City council votes 7-1 to extend domestic partner health benefits

[Jitney]

Jones wrote:

<quoted text>
Blacks have equal rights because they are human, not because they couldn't choose not to be black. I guess that in addition to **** we can add racist to your resume.

You wish. Blacks have equal rights because they are human and didn't choose to be black. Hence, immutable characteristics.

[Jones]

Jitney wrote:

<quoted text>
You wish. Blacks have equal rights because they are human and didn't choose to be black. Hence, immutable characteristics.

No need to wish, those are your words. Blacks have equal rights because they are human period, not because they couldn't help it if they weren't white. The fact that you think blacks have equality because "they didn't choose to be black" indicates the bigotry that informs your opinions. Hence, racist.

[MichaelM_N1Spiri t]

Jones wrote:

<quoted text @Jitney>
No need to wish, those are your words. Blacks have equal rights because they are human period, not because they couldn't help it if they weren't white. The fact that you think blacks have equality because "they didn't choose to be black" indicates the bigotry that informs your opinions. Hence, racist.

Well stated.

(Of course, she is a troll and talking to her is much akin to talking to a brick wall ... but perhaps some of what you have to say will do others some good. My best to you.)

[Jitney]

Jones wrote:

<quoted text>
No need to wish, those are your words. Blacks have equal rights because they are human period, not because they couldn't help it if they weren't white. The fact that you think blacks have equality because "they didn't choose to be black" indicates the bigotry that informs your opinions. Hence, racist.

They were perceived to be less than human because of their skin color, which is an immutable characteristic and irrelevant to homosexuality.

[Mojado]

MichaelM_N1Spirit wrote:

<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Agreed.
<quoted text>

OK. Here is my first attempt in addressing my beliefs:
There have been many people on these threads saying that this country is not Christian. I have disagreed with this belief and have said so many times. This nation is not only comprised of Christians, but has a very strong Christian heritage to boot. Little by little, much of that Christian heritage has been either diluted or has been dismissed entirely. Examples include attempts to remove "under God" from our Pledge of Allegiance, to changing our Christmas Holidays to "Winter Break". There are many more examples I could give. Anyway, I believe that this is being driven by some atheists, many pro-homosexual groups, and others. I don't think this is healthy for our country. Why? Because it is impossible to have a God-free culture and nation without bad consequences. What are those consequences? I believe another religious-driven culture can begin making huge inroads into this country, one that is not Christian.
I support most rights for gays, as I have already stated. I just do not support gay marriage, due to it being contrary to what has been written. Now, having said that, this doesn't mean that I think gays will not be allowed entry into heaven. I believe that most will, and the sin of homosexuality is no greater than the sin of adultery, or the sin of thievery, etc. We will all have to make atonement for our sins, and this includes everyone.
Now, even though there is no scientific proof, I believe that most homosexuals are born homosexual. I cannot see how someone will choose this lifestyle and subject themselves to everything that comes with it. So then, if they are born this way, then why do you discriminate against their drive to be allowed to marry legally? Well, for two reasons, 1) it is unnatural in my eyes, and 2) it would be, again in my eyes, sanctioning a sinful act as legitimate. But hey, someone may say: that is why the founding forefathers wanted the separation of church and state, so that one people's belief cannot override the belief of another's using religious reasoning. And my answer to that is this, our forefather never envisioned that homosexual marriage will ever be as hot an issue as it is today. Their original intent was keep government from persecuting religious minorities, as it had been during that century when the Puritans came to the Americas. But hey, that was then and this is now. What about now? Will you support actions that deny homosexuals the right to express their love in a legal relationship? Yes and no. I support civil unions, but I do not support homosexual marriage. If this issue ever becomes an issue for me to vote on, then I will have to vote NO.
This is how I see it and I am aware that it does not agree with your belief system.

[dances with weebles]

Jitney wrote:

<quoted text>
Homosexuals are a minority seeking to force their choice of lifestyle on an unwilling majority.

and that fits me, how?

