California Legalizes Gay Marriage

[Mr.Lombardi34]

That's mean, you should get a beating for saying that. I infact am gay, and I'm going out with another guy right now.

Yeah, he must be a troll. Funny how nobody who is against gay marriage ever comes back to argue.

 

[Crimson King]

Yeah, he must be a troll. Funny how nobody who is against gay marriage ever comes back to argue.

It's hard to have a valid argument for someone to be denied basic human dignity rights.

 

[SkylerOcon]

There's no valid argument for someone to be denied basic human dignity rights.

Fixed.

/10chars

 

[Crimson King]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/05/29/nygay.marriage/index.html - BOOYAH! (reposted from Gay Smasher topic)

 

[Mugquomp]

It seems like the floodgates are opening. Which states will be next? Although I don't think it'll be very long before the more conservative parts of the country try to turn all this progress back with a constitutional amendment. Maybe this fall during the presidential election?

 

[darkatma]

yeah
I'm worried that politically, the California ruling was at a bad time, seeing as the democratic party is divided between two candidates, and then there's McCain, who is against gay marriage.

 

[antimatter]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/05/29/nygay.marriage/index.html - BOOYAH! (reposted from Gay Smasher topic)

that's great news. shame that gay marriage is only recognized and not completely legalized yet.

 

[Kogitsune]

1 out of 10 people are gay, (including me), 1 out of 10 people cant get married...Thats not fair now is it?...

 

[notftomearth7]

It's about time that another state joined the 21st century.

 

[Circus]

1 out of 10 people are gay, (including me), 1 out of 10 people cant get married...Thats not fair now is it?...

Everyone can get married.

1 of 10 people can't get married to someone they love.

EDIT: Unless you're in California.

Or Canada.

Or other cool, accepting places.

 

[BlackFoxPariah]

The Bible says it's wrong.

Nuff Said.

 

[Crimson King]

The Bible says it's wrong.

Nuff Said.

The bible also says you should sacrifice people and animals, eat the flesh and blood of a 2000 year old zombie, not sleep with your wife when she is on her period, stone women for cheating, but you yourself, as a male, can cheat, and doesn't condemn lesbians, just men because everyone knows lesbians are awesome.

Also, the bible condones incestuous relationships and pedophilia, but DEFINITELY not homosexuality because that is icky!

 

[Mugquomp]

Bravo, CK.

 

[Golem the Stern Father]

Which states will be next?

It may a more politically active state, like Pennsylvania. This won't hit Illinois for a while, *exhale*

 

[Pink Reaper]

The bible also says you should sacrifice people and animals, eat the flesh and blood of a 2000 year old zombie, not sleep with your wife when she is on her period, stone women for cheating, but you yourself, as a male, can cheat, and doesn't condemn lesbians, just men because everyone knows lesbians are awesome.

Also, the bible condones incestuous relationships and pedophilia, but DEFINITELY not homosexuality because that is icky!

**** YEAH, LESBIANS!

Since homosexuality is OBVIOUSLY a life choice then so must every sexual preference. As such, I want to find dolphins sexy/have sex with dolphins. I just have to think hard enough about it and eventually it will actually happen right?

 

[SkylerOcon]

The bible also says you should sacrifice people and animals, eat the flesh and blood of a 2000 year old zombie, not sleep with your wife when she is on her period, stone women for cheating, but you yourself, as a male, can cheat, and doesn't condemn lesbians, just men because everyone knows lesbians are awesome.

Also, the bible condones incestuous relationships and pedophilia, but DEFINITELY not homosexuality because that is icky!

EWW! ITS SO ICKY GUISE!1

Jokes aside, the 'bible' excuse is a weak one. It's just like saying you believe in ghosts because Moaning Murtle was in Harry Potter. Not everybody believes in your holy book. You can go ahead and hate gay people all you want, but the moment that you start denying gays rights is the moment that you destroy one of the things that America was founded on -- freedom of religion.

And there's me tying gay rights back to the first amendment. Have fun trying to refute that.

 

[Pink Reaper]

Have fun trying to refute that.

God > First Amendment

GG

 

[SkylerOcon]

God > First Amendment

GG

Moaning Murtle > God

GG

 

[Pink Reaper]

But Harry Potter is just a book. The Bible is the word of God. My God. And MY God can never be wrong because MY God is the ONLY God.

