Against Gay Marriage - The Religious Right are Bigots

[Homer12]

The religious right and all those whom are against legalized civil marriage for adult gay and lesbian couples are BIGOTS.

Few things are simple, most things are not in black-and-white terms, but the right-wings stance against Gay Civil Marriage is nothing but modern day bigotry.

So George W. Bush is a Bigot, it's that simple.

[Democrats unite]

1. It's not just right wing nuts..

Thats the sad part.

[d_ashley]

3. the Bible teaches....

that homosexuality is wrong. so to take issue with Christians in this matter is to take issue with the Bible itself.

[Pithlet]

4. The bible teaches that a lot of things are wrong

And many of those things are ignored by a majority of Christians, because many of those laws would seem ludicrous by today's standards. To cherry pick among them and decide to marginalize an entire group of people based on a rule in a section of the bible that is largely ignored is bigotry. Hiding behind the bible doesn't make it any less so.

[d_ashley]

5. list some examples

please

[donco6]

7. Eating shellfish.

Wearing blended fibers
Eating pork or anything with a split hoof
Casting pearls before swine

[d_ashley]

9. i believe you are referring to...

mosaic laws, some of which are still practiced by jews today...but not Protestant Christians. Paul refuted these in the New Testament. the same reason Christians pray to God for forgiveness rather than sacrifice animals.

[elfwitch]

13. How many Jews do you know?

have you ever met one?
Have you ever talked to one?
Have you ever been to their home?

Even Hasidic Jews don't "sacrifice animals" for God's forgiveness.
Be really careful when you throw the whole Jew argument out there. There are quite a few of us on DU and we don't like being stereotyped.

[d_ashley]

20. i didn't say...

Jews sacrifce animals.

[mike1963]

15. Saul, the terrorist of Tarsus? Who gives a flying f*** what he said?

The Icon of Xianity never had one single word to say about. He did, however, run around with guys the whole time and was found with a naked boy in the garden of Gethsemane. Hmmm.

[d_ashley]

18. show me the verse...

where Jesus was found with a naked boy in the Garden...

[mike1963]

24. Mark 14:52

It amazes me how the bible-thumping fundies don't know what's in the book they worship.

[elfwitch]

30. Welcome to DU Mike!!

:toast:

[YNGW]

31. Reply

Jesus was with his apostles in the proceeding verses when he was arrested. Jesus wasn't alone with a naked boy. The verse you quoted said a certain young man had on a cloth, the ones arresting Jesus tried to grab the young man, and he left the linen cloth and fled naked from him. In other words, they tried to grab him, but he slipped away leaving them holding his garmet.

[greekspeak]

120. Also to be found in Secret Mark, which sheds light on 14:52

Secret Mark was used by early "mainline" Christians.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

45. not what it says

a man following Jesus, wearing nothing but a linen garment...when he was seized (by those who came to arrest Jesus) he fled naked leaving his garment behind. This happens after the discussion and the arrest of Jesus. Your implication and interpretation are flat out wrong. This passage much more suggests that as he fled his garment was torn from him.

TheProdigal

[SemperEadem]

77. Paul! Ha! The biggest mysogynist that ever lived, next to John Knox

[TankLV]

110. But these idiotic "laws" are in the exact same place in the bible

that bigoted xtians refer to when condemning homosexuality.

Let's see, greed - nope, I can do that.
Don't kill innocent persons - nope, I can do that.
Stone adulterers - nope.
Lying?
Bearing false whitness?
Etc.
Etc.

But homoSEXuals? - Yeah - that one I choose to comply with.

Either you agree with ALL the laws, or you're being hypocritical.

Any condemnation of gay persons or sex with the same sex is just as outdated. Only another in a series of foolish, rediculuous beliefs and outdated "laws".

You can't "pick and choose".

Post #22 below in this thread says it alot more thoroughly than I did.

[greekspeak]

119. The only clear injunction against man/man sex is

in Leviticus....Mosaic law. The other mentions are either misinterpretations or problematic. So 69 the shellfish, ritually clense your wardrobe, and sow your fields right or get off it.

[elfwitch]

8. examples...

the Bible says:
you aren't supposed to work on the Sabbath
you aren't supposed to eat pork
you aren't supposed to eat shellfish
you may stone a disobedient child

The Bible says a bunch of things. The Christian Bible (as explained on a documentary on the History Channel) was decided on by a committee. A bunch of guys got together and decided what was in and what was out.

