Freedom to Marry Day Protest Planned

[basas]

Marriage is between a man and a woman.

What a sad world we live in where upholding this is considered "sick and ignorant" by so many, many misguided & deceived souls.

Exactly.

What I find funny is how Liberals blame Conservatives for wanting to ‘ban’ or disallow gay marriage as if it was once allowed (until the evil ‘Bush’ came to power, anyway), when, in reality, it’s the other way around. Liberals are the ones wanting to change the way society has functioned for hundreds of years and the union between 1 man and 1 woman that has been the definition of marriage for ever. Well, maybe I’d like to open the dictionary are pick random words I want to change the definitions of! While we’re at it, can we change the definition of divorce to include when our pets are running away from home? I mean…divorce never really meant anything of the sort, but it would only be fair to get some kind of ‘support payment’, right?

 

[Tiffer]

Here as a Christian, I was taught that we were not to stand in judgment of others, yet to turn the finger around and point it at ourselves. Only God is qualified to do that.

Is it judgment day? Did I miss the second coming?

 

[Tiffer]

Exactly.

What I find funny is how Liberals blame Conservatives for wanting to ‘ban’ or disallow gay marriage as if it was once allowed (until the evil ‘Bush’ came to power, anyway), when, in reality, it’s the other way around. Liberals are the ones wanting to change the way society has functioned for hundreds of years and the union between 1 man and 1 woman that has been the definition of marriage for ever. Well, maybe I’d like to open the dictionary are pick random words I want to change the definitions of! While we’re at it, can we change the definition of divorce to include when our pets are running away from home? I mean…divorce never really meant anything of the sort, but it would only be fair to get some kind of ‘support payment’, right?

To follow that logic, or lack there of, we should still have slaves and women should still not be allowed to vote right?

Damn liberals couldn't leave well enough alone.

 

[jimmiej]

Note: Words of Christ that drew masses (you may want to compare to your own posts and note the contrast):


"But to you who hear I say, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you,
bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.
To the person who strikes you on one cheek, offer the other one as well, and from the person who takes your cloak, do not withhold even your tunic.
Give to everyone who asks of you, and from the one who takes what is yours do not demand it back.
Do to others as you would have them do to you.
For if you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them.
And if you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do the same.
If you lend money to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit (is) that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, and get back the same amount.
But rather, love your enemies and do good to them, and lend expecting nothing back; then your reward will be great and you will be children of the Most High, for he himself is kind to the ungrateful and the wicked.
Be merciful, just as (also) your Father is merciful.
"Stop judging and you will not be judged. Stop condemning and you will not be condemned. Forgive and you will be forgiven.
Give and gifts will be given to you; a good measure, packed together, shaken down, and overflowing, will be poured into your lap. For the measure with which you measure will in return be measured out to you."

And these too:

Matthew 25

24"Then the man who had received the one talent came. 'Master,' he said, 'I knew that you are a hard man, harvesting where you have not sown and gathering where you have not scattered seed. 25So I was afraid and went out and hid your talent in the ground. See, here is what belongs to you.'

26"His master replied, 'You wicked, lazy servant! So you knew that I harvest where I have not sown and gather where I have not scattered seed? 27Well then, you should have put my money on deposit with the bankers, so that when I returned I would have received it back with interest.

28" 'Take the talent from him and give it to the one who has the ten talents. 29For everyone who has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. 30And throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.'

41"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.

Matthew 7

21"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'

Luke 19

20"Then another servant came and said, 'Sir, here is your mina; I have kept it laid away in a piece of cloth. 21I was afraid of you, because you are a hard man. You take out what you did not put in and reap what you did not sow.'

22"His master replied, 'I will judge you by your own words, you wicked servant! You knew, did you, that I am a hard man, taking out what I did not put in, and reaping what I did not sow? 23Why then didn't you put my money on deposit, so that when I came back, I could have collected it with interest?'

24"Then he said to those standing by, 'Take his mina away from him and give it to the one who has ten minas.'

25" 'Sir,' they said, 'he already has ten!'

26"He replied, 'I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what he has will be taken away. 27But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me."

Luke 17

The Coming of the Kingdom of God
20Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, "The kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, 21nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because the kingdom of God is within you."
22Then he said to his disciples, "The time is coming when you will long to see one of the days of the Son of Man, but you will not see it. 23Men will tell you, 'There he is!' or 'Here he is!' Do not go running off after them. 24For the Son of Man in his day[c] will be like the lightning, which flashes and lights up the sky from one end to the other. 25But first he must suffer many things and be rejected by this generation.

26"Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the Son of Man. 27People were eating, drinking, marrying and being given in marriage up to the day Noah entered the ark. Then the flood came and destroyed them all.
28"It was the same in the days of Lot. People were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building. 29But the day Lot left Sodom, fire and sulfur rained down from heaven and destroyed them all.

