It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Proposal To Strike "Marriage" From California Law

page: 8
4
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 05:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by americandingbat
Just one comment:


why are there so few lawyers willing to put it to good use?


Because a) homosexuality is not a behavior and b) the law is on their side.


A) Prove it

B) what law?

The Conspiracy is just what annee and gays need to meet the gay agenda and if you don't think their is a conspiracy here or a gay agenda better look at this. This stuff is PLANNED well in advance by Gay organizations and using political strategy right out of Saul alinsky's book on how to sneak communism into a capitalist society.


Cleverly mixing civil rights with "contemporary families" (i.e., homosexual couples), and "diversity of our town" (non-traditional families). Note the use of "Open Circle" -- a radical pro-homosexual diversity company based in Wellesley that specializes in pushing the left-wing diversity agenda to elementary school-aged children.



The same in your face activism the same pumped up anger and the same con getting us to back off using hate speech as their instrument tantamount to diplomatic immunity. Even the cops were afraid to "offend them" THIS HAS GOT TO STOP.

The institution of marriage is their agenda and it HAS to be the word MARRIAGE as no other word will give them the kind of clout to promote and advance the rest of their plans for a more "gay way" in society. Frankly,, I think people are getting a little tired of the ever increasing sensitivities of gays and what they want while they get away with anything they want and what they want is sex and want to push their brand of it on our kids.



“We’re here, we’re queer, get used to it!”
Smith College, Northampton, MA - April 29, 2008
Dozens of lesbian activists at Smith College climbed in through windows and stormed the podium in a riot scene shortly after Ryan Sorba began a speech on his upcoming book, The Born Gay Hoax. The melee forced an end to the speech before a packed hall in the library on the Northampton campus. Uniformed police officers and a plainclothes security guard were in the room but mostly just stood and watched. Rather than take action against the rioters, the officers and a university official walked to the podium and ordered Sorba to leave the room “for his own safety.”




They have the law on their side?

Not likely and more and more people are wiseing up



WASHINGTON, July 25, 2008

On Wednesday the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania issued a short per curiam order, in which it agreed with the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania that the state legislature violated the Pennsylvania Constitution when it added "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" to Pennsylvania's "ethnic intimidation" law.

Eleven Christians of the evangelical group Repent America were arrested due to that same law in 2004 for reading the Bible and singing hymns at Outfest, a homosexual rally. Though the case was eventually dropped, Repent America filed legal action in 2005 against the act, citing its unconstitutional nature.

The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania agreed last November that the law was unconstitutional and struck it down. On appeal the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania sided with the Commonwealth Court, saying on Wednesday: "The order of the Commonwealth Court is AFFIRMED for the reasons ably set forth in the opinion of the Honorable James Gardner Colins, which opinion is adopted as that of the Supreme Court."

In the Commonwealth Court opinion Justice Colins observed that the court struck down the law because the provision violated Article III of the state Constitution, which prohibits a bill's alteration during its passage through the legislature, if the bill's original purpose is changed.

The bill started as a measure against agricultural vandalism, and was changed by the state legislature into a hate crimes bill designed to make it illegal for anybody to protest public homosexual activities and celebrations. The law was used to persecute anybody who stood in the way of the homosexual agenda, redefining peaceful protest by Christians as hate crime.



Oooops! Looks like the main man behind the Massachusetts Gay Marriage agenda got busted not for being gay but for doing what we fear most.



BOSTON, MA, February 13, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Carl Stanley McGee, 38,

a top-level aide in the administration of Massachusetts governor Democrat Deval Patrick has been charged with sexually assaulting a 12-15 year old boy. The incident occurred in late December, but has only been made public in the past several days.


McGee allegedly assaulted the boy at a resort on the Gulf Coast in Florida, the prestigious Gasparilla Inn & Club. The day after meeting the boy at the resort and exchanging a few words with him, McGee allegedly entered the steam room where the boy was sitting, masturbated, removed the boy's towel, massaged his shoulders, and performed oral sex on him. The victim subsequently told his father about the incident, who then reported McGee to the police. McGee was arrested, held overnight and released on $300,000 bond.


