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.
Homosexuals have been around for a long, long time, but Democrats (contrary to your ridiculous rant) have just recently decided to give them the time of day.
Why?
Democrats have advocated for special rights for blacks and women for so long that there really isn`t anything left to ask for.
Blacks are the beneficiaries of all sorts of race-based programs to give them advantages over whites and Asians.
Women are likewise given preferential treatment in hiring, education, set-asides, ect. over males.
Now that it is painfully obvious that blacks, in general, cause their own problems and women, in general, are not actually interested in doing the sort of dangerous and unpleasant jobs that many men do, and with the deck already so heavily stacked in favor of these two groups, there isn`t much left for Democrats to do and thus keep themselves relevant.
Enter: Homosexuals and the issue of same-sex marriage!
Too bad for Democrats and other left-wing statists that the issue stalled in the states (even deep blue California said no) depriving them of a wedge issue for years to come.
This stalling required statists to use the nuclear option of the Supreme Court to strike down duly enacted state laws, state amendments and popular referendums (aka, acts of the people).
This is were the wheels come off your wagon...same-sex marriage wasn`t that big of an issue for most Constitutionalists, but the way laws are made and issue of who makes the laws are of great concern.
So you held the **** (no pun intended) against irrelevancy but allowed it to overflow with disgust for the way statists do things.
At the very least, new epithet associated with same-sex marriage advocacy, "gaystapo", explains in one word why these individuals and groups are so despised apart from any religious issues.
It is a fitting end to an organized campaign of lies, harassment and intimidation.
The irony of you saying that I went on a rant is quite rich. Thanks for your history lesson, even though it had nothing to do with what I said nor was it completely accurate, but in any case I couldn't care less of the politics behind the issues so long as lgbt rights issues are getting raised and passed. If you're going to quote me, please actually refute something I talked about next time. I'd like to pity you for having such a narrow world view, but it's kind of fun to see people like you get so aggravated over nothing.
This is an amoral, perverted lifestyle that chips away at the very foundation of our society. That is the problem.
So how is homosexuality chipping away at the very foundation of our society? Do you have data that straight guys are leaving their marriages to women to pair of with guys much more than usual?
so, you reject what the bible says that God made man and woman? Loving someone includes telling them that sin is wrong! Jesus was scolded for talking to prostitutes. He did love them. However, he said go, and SIN NO MORE! So, we can love the person(s) without condoning the lifestyle.
telling your son or daughter to go and engage in any relationship they want is not love. We have the power to determine right from wrong. Manny Pacqioua made a good point. Even the animals know what is natural vs un-natural.
So why don't people like you not take nearly as great offense to straight married couples when they indulge in adultery, even though such acts often lead to the break up of marriages and families? Is it simply because you find sex acts that gays do to be far, far more offensive than the sex acts adulterous straight couples do?
Look at abortion. SCOTUS stuffed Roe v Wade down the publics throat in 1973. That's 43 years ago and people are still fighting over it. Instead of going state by state for a consensus vote the LGBT crowd used the SCOTUS to shove gay marriage down the publics throat. I'll bet 43 years from now people will still be fighting over abortion and gay marriage. Especially if a sizable Muslim population develops in the US.
I can assure you that 43 years from now, no one will be fighting over gay marriage.
It will be a complete non-issue in another 5 years.
And there is your problem. You are an ignorant, hateful remnant of a bygone era. The fact is that most of the country no longer agrees with you that it is an "amoral, perverted lifestyle that chips away at the very foundation of our society." Love is love. The "amoral, perverted lifestyle that chips away at the very foundation of our society" is your hateful bigotry. Thankfully we as a country are evolving past that.
The way people vote and the way people actually feel are not the same.
Voter participation is low in this country.
People with active interest in the subject are motivated to vote. Opponents would be the most rallied. Those who are mature and don't care if gays get married may not be motivated.
Thus, the lopsided result of polls not reflecting outcome at the voting booth.
Plus, the demographic trend is SEVERELY out of your favor for gay marriage and gay rights opponents. People under 40 by and large just don't care. Millenials people under 34 who are the largest demographic group in the country) don't care. Forget about Generation Z or whatever they're called.... they will care even less.