(As long as I refuse to accept that my beliefs could be wrong, you can't dissuade me. You cant fight this level of ignorance)

 

[SkylerOcon]

But Harry Potter is just a book. The Bible is the word of God. My God. And MY God can never be wrong because MY God is the ONLY God.

(As long as I refuse to accept that my beliefs could be wrong, you can't dissuade me. You cant fight this level of ignorance)

****. This one is actually admitting that he's so ignorant that I can't sway him.

Either way, it's not fair to deny rights to gays because of what you believe. It's not like it affects you.

 

[Pink Reaper]

Oh no, Im not religious whatsoever, I just decided it would be fun to beat you in your own game

Besides, Zeus says gay marriage is Ok, so its all good to me.

 

[Mr.Lombardi34]

The Bible says it's wrong.

Nuff Said.

Separation between church and state.

Nuff said.

 

[cwm123]

I'm primarily a lurker on this forum, but some of the blatant stupidity and ignorance in this thread has inspired me to post my thoughts.

I am 16 years old and gay. Despite what you may think and what your silly Bible tells you, I do not have a choice in the matter. Only six months ago I was the saddest and most pathetic person you could imagine. I practically lived in my bed, crying whenever I was alone. I acted like this miserable shell because I was closeted and felt it was my fault for what I was, and I felt like a monster. I felt like a monster because I am a person who is, even in the 21st century, treated as a second-class citizen without the same rights and priveleges afforded to people not like myself.

I've obviously come out now, but that doesnt change much. I know now that this is just the way I am, and I am happy with who I am, but there's still the over-zealously religious and just plain stupid groups of people who feel as though I am scum and doomed to burn in a blazing hellfire. If I really and such a worthless person and God really does hate me (I do believe in God) why have I and millions not been struck down by some lightning from above?

In this day and age, it is senseless that such heavy discrimination exists towards people incapable of changing who they are. And could someone please tell me why the govornment still runs by religious beliefs? It is time that the government and the citizens of this country go to realize that civil rights are long overdue, particularly when they in no way shape or form would effect those against such a movement. Since when does the business of a stranger's bedroom require legalization?

 

[Mini Mic]

lol Join date June 2003, posts: 1

But really I don't see why people hate gays after all doesn't it just mean less competition for a mate?

 

[cwm123]

lol Join date June 2003, posts: 1

loooooooooooooooooong time lurker.

 

[darkatma]

that's a REALLY long time >_>
kinda cool

as for your first post ever..
I can empathize..

 

[Mugquomp]

Hey, don't worry. I was a lurker for a long time too. Post count doesn't mean nearly as much as it seems sometimes. I've been here for 6 years or so, and yet only have ~500 posts.

But congratulations on having the guts to come out in high school. Most of my homosexual friends didn't come out until college, due to the fierce animosity that exists, especially in a high school setting.

 

[Amide]

I'm pro human rights (yes, I consider marriage 'human rights') like most people here, but as a whole, this country opposes gay marriage. I wonder why most people here support it, maybe it's because people are younger here, but whatever.

 

[cwm123]

But congratulations on having the guts to come out in high school. Most of my homosexual friends didn't come out until college, due to the fierce animosity that exists, especially in a high school setting.

Are you kidding? Coming out in high school is suicide. I dropped out of highschool to start college early.

 

[Mugquomp]

Oh, well that kinda sucks then. Sorry about that. But I still think it shows quite a bit of personal fortitude, even if the resulting situation didn't turn out too well.

 

[darkatma]

Here's my school's Christian Club's response to the ruling

It's in 2 parts. Keep in mind my high school is mostly liberal, and this is about the most neutral response the religious faction can come up with

The purpose of this e-mail was mainly to urge you to start thinking about this issue.

I know that you may want to say some stuff about this e-mail. If you have any comments, questions, or any clarifications needed, please reply ASAP. I'd be actually very glad if you sent back a lot of criticism as long as you have reasons to back it up. I'm sorry if there are some points that I didn't clarify very well. Please reply back ASAP and I'll try to answer as many as I can.

Good luck for the last 15 days of the school year,
EC


On Sat, May 24, 2008 at 11:21 PM, Youth Alive <msjyouthalive@gmail.com> wrote:

Hey Youth Alivers,

I hope you enjoy your three-day weekend…I know I will! I really hope that you can get some time to relax and catch up with God if you haven't been meeting with Him for a while.