AND...
The Christian Bible is a translation from Aramaic from Hebrew. Have you ever played the telephone game? People can't keep a message straight in one language. Imagine how much was lost in the translation from Hebrew to Aramaic to Latin to English...

It is a BOOK. It is stories. It is NOT to be taken literally. It is allegory at best.

All this coming from your local neighborhood Torah reader (Jews still use the original Hebrew text)

[d_ashley]

10. have you ever heard of...

the "Dead Sea Scrolls?"

[elfwitch]

14. sure BUT...

Still proves damn little.
It is not to be taken literally.
They are stories that are supposed to be there to make you think.
They are supposed to make you question.

Only fundies think it is the LITERAL word of God.
If you want to take the whole thing literally then maybe you are on the wrong message board.

[Sapphocrat]

33. Have you ever heard of...

Revelation 22:18-19?

For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

The Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in, what was it, 1947?

And Paul's additions to the NT were written after Jesus was loooong gone from this earth.

Sure sounds like the scrolls & Paul's books certainly "add" to the books in existence when Jesus said/wrote his "Alpha and Omega" sign-off, doesn't it? Or was Jesus' word so flawed that Paul, et al., knew better than he did?

And it sure sounds like picking and choosing from Hebrew law like it was a Chinese menu is "taking away" from the OT, doesn't it?

[YNGW]

34. Just to help you out...

The Dead Sea Scrolls neither added nor took away anything. The Dead Sea Scrolls were written passages from several Old Testament books which matched up word for word with other manuscripts and further verified the accuracy of the OT writings.

Christians believe that the scriptures written by Paul are the inspired word of G-d, just as all the books of the Bible are inspired of G-d.

FYI, Jesus didn't write the book of Revelation which includes the "alpha and omega sign-off". The book was written by John.

The Bible is a combination of two seperate books, The Old Testament and the New Testament. Christians believe that the Old Testament was God's law to the Jews, and then when Jesus came he established a new law, which is what New Testament means, "new law". So those who have posted verses that were written in the OT are making reference to laws the Christian views as having been done away with, and the law of Christ is now the new law.

All of the laws of the ten commandments were repeated in the new testament except one, which was the sabbath day. Christians now worship per the NT on the first day of the week, which is Sunday.

[mike1963]

35. Funny, since hay-soos is alleged to have said:

The Gospel According to Matthew

Chapter 5

17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not
come to destroy, but to fulfil.

18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one
tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and
shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of
heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called
great in the kingdom of heaven.

20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the
righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter
into the kingdom of heaven.

21 Ye have heard that it was said of them of old time, Thou shalt not kill;
and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:

22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a
cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his
brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall
say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

[Sapphocrat]

41. Oh, there it is!

Matthew 5. Thanks for saving me the lookup, Mike -- and welcome to DU!

[YNGW]

43. Reply

Nothing you've written contradicts anything I said.

Jesus didn't destroy the law and the prophets, he fulfilled the law.

>Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

In Christianity, Jesus was the fulfillment of the old law, the Messiah. Having completely fulfilled the law, he then gave his followers a new law.

See, the Jews were required under the old law to sacrifice animals and to come to Jerusalem so many times a year, etc... Under the new law, those laws were done away. The essance of the new law is that it is better than the old law.

------------------------------------------------------

If you wish to ask more questions, please feel free to PM me. I will be happy to continue this discussion there. But, religious discussions can unfortunately interrupt into flames, as witnessed on this thread, and I see no reason to place ourselves in that position. The mods have better things to do.

[Cannikin]

56. Thank you!

As a gay Christian (some argue that is an oxymoron) I have trouble reconciling my religion with regard to all of those 'its an abomination' people. I live my life by the Ten Commandments, and the 'do unto others' part...and thats about all I can do for now! Not very welcome at the church!

[Sapphocrat]

40. Ah, but that's exactly what I'm saying...

So those who have posted verses that were written in the OT are making reference to laws the Christian views as having been done away with, and the law of Christ is now the new law.

Who gave Christians the OK to do away with OT laws? Not Jesus, that's for sure -- he says somewhere in the NT that it's not his purpose to shuck off the "old law." (I can look it up if you like.)

And if OT laws are out the window, then why do (so many) Christians still cite OT laws / modes of behavior as it suits their purpose?

Understand, to me, this is just an academic exercise -- these questions have been answered in my mind for a long time. So don't get the idea I'm finding fault with Christianity, per se; only the convenience of cherry-picking by many Christians.

Btw, I hear ya re the Dead Sea Scrolls. Just trying to make a point, although I guess that part of it fell flat.

