Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

[Lililth_Satans_B ore]

Brad wrote:

<quoted text>
I disagree,across the board.

no one cares bigot

[Brad]

Lililth_Satans_Bore wrote:

<quoted text>no one cares bigot

Batwanger alert.

[Lililth_Satans_B ore]

Brad wrote:

<quoted text>
Batwanger alert.

you talking about your mother again... shame on you

[Droppin in for a tad]

"batwanger" ???? ROFL

I have NO inkling what that means, but it sounds fun!

Can a couple do it, or is it just one of your private activities while online?

[Brad]

Lililth_Satans_Bore wrote:

<quoted text>you talking about your mother again... shame on you

Batwanger alert.

LOL

[Droppin in for a tad]

Tony C wrote:

<quoted text>
No, it isn't. People should learn from past mistakes and realize that denying any law abiding citizens equality is wrong. Why didn't you learn that?
Womens' suffrage started slowly, picked up speed, and must have seemed to happen overnight as well to those who were around at the time.
Our fight began to coalesce in the 60's and 70's. It's 2013. That's not overnight. That's some peoples' entire lives.
It is immoral to not rectify this inequality immediately, as more good gay folks die every day without the legal recognition we all know is coming.

Check out a very entertaining flick: "Iron Jawed Angels"

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

I really like the way they modernized elements of the presentation without altering facts. A very entertaining primer.

[Jane Dodo]

Brad wrote:

<quoted text>
Gay lifestyle,by its definition alone,is a far cry from factual.
If you want to drag facts into it,,,,that is.

Well then, tell us all about the "gay lifestyle" and how you became such an expert on the subject.

[Tony C]

Brad wrote:

<quoted text>
Really?
A lifestyle is something you choose.

Well it's more than that. But being gay is not a choice, so there you go.

Your sentence still made no sense in English.

[Tony C]

Droppin in for a tad wrote:

<quoted text>
Check out a very entertaining flick: "Iron Jawed Angels"
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
I really like the way they modernized elements of the presentation without altering facts. A very entertaining primer.

Yeah I don't do links on topix. If you have something to say, say it in your own words.

[eJohn]

nhjeff wrote:

<quoted text>
Careful, eJohn. The "why not polygamy" troll is waiting in the wings.

Of course. But polygamy is a totally different thing. I'm talking about the same thing that straight couples do every day--how many kids of straight couples are being raised by their two divorced parents plus at least one, if not two, step-parents added in for good measure?? Three parents? Four parents? There are MILLIONS of families in the U.S. today that fit that bill.

And if the parents and step-parents have brains in their head and don't use the kids as weapons against their ex's, I've seen that situation work out brilliantly for the kids. Loving, caring step-parents that really care about the kids in their life can be a wonderful influence.

[eJohn]

disaster in the making wrote:

<quoted text>
Not a good idea at all there is a sperm donor in court a court case with 2 lesbians involving paying support its best if whatever parties are left totally unknown

Totally different situation and based solely in animus and hate-based legislation.

I'm talking about a gay couple and the third bio-parent. I know three families with that setup and it works beautifully. The two parents live together with the child, but the third parent is always nearby and is an active part of the child's life--always there for family events and gatherings, the kid knows who he or she is, when a baby-sitter is needed, there's no need to look beyond the third parent, someone the child knows and trusts and, just as important, the parents trust.

And guess what?? Divorced STRAIGHT couples do it EVERY DAY!!!

I think this is one of the real reasons why so many people panic at the thought of families headed by gay couples. Often times, there's a built-in third parent that makes life while raising kids a WHOLE lot easier than it would otherwise be. They hate that.

[eJohn]

Brian_G wrote:

<quoted text>Of course not; where did you get that idea from this post:
Protecting marriage means keeping its male/female aspect. Same sex marriage introduces a new standard of gender segregation to marriage where before it was always gender diverse.
If you love integration and hate apartheid; keep marriage male/female.

It seems pretty obvious that your base fear is that everyone will suddenly turn gay. That whole "what if EVERYONE did it" ridiculousness simply doesn't apply when it comes to sexual orientation. People ARE what they ARE and that won't change no matter what the laws are. No one is going to "turn gay" or quit their hetero marriage simply because same-sex marriage is legal.

