Gay ceremony to draw protests

The same-sex commitment ceremony scheduled for March 29 may well have some company.

[Walter Zirbes III]

I have been intrigued by this controversy for years. It seems to be an effort by particular religious people to get Newstime/their fifteen minutes of fame. To demonstrate their bigotry.
My research has so come up with the estimate that there are approximately 600,000 gay couples(Census Bureau estimate).
Now if as many of those as hetero couples(approx 50%) want to get married that would be about .002 percent of the population of the U S of A. or anotherwards 600,000 people out of a population of 300,000,000 individuals.
Roughly speaking the statement by AFA Pres. Daine Gramley would be the same as stating that 600,000 raindrops will destroy the Sahara Desert. Highly unlikely.
If the so-called "Institution of Marriage" is so fragile that it would be destroyed by 300,000 Gay couples getting the same legal benefits under the law as hetero couples receive, then it is doomed anyway.
I believe that "marriage" as an institution would only be strengthened by Gay marriages.
These protesters remind me of the folks who said, "Women shouldn't be allowed to vote, cause they would be too emotional to make an intelligent voter". Well, if the present state of the Democratic Parties run for the Presidency is not based more on emotion then intellect, I',m a monkeys uncle. Oops another bad simile.
The protests that society would be destroyed if Blacks were given the right to vote or even God forbid, equal rights; is still put forward by some fading groups.
I am a hetero type, however, like supporting the right of women to have a choice about pregnancy, after, as a Dr's son, learning about the number of unwealthy women who died having abortions done by quacks; while the wealthy sent their daughters or wives, mistresses, girlfriends to Switzerland to get abortions that were legal, I support Roe vs Wade as providing equality of choice to ALL women in this U S of A.

[1noteasilyfooled]

Walter Zirbes III wrote:

I have been intrigued by this controversy for years. It seems to be an effort by particular religious people to get Newstime/their fifteen minutes of fame. To demonstrate their bigotry.
My research has so come up with the estimate that there are approximately 600,000 gay couples(Census Bureau estimate).
Now if as many of those as hetero couples(approx 50%) want to get married that would be about .002 percent of the population of the U S of A. or anotherwards 600,000 people out of a population of 300,000,000 individuals.
Roughly speaking the statement by AFA Pres. Daine Gramley would be the same as stating that 600,000 raindrops will destroy the Sahara Desert. Highly unlikely.
If the so-called "Institution of Marriage" is so fragile that it would be destroyed by 300,000 Gay couples getting the same legal benefits under the law as hetero couples receive, then it is doomed anyway.
I believe that "marriage" as an institution would only be strengthened by Gay marriages.
These protesters remind me of the folks who said, "Women shouldn't be allowed to vote, cause they would be too emotional to make an intelligent voter". Well, if the present state of the Democratic Parties run for the Presidency is not based more on emotion then intellect, I',m a monkeys uncle. Oops another bad simile.
The protests that society would be destroyed if Blacks were given the right to vote or even God forbid, equal rights; is still put forward by some fading groups.
I am a hetero type, however, like supporting the right of women to have a choice about pregnancy, after, as a Dr's son, learning about the number of unwealthy women who died having abortions done by quacks; while the wealthy sent their daughters or wives, mistresses, girlfriends to Switzerland to get abortions that were legal, I support Roe vs Wade as providing equality of choice to ALL women in this U S of A.

Your just an intelligent man. not more anyone can say (but you know they will, they can't help themselves)

[tammy helsel]

I AM A CHRISTIAN PERSON I READ MY BIBLE IT IS WRONG FOR 2 MEN OR 2 WOMEN TO GET MARRIED GOD MADE ADAM AND EVE GAYS WILL NOT ENTER INTO THE KINGDOM OF GOD TO THOSE WHO ARE IN SAME SEX RELATIONSHIPS YOU ALL NEED TO READ THE BIBLE WHAT MATTERS NOW AND INTHE END IS GODSWORD YOU ALLCAN CHANGE GOD WILLFOR GIVE YOU HE LOVES YOU IF YOU WANT TO EMAILME THATS OK IMAT [e-mail] iI WILL HELP YOU INANY WAY PRAY WITH YOU ORJUST TALK TO YOU AS A FRIEND A FRIEND WHO CARES ABOUT WHERE YOU WILL SPEND ETNITY AT

