Minnesota becomes 12th state to OK ga...

Minnesota becomes 12th state to OK gay marriage

There are 1876 comments on the Fox News story from May 14, 2013, titled Minnesota becomes 12th state to OK gay marriage. In it, Fox News reports that:

As a crowd of thousands roared from the lawn of the state Capitol, Minnesota Gov.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Fox News.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#1516 Jun 18, 2013
It's from:
http://knowhomo.tumblr.com/post/45133809426
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
It would be nice to know where you got your copy and paste from.......source link please!

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#1518 Jun 18, 2013
TrueBlood wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow, let me make it simpler. I didn't say, you said that posting the link was irrelevant, I said, that you said what I posted wasn't relevant because they can't enforce it. So why would you want the link?
No, that's what you may of meant, but that's not what you posted........and the laws against Sodomy can not be enforced if it is consensual.......period!!!

Posting a link allows a poster to go and see exactly what was stated, not just what you feel is important to note.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#1519 Jun 18, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
Now I know why the poster opted not to cite their source.......lol!!!!

Thanks for the info:-)
Follower of the way

Saint Paul, MN

#1522 Jun 18, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay, so the man had a near death experience that changed his life......that still doesn't mean that one has to explain to God what God already knows.
By the way......I'm not an Atheist......just not an Evangelistic Fundamentalist, nor do I follow any formalized religion or believe in that book you may refer to as the bible......but my belief in God is just fine:-)
Howard Storm's extraordinary near death experience offers an invaluable revelation of the afterlife, which we can all learn from. His contemporary story demonstrates the eternal negative consequence of rejecting God. Believing in God is not enough to gain eternal life, my friend. To gain eternal life in Heaven one must not only believe in Jesus Christ but also love Him, and express that love in the form of faithfulness, obedience, and love for all of His children.
Christians believe God gave man sovereignty over his/her life, and a purpose. As such we have been granted free will to either reject or accept God. Those who reject God, reject His Kingdom, and therefore will not enter Heaven in the afterlife.
Howard Storm's testimony offers a compelling account for why we should all strive to enter God's Kingdom by doing His will, and following His immutable commandments.
Most people only have one chance in this life to get it right. Howard Storm was incredibly fortunate to have been given a second chance.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#1523 Jun 18, 2013
TrueBlood wrote:
<quoted text>
That's not where I got it at. Do you all intentionally like to provoke me?
http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/1-the-10...
See, that wasn't so hard.......and no one is provoking you......we just want to know where you got your information from and you still missed the last part of the article!!!
Zoro

Rock Island, IL

#1524 Jun 18, 2013
TrueBlood wrote:
<quoted text>
That's not where I got it at. Do you all intentionally like to provoke me?
http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/1-the-10...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_laws_in_t...

Through the 20th century, the gradual liberalization of American sexual mores led to the elimination of sodomy laws in most states. During this time, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of sodomy laws in Bowers v. Hardwick in 1986. However, in 2003 the Supreme Court reversed the decision with Lawrence v. Texas, invalidating sodomy laws in the remaining 14 states (Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, and Virginia).

On June 26, 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court in a 6-3 decision in Lawrence v. Texas struck down the Texas same-sex sodomy law, ruling that this private sexual conduct is protected by the liberty rights implicit in the due process clause of the United States Constitution. This decision invalidated all state sodomy laws insofar as they applied to noncommercial conduct in private between consenting civilians and reversed the Court's 1986 ruling in Bowers v. Hardwick that upheld Georgia's sodomy law.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#1525 Jun 18, 2013
Follower of the way wrote:
<quoted text>
Howard Storm's extraordinary near death experience offers an invaluable revelation of the afterlife, which we can all learn from. His contemporary story demonstrates the eternal negative consequence of rejecting God. Believing in God is not enough to gain eternal life, my friend. To gain eternal life in Heaven one must not only believe in Jesus Christ but also love Him, and express that love in the form of faithfulness, obedience, and love for all of His children.
Christians believe God gave man sovereignty over his/her life, and a purpose. As such we have been granted free will to either reject or accept God. Those who reject God, reject His Kingdom, and therefore will not enter Heaven in the afterlife.
Howard Storm's testimony offers a compelling account for why we should all strive to enter God's Kingdom by doing His will, and following His immutable commandments.
Most people only have one chance in this life to get it right. Howard Storm was incredibly fortunate to have been given a second chance.
No, it only offers what HE believes and nothing more.......lots of folks have Near-Death Experiences and it has no bearing or meaning for anyone but that person.......I don't know what caused this issue with this man, and I would hardly give it any more credibility than you would if I gave my details of a near death experience.....it would only matter to me and my life!!

Again, it's a nice story and one that probably changed his life......but it doesn't mean that everyone is going to follow him or his beliefs.

And it has NOTHING to do with the right to marry for Gays and Lesbians!!!