30"It will be just like this on the day the Son of Man is revealed.

My point is, Jesus didn't speak only of love & tolerance. He spoke at length about judgement. In today's PC world, discussing God's judgement makes one a "hater."

Luke 21

12"But before all this, they will lay hands on you and persecute you. They will deliver you to synagogues and prisons, and you will be brought before kings and governors, and all on account of my name. 13This will result in your being witnesses to them. 14But make up your mind not to worry beforehand how you will defend yourselves. 15For I will give you words and wisdom that none of your adversaries will be able to resist or contradict. 16You will be betrayed even by parents, brothers, relatives and friends, and they will put some of you to death. 17All men will hate you because of me. 18But not a hair of your head will perish. 19By standing firm you will gain life.

Makes me think of a certain poster here.

 

[basas]

Here as a Christian, I was taught that we were not to stand in judgment of others, yet to turn the finger around and point it at ourselves. Only God is qualified to do that.

Is it judgment day? Did I miss the second coming?

However, many Christians have also been taught that marriage is between a man and a women and that it is sacred. Many Christians also believe their religion tells them that homosexuality is wrong. How then do you expect them to turn around and support gay marriage when all their values tell them they cannot?

Remember, as I just said, it is not Christians all of a sudden trying to ban gays from marrying. In fact, they don’t want to change anything. It is the LEFT who want to change the definition of a word which has meant the same thing for hundreds of years.

How now, all of a sudden, in 2007, are we ‘standing in judgment of others’?

 

[Laura]

I get it, all arguments against the religion of homosexuality are hateful.

It is not love to tell a thief to keep stealing.
It is not love to tell an alcoholic to keep drinking.
It is not love to tell someone in a homosexual relationship to stay in it.

Amen.

It is not love to discriminate against people.

 

[basas]

To follow that logic, or lack there of, we should still have slaves and women should still not be allowed to vote right?

Damn liberals couldn't leave well enough alone.

Did we change the definition of 'slavery' or ‘voting’? Yes, changes happen over time. Perhaps even gay unions are created to give similar benefits; however, we should not change a definition which has remained constant for hundreds of years.

 

[Laura]

However, many Christians have also been taught that marriage is between a man and a women and that it is sacred. Many Christians also believe their religion tells them that homosexuality is wrong. How then do you expect them to turn around and support gay marriage when all their values tell them they cannot?

Because you can't use your religion to make laws. Nobody's telling them what they're supposed to believe.

Remember, as I just said, it is not Christians all of a sudden trying to ban gays from marrying. In fact, they don’t want to change anything. It is the LEFT who want to change the definition of a word which has meant the same thing for hundreds of years.

How now, all of a sudden, in 2007, are we ‘standing in judgment of others’?

Yawn. Marriage as it existed hundreds of years ago is not like the institution it is today in the USA. Generally speaking, we do not sell our young women to the highest bidder, the groom does not pay a bride-price, we don't do dowries, the girl has a bit of a say in it these days, the couple actually gets to know each other before they decide to marry, the bride doesn't have to be a virgin to be worth anything, etc etc ad nauseam. Try another tack--this one's been beaten to death. Afraid marriage is going to suddenly change? Too late. Besides, what kind of silly argument is that? We can't change a law because it's archaic?

Gay marriage bans are absolutely being pursued by freakish right-wing nutjobs (I don't like to call people like them Christians because it insults Christians) to bring conservatives to the polls. Worked in 2004, actually, quite well. It's also a knee-jerk reaction to the slow spread of gay marriage in other places in the world. Eventually our country will catch up.

And there are conservative Christians who do think gays should be allowed to marry. Why? They happen to think it's none of their business what other people do as long as it doesn't bug them. Funny, isn't it?

 

[Mugg Mann]

Exactly.

What I find funny is how Liberals blame Conservatives for wanting to ‘ban’ or disallow gay marriage as if it was once allowed (until the evil ‘Bush’ came to power, anyway), when, in reality, it’s the other way around. Liberals are the ones wanting to change the way society has functioned for hundreds of years and the union between 1 man and 1 woman that has been the definition of marriage for ever. Well, maybe I’d like to open the dictionary are pick random words I want to change the definitions of! While we’re at it, can we change the definition of divorce to include when our pets are running away from home? I mean…divorce never really meant anything of the sort, but it would only be fair to get some kind of ‘support payment’, right?

Sorry, but that's simply not true. I can cite many, many sources showing your words to be an incorrect over-generalization, but I'll let Wikipedia do the heavy lifting;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage

A marriage is a socially, religiously, or legally recognized relationship. The most commonly recognized form is between a man and a woman, who become known as husband and wife.[1][2] However, the concept of marriage is not uniformly defined, whether legally, culturally or historically.