[dances with weebles]

Mojado wrote:

<quoted text>
OK. Here is my first attempt in addressing my beliefs:
There have been many people on these threads saying that this country is not Christian. I have disagreed with this belief and have said so many times. This nation is not only comprised of Christians, but has a very strong Christian heritage to boot. Little by little, much of that Christian heritage has been either diluted or has been dismissed entirely. Examples include attempts to remove "under God" from our Pledge of Allegiance, to changing our Christmas Holidays to "Winter Break". There are many more examples I could give. Anyway, I believe that this is being driven by some atheists, many pro-homosexual groups, and others. I don't think this is healthy for our country. Why? Because it is impossible to have a God-free culture and nation without bad consequences. What are those consequences? I believe another religious-driven culture can begin making huge inroads into this country, one that is not Christian.
I support most rights for gays, as I have already stated. I just do not support gay marriage, due to it being contrary to what has been written. Now, having said that, this doesn't mean that I think gays will not be allowed entry into heaven. I believe that most will, and the sin of homosexuality is no greater than the sin of adultery, or the sin of thievery, etc. We will all have to make atonement for our sins, and this includes everyone.
Now, even though there is no scientific proof, I believe that most homosexuals are born homosexual. I cannot see how someone will choose this lifestyle and subject themselves to everything that comes with it. So then, if they are born this way, then why do you discriminate against their drive to be allowed to marry legally? Well, for two reasons, 1) it is unnatural in my eyes, and 2) it would be, again in my eyes, sanctioning a sinful act as legitimate. But hey, someone may say: that is why the founding forefathers wanted the separation of church and state, so that one people's belief cannot override the belief of another's using religious reasoning. And my answer to that is this, our forefather never envisioned that homosexual marriage will ever be as hot an issue as it is today. Their original intent was keep government from persecuting religious minorities, as it had been during that century when the Puritans came to the Americas. But hey, that was then and this is now. What about now? Will you support actions that deny homosexuals the right to express their love in a legal relationship? Yes and no. I support civil unions, but I do not support homosexual marriage. If this issue ever becomes an issue for me to vote on, then I will have to vote NO.
This is how I see it and I am aware that it does not agree with your belief system.

that was well said. thank you. i may disagree with some points of your post, but we can work through it okay and even remain on speaking terms, i guess.

by the way... under god was never intended to be in the pledge of allegiance. it was stuck in there so that communists wouldn't be able to say it and become american citizens.(for some reason mccarthy thought that all communists were atheists, and therefore couldn't say the word god due to the fact that their tongue would stick to the roof of their mouth, or some other foolish thing.

also the founding fathers never envisioned a country where woman could vote, poor people could vote, blacks could vote and that a black man could marry a white woman. neither did they envision a country which had a standing federal military force or that they would be fighting wars on foreign soil.

now, could you please tell me where you got the notion that homosexuality was a sin?

[dances with weebles]

Jitney wrote:

<quoted text>
You wish. Blacks have equal rights because they are human and didn't choose to be black. Hence, immutable characteristics.

and once again you are trying to say that, while blacks are born 'that way', homosexuals are not. as my university kept shouting,'show us your proof'

[cddd]

Citizen wrote:

but yet we can't give our police officers and firefighters the raises they deserve on time

the people wantin health care still have to pay for it he city doesnt just give it free!

[cddd]

Robert wrote:

<quoted text>
I pay taxes - why don't they insure me.

cause your employer or your spouses employer dont provide insurance people, are you all retarded do you all think, the city pays for the whole insurance?
The thing is duh! the worker still has to pay for insurance monthly!
you People act like the city pays for all insurance, it is much less than the police fire raise!
also they both have agreed on getting raised in another yr or so!
also their are requirements to this domestic partner health benefits!
i think you all, need to read all the papers.

But then again it's El Paso most of us don't read you just go on the basis of what others say!

[MichaelM_N1Spiri t]

Mojado wrote:

<quoted text>
OK. Here is my first attempt in addressing my beliefs:
There have been many people on these threads saying that this country is not Christian. I have disagreed with this belief and have said so many times. This nation is not only comprised of Christians, but has a very strong Christian heritage to boot. Little by little, much of that Christian heritage has been either diluted or has been dismissed entirely. Examples include attempts to remove "under God" from our Pledge of Allegiance, to changing our Christmas Holidays to "Winter Break". There are many more examples I could give. Anyway, I believe that this is being driven by some atheists, many pro-homosexual groups, and others. I don't think this is healthy for our country. Why? Because it is impossible to have a God-free culture and nation without bad consequences. What are those consequences? I believe another religious-driven culture can begin making huge inroads into this country, one that is not Christian.
I support most rights for gays, as I have already stated. I just do not support gay marriage, due to it being contrary to what has been written. Now, having said that, this doesn't mean that I think gays will not be allowed entry into heaven. I believe that most will, and the sin of homosexuality is no greater than the sin of adultery, or the sin of thievery, etc. We will all have to make atonement for our sins, and this includes everyone.
Now, even though there is no scientific proof, I believe that most homosexuals are born homosexual. I cannot see how someone will choose this lifestyle and subject themselves to everything that comes with it. So then, if they are born this way, then why do you discriminate against their drive to be allowed to marry legally? Well, for two reasons, 1) it is unnatural in my eyes, and 2) it would be, again in my eyes, sanctioning a sinful act as legitimate. But hey, someone may say: that is why the founding forefathers wanted the separation of church and state, so that one people's belief cannot override the belief of another's using religious reasoning. And my answer to that is this, our forefather never envisioned that homosexual marriage will ever be as hot an issue as it is today. Their original intent was keep government from persecuting religious minorities, as it had been during that century when the Puritans came to the Americas. But hey, that was then and this is now. What about now? Will you support actions that deny homosexuals the right to express their love in a legal relationship? Yes and no. I support civil unions, but I do not support homosexual marriage. If this issue ever becomes an issue for me to vote on, then I will have to vote NO.
This is how I see it and I am aware that it does not agree with your belief system.

I'm going to take a little time to mull this over before I respond. I would like to say, however that I do respect much of the "spirit" which appears to be behind what you've expressed here. I think that if you and I were to meet IRL we could probably get along pretty well as friends (even though there are definitely some things which we disagree on). Thanks for taking the time to write this out. Seriously, I do mean that. I'll try to respond with more as soon as possible.

[ROCCO]

Jitney wrote:

<quoted text>
You wish. Blacks have equal rights because they are human and didn't choose to be black. Hence, immutable characteristics.

So, despite what you've said elsewhere, you're of the opinion that
blacks are human and gays are not? Are black gays human, or are
they not human? We must know!

[ltndncr59]

Jitney wrote:

<quoted text>
Homosexuals are a minority seeking to force their choice of lifestyle on an unwilling majority.

Put a sock in it, Jitney. You have yet to come up with a single example of someone trying to force you to be gay, or to wed a homosexual, or to even attend a gay wedding. What is being forced on you, exactly?

[Mojado]

dances with weebles wrote:

<quoted text>
that was well said. thank you. i may disagree with some points of your post, but we can work through it okay and even remain on speaking terms, i guess.
by the way... under god was never intended to be in the pledge of allegiance. it was stuck in there so that communists wouldn't be able to say it and become american citizens.(for some reason mccarthy thought that all communists were atheists, and therefore couldn't say the word god due to the fact that their tongue would stick to the roof of their mouth, or some other foolish thing.
also the founding fathers never envisioned a country where woman could vote, poor people could vote, blacks could vote and that a black man could marry a white woman. neither did they envision a country which had a standing federal military force or that they would be fighting wars on foreign soil.
now, could you please tell me where you got the notion that homosexuality was a sin?

I agree with you that "under God" was added to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954, but it still bothers me that people are trying to remove it.

As for your other points, they are all true. But you already know my conservative views on religion, and the way I see it, all those examples you provided (interracial marriage, women's suffrage, black suffrage, etc.) were a result of man's error, and was therefore not inspired by God. And because they were errors committed by man, then through the legal and legislative process of amending the Constitution, or through a series of seminal U.S. Supreme Court decisions, those beliefs and practices were rightfully overturned and made unconstitutional.

In the case of homosexuality, if you believe the Bible was the inspired word of God, then surely you would understand then why I consider this example as different than the ones you provided. But you asked me where I got the notion that homosexuality is a sin.

The following New Testament passages deal with homosexual acts:

For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.(Rom 1:26-27)

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.(1Cor 6:9-10)

[T]he law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, immoral persons, sodomites, kidnapers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine.(1 Tm 1:9-10)

[J]ust as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise acted immorally and indulged in unnatural lust, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.(Jude 7)

But God’s displeasure with acting out on homosexuality is depicted as early as Genesis 19 in the Old Testament. Also see Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13.

[Jitney]

dances with weebles wrote:

<quoted text>
and that fits me, how?

You tell me.

[Jitney]

dances with weebles wrote:

<quoted text>
and once again you are trying to say that, while blacks are born 'that way', homosexuals are not. as my university kept shouting,'show us your proof'

Since gays are seeking equal rights they must meet the burden of proof which they have not and cannot.

