![[mccookgazette.com]](http://www.mccookgazette.com/images/nameplate31.png)
|
|
Fair ~ High: 87°F ~ Low: 57°F Wednesday, May 16, 2012 |
|
Lying liars and Prop 8Posted Thursday, December 25, 2008, at 9:24 AM
When Prop 8 in California barely passed in November it prompted immediate protests. Some media outlets cast the protesters evil people who were trying to force their will on people who voted to ban gay marriage in the state (someone people voting their will on people who want to marry is perfectly fine, though). One of the small stories that is starting to gain traction was a promise that supporters of Prop 8 had made. They said over and over that if Prop 8 passed they would not make any attempts to nullify marriages already performed in the state. Less than a month after the election and before the ban even takes place, the organizers of Prop 8 have filed a brief to nullify the 18,000 marriages already certified by the state of California. The interesting note about all this is one of the biggest money donors to the Prop 8 initiative were the Mormons. This is the same group that for years said that polygamy (a man can have many wives) was perfectly fine. This is the same group where several sects still practice polygamny. Apparently in their eyes it is perfectly natural to marry as many woman as you can but somehow two women getting married is a scar on the sanctity of marriage.
Let's take a closer look as just how wonderful marriage is in this country. Our divorce rate is 51%. What this means is that one out of every two marriages will end in divorce. We have marriages where a man will come home late after drinking beat his children and then rape his wife. We have marriages where a woman will get married simply because she gets pregnant by a man and then sleep with every available man she can find. Oh yes marriage in this country must be saved and we must protect it from the gays and lesbians (note that sentence was dripping with sarcasm). I understand that people preach that it specifically says in the Bible that homosexuality is a sin (I don't buy it since homosexuality wasn't even a word until the late 1800s) but seriously why is there such a push against gays and lesbians in this country. There are states that ban gays and lesbians from adopting children. In these cases they use phrases such as "Research shows that children in gay and/or lesbian homes have problems later in life". Actually that is a complete myth as the research actually shows that children raised in gay and/or lesbian homes have NO adverse issues. But the bans are sweeping the country. It is reminiscint to the turn of the 20th Century when state after state was banning interracial marriages. This is no different. I fully believe and yes hope that all these bans will eventually be overturned as being unconstituional because they bans are denying humans their basic rights. But the verocicty of those that are passing the bans and the cunning is something new. In Arkansas, the people just passed a ban that is directed at gay/lesbians but if you actually look at the vague language, there is really no way this ban will stick. The language states any person sharing a dwelling with another unmarried person cannot adopt. Basically what this ban says is that my girlfriend and I cannot adopt children unless we are married. This takes a large chunk of the Arkansas population out of adopting, just in an attempt to bar gays/lesbians from adopting. Fortunately in Arkansas, any laws passed by the people still has to be approved by the legislature. The legislature has already turned down similar votes in the past. Here's hoping they do it again. But in California, the reaches they are going to just to keep people from getting married is just unbelievable. Yes the majority of people voted to ban gay marriage, but no where in that ban does it state that marriages already certified by the state would be nullified. Why can't they just let those people live their lives. If the get divorced then the Prop 8 people can rejoice. Today is Christmas, a day that in my family was treated as a day to love your fellow man and to rejoice in what we have. I urge that especially today when things seem to be going so wrong with our economy. Merry Christmas. Check out this picture show. If it doesn't move you in the least, watch it again. There are alot of great pictures in here and one of them really got to me because the couple has been married three times and had their marriage nullified twice. Comments Showing most recent comments first [Show in chronological order instead] |
Hot topics A Case Against Merit Pay(12 ~ 6:08 PM, Mar 2)
Hot Springs, America's First National Park
President Obama's Speech
A Most Disgusting Lie
Republicans and the Far-Right Have Hit Rock Bottom
|
Email link
Read comments (33)
Blog archive
![[Feed icon]](http://www.mccookgazette.com/images/icons/feed-icon-14x14.png){kind=icon}
Doodle bug,
No need to promise to retire the subject. I'm always glad to share points of view with other people. And it goes the other way around too, I enjoy listening to other points of view. I believe that the only way we can grow intellectually is to listen with an open mind, and to exchange ideas with other people.
