The "Gay agenda"

[Karma]

So based on the last few rants in the shoutbox, i decided that it was better to make a seperate thread for this rather than clutter the rant and rave thread.

yes we've had discussions about all things "gay" before and some of degenerated but I think its something that NEEDS to be discussed since obviously we have several gay members on the board; some OTHER members who are strongly AGAINST "homosexuality"; and i think ALL of us know at least one gay person in our lives be it a family member, friend co worker etc.


so with that said...is there REALLY a "gay agenda"? i mean seriously...what is so HORRIBLE about a class of people wanting acceptence, respect and equal rights/protection garaunted by law? how many OTHER ethnicities or classes within our society have wanted and fought for the same thing in times past throughout american history? and why is it so hard for people to understand that gay people are HUMAN BEINGS just like the rest of us?

Personally i think that in many cases..the people who speak out the LOUDEST against gays having the same rights as straights (marriage, health benefits etc) are the ones who are struggling privately about some issues themselves when it comes to sexuality. I've seen it too many times in my own sphere where guys who are hyper masculine and go out of their way to hurt gay men turn out to be the ones who are most closeted themselves.

I also think that people need to realize that "gay" is not something that just manifested in the 20th century...but like every other group in society that has been oppressed (blacks, women, even CHRISTIANS/religious people) gay people are starting to speak out more and more and fight for what the believe in. its no different than the feminist movement or the civil rights movement in terms of the goal their trying to achieve.

if gay people have to pay taxes just like everyone else then they should have the same rights/protection that the constitution affords straight people/couples. i dondt see why thats so hard to understand. and PLEASE lets not even get started on the subject of the "sanctity of marriage"...we live in a country that gave us the show "who wants to marry a millionare" and we all know how that turned out. we also have shows like "the bachelor" and the "bachelorette", not to mention people like STAR JONES who turn their wedding into one of the biggest media/product placement stunts in recent years[and her dumb ass doesnt even realize that her husband is GAY himself LOL]. America also has the world's highest divorce rate...which started skyrocketing in the early 70's to the point its at now and last but not least..how about the CELEBRITY marraiges...you know the ones that have these elaborate "fairy tale weddings" only to dissolve in some cases only 5 months later!? GIVE ME A BREAK....so please tell me just WHO is disrespecting the state of marraige?

 

[eponinethen]

Where I am at the moment, no one is against gay people, and it's like oh so perfect when it comes to that stuff. Or, at least it's supposed to be. I have never met anyone who would say that they're again gay people or anything. Everyone here is supposed to be so great and accepting when it comes to everything "different". But this can really bug me, 'cause even though people here believe that they are oh so great and accept everything.. they're still so surprised when you tell them you're gay.. None of my friends or family care at all, I don't know, I'm just rambling now but.. It just bugs me when people pretent to be ok with stuff, when they're really not..
Not to mention where I go to school.. Where people tend to joke (in a bad way) about people being gay.. Doesn't bug me that much, I just never experienced that before.. And they seem to think I'm joking when I tell them I'm gay

 

[Anchovy]

I don't think there's a "Gay Agenda" in the sense that a lot of people mean when they use that term: they mean some giant movement of gay people to corrupt the young or the government or whatever. I do think that there are gay people and groups for them who are working to ensure that gay people receive the same considerations and rights as straight people. I think to claim that that movement or idea is in some way detrimental to society or bringing anyone else down is just paranoia.

 

[Foxfire]

I'm gonna be completely blunt and probably brutal, so I apologize upfront. But I detest those other people such as blacks and Hispanics who can't "understand" the homosexuality side. What the hell?! Seriously minorities were bashed, revoked from rights, and so much more. How can they judge us?

If we're gonna get religious I can equally throw in the bible and say where does it say "black men and white women?" It doesn't, at least not to my knowledge. Just like it doesn't say Adam and David or Elizabeth and Mary.

What angers me the most is Gay people fight for their rights INCLUDING myself! I'm currently engaged but that's considered "sick" or "against god's way." You know what? FUCK that! I agree with Brandon, love with your heart not hate.

For years gay people have fought but guess what? People who are homophobic cannot terminate us...look at television, radio, entertainment. Guys who watch porno get OFF by that? Why? They like lesbians. Again why? Maybe because they cant have them or its a fantasy.

I'm getting off topic but I agree with Farrah and An, we're entitled to our rights. People are afraid of the unknown and they try to define that by throwing in religious artifacts like the bible. Guess what? Not gonna work. Love is blind....especially with gender. We live in America we deserve every right as Heterosexuals.

You don't see me bashing straight folks and I don't push my homosexuality onto them. Why? Because I respect them! This country is so hypocritical in the "united we stand." How are we united? Do we love, dress, earn all the same? No. No matter what gender, sexuality, religion we're different.

I say we're entitled to rights and more and those who stand in our way they're in a rude awakening. We're all gonna fight for it, including myself! Just like women and blacks in the past, the gay community will have our rights and like it or not it will be accepted...someday or somehow.

But I agree with you Farrah. Those men who bash gay members are secretly in denial. Just look at the movie Cursed. A straight wannabe character provokes a straight character to hide his sexuality.

 

[ZorCrow]

This article best describes The Gay Agenda . . . I concur with the author.

WARNING: MAJOR MOVIE SPOILERS BELOW


*

*

*

*

[FONT=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]his is a WorldNetDaily printer-friendly version of the article which follows.
To view this item online, visit http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48076 [/FONT] [/FONT] [FONT=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times]

[/FONT]
[FONT=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times]Tuesday, December 27, 2005
[/FONT]
[FONT=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times]

[/FONT] [FONT=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times][FONT=Palatino,][SIZE=+2]'Brokeback Mountain':
Rape of the Marlboro Man[/FONT]
[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times][SIZE=-1]Posted: December 27, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern

Editor's note: Recently, WND Managing Editor David Kupelian, author of the best-selling book, "The Marketing of Evil," was widely quoted in the news media for his criticism of the new film "Brokeback Mountain." Here, Kupelian explains how and why the controversial movie is one of the most powerful homosexual propaganda films of our time. [/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times][FONT=Palatino,]By David Kupelian
[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times][FONT=Palatino,][SIZE=-1] © 2005 WorldNetDaily.com [/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times][FONT=Palatino,]"Brokeback Mountain," the controversial "gay cowboy" film that has garnered seven Golden Globe nominations and breathless media reviews – and has now emerged as a front-runner for the Oscars – is a brilliant propaganda film, reportedly causing viewers to change the way they feel about homosexual relationships and same-sex marriage. [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times][FONT=Palatino,]And how do the movie-makers pull off such a dazzling feat? Simple. They do it by raping the "Marlboro Man," that revered American symbol of rugged individualism and masculinity. [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times][FONT=Palatino,]We all know the Marlboro Man. In "The Marketing of Evil," I show how the Philip Morris Company made marketing history by taking one of the most positive American images of all time – the cowboy – and attaching it to a negative, death-oriented product – cigarettes. [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times][FONT=Palatino,]Hit the pause button for a moment so this idea can completely sink in: Cigarette marketers cleverly attached, in the public's mind, two utterly unrelated things: 1) the American cowboy, with all of the powerful feelings that image evokes in us, of independence, self-confidence, wide-open spaces and authentic Americanism, and 2) cigarettes, a stinky, health-destroying waste of money. This legendary advertising campaign targeting men succeeded in transforming market underdog Marlboro (up until then, sold as a women's cigarette with the slogan "Mild as May") into the world's best-selling cigarette. [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times][FONT=Palatino,] [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times][FONT=Palatino,]It was all part of the modern marketing revolution, which meant that, instead of touting a product's actual benefits, marketers instead would psychologically manipulate the public by associating their product with the fulfillment of people's deepest, unconscious needs and desires. (Want to sell liquor? Put a seductive woman in the ad.) Obviously, the marketers could never actually deliver on that promise – but emotional manipulation sure is an effective way to sell a lot of products. [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times][FONT=Palatino,]The "Marlboro Man" campaign launched 50 years ago. Today, the powerful cowboy image is being used to sell us on another self-destructive product: homosexual sex and "gay" marriage. [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times][FONT=Palatino,]'People's minds have been changed' [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times][FONT=Palatino,]In "Brokeback Mountain," a film adaptation of the 1997 New Yorker short story by Annie Proulx, two 19-year-old ranchers named Ennis Del Mar (Heath Ledger) and Jack Twist (Jake Gyllenhaal) have been hired to guard sheep on a rugged mountain in 1963 Wyoming. One night, the bitter cold drives Ennis into Jack's tent so they can keep each other warm. As they lie there, suddenly and almost without warning, these two young men – both of whom later insist they're not "queer" – jump out of the sack and awkwardly and violently engage in anal sex. [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times][FONT=Palatino,]Too embarrassed the next morning even to talk about it, Ennis and Jack dismiss their sexual encounter as a "one-shot deal" and part company at the end of the sheepherding job. Ennis marries his fiancée Alma (Michelle Williams, Ledger's real-life girlfriend) while Jack marries female rodeo rider and prom queen Lureen (Anne Hathaway). Each family has children. [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times][FONT=Palatino,]Four years later, Jack sends Ennis a postcard saying he's coming to town for a visit. When the moment finally arrives, Ennis, barely able to contain his anticipation, rushes outside to meet Jack and the two men passionately embrace and kiss. Ennis's wife sadly witnesses everything through the screen door. (Since this is one of the film's sadder moments, I wasn't quite sure why the audience in the Portland, Oregon, theater burst out in laughter at Alma's heartbreaking realization.) [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times][FONT=Palatino,]From that point on, over the next two decades Ennis and Jack take off together on periodic "fishing trips" at Brokeback Mountain, where no fishing actually takes place. During these adulterous homosexual affairs, Jack suggests they buy a ranch where the two can live happily ever after, presumably abandoning their wives and children. Ennis, however, is afraid, haunted by a traumatic childhood memory: It seems his father had tried to inoculate him against homosexuality by taking him to see the brutalized, castrated, dead body of a rancher who had lived together with another man – until murderous, bigoted neighbors committed the gruesome hate crime. [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times][FONT=Palatino,]Eventually, life with Ennis becomes intolerable and Alma divorces him, while Lureen, absorbed with the family business, only suspects Jack's secret as they drift further and further apart. When, toward the end of the story, Jack dies in a freak accident (his wife tells Ennis a tire blew up while Jack was changing it, propelling the hubcap into his face and killing him), Ennis wonders whether Jack actually met the same brutal fate as the castrated "gay" cowboy of his youth. [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times][FONT=Palatino,]Ultimately, Ennis ends up alone, with nothing, living in a small, secluded trailer, having lost both his family and his homosexual partner. He's comforted only by his most precious possession – Jack's shirt – which he pitifully embraces, almost in a slow dance, his aching loneliness masterfully projected into the audience via the film's artistry. [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times][FONT=Palatino,]Yes, the talents of Hollywood's finest are brought together in a successful attempt at making us experience Ennis's suffering, supposedly inflicted by a homophobic society. Heath Ledger's performance is brilliant and devastating. We do indeed leave the theater feeling Ennis's pain. Mission accomplished. [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times][FONT=Palatino,]Lost in all of this, however, are towering, life-and-death realities concerning sex and morality and the sanctity of marriage and the preciousness of children and the direction of our civilization itself. So please, you moviemakers, how about easing off that tight camera shot of Ennis's suffering and doing a slow pan over the massive wreckage all around him? What about the years of silent anguish and loneliness Alma stoically endures for the sake of keeping her family together, or the terrible betrayal, suffering and tears of the children, bereft of a father? None of this merits more than a brief acknowledgment in "Brokeback Mountain." [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times][FONT=Palatino,]What is important to the moviemakers, rather, is that the viewer be made to feel, and feel, and feel again as deeply as possible the exquisitely painful loneliness and heartache of the homosexual cowboys – denied their truest happiness because of an ignorant and homophobic society. [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times][FONT=Palatino,]Thus are the Judeo-Christian moral values that formed the very foundation and substance of Western culture for the past three millennia all swept away on a delicious tide of manufactured emotion. And believe me, skilled directors and actors can manufacture emotion by the truckload. It's what they do for a living. [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times][FONT=Palatino,]Co-star Jake Gyllenhaal realized the movie's power to transform audiences in Toronto, where, according to Entertainment magazine, "he was approached by festival-goers proclaiming that their preconceptions had been shattered by the film's insistence on humanizing gay love." [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times][FONT=Palatino,]"Brokeback Mountain," said Gyllenhaal, "is that pure place you take someone that's free of judgment. These guys were scared. What they feared was not each other but what was outside of each other. What was so sad was that it didn't have to happen like that." But then, said the article, Gyllenhaal jumped to his feel and exclaimed triumphantly: "I mean, people's minds have been changed. That's amazing." [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times][FONT=Palatino,]Changed indeed. And that's the goal. Film is, by its very nature, highly propagandistic. That is, when you read a book, if you detect you're being lied to or manipulated, you can always stop reading, close the book momentarily and say, "Wait just a minute, there's something wrong here!" You can't do that in a film: You're bombarded with sound and images, all expertly crafted to give you selected information and to stimulate certain feelings, and you can't stop the barrage, not in a theater anyway. The visuals and sound and music – and along with them, the underlying agenda of the filmmakers – pursue you relentlessly, overwhelming your emotions and senses. [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times][FONT=Palatino,]And