marriage sucks......hire a prostitute. j/k some of your posts in this thread a hilarious. religion was developed to control the populace through beliefs and fears of straying. marriage was developed by people (mostly women) through religion to mark each others mates for fear of straying. kind of ironic don't ya think? if you break it down to primal matters its simply species propagation. man has sex with woman / woman has baby / man and woman raise baby together. the word "marriage" is just that a word, if the couple (man and a woman) doesn't share simpatico with each other and both try and give each and every day to the relationship it won't be pretty. oh and where the hell was this ammendment five years ago when I had to file for divorce from my girlfriend of seven years due to the freakin' "common law marriage" crapola? could have saved me tens of thousands of dollars....lol
Because they voted to actively discriminate against a particular group of citizens for no reason other than fear. It's not that hard to understand. A post that makes sense. Marriage is a religious sacrament, and I don't see why the government has the right to regulate it. Ironic how the religious rights complains all the time about liberals trying to interfere with their right to practice religion, yet they welcome government interference in their religious sacraments in this case.
A great post, Max. If only we had gone that route instead of this stupid exercise in politics based on fear. I don't know why we haven't heard more suggestions like this. It seems pretty obvious, now that you've pointed it out. (and thanks for the baseball game invite. it would be great to do... check with me next season. you won't have any luck converting me, however, but try anyway... I'm always up for good conversation. ) Keep D&D Civil.
Perhaps I misunderstood your point, but in this analogy, the daughter being raped is the parallel to your son coming home one day and introducing you to his fiance, "Steve". I have given up trying to debate morality because in the end, you can't change someone's opinion. If you think homosexuality is immoral because it teaches you that in the Bible, it's useless for me or anyone to even try to use logic and convince you otherwise. However, to regulate against something by legal action is pure hypocrisy. You said yourself that you do not use voting to further your religious beliefs, but that is exactly what has occurred. If you really believe in the integrity of the law and the Constitution, you would not allow religion and state to intertwine. Sadly, that is what has occurred.
This is what I would like. Simple and elegant. Or at least it should be. But would people who are against gay marriage go for it? Ultimately, despite what many people argue, this isn't about the definition of a word or anything like that. It's about maintaining the heterosexual culture. Allowing gays to form civil unions would mean that they would have a similar status as heterosexual unions. This would effectively amount to a huge culture shift for them. Gays would no longer be those perverts off in the corners of society to be shunned. Instead they would be as recognized as any other couple or family unit. They would be the Bob and Joe next door or the lesbian couple down the street. They may even have children. And I think that some people cannot accept such a drastic change to their world view, to how the categorize people in soecity. I imagine (I'm much too young to know) it was similar with interracial couples.
How does regulating gays affect others? Why do Christians even care? God will judge all those when they enter heaven right? Give Ceasar what is his. Even the worst sinner should be treated with kindness, no? Let God judge in heaven. Quit changing the rulebook. Shouldn't Christians be reaching into the hearts of sinners to teach them the error of their ways instead of passing stupid laws? I don't recall Jesus carrying a protest sign.... Goodness, the amazing number of idiots around, and you guys bashed my eugenics thread ... Even if the law is passed, gays will still exist so it doesn't do much. Maybe we should make it illegal to smoke pot...oh...wait...
Oh yeah, I just joined the best facebook group: "People Who are Glad "Coogs Voting For Prop. 2 against Gay Marriage" Only Has Seven Members!" Actually, that group has 8 members. This one has 113 evil college liberals
Yes, you misunderstood my point. What I think about homosexuality is not solely based upon the Bible. Hypocrisy would be drunk policemen arresting drunk drivers. Voting cannot further religous beliefs, laws cannot change the human heart. All laws are based upon morals. Not all morals are based upon the Bible. God never gave laws to change the human heart.