To answer your question:
Not being gay myself, I'm not sure I am the person best qualified to answer. Some gay people I know simply want to have the same rights and privileges as straight people. I know one couple through acquaintance that has actually been "married" in a religious service (they found a pastor willing to perform it, I believe), however they do not have the legal rights of a wedded couple, and the government does not recognize them as such. They just want to have the same rights as a straight married couple.
Of course, there will still be a vocal minority who calls for the equality of marriage. I think there are many gay people who don't care as much about the legal rights as the social equality, and they feel that gay marriage is a step towards that equality.
They will proclaim that allowing homosexuals to have civil unions, while heterosexuals can be married constitutes a "separate but equal" institution. Additionally they would claim that if separation exists because of religion, that it's not the government's business to make the distinction (1st amendment).
So the brief version of the answer. (In my unqualified opinion) Some gays would still push to be allowed to be "married", while others would likely be happy with the legal equality.
I believe your points have validity. They certainly give one points to ponder. One final question then I promise to retire/leave the subject. If all legal aspects of a civil union were exactly the same as a marriage contract, would the gays still demand the terminology of "marriage"?
Keda,
sorry to disgust you. But please understand that I don't personally find incest acceptable. And even if I did find homosexuality morally reprehensible (which I do not), my position on its legality would be the same.
I simply want the government to have no say in who anyone is allowed to marry.
Ok folks, I'm signing off. Your way to sick for me
doodle bug,
It depends on how the individual state establishes their civil unions. It's my understanding that some proposed ideas for civil unions don't include the full rights of marriage, while others do.
Now, I would ask: If a civil union carries all the same legal benefits as marriage, what makes it different than marriage? Just the name?
They way I see it, there are two aspects of modern day marriage.
1)The civil aspect - This would be what the government recognizes. A legal union between people upon which the government confers benefits/rights unavialble to other (non-married) couples. A marriage license/certificate is issued to make the union legally binding.
2)The religious/personal aspect - This would be what happens in a church. The "married in the eyes of god" aspect. The actual emotional/spiritual commitment between people to love each other, support each other, and to spend the rest of their lives together.
My position is that the government has no right to interfere with the religious/personal aspect of marriage, and that religion has no right to interfere with the civil aspect of marriage.
So, the government should NOT be able to force a church to marry anyone.
But if a church wants to marry a gay couple, government also should NOT be able to force them to not carry out the ceremony.
And religious groups should not be able to tell the government which marriages to recognize.
One solution I've heard proposed is the separation of the two aspects into separate entities. So marriage would be completely up to churches, and civil unions would be completely up to government. So the government would not legally recognize ANY marriages, only civil unions.
This way, churches would be able to marry or not marry whoever they wanted, and government would have no say in the matter. However, to receive the legal benefits/rights, you would have to apply for a civil union.
Some churches would marry gay people, some would not. But EVERYone would be able to walk to the courthouse and file for a civil union.
This is one of the most reasonable approaches that I've heard (in my opinion). Although, there would be resistance to it. I imagine many people wouldn't like the idea of the government not recognizing religious marriages.
jhat I dont find your reply disprectful in any way. You state your points with clarity and without demeaning anyone who disagrees with you. I find your reply intriging (sp?) and it gives me some things to ponder. I cant say that I have any close gay friends, but believe that some family members may be. And I dont think any less of them. Would a civil union or civil contract accomplish the same goals as marriage? And thank you for the examples from history; I was aware of some and not others. I look forward to continued debate.
Keda,
It does not matter whether you or I or anyone thinks it's sick. We might all think it's sick. The question is: In a free society, does the government have a right to control who you marry at all?
Think of it this way. Assuming your are consenting ADULTS, If you are in love with your brother, and you both decide to spend the rest of your lives living together and supporting each other, you are going to do so anyway. If you are going to have a relationship like that you might as well receive the legal benefits that marriage confers. These benefits will allow you to share your healthcare from work, file your taxes together, become each other's medical proxy, etc.
Of course, repeated in-breeding causes genetic problems. But they are your genes, the government can't tell you what to do or not to do with them.
I realize that you probably have me pegged for some kind of "crazy liberal", but I simply do not want the government to control the way I live my life (unless I am harming others). I personally don't like incest or think it's a good idea. But I also think that the government doesn't get to decide what's good for us in our personal lives. Government does not have the right to legislate or establish morality. They have a responsibility to "establish justice" (Preamble to Constitution)
Also, we don't have to change the dictionary for gay marriage...