when you leave the theater, unless you're really objective to what you've experienced, you've been changed – even if just a little bit. [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times][FONT=Palatino,]Want to know how easily your feelings can be manipulated? Let's take the smallest, most seemingly insignificant example and see. Sit down at a piano and play a song, any song – even "Mary Had a Little Lamb" – as long as it's in a major key. Then, play the same song, but change from a major to a minor key; just lower the third step of the scale by a half-step so the melody and harmony become minor. If you watch carefully, you'll note this one tiny change makes the minor-key version sound a bit melancholy and sad, while the normal, major-key version sounds bright and happy. (As the expression goes, "Major glad, minor sad.") [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times][FONT=Palatino,]Now take this principle and apply it to a feature film by expanding it a million-fold. A movie's musical score has one overriding function – to make the viewer feel a certain way at strategic points during the story. And music is just one of dozens of factors and techniques used to influence audiences in the deepest way possible. Everything from the script to the directing to the camera work to the acting, which in "Brokeback Mountain" is brilliant, serve the purpose of making the movie-makers' vision seem like reality – even if it's twisted and perverse. [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times][FONT=Palatino,]Do we understand that Hollywood could easily produce a similar movie to "Brokeback Mountain," only this time glorifying an incest relationship, or even an adult-child sexual relationship? Like "Brokeback," it too would serve to desensitize us to the immoral and destructive reality of what we're seeing, while fervently coaxing us into embracing that which we once rightly shunned. [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times][FONT=Palatino,]All the filmmakers would need to do is skillfully make viewers experience the actors' powerful emotions of loneliness and emptiness – juxtaposed with feelings of joy and fulfillment when the two "lovers" are together – to bring us to a new level of "understanding" for any forbidden "love." Alongside this, of course, they would necessarily portray those opposed to this unorthodox "love" as Nazis or thugs. Thus, many of us would let go of our "old-fashioned" biblical ideas of morality in light of what seems like the more imminent and undeniable reality of human love in all its diverse forms. [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times][FONT=Palatino,]A "Brokeback"-type movie could easily be made, for instance, to portray a female school teacher's affair with a 14-year-old student as "a magnificent love story." And I'm not talking about the 2000 made-for-TV potboiler, "All-American Girl: The Mary Kay Letourneau Story," about the Seattle school teacher who seduced a sixth-grade student, went to prison for statutory rape, and later married the boy having had two children by him. I'm talking about a big-budget, big-name Hollywood masterpiece aimed at transforming America through film, just as Hitler relied on master filmmaker Leni Riefenstahl to make propaganda films to manipulate the emotions of an entire nation. [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times][FONT=Palatino,]In place of "Brokeback Mountain's" scene with the castrated homosexual, the "adult-child love story" could have a similar scene in which, as a young girl, the future teacher's mother took her to see the body of a woman who had fallen in consensual "love" with a 14-year-old boy, only to be brutalized, her breasts cut off, and bludgeoned to death – all by Nazi-like bigoted neighbors. (So that's why she couldn't be honest and open about her later relationship with her student.) [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times][FONT=Palatino,]Inevitably, such a film would make us doubt our former condemnation of adult-child sex, or at least reduce our outrage as we gained more "understanding" and sympathy for the participants. It would cause us to ask the same question one reviewer asked after seeing "Brokeback Mountain": "In an age when the fight over gay marriage still rages, 'Brokeback Mountain,' the tale of two men who are scarcely even allowed to imagine being together, asks, through the very purity with which it touches us: When it comes to love, what sort of world do we really want?" [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times][FONT=Palatino,]OK, I'll bite. Let's talk about love. The critics call "Brokeback Mountain" a "pure" and "magnificent" love story. Do we really want to call such an obsession – especially one that destroys marriages and is based on constant lies, deceit and neglect of one's children – "love"? [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times][FONT=Palatino,]What if I were a heroin addict and told you I loved my drug dealer? What if I told you he always makes me feel good, and that I have a hard time living without him, and that I think about him all the time with warm feelings of anticipation and inner completion? And that whenever we get together, it's the only time I feel truly happy and at peace with myself? [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times][FONT=Palatino,]Oh, you don't approve of my "love"? You dare to criticize it, telling me my relationship with my drug dealer is not real love, but just an unhealthy addiction? What if I respond to you by saying, "Oh shut up, you hater. How dare you impose your sick, narrow-minded, oppressive values on me? Who are you, you pinch-faced, moralistic hypocrite, to define for me what real love is?" [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times][FONT=Palatino,]Don't laugh. I guarantee Hollywood could make a movie about a man and his drug dealer, or an adult-child sexual relationship, that would pull on our emotions and create some level of sympathy for the characters. Furthermore, in at least some cases, it would make us doubt our conscience – a gift directly from God, the perception of right and wrong that he puts in each one of us – our inner knowing that this was a totally unhealthy and self-destructive relationship. [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times][FONT=Palatino,]Ultimately, propaganda works because it washes over us, overwhelming our senses, confusing us, upsetting or emotionalizing us, and thereby making us doubt what we once knew. Listen to what actor Jake Gyllenhaal, who plays Jack, told the reporter for Entertainment magazine about doing the "love" scenes with Heath Ledger: [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times][FONT=Palatino,]"I was super uncomfortable … [but] what made me most courageous was that I realized I had to try to let go of that stereotype I had in my mind, that bit of homophobia, and try for a second to be vulnerable and sensitive. It was f---in' hard, man. I succeeded only for milliseconds." [/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times][FONT=Palatino,]Gyllenhaal thinks he was "super uncomfortable" while being filmed having simulated homosexual sex because of his own "homophobia." Could it be, rather, that his conflict resulted from putting himself in a position, having agreed to do the film, where he was required to violate his own conscience? As so often happens, he was tricked into pushing past invisible internal barriers – crossing a line he wasn't meant to cross. It's called seduction. [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times][FONT=Palatino,]This is how the "marketers of evil" work on all of us. They transform our attitudes by making us feel as though our "super uncomfortable" feelings toward embracing unnatural or corrupt behavior of whatever sort – a discomfort literally put into us by a loving God, for our protection – somehow represent ignorance or bigotry or weakness. [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times][FONT=Palatino,]I wrote "The Marketing of Evil" to expose these people, and especially to reveal the hidden techniques they've been using for decades to confuse us, to manipulate our feelings and get us to doubt and turn our backs on the truth we once knew and loved. Indeed, whether they're outright lying to us, or ridiculing us for our traditional beliefs, or trying to make us feel guilty over some supposed bigotry on our part, the "marketers of evil" can prevail simply by intimidating or emotionally stirring us up in one way or another. Once that happens, we can easily become confused and lose the inborn understanding God gave us. We all need that inner understanding or common sense, because it's our primary protection from all the evil influences in this world. [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times][FONT=Palatino,]As I said at the outset, Hollywood has now raped the Marlboro Man. It has taken a revered symbol of America – the cowboy – with all the powerful emotions and associations that are rooted deep down in the pioneering American soul, and grafted onto it a self-destructive lifestyle it wants to force down Americans' throats. The result is a brazen propaganda vehicle designed to replace the reservations most Americans still have toward homosexuality with powerful feelings of sympathy, guilt over past "homophobia" – and ultimately the complete and utter acceptance of homosexuality as equivalent in every way to heterosexuality. [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times][FONT=Palatino,]If and when that day comes, America will have totally abandoned its core biblical principles – as well as the Author of those principles. The radical secularists will have gotten their wish, and this nation – like the traditional cowboy characters corrupted in "Brokeback Mountain" – will have stumbled down a sad, self-destructive and ultimately disastrous road. [/FONT][/FONT]