German society is once again going off the deep end AGAIN!
It can be traced to the decline of family and the Con artistry of getting society to skeered to TELL IT LIKE IT IS! We now have young girls being kidnapped everyday here right here in the United States being taken from single moms for the sex trade industry.

It should NOT ONLY be my right to NOT tolerate the proliferation and advancement of Gay lifestyle and BEHAVIOR, it is my right to be able to SAY so. This has been the biggest con of all getting fathers of children to shut there mouths and it has been done slowly and methodically by Atheists getting us too skeered to bring up moral values and Gays getting us too skeered of Mods interacting in this kind of discussion and in the meantime Gays have found yet another deadly batcteria known as MRSA or the "superbug" and the CDC says it is just a matter of time where it will overflow into the general public. This bacteria was being kept quite while its attempts to keep it from spreading outside Hospitals has failed and it is now on the CDC watchlist growin fast among gays where the un-natural acts of their behavior has natural consequences and it is starting to hit our public schools showing up in the buttox and genitals of young males most who thought nothing of experimenting with gay sex.


WASHINGTON, Jan. 15 Reuters has reported that, "A drug-resistant strain of potentially deadly bacteria has moved beyond the borders of U.S. hospitals and is being transmitted among gay men during sex, researchers said on Monday.

"They said methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, or MRSA, is beginning to appear outside hospitals in San Francisco, Boston, New York and Los Angeles."

"'Once this reaches the general population, it will be truly unstoppable,' said Binh Diep, a researcher at the University of California, San Francisco who led the study."

According to the study, at this point, homosexual men are 13 times more likely to contract the potentially deadly, drug-resistant strain of staph infection, but the fear is that, because the infection is spread via skin-to-skin contact, homosexual men may soon spread it to the general population.

Matt Barber, Policy Director for Cultural issues with Concerned Women for America (CWA), said, "The medical community has known for years that homosexual conduct, especially among males, creates a breeding ground for often deadly disease. In recent years we have seen a profound resurgence in cases of HIV/AIDS, syphilis, rectal gonorrhea and many other STDs among those who call themselves 'gay.'

"The human body is quite callous in how it handles mistreatment and the perversion of its natural functions. When two men mimic the act of heterosexual intercourse with one another, they create an environment, a biological counterfeit, wherein disease can thrive. Unnatural behaviors beget natural consequences.

"In recent years our culture has adopted a laissez faire attitude toward sexual deviancy. Television shows like Will and Grace glorify the homosexual lifestyle while our children are taught in schools that homosexuality is a perfectly healthy, alternative sexual 'orientation.' 'Stay out of our bedrooms!' we're often commanded by militant 'gay' activists.

"Well, now the dangerous and possibly deadly consequence of what occurs in those bedrooms is spilling over into the general population. It's not only frightening, it's infuriating.

"Citizens, especially parents, need to stand up and say, 'No More! We will no longer sit idly by while politically correct cultural elites endanger our children and larger communities through propagandist promotion of this demonstrably deadly lifestyle.




A growing list of gays that have admitted it just sort of grew on them from trying it and how convenient it got for them where after a while they just got less and less confidant approaching woman when all they need to do is "get off". This is essentially "habit forming" they said and it begins getting legitimized in our public schools. Like evolution which can no longer be challenged, gay sex and gays are NOT to be offended!

Hey ya know what?? Pffft

The gay marriage status was where germany went out of control and it is shocking but true. Homosexuals are having their way in Germany. Germany is now involved with State-encouraged incest, which in most civilized societies is a crime. It is pushing sex between parents and their young children via state sponsored publications. A German Government sponsored publication promotes incestuous pedophilia as healthy sex ed.