[TankLV]

111. Elwrongo! Big Time! Time for a little education on your part.

There were a few gospels that were "not included" in the final historical version of the bible as now comprised.

Had quite a few passages that dealt with the equality of women, and at least one of them was written by a woman.

Portrayed Mary as the successor to Christ, or at least the equal to the exclusive "boys club".

Many other things that were conveniently "forgotton" because they didn't jive with the "supremacy of men over women, etc."

[YNGW]

122. Elrighto!

I've done extensive study on how the Bible was canonized. I'm confident in my findings.

[Name removed]

124. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[d_ashley]

17. again...

these were laws practiced by Old Testament Christians (and Jews today). After Christ's death and resurrection, these laws were no longer to be practiced.

again, i'm not trying to get in an argument over Christian doctrine here. i'm just pointing out the error in the poster's original message. Protestant Christians belief that homosexuality is wrong is in accordance with the Bible. eating shellfish, etc. is no longer practiced b/c the Bible itself stated it was not necessary after a certain point.

[elfwitch]

19. but everybody else's point is...

That if Christians can pick and choose what things they want to follow in the Bible and what things they don't then doesn't it make the doctrine a little bit hypocritical?

I choose to ignore the stuff that interferes with my day and choose to persecute people on the things that wig me out a bit or that I don't understand? COME ON?

[elfwitch]

21. "Jews today"

Back to my question of...

How many Jews do YOU KNOW???
What do you really know about "Jews today"?
There are at least 4 different branches of modern Judaism.
Only the Hasidim still strictly follow the Gemara literally.

[ulysses]

23. "Old Testament Christians"

?

[mike1963]

29. ROTFLMFAO! Good catch, I missed that.

:eyes:

[Homer12]

25. My argument

"Protestant Christians belief that homosexuality is wrong is in accordance with the Bible."

What about the Constitution and the Bill-of-Rights? Do protestant chrisitians beleive in these?

[elfwitch]

28. Sometimes it is hard to tell if they do.

And then there are the other ones that want to do away with that pesky Constitution all-together. You know the, "The Ten Commandments are all the laws we really need" sect.

[Sapphocrat]

48. Eh, correct me if I'm wrong, but...

...isn't "Old Testament Christians" an oxymoron?

[greekspeak]

121. Certainly not for Judaizing Christians

Which did exist for a lot of years in the formative Christian church. They followed the law as Jews did AND were Christians.

[Sapphocrat]

125. I believe it...

But I doubt the poster was referring to "Judaized Christians." :)

[Darranar]

52. Jews today stone children for disobedience?

Really?

"Old Testament Christians"?

[Sapphocrat]

61. Whoa!

And I thought growing up Catholic was tough! :D

[donco6]

6. OK

The Bible is a collection of fairy stories.

That "issue" enough?

[ulysses]

11. so consider issue taken with the Bible.

(Cue the dramatic music.)

The only passage in the Bible that condemns homosexuality is in Romans. Paul was a twerp.

[elfwitch]

16. agreed

If I came home one day and said lets start a religion based on a guy I never actually met, I'd be put away in a nice padded room.

Hey! Let's start a religion based on the teachings of John Lennon. I never met the guy but I had a vision of him once when I was listening to Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds!
:crazy:

[Sapphocrat]

49. And a misogynist. n/t

[Homer12]

12. I'm not taking issue with the Bible

I'm labeling them as bigots, because they want to deny rights to a group of American Citizens.

Fear breeds hatred, and these 2 emotions drive and power the Right Wing.

[Democrats unite]

22. The Bible also teaches us...

Exodus 21.7 selling children into slavery. What would be a fair price today?

Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. Should we get them from Mexico or Canada?

I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

A friend of min feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (lev.11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

Lev.21.20 states that I may not approach the alter of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden in Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

My Uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops, in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev.24:10-16)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confidant you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

[maveric]

26. The Bible was written by Men to control the idiot masses.

Any questions?

[Anaxamander]

27. Fine...

...then the bible is fucking WRONG.

[TankLV]

112. Exactly. Simply stated.

nt

[dawn]

37. Well, then I guess I'll have to take issue with it.

I have issues with people using the Bible to hate others.

[Terwilliger]

63. Have you eaten any shellfish?

I hope god doesn't know about it

[cthrumatrix]

38. Don't waste your time arguing -- this is an election stunt --- ALL BS

[liberalhistorian]

2. It's the same as the bullshit bigoted

opposition to and legal prohibition of interracial marriage, even the arguments against it are so similar that it's really eerie.