 

[Mat]

Hit the pause button for a moment so this idea can completely sink in: Cigarette marketers cleverly attached, in the public's mind, two utterly unrelated things: 1) the American cowboy, with all of the powerful feelings that image evokes in us, of independence, self-confidence, wide-open spaces and authentic Americanism, and 2) cigarettes, a stinky, health-destroying waste of money.

As a North Dakotan, I am more than qualified to define what a cowboy or so-called "Marlbobo Man" is. Cigarettes and the American cowboys are in no way mutually exclusive, nor have they been since cigarettes came about.

Today, the powerful cowboy image is being used to sell us on another self-destructive product: homosexual sex and "gay" marriage.

Last I checked two gay people manifesting their affection for one another physically didn't cause cancer. Nor are homosexual relationships "marketed" to make money off of other people's potentially life-threatening habits.

At this point I'm going to stop referencing what was written because you failed to mention that your post contained major spoilers. Thanks a bunch, man. I really needed to know character A was going to die.

I commented in the rant and rave thread about what you posted Zorcrow. And I've made it a point not to post in this thread (which has been around for quite some time) because I was honestly a little tired of the debate, and even figured it's not my war to wage. I was wrong.

In the future I'll try to steer clear of the apathy. You, on the other hand, would benefit well by approaching matters like homosexual marriage with lackadaisical interest.

 

[Black Widow]

FIRST of all... I would like to say, I read what Mr. Kupelian had to say with an open mind. I tried my very best to entertain his MOST ridiculous theory.

Secondly, like Mat, I was very upset to stumble upon spoilers. Crow, a warning would have been polite, and much appreciated.

Now, with that said, I'm going to counter, because I believe that man's arguement is crap.

I'm really ready to puke on the sanctitiy of marriage arguement. WHAT sanctity of marriage? Can anyone tell me what the DIVORCE rate in this country is? over 60%, right? and that, my fine readers, we did ALL by our heterosexual selves. SANCTITY, by its very definition, means that something is sacred, holy even. What is sacred about marriage when any ole joe and his pal sally can pop into Vegas, get absolutely plastered, stuble into a 'chapel', and get married in an enebriated stupor, only to wake up the next morning and get it annuled? What is so sacred about marriage, when most dont last more than 5 years? So excuse me if I hurl, because the 'sanctity of marriage' is a whole bunch of shit that I ain't trying to hear.

I disagree, and strongly, with his Hollywood is using this movie to brainwash us and override our sense of right and wrong. What I feel is immoral or unethical might not be what YOU feel is, and vice versa. Ethics and Morality are both very GRAY AREA things, by nature, and beyond that, they are NOT god-given, imho. They are TAUGHT. Someone who is raised in a world where its kill or be killed on a daily basis is not about to have a crisis of conscience about spilling a little blood. Someone who is raised in the bible belt would feel it was VERY wrong to engage in any kind of sexual activity before marriage. Some people are liers, cheats and philanderers, and they have no problem with that because they weren't taught against it. Others hold themselves to much stricter standards. It is something utterly and completely dependant on how you are raised and your own PERSONAL convictions.

This nonsense about the "gay agenda'' can be dismissed as well. if the homosexual community has ANY agenda, it is for equality. It joins the ranks of many in the struggle for such recognition as equals. Not too very long ago WOMEN were fighting for equal rights. Did we argue incessantly about the 'feminine agenda'? [I know some did, but don't you see my point?] And what about the African-American struggle for segregation and the opportunity to be treated as HUMAN BEINGS and not property to be bought/sold/traded? The 'BLACK Agenda'??

My sincerest apologies is this offends ANYONE, but to me Crow, Kupelian sounds like a self righteous pig who would treat me as inferior TO MY FACE and call you an ignorant nigger behind your back. And that's the vibe that kept getting stronger the longer i read this article.

 

[Karma]

FIRST of all... I would like to say, I read what Mr. Kupelian had to say with an open mind. I tried my very best to entertain his MOST ridiculous theory.

i couldnt even go into WITH an open mind because i KNEW that since our dear Zorcrow was posting it..it was going to something biased against gays. lol

I'm really ready to puke on the sanctitiy of marriage arguement. WHAT sanctity of marriage? Can anyone tell me what the DIVORCE rate in this country is? over 60%, right? and that, my fine readers, we did ALL by our heterosexual selves. SANCTITY, by its very definition, means that something is sacred, holy even. What is sacred about marriage when any ole joe and his pal sally can pop into Vegas, get absolutely plastered, stuble into a 'chapel', and get married in an enebriated stupor, only to wake up the next morning and get it annuled? What is so sacred about marriage, when most dont last more than 5 years? So excuse me if I hurl, because the 'sanctity of marriage' is a whole bunch of shit that I ain't trying to hear.

BINGO! you've said what i've said in arguments similar on other boards and offline before. what exactly IS the "uproar" over? "the sanctity of marriage" has been a fading memory since the 1960s because starting the the 1970's on through the 90s and to the present (particularly 1973) the divorce rate IN AMERICA jumped by 200 % and we now lead the WORLD in divorce rate. We have the HIGHEST occurrence of domestic violence and spousal abuse in the world and if marraige is so "scared" why would shows like "CHEATERS" be THRIVING on American Television where real life cheaters are exposed ...and there's a NEVER ENDING supply of couples for THAT. not to mention we live in a country which has given us such television programs as Who wants to MARRY a millionare- anyone remember the fiasco that was Rick Rockwell and Darva Conger and what THAT TURNED OUT LIKE? ; Who wants to Marry my Dad and the never ending program macro that is The Bachelor- and in the case of THIS show..NONE of the "Bachelors" have found true wedded bliss. Now if marriage is so special and sacred, please explain why even the american television industry is exploiting it? and please explain how allowing gays the same right to legally marry their partners is going to make the sun crash on the earth or any OTHER meltdown in society predicted by conservatives and religious extremists?

This nonsense about the "gay agenda'' can be dismissed as well. if the homosexual community has ANY agenda, it is for equality. It joins the ranks of many in the struggle for such recognition as equals. Not too very long ago WOMEN were fighting for equal rights. Did we argue incessantly about the 'feminine agenda'? [I know some did, but don't you see my point?] And what about the African-American struggle for segregation and the opportunity to be treated as HUMAN BEINGS and not property to be bought/sold/traded? The 'BLACK Agenda'??

I agree here as well. Gay people are doing the exact same thing that women and blacks have been doing for decades...they are standing together to fight for their rights..BASIC rights at that. Women had to fight for the right to VOTE...to be recognized as citizens on par with MEN in this country. We had to fight for EQUAL PAY in the work place when performing the same jobs as our male counterparts and we have the qualifications for it...and lets not forget our on going "right to choose" which is something coming under attack from ALL SIDES (though it still confuses me why any MAN should have ANYTHING to say about that). No one can ignore the ongoing struggle that blacks in america have been involved in....and its still going on. Fighting for the most basic rights... to be treated like human beings...NOT property [doesnt it seem ridiculous and EMBARRASSING that this is something apart of american history?? and this is supposed to be the "land of the free...home of the brave"] CIVIL RIGHTS, the right to vote. Would anyone suggest taking the rights of Black americans away? would anyone so casually suggest that THEY do not deserve the rights they have fought for and the things they are still fighting for? I highly doubt it. so WHY then do people still find it so EASY to discount gay people and minimize them? when are people going to GET A CLUE?

people who accuse Gays of having an "agenda" simply because they want the same rights and protection afforded everyone ELSE under the constitution need to THINK for a moment and see how they would feel if it were THEIR ethnic group/gender/class that was being so badly mistreated and scrutinized.

 

[ZorCrow]

First of all the high divorce rate doesn't mean there isn't any sanctity in marriage. If you take out the "hollywood" marriages, and all the "immigration related" marriages you will find the divorce rate a lot lower than posted. Also the responses on this board or overtly typical.

The things you have to realize is with justice Alito a hard nose conservative coming to the court, things will change in this nation.

Why is it that over and over again the public has voted down gay marriage laws. Americans don't want gay marriage.

Secondly, you forget the federal defense of marriage act, signed by Bill Clinton marriage is one man one woman according to U.S. law.

Thirdly, many states still except for a few liberal states don't recognize gay marriage. You have liberal judges changing law that states made, pretty soon it's going to end up at the Supreme Court and with Alito and Roberts on it .. it's going to be 5-4 and marriage will finally get a real definition that know judge can play with. Also, abortion is going to go the way of the dinosaur as well.

These aren't rights, being gay is a personal choice about a sexual life and many people make personal choices from consensual adult male to female to group sex. Just because a person chooses to make this their sexual choice
they shouldn't be given the rights that our society for hundreds of years have deemed important and essential.

I may be in the minority on this website but I am not in the general public.
Once these laws are put in place then this debate along with the abortion fiasco will cease to be meaningless.

The gay agenda was clearly stated in the article and it is clearly shown to have affect in our society. Viacom which owns BET, MTV, CBS and Infinity radio broadcasting (800 stations) constantly put out negative images of Afro Americans and ignore positive hip hop and real hip hop artists, but they are quick to push the gay agenda on folks.

If I offend folks by telling them the truth, then let them be offended. The embrace of homosexuality and pornography in our culture will not be for it's benefit but for it's decline.

Love, love isn't being buddy buddy or emotion, love is telling someone when they are wrong.

 

[ZorCrow]

From the 'Lectric Law Library's stacks
"Defense Of Marriage Act" 5/96 H.R. 3396 Summary/Analysis

Congress of the United States
House of Representatives

SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS

DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT
AS INTRODUCED ON MAY 7, 1996

BY REPS. BOB BARR (GA), STEVE LARGENT (OK), JIM SENSENBRENNER (WI), SUE
MYRICK (NC), ED BRYANT (TN), BILL EMERSON (MO), HAROLD VOLKMER (MO), IKE
SKELTON (MO)

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) does two things. First, it provides
that no State shall be required to give effect to a law of any other
State with respect to a same-sex "marriage." Second, it defines the
words "marriage" and "spouse" for purposes of Federal law.

The first substantive section of the bill is an exercise of Congress'
power under the "Effect" clause of Article IV, section 1 of the
Constitution (the Full Faith and Credit Clause) to allow each State (or
other political jurisdiction) to decide for itself whether it wants to
grant legal status to same-sex "marriage." This provision is necessary
in light of the possibility of Hawaii giving sanction to same-sex
"marriage" under its state law, as interpreted by its state courts, and
other states being placed in the position of having to give "full faith
and credit" to Hawaii's interpretation of what constitutes "marriage."
Although so-called "conflicts of law" principles do not necessarily
compel such a result, approximately 30 states of the union are
sufficiently alarmed by such a prospect to have initiated legislative
efforts to defend themselves against any compulsion to acknowledge same-
sex "marriage."

This is a problem most properly resolved by invoking Congress' authority
under the Constitution to declare what "effect" one State's acts,
records, and judicial proceedings shall have in another State. Congress
has invoked this authority recently on two other occasions; in the
Parental Kidnaping Prevention Act of 1980, which required each State to
enforce child custody determinations made by the home State if made
consistently with the provisions of the Act; and in the Full Faith and
Credit for child Support Order Act of 1994, which required each State to
enforce child support orders made by the child's State if made
consistently with the provisions of the Act.

The second substantive section of the bill amends the U.S. Code to make
explicit what has been understood under federal law for over 200 years;
that a marriage is the legal union of a man and a woman as husband and
wife, and a spouse is a husband or wife of the opposite sex. The DOMA
definition of marriage is derived most immediately from a Washington
state case from 1974, Singer v. Hara, which is included in the 1990
edition of Black's Law Dictionary. More than a century ago, the U.S.
Supreme Court spoke of the "union for life of one man and one woman in
the holy estate of matrimony." Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U.S. 15, 45
(1985).

DOMA is not meant to affect the definition of "spouse" (which under the
Social Security law, for example, runs to dozens of lines). It ensures
that whatever definition of "spouse" may be used in Federal law, the
word refers only to a person of the opposite sex.
------

104th CONGRESS 2D SESSION

H.R. 3396

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Mr. BARR of Georgia (for himself, Mr. LARGENT, Mr. SENSENBRENNER, Ms.
MYRICK, Mr. VOLKMER, Mr. SKELTON, Mr. BRYANT, and Mr. EMERSON)
introduced the following bill, which was referred to the Committee
on_____________

A BILL

To define and protect the institution of marriage.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the "Defense of Marriage Act".

SEC. 2. POWERS RESERVED TO THE STATES.

(a) IN GENERAL. -- Chapter 115 of title 28, United States Code, is
amended by adding after section 1738B the following:

Section 1738C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect
thereof

"No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian
tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or
judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe
respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is
treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory,
possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such
relationship."

(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT. -- The table of sections at the beginning of
chapter 115 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by inserting
after the item relating to section 1738B the following new item: "1738C.
Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect thereof."

SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE.

(a) IN GENERAL. -- Chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended
by adding at the end the following:

"Section 7. Definition of 'marriage' and 'spouse'

"In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling,
regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and
agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal
union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word
'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or
a wife."

(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT. -- The table of sections at the beginning of
chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by inserting after
the item relating to section 6 the following new item:

"7. Definition of 'marriage' and 'spouse'."

-----
Brought to you by - The 'Lectric Law Library
The Net's Finest Legal Resource For Legal Pros & Laypeople Alike.
http://www.lectlaw.com

 

[Nerull]

Okay I'll bite Zor. The below intrigued me:

"I may be in the minority on this website but I am not in the general public.
Once these laws are put in place then this debate along with the abortion fiasco will cease to be meaningless."

So that makes it OK to say that gay marriage is unwanted by many ? After your post about the "Gay Agenda" according to Kupelian All I see is someone very, very scared of the unknown.

And as for the:

"then this debate along with the abortion fiasco will cease to be meaningless."

I think you'd better explain yourself there as well m'boy. :censored:

 

[Dapper Dan]

First of all the high divorce rate doesn't mean there isn't any sanctity in marriage. If you take out the "hollywood" marriages, and all the "immigration related" marriages you will find the divorce rate a lot lower than posted. Also the responses on this board or overtly typical.

Hmmm... unfortunately such pop culture is a major part of life in the US... you can't discount such things simply because they are different. They are in this country and as such stand among the data. You can't be selective with your data and exclude certain factors.... it wouldn't be truly representative. Certain shows aside... there are still plenty of people who are "serial monagimists" and engage in one marriage after another, only to end up in divorce. Then with Miss Spears' 30 minute marriage... heh. You can't preach sanctity with places like Las Vegas where you can get engaged, have a full ceremony, and be legally wed all in a matter of a couple hours.

Secondly, you forget the federal defense of marriage act, signed by Bill Clinton marriage is one man one woman according to U.S. law.

Ah, now into one of my specialties...law. Technically the wording of this law simply removes the federal government's involvement in the issue. As it does to many things, the act supports the decision of individual states as they see fit to have it included in their state constitutions. The act does not prohibit states from allowing gay marriages, neither does it obligate states to recognize the gay marriages from other states.

Thirdly, many states still except for a few liberal states don't recognize gay marriage. You have liberal judges changing law that states made, pretty soon it's going to end up at the Supreme Court and with Alito and Roberts on it .. it's going to be 5-4 and marriage will finally get a real definition that know judge can play with. Also, abortion is going to go the way of the dinosaur as well.

Maybe...maybe not. But judge-made law is still the law. I can fully guarantee you that liberal judges aren't the only ones who use their positions to inflict their personal beliefs and opinions on society. And fortunately.... 5-4 decisons are usually the ones that get reversed.

These aren't rights, being gay is a personal choice about a sexual life and many people make personal choices from consensual adult male to female to group sex. Just because a person chooses to make this their sexual choice
they shouldn't be given the rights that our society for hundreds of years have deemed important and essential.

The constitution is considered a living document... changing with the times, able to adapt to the changing needs of society. And besides that, there are things we have as rights that aren't expressly granted in the constitution (it's called "implied rights") Privacy is not once expressly stated in the constitution... yet its something that Americans everywhere hold in great regard.... and get really erudite when their privacy is violated. Why should something like homosexuality (which is by no means a recent thing) that has been in fact around since ancient times; not also be extended as an implied right... isn't it something that we've always had? One of the biggest drives for the promotion of "traditional" marriage was to promote facilitation of reproduction. Medical technology being what it was "hundreds of years ago" to quote you.... it was important to have enough humans around because of the high death rate due to disease and other such things... not to mention the average human life expectancy was only up until the 30's or so.... Today people are living to about an average age of 77.... there doesn't need to be such a strong emphasis on reproduction anymore (China can definitely attest to this).

 

[Karma]

First of all the high divorce rate doesn't mean there isn't any sanctity in marriage.

"first of all" Indeed the high divorce rate clearly indicates a LACK OF RESPECT AND REGARD for the supposed "sanctity of marraige and who is this from?....its from HETEROSEXUAL couples so if the "sanctity of marraige" is in trouble...history AND DATA (which dan so wonderfully helped define) more then lends itself to that fact...this has NOTHING to do with gay people wanting the right to have their marraige recognized under the law and enjoy the same EQUAL RIGHTS AND PROTECTION that you or i take for granted.

If you take out the "hollywood" marriages, and all the "immigration related" marriages you will find the divorce rate a lot lower than posted. Also the responses on this board or overtly typical.

im sorry dear, but this is garbage. "hollywood" types are still very much american citizens and as such (as Dan said) are counted in census, and other statistical information involving the trends in the american people. the same for legal immigrants who become naturalized citizens of the country. so you cant exclude them to try to minimize the fact that the "marraige" is now just as exploited as anything else in america.

and AGAIN, how can you even begin to suggest that GAY people will ruin the sanctity of marriage any MORE than shows like who wants to marry a millionare; who wants to marry my dad; the never ending sequels to the bachelor and how about that monumental media circus fiasco that was Star Jones' wedding OR (as Dan said also) Britney Spears' "52 hour" marraige? I live in america and i am proud to be an american but even I think that american television has done MORE to disrespect "the sanctity of marraige" than any gay person ever could..not to mention the fact that divorce rates have gone UP continuously for the last 30 years ..a

 

[ZorCrow]

Nerull: Bush greeted supporters with hope that Roe v. Wade will be overturned. With Alito soon to be on the court . .hopefully the slaughter of the innocent can be legally stopped and we can go back to being a civilized society.

DDD: Good arguments, however, if the new Conservative Supreme Court finally defines marriage as one man one woman striking down gay marriages and civil unions, then that will be law. Also, the good thing about the constitution is that its' hard to change and with the majority of Americans being against this gay agenda spawned by hollywood and the liberal media there will be no changes to it in favor of gays. I was in support of a constitutional amendment defining marriage, which would pass but I don't think any politicians have the guts to push it through congress. The good thing is my state doesn't have gay marriage and hopefully never will.

Binder: You have proven my point exactly. America is in such a moral decline it's time for us to make a stand. With the proflictivity of homosexuality and pornography has come a decline in social values and marriage institutions. Pushing through an agenda that would encourage moral decline would be harmful to our nation. Also, as stated you mention only tid bits, Britney Spears, Vegas,
a failed TV show, the majority of marriages are hard working folks trying to make their relationships work.

Again you made my point the culture is polluted and is destroying nation. It is time for our leadership to draw a line.

 

[Karma]

Binder: You have proven my point exactly. America is in such a moral decline it's time for us to make a stand. With the proflictivity of homosexuality and pornography has come a decline in social values and marriage institutions. Pushing through an agenda that would encourage moral decline would be harmful to our nation. Also, as stated you mention only tid bits, Britney Spears, Vegas,
a failed TV show, the majority of marriages are hard working folks trying to make their relationships work.

Again you made my point the culture is polluted and is destroying nation. It is time for our leadership to draw a line.

NICE TRY Zorcrow but I was NOT justifying your point. I was DISUPTING your assertion (or rather the assertion of the initial article you posted) that the sanctity of marriage is at stake and being disregarded by movies such as Brokeback Mountain. i pointed out that if ANYTHING its things going on within the HETEROSEXUAL community that are more disrespectfull to the sanctity of marraige. How is denying gays their due rights "taking a stand" or "drawing the line"? would you like it if the WHOLE NATION had adopted the laws that many southern states had at one time which made Interracial dating and marriage ILLEGAL? whatever "moral decline" america is in...it is foolish and very bigoted of you or anyone to suggest it rests on the "gay agenda" or that homosexuals alone are responsible for the way times have changed.

there are MANY reasons that could be attributed to the "moral decline" and once upon a time it was deemed that the mere existence of black people was a detriment to our society and groups like the KLAN deemed it their god appointed calling to stamp out the menace and even the GENETIC INFERORITY of the black race. now we ALL know how idiotic, foolish and erroneous THAT is...but here you are, speaking of gays as social deviants.

im not going to go off on my PERSONAL feelings about this oppressive "neo conservative" tide that is trying to gain momentum...i'm just going to say that the way you and anyone else uses religion and biased articles (which are hardly based on facts...but rather personal slanted rhetoric and spin) to justify the dismissal of gays as human beings entitled to equal rights and protectionis VERY saddening to me.

AND, as a WOMAN..im DEEPLY offended at the comments you make about a WOMAN"S RIGHT TO CHOOSE (abortion). Be against "abortion" itself if you want..but dont tell ME , a woman that I cannot have that descision to CHOOSE for myself. its none of yours, any other man's or the governments business. The idea that ANY MAN should have a say in a WOMAN'S CHOICE to do with her body is a TOTAL SLAP IN THE FACE and all these rabid pro lifers who are attempting to push THEIR "AGENDA" on US are the ones who need to be checked..NOT the gay people who simply want their partnerships to be as legally recognized as any hetero marraige (of which more than HALF will end in divorce ANYWAY).

 

[Foxfire]

Leave it to Zorcrow to rile some feathers on the board. But I do give the man credit for having the balls to argue his point, even when most of the board disagrees. And for that I highly respect him despite if I disagree.

However, Zorcrow if I'm not mistake you are a man who indulges in pornography or was that a jest on your part? I don't actually know you as a person, I only know you have strong views on certain provocative subjects. Honestly, I'm growing tired of discussing anything "gay" related. There's only so much I can argue my case with members or the laws in this country.

My point is, how can YOU as an African American tell me, a homosexual what's right and what's wrong? Are you the pope? No. Do you have the power to govern laws? No. I can't comprehend why you argue against my rights when it happened to you or your ancestors years and years ago. I'm pretty sure your a religious man and that's all good and fine, but you have openly admitted to liking "white women." Tell me Mr. Crow, where in the bible does it say a black man and a white woman are meant to be? I don't believe it does and therefore your sinning as much as me. We hear about Adam and Eve, but where is there Monique and Adam? There's not.

You talk about pornography and homosexuality like its "evil" but good sir, your just as "evil" with your interracial love interests. And isn't it true, most black men enjoy anal sex? Isn't that another crime in the bible? A crime that most connect with homosexual men, but heterosexual men are just as guilty.

And that movie, is about two homosexual men trying to keep their love a secret because of how racist this country is. To involve cowboys is a brilliant idea because it shows that not all gay men are "queens" instead its saying these gay men are exactly like straight males. They are rugged, handsome, and strong.

Why didn't they delve into the wives feelings? Because the movie is centered on these characters only. Its a film about two men who love the other and for once the public is getting an inside look at them. Most straight men would want to see the wives reaction and I feel that's the reason they left it out. Throughout history we're always hearing about the opposing sides feelings when this time its the reversal.

I've come to realize America is hypercritical in what they say to the constitution to laws and civil rights. Are we really united and equal? No. We're a diverse nation yet when it comes to gay rights or the "gay agenda" most are against it? Why? Fear of the unknown? I can't say but what I do know is those who oppose it went through the same situation back in the day.

 

[Mat]

Bear in mind Zorcrow that in the past when people who felt morally superior took stands we ended up with lynchings of witches, the downtrodden and poor. We've had many good men and women have their lives ruined because of the McCarthy hearings. And then there's the "great" Ronald Reagan, who turned a blind eye to the aids epidemic in this country because he felt it was strictly a homosexual disease.

And if it's time for our leadership to draw a line, it's not this administration. It's third quarter in a playoff game and the fans are wondering why the coach hasn't pulled the starting quarterback off the field after he keeps fumbling the ball and throwing interceptions (had to get one football analogy in there).

With all the things wrong with the world what do we spend our time trying to change? Violent videogames, the legal, not spiritual union of two men or two women, and every other mundane thing that matters little in the grand scheme of things. What a waste of time. Deal with the real issues and stop making things more difficult than they need to be.

 

[Rampage]

A few things on this thread I figured I would put my two cents into. To ZorCrow:
1) Jesus teaches in the Bible that we must love our neighbor as we love ourselves. A Christian who takes this idea to heart, even if he has a problem with homosexuality, will not seek to curtail the endeavors of others trying to gain their rights as citizens. One who does in the name of God I would suggest is in fact NOT doing his bidding, as God has set HIMSELF as the ultimate judge of wrongdoing. To persecute any of his children in this life is to persecuted by GOD HIMSELF in the next. If God doesn't like gay marriage, he will take care of it, he does not need moralists who have nothing else to do to try to do it for him. God is quite capable.
2) In the Bible, it says that God blew the breath of life into man's lungs, and man BECAME a living soul. It does not say that the embryo became a living soul. If you want to protect human souls from being killed, protest the death penalty. But do not presume that you are protecting human souls when you protest abortion. It's bad enough to try to take over a woman's body, especially for a child you would not put up ONE DIME for, but to hide behind God when the biblical doctrine condemning abortion does NOT exist, puh-leeze.
3) There is a Gay Agenda. It's put forth by gays who say, "Screw this, I want to have the same rights as other. I am paying the same taxes, I should get the same stuff and have the same legal options as everyone else. That's all. And that's what it should be. The funny thing is most of these so-called moralists who preach against gay marriage are only doing the bidding of big business, who want no part of having to extend healthcare and life insurance payouts to these people. For them, the moralists are a great shield to hide behind...

 

[DonDaddyD]

My point is, how can YOU as an African American tell me, a homosexual what's right and what's wrong? Are you the pope? No. Do you have the power to govern laws? No. I can't comprehend why you argue against my rights when it happened to you or your ancestors years and years ago. I'm pretty sure your a religious man and that's all good and fine, but you have openly admitted to liking "white women." Tell me Mr. Crow, where in the bible does it say a black man and a white woman are meant to be? I don't believe it does and therefore your sinning as much as me. We hear about Adam and Eve, but where is there Monique and Adam? There's not.

I'm slowly being drawn into this thread....

Just out of curiousity but where in the bible does it say that a black man and a white woman AREN'T allowed to be together. I'm not religous in any way and only have a humble knowledge on the topic but I'm sure that would have been up there just as much as 'Jesus was black'. Seriously does it say that a black man and white woman shouldn't be together? Because I have never heard that before or seen it in any bible that I have been exposed to.

Now I would personally say that the fight for equal rights is the same but I have argued and continue to do so that your being gay and someone being black are two different things. Yet the quest for equality are just as important.

I don't see the whole issue of gay marriage over here getting married is arguably more of a legal affair than it is religous with more people taking their weddings out of the churches and away from the gaze of the God. In that sense I have no problem with it if two people want to symbolise their love. Let people be if they aren't harming anyone else.

 

[Karma]

Just out of curiousity but where in the bible does it say that a black man and a white woman AREN'T allowed to be together. I'm not religous in any way and only have a humble knowledge on the topic but I'm sure that would have been up there just as much as 'Jesus was black'. Seriously does it say that a black man and white woman shouldn't be together? Because I have never heard that before or seen it in any bible that I have been exposed to.

the bible does NOT state (nor imply for that matter) that a black man could not be with a white woman...many of the people in the bible (if you look at the overall geneaology from the old to new testament) would have qualified as "interracial couples" going by where they came from and their backgrounds etc.

HOWEVER, in america, especially in the south during the era of Jim Crow well through the 1970s...there were actuall laws that DID declare interracial dating and marraige to be ILLEGAL. did that stop people from doing it? no and what happened? the laws were eventually stricken from the books.

and FYI Jesus wasnt "black". according to his geneaology he was JEWISH. anyone can put a racial spin on his ethnicity and while i AGREE that he certainly wasnt the blue eyed, brown wavey haired figure you've seen in everything from the movie "Carrie" to the "Exorcist"...lets NOT get distracted by THAT.