Freedom to Marry Day Protest Planned

[JoeEpcotRocks]

Yes it is sweetie! Yes it is! It's already started and will continue no matter what folks with your beliefs think. And thank GOD for that!

How can you thank God for something that is contrary to His Word?

If it's not in line with His Word, then it is not of God.

 

[LisaL]

The issue is a matter of right and wrong and whether society should be forced to accept a new moral code re homosexuality.

I must disagree.

This is a matter of law.
While laws may have some basis in morals and values, it's important to understand that the memebers of the constitutional congress varied greatly in values and morals when this country's founding documents were created. They made compromises to come to resolution.

The Constitution and Marriage
No, marriage is not specifically addressed by our founding documents. I would strongly suggest you reconsider the argument that homosexual couples must be denied the right to marry based on this 'logic.' Under that reasoning, heterosexual couples should have no right or expectation of a legal right to marry. Do you really want to go down that road? Do you really want your marriage called into question? Do you want legal limits placed on that holy union? Likely, no.

We are a nation of laws; rights guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. These rights do not exist for the protection of individual groups of people. These rights protect all persons. Even people you may not want those rights extended to.

History is not an acceptable basis for maintaining societal status quo

Don't think you're the first to have to accept societal change.

Members of the civil rights movement faced bloodshed and brutality to bring to light the life of Americans subject to segregation. There were a lot of people fighting with all their might to prevent the end of white supremacy in this nation.

Who here would dare to suggest that Jim Crow should not have been destroyed?

Who here would dare to claim that African Americans should not partake in liberties secured in the Constitution and Bill of Rights?

Who here would say that proponents of segregation should continue to subjugate others in order to maintain this 'way of life'?

Anybody?

It is hypocritical to answer these questions in the negative and then claim that homosexuals have no right to the protections afforded others.

 

[RickinNYC]

My comment was in response to the posters implication that I should.

Here's the kicker. If there was even the slightest chance that government was going to swoop down on someone like Joe and try to remove his right to practice his religion, I would gladly and emphatically stand next to him and fight with him so that such an abomination would never be allowed to happen.

Sadly, Joe has made it abundantly clear that he would never dream of doing the same. In fact, he would be on the opposite side fighting his absolute against basic equal human rights for gay men and lesbian. And he'd be doing so by using the "word of God" as his weapon of choice.

If you ask me, that in and of itself is incredibly sad.

ETA, not only is it incredibly sad, his actions go completely against anything the Bible says in terms of how one should treat another. And I find that the greataest sin of all.

 

[RickinNYC]

How can you thank God for something that is contrary to His Word?

If it's not in line with His Word, then it is not of God.

Yes, I CAN thank God for something that is definitely NOT contrary to his word. "Love thy neighbor." Joe, does that anything to you?

Or is it, "Love the neighbor, except for anyone who isn't Christian or gay."

Funny how THAT isn't in line with His Word.

And I do thank GOD for that!

 

[magicmato]

Yes, I CAN thank God for something that is definitely NOT contrary to his word. "Love thy neighbor." Joe, does that anything to you?

Or is it, "Love the neighbor, except for anyone who isn't Christian or gay."

Funny how THAT isn't in line with His Word.

And I do thank GOD for that!

You and I must worship the same God. God made all things, including homosexuals. Heck, there is homosexuality found in many other species, so what makes us so darn full of ourselves to think He would not have made it in us?

Oh, right... we are not "apes"... we are humans, created as is... gotcha.

 

[caitycaity]

Ok let society vote.

guess the supreme court and pres. eisenhower should not have intervened in school integration, either.

sometimes the courts need to enforce what is right when the majority is unwilling to do so.

 

[fabshelly]

This type of legal marriage must be forbidden, said the Republican senator from Wisconsin, “simply because natural instinct revolts at it as wrong.”

An organization opposed to this type of marriage claimed that legalizing it would result in “a degraded and ignoble population incapable of moral and intellectual development.”

“I believe that the tendency to classify all persons who oppose (this type of) marriage as ‘prejudiced’ is in itself a prejudice,” claimed a noted psychologist.

A U.S. representative from Georgia declared that allowing this type of marriage “necessarily involves (the) degradation” of conventional marriage, an institution that “deserves admiration rather than execration.”

“The next step will be (the demand for) a law allowing them, without restraint, to … have free and unrestrained social intercourse with your unmarried sons and daughters,” warned a Kentucky congressman. “It is bound to come to that. There is no disguising the fact. And the sooner the alarm is given and the people take heed, the better it will be for our civilization.”

“When people (like this) marry, they cannot possibly have any progeny,” wrote an appeals judge in a Missouri case. “And such a fact sufficiently justifies those laws which forbid their marriages.”

These types of marriages are “abominable,” according to Virginia law. If allowed, they would “pollute” America.