[Cannikin]

32. The Skeptics Annotated Bible is a good resource.....

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/

[the populist]

36. I am AGAINST gay marriage

I'm not much into religion either.

Bush is just trying to appeal to the fundies.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

39. Why? Marriage is only a legal agreement.

Please enlighten us...

[the populist]

44. Well I hate to use a Repuke argument but...

if you legalize gay marriage (which I would support if it were "nutshelled" so to speak), then what would be the argument against an incestuous marriage, or other non-"traditional" marriages?

Yes I know it's Santorum's argument, but I believe legalizing it WILL bring into question other non-"traditional" legal agreements.

PS I hope no one takes me for a bigot. I'm really not.

[foreigncorrespondent]

98. Um! Could the simple answer be...

...that is an adult LGBT relationship we are talking about TWO CONCENTING ADULTS, who are very much IN LOVE WITH ONE ANOTHER. As apposed to incest, etc, where there is NO LOVE present?

You are simply keeping two people who love each other from making the ultimate commitment to one another.

[TankLV]

114. "I hope no one takes me for a bigot. I'm really not."

Glad you think so. But just saying so doesn't make it true. But if it'll help while you equate gays as not deserving of equality, or equating being gay with incest or other such nonsensical arguments, go ahead. Just don't expect the rest of us to play your game.

According to your logic, "soon there'll be demands to marry a squash, or money or you might as well mandate that everyone MASTURBATE!"

The horror!

Such a ridiculous argument.

Get real!

[greekspeak]

123. Lovely slippery slope fallacy there

I am also glad that you admit your agreement with Santorum. But you are not a bigot, no sirree. SARCASM OFF

Its like saying that American should not allow African-Americans to vote because then we will have to allow illegal aliens, children and pets to vote. And then after saying that, saying that you are not a bigot.

[Cannikin]

42. Well...I'm gay and I'd like to have all of the legal benefits

a heterosexual married couple has.

[the populist]

46. and I think you should have those rights...

but the problem comes into being when other non-"traditional" partners demand those rights too.

Therefore I can't support gay marriage because I believe it will open a new controversy.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

50. And what is the PROBLEM with non-traditional partners

having access to civil rights?

I'm married and I think it's a GREAT idea. My city has domestic partner benefits, as did many companies I worked for.

Why should gay couples be treated differently under the law? My guess is you can't make a legitmate argument. "Opening a new controversy" doesn't cut it...

[the populist]

58. There is no problem, really.

I have no problem if you want to marry a man or anything. Even polygamy I have nothing against, having Arab friends who have convinced me that there is nothing offensive about it. I'm a very progressive person. I just oppose gay marriage because the ISSUE ITSELF of legalizing non-traditional marriage will drive this country into a fundie vs. progressive war.

It's politically expedient for me, and all Democrats I think, to oppose gay marriage. The working class outside the Northeast is very religious, and unless they're directly forced to vote either their religion or their job security (i.e. Gephardt vs. Bush because I believe Gephardt is the only candidate who has strong worker's appeal), they will vote for the conservative, as evidenced by many elections.

The Democratic Party should, maybe until America as a WHOLE becomes more progressive, put the issue of gay marriage on the shelf. Think about it: If you take the issue of religion away from the right, who will vote for them other than the upper classes?

I feel cruel telling you this, as I'm sure you've received your fair share of insults; but I hope you see my point, though it is a somewhat cynical one.

[TankLV]

115. That didn't take long, now, did it?

Another "to the back of the bus" with "you" people!

Sorry, won't do. No matter how "inconvenient" or "uncomfortable" it is to/for you.

Equality is simply equality.

Fair is fair.

We are talking about marriage between persons of the same sex.

Just that. Only that.

Not about marriage between a man and a squash.

Or a dog and a table.

Sure, never know just WHAT things persons will be demanding!

And we aren't.

Just equality.

Just the ability to do what straigh persons do.

No MORE, no LESS.

Don't cloud the issues with nonsense.

[donco6]

117. "Working class outside NE is religious"

Maybe in the midwest, but not out here. There are fewer churches per capita out west than anywhere. I think we kowtow to that impression entirely too much.

[YNGW]

59. Just Wondering

Are we saying it's OK for humans to marry 2 and 3 partners? Call the Mormans and tell them the party's on!! How about farm animals? Because both of those would be considered "non-traditional partners".

And, no silly jokes of "If you want to marry a goat...." I've been happily married for 15 years to my beautiful wife.