In the meantime the ACLU is defending Nambla under freedom of speech laws and THIS is how the law is on their side?? The law used to assume we had common sense but I see that isn't true anymore. Now it is used to shut fathers of children out of their kids lives, shut out of the decisions made to kill their child when a woman carrying the both of their child decides too. Yet if HE doesn't want to have a child and she does, HE is shut out of THAT decision too and has to pay for it to age 18 regardless. This is how progressives think and this is where it leads just keep your eyes on germany and Mass and it all starts by putting that states governments seal of APPROVAL ON gAY LIFESTYLES.

Marriage is the best way to steal the legitimacy of that traditions civil union without the headaches and / or costs of rasing a family.




By John-Henry Westen

BERLIN, July 30, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Booklets from a subsidiary of the German government's Ministry for Family Affairs encourage parents to sexually massage their children as young as 1 to 3 years of age. Two 40-page booklets entitled "Love, Body and Playing Doctor" by the German Federal Health Education Center (Bundeszentrale für gesundheitliche Aufklärung - BZgA) are aimed at parents - the first addressing children from 1-3 and the other children from 4-6 years of age.

"Fathers do not devote enough attention to the clitoris and vagina of their daughters. Their caresses too seldom pertain to these regions, while this is the only way the girls can develop a sense of pride in their sex," reads the booklet regarding 1-3 year olds. The authors rationalize, "The child touches all parts of their father's body, sometimes arousing him. The father should do the same."

Canadian author and public speaker Michael O'Brien who has written and spoken extensively about the crisis of culture in the West spoke to LifeSiteNews.com about the shocking and extremely disturbing phenomenon. It is, he said, "State-encouraged incest, which in most civilized societies is a crime." The development is, he suggests, a natural outcome of the rejection of the Judeo-Christian moral order.

"The imposed social revolution that has swept the western world is moving to a new stage as it works out the logical consequences of its view of man's value," said O'Brien. "It is merely obeying its strictly materialist philosophy of man. If man is no more than a creature created for pleasure or power. If he is no more than a cell in the social organism, then no moral standards, no psychological truths, no spiritual truths can refute the 'will to power' and the 'will to pleasure'."

The pamphlet advises parents to permit young children "unlimited masturbation" except where physical injury becomes apparent. It advises: "Children should learn that there is no such thing as shameful parts of the body. The body is a home, which you should be proud of." For ages 4-6, the booklet recommends teaching children the movements of copulation.

Another product of the BZgA is a song book aimed at children of four and slightly older which includes several songs espousing masturbation. The song-book entitled "Nose, belly and bum" includes one song with the following lyrics: "When I touch my body, I discover what I have. I have a vagina, because I am a girl. Vagina is not only for peeing. When I touch it, I feel a pleasant tingle."

"The wiser and deeper position of most civilizations recognized that children need a period of innocence," commented O'Brien. "Now the state, the German state, is encouraging destruction of this state of innocence," he added. "This is consistent with the materialist philosophy that sees all moral norms and all truths about human nature as repressive. Pleasure and their distorted concept of freedom are their only guiding principles."

According to the Polish daily newspaper Rzeczpospolita, the BZgA booklet is an obligatory read in nine German regions. It is used for training nursery, kindergarten and elementary school teachers. Ironically it is recommended by many organizations officially fighting pedophilia, such as the German Kunderschutzbund. BZgA sends out millions of copies of the booklet every year.

"A society such as Germany's which is already in steep decline, indeed into degeneration, will only inherit the whirlwind of violence and further levels of degradation of their own people," warned O'Brien.

"It has happened before in Germany. It has happened in other nations. Different causes but the same dynamic, the rejection of the moral order of the created universe results in radical evil. The German state intervention in family life is a new level of auto-destruction," said O'Brien.



Leave marriage alone and leave our kids alone.




posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Aermacchi
 

Whew.
You've been through just about every tirade possible against gays, lesbians, the political left and liberals in general. As you can see, the mods have not shut you down. Your freedom of speech has not been taken away from you.

