The Same People

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: djwilljames13 @ 06/03/2008 4:49:03 PM

    The Bible!!??? LOL!!! That's your argument!!?? That???s right up there with Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. But you go on and keep kidding yourselves if that???s what makes you sleep at night???.

    • Posted By: zimme71 @ 06/03/2008 4:58:01 PM

      I've gotta go, but just had to comment. I strongly suggest reading 'The Case for Christ'. Written by a former atheist who set out to prove the Bible was wrong and ended up accepting Christ as his Lord and Savior. Some day all "knees will bow and tongues confess, that Jesus Christ is Lord".....let us just hope that everyone has accepted Christ prior to that day!! I'll be praying for everyone who has posted, and probably get flamed for it!! So much for 'tolerance', eh?

      • Posted By: pbal114 @ 06/03/2008 5:15:07 PM

        Thank you. Saul, Paul exactly the change that can happen. it's not impossible.

        • Posted By: Johnsonium @ 06/03/2008 6:41:31 PM

          Only a weak mind would go from atheism to faith. There are a lot of weak folks. Luckily, a fine intellect can steer you clear of such nonsense.

          • Posted By: ShyShiloh @ 06/04/2008 10:05:35 AM

            For seeing that in the wisdom of God, the world through its wisdom didn't know God, it was God's good pleasure through the foolishness of the preaching to save those who believe. 1 Cor. 1:21

          • Posted By: Phyta08 @ 06/03/2008 10:15:28 PM

            Ergo ego

  • Posted By: Phyta08 @ 06/03/2008 7:19:39 PM

    Consider these words:
    "All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent."
    "Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves are its only safe depositories."
    Thomas Jefferson

    • Posted By: Johnsonium @ 06/03/2008 7:34:14 PM

      Damn straight. End the tyrannical discrimination against gays and lesbians.

      • Posted By: Phyta08 @ 06/03/2008 7:42:44 PM

        Dramatic, yes, but a gross hyperbole that need not be perpetuated in American society. Consider demographic data and see if you still can support that observation.

        • Posted By: summer4077 @ 06/04/2008 9:52:26 AM

          Do you realize you quoted a man that was rumored to be gay (as was George Washington, incidentally) and one who also fathered several children out of wedlock?

  • Posted By: david.j.fuller @ 06/03/2008 8:12:59 PM

    A previous comment was about the wasting of marriage by heterosexuals, ie so many divorces. Let me point out to you that the two lesbians in Massachusetts who got gay marriage approved by the legislature, gues what, got divorced. So, marriage for them was not all it was cracked up to be. (no pun intended.)

    • Posted By: summer4077 @ 06/04/2008 9:40:50 AM

      And??? Not everyone who gets married will stay married. Some people marry 6 or 7 times. Does that mean heteros shouldn't be able to be married? No. (But there should really be harsher restrictions on people getting married and divorced...marriage has become a trendy sham.)

    • Posted By: bboushley80 @ 06/03/2008 8:43:28 PM

      That wasn't my point. The point is that gay marriage is not a threat to your marriage. That arguement is stupid. I am sure gay people will have the same horrible success rate with marriage. But, please can I have the same right as you?

  • Posted By: basykes @ 06/04/2008 12:39:29 AM

    Unfortunately, an initiative to forever make discrimination legal in California by constitutionally banning gay marriage in California has qualified for the ballot in November. I don't know how gay couples stay sane, that ring always just out of reach, or if they get it, having it taken away from them. I sincerely hope that Californians will do the right thing this time and support the decision of the Supreme Court. Let them marry!

    • Posted By: zimme71 @ 06/04/2008 9:28:28 AM

      I for one hope that the initiative in California passes. In the case of California, you have a few judges who feel it is their 'right' to over-rule the majority of citizens in the state. So if it passes, why shouldn't it stand? It isn't discrimination against gays. A gay man has as much of a right as I do to marry a woman. Just as a gay woman has as much of a right to marry a man.

  • Posted By: tonyla64 @ 06/04/2008 7:44:24 AM

    I have often been bewildered by statements made by various people, religions, politicians and organizations that homosexuality is a choice. I did not wake up one morning and choose to be attracted to the same sex, just as heterosexuals do not choose their attraction to the opposite sex.