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#1526 Jun 18, 2013
Christian Activist wrote:
What happens if the religious basis for monogamy is invalidated because of “separation of church and state”? Remove God from the argument, and replace Him with man-reasoned ethical philosophy embracing moral relativism, and one could easily make a strong case in favor of polygamy.
(Remainder plagiarized from: http://politix.topix.com/homepage/6599-media-... )
The "religious" basis for monogamy is more traditional to the peoples of Europe than it is scripturally based. Even in the time of Jesus, plural marriage was still practiced among His people. Polygamy is not condemned in either the Old or New Testaments and there are a number of places in the Old testament where it is required of someone. Polygamy was an accepted practice among many of the cultures that they lived among, it wasn't a practice that was common among the people of Europe where these beliefs spread. In this instance, tradition changed religion.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#1527 Jun 18, 2013
And THAT, princess, is why you attribute your sources instead of plagiarizing. Since it's the same article, it hardly matters which site--but we have only your word that this was your source.
TrueBlood wrote:
<quoted text>
That's not where I got it at. Do you all intentionally like to provoke me?
http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/1-the-10...
Follower of the way

Saint Paul, MN

#1528 Jun 18, 2013
For centuries American society has traditionally placed high value in monogamy by limiting civil marriages to two spouses. The preservation of this institutionalized, and sacrosanct tradition has its roots in early American Puritan society, and has been upheld for many important reasons including Jesus’ teaching that “a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh”(Matthew 19:5)
Jesus’ omission of three, four, five etc. people becoming “one flesh” implies that monogamy is God’s ideal form of marriage.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1529 Jun 18, 2013
TrueBlood wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't have time to research it but I think you're wrong about some parts of what you're saying. Some states a while back and may still do have some kind of bans on homosexuality in regards of what they can or cannot do. Seems like that would make it illegal to marry. Maybe you can shed some light on what I'm thinking about, without me looking it up.
So, you are admitting that you are too lazy to make your own argument, and actually expect someone else to put it together for you?

That's hysterical. Just how lazy can one be?
Follower of the way

Saint Paul, MN

#1530 Jun 18, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it only offers what HE believes and nothing more.......lots of folks have Near-Death Experiences and it has no bearing or meaning for anyone but that person.......I don't know what caused this issue with this man, and I would hardly give it any more credibility than you would if I gave my details of a near death experience.....it would only matter to me and my life!!
Again, it's a nice story and one that probably changed his life......but it doesn't mean that everyone is going to follow him or his beliefs.
And it has NOTHING to do with the right to marry for Gays and Lesbians!!!
Howard Storm's experience provides cogent reason for many Christians to obey God's commandments. However, obeying God's commandments will be nearly impossible if Christians’ traditional beliefs on marriage are construed as bigotry against a protected class.

Christians are increasingly suffering social and institutional persecution for acting according to their religious belief on traditional marriage. For example on June 7 2013, the Colorado Attorney General's office formally filed a discrimination complaint against a Christian man who refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. As a result of the negative publicity, allegations of bigotry, and exorbitant legal costs, not to mention constant harassment from pro-gay rights activists, this poor man will soon be forced to close his business and lose his livelihood.

Source < http://www.christianpost.com/news/gay-couple-... ;

Religious freedom will become a long distant memory as iconoclastic secularists continue to make headway to reshape and redefine our country’s social mores, principles, and prevailing concept of what is right and what is wrong based on moral relativism.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#1531 Jun 18, 2013
Follower of the way wrote:
<quoted text>
Howard Storm's experience provides cogent reason for many Christians to obey God's commandments. However, obeying God's commandments will be nearly impossible if Christians’ traditional beliefs on marriage are construed as bigotry against a protected class.
Christians are increasingly suffering social and institutional persecution for acting according to their religious belief on traditional marriage. For example on June 7 2013, the Colorado Attorney General's office formally filed a discrimination complaint against a Christian man who refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. As a result of the negative publicity, allegations of bigotry, and exorbitant legal costs, not to mention constant harassment from pro-gay rights activists, this poor man will soon be forced to close his business and lose his livelihood.
Source < http://www.christianpost.com/news/gay-couple-... ;
Religious freedom will become a long distant memory as iconoclastic secularists continue to make headway to reshape and redefine our country’s social mores, principles, and prevailing concept of what is right and what is wrong based on moral relativism.
Again, I disagree with you......all it proves is what might have been missing in his particular life and nothing more........people are allowed to follow what ever religious beliefs THEY see fit......no one is required to follow what this man chooses or you for that matter.......religion DOES NOT get to govern morality for ANYONE but who wants it to.....and frankly, some of those who claim to have a moral conviction need to reevaluate their own lives after what they get caught doing sometimes.

Peace!!

