Why Gay Marriage Is Such A Big Deal

[MeganK]

engaged voter wrote:

<quoted text>
Fair enough. I do appreciate your comments on this board. They are very helpful, especially to those of us who often feel targeted by religion, when we are also part of religious communities.
In the interest of editing posts somewhat, I admit it is easy to generalize. And all of us has been misinterpreted or misjudged by other posters, at some point.

I agree on the latter point. And I enjoy your posts as well. I hope you have a good night, as I'm off to bed, something I should have done well over an hour ago.

Goodnight, all!

[dont snow me]

Gary47 wrote:

Gay marriage is the poster child for why we are a representative democracy.
The right has been very effective in getting votes that should not be taken for their wedge politics.
The Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts of 1964 and 1965 would never have passed if the voters had direct say on race equality.
Thank God for the wisdom of our founding fathers who feared the mob mentality of democracy.
As Ben Franklin said, we have given you a republic, if you can keep it. I fear the GOP will destroy our nation in pursuit of their wedge politics.

Isn't Obamama against gay marriage?

[dont snow me]

Gay Mom wrote:

<quoted text>
And I know a lot of them.
I don't expect anyone to be tolerant or accepting, just quit working against me in the civil arena.

Damn, the mythical cute gay girl, long believed to be non existent.:) But, here you are, if that's really you.

[I am just saying]

dont snow me wrote:

<quoted text>Isn't Obamama against gay marriage?

No, haven't you seen his spouse?

[nmweatherman]

Is a Barack Obama bombshell lurking in the shadows, waiting to derail one of the biggest Cinderella stories in recent history?

While most political prognosticators in the mainstream press presume that Obama is the presumptive Democratic nominee for president, they still wonder aloud if Hillary Clinton (or some other entity) has something up their sleeve.

The bombshell may involve the murder of Donald Young, a 47-year-old choir master at former Rev. Jeremiah Wright's Trinity United Church of Christ—the same congregation that Obama has attended for the past 20 years. Two other young black men that attended the same church—Larry Bland and Nate Spencer—were also murdered execution style with bullets to the backs of their heads—all within 40 days of each other, beginning in November 2007. All three were openly homosexual.

What links this story to Barack Obama is that, according to an acquaintance of Obama, Larry Sinclair, Obama is a closet bisexual with whom he had sexual and drug-related encounters in November 1999.

Further, Sinclair claims that Obama was friendly with at least two of these deceased parishioners, and that choir director Donald had contacted him shortly before being murdered from multiple gunshot wounds on December 23, 2007.

These killings are receiving a number of different reactions. Mike Parker, reporting for CBS in Chicago, wrote, "Activists fear gay African-Americans are being targeted for murder," while Marc Loveless of the Coalition for Justice and Respect queries, "Are we under attack? Is this a serial killer?"

An even more sinister aspect of this case is being investigated. According to Sinclair in an affidavit to the Chicago Police Department, Donald Young had informed him that he and Barack Obama were "intimate" with each other. Sinclair, it should be noted, declared on a January 18, 2008, YouTube video that on two separate occasions in November 1999, he engaged in sexual acts with Obama, and that Obama smoked crack cocaine—once in a limousine and the other time at a hotel in Gurnee, Ill.

Sinclair has also asked: why would Young—whom he had never met—initiate these calls by contacting him on cell phone numbers known only in the Obama camp? Further, a private investigator connected to the Chicago Police Department told the Globe, "Donald Young was silenced because of something he knew about Obama. Donald was in a position where he heard a lot of things and saw a lot of things concerning Barack."

Another questionable Obama associate is openly homosexual. That person is Stanford law professor Lawrence Lessig, who was listed during the 2008 campaign as being part of Obama's "technology initiative."

http://forums.grunt.com/forums/p/46176/371470...

[Gay Mom]

MeganK wrote:

<quoted text>
You seem to be a little confused.
I choose to stand with the GLBT community because that's what I believe is right. I believe that you guys should have all the responsibilities and benefits that straight couples have, because it's only fair. But what irks me to no end, is when members of the GLBT community such as yourself, are so arrogant that you actually believe that you can dictate to me what I should and should not do when it comes to supporting your rights. That you should have the audacity to attempt to condescend towards me with statements like the one you just posted. Such a statement intimates that you believe that I owe you my cooperation. In reality, I don't owe you anything, I don't owe the GLBT community my cooperation with their cause. I don't owe the GLBT community my favorable vote on marriage amendments. As a private citizen, I don't owe you and other members of the GLBT anything, it's the government that owes you guys equal protection under the law. Not I. I have joined the fight WITH you guys because I chose to. But rest assured , such a spiteful attitude will land you with absolutely no allies at all.