    I am a gay man who has just celebrated 20 years with my boyfriend, and I believe my life was a choice, not in the sense that I made a choice in my attraction to the same sex, but rather a choice I made to live an authentic life, even when society and my religion told me I shouldn't.

    Perhaps the reason we see such anger, prejudice, hatred and judgement from the parties I mentioned earlier, is because these same people were faced with a decision, live a life being who I am or choose to live a life that my society and religion tells me I should be living. Perhaps that is where the real "CHOICE" comes into play. I know that if I had made such a choice to deny my homosexuality and live life as a heterosexual to appease society, family and religion, and was then faced with homosexuals living full, productive lives, I'm sure I would have anger and resentment, and want them to change their ways so I would not have to be faced with the picture of what my life could have been.

    When I think of my life had I made that choice I am saddened to think of who I would be, unauthentic, to myself, and everyone in my life. That is what causes the downfall of humanity.

    • Posted By: summer4077 @ 06/04/2008 9:26:05 AM

      Well said. I commend you on your courage and strength, especially considering you came out over 20 years ago, at a time when it was definitely not as accepted as today. I don't understand the public's fear of GLBT people. I'm proud to know several as co-workers and friends, and they're some of the most amazing, trustworthy, honest people I know. They seem to live their lives more fully than heteros, probably because they know a persecution that we can never imagine.

  • Posted By: selena087 @ 06/04/2008 7:15:48 AM

    i dont have a problem with two women commiting themselves if it wasnt for the images of them sticking cucumbers into eachother

  • Posted By: selena087 @ 06/04/2008 7:14:59 AM

    go to blazez u dog woman

  • Posted By: AuntieEm @ 06/04/2008 2:16:35 AM

    Quindlen's points ring true: "It's the neighbors, friends and family members who have come out and made the political personal???and lovable. " I see this personally as I travel around the country. In Boston, MA, where same sex marriage is legal, not only do all my friends there know gay people personally, but I also see same-sex couples holding hands on the street, Rainbow or Pink Triangle buttons, wristbands, bookcovers, t-shirts and bumper stickers, in other words gay people are generally visible. Contrast this to
    rural Midwest, where gay people are still routinely harrassed -- and are virtually invisible in public.

    I think it's a two-way process that builds on itself: Gay people become more visible, as a result the general public sees that they are not the scary satan-possessed ogres that James Dobson presents them to be, as a result the people vote for equal rights, as a result MORE gay people feel comfortable becoming visible.

    Thanks, Anna Quindlen, for helping us see the way forward, toward equality for ALL!!


  • Posted By: Eliezer @ 06/02/2008 3:21:38 PM

    So-called "gay" marriage is an oxymoron - a contradiction in terms. No legal fiction or fiat Court will make it otherwise. The proper, not corrupted definition of marriage, is the complimentary union of male and female, husband and wife, mother and father and the sanctification of human sexuality to a higher and more dignified purpose... "life." No human being was ever born to bugger or be buggered. Grow up people. The "gay" rights movement has not only debased human sexuality, but perverted history and science, the Justice system and the education of children, but the entire political process of a once great nation. The "gay" rights movement is nothing more than a sex cult which has co-opted and exploits the language and symbols of normal society.

    • Posted By: velcrofog @ 06/02/2008 3:56:02 PM

      Each religious institution gets to define what they recognize as a "marriage". The Roman Catholic Church has, for some time, refused to recognized second marriages unless the first marriage is properly annulled--and that's fine. They don't have to recognize a marriage certificate, and the government does not have to recognize the limitations they, or any other religious institution, wishes to place on "marriage". The institutions are separate. By worrying what the government does, you are implying that the local magistrate has some say over affairs of heaven and earth. The religious institution can keep what rules it likes, and shouldn't feel threatened when not everyone in the world agrees. The Catholic Church didn't have a conniption over the granting of divorce papers; they just ignored them. Go therefore and do likewise.

