Gay Marriage Debate - Columbus, OH

Discuss the national Gay Marriage debate in Columbus, OH.

Do you support gay marriage?

Columbus opposes
Oppose
 
326
Support
 
303

Vote now in Columbus:

Comments

Showing posts 1 - 20 of426
< prev page
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
tip

Blacklick, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Jul 26, 2010
 
There's a big difference between being a sinner and denying that your sin is sinful at all. There's an even bigger difference when you actually label your sin a virtue and then demand that everyone else do so as well.

President Barack Obama, a self-proclaimed champion of civil rights, said in 2004: "...I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs, say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman."

“and the Top Ick award goes to”

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Jul 26, 2010
 
More than simple support, I oppose laws that give advantages to one group while taking them away from another group such as couples recieving tax deductions, health insurance, discounts on auto insurance and inhiertance law and rights.

Equal treatment under the law and what is considered sin is a different issue that few agree upon.

“Fire in my Bones and”

Since: Apr 10

The sweet taste of Kerosene

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Jul 27, 2010
 
As a sister of a gay man, I am disgusted that people are using their religion to deny a large group of people civil rights, and protection under the law. "judge not" right.....Wrong, I don't know a single "christian" that can actually hold up what they demand from others....hypocrites. All Humans deserve rights, Even if you don't agree with their bed fellows. SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE.
Thyle

Chillicothe, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Jul 27, 2010
 
It's such an antiquated thing anyway, marriage. It was invented so men could get regular sex and women could get a roof over their heads. Before divorce you were stuck with each other, unless you had your wife declared insane and institutionalized (which many men did, probably because they brought home syphillis). You see, heterosexuals have already made a mockery of marriage. So why not let everyone participate in this silly contract?
tip

Blacklick, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Jul 27, 2010
 
The failure of human beings to meet their own ideals does not disprove or discredit those ideals. The fact that some are cowards does not make courage a myth. The fact that some are faithless does not make fidelity a joke. All moral standards create the possibility of hypocrisy, but I would rather live among those who recognize standards and fail to meet them than among those who mock all standards as lies. In the end, hypocrisy is preferable to decadence.

“Fire in my Bones and”

Since: Apr 10

The sweet taste of Kerosene

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Jul 27, 2010
 
tip wrote:
The failure of human beings to meet their own ideals does not disprove or discredit those ideals. The fact that some are cowards does not make courage a myth. The fact that some are faithless does not make fidelity a joke. All moral standards create the possibility of hypocrisy, but I would rather live among those who recognize standards and fail to meet them than among those who mock all standards as lies. In the end, hypocrisy is preferable to decadence.
So in your opinion being gay makes fidelity a joke? How is that? You are probably of the school that Gay is a choice, aren't you? I can tell you from growing up with a gay man, that is flat out not the case. Who has mocked all standards as lies? What do you even mean by that? Marriage is more than a religous union. Its a legal union, meant to protect the partner. Gays deserve the same prtection under the law, denying someone basic rights because they don't feel the same way you do is about the most un-christian thing I have heard of.

“Fire in my Bones and”

Since: Apr 10

The sweet taste of Kerosene

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Jul 27, 2010
 
tip wrote:
There's a big difference between being a sinner and denying that your sin is sinful at all. There's an even bigger difference when you actually label your sin a virtue and then demand that everyone else do so as well.
President Barack Obama, a self-proclaimed champion of civil rights, said in 2004: "...I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs, say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman."
No one is asking you to be gay, agree with being gay, watch gays, label being gay a virtue, etc.... they are simply asking for basic civil rights.... them getting married will not effect you whatsoever. Your saying(regardless of the sex of the partners) that 2 people that have been in love, lived a monogamous lifestyle, raised children, shared a house etc. for 35 years, that if one of those partners die, they shouldn't be entitled to the benifits of S.S., company retirement, military benefits, etc? God may hate fags, but he hates bigots just as much.
tip

Blacklick, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Jul 27, 2010
 
Ashes82 wrote:
<quoted text>
...they don't feel the same way you do is about the most un-christian thing I have heard of.
"...we've all heard that old stereotype of a lunatic, the guy in an asylum who thinks he is Napoleon. Now the asylums have largely been emptied, and I think I know why: we've turned the outside world into an asylum. What was once only acceptable to a small group within the scariest of walls -- detachment from reality -- has now been mainstreamed. You can be a man who thinks he is a woman, yet no straitjacket is slapped on you. It is slapped on the mouths of those who dare say self-image isn't reality.