I won't even begin to refute some of your allegations, assumptions and errors. And yes, there is extreme dislike if not hate in some of it. But it would take too long to refute all of it and I don't think that that is really the purpose of this thread, which is to discuss a particular proposition and its ramifications.

I'll just say simply: My mother felt very strongly against homosexuality until she found out a family member was gay. He shared his trials with her and she could relate to him. It completely changed her attitude and assumptions.

I personally do not think my marriage is threatened in any way by the right of gays and lesbians to marry whomever they choose and have that partnership legally recognized. I do not believe it is their agenda to destroy my way of living and partnering.

The question here is how to live in a society that can accept both the religious convictions of some and the rights of others. This proposition seems to offer a viable alternative to Proposition 8.



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sestias
reply to post by Aermacchi
 

Whew.
You've been through just about every tirade possible against gays, lesbians, the political left and liberals in general. As you can see, the mods have not shut you down. Your freedom of speech has not been taken away from you.

I won't even begin to refute some of your allegations, assumptions and errors. And yes, there is extreme dislike if not hate in some of it. But it would take too long to refute all of it and I don't think that that is really the purpose of this thread, which is to discuss a particular proposition and its ramifications.

I'll just say simply: My mother felt very strongly against homosexuality until she found out a family member was gay. He shared his trials with her and she could relate to him. It completely changed her attitude and assumptions.

I personally do not think my marriage is threatened in any way by the right of gays and lesbians to marry whomever they choose and have that partnership legally recognized. I do not believe it is their agenda to destroy my way of living and partnering.

The question here is how to live in a society that can accept both the religious convictions of some and the rights of others. This proposition seems to offer a viable alternative to Proposition 8.




No since then, Calif made it unconstitutional to challenge this issue again, so what this is REALLY about is getting back at the people by taking marriage and all it stands for away and reducing it to domestic partnerships that for the same reason gays weren't satisfied with it they want to force it down marrieds throats.

Then you wonder why their is hate for gays? One of the gay people on this board has a sig that says "i don't hate Christians, I just hate what they do." I can say the same thing for them. I can acceot the rights of others when they have that right but in this case they do not. I don't see Gays ever being anything less than militant towards Christians and ya know, it wouldn't matter if I had a family member who is gay, I still would say the same thing. I think it is unfortunate their lot in life but I also believe the actions and how they have handled themselves throughout all this is what makes their cause so unattractive. The timing wasn't right and the way they marketed it was asinine. By the way, I VOTED for it and changed my mind when I saw the way they handled this and actually looked into the legal basis for it, and frankly,, they should have accepted the gay civil unions bill.

On a side note:

I was only joking about them wanting to pass a bill making it so anyone can use any public restroom and wouldn't ya know it that is also in the legislature to accomplish.



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 12:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Aermacchi

Although I know we do not see eye-to-eye on this issue (the proposal), there is one sentence in your post I feel I have to address:

I don't see Gays ever being anything less than militant towards Christians and ya know, it wouldn't matter if I had a family member who is gay, I still would say the same thing.

I believe, I have believed for a while now, and I will probably die believing, that this militant attitude exhibited by a minority of gay activists is the very reason why there is so much turmoil and strife over this issue. I also believe that there will be plenty of these activists who will now swop down upon me, not unlike a flock of vultures, to decry everything I have ever uttered or ever will utter as propaganda and hateful rhetoric. To them, I say this in advance: Go ahead. You are destroying your cause you claim to support. Have fun offending everyone you possibly can, and then expecting them to accept you.

Hearts and minds may be changed over time by logic and reasoning and actions; not by hatred and fury and ire.

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 01:26 PM
link   
The Christian Right has spent the last thirty years or so portraying gays as "public enemy number one" - it shouldn't be shocking that plenty of gays hate their guts


Really, why do "gay activists" get the blame, and "Christian activists" get a free pass?

