roosmom
Almost Self-Reliant
OK, then I wont feel bad. LOL 
Warning!! Don't bother opening if you're not of the Christian Faith:>)
- Thread starter MorelCabin
- Start date
- Status
FarmerChick
Super Self-Sufficient
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2008
- Messages
- 11,417
- Reaction score
- 14
- Points
- 248
LOL RM!
don't feel bad ever on this board!
don't feel bad ever on this board!
ScottyG
Lovin' The Homestead
Me too! To be honest, I think it's just made up. I've never met anyone who was "politically correct" and believe me, I hang out with some seriously oversensitive liberal people.FarmerChick said:politically correct
OMG I hate that phrase to the max!
But it's such an annoying term. Gah.
VT-Chicklit
Lovin' The Homestead
Unfortunatly, I have noticed lately that some believe the freedom of expression means that their free speech can be used to intimidate. Example: The 20 or so people protesting the result of Californians vote to make marrage the union between a man and woman a part of the state constitution. These 20 or so people invaded an evangelical church service in Michigan to protest. First, it is obvious that the people in Michigan had no vote in California's election (unless Acorn was involved). Second, it is easy to invade a church in rural Michigan to intimidate people. The 20 were obviously in the minority at the church. It is also obvious that this was an intent to intimidate. Thankfully no one was hurt on either side and other than the yelling by the gay marrage advocates, only pamphlets were strewn around the church.
I personally don't care if gay people marry or not. I feel that this, like many things, is between each person and their God, or whomever/ whatever they believe. But, I also believe that the people that voted to have the description of marrage as the union between a man and a woman become a part of the Constitution of California have a right to vote the way they see fit and to have that vote count. Since there was an overwhelming majority of the vote that went that way, on two seperate votes on two different occasions, their voice needs to be heard and attempts to intimidate them and others with the same beliefs should stop. If they do not believe the vote was fairly conducted or that it violates some percieved right, they need to take it to the courts and let it wend its way thru the legal system. Intimidation can cause the end of free speech. That is the goal. It is done in other contries that are not as free as ours. Unfortunatly more and more, I see the free give and take of ideas and debate replaced with one side trying to shout down or silence the other. This goes for those in the extreems on both sides. They seem to feel its ok to skip the debate and go right to intimidation.
I personally don't care if gay people marry or not. I feel that this, like many things, is between each person and their God, or whomever/ whatever they believe. But, I also believe that the people that voted to have the description of marrage as the union between a man and a woman become a part of the Constitution of California have a right to vote the way they see fit and to have that vote count. Since there was an overwhelming majority of the vote that went that way, on two seperate votes on two different occasions, their voice needs to be heard and attempts to intimidate them and others with the same beliefs should stop. If they do not believe the vote was fairly conducted or that it violates some percieved right, they need to take it to the courts and let it wend its way thru the legal system. Intimidation can cause the end of free speech. That is the goal. It is done in other contries that are not as free as ours. Unfortunatly more and more, I see the free give and take of ideas and debate replaced with one side trying to shout down or silence the other. This goes for those in the extreems on both sides. They seem to feel its ok to skip the debate and go right to intimidation.
Quail_Antwerp
Cold is on the Right, Hot is on The Left
GOOD POST!
Personally I would rather see everyone keep their sexual orientation to themself. IMO that's a private matter and if they weren't making issue over it, how many of us would pay any attention to it?
Personally I would rather see everyone keep their sexual orientation to themself. IMO that's a private matter and if they weren't making issue over it, how many of us would pay any attention to it?
reinbeau
Moderator Extraordinaire
The gays should have gone for civil unions that are as legally binding as a marriage license. Leave the word 'marriage' out of it. I have no problem with them being as united as any hetero couple, but marriage is most definitely the union of a man and a woman in every single religion out there (don't bother adding the twisting that's been going on lately!) and the very thought that it's between two men, or two women, is so upsetting to the vast majority I just don't see the point of pursuing it.
annmarie
Lovin' The Homestead
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2008
- Messages
- 193
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 88
The problem as I see it, is that gay people and churches are fighting over this issue but they are at cross purposes. Religion is concerned about the holy, godly side of the issue, and gay people are concerned about the civil rights, legal benefit side of the issue, so heres what wed do my perfect world
If a couple, gay or straight, want to be legally bound, with all the legal benefits of what we now call marriage, they must go through a Justice of the Peace and do a civil union, and sign all the legal documents.