[Jitney]

ROCCO wrote:

<quoted text>
So, despite what you've said elsewhere, you're of the opinion that
blacks are human and gays are not? Are black gays human, or are
they not human? We must know!

You already know that blacks are human and possess immutable characteristics. However, homosexuals are human but they do not possess any immutable characteristics because they are not born gay. Having a sexual preference does not qualify for civil rights.

[Jitney]

ltndncr59 wrote:

<quoted text>
Put a sock in it, Jitney. You have yet to come up with a single example of someone trying to force you to be gay, or to wed a homosexual, or to even attend a gay wedding. What is being forced on you, exactly?

I never said anyone was trying to force me to be gay. The gay agenda is to redefine the culture. It is not equality or tolerance homosexuals are seeking. They are a minority trying to force their choice of lifestyle on an unwilling majority through the courts, the schools, the church and various other means.

[dances with weebles]

first of all, please go back and re-read all of saul's letters to the church at rome. saul was referring to the fact that the church had adopted various rituals into the 'christian' religion from various other mediterranean religions. they had nothing to do with life outside the temple. also, you must realise who these letters were actually written to. they were written to his catamite which he had placed in the church at rome to oversee his financial interests there. each of his letters was written to one of his many catamites in every church in the region. any raving he did against homosexuality was against his own lust. you also have to realise that he hated women and wished that men never had to touch them. he thought them vile and disgusting creatures.
btw... this is history, not opinion. again, my recommendation is to study works which, if not non-denominational, at least non doctrinal.
first of all, the book of leviticus has nothing to do with homosexuality. it speaks of temple prostitution which had been adopted from the canaanite fertility rites.
here are a few scriptural texts which may help you out here.
Deuteronomy 29:17-26 - the sin - idolatry and images to false gods - "Why has the Lord done this to the land?... It is because this people abandoned the covenant of the Lord ..."
Deuteronomy 32:32-38 - the sin - idolatry - "He will say 'Now where are their gods?'"
Isaiah 1:2-23 - the sin - idolatry, rebellion, injustice, murder, greed, theft, covetousness, mistreating the poor - "They have rebelled against Me."
Isaiah 3:8-19 - the sin - idolatry, arrogance - "Their words and deeds are against the Lord, defying His glorious Presence"
Jeremiah 23:10-14 - the sin - idolatry, adultery, lying by priests and prophets - "Both prophet and priest are godless.... They prophesied by Baal and led My people astray."
Jeremiah 49:16-18 - the sin - idolatry, arrogance, oppression, pride of the heart - "The terror you inspire and the pride of your heart have deceived
you..."
Jeremiah 50:2-40 - the sin - idolatry, pride, false prophets - "Her images will be put to shame and her idols filled with terror..... For she has defied the Lord, the Holy One of Israel..... Their shepherds have led them astray."
Lamentations 4:3-6 - the sin - cruelty and failure to care for the young and poor - "My people have become heartless."
Ezekiel 16:49-50 - the sin - "Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned: they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me."
Amos 4:1-11 - the sin - idolatry, oppression, mistreating the poor - "I overthrew some of you as I overthrew Sodom .... yet you have not returned to Me."
Zephaniah 2:8-11 - the sin - idolatry, pride, mocking - "This is what they will get in return for their pride, for insulting and mocking the people of the Lord Almighty. The Lord will be awesome to them when He destroys all the gods of the land."
Luke 17:26-29 - Jesus speaking - No specific sins mentioned
II Peter 2:1-22 - the sin - idolatry, living after ungodliness, lawlessness, arrogance, blaspheming, adultery, greed, corruption, depravity, boasting, lust - "But there were also false prophets among the people ....."
Jude 1:7-8 - the sin - sexual immorality and perversion, i.e fornication after strange flesh (angels, see Genesis 6:1) KJV
also, my friend, when one refers to the notion that the townspeople of sodom wanted to have sex with the angels, it's specious at best. in one rendition of the bible it says 'to have intercourse with them' the word intercourse also means any form of communication.
the term 'to know', was used meaning that they simply wanted to know if the two strangers had come from one of the other cities of the plain with which they were at war. they had to know if they were spies, or there to cause some sort of mayhem during the night. that's all.

[dances with weebles]

Jitney wrote:

<quoted text>
You already know that blacks are human and possess immutable characteristics. However, homosexuals are human but they do not possess any immutable characteristics because they are not born gay. Having a sexual preference does not qualify for civil rights.

then why did jesus say that they were? are you calling jesus a liar?