Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-02-2012, 08:30 AM
 
17,290 posts, read 29,352,134 times
Reputation: 8691

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0 View Post
Well, you didn't have prejudice disguised as religion there. My mom was a very religious person who took me to church almost every Sunday for most of my childhood. When the subject of homosexuality arose, she would tell me "That's wrong. God says it's a sin." But she never spoke about (or spoke out against) homosexuality any more than any other "sin" in the bible. That's how you know whether someone opposes it for religious reasons or because they're prejudiced against gays. Sad to say, the Christians often given a mic seem to oppose gay marriage but not indiscriminate remarriage (the bible also says that is wrong, with a few exceptions). There is no opposition to psychic hotlines even though the bible says to kill fortune tellers the same way it says to kill gays. There is no opposition to doing any sort of work on the Sabbath day (there is no verse in the bible that specifically condones every sort of work, to override one verse that reads "Do not work on the Sabbath day.") Says to kill people who promote other religions; yet, I can promote Hinduism today and adopt a child tomorrow with no trouble.

So many "sinners" are given a pass. They are not protested or antagonized; they maintain a level of freedom perfectly equal to every Christian in the U.S. Gays are the one exception, and to me the reason why is quite clear.
+1

I've also recently been taking people to task who state they "could never vote for gay marriage" because it goes against their beliefs.

I remind them that freedom of religion should also "go against their beliefs," and that they're essentially saying if they had a chance, they would overturn the first amendment and freedom of religion, because there is no God but Allah, or Jesus, or Yaweh, right?

The #1 sin in the Christian Bible is denial or non-acceptance of Jesus. It's the one that if you do, you can't go to heaven. (Baby murderers who rape goats can repent in their last days and be forgiven if you realize the error of your ways and accept Jesus).

However, Christians routinely vote for non-Christians with non-Christian beliefs, and support the right of others to worship as they please... a HUGE no-no!

I don't understand how that concept of, "I don't believe it in for myself and think it's a sin (example, being Jewish or Buddhist), but I respect your right to be _________ religion".... can't and doesn't translate into, "I'm against gay marriages as part of my religion, won't get one myself, but respect the right for others to do as they believe?"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-02-2012, 10:06 AM
 
Location: TX
6,486 posts, read 6,372,540 times
Reputation: 2628
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriMT7 View Post
+1

I've also recently been taking people to task who state they "could never vote for gay marriage" because it goes against their beliefs.

I remind them that freedom of religion should also "go against their beliefs," and that they're essentially saying if they had a chance, they would overturn the first amendment and freedom of religion, because there is no God but Allah, or Jesus, or Yaweh, right?

The #1 sin in the Christian Bible is denial or non-acceptance of Jesus. It's the one that if you do, you can't go to heaven. (Baby murderers who rape goats can repent in their last days and be forgiven if you realize the error of your ways and accept Jesus).

However, Christians routinely vote for non-Christians with non-Christian beliefs, and support the right of others to worship as they please... a HUGE no-no!

I don't understand how that concept of, "I don't believe it in for myself and think it's a sin (example, being Jewish or Buddhist), but I respect your right to be _________ religion".... can't and doesn't translate into, "I'm against gay marriages as part of my religion, won't get one myself, but respect the right for others to do as they believe?"
That's an excellent point. Right about here is where they often say that it's more about protecting the sanctity of marriage, or simply "protecting marriage" from being changed, either unaware or unwilling to recognize that marriage has been changing since the concept was first created. Indeed, it isn't even the same concept anymore. It's abundantly obvious that it is this specific change to marriage (which really isn't even a change in my book; I mean, it's still two consenting adults proclaiming their love for one another, solidifying their commitment, etc.) that they oppose. It's in no fundamental way a deviation from what modern-day marriage is in general. To the extent that one does not marry another because said person is of the opposite sex, one should not refrain from marrying another because said person is of the same sex. When my gf and I get married, it won't be because we have the ability to produce offspring naturally. It'll be because we love each other.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-02-2012, 10:08 AM
 
981 posts, read 1,617,311 times
Reputation: 1150
I am pro same-sex marriage. Not sure how they arose specifically, but I can say now that they stem from my belief in equality for all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-02-2012, 01:00 PM
 
Location: San Antonio
4,422 posts, read 6,237,062 times
Reputation: 5429
Quote:
Originally Posted by LS Jaun View Post
I'm going to play the devils advocate here to offset the need many people have to attack Heterosexuals:

So what do we gather from the above:
That Gays and Lesbian parents "do not differ from children with heterosexual parents" as the AACAP says?

or

do we believe as the APA suggests, that gays are superior?
"lesbian mothers' and gay fathers' parenting skills may be superior to those of matched heterosexual couples."

Then

Theres the The Journal of Marriage and Family
"The entrenched conviction that children need both a mother and a father inflames culture wars over single motherhood, divorce, gay marriage, and gay parenting. Research to date, however, does not support this claim."

I wonder why they tried to capture single motherhood, divorce and gay marriage and parentling all at once? As pointed out in another thread the vast majority of our prisons are filled with inmates that had no fathers in they're lives. For what ever reason the supporters of Gay marriages in many of these threads like to attack the value of fathers in children's lives? As if it gives more validity to they're arguement

'Research to date, however, does not support this claim."
Sure ^
  • 63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes (US Dept. Of Health/Census) – 5 times the average.
  • 90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes – 32 times the average.
  • 85% of all children who show behavior disorders come from fatherless homes – 20 times the average. (Center for Disease Control)
  • 80% of rapists with anger problems come from fatherless homes –14 times the average. (Justice & Behavior, Vol 14, p. 403-26)
  • 71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes – 9 times the average. (National Principals Association Report)
Fatherless homes? It looks like Johnny is better off with TWO daddies.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-02-2012, 01:05 PM
 
Location: near bears but at least no snakes
26,650 posts, read 28,563,001 times
Reputation: 50477
I'm sure that traditionalists (true traditionalists who know that marriage was historically more of a business arrangement than a man and woman being anything close to equal in any way) would say the same thing about what marriage has become, even minus the gays.

