as 'normal' as mixed-race couples are today...

It's true. Change is coming no matter how people feel about it. My son is in his first year in high school and he said they have gay boys and girls holding hands and kissing in the hallways and outside. That is something that you NEVER would have seen in the 80's. If anyone knew they were gay at that age, the most definitely tried to hide it. They would have been tortured.

[Sarah]

You are the idiot. Do you not read the news about the courts in CA? The people had a vote once. The SSC over turned that decision and legalized gay marraige anyway, against the will of the people. This last vote, the people spoke again.

As far as the mental illness remark. I miss typed. It WAS a mental illness. It however is not genetic. It is by someone's choice. If it were genetic, twins would be born gay. They are not. There are predispositions and choices. It is a behavior. Behavior is not a civil right. Screwing animals is a behavior. Do we allow someone to screw and marry a cow? Come on. Where does it end?

Haha oh wow. I think one of the first posts ITT asked for the "hurr can I marry animals now" thing to be set aside for this debate. It's not relevant at all when we're still talking about HUMANS maryying HUMANS.

Twins are never fully identical, that is a stupid thing to assume that they would both be gay. And who the fuck wants to be gay? Who wants to be subjected to this discrimination? It's definitely not a choice.

"The people" also used to vote that African Americans should be separate but equal... Without all the fighting and overturning of that, we'd still have separate drinking fountains for white people. These things take time but eventually "the people" will change their tune about this separate but equal marriage business.

[StevePerryHair]

I thought Wanda Sykes had an interesting take on that subject on the Ellen show on Halloween:

Skip ahead to about 4 mintutes and 48 seconds. I thought she made great points!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0gpMEz8Oh0

[Enigma869]

You are the idiot. Do you not read the news about the courts in CA? The people had a vote once. The SSC over turned that decision and legalized gay marraige anyway, against the will of the people. This last vote, the people spoke again.

Yes, I'm well aware of the story, dickwad! In my opinion, human rights is nothing that people should be voting on and it should absolutely be left up to the court. Unfortunately, when religion gets involved, the religious zealots want to suppress everyone's rights, in the name of "The Bible" and "God". I know this may shock you, but some of us really don't care what "The Bible" says or what the imaginary man you think is living in the sky thinks!

In Maryland courts changed the law. It is happening all the time, but not just in this case.

Good! Hopefully the judges making these decisions leave religion completely out of the equation, because this isn't a religious issue for the people who face this issue!

As far as the mental illness remark. I miss typed.

You didn't "mistype" anything. You said something that was completely ridiculous and more importantly, completely FALSE!

It however is not genetic. It is by someone's choice.

How do you know this, Doctor? Listen, it's one thing for you to offer an opinion about something, but to come out and simply tell everyone that you know something to be true that not even respected scientists understand makes you sound like a pompous ass! Just because you believe it doesn't make it factual!


John from Boston

[Don]

All religions should do as the Amish do. Preach to your flocks but stay out of civil affairs. Any church providiing money towards any ballot measures should have their tax exempt status revoked. Listen, humankind has basic ideas of live and let live hardwired into us. By trying to define morality, the church just enforces division and prejudice amongst us. Keep not only Government, but also the church out of our bedrooms. Separation of Church and State must continue to be a major part of the foundation of our democracy.

[lowdbrent]

You are the idiot. Do you not read the news about the courts in CA? The people had a vote once. The SSC over turned that decision and legalized gay marraige anyway, against the will of the people. This last vote, the people spoke again.

As far as the mental illness remark. I miss typed. It WAS a mental illness. It however is not genetic. It is by someone's choice. If it were genetic, twins would be born gay. They are not. There are predispositions and choices. It is a behavior. Behavior is not a civil right. Screwing animals is a behavior. Do we allow someone to screw and marry a cow? Come on. Where does it end?

Haha oh wow. I think one of the first posts ITT asked for the "hurr can I marry animals now" thing to be set aside for this debate. It's not relevant at all when we're still talking about HUMANS maryying HUMANS.

Twins are never fully identical, that is a stupid thing to assume that they would both be gay. And who the fuck wants to be gay? Who wants to be subjected to this discrimination? It's definitely not a choice.

"The people" also used to vote that African Americans should be separate but equal... Without all the fighting and overturning of that, we'd still have separate drinking fountains for white people. These things take time but eventually "the people" will change their tune about this separate but equal marriage business.

Identical twins have identical genes. If homosexuality was a biological condition produced inescapably by the genes (e.g. eye color), then if one identical twin was homosexual, in 100% of the cases his brother would be too. But we know that only about 38% of the time is the identical twin brother homosexual. Genes are responsible for an indirect influence, but on average, they do not force people into homosexuality. This conclusion has been well known in the scientific community for a few decades (e.g. 6) but has not reached the general public. Indeed, the public increasingly believes the opposite.

Identical twins had essentially the same upbringing. Suppose homosexuality resulted from some interaction with parents that infallibly made children homosexual. Then if one twin was homosexual, the other would also always be homosexual. But as we saw above, if one is homosexual, the other is usually not. Family factors may be an influence, but on average do not compel people to be homosexual.