And that is the point: there is something called reality. When feelings tell one he is, or should be, something he is not or shouldn't be -- a girl, a legless man or Napoleon -- the sane conclusion is that you're confronted with a psychological problem, not a physical one. It may be intractable, and it is certainly easier to mutilate the body than cure the mind. But you cannot mutilate reality, only obscure it." -- Selwyn Duke

Practitioners of unnatural same-sex behaviors suffer from a psychosexual disorder as do the practitioners of the other 547 APA-defined paraphilias. Two adults may mutually consent to gouge out each other’s eyes, burn down their own house, or kill each other simultaneously. Since both consented, and those actions affect only themselves, does that make them right? Of course not.

Many people claim that you can’t legislate morality. However, our nation’s founding documents appeal to the natural laws as the cornerstone of our political order (“nature and nature’s God,”“We hold these truths to be self-evident....”). If there is no moral law, then there is no morality at all -- there are no obligations of any kind for any person.

“Fire in my Bones and”

Since: Apr 10

The sweet taste of Kerosene

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Jul 27, 2010
 
tip wrote:
<quoted text>
"...we've all heard that old stereotype of a lunatic, the guy in an asylum who thinks he is Napoleon. Now the asylums have largely been emptied, and I think I know why: we've turned the outside world into an asylum. What was once only acceptable to a small group within the scariest of walls -- detachment from reality -- has now been mainstreamed. You can be a man who thinks he is a woman, yet no straitjacket is slapped on you. It is slapped on the mouths of those who dare say self-image isn't reality.
And that is the point: there is something called reality. When feelings tell one he is, or should be, something he is not or shouldn't be -- a girl, a legless man or Napoleon -- the sane conclusion is that you're confronted with a psychological problem, not a physical one. It may be intractable, and it is certainly easier to mutilate the body than cure the mind. But you cannot mutilate reality, only obscure it." -- Selwyn Duke
Practitioners of unnatural same-sex behaviors suffer from a psychosexual disorder as do the practitioners of the other 547 APA-defined paraphilias. Two adults may mutually consent to gouge out each other’s eyes, burn down their own house, or kill each other simultaneously. Since both consented, and those actions affect only themselves, does that make them right? Of course not.
Many people claim that you can’t legislate morality. However, our nation’s founding documents appeal to the natural laws as the cornerstone of our political order (“nature and nature’s God,”“We hold these truths to be self-evident....”). If there is no moral law, then there is no morality at all -- there are no obligations of any kind for any person.
How dare you compare 2 people loving each other enough to want to spend the rest of their lives together, to "gouging out each other’s eyes, burning down their own house, or killing each other simultaneously" You are a disgusting human being, you truly truly are.
I can play the quote war with you also, if you don't want to think up your own responses.

"The Bible contains six admonishments to homosexuals and 362 admonishments to heterosexuals. That doesn't mean that God doesn't love heterosexuals. It's just that they need more supervision." ~Lynn Lavner

"Why is it that, as a culture, we are more comfortable seeing two men holding guns than holding hands?" ~Ernest Gaines

"No government has the right to tell its citizens when or whom to love. The only queer people are those who don't love anybody." ~Rita Mae Brown

"War. Rape. Murder. Poverty. Equal rights for gays. Guess which one the Southern Baptist Convention is protesting?" ~The Value of Families

"Jesse Helms and Newt Gingrich were shaking hands congratulating themselves on the introduction of an antigay bill in Congress. If it passes, they won't be able to shake hands, because it will then be illegal for a prick to touch an asshole." ~Judy Carter

(*I had to add that last one because it makes me laugh each time.)
tip

Blacklick, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Jul 27, 2010
 
Ashes82 wrote:
<quoted text>
"The Bible contains six admonishments to homosexuals and 362 admonishments to heterosexuals. That doesn't mean that God doesn't love heterosexuals. It's just that they need more supervision...."
Is that quote based on "Ashes82's Revised Version of the (formerly) Holy Scriptures"?

Look, no matter how hard you and homosexual activists try, you cannot move homosexual behavior outside the realm of morality.

Desires are not the source of morality (i.e., they may not be declared "good" and/or "normal" simply because they exist)-- they are, in fact, regulated by morality -- morality intervenes between the desire and the action. To deny that fact is to overthrow all morality.

“Fire in my Bones and”

Since: Apr 10

The sweet taste of Kerosene

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Jul 27, 2010
 
tip wrote:
<quoted text>
Is that quote based on "Ashes82's Revised Version of the (formerly) Holy Scriptures"?
Look, no matter how hard you and homosexual activists try, you cannot move homosexual behavior outside the realm of morality.
Desires are not the source of morality (i.e., they may not be declared "good" and/or "normal" simply because they exist)-- they are, in fact, regulated by morality -- morality intervenes between the desire and the action. To deny that fact is to overthrow all morality.
Once again you have Morality and religion so far intertwined that you can't tell the difference between the 2. Being a good moral person has nothing to do with religion. There is Morality with out religion, I promise there is.