What I want to talk about is something I'm sure that has to be talked about in light of recent events. I'm talking about the California Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage on May 15, 2008. This topic, I realize, has a lot to be said about and has a lot of touchy feelings. I encourage you guys to start thinking about this issue. It's important as Christians to be aware of the world around us and to make decisions on what we believe…and if we believe something, we should know why we believe it, as this week's verse says.

1 Peter 3:15

Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.

There's a lot to talk about this issue, so forgive me if I don't go into all of it. The way I'm gonna format this e-mail is that I'm going to categorize it into various topics as shown by the bold and underlined headings. This will be a two part e-mail. Next week, I'll discuss the Supreme Court Ruling and its various ramifications (effects…sorry, I just wanted to use a big word).

Here we go.

Are Christians against gays?

You've probably heard this question or you might've asked yourselves that also as you watch different protests on TV. We need to clarify the term "gays." The concept of homosexuality vs. homosexuals. The Bible clearly says that homosexuality is a sin (Leviticus 18:22, Romans 1:27); it wasn't God's original intent from creation. That's the basic definition of any sin, not part of God's original plan.

Is God against homosexuality? Yes.

But is God against homosexuals? No.

Let me clarify this. Think about some sins…adultery, murder, drinking, or the more subtle ones, lust, anger, pride….how many times have we done these sins? How many of these do we do everyday? Paul tells us in Romans 3:23, "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." Every sin is a sin; all the sins named above are just as displeasing and horrible to God as homosexuality.

Let me ask you something: What did Jesus do when He was on this earth? Did he just hang out with the cool, religious people who walked the walk and talked the talk? If you read your Bible, where did he hang out? He hung out with the sinners, like you and me. (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke 5:27-32;&version=31;)

He didn't go about spitting on the adulterers and tax collectors, saying that they all deserved to go to hell. No, he ate with them, he shared life with them…he forgave them. We are all seen in the same way before God.

So when I see people in the media and at school, who have signs that say "All ***s Go To HELL!" or "The Hottest Place in Hell is Reserved For ***s…." We, as Christians, should apologize for what these "Christians" have done. These people are taking the issue the wrong way. First of all, it doesn't say anything in the Bible whatsoever of special places in hell for homosexuals. Second, these guys don't get it. It's this whole concept of sin vs. sinner.



http://www.s-anand.net/calvinandhobbes.html#19931008

Just as Jesus loved us despite our sins, we should start seeing people the way Jesus did. What does that mean for us? Does that mean we should just let homosexuality go on ahead and just be like, "Oh, it's OK. You know, God told me to love you so I'm gonna let this slide." No. We should treat homosexuality as any other sin; you wouldn't be like, "Oh, it's OK for you to look at pornography. God forgives you." As Christians, we need to confront sin in our friends out of love and concern for them.

Read this story in John 8. (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John 8:1-11;&version=31;) Jesus wasn't like, "Oh, it's OK to sin since everyone does the same thing." No, Jesus forgave the woman and confronted the sin in her life.

So the answer to the question above…God and Christians are against homosexuality, just as we should be against murder, lust, anger, pride, drinking, and all the other sins. But God is for homosexuals, for sinners; He gave up his life for us to save us so we should do the same for others in our lives.

Is There a Gay Gene?

Ooooh….I can imagine your answer, especially to some people I forwarded this e-mail to. You think I'm gonna say, "No" because I'm biased against gays and I want to totally say it's their choice and it's all their fault and they're sinning, etc……Maybe you've even heard people come up to you and say something like this (http://bloggernista.com/2008/03/09/gay-scientists-isolate-christian-gene/) Just goes to show what feelings are associated with this issue.

Let me ask you this first of all. Where did you get the idea that there was a gay gene? If you said "Time" Magazine, TV, a news program, radio, papers, etc, let me ask you….Don't you think it's possible that this is something that scientists said was possible and then the media grabbed it and made a field day out of it? Here, why don't you look at this site? http://www.narth.com/docs/istheregene.html Updated 8 February 2008. Do you get all your information from what the media says? Or do you do your own research and look what all views have to say?

Let me ask you…what is your initial reaction to people and scientists who claim that there is no gay gene or at least that so far, there has been no scientific proof of a gay gene? Do you label them as biased and bigoted Christians, even if they're not religious…or just people just stating what they've found as scientists? It's so ironic that we talk about tolerance in this day and age, accepting everyone's ideas, but when these "intolerant Christians" bring up their ideas, oh, we have to shut them up. But then, aren't we supposed to be tolerant? If you haven't figured it out by now, if you're a Christian, you're gonna be labeled as intolerant, bigoted, and unreasonable. Sorry for ranting, but that was a lot of stuff I had on my chest. You've probably noticed that I haven't even answered the question.