Twin studies suggest that as a class, events unique to each twin--neither genetic nor family influences--are more frequent than genetic influences or family influences. But many individual family factors (such as the distant father) are commoner than the individual unique factors. Unique events would include seduction, sexual abuse, chance sexual encounters, or particular reactions to sensitive events, when young. Everyone has their own unique path which only partly follows that of the theoreticians!

A fascinating sidelight on all this comes from the work of Bailey (7). His team asked non-concordant identical twins (one was homosexual, one not) about their early family environment, and found that the same family environment was experienced or perceived by the twins in quite different ways. These differences led later to homosexuality in one twin, but not in the other.

[Jana]

Sarah and StevePerryHair are right, attitudes are changing now and it will continue to become more accepted as time goes on.

Look at Ellen. Her show is predominantly watched by women married with children, I would dare say, living in suburbia
and probably fairly conservative. Yet she was embraced when she announced her marriage on her show. Her fans were genuinely happy for her. I think it was about 13 years ago that she had to be in the closet for her career. It was a huge deal when she came out then. People felt it was a mistake and would destroy her career. It almost did for a while.

My mom used to love the Rosie O'Donnell Show. My mother was the most religious Baptist woman ever. She and my father never missed a Sunday at church unless sick. She thought homosexuality was a sin also. When Rosie O'Donnell came out and her girlfriend was interviewed by Diane Sawyer for a special, my mother's heart opened because she saw how the girlfriend was such a wonderful person and great mother and had struggled to have her family's acceptance of her and she began to realize homosexuality wasn't a choice. Would my mother accept gay marriage if she were alive? Probably not. But the funny thing is I know she loved Ellen Degeneres and thought she was a wonderful human being and loved her show and probably would have been happy for her.

[X factor]

Leviticus 18:22
(King James Version): "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them."

More highly selective bible quoting. That's chapter 18... long before they ever deal with that issue... chapter 11 says:

Leviticus 11:9-12
9 These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat. 10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you: 11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination. 12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.

Ever eat a shrimp? Oysters Rockefeller? That's a SIN.
Isn't is lovely how people turn to the bible only when they personally don't like something and want backup from the man upstairs?

Here's a better one... chapter 15... still a more urgent matter than gays way back in chapter 18...

15:19 And if a woman have an issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days: and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even.

15:29 And on the eighth day she shall take unto her two turtles, or two young pigeons, and bring them unto the priest, to the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.
15:30 And the priest shall offer the one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering; and the priest shall make an atonement for her before the LORD for the issue of her uncleanness.

Two turtles or two pigeons? When I was 12 it was enough of a pain in the ass to sneak around an Always pad because we weren't allowed to carry purses in junior high. Turtles?!

Point being, either adhere to all of it or stop using just the convenient parts.

By the way Rick... good luck on having this not turn into a hateful thread.
But kudos to you for the way you presented your opinion. Very respectful.

I love how NO ONE has challenged this post! Way to go, BJG! This has always been my response to anyone who whips out the "abomination" crap.

The unclean part from the bible is still practiced in some parts of the world. Not with a dove or whatever but I know the Catholic Church in Italy, don't know if they still do, but not long ago, a woman could not enter the church after having a baby because she is considered "unclean" for the same reason and they have to wait. It comes from a Jewish custom which comes from that part of the bible. I'm not sure if Jewish people still practice that or not, but it is a ritual. Thank God they don't practice that in the American Catholic church cause I would have had a problem with that BUT, that is the thing with my church. They dont' take the bible THAT literally and we get attacked by other Christians for that fact. If something like that is practiced it is because it is a RITUAL which is different than being a literal passage you must adhere to so that you can enter heaven. Things like that vary between Christian religions though. Like you said though, people pick and choose.

Then your church is not reading the bible for all it is worth. When God said for people of the same sex not to lay with another person of the same sex and have sex, he meant what he said. It is also in the same thought and book that says, "Oh, by the way, don't do it with animals either. It makes me sick to my stomache!" Taken in the context, the two behaviors are sins against God, and both of them make him sick. He is very clear.

Your church pastor needs to study the Hebrew and what Genesis 1 really means. God laid the foundations for life. He ordained only the family, with one male and one female. That family has spiritual symbolim throughout scripture. The male and female were made for each other and together they make one flesh. Any sex outside of marraige is wrong. So it is a double whammy. Gays are not to marry and they cannot have sex, IF they are true believers in God.

One male and ONE female? Really???? Then why all the references to polygamy? They are ALL OVER the old testament!
There's even a verse that refers to marriage as a covenant between a man and a woman...OR WOMEN.

So how do you feel about multiple wives?

[Rick]

One male and ONE female? Really???? Then why all the references to polygamy? They are ALL OVER the old testament!
There's even a verse that refers to marriage as a covenant between a man and a woman...OR WOMEN.

So how do you feel about multiple wives?

Dude, I have a hard enough time keeping one woman happy.