People who oppose gay marriage always try to pass it off as something to do with principles, when in reality, they're just plain prejudiced. I think if they're going to be scumballs, they should at least stand by their scumballhood. Don't try to hide it, be a man and let the world know what you're
really trying to say!

LOL, I'm not a man and I'm not prejudiced. I'm FOR gay unions or partnerships. For some reason that I don't understand, it has to be "marriage" to give them equal benefits. That should be changed because they are entitled to the same benefits as a married heterosexual couple.
I think what influenced my thinking is that I do family history and so I see the marriages going back through the agesand they're all a man married to a womanbecause that's what marriage is.If there's a man's name then you can be sure he will be either single or married to a woman at some point.If someone says they're bringing their WIFE I picture a woman, not a man. I know it's probably not that important, but to me, as a woman, if there's a gathering and wives are invited, I picture a bunch of women and sort of plan for that. If a male "wife" showed up, I would act different and certain subjects would be off limits like the usual female stuff that women talk about when they're together. (I'm not going to discuss menopause or other subjects that women talk about, for instance.)
That's just ME and I am not against gays at all, believe it or not. I enjoyed my wonderful gay (men) friends back in the day and a few years ago when my cousin announced that she is gay, I stood by her.I also don't believe that people decide to become gay and that they can change, just in case anyone still believes such idiocy.The OP asked how people's thoughts developed and that's how, for me. To me it's nothing to do with religion or morals and it's developed out of doing family history and learning to appreciate the times and places where clarity was valued over confusion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-02-2012, 01:14 PM
 
Location: TX
6,486 posts, read 6,372,540 times
Reputation: 2628
Quote:
Originally Posted by in_newengland View Post
I'm FOR gay unions or partnerships. For some reason that I don't understand, it has to be "marriage" to give them equal benefits. That should be changed because they are entitled to the same benefits as a married heterosexual couple.

I think what influenced my thinking is that I do family history and so I see the marriages going back through the agesand they're all a man married to a womanbecause that's what marriage is.If there's a man's name then you can be sure he will be either single or married to a woman at some point.If someone says they're bringing their WIFE I picture a woman, not a man. I know it's probably not that important, but to me, as a woman, if there's a gathering and wives are invited, I picture a bunch of women and sort of plan for that. If a male "wife" showed up, I would act different and certain subjects would be off limits like the usual female stuff that women talk about when they're together.
Understood. I wouldn't call a married man a "wife" under any circumstances, however; I'd call him a husband. And I can't imagine a specific scenario where having two husbands in a marriage would really be an issue.

Also, I think that even some gays in "unions" or "partnerships" would adopt the terms "husband" and "wife". Not sure what is the custom there, but I wouldn't be surprised if some fraction of them are doing this.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-02-2012, 06:36 PM
 
9,639 posts, read 5,997,710 times
Reputation: 8567
1. How were your opinions about same-sex marriage and homosexuality in general originally formed?

By my belief of the freedom to live life as you will. Them getting married has zero impact on me. I have no right to tell them how they want to live their lives in that case.

2. When did you first think seriously about same-sex marriage?

My first boss (aside from working for my mother) was a lesbian.

3. If there was a change in your stance, when did it occur, and what provoked it?

Not really a change. Didn't care or give much attention to political issues till after highschool. Have a conservative and a liberal parent. It just took a little while for me to put everything I had soaked up together and pick a stance.

Quote:
“These people who are making a big deal out of gay marriage?” Eastwood opined. “I don’t give a **** about who wants to get married to anybody else! Why not?! We’re making a big deal out of things we shouldn’t be making a deal out of.”
“They go on and on with all this bull**** about ‘sanctity’ — don’t give me that sanctity crap! Just give everybody the chance to have the life they want.”


Clint Eastwood sums it up.

Last edited by LordSquidworth; 09-02-2012 at 06:44 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-03-2012, 11:47 AM
 
4,278 posts, read 5,167,874 times
Reputation: 2375
The thing I don't like about gays and gay marriage is their push to make their life style be considered normal and don't object to it or we will attack you physically or economically. Additionally, they won't stop with just gay marriage. They will force all churches to perform gay marriages or face legal, economic or violent physical attacks. Already, CA has put gay education into public schools to "normalize" the gay lifestyle. I don't care who people sleep with, but that is exactly what gay lifestyle is all about Sex. Beyond that, they are just like everyone else and should keep their life style choice in the bedroom.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-03-2012, 03:45 PM
 
Location: USA
30,745 posts, read 21,881,415 times
Reputation: 18927
Quote:
Originally Posted by thenewtexan View Post
Fatherless homes? It looks like Johnny is better off with TWO daddies.
Yep, someone brought that up already. My point is mainly towards the attack on heterosexuality many people here feel is needed to support the claim that homosexuality is equal or now superior to being straight.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-03-2012, 03:52 PM
 
Location: TX
6,486 posts, read 6,372,540 times
Reputation: 2628
Quote:
Originally Posted by LS Jaun View Post
Yep, someone brought that up already. My point is mainly towards the attack on heterosexuality many people here feel is needed to support the claim that homosexuality is equal or now superior to being straight.
Who?
Where?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:22 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top