Up to this point, there is no scientific proof of a gay gene. It must be acknowledged that some things in people such as sexual orientation are very complex and are influenced by many factors. I mean, if a person dressed up their son in dresses, have their father abuse them, and name him a girl's name, that would affect his sexual orientation, definitely. This all goes back to the question of nature vs. nurture. How much of it is from within us and how much is from society's influence? Let me tell you what I think.

You know that there are physical deviations, right? People who are born blind, with a cleft lip…that's the way they're born, right? But the question is, is that normal, is that the way that person was meant to be? We can agree that it wasn't meant to be that a baby has Down Syndrome or is blind, even if he was born that way.

I believe that the same argument can be made towards genetic tendencies. For example, people who are born with a tendency for alcoholism, violence, or homosexuality. I agree that people have homosexual tendencies and thoughts that come from their head spontaneously. But the question is, were these people meant to be drunk, violent, or homosexual, even if they were born with those tendencies?

If a person had a tendency for violence and wanted to murder people, should we encourage that because it's part of who he is? If a person just had a tendency to enjoy pain in others and wanted to torment babies, should we encourage that because it's just a natural part of him?

Next Week

All these questions about "meant to be" and homosexuality….it inevitably leads to the question, who says so? Who has the right to say that gay marriage is wrong? You're right when you say that. Nobody on this earth alone certainly has the right to say that. Then who does? I'll be talking about that next week when I go more in depth with the actual Supreme Court Ruling.

Think about it.

part 2

Hey Youth Alivers,

As I mentioned in an afternote, if you have any questions, comments, or criticism on the previous e-mail, please send them. I would appreciate them very much. This week, I'm going to talk more about the actual Supreme Court Ruling and a very interesting point that it brings up. There's a lot of things to talk about on this issue; due to lack of time, since I bet that you have a lot of work to do, I'll try to keep this e-mail as brief as possible.

This week's memory verse is one where God is trying to speak to his people in Judah through the prophet Jeremiah:

Jeremiah 6:16


This is what the LORD says:
"Stand at the crossroads and look;
ask for the ancient paths,
ask where the good way is, and walk in it,
and you will find rest for your souls.
But you said, 'We will not walk in it.'

When the Supreme Court ruled in a 4-3 vote to allow gay marriage, the judge made an interesting footnote. Although I can't find the exact quote for some odd reason, it basically says that this ruling does not extend to incest (marrying within the family) and polygamy (multiple wives). Now why would he put something like that?

People argue that this ruling is an example of what is known as the slippery slope argument. If you take one step down a slippery slope, then the next step is easier to take and pretty soon, you're tripping and rolling down the slope, unable to stop. The slippery slope argument here is for marriage.

Are we denying homosexuals the fundamental right of marriage?

You've probably heard this question before. People asking, "Hey, who are you to take my away my right to marry, just like you?" My answer would be that we're not. But how?

Let me say that even though I have the right to get married when I am of age, there are many specifications and limits for marriage. For instance, I can't marry my cousin, I can't marry a woman who's already married, I can't marry my mother, I can't marry more than one woman…You see? Even though I have the right to marry, there are many limits that define what marriage is.

So my argument would be that what these people are doing is not marriage. Before, marriage was originally between one unrelated, unmarried, human, and of-age man and an unrelated, unmarried, human and of-age woman. But the Supreme Court ruling just redefined marriage, the man and woman part to man and man. This is where the slippery slope argument comes in.

Years from now, people are going to rise up and use the same arguments that people used for gay marriage. Who are you to deny my right to marry my sister, to marry my daughter, to marry my cousin, to marry more than one wife? I have a right to get married; if I truly love this person, then I have a right to get married and you have no right to stop me. Sound familiar?

That's the thing, though. WHO HAS THE RIGHT? If marriage now has just been changed just like that, who has the right to say that incestuous marriage and polygamy is wrong? If people rise up to say that, they'll be labeled by the public as intolerant, bigoted, and trying to deny these people the right of marriage. Who has the right to say that this is wrong?

Side note: What do homosexuals think about the ruling?

Interesting enough, did you know that there are many people in the gay community who actually oppose this ruling, that they're angry at Mayor Gavin Newsom for starting this whole idea and for the ruling of gay marriage to be passed?