Lest you guys thing it's nothing but redneck hilbillies named JimBob voting for such proposals, I give you this. (Personally I was against the amendment but I don't feel that people who voted for it are hateful bigots like some of you do). ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/topstory/3451194 Gay marriage ban crossed political lines, analysts say By POLLY ROSS HUGHES and R.G. RATCLIFFE Copyright 2005 Houston Chronicle Austin Bureau AUSTIN - Blacks and Hispanics who traditionally vote Democratic strongly backed the state's gay marriage ban at the ballot box this week, sometimes outpolling Republicans, analysts said Wednesday. That broad interest across political lines contributed to the highest participation in a constitutional amendment election since 1991, with roughly 18 percent of registered voters turning out for Tuesday's election. Republican Gov. Rick Perry rallied his evangelical, socially conservative base on the issue, but political analysts said Proposition 2's success doesn't necessarily predict future success for individual politicians. "I don't see how it can be useful for a party or a candidate because this so transcends all the political parties and the typical categorizations," said Kelly Shackelford, president of the conservative Free Market Foundation, which backed the amendment. "We didn't even call Republican homes. We called Hispanics, African-Americans and rural Texas voters. That's where the numbers were," he said. Others agreed, noting that religion and family values resonate in traditionally Democratic precincts with large minority populations. On the single issue of defining marriage as between a man and a woman, minorities often voted as favorably and sometimes more favorably than higher-income Republican precincts, said political scientist Tim O'Neill at Southwestern University in Georgetown. "They don't see it as much as a civil rights issue as they see it as a right of traditional marriage issue," he said. "African-Americans are by far the strongest supporters of the Democratic Party, but not on this issue. This is not a Republican/Democratic issue per se." Statewide the marriage amendment won 76 percent of the vote. Big approval on the border Along the heavily Democratic, Hispanic and economically distressed border with Mexico, it passed by 81 percent in Hidalgo County, 75 percent in Webb County and 86 percent in Jim Hogg County. Republican and suburban Fort Bend County backed Proposition 2 by 82 percent while Republican and upper-middle class Collin County in North Texas voted 74 percent in its favor. Dave Welch, executive director of the Houston Area Pastor Council, said churches and pastors statewide made a significant push on the gay marriage issue. Clergy participated in "marriage protection Sunday" and spoke of the importance of marriage and its biblical roots, he said. Others ran a 30-second television ad featuring the touching hands of a man, woman and baby. "That message was probably stronger ... in the minority church community than in the Anglo church community," he said. "Many were more active and more visible in coming out on the issue than many were in the suburbs." Harris County favored the marriage amendment by 72 percent overall, but that proved slightly higher in the inner city black neighborhoods, several analysts noted. Rice University political scientist Bob Stein said the measure won easily in the Houston area because of black support. "In black boxes, it was 75 percent to 25 percent in favor of Prop 2," Stein said. "That's explained by heavy black turnout by African-American women who go to church." Former state Democratic Rep. Glen Maxey of Austin, who led opponents of the amendment statewide, said minority sympathies on the issue were reflected in a Houston poll conducted last August by the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. 'It is religious based' When asked whether lesbians and gays should be protected in the workplace, 64 percent of African-Americans said yes. But, asked whether gay and lesbian couples should be allowed to marry, 62 percent said no. "Among that community, it's a total reversal. It is totally compartmentalized. It is religious based," Maxey said. Perry's pollster, Mike Baselice, of Austin, said the governor has realized throughout the campaign that opposition to gay marriage was not limited to Anglo Republicans. "I don't know how much effort was coming out of the pastors, but I know that Perry's been working on pastors, not just the traditional Baptist and Anglos, but also the African-American community," said Baselice. The pollster said it is too early to tell how much the Proposition 2 turnout will help Perry. But with a turnout of 1.7 million voters in favor of the proposition, Baselice said there are potential new Perry primary voters available. He said that turnout was about 100,000 higher than the number of people who have voted in at least one GOP primary since 1998. "It adds to the potential arsenal of votes for Perry," Baselice said. "They still have to more thoroughly be identified now that they've voted." With Tuesday's vote, gay marriage has been decided in Texas in time to fade in the minds of voters before the March primary, so Baselice said the campaign will have to find ways to reinvigorate these voters. Strategy to win votes "We have to find out what information is going to get them back to the polls," Baselice said. "If it's a single-issue type vote, we've got to figure out how much we want to expend resource-wise to get these people back in March." Stein said the Proposition 2 election probably did little to change the dynamic of the GOP primary for Perry because he already had the support of solid social conservatives. "What Perry did with the evangelicals was an organizational effort," Stein said. "Liberals tend to view those people as rabid dogs. They're not. They're sophisticated. They're organized. Church is just another organization."
I think the gist of this article was: It's religious based! Even more reason to believe that statutory discrimination will be ruled unconstitutional if challenged....unless our Supreme Court is allowed to become religious based.
Thats fine Drox, but when I "go all Leviticus on yo azz" for eating a cheeseburger or cutting your earlocks, don't gimmie no old/new covenant arguement when the stones start a raing on your head.
I was joking with ya, but serious too. I hear many "fire and brimstone" preachers and followers who use Leviticus and the "rule" books of the Old Testement to support their views on homosexuality and creationism but conveniently leave out the Orthodox ones like not cutting your locks or eating dairy and meat products together, shellfish, beards, etc...
You need someone to explain all this to you. God didn't throw out 'Thou shalt not kill" with the Old Testament. Most of the New Testament is quotes of the Old Testament. Then there are those 'laws' which don't even apply in the New Testament. Then there are Old Testament laws that Jesus insisted upon the church. Then there is the salvation Jesus promised apart from all the Old Testament law. Yep, if you don't understand it will all seem confusing, contradictory and stupid. But it isn't.
That's exactly what I was saying. That's why I don't recommend using (and don't like to see) scripture used to support a side in a political argument.
Which basically means everybody gets to play 'cafeteria style' with the bible. Ooh, I'll take some of that Commandment right there, I'll leave alone the bits about slavery and dairy products.... hmmmm but I'll definitely have seconds on that God hates homos! Yum! Cafeteria style with the bible is fun. I mean, having the bible as your support for arguments is always a blast, because it's inerrant. Oh- well, it's inerrant except for the parts that don't count, because of what Jesus said. Which parts? Oh, well, don't decide that for yourself, you should listen to me or my pastor for that.... So now do you not only have inerrant evidence for whatever argument you want to throw out there, now you can make an Immaculate Retreat from any hole in your logic from the bible, because... that part Doesn't Count!