I agree that "morality intervenes between the desire and the action" as in murder, rape, molestation, Crimes in general. Being gay is not a crime, it is the way these people were born. Gays can be "good" people, based on their actions, the way they treat others (which is less than I can say for you at this moment), and many other determining factors; not a single one of those is who they choose to lay with in bed at night, love, care for, etc.

"Is that quote based on "Ashes82's Revised Version of the (formerly) Holy Scriptures"?" ~ I clearly gave credit to the person who said that credit.

Jesus hung out with 12 guys and a prostitute.... Do you think he was as judgemental as you?

“Fire in my Bones and”

Since: Apr 10

The sweet taste of Kerosene

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Jul 27, 2010
 
*I clearly gave credit to the person who said that quote.
tip

Blacklick, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Jul 27, 2010
 
Ashes82 wrote:
<quoted text>
...it is the way these people were born.
Homosexuals are defined by their behavior. Being gay is not the same as being black or being a woman -- these are characteristics that can be seen and are not based on behavior or related to morality.

In fact, since no scientific, medical or biological evidence exists that homosexuality is either inborn or unchangeable, no person can authenticate that he or she is a homosexual -- it is merely declared. By that declaration, such persons only lay claim to being a practitioner of same-sex behavior. Thus, any claim that same-sex couples are entitled to certain rights granted to a legally married husband & wife has no more legal merit than that of persons engaged in such similarly aberrant sexual behaviors as consensual adultery, incest or polygamy.

The one and only goal of the homosexual rights movement is to mandate social acceptance of their same-sex lifestyle, when the fact is the majority of Americans reject it on the basis of natural, moral and/or biblical law. When put to a popular vote, 31 of 50 U.S. states have rejected the concept of same-sex marriage.

You realize that your reasoning would have us conclude that no non-normative sexual behaviors are choices -- that the practitioners of these sexual behaviors are naturally driven by their preferences, and therefore, following your logic:

Pedophilia is NOT a choice
Bestiality is NOT a choice
Necrophilia is NOT a choice

...and the rest of the 547 forms of sexual deviancy, or "paraphilias," as defined by the APA.

This thinking echoes that of gay/NAMBLA activist Bill Andriette, who stated, "The only standard for moral sex...is that it be freely and equally consented to by the persons involved."

Ahh...the moral relativist ever repeats, "Who are we to judge?"

“and the Top Ick award goes to”

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Jul 27, 2010
 
tip wrote:
<quoted text>
Homosexuals are defined by their behavior. Being gay is not the same as being black or being a woman -- these are characteristics that can be seen and are not based on behavior or related to morality.
In fact, since no scientific, medical or biological evidence exists that homosexuality is either inborn or unchangeable, no person can authenticate that he or she is a homosexual -- it is merely declared. By that declaration, such persons only lay claim to being a practitioner of same-sex behavior. Thus, any claim that same-sex couples are entitled to certain rights granted to a legally married husband & wife has no more legal merit than that of persons engaged in such similarly aberrant sexual behaviors as consensual adultery, incest or polygamy.
The one and only goal of the homosexual rights movement is to mandate social acceptance of their same-sex lifestyle, when the fact is the majority of Americans reject it on the basis of natural, moral and/or biblical law. When put to a popular vote, 31 of 50 U.S. states have rejected the concept of same-sex marriage.
You realize that your reasoning would have us conclude that no non-normative sexual behaviors are choices -- that the practitioners of these sexual behaviors are naturally driven by their preferences, and therefore, following your logic:
Pedophilia is NOT a choice
Bestiality is NOT a choice
Necrophilia is NOT a choice
...and the rest of the 547 forms of sexual deviancy, or "paraphilias," as defined by the APA.
This thinking echoes that of gay/NAMBLA activist Bill Andriette, who stated, "The only standard for moral sex...is that it be freely and equally consented to by the persons involved."
Ahh...the moral relativist ever repeats, "Who are we to judge?"
Attempting to compare homosexuality to compulsions that harm or take away the rights of others is dishonest to say the least.

There is no victim in a consentual loving relationship between two adults.

If they chose to enter into a lefal contract to bond and share their lives in a stable relationship then they should have the same benefits extended to heterosexual adults who make that committment.

“and the Top Ick award goes to”

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Jul 27, 2010
 
Thyle wrote:
It's such an antiquated thing anyway, marriage. It was invented so men could get regular sex and women could get a roof over their heads. Before divorce you were stuck with each other, unless you had your wife declared insane and institutionalized (which many men did, probably because they brought home syphillis). You see, heterosexuals have already made a mockery of marriage. So why not let everyone participate in this silly contract?
Marriage was never about sex, it was a legal contract concerning property rights and inheritance as the two people build a life together and acquire property and goods.

While some include a religious element it is not necessary and atheist marry everyday.

Laws are written by governments to offer benefits of marriage as in tax laws because marriage and commitment provides stability not only in personal relationships but as a basic unit of a society.

Encouraging homosexual marriage would provide more stability to the society as a whole.
tip

Blacklick, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
Jul 27, 2010
 
Top Icks wrote:
<quoted text>Attempting to compare homosexuality to compulsions that harm or take away the rights of others is dishonest to say the least.
There is no victim in a consentual loving relationship between two adults.
If you want to press the "consent" issue, know that the ultimate goal of the homosexual movement was exposed 35+ years ago in the 1972 Gay Rights Platform when homosexual activists in Chicago demanded the "[r]epeal of all state laws prohibiting private sexual acts involving consenting persons," and the "[r]epeal of all laws governing the age of sexual consent."

Note, these activists condemn society’s disapproval of adult-child sex as the transgression --- rather than the adult-child sex itself.

The homosexual activists' campaign for "equal rights" is a slogan without substance. Their campaign is, of necessity, driven by moral relativism and, therefore, its entire goal is to remove ALL moral judgment from ALL sexual behaviors.
tip

Blacklick, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
Jul 27, 2010
 
Top Icks wrote:
<quoted text>Encouraging homosexual marriage would provide more stability to the society as a whole.
Self-destructive behaviors are always the result of a psychological disorder, as plainly evidenced by these statistics:

Homosexuals of both sexes remain 14x more likely to attempt suicide than heterosexuals and 3-1/2x more likely to commit suicide successfully. Thirty years ago, this propensity toward suicide was attributed to social rejection, but the numbers have remained largely stable since then despite far greater public acceptance than existed in 1973. Study after study shows that male and female homosexuals have much higher rates of interpersonal maladjustment, depression, conduct disorder, childhood abuse (both sexual and violent), domestic violence, alcohol or drug abuse, anxiety, and dependency on psychiatric care than heterosexuals. Life expectancy of homosexual men was only 48 years before the AIDS virus came on the scene, and it is now down to 38. Only 2% of homosexual men live past age 65.

Male homosexuals are prone to cancer (especially anal cancer, which is almost unheard-of in male heterosexuals) and various sexually transmitted diseases including urethritis, laryngitis, prostatitis, hepatitis A & B, syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, herpes, and genital warts (which are caused by HPV, which also causes genital cancers). Lesbians are at lower risk for STDs but at high risk for breast cancer. Homosexuals of both sexes have high rates of drug abuse, including cocaine, marijuana, LSD and other psychedelics, barbiturates, and amyl nitrate.

Male homosexuals are particularly prone to develop sexually transmitted diseases, in part because of the high degree of promiscuity displayed by male homosexuals. One study in San Francisco showed that 43% of male homosexuals had had more than 500 sexual partners. 75% of their sexual partners were strangers. Only 3% had had fewer than 10 sexual partners. The nature of sodomy contributes to the problem among male homosexuals. The rectum is not designed for sex. It is very fragile. Indeed, its fragility and tendency to tear and bleed is one factor making anal sex such an efficient means of transmitting the AIDS and hepatitis viruses.

Lesbians, in contrast, are less promiscuous than male homosexuals but more promiscuous than heterosexual women: One large study found that 42% of lesbians had more than 10 sexual partners. A substantial percentage of them were strangers. Lesbians share male homosexuals' propensity for drug abuse, psychiatric disorder, and suicide.

The statistics speak for themselves: If homosexuals of either gender are finding satisfaction, why the search for sex with a disproportionately high number of strangers? In view of the evidence, homosexuals will not succeed at establishing exclusive relationships. Promiscuity is a hard habit for anyone to break, straight or homosexual. Promiscuous heterosexuals often fail to learn fidelity; male homosexuals are far more promiscuous than heterosexual males, and therefore far more likely to fail. Lesbians are more promiscuous than heterosexual women. There is little good data on the stability of lesbian relationships, but it is reasonable to speculate that their higher rates of promiscuity and various deep-seated psychological problems would predispose them to long-term relational instability. Existing evidence supports this speculation.

The more radical homosexual activists flaunt their promiscuity, using it as a weapon against what they call "bourgeois respectability." But even more conservative advocates of gay marriage such as New Republic editor Andrew Sullivan admit that for them, "fidelity" does not mean complete monogamy, but just somewhat restrained promiscuity. In other words, they admit that exclusiveness will not happen. And without exclusiveness, their "marriages" will have little meaning.

“Fire in my Bones and”

Since: Apr 10

The sweet taste of Kerosene

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
Jul 27, 2010
 
This one is for "tip"~~
I am going to have to call it quits on this debate. If we can't start from the same point then there is absolutely no need for me to beat my head against a brick wall. Gays are born the way the are, just like blacks are born blacks and women are born women. I can understand if you haven't had someone close to you like I have, why you would feel differently.
Once again I find it deplorable that you would put homosexuals in the same class as pedophiles and beastiality. As for this little tid-bit you gave "Homosexuals of both sexes remain 14x more likely to attempt suicide than heterosexuals and 3-1/2x more likely to commit suicide successfully." It is because people like YOU that this is a problem (I am not saying your stats are correct of course). You think of them as sub-human, deviant, etc, simply for being born. How can you possibly use that against them, when you are the cause of it?
As for your "stats" you can shove them (in a heterosexual manor of course) up your bum. I don't know where you got them, who they actually poled, etc. Stats on the internet are a dime a dozen and I could come up with just as many against what you are saying, I could find wonderful research stating that many anti-homosexual posters are really closet homosexuals taking out there pent up aggression. I won't, but I could.
I find it funny that My little brother has been in a completely mongamous relationship for a long, long time. While my older sister is a raging whore, who has slept with upwards of 200 men, and yet you are totally cool with her walking down the isle. There are "promiscuous" people in ALL walks of life, inside and out side the church. I know how much you love the stats so here "Infidelity affects nearly 80% of the marriages in the US" (Source ~ http://www.saveyourmarriagecentral.com/getinf... ) Hmmmmm......

So once again this is my last post to you. I am not interested in falsities, someone who tries to find stats to sway someone, etc. We can all have all the "stats" we want to make "our side" look better. When you decide to look at homosexuals as humans, let me know and we can actually have a civil debate.
tip

Blacklick, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
Jul 27, 2010
 
Ashes82 wrote:
When you decide to look at homosexuals as humans, let me know and we can actually have a civil debate.
One does not treat the mentally ill by catering to the illness -- one helps them conquer it. Affirming their same-sex behaviors does not treat their condition -- it aids and abets a form of insanity. Contrary to your belief, I do have compassion for such people -- that is why I will not support their self-destruction and its spread to others.

I do not judge the victims of this psychosexual disorder. We all have problems and temptations; and, some have unnatural urges. I DO judge those who happily defend their self-destruction and those professionals (and politicians) who profit by promoting and collaborating with an illness instead of treating it.

How much "love" is it to help someone to continue to destroy himself or herself....even to the point of self-mutilation (e.g., sex-change surgery)?

Seriously, let anyone (family/friends) criticize the way they live their lives and they quickly take it personally. I’m sure you've heard something akin to: "Don’t give me that 'love the sinner, hate the sin' line. If you love me, you have to accept what I do. This is who I am. If you reject what I do, you reject me. If you hate it, you hate me."

That's illogical. If you care about someone, you won't blithely accept that he's destroying himself with alcohol, for example. You may not have an idea of exactly how much you can do to stop it, but you won't pretend his boozing is just another legitimate lifestyle choice. You certainly won't "celebrate and promote" his self-destruction. You hate the behavior all the more...because you love him.
R U SERIOUS

Columbus, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#21
Jul 27, 2010
 
i just do

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 1 - 20 of426
< prev page
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

45 Users are viewing the Columbus Forum right now

Search the Columbus Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Lois Lerner linked to another erased hard drive 3 min scirocco 44
U.S. bans flights to Tel Aviv; Ohioans in limbo 7 min Reality Speaks 4
Ann Coulter: "White Guilt Has Produced Mistake ... (Sep '12) 13 min Reality Speaks 41
Columbus mayor to DNC: Pick us or lose Ohio 13 min RU_Kiddingme 5
Do you agree with Texas protecting its own border? 16 min Reality Speaks 7
Is Barak Obama responsible for the current bord... 19 min Oliver Canterberry 152
OH Who do you support for Governor in Ohio in 2010? (Oct '10) 23 min Reality Speaks 29,032

Columbus Jobs

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]