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1532 Jun 18, 2013
Follower of the way wrote:
Christians are increasingly suffering social and institutional persecution for acting according to their religious belief on traditional marriage. For example on June 7 2013, the Colorado Attorney General's office formally filed a discrimination complaint against a Christian man who refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. As a result of the negative publicity, allegations of bigotry, and exorbitant legal costs, not to mention constant harassment from pro-gay rights activists, this poor man will soon be forced to close his business and lose his livelihood.
Source < http://www.christianpost.com/news/gay-couple-... ;
Actually, you are perpetrating persecution on others by arguing that your religious moral views should be ensconced in law. You are free to believe homosexuality is immoral, or that gay marriage is wrong. It is your right to to enter into a same sex relationship or same sex marriage. It is not your right to inflict your religious moral on others, or to include your religious morals in law. Doing so would be in violation of the religious freedom of everyone who follows a different religion.

Baking a cake for a gy couple doesn't violate religious freedom, although not doing so violates basic decency.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#1533 Jun 18, 2013
Follower of the way wrote:
For centuries American society has traditionally placed high value in monogamy by limiting civil marriages to two spouses. The preservation of this institutionalized, and sacrosanct tradition has its roots in early American Puritan society, and has been upheld for many important reasons including Jesus’ teaching that “a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh”(Matthew 19:5)
Jesus’ omission of three, four, five etc. people becoming “one flesh” implies that monogamy is God’s ideal form of marriage.
You evidently are unaware of this, but "early American Puritan society" was opposed to the idea that their or anybody else's Church had any say in who was and was not married in the eyes of their colony. Puritan ministers didn't perform a rite of marriage and the laws of their colony required all marriages be performed by a civil official, even for non-Puritans.

Your one and only verse in allegedly in support of monogamy, is a response to a specifically worded question about a divorce between a man and his wife.

“HHhhhoooowwwlll”

Since: Feb 08

Craigville

#1534 Jun 18, 2013
Broseph wrote:
<quoted text>
This is funny, because in certain comics, Superman has been shown having feelings for Supergirl, who is his cousin
Not deviant sexual desires though........He knows which way the door swings.
Fearless Contrarian

Saint Paul, MN

#1535 Jun 18, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, you are perpetrating persecution on others by arguing that your religious moral views should be ensconced in law. You are free to believe homosexuality is immoral, or that gay marriage is wrong. It is your right to to enter into a same sex relationship or same sex marriage. It is not your right to inflict your religious moral on others, or to include your religious morals in law. Doing so would be in violation of the religious freedom of everyone who follows a different religion.
Baking a cake for a gy couple doesn't violate religious freedom, although not doing so violates basic decency.
It’s quite interesting that you believe that religious people should not “inflict” their religious morals on others, or include religious morals in law, yet you seem to have no problem imposing your moral relativist philosophy/ secular religion onto a democratic society, which is comprised of significant percentage of American voters who reject the notion that standards of right and wrong are products of time and culture.

It’s important to consider that no action or behavior, no matter how foul or depraved, is absolutely wrong from a moral relativist perspective.

Should the philosophy of moral relativism prevail, our children and grandchildren will come to witness immorality at an unimaginable scale. For instance, unchaste men and women walking naked in public, people flaunting their unclothed bodies, men kissing multiple wives, women kissing multiple husbands, and celebrating their unbridled freedom and identity in public processions where display of physical affection and nudity engender exalting pride. This is already taking place in America.

Of course none of those things probably bother you because with moral relativism, anything goes!

I suggest you read the following articles, my friend:

Goodman, David. See Topless Woman? Just Move On, Police Are Told. The New York Times.15 May.2013.Web. 13 June. 2013 < http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/16/nyregion/a-... ;

Rosenblum, Emma. Scott Wiener on San Francisco's Ban on Public Nudity. Bloomberg Businessweek, 29 Nov. 2012. Web. 13 June. 2013.‹http://www.businessweek. com/articles/2012-11-29/scott- wiener-on-san-franciscos-ban-o n-public-nudity>