From the Merriam-Webster's Dictionary website:
Marriage 1 a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage
Ok! say I have a twin brother, I'm very devoted to him. I love him because he is my brother. Should I be able to marry him, or would
that be sick? Just wondering. Oh by the way! look up marry in the Webster's dictionary before there forced to change it
Thank you for being respectful, courteous, and serious. I will return the favor in kind.
The Romans allowed marriage among men. This practice was outlawed in 342 AD by the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans.
In North America, among the Native Americans societies, it has taken the form of Two-Spirit-type relationships, in which some male members of the tribe, from an early age, heed a calling to take on female gender with all its responsibilities. They are prized as wives by the other men in the tribe, who enter into formal marriages with these Two-Spirit men.
I admit, there are many more examples of homo-sexual behavior and relationships that does not include an official union. There are multiple historical records of same-sex couples living together as if they were married, but not having a formal union (marriage). Historically this would have not been a big deal, because marriage then did not necessarily carry the same legal rights and benefits as it does now. A homosexual couple in ancient Greece were not concerned with hospital visitation rights, job benefits, or jointly filing their taxes.
In most US states, marriage comes with over 1,400 legal rights. Survivor benefits, pension sharing, disability benefit sharing, jointly filing for taxes/bankruptcy/etc....
Homosexual couples, whether they were born that way or choose that life, should be afforded the same legal rights as heterosexual couples.
As for where it stops? From a legal standpoint, it would not make any sense legally to marry a rock or an animal or anything that does not have a legal standing. You can't share your health plan with a dog, because it's not a human being. You can't share a loan with a rock because loans cannot be issued to rocks.
The issue with multiple partners becomes somewhat murkier. And in truth, I don't know what my position on it is. I would have concerns that people would marry in large groups just to increase the legal benefits that marriage carries. Can you imagine my work health plan having to cover myself and my 32 wives? People can already abuse the system now by marrying just for the legal benefits. (I know someone who married a friend of theirs so that the friend could receive health care.)
A way for it to be ultimately fair would be for the government to not recognize any marital status at all. Leaving marriage completely in the private domain of churches would allow any type of marriage. Some churches would marry gay people, some would marry multiple partners, some would marry people and animals (although you could argue that it's animal cruelty as animals cannot give sexual consent). And all marriages would have completely equal standing (none).
Of course, this is a not a feasible solution at all, and I would not suggest we attempt to institute it.
I simply believe that it's not the government's place to tell you who you can marry. If the country was predominantly Muslim, the government should not be able to only allow Muslim marriages. If the country was primarily gay, the government should not be able to only allow gay marriage.
Sorry for the long post. I hope I did not come off as disrespectful. It is a subject that I feel very strongly about. I am close friends with a few gay couples. Couples who are completely devoted to one another. Couples who would do anything for each other. Couples who have a better relationship between them than many of the heterosexual couples I know. And I find it so unjust that they cannot receive the same legal rights that I and my girlfriend could. And it breaks my heart that they are treated like second class citizens because of their sexuality.
a couple of questions for jhat (and I mean this to be a respectful, serious, and courteous discussion) first; (for my edification) are there any examples in history of marriage between same sex couples? second; if it is approved now, where does it stop? should folks be allowed to "marry" pets, multiple partners, a rock, etc. etc.
Who is twiggy? And why am I twisted? I'm not gay (not that there is anything wrong with being gay). Nor was I stating that it was "right" for ancient greek men to have sexual relationships with boys. I was noting that it happened, and was considered acceptable AT THE TIME. I was merely trying to expound on the examples of homosexual behavior in other cultures. Obviosly that behavior is not acceptable in our modern-day society, nor should it be (statutory rape laws exist for a reason).
I think what's twisted is equating all (or most) homosexuals to sexual deviants, child molesters, and disturbed individuals. I know many gay people, most in loving, monogamous relationships. And it bothers me to think that they don't have the same rights and privileges as I do.
SWNebr,
Better example of homosexual fighting force, Spartans. Homosexual acts were encouraged in the spartan ranks to increase the bond between the men.
In fact many ancient greeks engaged in man-boy homosexual relationships (not pre-adolescent boys). It was referred to as an eraste-eromenos relationship and was quite common. It was not purely sexual, it was almost like the relationship a mentor has with a student. It was not viewed to be wrong, and it was socially acceptable.