They spend thirty years telling people they're scum, and then receiving a taste of their own medicine finally has them crying about persecution?

Cry me a river, people



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Aermacchi
 


Dude, seriously. You are cherry picking fringe stories and applying your thoughts about 'gays' to all 'gays'. What your talking about is fringe in gay culture.

How would you like it if I went around saying that all christians were like the ones up at Westboro Baptist Church. See the argument just doesn't stick.

And on a side note, why is pedophilia being brought up in this thread. As far as I know their is a difference between two consenting adults getting married versus an adult and kid.

And yeah i'm gay, and live in the most conservative state in the country. I came out to my parents and they hated me at first, but eventually accepted me, it took a really long time, and it's still a work in progress, i've been through alot because of what this society put me through. Some people choose to get revenge on the people who did hurtful things to them. I guess they call that blowback. But i'm not like that.

I don't promote my lifestyle, i'm gay and that's it, that's only a small fraction of me, but unfortunately people will look at that .01% part of me and judge my whole character based on who i'm attracted to, and honestly i feel sorry for those people because they truly are embracing ignorance.



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 02:11 PM
link   
personally I don't care one way or the other....however....

If I tried to refer to my wife as my domestic partner, she would beat me within an inch of my life... that's what 15 years of marriage gets you BTW...



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Aermacchi
 


Frankly, Aermacchi....you decry the 'Gay Agenda' when, in fact it is YOU, and others like you, who have a real agenda....hate.

You made a blanket statement, about a member of ATS in good standing, based on his/her siggy...that is just deplorable. Your apparrent assumption is if a person 'hates' on how Christians (not all of them, of course...it think it refers to the iincredible hyprocrisy....look up Fred Phelps, for instance) -- as I was saying, if a person disagrees with Christianity, then that person must automatically be Gay. That is the impression you leave. What incredible arrogance. And, maybe a little paranoid.

No, macchi....your 'agenda' is intolerable on a website such as this, because a closed mind will never learn.

Again, just trying to point out to other readers of the thread, this 'proposal' is silly. It would actually, IMO, be discriminatory towards Heterosexual couples. I think it was meant to call attention to the efforts to bring a new vote that, if passed, would negate Prop 8.

Really, all Gay people want is a legally recognized union...SOME want to call it a 'marriage'. So what? Personally, I could lttle either way, since it won't affect me.

But, dude....the garbage you post verges on pornographic.

There is no 'indoctrination agenda' to somehow 'flip' anyone....it is impossible. The real gay 'agenda' would simply to live and let live...hmmm, isn't that a Christian philosophy?

(edit)
BTW, I personally don't care to ever get married....so many end in divorces, and I certainly don't want to risk losing 50% of my wealth....I saw my father go through it...


[edit on 3/17/0909 by weedwhacker]



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 02:24 PM
link   


Again, just trying to point out to other readers of the thread, this 'proposal' is silly.


Well as I said earlier, I strongly disagree and think this is the most sensible compromise.

It ensures that people have equal legal rights regardless of sexual orientation, and gets the government out of the business of what defines "marriage" - a culturally very sensitive topic.

It doesn't discriminate against heterosexual couples, they will have exactly the same legal rights as before. It changes a legal term so as to respect cultural differences, while ensuring equal treatment under the law.

It's a golden opportunity for both sides to get what they claim they want, without handing anyone a "victory" in the culture wars - which is, I suspect why there is resistance to it on both sides.

People would rather "win" a fight than admit the fight was silly in the first place.



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by xmotex
 


Yes, but......

There isn't there a general consensus, between all 50 States, to legally recognize a marriage from any other State?

This is a complication to the California proposal, is all I meant. A whole new can 'o worms.



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker

There isn't there a general consensus, between all 50 States, to legally recognize a marriage from any other State?

Someone else mentioned that problem earlier. But as I see it, other states will simply have to decide whether or not they wish to recognize a California domestic partnership as a marriage.