Help me out here. Where do you see me saying you owe us your cooperation?? Where is the spiteful attitude?? Here is what I said:

"I don't expect anyone to be tolerant or accepting, just quit working against me in the civil arena."

[Duped since birth]

Gay Mom wrote:

<quoted text>
Help me out here. Where do you see me saying you owe us your cooperation?? Where is the spiteful attitude?? Here is what I said:
"I don't expect anyone to be tolerant or accepting, just quit working against me in the civil arena."

Gay Mom, I agree with you. The post to which you refer starts off in a very favorable vein, I am glad that we have straight allies, but I sure don't see any spiteful attitude in your comment.??

[Duped since birth]

I am just saying wrote:

<quoted text>
Interested in your logic or theory,.........

Let's face it, the authors of the old testament laws were the original stone age "he-man women hater's club" and their attitudes have lived on in the roman catholic church and other religions to this day. There's a law in there that if a woman gets raped, she has to marry the one who raped her. That's a good answer to rape (sarcasm). The very basic tenet of christianity is that all men are sinners and have to be redeemed. This original sin is all the fault of a woman (Eve), and as a result of her all humankind is doomed to hell. The list goes on. Even today, women are considered inferior to men in many religions. Cannot be priests, etc.

[Get Real]

Gay Mom wrote:

<quoted text>
You can talk out of the side of your mouth all you want, but since there is NO civil reason not to allow gays to marry, your attempt at innocense doesn't ring true.

There is a logical reason that I already outlined. If we grant marriage to one groupe we have to grant it to others, regardless of how sick they are. You however havn't provided a reason of why gays can't get their equal rights as blacks have, through legal and legeslative venues at the state and federal level.

Marriage is not a short cut to goodies, and its to precious of an institution in this country to throw to the wolves.

[Get Real]

this crazy witch hunt wrote:

<quoted text>
It's not your fault you hate them... it's theirs!
Why do you seem to give their private lives so much more thought than I and most other sane people do?
I"ve never had a homosexual bring their intimate moments to me. But, that can't be said of heterosexuals who have many times.
Who are you interacting with?

It is the "act" of homosexualality that is being rejected in Maine and 30 other states, it's not the individuals or their thoughts or feelings towards whatever gender they like, it is the act itself. If gays didn't "act" on what they wanted their would not be an issue to even talk about here. So the "act" is what important here.

[Get Real]

Travis A wrote:

<quoted text>
you don't have the right to vote on others rights

I sure do, what do you think this vote in Maine and 30 others states were. Our right to vote.

[engaged voter]

MeganK wrote:

<quoted text>
My intolerance? Your first mistake is in assuming that I am anti GLBT. Not all Christians are your enemy. Furthermore, homosexuality is far from being a "pressing issue" in my church and many other churches. Such generalizations demean your argument.
People have the right to vote how they want to, for whatever reason they want to. And as unfair as it may sound, people have the right to encourage others to vote the same way. There were many people this past presidential election who would not vote for our current president because of his race, and some were vocal in encouraging others to do the same. It's unfair, but it's their right. People expect for Christians to be able to separate themselves from their beliefs at the polls, but when you're a Christian your faith is a large part of your identity. The two are inseparable.
As long as there is freedom of religion of this country, people will allow their religion to influence their vote. And it will be their right to do so.

engaged voter wrote:

<quoted text>Fair enough. I do appreciate your comments on this board. They are very helpful, especially to those of us who often feel targeted by religion, when we are also part of religious communities.

In the interest of editing posts somewhat, I admit it is easy to generalize. And all of us has been misinterpreted or misjudged by other posters, at some point.

Sorry I never had a chance to complete this thought...
"All of us HAVE been misinterpreted..."
"Not all Christians are anti-glbt" is of course true and I stand corrected, but we can both agree that 90% of the straight Christians on this board are VERY vocal and active in their condemnation of GLBT people.

There is one church in my small town that is "open and accepting," and there are 700 church and synagogue leaders that signed on supporting glbt rights this week in NY. And you're right -- open and affirming churches/synagogues show up at GLBT family conferences and places like pride festivals, inviting us into their communities.