The point is that there are many instances of human homosexual behavior throughout the ages, just like there are many other species who engage in homosexual behavior. It is a perfectly natural phenomena.
As for the statistics that have been presented in this discussion:
The family research institute is neither objective nor a reliable resource. Their stated goal is "to generate empirical research on issues that threaten the traditional family, particularly homosexuality...". Any statistics they publish are tainted by bias.
I know it's hard for people to comprehend, but science/research is not reliable if you begin with a pre-existing bias on the subject and THEN perform experimentation/research. You will find exactly what you want to find.
Additionally, Dr. Cameron and many of their published statistics have been debunked or questioned as inaccurate.
In a free society, there is no rational basis for not letting homosexuals marry. The bible does say that it is an abomination. But the bible is not the law of America. If it was, steffanie, doodle bug, ekimsitruc, and sam eldridge should be stoned to death for using a computer on the SABBATH! (In accordance with Jewish Law)
I know I'm late to the debate, but something Mike said cracks me up. I don't really care one way or the other about homosexuality, but the society that he uses to prop up what I assume us supposed to be the success of a homosexual society is the Huns. Seriously the Huns? We are talking about the Huns Mike? I hope you are teaching Guilded Age America or something in your history classes and not any world history. I mean come on. You're right the Huns are famous for their great civilization and culture. We know about all their great cities and works of art. In fact the only thing about the Huns that most people would recognize was Atilla aka the Scourge of God. So maybe that is what you meant. Huns and Homosexuals both fight to destroy God and Christians. I don't think that's what you meant but thats how it can be interpreted.
You could have better referenced the Sacred Band of Thebes or Alexander the Great if you wanted to have a more positive image of homosexual fighting forces.
Wow, did I read this guy right? Ontheleftcoast says that Homosexuals feel that homosexuality is a gift from God?
Wow! The sheer ignorance of the left is mind-blowing sometimes. If that is true, then why are Homosexual leaders in an all out assault on Christians?
When the nutty President of Iran spoke at the far left Columbia University, he told the students that in Iran, under Islam, they would execute homosexuals.
Now, when is the last time you heard of a homosexual condemning Islam?
You homosexual supporters crack me up. You really do. Since when did the right to homosexual sodomy become the wonder issue of our time?
Speaking of Harvey Milk, it would figure that a whacked out, over the line, America-hating moron like Sean Penn would try and make Milk a hero. Sometimes, when you homosexuals try and act like normal folks, it is so damn funny, that I laugh until I hurt.
I have never seen a group that wants destruction as bad as you homosexuals do. If I didn't care, I guess I should let you destroy yourselves, huh? The problem is, you want to take allot of innocent kids with you.
That is how homosexuals reproduce, they molest kids. Over seventy percent of homosexuals say that their first homosexual experience was when they were sixteen or younger, and molested by a man.
I'm a Californian who voted to ban gay marriage, however the left is going to wine and cry until they get there way just like they have for the last thirty years out here. We voted a few years ago to ban it and some liberal judge over turned it. It should have never had to be put on this last ballot again.
With that said, who the hell is this Michael Henrricks? He should be living in the Castro in San Francisco!
Oh! by the way, do you know were Harvy Milk is buried? In a fruit jar under the ferry building in San Francisco. It's a joke folks, just a joke and I know your going to come down hard on me for it.
ontheleftcoast:
I think many of us would love to "educate ourselves with objective scientific studies." It's sad that so many of our scientific studies are performed by those who fear the kind of hatred exhibited toward those who voted for Prop. 8, or who fear losing funding due to accusations by the "politically correct."
As you say, the majority of child sexual abuse is perpetrated by heterosexuals (even though we would disagree that a man raping a boy is still "hetero"), yet the facts are that the percentages of abuse by homosexuals are far greater than the percentage of homosexual population...so a homosexual is still more likely to abuse than a heterosexual when population totals are factored in.
I live in San Jose, Ca close to the queer capitol of the world. To the contrary of what this person wrote, the news media always protray the the queers in the best of light. Any little march, demonstration or anything the gays and lesbians do is on prime time tv over and over again.
sameldridge relies on statistics from the far right fascist Paul Cameron and company--like most on the FAR right or FAR left--facts and reality have no interest to them.