[the populist]

62. Huh?

I personally don't care if people want to marry goats although I think your comparing polygamy to bestiality is a myopic insult against Islamic culture. Read my post that preceded yours (There really is no problem). It explains my thoughts.

[YNGW]

69. Huh?

>I think your comparing polygamy to bestiality is a myopic insult against Islamic culture.

I assure you I didn't write it with that in mind. I'm just saying the term "non-traditional" can be defined rather broadly.

[Sapphocrat]

70. You just made my point for me...

I think your comparing polygamy to bestiality is a myopic insult against Islamic cultureAnd I think comparing polygamy and bestiality and incest to homosexuality is a myopic insult against gay people.

Look, I understand why you're saying what you're saying, but putting "gay marriage on the shelf" isn't going to do any good in the long run.

As I've asked many times before, when is the "proper" time to put it on the table? Not this year, not next year, not the year after that... Do I have to wait until all my opponents are dead before it's the right time? 'Cause, friend, I'll be dead too.

If we all ignore this -- or any -- issue and hope people's backwards attitudes will just evolve on their own, we may as well stop discussing and debating and trying to enlighten one another about everything, and just hang it up and go back to our video games.

And I mean everything, from Bush to the Iraq invasion to black folks getting kicked out out hotel swimming pools to Muslims being detained indefinitely without counsel to anything else you can think of.

What would be the point of fighting for any "dangerous" cause if people are just going to come to their senses one day without our help?

It just doesn't work that way.

[the populist]

87. We live in a more interconnected world.

As progressive ideals are pushed further in Europe, America will quickly follow.

The issue of civil rights was an issue that applied specifically to America (and the British former colonies, but that's a different story).

I suggest we wait till Europe becomes more progressive and America stops being so fanatical.

Because, see, my top priority is getting * out of the White House. If we can get * out of the White House by avoiding discussion of this issue, then there will be a "deBushification" of America. The whole Zeitgeist of the country will change, making gay rights more politically popular. All I want is for just this election to be run in a more pragmatic fashion.

[Cannikin]

89. I hate that for you. But we arent going to go to the back of the bus and

keep our mouths closed. The amendment will pass and we wont get our chance.

[Sapphocrat]

126. I suppose it all depends on your definition of 'quickly'

As progressive ideals are pushed further in Europe, America will quickly follow.

I don't see that at all. In fact, the more secularized Europe becomes, the tighter America's death grip on puritanism.

I understand what your priority is. It's the same as mine. As long as the BFEE is in control, we're all screwed.

But I think you are wildly optimistic on all counts. Americans are not going to just "snap to" once the bad guys are gone. Gay equality has never been "politically popular" even in the best of times. Are you forgetting how we were sold out by Clinton?

Regaining Democratic control of the White House and Congress -- and every single elected office in this country, right down to the local level -- is not the magic bullet.

It is, unfortunately, far too common to believe that by treating the symptom, we will cure the disease. What makes anyone think Bush in the White House is the cause of the rightward swing in this country? It's the other way around: Bush in the White House is the result of the rightward swing in this country.

I'm all for bouncing Bush and his minions out on their collective ear -- but I'm not so foolish to think that that will turn everything around.

You -- you, me, he, she, every damned one of us -- has got to work on a major attitude re-adjustment of the sorely misguided American mindset that allows people like Bush to be installed.

Unless we make a concerted effort to do just that -- in conjunction with removing the BFEE from power -- beginning right now, queers are going to be hearing the same damned argument 10, 20, 50, 100 years from now: It's not time. There are more important issues. Be thankful for the progress you've already made. The American people just aren't ready yet. Don't worry, your rights are coming! They're just around the corner!

And 10, 20, 50, 100 years from now, those queers foolish enough to keep believing all those empty promises are going to sound a lot like Bart and Lisa Simpson:

Dad, are we there yet? Dad, are we there yet? Dad, are we there yet? Dad, are we there yet? Dad, are we there yet? Dad, are we there yet? Dad, are we there yet? Dad, are we there yet? Dad, are we there yet? Dad, are we there yet? ...

[Terwilliger]

65. So what?

Who are you to judge who should marry, and by what means?

[YNGW]

71. This could get interesting.

Someone else has mentioned parents marrying offspring. Or how about two women and a man and a cat getting married? Think of the increased cost of wedding gifts. Matching towels, a crystal vase, and cat-nip. There's a combo.

[Terwilliger]

73. there's your sarcasm

must mean that you're not serious about the issue

This is a free country...the first priority should be to leave people alone to pursue their own bliss.

[YNGW]

74. Hey

>the first priority should be to leave people alone to pursue their own bliss.