In most areas of the world, marriage is defined strictly as involving only one woman and one man per relationship. In many countries, marriages which do not match this description are illegal. However, in recent years, this has begun to change.

From 2001, the legal concept of marriage has been expanded to include same-sex marriage in several countries, including the Netherlands, Belgium, Canada, South Africa, Spain, as well as in the U.S. state of Massachusetts. Civil unions are a separate form of legal union open to couples of the same sex, and they are currently recognized in 24 countries and 6 U.S. states. The legality of such unions vary by region. Like marriages, civil unions are performed and recognized by some religious denominations.

Polygamous marriage, in which a person takes more than one spouse, is accepted in a majority of global social traditions, though it is far less common than monogamy. Polygyny is the typical form of polygamy, while polyandry is rare.[3] Some marriages include more than two people, with multiple spouses being married to multiple spouses, a form of relationship sometimes called group marriage. This unique type of polygamy is rare.[4]

 

[PghLybrt]

This whole thread has really got off topic. To go back to the original idea who is with me (straight and gay) to actually do what was suggested (by a fellow poster ) and "hijack" Valentines day?

I am in , with my girl..
Her uncle and his HUSBAND are also in with me (together for 23 years....hmmm amazing)

 

[Laura]

Aww, but you see a thief can not steal, an alcholic can stop drinking, these are choices. Homosexuality is not a choice.

You left out one thing--homosexuality harms no one, including the homosexual. It's everyone else's heebie-jeebies that are the problem.

 

[PghLybrt]

Sorry, but that's simply not true. I can cite many, many sources showing your words to be an incorrect over-generalization, but I'll let Wikipedia do the heavy lifting;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage

A marriage is a socially, religiously, or legally recognized relationship. The most commonly recognized form is between a man and a woman, who become known as husband and wife.[1][2] However, the concept of marriage is not uniformly defined, whether legally, culturally or historically.

In most areas of the world, marriage is defined strictly as involving only one woman and one man per relationship. In many countries, marriages which do not match this description are illegal. However, in recent years, this has begun to change.

From 2001, the legal concept of marriage has been expanded to include same-sex marriage in several countries, including the Netherlands, Belgium, Canada, South Africa, Spain, as well as in the U.S. state of Massachusetts. Civil unions are a separate form of legal union open to couples of the same sex, and they are currently recognized in 24 countries and 6 U.S. states. The legality of such unions vary by region. Like marriages, civil unions are performed and recognized by some religious denominations.

Polygamous marriage, in which a person takes more than one spouse, is accepted in a majority of global social traditions, though it is far less common than monogamy. Polygyny is the typical form of polygamy, while polyandry is rare.[3] Some marriages include more than two people, with multiple spouses being married to multiple spouses, a form of relationship sometimes called group marriage. This unique type of polygamy is rare.[4]

wikipedia not at all a reliable source

 

[basas]

Yawn. Marriage as it existed hundreds of years ago is not like the institution it is today in the USA. Generally speaking, we do not sell our young women to the highest bidder, the groom does not pay a bride-price, we don't do dowries, the girl has a bit of a say in it these days, the couple actually gets to know each other before they decide to marry, the bride doesn't have to be a virgin to be worth anything, etc etc ad nauseam. Try another tack--this one's been beaten to death. Afraid marriage is going to suddenly change? Too late.

It doesn’t matter how it was done or why. The point is, it was always between a man and a woman and lead to the creation of family.

Gay marriage bans are absolutely being pursued by freakish right-wing nutjobs (I don't like to call people like them Christians because it insults Christians) to bring conservatives to the polls. Worked in 2004, actually, quite well. It's also a knee-jerk reaction to the slow spread of gay marriage in other places in the world. Eventually our country will catch up.

And there are conservative Christians who do think gays should be allowed to marry. Why? They happen to think it's none of their business what other people do as long as it doesn't bug them. Funny, isn't it?

Well- you may think that these ‘gay marriage’ bans are being pursued by ‘freakish right-wing nutjobs’, but then again, the majority of the population has supported these bans in every state but Arizona. Polls continually show the majority of the population is still against gay marriage. I guess the majority of the population is ‘freakish right-wing nutjobs’? What does that make you then?

The bans are only being persued because no-one would have thought about changing a definition hundreds of years old 25 years ago. You don’t seem to understand that gay marriage has NEVER been allowed in the United States! Conservatives aren’t taking away anything, or banning something that was legal, we’re protecting what is already law. I really don’t know who woke up one morning and decided they would look in the dictionary, find a word, and change it’s meaning.

But then, those of us supporting families sure are ‘evil’, aren’t we?

Sorry, but that's simply not true. I can cite many, many sources showing your words to be an incorrect over-generalization, but I'll let Wikipedia do the heavy lifting;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage

A marriage is a socially, religiously, or legally recognized relationship. The most commonly recognized form is between a man and a woman, who become known as husband and wife.[1][2] However, the concept of marriage is not uniformly defined, whether legally, culturally or historically.