      • Posted By: MDDave @ 06/02/2008 6:20:59 PM

        The patterning of children as they are raised, the teaching of alternate normative behaviors and the long term consequences of both make this ruling nothing more than the imposition of social experimentation by several judges who tossed case law and the policy wishes of the people expressed democratically. Further, folks who speak out or choose to not participate in this "equality" movement are subject to heavy penalties and fines for simply exercising their first amendment rights. This is the coercion of the people by the state, nothing more.

        • Posted By: kshortSD @ 06/02/2008 7:23:31 PM

          There is little monitoring or enforcement of a child's upbringing by our government...children often are raised in single parent homes, or by their grandparents, or by their aunt, or by a sibling, or by abusive parents, or by a single mother who brings home a different man every night. That is a weak argument against gay marriage.

          • Posted By: Eliezer @ 06/02/2008 8:22:23 PM

            It's not what "happens" that should determine public policy, but the model of the human family we espouse and what is sanctioned in principle which is crucial, both for posterity and future generations. That the family has been compromised and undermined by the industrialization and urbanization of society, should not lead us into false conclusions. Indeed, the sexualization of our Kulture was engineered by sexual zoologist Alfred Kinsey and his fellow sex workers in Bloomfield Indiana. The project was underwritten by none other than the Rockefeller Faction which exploited Kinsey's scientific pretext to bring about changes in American law which not only undermined the lawful authority of the American Constitution, but has caused untold suffering for millions. In effect, the American people have been had BIG time. There are no unalienable rights rights guaranteed by the State or CORPORATE COLLECTIVE. So-called "gay" marriage is a State conjured privilege, not a Divinely sustained right. The CORPORATE COLLECTIVE has no capacity for moral or ethical action of independent volition, only free will human beings do. Moral conscience requires a moral and healthy sexual constitution and honest weights and measures, two measures which the CORPORATE COLLECTIVE has trashed under the auspices of the non-American Federal Reserve, and the sexual mischief of "Uncle Alfred" and his financiers. Simply because the family has been weakened and fragmented, does not mean the parameters of the human family and civilization can be redefined helter skelter. This is a reckless and foolish act at best. In fact, these misguided Judges are an accurate reflection of Kinsey's bogus science, and therefore, his psychological clones. Kinsey reigns in the minds of our "highest" placed elected officials and increasingly fiat judiciary.

            • Posted By: kshortSD @ 06/02/2008 11:02:31 PM

              Wow, you seem to be very knowledgable, and you write very well. But let's just agree to disagree...I will never be okay with discrimination or hatred.

              • Posted By: Eliezer @ 06/04/2008 2:48:28 AM

                Would you be okay with being able to choose good over evil, truth over falsehood and life over death? As it states in Duet 30:19, "I call on heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that I set before you the blessing and the curse, life and death, so therefore choose life, so you may live, you and your family." The
                choice herein, is not a consumer option, but an act of choosing. One must choose life, or be swept into death. Life is like a stream. One must swim into the current to gain even a possibility of moving ahead. Entertainment and convenience, the two self-indulgent gods of modern culture, don't quite cut it.

            • Posted By: summer4077 @ 06/03/2008 8:35:48 AM

              The "corporate collective" you speak of is the population of America, en masse. Also, I am utterly astounded that you cited Kinsey's experiments and theories, which have been widely criticized. They were as effective and truthful as Freud's studies...aka...not one iota of truth or basis.

          • Posted By: MDDave @ 06/03/2008 2:22:04 PM

            On the contrary, if you look at how homosexuality morphed from abnormal to normal in DSMs2, 3, &4, you will see there is little knowledge or science that went into the decision. We all agree that many alcoholics are otherwise nice people and deserve support. We would never say that their behavior is normative or should be condoned in statute. Duh. There's lots of dysfunctions, the fact that it is so does not compell me or the majority to wish to change public policy due to that fact. The fact that this is a behavior based issue versus a race based issue makes all the difference. The long term effects on children are not known. But the effects on true rights like speech and association are already being experienced. Say a devout Catholic family with a duplex wants to rent and chooses not to rent to a gay couple, they could suffer serious penalty for exercising their rights of conscience. This is nothing more than another venue for state coercion.