Try telling that to the anti-fur and/or anti-SUV crowd.

[Pithlet]

78. There's a difference

People marrying hurts no one else.

[YNGW]

79. Of course.

It's always something.

[Cannikin]

80. What does that mean?

[Kathy in Cambridge]

83. Yup, and your bliss is more important than your child's air

As usual, you jump on your high horse. As you said on the SUV thread, your 'bliss' IS more important that your child's air. What the hell? You'll be dead in a few decades anyway-maybe sooner as I don't know how old you are. The comfort of your tush and what your neighbors think is FAR more important that such silly environmental matters.

By the same token, you'd happily deny over 10% of the population their civil rights. Talk about hypocrisy...

But, everything comes down to your happiness. "It's all about ME'-the Republican mantra!

[Pithlet]

84. It is interesting

that the same people who scream for individual freedom to do things that can harm others are often the same ones who argue against civil rights. The "If you hate ___ than don't do it" crowd gets their ire up about something that actually affects their individual lives not one whit.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

86. Yup, and no surprise here

that it's the usual suspect :eyes:

And it's usually the same people who never answer a point directly when their selfishness not only affects the community in general, but the future air of their children. Their hypocrisy knows no bounds...

[YNGW]

88. Nope

>As you said on the SUV thread, your 'bliss' IS more important that your child's air.

Deary, that's a misrepresentation of the truth. I never said that. And you know it. You asked me the question. You impled I felt that way because I didn't answer your question in the way you wanted me to answer. But, I never said that. Don't put words in my mouth. It's rude. It's inaccurate. It's in bad form. Shame on you.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

94. Don't patronize me. DEARY my ass

Well, you still didn't answer the question if your luxury is more important that your child's air.

Your answer is implicit in your LACK of addressing the question directly.

[YNGW]

96. No

It's not. It means I didn't answer your question the way you wanted me to.

And once again, in your previous post, you specifically stated that *I* said something when you KNOW I didn't. Someone who's willing to claim that someone else said something when they know they didn't isn't someone I have any reason to believe can deal with things honestly.

[Terwilliger]

91. well, killing animals and fouling the air is not the same...

as consensual matters of a personal nature

Where are you learning your debate tactics?

[Kathy in Cambridge]

93. We KNOW where he's learning

his debate tactics. :eyes:

[Cannikin]

97. I have to ditto that. hehe

[Cannikin]

66. I dont think you'd have a problem limiting marriage to ....

two consenting adult HUMANS who love each other!

[Darranar]

67. Yes, it is...

why not?

[Kathy in Cambridge]

72. How 'bout this-your typical argument:

'against gay marriage? don't have one.'

:eyes:

Ah, so transparent...

[YNGW]

76. Reply

I was just wondering how far to take it. The term "non-traditional" can be defined rather broadly.

Here ya go, you like these. One or two for the road. Maybe three, just for you. XOXOXOXOX

:eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

[Kathy in Cambridge]

81. Can't defend an indefensible argument

as I've said to you before, your biases are as clear as day. And the don't even fall in the CENTER of the political spectrum.

[YNGW]

85. I wasn't making an argument.

I was just asking a question.

Believe me, if I was making an argument, you'd know it. There would be no doubt.

Get this. It may come as a big surprize to you that people in our party are to the left of where you are and to the right of where you are. I know. Quite a shock, huh!?! And get this, it may vary from issue to issue. You know, on this very site, DU, I have had conversations with people that were to the left of me and others who were to the right of me. Yep. That's correct. Right here at DU. Hard to fathom, isn't it? You know, you'd think everyone would just walk in lockstep, but nope. People actually have their own opinions.

And get this. Some people consider "opinions" to be "biases". GASP!! Can you imagine such? That's right, people are biased towards their own opinions. How will the human race ever survive?

With that in mind, go forth, be fruitful and multiply.

[Cannikin]

90. How rude.

:thumbsdown:

[Kathy in Cambridge]

92. It's expected, Cannikin

when someone can't defend their philosophical disconnect, they often resort to that tell-tale defensive posture. You know what I mean. :eyes:

[Cannikin]

100. Yup.

[YNGW]

95. I Am The Walrus

I'm crin' - John Lennon

Unfortunalely, there are some people who like to take an inch and try and make a mile out of it, put words in your mouth you never said, imply that you are a Repuke because you're not as far to the left as they are (and of course, everyone should be where they are politically), accuse you of implying things you never meant. And I got a pair following me around today for some reason.