The Prop 8 campaign cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $80 million--the PAC lead by the Mormons with a $1.4 million donation from the Knights of Columbus and over $400,000 from the US Council of Catholic Bishops among others ran a campaign based on untruth, fear, inuendo, etc.
Prop 8 supporters mislead voters with ads which stated/implied:
Churches would be forced to marry Gay/Lesbian couples--the Catholic Church has never been forced to marry a couple when one or both have been married in a valid Catholic ceremony and later divorced in civil court--churches have the right to marry or not marry those they see fit.
Children would be forced to learn about Gay/Lesbian marriages in public schools--NOT IN CALIFORNIA!!! Having worked for California public schools for over 20 years I can assure everyone that in California parents have a right to preview anything taught to their children, especially when sex ed is involved, parents take this right very seriously and it is not uncommon for parents to decline sex ed for their child.
Children raised by samesex couples have a higher incidence of homosexuality--doubt the voodoo studies done by Paul Cameron and company have any serious scientific basis. But if indeed there is a higher incidence of homosexual children in samesex households it would be attributable to the fact that many Gay/Lesbian teens are thrown out of their "Christian" homes when they come out and are then intentionally placed in samesex households to provide them with positive role models.
Would invite people interested in learning the truth about child molestation to read objective studies on the subject, the Mormon organization would have better spent it's money on treating the high rate of incest in their organization.
The Catholic Church would definately have been well advised to spend their money on their own scandals. Also, objective studies show that the vast majority of child sexual abuse is perpetrated by heterosexuals.
Having been involved in the Gay and Lesbian community for many years, I have yet to meet anyone who felt their sexuality was a choice, rather it is a gift from God.
In the name of God, educate yourself with objective scientific studies, not fascist psuedoscience and hate-filled fear mongering preachers.
Suggested reading:
CHRISTIANITY, SOCIAL TOLERANCE, AND HOMOSEXUALITY by John Boswell
Or is the earth the flat center of the universe after all?
sameldridge relies on statistics from the far right fascist Paul Cameron and company--like most on the FAR right or FAR left--facts and reality have no interest to them.
The Prop 8 campaign cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $80 million--the PAC lead by the Mormons with a $1.4 million donation from the Knights of Columbus and over $400,000 from the US Council of Catholic Bishops among others ran a campaign based on untruth, fear, inuendo, etc.
Prop 8 supporters mislead voters with ads which stated/implied:
You are right Bro, we can agree to disagree. I appreciate the debate. Thanks for your time.
Look forward to disagreeing with you again.
sameldridge the research that you used is from a institute who's work has been debunked over and over and over again. To be honest some of the numbers that Dr. Cameron use sound made up. 21% of lesbians die of murder, suicide, or traffic accident? Are you kidding me? How many of those are from suicide? And why is traffic accident even in the stats? How does a traffic accident prove lesbians are worse than straight people?
If you want real stats I suggest you look at the American Psychological Association.
Okay you want me to name one society? How about the Huns. The people who had control of most of northern Asia and eastern Europe for hundreds of years. Most of their armies were made up of homosexuals. I definately will not mention the United States, gays and lesbians are not rampant in this country and they are shunned as a group more than child rapists. In the United States 3-5% of our population identify themselves as being gay/lesbian. This is unchanged in fifty years as the homosexual "lifestyle" has become more acceptable. That hardly sounds rampant. And it hardly sounds like choice either. But that last part is naturally my opinion, and you can and will disagree.
I forgot to mention a couple of items. Children who are raised by homosexuals are three times most likely to end up as homosexuals. Now, if homosexuality is something you are born with, as liberals like to say, then how can this be explained?
Are we to believe that through random adoption, homosexuals just "happen" to adopt more kids born homosexual? The truth here is obvious.
Now I offer my own opinion.
Men want sex more than women, that is a fact. Now most women have a sexual "governor", in other words, it is not necessarily a "drive" like it is in men. Therefore, homosexuality, in my humble opinion, is about being consumed with sex. Sex, sex, and more sex.
Men who are over-sexed, have a much easier time finding over-sexed male partners, than they do over-sexed women partners.
Again, in my humble opinion, lesbians generally are men-haters, and find comfort with other men-haters. Therefore, lesbianism is more about rejecting men, than it is a lifestyle.