  • Posted By: basykes @ 06/04/2008 12:37:31 AM

    Unfortunately, an initiative to put discrimination in the constitution, by forever banning gay marriage in California just qualified for the November ballot. I don't know how loving gay couples manage to stay sane, with that bronze ring always just out of reach, or if they managed to get it, having it snapped back again quickly. It's criminal. I'm hoping Californians have wised up since 2002 and that the initiative will be roundly defeated.

  • Posted By: citizen7 @ 06/03/2008 3:30:57 PM

    As long as we live in a communal society there will ALWAYS be debates over what is right for society. Our nation was established as a Constitutional republic, and what is the best way to "promote the general welfare" will always be up for debate by the people and their representatives. The solution on what defines marriage is simple: let each state decide on its own state law, or let the United States decide on a national law. Up to this point, the majority of states have spoken and no doubt a national referendum will yield the same results: marriage is to be defined as the union of one man and one woman. Scream and yell if you like, but democracy IS all about determining the will of the majority of those governed. And once that will is determined, the job of the courts is simply to interpret and enforce -- no matter whether those courts agree or disagree with the will of the people. Those who believe the job of judges is to protect the minority from tyranny DO NOT UNDERSTAND DEMOCRACY. Either obey they laws, vote to change them or choose to live outside the community. But if you look to the courts to create your gay marriage utopia you may find yourself on the outside one day when the courts are staffed by those opposed to your view. Then you may well long again for democracy.

    • Posted By: crj2002 @ 06/04/2008 12:32:01 AM

      Somone needs to revisit Con Law. The judicial branch is part of the 3 separate branches of government (separate being key) - judicial review? Plessey v. Ferguson; Brown v. Board; Marbury v. Madison, Lawrence v. Texas.... it IS their job to hold the other 2 branches in check (ie the majority) from abusing the rights of minorites and overstepping their bounds. Don't try to mock people for not knowing their government, when you don't fully understand it

    • Posted By: spjon @ 06/03/2008 3:44:13 PM

      First of all we are a democratic republic, not a true democracy. Second of all, laws must be legal; hence judicial review. Think of it like a contract. If you paid someone to kill someone for you and they didn't, woud you be able to sue? The answer is a no. Laws denying people equality are the same way. They should be voted on because they should not be written in the first place. Also, the biggest flaw with your "do not understand democracy" and that the will of the majority must always be determined and followed is very simple. If I wrote a law that said it was legal to murder you and only you,for absolutely no reason or maybe just for the reason that you are different, and 50%+1 person agreed with me, how would you feel about that? Would you really say, "Hey, that's what the majority wants" or would you look to the court to protect you?

  • Posted By: ShyShiloh @ 06/03/2008 4:28:28 PM

    I know that gay marriage is not what God intented when He created us - a man and woman compliment each other and together they reflect the beauty of marriage and the incredible design that God has instituted.
    Because I believe this doesn't mean I hate gays - in fact, I have a few friends who are gay. I love them, and God has called me as a Christian to love them (and to love all people), but love does not mean I have to accept and agree with what they are doing.

    • Posted By: Boanerges72 @ 06/03/2008 4:33:46 PM

      Perfectly stated.

      • Posted By: sdn2004 @ 06/03/2008 4:40:42 PM

        You're not being forced or even asked to accept it only to not allow your personal beliefs to prohibit it.

        • Posted By: Boanerges72 @ 06/03/2008 4:46:39 PM

          Yet, the homosexuals want to shove it down everyone's throat? And you expect us to not follow our beliefs?

          • Posted By: AuntieEm @ 06/04/2008 12:01:20 AM

            I'm so sorry for you, Boanerges72, that "your beliefs" apparently force you to emotionally and irrationally rail against anyone who is different from you? Just what ARE the gay folks doing differently than heterosexual folks, that causes you to accuse them of "shoving" something down your throat??

            Thinking back myself, as I was coming into work this evening I noticed at least a dozen hetero couples coming out of the movies, holding hands or smooching. None of the gay couples even held hands. How sad that, because of attitudes like yours, people can't feel free to be themselves.

          • Posted By: maxiris19 @ 06/03/2008 5:17:18 PM

            And having Heterosexual Shoving on them is any better?