But you see, an ad hominem is not a rebuttal.

For more about logic, see:

http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html

[Kathy in Cambridge]

99. Since you haven't been around very long, and don't know me

I don't know how you would know my politics. And you really are overreacting. I asked you a simple question which you declined to answer. Please don't flatter yourself. No one is 'following' you around. You like to put yourself in the middle of controversial issues. What do you expect? People to agree with you? And the attitude doesn't help your arguments. Maybe patronizing women is a way to make up for your-ahem-'shortcomings'?

[YNGW]

102. Reply

I don't care what sex you are, so don't pull that. I'm from the South. We use endearing terms and it doesn't mean anything evil. And don't hand me this "attitude" line. You're pretty bull-headed yourself. You seem to have this notion that because I'm not as liberal as you on some subjects, that I'm a Repuke, which has no basis in anything factual. As far as I know, the party hasn't made it an official part of the platform to be against SUV's or fur. You may have noticed several others wrote and said they had no problems with SUV's and fur. Several with 1000+ posts and the pretty gold star. Are they Repukes, too?? My question on the subject on this thread had to do with how "non-traditional" unions was to be defined. I thought and still think the term is too broad. Just call it Gay-marriage or Polygamy-marriage. Why complicate things.

And for the last time, I didn't answer your question the way you wanted me to answer. I do that sometimes. But don't go around quoting me as having said things I didn't say. There's no reason for it.

And yes, I do put myself in the middle of controversial issues. What do I expect? I expect to disagree without having to be disagreeable. Someone asking questions like "Do you still beat your wife?" doesn't fly with me. I'm not going to answer questions that aren't phrased properly.

Let me lay it out. For some reason, there are people on here who believe that if you don't see things exactly the way they see them, you're ignorant. Why do they do that? Because they believe themselves to be "more intelligent than everyone else, and those poor souls just don't see things the way they ought to see them. Why, if they only had my intelligence and knowledge, then they would be enlightened like me, and peace would reign and the world would be as one." Phooey!! I'm not going to put up with it. Opinions differ. That's what makes the world interesting.

And, all in fun, I can tell you like these, so here's some from me, and have a Good Night. Really, RR, I've got no beefs with you (or any of the others of you who are following along) other than you don't need to claim I said things when I didn't.

:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

[Cannikin]

101. So tell me, YNGW (interesting name, by the way)

Do you share any of our political views? Or are you just toying with people to feel superior? I mean, is this an issue you truly have feelings and thoughts on or did you just want to test your debating skills?

[YNGW]

103. I just asked a question. That's all.

And the "YNGW" are the first letters in the first names of my four children. Anything else? Oh, the "L.A.S.S." are my wife's intials. Glad we got that cleared up.

[Cannikin]

104. You've got to be the most unfriendly DU'er I've encountered...

And your motives are transparent.

[YNGW]

105. Oh yeah...

And so are yours. :shrug:

Just click the ignore. I know I am.

[Cannikin]

106. good lord..are you 15 or what?

[YNGW]

109. What's your problem?

Lay it on the table.

I asked a simple question. Some guy said he was against "non-traditional" marriage. I asked for it to be defined. Was that gay marriage? How about pologamy? How about animals? No, I wasn't equating them. Not even close. The point being that "non-traditional" is a broad term that is left open for intrepretation. Why not just call it what it is?

Now, I fail to see how that was confusing, although I've come to realize that with some people on here things have to be repeated 20 different times 20 different ways until it finally sinks in. Why is that? You see, that's just another question. Let's get all upset over people asking questions.

Cannikin, good night, sleep tight, don't let the bed bugs bite.

[Democrats unite]

54. Do you mean like interracial marriages?

eom

[Cannikin]

57. Well, at least do us a favor and oppose the amendment!

Is *two people in love* not traditional enough?

[Sapphocrat]

60. That's the red-herring argument...

That legalizing same-sex marriage leads us down the slippery slope toward polygamy, incest, marriage to minors, marriage to pets, etc., etc.

Don't be misled by it just because you've heard it so many times. The argument is irrelevant, for two reasons (there are others, but here are just two):

1. No one is trying to legalize polygamy, incest, etc. And if polygamists and incestuous partners are asking for marriage rights, then you need to take that issue up with them.

"Gay" does not equate to polygamy, incest, bestiality, etc. The "slippery slope" argument is one of guilt by association, lowered on gay folks by people who lump homosexuality in with every other thing they find immoral / sinful / just plain icky.