Marriage would then become strictly a religious institution, and if you not only wanted to be civilly unioned for legal purposes, but also to be married in the eyes of God or the church or what have you, it would be the decision of the church whether theyd marry you or not, depending on their beliefs. This then allows the government to grant equal rights to all, without having to interfere in any way with a churches doctrine of marriage.
If a couple, gay or straight, want to be legally bound, with all the legal benefits of what we now call marriage, they must go through a Justice of the Peace and do a civil union, and sign all the legal documents.
Marriage would then become strictly a religious institution, and if you not only wanted to be civilly unioned for legal purposes, but also to be married in the eyes of God or the church or what have you, it would be the decision of the church whether theyd marry you or not, depending on their beliefs. This then allows the government to grant equal rights to all, without having to interfere in any way with a churches doctrine of marriage.
ScottyG
Lovin' The Homestead
The thing is, even if gay marriage were made perfectly legal, churches would still have the right to refuse to marry gay people. Just like, right now, Jewish people getting married is legal, but the Catholic church doesn't perform marriages for them. That is right and fair, even; churches have their own sets of rules that they can set. But I know many churches that WANT to marry gay people, and that should be the church's individual decision.
And I've still just never heard an argument that we should deny gay people the right to marry that doesn't come down to religious belief. I think it's FINE for any church to decide that they won't marry gay people. But our government is not a church, and they should not be able to make any such discriminatory decisions.
Also, an issue I have is this: The majority should not be allowed to vote on the rights of the minority. The majority of people in Topeka, Kansas didn't want their white schools to suddenly have black students, but Brown v. Board of Education ruled that it wasn't about what the majority wanted, it's about protecting the rights of everyone. I'm extremely uncomfortable with the referendums on gay rights, because it just doesn't make sense to ask the majority to choose whether or not the minority's rights are protected.
And I've still just never heard an argument that we should deny gay people the right to marry that doesn't come down to religious belief. I think it's FINE for any church to decide that they won't marry gay people. But our government is not a church, and they should not be able to make any such discriminatory decisions.
Also, an issue I have is this: The majority should not be allowed to vote on the rights of the minority. The majority of people in Topeka, Kansas didn't want their white schools to suddenly have black students, but Brown v. Board of Education ruled that it wasn't about what the majority wanted, it's about protecting the rights of everyone. I'm extremely uncomfortable with the referendums on gay rights, because it just doesn't make sense to ask the majority to choose whether or not the minority's rights are protected.
Quail_Antwerp
Cold is on the Right, Hot is on The Left
If two people of the same sex want to be joined in some kind of agreement, that is their business. They have the same rights to marraige that I have, to marry the opposite sex!
I don't think marraige should be anything other than between a man and a woman because they are like two pieces of a puzzle that fit together.
I think a same sex couple being allowed marraige would cheapen what I have with my husband. What we have is special, it's a MARRAIGE a union of two from the opposite sex.
They want to screw up nature and be with the same sex, well they shouldn't be allowed to have the same rights to marry as me then. They don't have to be married to be benefactor's on life insurance, and if Health insurance companies want to allow gay couples to get health insurance, then do that, but leave the marraiges out of it.
And even if I wasn't Christain I would still be against gay marraige because it just isn't natural.
I don't think marraige should be anything other than between a man and a woman because they are like two pieces of a puzzle that fit together.
I think a same sex couple being allowed marraige would cheapen what I have with my husband. What we have is special, it's a MARRAIGE a union of two from the opposite sex.
They want to screw up nature and be with the same sex, well they shouldn't be allowed to have the same rights to marry as me then. They don't have to be married to be benefactor's on life insurance, and if Health insurance companies want to allow gay couples to get health insurance, then do that, but leave the marraiges out of it.
And even if I wasn't Christain I would still be against gay marraige because it just isn't natural.
roosmom
Almost Self-Reliant
I havent read these last posts real well, But I just want to chime in and offer up my view.
1- I live in a glass house so I wont be throwing any stones
2- everyone can DO whomever they please, I just dont want to
see it just like I dont DO that out in public lol
3- I certainly am not going to judge anyone for anything, We
have a judge and everyone is going to meet him.
ROTFL, I like to quote salt n peppa
* There is only one true judge and thats god, so chill and
let my father do his job *
1- I live in a glass house so I wont be throwing any stones
2- everyone can DO whomever they please, I just dont want to
see it just like I dont DO that out in public lol
3- I certainly am not going to judge anyone for anything, We
have a judge and everyone is going to meet him.
ROTFL, I like to quote salt n peppa
* There is only one true judge and thats god, so chill and
let my father do his job *
- Status