Actually, your partly right and partly wrong. Yes it's true that voter participation is low. But, it's not true that this favors gays. Take this thread as an example. The OP said that he has noticed MORE resistance to gays since the supreme ct ruling.
And, all the "polls" kept saying that gay marriage was going to win, but rarely did.
Yes, younger people may not care as much as older. But, since when have younger people been the voice of reason? People change sometimes when they get older, and those "uncaring" 25 yr olds may start caring when they are 35 or 40. There is really not big support FOR gay rights, just tolerance. I think we are seeing a tipping point where political correctness is on it's way out. If Trump wins then you will know that I am right.
Trump did say that Christians will have more rights and more power when he is president.
Rubio has said that he believes that marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman. So, you shouldn't expect the rainbow flag to fly at the White house again anytime soon.
Except LGBT people and allies aren't trying to take rights from people they don't agree with. Nobody is going to force you to accept gay marriage or practice it in your church. LGBT people simply want the same rights everyone else has. Being that religion is not the basis for our government and that is outlined in the Constitution, why should government policy be aligned with a fundamentalist brand of Christianity that is not shared by more than maybe 25% of the population?
well that makes sense. Especially when you consider that 42.7 % of all statistics are just made up on the spot.
Fear of a 'Tyranny of the masses' situation was exactly one of the reasons why the supreme court was invented in the first place, so that an ignorant majority cannot trample on the rights of the few in their own petty self interest, especially in circumstance where it has no bearing on their life at all. The founding fathers were not all Christian, notably Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson among others, and regardless of belief, most agreed that matters of the state that affected the populace should be separated from the religious beliefs of the church, hence the reason they specifically added 'Separation of Church and State'. Christians today (and before) would like to try and re-write the actual history of the founding fathers to one that supports their own world view.
Marriage has always generally been between a man and a woman, but up until the mid 1400s, that woman was normally pre-pubescent at the time of their vows. The wife's father also more than likely shopped around for the best deal that would help the family at the time, hopefully a few oxen and mules if one's bloodline was of enough nobility or if the daughter proved fair enough to the suitor's liking, and then exchanged their child once an agreement could be finalized. Until marriage became a matter of requiring two consenting adults, that is the way it had always been. Slavery was the way it had always been until it was eradicated, women not being able to own property or vote was the way it had always been until the laws changed. There's many other examples of the point that I'm obviously making that I'll spare everyone from reading. The main take away is that society always progresses whether everyone is ready for it to or not, and those that aren't ready for that change, such as yourself, will idolize and become infatuated over a previous time in history that better fits your world view than the way things are viewed now does.
Marriage as a construct existed long before Christianity did, so I'm not sure why we are tied to the Christian version of such things. But suppose we do go with that premise, do you also agree with Matthew 19:12 that states you should castrate yourself for the kingdom if you can manage to?
Do you feel the same way about interracial marriage as Ezra did (10:9)?
Ezra was speaking the the Israelites.
Certainly, if you were truly a believer in your faith, then you should try and follow these tenants expressed in the Bible right?
Finally, I'd like to add that your 75% figure about the US population that are Christians is somewhat exaggerated, it's actually closer to 53%, with athiests at 21% now making the second largest majority in the country, just to set the record straight.
Somewhat exaggerated? 21% athiests sounds way exaggerated.
It's funny that the OP speaks of progress going backward when in reality we (the world) have done nothing but progressed or expounded our tolerance and acceptance of those that are different.
Its not condemning others to quote from the bible. Considering that 75-80% of Americans are Christians then you should show some respect.
You can't take the bible away out of American society. I didn't say that the bible should be used to make law. I said that the US gov't is supposed to represent the will of the people! The situation now is that our gov't has been hijacked by liberals and special interest groups that do not represent the people.
Correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to imply that the "majority" should assert control over outcomes for minorities.
Going by that logic, you would also support the notion that whites are entitled to deny equal rights for blacks – simply because whites account for the largest percentage of the U.S. population. To me, that is immoral.
You could even go into other religions. Should Christians, as the majority, be able to outlaw Judaism or Buddhism if they chose? Obviously there's the First Amendment that prevents such from happening, but that's not the point.
Can you now see how it's problematic to think that way? My apologies if I've misunderstood what you're saying though.
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.
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.