The alternative would be to let this go to the Supreme Court and have the country ban gay marriage Constitutionally once and for all, leading to more hatred and possibly rioting across the nation. If California, the most accepting state in the Union (with the possible exception of Massachusetts) is having trouble with this, how do you think a country-wide vote would go? I didn't say a word when Bush proposed his amendment, because I saw no way it could ever happen, but with tensions among the population running so high right now, it is becoming a possibility.

This is the simplest, the easiest, and the safest way to give both sides what they claim they want.

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex

Well as I said earlier, I strongly disagree and think this is the most sensible compromise.



COMPROMISE - - in that one word you just proved why it is wrong.

Equal is Equal - - it is NOT Compromise.

So tell me if gays are married in their church in the eyes of God - - are you going to honor that?

Doubt it.



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


I think you are misunderstanding some things, my personal POV most of all: I consider myself strongly pro-gay rights, including gay marriage. I have been very vocal arguing against Proposition 8.

Would I personally recognize someone's gay marriage as a real marriage? Yes, 100%, of course I would.

People's sexuality is no more important to me than their hair color...

This compromise is one that recognizes everyone's rights and maintains equal rights under the law for all citizens.

People will still be free to describe themselves as "married" and certainly will do so, this compromise simply says that the definition of the word "marriage" is up to individuals to decide, not the government.



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
The Christian Right has spent the last thirty years or so portraying gays as "public enemy number one" - it shouldn't be shocking that plenty of gays hate their guts


Really, why do "gay activists" get the blame, and "Christian activists" get a free pass?

They spend thirty years telling people they're scum, and then receiving a taste of their own medicine finally has them crying about persecution?

Cry me a river, people


Don't even go there, you're talking to an ideology that has been killed in the millions for their beliefs. When we tried to warn people that the gay lifestyle of homosexual sex would have dire consequences that would eventually over flow into the general population, we were mocked and ridiculed while free love and casual sex reingned in the bathhouses of S.F. and New York while those same Christians at MY Church were offering their homes to AIDS victims when their own families were to afraid to touch them. While Gays put up websites with the vitriolic language of hate and ridicule of Christians alleging we made them public enemy number one, OUR websites were collecting money for Research and paying for funerals for the dead in the early 80's.

While Christians marched in parades with placards supporting family values, Gays were marching dressed in drag some wearing next to nothing with signs with vulgar sexual innuendo and those calling Jesus a queer. There are whacked out people in every kind of group and Christians have their whackos but by and large you won't find many examples of it. When I am shown how bad we Christians are, it is usually the same landover baptists. But a short 5 min google search comparing gay websites to Christian websites and Ill Guarantee you won't find many Christians calling Gays scumbag or public enemy No1

Then,, check out Gay websites and then you and Redneck may get a clue that it isn't a small sample of militant gays, but even the more so called mild mannered types meet all the descriptions in a more general sense than you might think.

The reason gays hate us is because they ask us what we think.

We tell them and they don't like it.

We don't know who gay are, we don't attack them in their nightclubs like they have disrupting our Church services and MOST of the threads on these boards where we see debate between them, invariably they make them to bait US and very few where you see it the other way around.

They say the Bible doesn't say anything about Gays when we know it does and we tell them it does and and we show them where and they say YOUR BIGOTRY! If they don't like what the Bible says then why ask, it isn't like the cared anyway ? They do it because they know Christians will tell them and why? Because they ask for it.

They ask for trouble dressing in drag and marching down streets yelling about what kind of sex they had with your little brother and a recent fire dept is sueing the city for having to be present at one of their parades the Firemen were THAT offended by what went on during that Gayday parade.

Gays are now "testing" the intolerance of Business owners by being lude and acting out public diplays of affection so when anyone gets offended and tells them to get a freakin room, the ACLU sues them. Recently, Christian dateing website "E-Harmony" was FORCED to include gays by Gay activists emplying the ACLU inundating E-Harmony with lawsuits till they capitulated.