In most areas of the world, marriage is defined strictly as involving only one woman and one man per relationship. In many countries, marriages which do not match this description are illegal. However, in recent years, this has begun to change.

From 2001, the legal concept of marriage has been expanded to include same-sex marriage in several countries, including the Netherlands, Belgium, Canada, South Africa, Spain, as well as in the U.S. state of Massachusetts. Civil unions are a separate form of legal union open to couples of the same sex, and they are currently recognized in 24 countries and 6 U.S. states. The legality of such unions vary by region. Like marriages, civil unions are performed and recognized by some religious denominations.

Polygamous marriage, in which a person takes more than one spouse, is accepted in a majority of global social traditions, though it is far less common than monogamy. Polygyny is the typical form of polygamy, while polyandry is rare.[3] Some marriages include more than two people, with multiple spouses being married to multiple spouses, a form of relationship sometimes called group marriage. This unique type of polygamy is rare.[4]

What exactly is that supposed to prove? It points out gay marriages, which we’ve talked about, and polygamy- which most people already find unacceptable.

 

[salmoneous]

And these too:

In each of those stories, God (or metaphorical equivalent) is doing the judging. Yes, we shall be judged by God. But Jesus' instructions to us is not Judge Not.

 

[L107ANGEL]

You left out one thing--homosexuality harms no one, including the homosexual. It's everyone else's heebie-jeebies that are the problem.

Your right, I am new to these debates! I was trying to not get boinked on the head with the bible from Joe

 

[PghLybrt]

It doesn’t matter how it was done or why. The point is, it was always between a man and a woman and lead to the creation of family.



Well- you may think that these ‘gay marriage’ bans are being pursued by ‘freakish right-wing nutjobs’, but then again, the majority of the population has supported these bans in every state but Arizona. Polls continually show the majority of the population is still against gay marriage. I guess the majority of the population is ‘freakish right-wing nutjobs’? What does that make you then?



.

1. If that is all marriage is for you should read the post several pages ago. Almost all marriage would be done away with.
2.Governmant isnt always a majority , it is there to protect the rights of the minorites as well.

 

[Mugg Mann]

What exactly is that supposed to prove? It points out gay marriages, which we’ve talked about, and polygamy- which most people already find unacceptable.

It proves that your claim that marriage has always been defined as strictly between one woman and one man, no matter how badly you want to believe it, is not true.

the union between 1 man and 1 woman that has been the definition of marriage for ever.

 

[Laura]

Well- you may think that these ‘gay marriage’ bans are being pursued by ‘freakish right-wing nutjobs’, but then again, the majority of the population has supported these bans in every state but Arizona. Polls continually show the majority of the population is still against gay marriage. I guess the majority of the population is ‘freakish right-wing nutjobs’? What does that make you then?

Most people who are against gay marriage have a knee-jerk reaction to the idea. But I'd say they don't think about it much until the idea's presented to them. They can be swayed. I've seen it happen, especially once they actually, you know, MEET a gay person and get to know them well (not as casual acquaintances). The nutjobs are the ones who get so worked up over it that they have to start to pass laws to ban it. ZOMG! The gays love each other and want to make a commitment! Call the police! EEEK!

The bans are only being persued because no-one would have thought about changing a definition hundreds of years old 25 years ago. You don’t seem to understand that gay marriage has NEVER been allowed in the United States! Conservatives aren’t taking away anything, or banning something that was legal, we’re protecting what is already law. I really don’t know who woke up one morning and decided they would look in the dictionary, find a word, and change it’s meaning.

Gay marriage exists in Massachusetts. Conservatives want the status quo. I'd just like to know why marriage has to be between a man and a woman. There are marriages where lots of women get married to one man. So why not two women or two men? What's your problem with it except this silly fight over semantics? How about we call it garriage? You know, combine the words gay and marriage? Isn't it cute?

Isn't your argument positively ridiculous?

 

[jimmiej]

In each of those stories, God (or metaphorical equivalent) is doing the judging. Yes, we shall be judged by God. But Jesus' instructions to us is not Judge Not.

IA completely!

 

[salmoneous]

It doesn’t matter how it was done or why. The point is, it was always between a man and a woman and lead to the creation of family.

Except that it hasn't always been between a man and a woman. When God gave the law in Old Testament times, it was between man and more than one woman.

Do you want to go back to how marriage always has been, or do you want to accept the changes that have happened over the past centuries. Do you only want to accept changes that affect straight people - or are you willing to accept changes that affect gays?

You don’t seem to understand that gay marriage has NEVER been allowed in the United States! Conservatives aren’t taking away anything, or banning something that was legal,

Gay marriage is currently the law in Massachusetts. Conservatives are working to take it away. You are getting your basic facts wrong here.