Previously, civil unions existed in California, perfectly legal between two men and two women. Just like marriage, civil unions had rights, such as common property. But now, such as in Colorado for instance, these laws are starting to get repealed. Why?

Throughout the nation, gays were perfectly happy with being in civil unions. But because of liberal actions to push for gay marriage, conservative actions are now not only pushing against gay marriage, but they're also trying to repeal civil unions. These homosexuals who are caught in this struggle are actually mad with the liberals because they're suffering repercussions from other people's actions that they didn't want to get involved in. Just something to think about


Moral Relativism: Who are you to say?

Moral relativism, as opposed to moral objectivism, says that morals are like ice cream tastes; if you like it, then good for you. If you like cheating for instance, then no one can say you're wrong since it's right for you. If there are no objective rules and laws that apply to everybody, then everybody can do their own thing and people can't say they're wrong since the only rules are what people make up.

If moral relativism is true, then people can't say Hitler was wrong because he did what was right for him and who dares say that he did anything wrong if he thinks it's right?

My point?

The world is changing; people don't change, but the values do. And in these days, when what's right and wrong seems to be so…distorted, who can say what's right and what's wrong?....In the end, it all depends on what your source of authority is.

The Bible, as God's word, should be the authoritative word that governs over our lives. Are we going to choose the objective Bible, which applies to everybody equally, or the subjective moral relativism, which says that no one's wrong, whatever they do is right for them?

Whatever your answer is will directly influence your view on marriage. Is it wrong for incest and polygamy to happen as they are objectively wrong…or who are we to stop these people and who are we to force our views upon them?

I'm not sure what my thoughts are right now, I'll probably get back to these in a bit

 

[Mr.Lombardi34]

Hmm. Well, I'm mainly talking about the second part here:

Incest, for example. The email says that if homos can marry, then it is also legal to marry your cousin. Well, no. Gay men are attracted to other men. They have no choice, they don't like women. If you like your cousin, it isn't your only option. Sure, you can't change the fact if you love your cousin, BUT there are other people for you to marry.

All this "What's right for you is okay" logic doesn't make sense either. What hitler did was commit mass genocide. What gays do is love the same sex. Oooh, horrible, men loving men. Homosexuality doesn't hurt people, but genocide tends to.

 

[Kitten]

I found it funny that they put drinking on the same level as adultery and murder. Not that it was necessarily intentional.

 

[Pluvia's other account]

What's even the point to being against something that doesn't even affect you? I've never understood why people are against gay marriage. If you're straight, great, you can already get married to whoever you want of the opposite sex, marriage is all set and simple for you. If you're gay, not so much. For some odd reason, there's all these people against you and your partner being able to get married because it stomps all over their holy matrimony.

This is exactly what I was going to say.

 

[Royblazer]

*proceeds to skip most of the pages*

I read about this from another board. But basically, what I said there I'll say here. I see nothing wrong with this. I didn't even know it was banned in the first place (apparently it was.) People always want to argue about something. People always impose their beliefs on others who don't give a crap.

 

[Mugquomp]

Actually, looking at the issue of incest, regarding marriage (as part of the "slippery slope" argument that darkatma quoted), there is actually a lot more there than meets the eye. I don't mean to compare this to gay marriage (because they are two very separate issues), but it does have some similarities as far as being another cultural taboo.

First of all, children who are born from two closely related individuals will have a greater probability of showing genetic deficiencies. However, this is only for very close genetic relatives, like siblings or a parent and their offspring. This should be avoided, and is rightly a cultural taboo across all of human societies, because it does not produce viable children. Just look at what happened to the Hapsburg royal family in Europe. They died out because of too much interbreeding with closely related relatives.

However, the offspring of two cousins does not really have this genetic problem. There is a slightly elevated risk of birth defects, but it's very small, and comparable to a woman who has a child over the age of 40 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousin_couple). Additionally, I learned in an Anthropology class about 3 years ago that the words for husband and wife in Ya̧nomamö (the language of the Ya̧nomamö tribe of the northern Amazon) are the exact same words as for cousin (depending on if it's a male or female cousin of course...think Spanish primo and prima). Why is this? Because in Ya̧nomamö culture, you marry your cousin. That's just how it works. The whole issue of incest in this case in completely culturally based. The Ya̧nomamö would think you were strange for not marrying your cousin.

Just some food for thought.