[Pagan and Proud]

tammy helsel wrote:

I AM A CHRISTIAN PERSON I READ MY BIBLE IT IS WRONG FOR 2 MEN OR 2 WOMEN TO GET MARRIED GOD MADE ADAM AND EVE GAYS WILL NOT ENTER INTO THE KINGDOM OF GOD TO THOSE WHO ARE IN SAME SEX RELATIONSHIPS YOU ALL NEED TO READ THE BIBLE WHAT MATTERS NOW AND INTHE END IS GODSWORD YOU ALLCAN CHANGE GOD WILLFOR GIVE YOU HE LOVES YOU IF YOU WANT TO EMAILME THATS OK IMAT [e-mail] iI WILL HELP YOU INANY WAY PRAY WITH YOU ORJUST TALK TO YOU AS A FRIEND A FRIEND WHO CARES ABOUT WHERE YOU WILL SPEND ETNITY AT

No thanks. Don't need any more psychotics attempting to sell me their belief system.

[THEAprof]

Perhaps members of the gay community should begin to stage protests at heterosexual weddings. What gives these so-called "loving" christians the right to intrude on someone else's ceremony?

[tammy helsel]

THEAprof wrote:

Perhaps members of the gay community should begin to stage protests at heterosexual weddings. What gives these so-called "loving" christians the right to intrude on someone else's ceremony?

to the person who wrote this iguess you dont believe in GOD OR HIS WORD GOD CREATED MALE AND FEMALE GOD MADE ALAW OF MARRIAGE BETWEEN MALE AND FEMALE YOU WILL BE IN MY PRAYS MR FOR YOUR BELIEVE IS WRONG WHAT MAN SAYS I DONT CARE WHAT GOD SAYS MATTERS HE IS THE ONE WE WILL ALL ANSWER TO IN THE END GOD LOVES YOU

[Imprtnrd]

tammy helsel wrote:

<quoted text>to the person who wrote this iguess you dont believe in GOD OR HIS WORD GOD CREATED MALE AND FEMALE GOD MADE ALAW OF MARRIAGE BETWEEN MALE AND FEMALE YOU WILL BE IN MY PRAYS MR FOR YOUR BELIEVE IS WRONG WHAT MAN SAYS I DONT CARE WHAT GOD SAYS MATTERS HE IS THE ONE WE WILL ALL ANSWER TO IN THE END GOD LOVES YOU

Pray for yourself to "acccpt the things you cannot change" Ring a bell?

[Pagan and Proud]

tammy helsel wrote:

<quoted text>to the person who wrote this iguess you dont believe in GOD OR HIS WORD GOD CREATED MALE AND FEMALE GOD MADE ALAW OF MARRIAGE BETWEEN MALE AND FEMALE

Regardless of what your mythology claims, all rights stem from the Governmental recognition, not the recognition of your imaginary friend.

tammy helsel wrote:

YOU WILL BE IN MY PRAYS MR FOR YOUR BELIEVE IS WRONG WHAT MAN SAYS I DONT CARE WHAT GOD SAYS MATTERS HE IS THE ONE WE WILL ALL ANSWER TO IN THE END GOD LOVES YOU

Whatever. Empty threat from an empty head.

[Resist Ignorance]

"The group has designed the ceremony as a public opportunity for same-sex couples to express love, devotion and pride"

And Rev. Dull's group has designed theirs as a public opportunity to express hatred, intolerance, and bigotry!