          • Posted By: spjon @ 06/03/2008 5:06:49 PM

            Shove it down our throats? The only time I hear the word gay is when something like this happens. How often in your daily life does a gay person try and shove their lifestyle down your throat. Think of all the small things you do that shove your lifestyle down their throats. Kissing in public, holding hands in public, the pictures you can put on your desk at work.

    • Posted By: spjon @ 06/03/2008 4:35:31 PM

      No, but it should at the very least keep you out of their way.

  • Posted By: nharmonic88 @ 06/03/2008 3:44:58 PM

    Ok...well I have a few replies as well:

    1) JJooJJ - I never said that black rights were above gay rights....read my post again. I simply said that the two struggles don't logically compare. Yes, they are both struggles...but they are not the same and should not be viewed as the same. By the way...Osama Bin Laden? Aren't you going a little far to make your point? Just seems like a little TOO much of the slippery slope argument.

    2) indianaman130 - to answer your question....Yes. Even a loving God has standards... God hates the sin...not the sinner. So, yes, sadly, he would condemn them for their lifestlye of sin... God doesn't wish to condemn any, but because of offenses against Him, that's not possible.

    3) DArnold1112 - Quite simply, you DO choose to live a homosexual lifestyle. The same way that I, or anyone else, could choose to abstain from ALL sexual conduct.

    • Posted By: crj2002 @ 06/03/2008 11:46:24 PM

      Just a response to number 3 - sorry we don't choose to be homosexuals - your comparison of choosing to abstain from sexual conduct to choosing what sex you are naturally attracted to is obsene and so far off base that you seriously lack any understanding of the plight of a person who cannot help who they are attracted to. We could chose to not have any sexual conduct - but do you?

    • Posted By: spjon @ 06/03/2008 4:13:29 PM

      Then I would challenge you to decide to be homosexual. Just for one day. Let me know how it goes.

  • Posted By: Rights4ALL @ 06/03/2008 7:38:42 PM

    "ALL men are created equal.." no mention of dogs, sheep, or any extreme bestiality argument some of you ridiculously try to use. "..and they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights.." THEIR creator..not God, not Buddha, not Yahweh, but THEIR creator. This great nation founded on religious freedom realized that for all religious beliefs to peacefully exist in the same land no one religion should tell others what is right or wrong. The founding fathers realized that a set of laws that guaranteed the freedoms and rights of one had to be the rights and freedoms of all.
    Throughout history small groups of religious zealots have used their narrow interpretation of their religious doctrine to justify such things as genocide, slavery, denying interracial marriage, denying minorities and women the right to vote, forcing women to wear burkas, suicide bombings and flying planes into buildings.

    For people to write laws that CHANGE their state or even the U.S Constitution to try to define marriage as only a union between a man and a women must be because they realize that the law as it is already guarantees the rights of marriage to ALL because in our great nation "ALL men are created equal"

    • Posted By: Packman101 @ 06/03/2008 9:37:35 PM

      Those who favor a constitutional amendment aren't CHANGING the laws. It is not a change, it's an amendment. Before 1962, every single state in the Union had sodomy laws designed to make homosexual acts illegal. No amendment was necessary since laws already forbade such actions. It wasn't until 2003 that the remaining states' sodomy laws were repealed by the Supreme Court.

      Historically, marriage has always been understood in this nation as between a man and a woman. It is those who want gay-marriage who are trying to redefine it.

      And what someone wrote is true - you and I have the same exact rights. I am not allowed to marry a person of the same sex either. There is no discrimination there. We both have the exact same freedoms.

      • Posted By: Rights4ALL @ 06/03/2008 10:39:41 PM

        Exact same rights?? No. If a gay person's spouse is hit by a drunk driver taken to the nearest hospital the other spouse has no legal right to be allowed in to see their loved one. They also do not automatically have the right to sign needed papers for surgery. A gay person's spouse does not have the legal right to file a civil case against the drunk driver for wrongful death. The gay person does not have the right to the spouse's pension or Social Security benefits. The gay spouse does not have the right to retain custody of any children that the gay couple might have had. The gay spouse does not get to file a joint tax return and gain the benefits of a lower tax liability.
        "Marriage has been understood.." "Understood" is not the same as "legally defined". Therefore, to go back and try to give a legal definition to constitutions that simply state 'marriage" are in fact giving a definition to a word that didn't have one and are therefore attempting to redefine the word.