Many churches do not actively work against our equality.
But the biggest funders of the anti-glbt political machine are churches, using their pulpits and tax exempt collection plates against us. I'm probably going to get jumped on for saying this, but many Christians have been duped by cynical church leaders and politicians needing hot-button emotional issues into making my family their number one target. You say Christians have a hard time separating their faith from their identity at the polls. I'd say that at least faith is a choice. You can think for yourself, carefully study, look for open interpretations, use reason (as you've obviously done). But regardless, it's a choice.

My homosexuality is not choice. When my family is under attack, it's hard not to take things personally. And it's easy to over-generalize. Thank you for your dose of perspective. It's both honest and appreciated.:-)

[Get Real]

Rose wrote:

<quoted text>
Dodge. I'm just pointing out religion is as much "behavior" as sexuality is.

No it's not, it doesn't center around one physical act.

[engaged voter]

Kimberly Harrison-Dees wrote:

well said MeganK<quoted text>

Wow. It's not often we see you agreeing with someone who is for glbt rights. Thanks :-)

[engaged voter]

Get Real wrote:

<quoted text>
There is a logical reason that I already outlined. If we grant marriage to one groupe we have to grant it to others, regardless of how sick they are. You however havn't provided a reason of why gays can't get their equal rights as blacks have, through legal and legeslative venues at the state and federal level.
Marriage is not a short cut to goodies, and its to precious of an institution in this country to throw to the wolves.

Interesting point. The courts and executive branch were initially responsible for desegretation. When courts overturn unfair laws against gays, they are often called "activist judges" who go against the wishes of the people. Just saw an interesting post (original newspapers) from Maine's rejection of women's right to vote at the turn of the century. The language was almost identical. It took several years of campaigning.
eventually we'll get there.

[allie topeka]

Get Real wrote:

<quoted text>
It is the "act" of homosexualality that is being rejected in Maine and 30 other states, it's not the individuals or their thoughts or feelings towards whatever gender they like, it is the act itself. If gays didn't "act" on what they wanted their would not be an issue to even talk about here. So the "act" is what important here.

it is the "act" that is being rejected? so, sex is what all this boils down to, with everyone? now that is sick. what two consenting adults, do, in their bedroom, is no one's business. do people also constantly think about what heteros do in their bedrooms? do you realize that the charming couple, down the street, have a closet full of whips and handcuffs? did you know that Sally dresses Joe in a diaper, and treats him like a baby, every weekend the children are gone? how about the minister, who can't get it up, with his wife, unless she dresses like a prostitute? heteros also engage in anal sex, oral sex, mutual masturbation, etc. some hets enjoy 3somes, orgies, voyeurism, and all kinds of acts that some would say is disgusting. get your minds out of peoples personal lives, it does not in any way shape or form concern you.

[Rev Ted Haggard]

Gay rights .......... my a-ss !

[Ambie_babii]

I only hope to see the day when gay marriage is legalized! why should gay marriage be any differnt than inter-racial marriage? isnt takin certain rights from gays jus as prejudice as keeping certain rights from blacks? Yupp....

[Get Real]

engaged voter wrote:

<quoted text>
Interesting point. The courts and executive branch were initially responsible for desegretation. When courts overturn unfair laws against gays, they are often called "activist judges" who go against the wishes of the people. Just saw an interesting post (original newspapers) from Maine's rejection of women's right to vote at the turn of the century. The language was almost identical. It took several years of campaigning.
eventually we'll get there.

Being gay involves a behavior that is being rejected, women didn't participate in any one behavior that the country was rejecting. A behavior does not constitute civil rights, its not the same thing so please stop comparing yourself to such things.

[Get Real]

allie topeka wrote:

<quoted text>
it is the "act" that is being rejected? so, sex is what all this boils down to, with everyone? now that is sick. what two consenting adults, do, in their bedroom, is no one's business. do people also constantly think about what heteros do in their bedrooms? do you realize that the charming couple, down the street, have a closet full of whips and handcuffs? did you know that Sally dresses Joe in a diaper, and treats him like a baby, every weekend the children are gone? how about the minister, who can't get it up, with his wife, unless she dresses like a prostitute? heteros also engage in anal sex, oral sex, mutual masturbation, etc. some hets enjoy 3somes, orgies, voyeurism, and all kinds of acts that some would say is disgusting. get your minds out of peoples personal lives, it does not in any way shape or form concern you.

Of course it's the "act" thats being rejected. Why do you think these people are voting against it. Nobody but you cares about your feelings or your thoughts or your desires, if you kept them to yourselves and did't try to change this country to fit your individual taste there would not be an issue. It is the "act" of homosexuality that is being voted against. There would be no other reason to vote against this if it wasn't for the "act".