Yet that appears to be your fear, isn't it?

Brian_G wrote:

<quoted text><quoted text>When the law changes, rules change for everyone. If you write a new law increasing tolerance so people with above .10 blood alcohol can drive, that doesn't just affect the drunks, it changes traffic for every driver. The same conditions apply when you change the law to let same sex couples, polygamists or incest couples marry.
I'm a conservative; I want to keep marriage as is, between one consenting man and one consenting woman.

Apples and oranges. No one is harmed when a gay couple gets civilly married. And slippery slope arguments about polygamy and incest have no basis in reality.

Brian_G wrote:

<quoted text><quoted text>Are you thinking of Kant's Categorical Imperative? That's the philosophical exercise where you question if a policy is good or bad by imagining what would happen if that policy was a universal law and ask, "What would happen if everyone did it?" If you don't use that to decide right from wrong, what do you use?

There you go again. "What if EVERYONE was gay" isn't going to happen. It CAN'T happen. That's like saying, "What if suddenly all the babies that were born were girls??"--not gonna happen. Quit worrying about things that are impossible.

[eJohn]

Brian_G wrote:

<quoted text>....If you don't use that to decide right from wrong, what do you use?

Do *not* do unto others as you would *not* have them do unto you.

It's really simple, isn't it. It answers all the questions, moral or otherwise.

Here's an example. Since I wouldn't want you shoot me in the face with a shotgun, I'm going to conclude that *I* should also not shoot *you* in the face with a shotgun.

Next. Since *I* wouldn't want you to throw rocks at me while I'm walking down the street, I can easily conclude that *I* should not throw rocks at *you* while you're walking down the street.

Are you still with me??

Now the biggie. Since I'm certain that *YOU* would not want me dictating to *you* who you can and cannot marry, I would also expect that you would not try to dictate to me who *I* can and cannot marry.

See how easy??

[dances with weebles]

Brad wrote:

<quoted text>
Really?
A lifestyle is something you choose.

a lifestyle can be bought and sold. it's about your education, your work, your economic conditions, and where you live. it's about how you dress, and with whom you associate. it has nothing to do with whom you have sex.

[dances with weebles]

eJohn wrote:

<quoted text>
Do *not* do unto others as you would *not* have them do unto you.
It's really simple, isn't it. It answers all the questions, moral or otherwise.
Here's an example. Since I wouldn't want you shoot me in the face with a shotgun, I'm going to conclude that *I* should also not shoot *you* in the face with a shotgun.
Next. Since *I* wouldn't want you to throw rocks at me while I'm walking down the street, I can easily conclude that *I* should not throw rocks at *you* while you're walking down the street.
Are you still with me??
Now the biggie. Since I'm certain that *YOU* would not want me dictating to *you* who you can and cannot marry, I would also expect that you would not try to dictate to me who *I* can and cannot marry.
See how easy??

don't try using logic... you know that it only bungs up his head.

[eJohn]

Brian_G wrote:

<quoted text>There's nothing wrong with homosexuals or homosexuality; gays have always married under the same laws as everyone else. The prime threat to the fundamental cultural institution are forces weakening the family to make people more dependent on government. Same sex marriage is just another brick in the wall.

And yet you haven't given even ONE concrete example of how anything is "threatened" or "weakened" or how marriage equality will "make people more dependent on government."

You might as well be claiming that marriage equality will make marigolds bloom early or increase global warming. Why not?? If you're not going to support your claims, why not just keep making up all sorts of crazy things to panic the stupid?

Brian_G wrote:

<quoted text>
<quoted text>A gay man may marry a lesbian woman in any state; there is no orientation test for a marriage license. The problem isn't homosexuals; the problem is bringing gender segregation to the perfectly integrated institution of male/female marriage.

If you believe that a gay man marrying a Lesbian is good for society and the culture, you have absolutely ZERO understanding of what a marriage is. Would YOU want to marry someone you can never fully love and that can never fully love you?? You might as well marry a jar of pickles.