[THEAprof]

Actually, no, I don't believe in the mythology contained within the bible. You, or course, are free to live your life according to whatever religious dogma you wish; however, you have no right to codify your personal religious beliefs into civil law.

tammy helsel wrote:

<quoted text>to the person who wrote this iguess you dont believe in GOD OR HIS WORD GOD CREATED MALE AND FEMALE GOD MADE ALAW OF MARRIAGE BETWEEN MALE AND FEMALE YOU WILL BE IN MY PRAYS MR FOR YOUR BELIEVE IS WRONG WHAT MAN SAYS I DONT CARE WHAT GOD SAYS MATTERS HE IS THE ONE WE WILL ALL ANSWER TO IN THE END GOD LOVES YOU

[Rambo]

TheASSprof wrote:

Actually, no, I don't believe in the mythology contained within the bible. You, or course, are free to live your life according to whatever religious dogma you wish; however, you have no right to codify your personal religious beliefs into civil law.
<quoted text>

So, Ass Prof, just why do you think the overwhelming majority of Americans who claim to be Christians should be disenfranchised?

You think only your fellow homofascist haters should be able to vote?

You wuhnna explain that, AssProf?

[ltndncr59]

tammy helsel wrote:

<quoted text>to the person who wrote this iguess you dont believe in GOD OR HIS WORD GOD CREATED MALE AND FEMALE GOD MADE ALAW OF MARRIAGE BETWEEN MALE AND FEMALE YOU WILL BE IN MY PRAYS MR FOR YOUR BELIEVE IS WRONG WHAT MAN SAYS I DONT CARE WHAT GOD SAYS MATTERS HE IS THE ONE WE WILL ALL ANSWER TO IN THE END GOD LOVES YOU

Sweetie, turn of the Caps Lock, because what you're doing is, in the world of the internet, shouting.

If you don't care what Man says, but care what G-d says, then you are begging the question: When was the last time G-d spoke to you? If you can answer that, and can say that you heard G-d's voice, then you need to have your medications re-examined.

If you are speaking of the Bible, then you know not of what you speak. You have never read the Bible, what you have read is exactly what you profess to not heed; the voice of Man. You have not read the Bible until you have studied ancient Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic. The English Bible that you most likely have in your hands at this very moment is a collection of deliberate mis-translations. Stop believing without question or study.

And stop offering your prayers. Most of us gay people here either pray for ourselves or do not follow your religion, so your breath is wasted. Also, I would imagine that you are praying for us to "see the light" or some other such nonsense, when it is you who lives in darkness.

[THEAprof]

Hello, "Wil"!

Whoever said that christians shouldn't have the right to vote? I merely said that no one has the right to force others to follow a religious dogma in which they do not believe. How in the world does one get "disenfranchisement" from that statement?

While the concept of "majority rule" is ONE of the principles on which our government was founded, our system of checks and balances was set up to prevent a tyranny of the majority. The basic rights of an individual or group of individuals should NOT be subject to a vote or the whims of the majority. Since -- in at least one of your incarnations on topix -- you claim to be a member of a racial minority that once was denied basic rights through majority rule, no one should have to explain that concept to you.

Rambo wrote:

<quoted text>
So, Ass Prof, just why do you think the overwhelming majority of Americans who claim to be Christians should be disenfranchised?
You think only your fellow homofascist haters should be able to vote?
You wuhnna explain that, AssProf?

[Quest]

tammy helsel wrote:

<quoted text>to the person who wrote this iguess you dont believe in GOD OR HIS WORD GOD CREATED MALE AND FEMALE GOD MADE ALAW OF MARRIAGE BETWEEN MALE AND FEMALE YOU WILL BE IN MY PRAYS MR FOR YOUR BELIEVE IS WRONG WHAT MAN SAYS I DONT CARE WHAT GOD SAYS MATTERS HE IS THE ONE WE WILL ALL ANSWER TO IN THE END GOD LOVES YOU

Um ... you do realize that your personal religion isn't shared by everyone, right?

God made gay folks, and I hardly think that a kind creator would then condemn his own creations to a live alone and without love for traits he instilled in them, do you?

If so, your God is a cruel and capricious one.

Thank goodness mine isn't.

[Ghost]

Allow me to play devil's advocate for a moment.

THEAprof suggests that perhaps we should start protesting at heterosexual weddings. The thing is, this isn't a private commitment ceremony that is being protested. It's one that has been undertaken with the intent of creating a public display and to call attention to same-sex commitment.

Are you really surprised to hear that there's going to be a public protest by the opposition to such a thing?