        • Posted By: Packman101 @ 06/03/2008 11:08:31 PM

          Like I said... we have the exact same rights. If I have a gay lover I don't get his social security benefits either. You and I have the exact same rights - no discrimination.

          • Posted By: bboushley80 @ 06/03/2008 11:15:32 PM

            Okay, so...let me see....If you can't marry someone of another race, and I can't either.....that is okay too cause we have the same rights - no discrimnation...right?

            • Posted By: Packman101 @ 06/03/2008 11:30:13 PM

              if we both have the exact same rights - who's being discriminated against? You or me? If enough people think our current laws are wrong and we want to extend to everybody new rights- we can change them through majority vote and our elected representatives. The fact remains that we all have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex and in my state, I don't have the right to marry another guy. Same rules apply to me as they do to you. No discrimination.

              • Posted By: Rights4ALL @ 06/03/2008 11:43:19 PM

                "I don't have the right to marry another guy." Then this means you have the right to marry a woman and not a man. So if my sister has the same rights as you - why doesn't my sister have the right to marry a woman and not a man?

              • Posted By: bboushley80 @ 06/03/2008 11:38:14 PM

                Again, The legislature of California tried to do that twice....and it was veteod by another elected official. We have a tie. Thereby, sending it to the courts. Guess what they said?....

  • Posted By: no1clemgirl @ 06/03/2008 3:56:52 PM

    I think that Christians do not follow the literal instructions of the Bible, especially the words in Leviticus.
    1. Don't wear clothes made of more than one fabric
    2. Don't cut your hair or shave
    3. Agree to be killed if you curse your mother or father
    4. If you commit adultery, you must agree to be killed, along with your wife
    5. Don't have sex with your wife if she's menstruating
    6. Agree to stone psychics, wizards, and similar people to death
    7. If you know of a priest's daughter who has sex outside of wedlock, you must help to burn her at the stake
    8. You can't have a flat nose, be blind or lame
    9. If you curse God, you agree to be stoned to death
    10. You can't work on the Sabbath (and not just employed work; you cannot do anything except worship God--no washing your car on Sunday anymore!)
    11. You can't make images of anything in heaven, or on the earth, or in the water
    12. If you dream something that is against God, or if someone tries to turn you from God, you will agree to die
    13. If anyone you know even suggests worshipping another God, you must immediately kill them
    14. And of course the law mentioned on homosexuality

    • Posted By: Boanerges72 @ 06/03/2008 4:05:30 PM

      Of course you use an Old Testament book as your reference, however the game changed with Christ, hence the New Testament. I would suggest you give Romans a look, that would be a good starting point...

      • Posted By: AuntieEm @ 06/03/2008 11:27:42 PM

        Thank you so much for clearing that up, and mentioning Romans, which is of course not the words of Christ but rather a letter from Paul. While there is no record of Jesus saying anything directly himself about homosexuality, the record of His blessing of the Roman centurian's lover (in Matthew 8 and Luke 7), implies that he is accepting of loving same-sex couples.

      • Posted By: spjon @ 06/03/2008 4:09:53 PM

        The Word of God is the word of God, regardless of where in the bible it is found.

        • Posted By: cmonpplthink @ 06/03/2008 4:37:21 PM

          Have you gotten a shave or a haircut recently? Burned any witches?

      • Posted By: cmonpplthink @ 06/03/2008 4:17:59 PM

        Did Jesus make any comments on homosexuality and I missed it? The only arguments I've seen against homosexuality comes from Leviticus, so noiclemgirl's post is valid.

  • Posted By: tampacharter @ 06/03/2008 11:16:12 PM

    The one issue no one seems to talk about is death. I'm an only child and when my parents die the STATE, not my partner, decides what happens to my body. Yes, I have a will that puts my partner in charge of my remains BUT who says the state will wait for it to be read? A marriage between the one I love and myself will let my wishes be acted on. I am very thankful that my partner's insurance repects our relationship and would cover me under his plan., unlike my insurance from my teacher's union. Interesting!