Brian_G wrote:

<quoted text>
No, but same sex marriage supporters want to change marriage laws for everybody. When a state becomes more tolerant and let's drivers with .1% blood alcohol drive, it affects every driver and pedestrian, not just the drunk drivers.

Again, apples and oranges. No one is harmed by marriage equality. MANY people are harmed by drunk driving. Find a relevant analogy and then we can talk.

[eJohn]

Tony C wrote:

<quoted text>
If a state changes its law to become more tolerand and inclusive; to legally recognize interracial marriages, that doesn't force people to marry outside their race. The law applies to everyone, even the loudmouth freaks who vocally oppose it and predict doom and gloom...which never happens.

I'm old enough to remember the panic that was created when the Loving decision came out of the SCOTUS throwing out race-based marriage laws.

Even as a small child, I remember hearing grown-ups talking about how horrible "it's going to be now that white people can marry a black person" and how the world is changed place. "Soon, we'll only have one race in the world." "What's to stop EVERYONE from marrying outside their race??" "Those poor children that will have one black parent and one white parent."

They seemed absolutely convinced that EVERYONE had been just chomping at the bit to rush out and marry someone of a different race and how it was going to happen!! No more single-race marriages! The world has ended.

That crap didn't make any sense to my four-year-old self and 45 years later, it still doesn't make any sense.

[Tony C]

eJohn wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm old enough to remember the panic that was created when the Loving decision came out of the SCOTUS throwing out race-based marriage laws.
Even as a small child, I remember hearing grown-ups talking about how horrible "it's going to be now that white people can marry a black person" and how the world is changed place. "Soon, we'll only have one race in the world." "What's to stop EVERYONE from marrying outside their race??" "Those poor children that will have one black parent and one white parent."
They seemed absolutely convinced that EVERYONE had been just chomping at the bit to rush out and marry someone of a different race and how it was going to happen!! No more single-race marriages! The world has ended.
That crap didn't make any sense to my four-year-old self and 45 years later, it still doesn't make any sense.

Thank you for posting that perspective. A lot of these anti-gays need to hear it. I knew it was out there, but didn't experience it personally (born in '71) so it carries more weight (to normal people) when you say it.

[barry]

nhjeff wrote:

<quoted text>
You're kidding, right? Are you a Confuciusist?(Not that there's anything wrong with that.)
Leviticus 19:18 and 19:34. Mathew 19:19 and 22:39. Mark 12:31. Luke 6:31 and 10:27. Romans 13:9. Galations 5:14. James 2:8
Matthew 7:5 Luke 6:42 Peter 4:25 Thessalonians 4:11 Proverbs 6:20

peter 4:25?
however i accept the list even with the question of that verse and 1Thes 4:11 is out of context.

my point was the Bible also says a lot about the homosexual lifestyle and it is clearly more than 10 verses and the sexual aspect of it is clearly condemned.

[barry]

nhjeff wrote:

<quoted text>
I think you should read more carefully. You seem to subscribe to the same fallacy that many anti-gay agitators do: Since 30% of male molesters preyed upon boys, they must be gay (or bi-sexual). The article is quite clear that orientation toward other adults (which is the primary focus of this forum) does not seem to correlate with the choice of victims. Indeed, the only conclusion that researchers agree on is that pedophiles often chose victims based purely on opportunity. Hence, the heterosexual Sandusky may have preyed on boys in the locker room because that's where he had access to them, not because he preferred young boys to young girls.
The article goes to great lengths to clear up that distinction, but it was apparently lost on you.

so you don't think that if sandusky would have had a perversion for young girls that he wouldn't have found a way to gain access to them? really a poor argument on your part.
however my original question is based on the fact that we know young boys who were sold in prostitution by their mother who now as teenagers are in trouble for having sexual activity with children under the age of ten. i was looking for a study to see if this was a common thing and if in fact if young boys were molested by men is there a greater chance that they too would be homosexual and/or would there be a greater chance that they also would molest children. you are trying to defend your position when really, all i asked for was for some one who said that someone else was wrong to provide a link proving it. as of yet it hasn't happened.
as a foster parent i happen to feel from experience that there might actually be a link. i just was curious.