Why would Gays want to be a part of a straight Christian dateing service?

They didn't.

They just wanted to test their new political clout because WE are too skeered to "offend them" .

It never ceases to amaze me how people who get involved in such aberrant deviant behavior, could be offended so easily and not know they are begging for the very consequences we see them endure by the choices they make and blame religion for but they won't find a more motivated people to help care for them when ,,,

no one else will



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee


So tell me if gays are married in their church in the eyes of God - - are you going to honor that?

Doubt it.




Doubt God would either

You are right though it is a compromise and not the same thing. You want what we got? Marry someone of the opposite sex just like the rest of us have to .

You see how that works? It is that way for everyone! Including Gays! So quit saying it isn't equal. gays are differen't get it?

Their relationships are DIFFEREN'T and Marriage has already BEEN defined so quit trying to re-define it.

and weed,, we Christians already know we are a very flawed people but when it comes to this,, I think most Christians won't BUDGE and if that's.


All your attempts to suggest I am "deplorable" when YOU yourself know EXACTLY what I am talking about. You know what goes on. We know what the statistics are regrading sex, health and general well being for gays when compared to the heterosexual population.

Would you like me to post them?

Or are yu afraid of seeing the truth?

They come from the most liberal Dept of Health. Massachussettes.

You can attribute my postsing them as hate if you like but lets remember first whos sig says what about who, before you get all indignant about my making referance to here as someone "who knows who they are " and not mention a name. Lets not forget every dig and comment you cannot resist making about Christains in every thread I see you in and everytime I post the facts, about anything, YOU confuse the effect the truth has on you as the affect of my hate.

Ill tell you in a u2u why I know so much about gays if you like or email you some info and I think then you would know, why I said I know more gays than anyone in this thread combined and can fly to almost any city and know hundreds of them.

They would all tell you, you couldn't wear my shoes when it comes to what I know and how I know and the last thing anyone of them would believe is my hating them.

If yo uare drop dead honest Weed and from your recent u2u I think you would be at such a disadvantage when it comes to coming clean about this



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Aermacchi

Then,, check out Gay websites and then you and Redneck may get a clue that it isn't a small sample of militant gays, but even the more so called mild mannered types meet all the descriptions in a more general sense than you might think.

Well, now I know what Bill O'Reilly must feel like.


I just want to state in response to this that I am an avid believer in the Lord Jesus Christ, and I attempt to follow His teachings in my daily life. That normally makes me the target of the gay-marriage proponents in these threads; now, however, I find myself continually referenced as a gay-marriage supporter.


My support for this proposal is not based on Christianity, but I do not see it as conflicting with my beliefs either. If a church were to promote gay marriage, I would not recognize such a union as a marriage; I also, however, do not have the right, according to Christian principles, to force others to think the way I do. This belief is not restricted to gay marriage arguments, either. If it were, I would demand that everyone else smoke, that everyone else drive a pickup truck, etc, etc.

There is nothing in this bill that would prevent a church from marrying a couple in the sight of God, and for those of us who believe, that is the only union that has significance anyway. There is nothingin this proposal that would prevent someone who is married in a church (which would form a state domestic partnership) from having any less access to the conditions that married couples now enjoy. There is something that this proposal would do for the churches, however, in that since marriage is no longer a legal term, a church cannot be forced to perform a marriage on the basis of denial of civil rights.

Remember, my friend, it is not the state that allows you to worship God and hold faith in Jesus; it is God Himself and Jesus Himself who do that.

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 07:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee

COMPROMISE - - in that one word you just proved why it is wrong.

Equal is Equal - - it is NOT Compromise.

So tell me if gays are married in their church in the eyes of God - - are you going to honor that?

Why is my honoring anything of such interest to you? Where in the law does it state that I must accept anyone else's behavior? I will, honor those things that appear honorable to me, not those things which appear dishonorable to me and yet are called honorable by you. That is my right as an American citizen, just as it is yours.

