A Preacher and Gay-Rights (Page 2)

Ride_On: We all judge people for different reasons...let our reasons be for something that actually matters.Who one sleeps with unless its a violent act or someone or something that is nonconsenting or an underage minor why would we care as long as inappropriate acts are not committed in front of others who gives a chit really?I personally have more friends that are straight and they do many many more what i would consider kinky things sexually than any gay human beings i know....lol.People get so up in arms over gay men and the truth is most straight men have some fascination with anal sex so not sure why they care what a gay male does or doesnt do and most straight people have oral so the truth is seriously why do you care what a gay or lesbian individual does?Who one sleeps with has no bearing on what type of character or morals they have.

davesdatahut: In the most important terms, this issue is a legal one. It is an unconstitutional violation of the church-state separation for the government to require any religion to perform or approve same-sex marriages, just as it is unconstitutional to allow any governmental entity to ban same-sex marriages or prevent any non-abusive adult from raising a child. The equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment requires, well, equal protection under the law. This means that religions get equal protection to set whatever house or club rules they want and that government be prohibited from setting any rules that give one lawful, consenting adult group preference over another. If religions want to discriminate against someone, let em. It's their prerogative, however ignorant or backward it is. And let the chips fall where they may for them and their rules. But the government can't do that. It must be fair to all, if the Constitution is worth more than the paper it's copied upon.

davesdatahut: And....to the point of this thread, praise the preacher. Clergy members like him are WAY too few in numbers.

Zanjan: “Biblical definition of a "marriage" is between a man and woman.”

Oh, it’s far more than that, and not restricted to Biblical religions. Marriage is a divine institution - a spiritual union of two families. This necessitates parental permission/blessing on both sides for the marriage to take place as it will make them all legally, supportive relatives. Peace and support between them is required.

The couple must meet certain criteria - be of age, have taken a marriage course, and agree to the vows they will take during the ceremony, which includes obedience to God and pertinent divine directives with respect to the institution of marriage.

Gays who won’t conform to the expectations of religion will turn to the civilian government for an alternative, imagining this means approval in the eyes of society and everyone in their family. It doesn’t. In reality, they haven’t earned but expect the same rewards.

If non-religious people (gay or not) in a civil union get the same legal privileges government hands to religious marrieds, no one would object to that except gays. History attests to that. So, there’s a lot more to this than meets the eye. Americans are far behind the Canadians on this so you only have to look at our experience to see that gays don’t stop when they’ve gained all the rewards Gypsy listed.

Since a civilian ceremony has no requirement other than being of legal age and single status to obtain a license, it can in no way correspond to a religious marriage. This is fact. A civilian ceremony is merely a record of legal cohabitation, whether the couple is gay or straight.

What doesn’t bode well for gays is their claim that anyone who doesn’t approve of them having the same privileges as others, must fear them (that’s what a phobia is) and is hatefully prejudiced. This accusation is brutality in itself. When they insist religion must accept their lifestyle in their communities, or their union as being equal with religious marriage, this is a profound disrespect for the sacred.

As for racism, what a ridiculous comparison to gays! Nobody has ever had to earn human rights because the only requirement was to be a human being. Marriage isn’t a human right – it’s a privilege bestowed when the couple chooses to meet specific qualifications, same as voting, a license to drive etc.

Not for one minute do I see the modern gay activist movement as being anything but a bully with an over-inflated sense of entitlement. Its members don’t rise above adversity with dignity, grace and peace.

As for the preacher, his business belongs to his religious community; he has no place to expect that religious law should apply to anyone outside religion. There are people on both sides of this issue that will step out of line - they don't represent anyone but themselves.

Zanjan: Ride-on……there are many, many examples of gays having adopted foster kids and it turned out really badly; that’s why it’s not allowed in Canada.

I was a foster parent for many years, have seen it all – kids with the background issues you describe go through tremendous emotional issues but at 4 years old, this is redeemable, wouldn’t prevent her from learning, and doesn’t apply to adulthood as per ability to function.

Foster parents have raised kids from birth to 18 years old – they don’t turn down kids. If a foster parent placement broke down, it will break down with an adoptive placement so, such a child wouldn’t have been put up for adoption until she had become a suitable candidate. I’m glad your daughter turned out well as you say but you can’t credit your gayness to her functionality or academic success. Nor can you use your own experience as a template for a parental model.

Ride_On: Ok this is the last post i will make on this particular subject because it just opens a huge can of worms .The truth is "straight people" have so screwed up what was supposed to be all of the things as you stated a religious joining of two people .Most marriages last only a few yrs at most now the divorce rate is staggering and yes in canada also.Straight people are allowed "civil" unions which are recognized by the state or fed govt as legal binding contracts essentially betwen two people.Not only that but are considered essentially married by simply living together for however long depends on the state the time frame.So to say at this point marriage is the same as it was intended religiously ages ago is a both ridiculous statement and well offensive to me.I was taught that so called marriage was a ceremony between two people who would be together for their lifetimes.My mother and father were n until i was way passed grown had never experienced a divorce in my family.my mother and father were married until my father passed n my mother never remarried as well as most of my aunts n uncles with the exception of two .And when ur talking pretty amazing i have a large family on my moms side only two sisters but my father had fifteen siblings.So explaniing to me what marriage is or what its supposed to symbolize is a pretty rude thing to do i personally know what it was meant to be unlike most.
And i never stated that my being gay had anything to do with what my daughter acheived i simply stated that like "straight" people thre are gay people who also make good parents to say they dont is pretty much judging solely on sexual orientation.Not sure what religion you claim to be but my Southern Baptist upbringing and very religious mother taught me not to judge others except on their character and morals.
One last thing if you are educated as you state you are then saying what happens before one is four yrs of age doesnt affect our emotional well being and stabilty as an adult or growing up. You are a very ignorantly educated human being "educated" or not.Our yrs where our personality is formed and how we deal with happiness sadness anger maybe somewhat genetically linked but these yrs scientist have decided are the most marked yrs in our lives for emotional development .

halfapintdoll: I need to clarify my point;

I do not believe people of faith (which ever religion that may be) should be forced to conduct religious marriage ceremonies for same sex couples if it's against their faith. However there are certain churches which are happy to conduct religious marriage ceremonies for same sex couples, they should be allowed to. They do not feel it's against their faith. Civil ceremonies should be available to all consenting adults whatever their gender identity. Civil ceremonies are completely outside religion and are not allowed to have any religious statements or ideology within them.

Zanjan: Ride on: “this is the last post i will make on this particular subject “

Which allows posters to discuss your points without your interference.

“"straight people" have so screwed up what was supposed to be all of the things as you stated a religious joining of two people”

Marriage-bashing in order to promote shacking up isn’t workable. How does one arrive at this conclusion anyway? By researching how many religious marriages ended in divorce and comparing that percentage to the number of civil marriages ending in divorce? I don’t think Ride On did that.

Canada has had gay civil marriage for years; from the day it was legal, gays haven’t exactly been busting down the door to get married. Most appear to remain shacked up, however it’s difficult to track them.
If they were so proud of themselves, why did they insist their gender not be disclosed on their marriage certificates? Heteros have no problem. What do gays have to hide? Oh, could it be anything that could trace the number of their divorces?

Common law cohabitations have always been around – they’re shack-ups, not real marriages despite their freedom to collect financial benefits – they don’t have to be divorced from a previous mate, and that’s what makes their union a joke.

“my mother and father were married until my father passed n my mother never remarried”

Point? Not sure whether she’s crediting or blaming her parents for how she turned out.

“So explaniing to me what marriage is or what its supposed to symbolize is a pretty rude thing to do i personally know what it was meant to be unlike most.”

BS: What would an unmarried lesbian, who broke up with her female partner know of the experience of religious marriage? The pattern is right under her nose but she didn’t follow it. Could such a person offer credible testimony?

“very religious mother taught me not to judge others except on their character and morals.”

Yet God said He’s the judge, not humans. It’s no wonder the truth of a matter offends you.

“Our yrs where our personality is formed and how we deal with happiness sadness anger maybe somewhat genetically linked”

One is born with personality – it’s an intrinsic feature of conscious mind.

Character, on the other hand, isn’t – that must be acquired through a process of consistent training. The most critical time for molding a child’s character is from birth to age 7. This is a long-known truth, not something scientists have discovered.

If training has been totally neglected during this period, the child would have nothing with which to put the past behind him and overcome future assaults to his emotional sensibilities.

Zanjan: Halfapintdoll: "I do not believe people of faith (which ever religion that may be) should be forced to conduct religious marriage ceremonies for same sex couples if it's against their faith. "

Rest assured this will never happen to the Religion of God, which is a stand alone community with its rights and principles completely preserved and untouchable. Government doesn't have these features.

halfapintdoll: Spoken like an evangelical christian. Don't be so sure, religion has changed dramatically in the past few hundred years. However I do believe that as a christian you must love all man as your brother even if you disagree with the 'sin' .So respect their decision to exercise their free will even if you disagree, forgive them their 'sin' as you must.

Also you're arguing the 'nature vs nurture' debate, from where did you get your information? I just wonder because I studied Sociology and Psychology through my A-levels and degree and I have never heard that a child character must be formed through constant training and before the age of 7. I am genuinely interested to know where this 'long known truth' has come from, as it's not a theory I have heard before.

Zanjan: Is that all you know is Christian? Good Lord, that isn't the only Religion of God!

People change, God doesn't.....neither does His Faith. The religions of man, though, are pretty weird and change as often as pop psych because they appeal to those who want their burger their way.

But I wouldn't want to see any religion eliminated - this has nothing to do with forgiveness or loving one's brother - it's about a full on appreciation for the need for diversity in creation. You gotta have contrast.

I've not been arguing nature vs nurture - that's a different subject.

Perhaps you've never heard of character training in Sociology and Psychology because they don't teach it. They leave that to the Religious Studies department, which you'll find in any university.

" I am genuinely interested to know where this 'long known truth' has come from"

You know, families used to have more than one or two kids....they were raised in the home, not day care, by a multi-generational traditional family. I used to live next door to a family with 12 kids, and 15 wasn't unheard of either. Some kids were brought up in orphanges too - there were so many around, almost everyone had something to do with their upbrining in a community so most understood them, even monks.

"Give me a child until he is seven and I will give you the man". (quote attrributed to St. Francis Xavier, a jesuit who lived in in the 1500's)

Even the ancients recognized if you bring a child up a certain way, he will never depart from it. They're like saplings that need support to grow straight, like a plant that needs pruning to grow to its most beautiful lushness. The condition is the child must be protected from too much exposure to bad influences.

The state of civilization carries the greater influence, for good or ill.......it's a far tougher challenge today to keep a child protected since we can't spirit them out of society and live in a cave anymore. The child must be armed with solid immunity to spiritual disease if he's to thrive.

By the way, I'm not Christian.

halfapintdoll: Ahh so 'character training' is the premise of theologians ... how remiss of me. Allow me to quote my friend who puts it far better than I could ..

''If you indoctrinate your children as opposed to giving them choices, that doesn't show a lot of faith in your beliefs''

Zanjan: Not possible to indoctrinate unless you live in a cave - you didn't get that part?

If these bonds were so tight, how do you explain so many of the next religious generation were able to cut their tethers and abandon religion altogether?

You'd also have to explain how adults with no religious background - total free thinkers - would consent to have their minds and hands bound via indoctrination upon their conversion.

Indoctrination has been given far more credit for power than it deserves. It's merely an information gathering. No man can be forced to believe or have faith in anything he doesn't want to. And that 'want' has to already be sitting in the heart, waiting to be uncovered.

No one could make me murder a man - that has never, ever been in me. Others are quite the opposite.....only the law has prevented them, and even then they can disobey.

Whimsical Fairy: Screw religion, it is nothing but man made. People read your bibles... religion IS man made.

Marriage is a contract.

Gypsy_Soul: @ Zanjan, first of all, please remain civil. Someone's contributions to this discussion are not "interference" or "BS." If you can't handle a respectful discussion then kindly start your own thread and confine your poor attitude there.

It seems you've missed the point of this post. I don't believe any religious institution should be forced to recognize a homosexual union any more than I believe any citizen should be denied access to government programs merely because of their sexuality. This is a political discussion, not a religious one.

The US was founded upon these ideals, among others...

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

If the only argument that can be presented is that homosexual couples should be denied rights/access because homosexuality is wrong, based on the definition of various religious texts then in this debate, that argument must be rejected. Religion shall have no bearing on government. They are both consenting adults so religious views of their relationship should have nothing to do with their rights as citizens.

Tax-paying homosexuals should be allowed access to programs they are mandated by tax law to support. Period. Taxing citizens but denying them the benefits of those taxes is unacceptable. Allowing that to happen doesn't violate your rights or your freedom to practice your religion. You are not forced to respect them or see them as equals- it is your right dislike them and it is their right to exist. No where does it guarantee citizens to live only amongst those who are exactly like themselves! You make your choices for you. Others get to make choices for themselves too. You will not always like their choices and vice versa.

There are no second-class citizens. Much like being pregnant or gay....you either *are* a citizen and have all the rights afforded to other citizens of the same legal standing.....or you are not a citizen at all. There is no gray area here.

Gypsy_Soul: @WhimsicalFairy...."Marriage is a contract." Right? Anything you have to hire a lawyer to get out of is definitely a contract.

Whimsical Fairy: you got that right! LOL

But seriously, I think my marriage has just as much meaning as anyone who was married under the umbrella of "religion"

What right does anyone have to tell someone who they can and can't marry? Nobody should have that right. The video was spot on. Everything about this topic sounds like the 1950's segregation of blacks.

Whimsical Fairy: So I happen to fall in love with a "man" and married him (in a civil ceremony) However, if I had fallen in love with a woman...who the hell is anyone to tell me I couldn't marry her?

Based on what?...someone's uppity view on what they "think" is wrong or right based on a bible written by many men and their "interpretations" of their times. Get real.

I would also say, "How dare you, to tell me how to live my life. How dare you to tell me who I can and can't love. How dare you to tell me that my marriage doesn't count because I fell in love with the same sex. How very dare you!"

LilMissAlexandria: im not sure who the friend northerner quoted was but i think its a wonderful quote by a truly great person, a person of courage, a person who can speak her mind and i hail them the greatest wireclub user ...... i think you can gather it was indeed me lol

Zanjan: Gypsy: Zanjan, first of all, please remain civil.

Oh, an un-original attack by someone who disagrees with other people's principles and views. What a surprise!

"This is a political discussion, not a religious one"

Then what does it have to do with the Preacher? Hence, the title of the thread. If gays aren't concerned about religion, and religion doesn't apply to civilian issues, which it doesn't, then gays wouldn't have brought religion into the topic. You started this thread - what was your objective?

""We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator ..."

Recognizing that the Creator is a self-evident truth is, apparently, not self-evident to atheists, who don't believe they have a creator. Since a man who doesn't know isn't equal to the man who does know, we're left to take that statement as meaning all human beings are human beings - none belong to a separate species.

That a self-evident truth needs to be stated certainly demonstrates the backwardness of this civilization.

"...... with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life..........."

The Creator denies the right to abortion and capital punishment. Ok. Now, if you could just get the government to agree with its own Constitution, that would be interesting. Nothing about gays in there.

".........Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Again, Americans have traffic lights, taxes, porn laws, jails, and straight jackets. Just doesn't add up, does it? It used to forbid gambling but politicians saw it made money for the government so, strike out that one. You know, somewhere you have to draw the line.

Let's talk about civility - doesn't it mean to show respect for the sacred? Marriage is a sacred institution for all religious people due to the holiness of its features. It doesn't change. If you reject any of those features, then call it a marriage, that's an abomination.

The arguments for fairness to gays would be acceptable if gays would be fair to religious people and not spit on the sacred. If they were honest and civilized, they wouldn't steal a title that didn't belong to them - they'd settle for their bond to be called exactly what it is - a civil union, or legally bonded. I feel the same way about straight people who have a civil ceremony.

"What right does anyone have to tell someone who they can and can't marry"
The Authorities - if you don't qualify for a marriage license, you aint gettin' one. In Canada, the government has a rule you can't marry an imbicile, as that would be taking advantage of the vulnerable, a person who's not fully aware of the consequences.

""How dare you, to tell me how to live my life"

No one is telling you that. The authorities are telling you what *they're* not going to do.

" How very dare you!"

Yes, I bloody well dare. I dare to tell you that you may live as you please, just not in my house.

Whimsical Fairy: Ummm, I don't live in your house. In fact, I don't even live in your country.

Nymphetamine Ene: zanjan

Whimsical Fairy: btw, if Gypsy wanted this to be about religion, she would have posted it there. She posted it "here" in politics.

Nymphetamine Ene: passing by, and reading all this.... did you guys know that most of priests are gay? go figure....

Whimsical Fairy: Passing by you posted on the first page.