Almost everything in life carries some cultural baggage with it, and gay marriage is no exception. But our goal as intelligent, thinking, rational people is to strive to see beyond our own culture, and reevaluate what it deems appropriate. Otherwise you're just blindly following others.

 

[DoH]

Are you kidding? Coming out in high school is suicide. I dropped out of highschool to start college early.

FALSE.

I came out (in Texas, during the campaign for a ban on gay marriage in 2003ish?) and ended up winning prom queen.

Atma sent me a PM asking for help for a response to his school's email. Here are some of my thoughts.

http://smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=96699

Most of the answers that you seek can be found in my DWYP thread.

As far as the proselytizing goes, what they are asking us to do is to deny who we are. They are asking us to no longer be gay. It's as if they are asking us to no longer breathe, to live an unfulfilled life, because of their arbitrary moralistic interpretations. They are denying us the access to love, what they claim is the greatest of G-d's gifts, because they disapprove of how our love manifests itself.

The problem with Christian argumentation against homosexuality is that there's nothing inherently detrimental with being gay. Some may point to statistics that gay (men in particular) persons suffer from higher rates of depression, suicide, disease, eating disorders, etc, but when think about how persecuted we are as a people, the causation of all those is directly in correlation with the reality in which we live. Most gay people have the ability to live happy and full lives; there are no negative impacts to being gay.

Incest, polygamy and bestiality, however, are different. The main purpose of marriage is not, and never has been, to sanctify love. If the point of marriage were to let everybody seek his ultimate amorous fulfillment, then adultery would be a standard part of the marital package. In fact, society doesn't much care whether spouses love each other, as long as they meet their marital obligations. The purpose of secular marriage, rather, is to bond as many people as possible into committed, stable relationships. Such little societies-within-society not only provide the best environment for raising children, they also domesticate men and ensure that most people have someone whose "job" is to look after them.

Polygamy radically undermines this goal, because if one man has two wives, it follows that some other man has no wife. As Robert Wright notes in his book The Moral Animal, the result is that many low-status males end up unable to wed and dangerously restless. Over time, a society can sanction polygamy only if it is prepared to use harsh measures to repress a menacing underclass of spouseless men. It is no coincidence that no liberal countries have been polygamous, and no polygamous countries have been liberal. In that respect, the one-partner-each rule stands at the very core of a liberal society, by making marriage a goal that everyone can aspire to. Gay marriage, note, is fully in keeping with liberalism's inclusive aspirations. Polygamy absolutely is not.


Incest, of course, may produce impaired children. But incestuous marriage is a horrible idea for a much bigger reason than that. Imagine a society where parents and children viewed each other as potential mates. Just for a start, every child would grow up wondering whether his parents had sexual designs on him, or were "grooming" him as a future spouse. Holding open the prospect of incestuous marriage would devastate family life by, effectively, legitimizing sexual predation within it.

Bestiality has all sorts of problems with it, not just consent but the fact that animals don't have legal status and cannot enter into contracts.

One argument that opponents of gay marriage can never seem to counter is that each of these 'Other' marriages would have to have independent warrants as to why they should be legally recognized. The only time the 'but they get to do it!' argument has ever worked was for women getting the vote, and that was because there was no longer a compelling reason to deny them their right. The same can (and should) be said of the right to gay marriage.

Lastly, their attempt to argue against moral relativism is completely ridiculous if they claim to be Christian. Christianity is a morally relativist interpretation of Judaism. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that Christians can abandon the laws of the Old Testament which has ridiculous prohibitions; if they expect to use Leviticus to condemn us for some good ole fashioned sodomy, then we can condemn them for football and oysters. And tacky polyblends. Modern Christians advocate a personal relationship with Christ and therefore a personal interpretation of the Word; ever since Luther decided that ya'll didn't need a priest to tell you what the Bible said, Christianity has been moving towards the direction of moral relativism. However, the Bible has so many inherent contradictions that it shouldn't be valued as a coherent text; I think it should be more like guidelines, such as a pirate's code.

The bottom line is that all of these arguments fail in a court of law. This is an issue of rights. You cannot use religious texts to deny rights to someone because religion is completely arbitrary in nature. I mean, the Old Testament says it's OK to own slaves if they're from a different country. The words of millennium ago should not dictate our laws today. There's no legal argument for denying gays the right to marry. It's discrimination, and blatantly unconstitutional.