All it does is reinforce the notion that gay folk are attention hounds. It doesn't really do anything to illustrate our ability to form and maintain long-term commitments. It's nothing more than a publicity stunt, and one that will backfire.

[THEAprof]

Oh please! Like straights don't seek attention with their weddings! How about those announcements with accompanying photographs in the newspaper for engagements and weddings? Furthermore, I have attended heterosexual weddings that have taken place in public areas like parks before.

You remind me of one of those "step and fetch it" African Americans who wasn't happy with the civil rights movement because of the "trouble" it caused. If it were left up to folks like you, we would never make any progress in the struggle for equality.

Ghost wrote:

Allow me to play devil's advocate for a moment.
THEAprof suggests that perhaps we should start protesting at heterosexual weddings. The thing is, this isn't a private commitment ceremony that is being protested. It's one that has been undertaken with the intent of creating a public display and to call attention to same-sex commitment.
Are you really surprised to hear that there's going to be a public protest by the opposition to such a thing?
All it does is reinforce the notion that gay folk are attention hounds. It doesn't really do anything to illustrate our ability to form and maintain long-term commitments. It's nothing more than a publicity stunt, and one that will backfire.

[Fading away]

THEAprof wrote:

Oh please! Like straights don't seek attention with their weddings! How about those announcements with accompanying photographs in the newspaper for engagements and weddings? Furthermore, I have attended heterosexual weddings that have taken place in public areas like parks before.

We aren't talking here about a couple announcing their wedding. Nor is the issue that the ceremony is taking place in a public setting.

We're talking about a publicity stunt that uses the commitment ceremony as a prop. Nor about the serious promise that two people make to each other, or the celebration of that commitment with close friends and family and the publication thereof. That isn't to say the couples involves lack that commitment. But how many straight couples do you know of that make their wedding a public event with lots of publicity for the purpose of drawing attention to what that commitment means on a broader level for heterosexuals as a demographic?

THEAprof wrote:

You remind me of one of those "step and fetch it" African Americans who wasn't happy with the civil rights movement because of the "trouble" it caused.

I'll have the decency to refrain from saying what I really think of that broadside.

THEAprof wrote:

If it were left up to folks like you, we would never make any progress in the struggle for equality.

Big ad hominem. Heaven forbid anyone should ever offer any criticism of unhelpful tactics from within the effected demographic.

[fuzi]

Ghost wrote:

All it does is reinforce the notion that gay folk are attention hounds. It doesn't really do anything to illustrate our ability to form and maintain long-term commitments. It's nothing more than a publicity stunt, and one that will backfire.

Oh yes, we should just shut up, get back in the closet and be good little fags, all quiet and not cause any of the straight people to be uncomfortable. Don't stir up anything or we might be noticed. Be thankful they let us live as long as we're invisible, right?

F*ck that sh*t!!! I'll be just as out and open as they are and they can either learn to live with that or they can kiss my a**, I'm not waiting for their permission anymore.

[THEAprof]

How many straight couples are denied legal recognition of their marriages? How many straight couples are denied the more than 1000 benefits that are attached to legal marriage?

Straight couples don't need to draw "attention to what that commitment means on a broader level for heterosexuals as a demographic." Legalize same-sex marriage and no doubt these "public event" weddings will disappear.

Fading away wrote:

<quoted text>
But how many straight couples do you know of that make their wedding a public event with lots of publicity for the purpose of drawing attention to what that commitment means on a broader level for heterosexuals as a demographic?

[THEAprof]

Sorry, your alleged "decency" aside, I see nothing out of place with comparing your attitude to those of African Americans who didn't want to rock the boat during the civil rights movement.

And simply because you see this public ceremony as "unhelpful" does not make it so. Experience has proven that visibility helps the gay rights movement; remaining invisible does not. And if you are going to offer criticism of what others are doing, then how about a few constructive suggestions of what, in your esteemed opinion, would be more helpful?

[QUOTE who="Fading away] I'll have the decency to refrain from saying what I really think of that broadside.
<quoted text>
Big ad hominem. Heaven forbid anyone should ever offer any criticism of unhelpful tactics from within the effected demographic.[/QUOTE]