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1536 Jun 18, 2013
Fearless Contrarian wrote:
<quoted text>
It’s quite interesting that you believe that religious people should not “inflict” their religious morals on others, or include religious morals in law, yet you seem to have no problem imposing your moral relativist philosophy/ secular religion onto a democratic society, which is comprised of significant percentage of American voters who reject the notion that standards of right and wrong are products of time and culture.
Actually, that is how religious freedom works. It requires tolerance of differing views, and a guarantee that no law will respect an establishment of religion. It's actually a pretty straight forward concept.
Fearless Contrarian wrote:
It’s important to consider that no action or behavior, no matter how foul or depraved, is absolutely wrong from a moral relativist perspective.
Once again, tolerance.
Fearless Contrarian wrote:
Should the philosophy of moral relativism prevail, our children and grandchildren will come to witness immorality at an unimaginable scale. For instance, unchaste men and women walking naked in public, people flaunting their unclothed bodies, men kissing multiple wives, women kissing multiple husbands, and celebrating their unbridled freedom and identity in public processions where display of physical affection and nudity engender exalting pride. This is already taking place in America.
Of course none of those things probably bother you because with moral relativism, anything goes!
I suggest you read the following articles, my friend:
Goodman, David. See Topless Woman? Just Move On, Police Are Told. The New York Times.15 May.2013.Web. 13 June. 2013 < http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/16/nyregion/a-... ;
Rosenblum, Emma. Scott Wiener on San Francisco's Ban on Public Nudity. Bloomberg Businessweek, 29 Nov. 2012. Web. 13 June. 2013.‹http://www.businessweek. com/articles/2012-11-29/scott- wiener-on-san-franciscos-ban-o n-public-nudity>
It's funny that you advance this as a concept, because it is basically fundamentally intolerant of anything outside of your world view. Congratulations! You're against freedom.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#1537 Jun 18, 2013
Fearless Contrarian wrote:
<quoted text>
It’s quite interesting that you believe that religious people should not “inflict” their religious morals on others, or include religious morals in law, yet you seem to have no problem imposing your moral relativist philosophy/ secular religion onto a democratic society, which is comprised of significant percentage of American voters who reject the notion that standards of right and wrong are products of time and culture.
It’s important to consider that no action or behavior, no matter how foul or depraved, is absolutely wrong from a moral relativist perspective.
Should the philosophy of moral relativism prevail, our children and grandchildren will come to witness immorality at an unimaginable scale. For instance, unchaste men and women walking naked in public, people flaunting their unclothed bodies, men kissing multiple wives, women kissing multiple husbands, and celebrating their unbridled freedom and identity in public processions where display of physical affection and nudity engender exalting pride. This is already taking place in America.
Of course none of those things probably bother you because with moral relativism, anything goes!
I suggest you read the following articles, my friend:
Goodman, David. See Topless Woman? Just Move On, Police Are Told. The New York Times.15 May.2013.Web. 13 June. 2013 < http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/16/nyregion/a-... ;
Rosenblum, Emma. Scott Wiener on San Francisco's Ban on Public Nudity. Bloomberg Businessweek, 29 Nov. 2012. Web. 13 June. 2013.‹http://www.businessweek. com/articles/2012-11-29/scott- wiener-on-san-franciscos-ban-o n-public-nudity>
who said it is a moral relativist philosophy? it is just recognizing that homosexuality is a normal part of the human species and dealing with that realization in a way consistent with the founding goals of our nation and society.

the only problem comes when people bring their proven false religious cults into the mix...
The Coal Handlers Son

Commiskey, IN

#1538 Jun 18, 2013
Fearless Contrarian wrote:
<quoted text>It’s quite interesting that you believe that religious people should not “inflict” their religious morals on others, or include religious morals in law, yet you seem to have no problem imposing your moral relativist philosophy/ secular religion onto a democratic society, which is comprised of significant percentage of American voters who reject the notion that standards of right and wrong are products of time and culture.

ItÂ’s important to consider that no action or behavior, no matter how foul or depraved, is absolutely wrong from a moral relativist perspective.

Should the philosophy of moral relativism prevail, our children and grandchildren will come to witness immorality at an unimaginable scale. For instance, unchaste men and women walking naked in public, people flaunting their unclothed bodies, men kissing multiple wives, women kissing multiple husbands, and celebrating their unbridled freedom and identity in public processions where display of physical affection and nudity engender exalting pride. This is already taking place in America.

Of course none of those things probably bother you because with moral relativism, anything goes!

I suggest you read the following articles, my friend:

Goodman, David. See Topless Woman? Just Move On, Police Are Told. The New York Times.15 May.2013.Web. 13 June. 2013 < http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/16/nyregion/a-... ;

Rosenblum, Emma. Scott Wiener on San Francisco's Ban on Public Nudity. Bloomberg Businessweek, 29 Nov. 2012. Web. 13 June. 2013.‹http://www.businessweek .com/articles/2012-11-29/scott -wiener-on-san-franciscos-ban- on-public-nudity>
Amen brother!

Judged:

11

11

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Wedding Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 12 min RiccardoFire 12,980
News Supreme Court To Hear Arguments In Case Of Bake... 2 hr Wondering 337
News Our recommendation: Springboro voters should sa... (Feb '08) 18 hr Levy Hater 32,029
News Prominent chefs oppose baker in major gay right... 19 hr Betty Cracker 3
News Former gay activist backs 'no' campaign 21 hr Christsharia sLaw 2
News Prominent chefs oppose baker in major gay right... 21 hr nono 2
News Tony Abbott: On Global Warming, Dare to Doubt Fri ChemEngineer 1
More from around the web