Gay marriage needs to be an issue settled by the federal government. Otherwise, there's a risk of unconstitutionality going on, as a ban on gay marriage violates section 1 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

It's pretty blatant and sickening how little people pay to the constitution when they vote for these things.

Some people also say that liberal activism is bad because it encourages these state bans and such; however, the gay rights movement has stalled in recent years as we failed to gain legislative capital and the Court has become increasingly more conservative. These kind of bans are what was needed to galvanize the public and bring attention to our cause.

 

[SkylerOcon]

FALSE.

I came out (in Texas, during the campaign for a ban on gay marriage in 2003ish?) and ended up winning prom queen.

Atma sent me a PM asking for help for a response to his school's email. Here are some of my thoughts.


Gay marriage needs to be an issue settled by the federal government. Otherwise, there's a risk of unconstitutionality going on, as a ban on gay marriage violates section 1 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

It's pretty blatant and sickening how little people pay to the constitution when they vote for these things.

Some people also say that liberal activism is bad because it encourages these state bans and such; however, the gay rights movement has stalled in recent years as we failed to gain legislative capital and the Court has become increasingly more conservative. These kind of bans are what was needed to galvanize the public and bring attention to our cause.

Another thing I've noticed.

In many schools, they show a program during advisory periods called 'Channel 1'. They love to go on and on about how teen lives are. But of course, they covered everything from hate crimes in schools to eating disorders.

But they seem fearful to talk about homosexuality. We had a thirty-second blurb on the California ruling and that was pretty much it.

If a news program is afraid to talk about gays, then what?

 

[darkatma]

Hey DoH, here's a response to one of your arguments

Hi Youth Alive!

This is my response to the previous email:

To counter the argument of "Nowhere in the Bible does it say that Christians can abandon the laws of the Old Testament which has ridiculous prohibitions"...

In Mark 10: 2-5, it states:
2Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?"
3"What did Moses command you?" he replied. 4They said, "Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away."5"It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus replied. 6"But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.' 7'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife,8and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one. 9Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

This means that, Jesus, as the Messiah, claims that the Law of Moses (Law of the Old Testament) is written for only a specific period of time. Even the Messiah abandons the Law of the Old Testament. So that ultimately proves that Christians can abandon the laws that people nowadays claim as "ridiculous".

This is not to say that Christians do not believe in the Old Testament. In fact, Christians do believe in the Old Testament. It is factual to Christians that God opened the Red Sea, the Arc of the Covenant was built, and Moses guided the Israelites out of Egypt. Only those laws/ideas that no longer correlates to society can be "abandoned". This is why Jesus criticized the pharisees for taking the Old Testament too literally. For example, the pharisees despised Jesus when He disobeyed the Sabbath.

While it doesn't affect the main arguments, I think this would be important to answer, except I'm not sure how to answer it >.<;

edit:
Okay here's how I think I'll respond tmrw..

This means that, Jesus, as the Messiah, claims that the Law of Moses (Law of the Old Testament) is written for only a specific period of time. Even the Messiah abandons the Law of the Old Testament. So that ultimately proves that Christians can abandon the laws that people nowadays claim as "ridiculous".

That should have been worded "I think this means that", because you're making your own interpretation of the text. A better interpretation is that until men's hearts are not hard, then the laws of Moses still stand. Now, morally society has not progressed, even since Moses's days, so you can't argue that "ultimately Christians can abandon laws" that are ridiculous. Even if you did, more power to gays, the laws against them are clearly ridiculous in today's world, as bans on gay marriage are a direct violation of the constitution
[insert DoH's earlier text here]

It's not 'even the Messiah', because Jesus, as God's son, can transcend the laws of the day. Does that mean Christians can, because 'even the Messiah' can? So I'll be walking on water tomorrow because even Jesus can

More importantly, who determines whether the laws of the past apply to us nowadays? Slavery was okay, it's talked about in the Bible. The opposition against gay marriage is much like that of African American rights. The same arguments are being used, the same interpretations from the Bible are being used.

"This is why Jesus criticized the pharisees for taking the Old Testament too literally."

But as we see here, your intepretation differs from my interpretation differs from any other faction's interpretations, and ultimately, they all devolve into infinitely regressive discourse about who's right and who's wrong. That's why my friend mentioned that gay marriage should most be viewed politically, and from a political standpoint, it's clear that this is a right that gays should have.

 

[Crimson King]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/16/samesex.marriage/index.html

Finally started issuing licenses for people to get married. Pretty cool story overall.