Again, that is just my opinion, but you and I both know, I am right on the money. I am sure you can find a lesbian out there, who claims to not hate men, and I can find someone out there who still thinks the Earth is flat.
Yo ekimsitruc - unlike liberals, I do my research. The following statistics are from the Family Research Institute, Dr. Paul Cameron, and from the Free Republic.
Before I quote some statistics, you must understand, even though you don't want to, that the in the US, there is scientific fascism going on. If you are scientist, and you want funding, you'd better tow the liberal line, or you're out. Truth is a beautiful thing, and dangerous to leftists.
Homosexuals report 20-108 different sexual partners a year, the average heterosexual has eight in a lifetime.
Homosexuals are only 1 to 2 percent of the population yet account for 69% of all syphilis cases and 17% of hospital admissions. (not counting STD admissions!)
73% of psychiatrists say homosexuals are less happy than the average person, and of those psychiatrists, 70% say the unhappiness is NOT due to social stigmatization.
25-33% of homosexuals and lesbians are alcoholics.
78% of homosexuals are affected by STDs.
Homosexuals questioned in one study reports that 43% admit to 500 or more partners in a lifetime, 28% admit to 1000 or more partners in a lifetime, and of these people, 79% say that half of those partners are total strangers, and that 70% of those sexual contacts are one night stands. (or as one homosexual admitted in the film "The Castro", one minute stands)
Judge John Martaugh, Chief Magistrate of the New York City Criminal Court has said, "Homosexuals account for half the murders in large cities."
Captain William Riddle of the Los Angeles Police says, "30,000 sexually abused children in Los Angeles were victims of homosexuals."
50% of suicides can be attributed to homosexuals.
Homosexuals account for a disproportionate number of Hepatitis cases: 70-80% in San Fransisco, 29% in Denver, 66% in NYC, 56% in Toronto, and 26% in Melbourne.
37% of homosexuals engage in sadomasochism, which accounts for many accidental deaths. In San Fransisco, classes were held to teach homosexuals how not to kill their partners during sadomasochism.
41% of homosexuals say they have had sex with strangers in public restrooms, 60% say they have had sex with strangers in bathhouses, and that 64% of these encounters have involved the use of illegal drugs.
Depending on the city, 39-59% of homosexuals are infected with intestinal parasites like worms, flukes and amoebae.
Homosexuals are 100 times more likely to be murdered (usually by another homosexual) than the average person, 25 times more likely to commit suicide, and 19 times more likely to die in a traffic accident.
21% of lesbians die of murder, suicide or traffic accident, which is at a rate of 534 times higher than white heterosexual females aged 25-44 who die of these things.
About 50% of women on death row are lesbians.
Enough statistics for you dude? I could go on, but why, most of us are sickened already. God knows best, and even thought you liberals think you are God, you are not. Why do you think Homosexual activity has been banned, or prohibited for most of man's existence on Earth? Because it is bad news dude.
Now I have a question for you my liberal friend. Please name me one society, in the history of mankind, that has ever flourished with rampant homosexuality. AND do not say the United States, because the USA has gone downhill culturally and spiritually, ever since Homosexuals stampeded medical conferences some thirty odd years ago, and demanded that homosexuality no longer be declared a mental illness.
Liberals always claim to "care." They do not. If they really cared, they would stand against this destructive "lifestyle" and help these poor folks grow a brain!
You can count me on the side of Sam and Arley. I too will kneel with a happy heart. One of the worst things about liberalism is how two-faced those practitioners are; yes, many conservatives are too, but they can't "hold a candle" to the liberals.
First to sameldridge where do you get your information? You state that gays die younger than straights? Where is this research at? I have a feeling you got this information from the same place that those that oppose gay adoptions get their information that children raised in gay household suffer from more issues than those in straight families. This place is of course make-believe land. The research actually shows that children raised in gay families lead similar lives as those raised in straight families. As far as the suicide rates being higher, can you blame them. One only needs to read the message board to this blog to see the absolute hate and contempt for gays that exist in this nation. Children come out to their parents and in some cases the parents completely write them off and will never have anything to do with them again. If it is even suggested that a child is a gay, that child is ridiculed by his schoolmates. It's harder in this country to be gay or lesbian in this country than it is to be a rapist or murderer.