2. Polygamy, incest, bestiality, etc., are choices.

Upshot: Polygamy does not belong in a debate about same-sex marriage any more than same-sex marriage belongs in a debate about polygamy.

[the populist]

64. Incest, no. Polygamy, possibly.

Keep in mind that Islam is the world's fastest growing religion, and it won't be long before many European countries start legalizing polygamy to please the large Muslim populations there. Polygamy is not far fetched at all.

Even if gay marriage does not lead to polygamy, the issue of gay marriage ALONE is a very divisive issue. Read my post "there is no problem" for my thoughts.

[Sapphocrat]

82. I read it...

And my next question is this: If you in theory support same-sex marriage, then isn't the real problem not the divisiveness of the issue, but the willingness to allow the "slippery slope" argument to frame the debate, when it is in fact irrelevant?

Or, to put it another way, is it better to sit back and do nothing out of fear, or contribute to the defeat of the "slippery slope" argument by helping to clarify the difference for people who buy into it?

The problem is, we (all of us, not just queers) don't have the choice to ignore the issue and hope it goes away until a more convenient time. We (us queers, not you) are more aware than anyone of the bad timing of all this -- but we weren't the ones who made it into an issue. The Right did that, and with good reason: it is extremely divisive.

Well, the issue is here, right now, in our laps. You don't have the choice to ignore it. The only choice you have is to capitulate to the Right, or stand up for what you believe is the "right" thing to do.

That's assuming, of course, that in your heart, you believe the right thing to do is support same-sex marriage. And, unless I've completely misread you, I believe you do believe that.

P.S. Not to diss European Muslims, but that's irrelevant to the same-sex marriage debate in the U.S., too. The European stance on same-sex marriage / civil unions / de facto partnerships hasn't had any more effect on the American debate than the full-blown, all-rights-included, real, live marriage rights granted by our next-door neighbor, Canada. Meaning: It's going to snow in Florida before the U.S. will even debate the subject of polygamy (especially among Muslims).

[donco6]

116. Just like that darn Emancipation Proclamation

"Next thing you know, they'll want to vote, mark my words"

[DrWeird]

47. You may not be religious

But frankly neither is the religious right.

You've got a lot in common.

[the populist]

51. No

That is a stupid thing to say not backed by any sort of proof. Of course the people running TBN/CBN are greedy capitalists, but their followers are fanatics.

I'm actually enlightened.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

53. Enlightened? Denying civil rights is enlightened?

Please. :eyes:

[Democrats unite]

55. Does anyone else smell hypocrisy here?

eom

[Kathy in Cambridge]

68. It's not the hypocrisy-it's the succumbing to RW Talking Points

like legalizing marriage for gays will lead to incestuous couples and others demanding the right. As Sapphocrat points out, it is a typical argument against gay marriage.

I don't think a populist would be for denying civil rights to anyone...

[Cannikin]

75. Not willing to take the step forward...taking the more..conservative route

[veracity]

107. hung up society

The absolute obsession with sexuality is very unique to American Puritanical sexual mores. The concernsover gay relationships, marriage or otherwise is a diversion from the real problms this country faces. Tight assed, hung up right wing attitudes always focus on free and uninhibited sexual practices that they just don't get. It's more than just bigotry, its ignorance, it's indoctrination from childhood, it's relgious teaching, it's fear, it's guilt, it' shame, and it's ridiculous.

[Cannikin]

108. Well, 'free and uninhibited sexual practices' are stretching it a bit for

me. My whole life, when I look at girls I feel nothing, when I look at guys I do. I cant explain it. Nobody can at this point. There's a study to contradict another study...blah blah. And those who are so freaked out by it aren't interested in learning. Only stopping, or controlling.

[jonnyblitz]

113. wow. what a creepy thread to have to read through.

((((shudder)))))) All I can say is I am so glad I am an atheist and all this bigoted crap many of you seem to think is normal is MOOT to me.

:puke:

[Homer12]

118. A Civil Marriage between 2 Consenting Adults

If groups of people want to DENY liberty and the pursuit of happiness of two consenting adults in our society then they are against the Framework and the have no meaning of what the Constitution and the Bill-of-Rights is for.

We're not talking about Incset, goat-sex, or vegetable luv, we're talking about a civil marriage of 2 Consenting Adults in the United States of America.

People against gay marriage want to deny American Citizens rights.

Many of the replies to my post were deliberatly getting off the subject of Civil Rights.

[Skittles]

127. I AGREE WITH YOU HOMER

ABSOLUTELY. I, for example, have no problem with gay marriage because I AM NOT A BIGOT.