In denying the appeal of this type of couple that had tried unsuccessfully to marry, a Georgia court wrote that such unions are “not only unnatural, but … always productive of deplorable results,” such as increased effeminate behavior in the population. “They are productive of evil, and evil only, without any corresponding good … (in accordance with) the God of nature.”

A ban on this type of marriage is not discriminatory, reasoned a Republican congressman from Illinois, because it “applies equally to men and women.”

Attorneys for the state of Tennessee argued that such unions should be illegal because they are “distasteful to our people and unfit to produce the human race.” The state Supreme Court agreed, declaring these types of marriages would be “a calamity full of the saddest and gloomiest portent to the generations that are to come after us.”

Lawyers for California insisted that a ban on this type of marriage is necessary to prevent “traditional marriage from being contaminated by the recognition of relationships that are physically and mentally inferior,” and entered into by “the dregs of society.”

“The law concerning marriages is to be construed and understood in relation to those persons only to whom that law relates,” thundered a Virginia judge in response to a challenge to that state’s non-recognition of these types of unions. “And not,” he continued, “to a class of persons clearly not within the idea of the legislature when contemplating the subject of marriage.”

Do you agree?

 

[JunieJay]

You and I must worship the same God. God made all things, including homosexuals.

Yeah, thats my God too. Not to mention the one who teaches love, peace, kindness, generosity, humility, and reconciliation.

But if in fact Joe's God ends up to be the one in charge, I think I'll be quite comfortable in Hell.

 

[BuckNaked]

Yeah, thats my God too. Not to mention the one who teaches love, peace, kindness, generosity, humility, and reconciliation.

But if in fact Joe's God ends up to be the one in charge, I think I'll be quite comfortable in Hell.

I don't know about hell, but there's going to be cheesecake in Purgatory.

 

[lovemygoofy]

I don't know about hell, but there's going to be cheesecake in Purgatory.

I think in Hell is where the okra is or so I heard recently

 

[fabshelly]

Joe's statements make a mockery of God, twist the message of love into one of hate, and poison the well of Living Waters.

 

[RickinNYC]

I don't know about hell, but there's going to be cheesecake in Purgatory.

Have we forgotten? Okra is in Hell.

 

[Laura]

The issue is a matter of right and wrong and whether society should be forced to accept a new moral code re homosexuality.

You don't legislate moral codes, silly. Plenty of things I think are immoral are legal. And, to give you an example, I'm not pushing the government to ban meat-eating, though I consider it an harmful to animals, ourselves and our planet. I don't want to force people to think the way I do and live their lives the way I do. That's not the way to get people over to my side, it's how to push them away.

Since homosexual activists want gay "marriage" pushed thru the courts instead of by voting, you must be assuming that at least 51% of the voters are "freakish right-wing nutjobs". Tolerance for the millions who dare to disagree??

Re-read previous posts to basas--he/she tried that tack, too. The ones pushing the legislation to ban gay marriage are the nutjobs. Nice try, though. You need to keep up!

You are assuming it is a choice.

You assume it isn't. I do know I personally didn't choose to be heterosexual, so I figure homosexuality must work the same way. It's logical.

 

[caitycaity]

I don't know about hell, but there's going to be cheesecake in Purgatory.

cheesecake???

how does an atheist get into purgatory, i wonder. hmmmmmm....

 

[cardaway]

The issue is a matter of right and wrong and whether society should be forced to accept a new moral code re homosexuality.

Who is to say that didn't already happen? Accpeting homosexuality is certianly part of the standard moral code for some of the population. Who made you the one who says which moral code is correct?

Morals are subjective. Always have been, always will be. It's why calling something immoral doesn't carry much weight.

 

[cardaway]

guess the supreme court and pres. eisenhower should not have intervened in school integration, either.

sometimes the courts need to enforce what is right when the majority is unwilling to do so.

Great post.

And may I say that it's great to see you around again.

 

[Fitswimmer]

I don't know about hell, but there's going to be cheesecake in Purgatory.

and beverages....

 

[JunieJay]

guess the supreme court and pres. eisenhower should not have intervened in school integration, either.

sometimes the courts need to enforce what is right when the majority is unwilling to do so.

This is a really good point, and one that hasn't been touched on yet (at least not that I can recall, this thread is what, 55 pages?). The majority doesn't get to practice bigotry among a minority with the force of law.

 

[caitycaity]

And may I say that it's great to see you around again.

thanks. not posting for awhile wasn't a conscious decision. i just got all kinds of busy irl. school has been kicking my butt (in a good way) and then over winter break i was generally sitting in a casino playing poker.

it's nice to be back.

 

[smartestnumber5]

This is a really good point, and one that hasn't been touched on yet (at least not that I can recall, this thread is what, 55 pages?). The majority doesn't get to practice bigotry among a minority with the force of law.

And that's really the crux of the issue isn't it?

I just started a poll regarding whether Brown v. Board of Edu was the an acceptable court decision. I've never heard anyone say it wasn't, and I'd like to see if people will publically come out against the decision.