And Steffanie, exactly how old are you, because you are acting like a ten year old. You christen anyone who shows any support for gay and lesbians as themselves being gay, telling me to come out of the closet and suggesting that Marv and Natureboy of being lovers. Grow up. If your best defense against someone you disagree with is to attempt to shame them and insult them, then you have a lot of growing to do.
Marvalous, Thanks for the complimentary support. I use the exact same right as you, to voice my opinion, but the instant I cite my God, and His word, you accuse me of carrying a lethal weapon. Now that is the power of God's word. Thank you. Your baseless accusation makes my arguments better than I have vocabulary to accomplish.
I am sorry to confuse you, but I do not hate you, nor any other mortal being. Lord Love a Duck, I don't even hate Lucifer; so, I fear that makes you quite: W R O N G !
Isn't it interesting? Every knee will bow to Messiah, mine gleefully, others reluctantly, but all will bow down. There is still time left to join the people you so willingly call the 'Haters.'
In Messiah, His Shalom to you, and one and all. Arley
Hey Marv - thanks for your comment. You are clearly demonstrating the flawed liberal mind.
You are upset about the guy beaten with the bat, as you should be, but I doubt seriously that you care at all for the millions of babies that have been slaughtered in the name of liberalism.
Homosexual activity is dangerous, dangerous to the homosexuals themselves, and dangerous to the society they try and pollute.
The homosexual community is comprised of far left goons, with a clear anti-God agenda. They insist on polluting everything they come in touch with. The greatest damage of homosexual activity is to the homosexuals themselves. They die much younger than straights, and their suicide rates are off the chart.
You Marv, clearly do not have the kind heart you try and portray.
Stuffannie and Navyblew, you people sound so angry. Are you one of these people we're reading about below who are going to beat others with your Biblical view of what God wants? You folks are the really scary ones! Reason in the face of religious bigotry is impotent. May God have mercy on your souls!
Ecuadorean killed in New York buried at home:
Sucuzhanay, a 31-year-old real estate agent, was attacked by a group of men who kicked and beat him with an aluminum baseball bat, shouting anti-Latino and anti-gay slurs as he walked arm in arm with his brother near his Brooklyn home on Dec. 7. He died after five days in a coma.
Sadly, Mike, the Bible, which you seem to hate, tells us about how those of your liberal mind-set will pollute the children, and thus, Society at large.
In this season that we, the people who believe in Messiah, and the Bible, must still believe the truth of His, and its words. Yes, we can love the homo-sexual people of the world, even you, with a bit more effort, but not the action.
You teach, but do not seem to comprehend the distinction between the person and the action. I guess, History does not require understanding of truth, any more. Sad, Sir!
If you desire to feel good, keep up what you are doing, and saying. The Bible says your type will subdue the faithful, with your liberal lies, for a short time. When it all comes to an end, however, He, and we, will still love you, and your ilk, but your choices in this mortality, may determine your ending up somewhere different than those who listen to God's word. You who deny Him, and His word, will still kneel and proclaim Him God. Enough said, my friend. You, I feel would be an excellent 'Brother, in Messiah.'
Please repent of your mindset, before your heart is hardened to the point of no redemption.
Merry Christ-mass, on this day we Christ-ians celebrate the birth of Emanuel, Yaushuah ha Meshiach, Jesus the Christ. Perhaps you know him as 'Hey, whats-your-name!'
He does so much want to accept you into His family.
Respectfully offered, that you might comprehend. Arley
I have to add one more thing. Mike is a perfect example of why our educational system needs overhauled in the worst way.
One can only imagine the numbers of young minds, that Mike and his ilk, have polluted with leftist' indoctrination over the years. Wow!
I agree with you Steffanie. Mike clearly demonstrates that liberalism is in fact a mental disorder. You have to remember that to a liberal, the facts are completely irrelevant.
Mike says the word homosexual wasn't invented until the late 1800's. Mike, there were other words used to describe homosexuals for centuries, most of which have been declared hate speech by today's whacked out culture police. There are all sorts of "Biblical" words which could be used, instead the word "gay" was perverted to explain perversity.
I looked at the pictures that Mike was so proud of. What did I see? Child abuse.
just out of curiosity, why do you care if they want to get married? Why should they get to be happy? I say let them get married so they can me miserable like the rest of us.