  • Posted By: JD2304 @ 06/03/2008 3:56:49 PM

    Daisy and Phoebe's mom and DArnold1112 should get a clue. The comparisions between women and or races are the same. The Bible has been interpereted by man to serve his purpose or support his views. The original Bible is not like the King James version nor does God condemn gay people anymore than does it say the races cannot inner marry or women being considered chattel or second class citizens. . The lifestyle is not chosen. Who in their right mind would want to betreated like second class citiizens? Get a clue read open your mind and come out of your bigoted space. Cheeze Louise............

    • Posted By: AuntieEm @ 06/03/2008 11:03:17 PM

      Interesting that you bring up race, which I think is relevant (beyond your quite accurate note that interracial marriage is condemned in the Bible even more than any alleged anti-gay Biblical prohibitions).

      Quindlen is correct that the main reason more and more people are accepting gay folks is due to more and more gay folks becoming visible. I'm old enough to remember when "common knowledge" was that Blacks were lazy, incapable of holding a professional position, prone to drink, etc, etc. This was reinforced by what I saw in big cities (I lived in a small rural village in the midwest so there were no blacks for me to get to know personally) -- blacks hanging out in their slums, idle, sipping from brown paper bags, etc, etc. Only when I moved to a large New England city did I meet blacks from ALL positions in society -- doctors, lawyers, factory workers, professors, barbers, teachers, barbers, clerks, on and on. Making my first friendships (ever) with my black neighbors, I gradually learned that the reasons for those 1950's blacks hanging idly around the slums had nothing to do with any supposed laziness but had everything to do with lack of opportunity, job discrimination, not allowed to live in certain neighborhoods, and other results of societal attitudes.
      I think we are facing the same situation today -- the negative stereotypes of gay folks (promiscuous, unable to have stable relationships, etc) are due to lack of opportunity. Being forced to meet each other only in dark, dangerous bars (as was the case in the 50's) is not any more conducive to a stable relationship than is not being allowed into college conducive to holding a professional position. It's time we learned from our past and gave same-sex couples the SAME opportunity that hetero couples have to form legal bonds of marriage.

  • Posted By: bboushley80 @ 06/03/2008 10:09:43 PM

    It was not my purpose to offend anyone. However, I guess what I wonder about now is....why does it matter who I love or marry? Putting the legal argument aside....if this will make me happy and not hurt yourself or anyone else...why can't I marry who I love and enjoy the benefits of a loving committed relationship?

  • Posted By: Patrick May @ 06/03/2008 5:32:47 PM

    I'm a 60 year old white conservative married with five kids. I am more concerned about crazy christians with nutty ideas from 2,000 years ago, then all the gays in California. The book your reading has too many errors and inconsistancies. You need to move your thought process into the 21st century and out of the 4th. Gays are people, and we all should be treated the same. Equal protection under the law.

    • Posted By: Yamaha TTR230 @ 06/03/2008 5:37:44 PM

      Can name any of these so called errors and inconsistancies?

      • Posted By: Johnsonium @ 06/03/2008 5:52:39 PM

        Sure. An easy one. Cain was kicked out of Eden and banished to the land of nod. Yet, he found a wife. Who was it? Did he mate with animals? There are thousands of these things that could be thrown in the face of nutty believers.

        • Posted By: Phyta08 @ 06/03/2008 10:04:57 PM

          Ummm...you might want to read the story before you try to write a synopsis.

  • Posted By: DBrown1447 @ 06/03/2008 5:07:47 PM

    To all of you zealots who insist marriage comes from the bible, what about all the married Muslims in the world?

    • Posted By: tomthegator @ 06/03/2008 9:43:13 PM

      Don't Muslims embrace the essence of the Old Testament, at least up until Ishmael gets the boot from the Abraham clan to become a stranger in a strange land?

    • Posted By: RationalTim20 @ 06/03/2008 5:21:47 PM

      Thank God it's not legal for Muslims to marry in the US! At least I'm pretty sure it's not. Maybe in California.

      • Posted By: RationalTim20 @ 06/03/2008 5:39:07 PM

        Yes I was kidding.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse