Immigration Rights for Homosexuals

[Alex+R 0]

*creates an atmosphere of mystery using dry ice and dimmed lighting...*

Oh no...surely not...what will the closeted "I'm not gay!" people do then? They will be outnumbered, unable to defend themselves from the infiltration of these "other people" anymore...the world will end as we know it and there will be no continuation of the human race after God pronounces it far too destitute to go on....

*abrupt ending of atmosphere as dry ice runs out and power is restored*

Ahhhh get over it! That's all I have to say! Whatever reason anyone has for bashing someone not inclined the same way they are, stop it, for goodness sakes - we're all adults here... As far as I'm concerned, if anyone is going to use the Bible as a defence (and I have nothing against it) please remember that the book was written many thousands of years ago by human beings (the condensed version we see today having been compiled in approximately 400AD) as a guide to being human back then. When there were not very many humans. And disease wasn't readily treated. And many little humans did not make it past infanthood. Get the drift?

Bah - live and let live. There are people out there who prefer animals to humans - sometimes even trees or even (and I saw this in "American Pie", so it must be true) warm desert foods (!!). Show me where, in the good book, it mentions anything about fornicating with an appple pie, and I will shake your hand (hold on...they weren't invented back then, in ancient Jerusalem or the like...man that throws a spanner in the works!).

I mean honestly, from a moral point of view, had they existed, the Bible would probably have banned sex aids as well. After all, "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and 'The great whoopsie ding dong machine" or "Eve and the fabulous and newly improved Rampant Rabbit"! How about "Though shalt not lie with rubber thingies that goes *buuuzzzzzz*"? I mean in terms of ancient culture, having it away with an ergonomically shaped piece of warm plastic wouldn't have done much for population growth.

Let's have a look at bondage then as well, shall we? What would the Bible have said about tying your husband up with yesterday's pantyhose and then whipping him lightly with an egg beater? What about foot fetishes or credit cards or bullfighting or sharpie markers, or vehemently insisting on using all the oil in the world? It's all very well saying "the Bible applies to everything we have here today" but then please, how about putting on a pair of sandals, abandoning the central air and going out to feed the hungry every Sunday afternoon and "living the footsteps of Christ".

B*gger it though - everyone's so busy bombing everyone else and wondering what's on sale this weekend at Herbergers to wonder about what's really "right".

I think the whole thing is hilarious for this very reason: there's so much death and hatred going on in this world - why are we constantly attempting to categorise people through fear and lack of knowledge, instead of just letting people love each other, in whichever way they so choose? Bring on the love, man! We need more of it!

:thumbs:

As for me, I think the government should have nothing to say about marriage. The government should ONLY allow civil unions for everyone.

Let marriage be a religious contract. Or a cultural contract. Or whatever. But let's make marriage a non-legal thing.

The binding thing would be the union. That way we are all equal in the eyes of the state (which a certain historical document pretty much mandates) and we can let the churches draw their own distinctions about who is and is not worthy of getting married.

[Fandango 1,439]

I've actually become torn on this issue lately.

Not legalizing the unions won't make teh gay go away.

However, someone has a right to not support same sex unions without being labeled all sorts of ridiculous things....I think it's very commonplace when one doesn't agree with the free love & acceptance to have horrible things thrown at them. 'Free love and acceptance as long as you believe as I do'

The converse is also true and if you examine this thread so far you can interpret for yourself if one or many of the mutifaceted sides are "having horrible things thrown at them". The OP has not backed up the initial universal statement with any evidence whatsoever. The point is "anyone" does not = "someone". Catchy headlines and extreme viewpoints tend to be the fashion these days but that does not mean that everyone that absorbs this information agrees with it. No one in this thread has been labled a "bigot" because of their stance on the issue discussed which just demonstrates that the OP was just trying to create another controversial extreme viewpoint thread.

I was speaking generally...everytime this topic gets brought up, the majority of ppl here who are pro-gay unions will throw out words like 'homophobe' 'bigot' 'religious nut' or something to that effect...I find very often that liberals are very free thinkers and very accepting of everyone except those who disagree...

Very pro-diversity...so long as it's not diverse in opinion

Edited February 11, 2007 by LisaD

[peezey 0]

Anyone opposing this vocal (screeching) minority is labeled a bigot. You know, if you throw something against a wall eventually some will stick -standard propaganda technique refined by the Nazis and Soviets.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

*creates an atmosphere of mystery using dry ice and dimmed lighting...*

Oh no...surely not...what will the closeted "I'm not gay!" people do then? They will be outnumbered, unable to defend themselves from the infiltration of these "other people" anymore...the world will end as we know it and there will be no continuation of the human race after God pronounces it far too destitute to go on....

*abrupt ending of atmosphere as dry ice runs out and power is restored*

Ahhhh get over it! That's all I have to say! Whatever reason anyone has for bashing someone not inclined the same way they are, stop it, for goodness sakes - we're all adults here... As far as I'm concerned, if anyone is going to use the Bible as a defence (and I have nothing against it) please remember that the book was written many thousands of years ago by human beings (the condensed version we see today having been compiled in approximately 400AD) as a guide to being human back then. When there were not very many humans. And disease wasn't readily treated. And many little humans did not make it past infanthood. Get the drift?

Bah - live and let live. There are people out there who prefer animals to humans - sometimes even trees or even (and I saw this in "American Pie", so it must be true) warm desert foods (!!). Show me where, in the good book, it mentions anything about fornicating with an appple pie, and I will shake your hand (hold on...they weren't invented back then, in ancient Jerusalem or the like...man that throws a spanner in the works!).

I mean honestly, from a moral point of view, had they existed, the Bible would probably have banned sex aids as well. After all, "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and 'The great whoopsie ding dong machine" or "Eve and the fabulous and newly improved Rampant Rabbit"! How about "Though shalt not lie with rubber thingies that goes *buuuzzzzzz*"? I mean in terms of ancient culture, having it away with an ergonomically shaped piece of warm plastic wouldn't have done much for population growth.

Let's have a look at bondage then as well, shall we? What would the Bible have said about tying your husband up with yesterday's pantyhose and then whipping him lightly with an egg beater? What about foot fetishes or credit cards or bullfighting or sharpie markers, or vehemently insisting on using all the oil in the world? It's all very well saying "the Bible applies to everything we have here today" but then please, how about putting on a pair of sandals, abandoning the central air and going out to feed the hungry every Sunday afternoon and "living the footsteps of Christ".

B*gger it though - everyone's so busy bombing everyone else and wondering what's on sale this weekend at Herbergers to wonder about what's really "right".

I think the whole thing is hilarious for this very reason: there's so much death and hatred going on in this world - why are we constantly attempting to categorise people through fear and lack of knowledge, instead of just letting people love each other, in whichever way they so choose? Bring on the love, man! We need more of it!

:thumbs:

As for me, I think the government should have nothing to say about marriage. The government should ONLY allow civil unions for everyone.

Let marriage be a religious contract. Or a cultural contract. Or whatever. But let's make marriage a non-legal thing.

The binding thing would be the union. That way we are all equal in the eyes of the state (which a certain historical document pretty much mandates) and we can let the churches draw their own distinctions about who is and is not worthy of getting married.

I would like to think that would solve the problem - give marriage to the religious establishment and put it in its proper religious context.

[peezey 0]

The reason people are opposed to it, is because it affects our Judaea Christian philosophies in which this country was founded on. Our forefathers wrote our country up based on these values. The idea that a marriage is between a man and a woman.

To name a few Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland etc., these countries have adopted same sex marriage. The result of that (Shown in statistics. Google it), is traditional marriage is almost non-existent now in these countries, and births out of wedlock are on the rise. Of course the births out of wedlock affect the society as a whole, which in turn begets other issues that I will not get into at this time.

See, this is not just about gay marriage; this is about the society as a whole.

You are correlating two things that have no correlation. Traditional marriage has been on the decline in Europe for far longer than same-sex unions have been legal. These have nothing to do with each other. Heterosexuals choose not to marry for many reasons, not the least of which is the increase earning power of women.

[peezey 0]

From what I have seen San Fran, and Portland, OR are the top hippie villas in the left-coast.

Gee, no one is crying when ipods, nobel prize winning ideas, agriculture, and tax money flows out of this area.

[peezey 0]

*creates an atmosphere of mystery using dry ice and dimmed lighting...*

Oh no...surely not...what will the closeted "I'm not gay!" people do then? They will be outnumbered, unable to defend themselves from the infiltration of these "other people" anymore...the world will end as we know it and there will be no continuation of the human race after God pronounces it far too destitute to go on....

*abrupt ending of atmosphere as dry ice runs out and power is restored*

Ahhhh get over it! That's all I have to say! Whatever reason anyone has for bashing someone not inclined the same way they are, stop it, for goodness sakes - we're all adults here... As far as I'm concerned, if anyone is going to use the Bible as a defence (and I have nothing against it) please remember that the book was written many thousands of years ago by human beings (the condensed version we see today having been compiled in approximately 400AD) as a guide to being human back then. When there were not very many humans. And disease wasn't readily treated. And many little humans did not make it past infanthood. Get the drift?

Bah - live and let live. There are people out there who prefer animals to humans - sometimes even trees or even (and I saw this in "American Pie", so it must be true) warm desert foods (!!). Show me where, in the good book, it mentions anything about fornicating with an appple pie, and I will shake your hand (hold on...they weren't invented back then, in ancient Jerusalem or the like...man that throws a spanner in the works!).

I mean honestly, from a moral point of view, had they existed, the Bible would probably have banned sex aids as well. After all, "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and 'The great whoopsie ding dong machine" or "Eve and the fabulous and newly improved Rampant Rabbit"! How about "Though shalt not lie with rubber thingies that goes *buuuzzzzzz*"? I mean in terms of ancient culture, having it away with an ergonomically shaped piece of warm plastic wouldn't have done much for population growth.

Let's have a look at bondage then as well, shall we? What would the Bible have said about tying your husband up with yesterday's pantyhose and then whipping him lightly with an egg beater? What about foot fetishes or credit cards or bullfighting or sharpie markers, or vehemently insisting on using all the oil in the world? It's all very well saying "the Bible applies to everything we have here today" but then please, how about putting on a pair of sandals, abandoning the central air and going out to feed the hungry every Sunday afternoon and "living the footsteps of Christ".

B*gger it though - everyone's so busy bombing everyone else and wondering what's on sale this weekend at Herbergers to wonder about what's really "right".

I think the whole thing is hilarious for this very reason: there's so much death and hatred going on in this world - why are we constantly attempting to categorise people through fear and lack of knowledge, instead of just letting people love each other, in whichever way they so choose? Bring on the love, man! We need more of it!

:thumbs:

As for me, I think the government should have nothing to say about marriage. The government should ONLY allow civil unions for everyone.

Let marriage be a religious contract. Or a cultural contract. Or whatever. But let's make marriage a non-legal thing.

The binding thing would be the union. That way we are all equal in the eyes of the state (which a certain historical document pretty much mandates) and we can let the churches draw their own distinctions about who is and is not worthy of getting married.

Apologies for the huge quote, but I'm thumbs-upping both posts.

The state ONLY has the authority to enforce or dissolve the civil contract portion of a marriage, so the whole religious crapola needs to be removed from every single bit of this "debate." It has no business anywhere near anyone, or in the realm of public contracts, except those who want to confirm their civil contract in the religious manner they choose.

[eric&gen 0]

Get rid of the queers put them in IRAQ that would solve the problems lol.