This entire nation is built on compromise. A fair compromise is where both sides get what they need, but neither gets everything they want. Anything other than that is unfair.

If you expect the total population to simply always agree with whatever you say, without any compromise on your behalf, you have much learning to do, and I am afraid much pain to experience in that process. Most of us learned at a very young age that things don't always go our way, and sometimes we have to consider the other side.

I hope you learn that lesson as quickly and therefore as painlessly as possible.

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uniceft17

Dude, seriously. You are cherry picking fringe stories and applying your thoughts about 'gays' to all 'gays'. What your talking about is fringe in gay culture.



I'm applying my thoughts to all gays? Oh my YOU'RE right, OK OK ALL RIGHT Black Guys DON'T all like to play basketball and have lots of rythm, OK OK all right Japanese tourists in Calif DON'T all wear cameras around their necks OK all right Gays DON'T all make great designers and and hair stylists Ok All right Jews are ALWAYS willing to PICK UP THE TAB!

Tell me expert, How many Gays do I have to know before I can honestly say what MOST of them do? How many Gay Citys and communitys like the castro, or S.F. or Boston, would I have to fly to and speak to, before I would be able to speak extemporaneuously on gays in general and be 80% correct?




How would you like it if I went around saying that all christians were like the ones up at Westboro Baptist Church. See the argument just doesn't stick.


Between your example and fred phelps, that is exactly what we have thrown in our faces ad-nauseum so what else is new?




And on a side note, why is pedophilia being brought up in this thread. As far as I know their is a difference between two consenting adults getting married versus an adult and kid.


Their is a consensus among gays in Boston and many other parts of the country where people like the guy I mention there, give lectures about Gays Political aspirations for the gays future of America. They know most of them will not parent children save for "flips" back and fourth so they have a plan for increasing there numbers. Now this is oftenb heard at Gay Parades and so fourth the 10% is not enough.

Google what that is about pertaining to gays.

i just don't want to be accused of hating them when you could read it for yourself and hate me for suggesting you read the facts.




And yeah i'm gay, and live in the most conservative state in the country. I came out to my parents and they hated me at first, but eventually accepted me, it took a really long time, and it's still a work in progress, i've been through alot because of what this society put me through.



I'd like to hear more of what "society" put you through.




Some people choose to get revenge on the people who did hurtful things to them. I guess they call that blowback. But i'm not like that.



I think you are more like that then you may even know but we'd have to start another thread on that one. I know your sexuality is not who YOU are,, of course I do! I also know that Gays should not be defined by the kind of sex they have but they can't have it both ways.

They either say they are a class distinction so it makes it a bonafide equal rights issue OR they get off this and define themselves by NOT how they are the victims of this group or that group while the act out worse things then those they accuse.

The best way for this is to have a legally binding GAY UNION Couples union, what ever, and make it so it is the same as marriage but REdefinfing a term like marriage will set all kinds of things to mean other things and pretty soon, people who say things like " That all depends on what you mean by sex" as Bill Clinton did, will actually have a point!



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by Annee

COMPROMISE - - in that one word you just proved why it is wrong.

Equal is Equal - - it is NOT Compromise.

So tell me if gays are married in their church in the eyes of God - - are you going to honor that?

Why is my honoring anything of such interest to you? Where in the law does it state that I must accept anyone else's behavior?

TheRedneck


Behavior??? Again - another word makes the point.

Negative behavior would be those interfering in Equal rights for everyone because of a Belief.

Your Belief - - - has nothing to do with anything involving Equal Rights for every person.

Who your chemical makeup determines you are attracted to - - is not a behavior - - it is God's design.



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 07:33 PM
link   
xmotex - OK - I get your point.

Mine is - - Society will not see equal. There will always be a division between "marriage" and "domestic partnership".

There will always be cause for "I'm better then you".

I stand by FULL equality - - - only the term marriage applied to all couples.

By the way - - my husband agrees with you.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join