<p>Are you a liberal/democrat, by the way?</p>
<p>"...Meantime, people are ignorant in Appalachia, strung out in Miami, starving in Niger, sex slaves in India, mass-murdered in Darfur. Where is the Christian outrage about that?...Just once, I'd like to read a headline that said a Christian group was boycotting to feed the hungry. Or marching to house the homeless. Or pushing Congress to provide the poor with healthcare worthy of the name.
Instead, they fixate on keeping the gay in their place. Which makes me question their priorities. And their compassion. And their faith.
If you love me, feed my sheep.
For the record, the Bible says that, too."</p>
<p>If you're talking to me, that would be yes.
Let me guess - your parents are Republicans.</p>
<p>Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. Leviticus 18:2</p>
<p>That being said, gay marriage is a state issue. The federal governemt should not get involved.</p>
<p>I love how you said liberal/democrat...</p>
<p>I agree more with the Dem.'s on most issues, yes, but I [will] vote by issue, not party.</p>
<p>Actually, my mom was a Kerry suporter, as was I. My dad, who lives in Canada, he is conservative(republican) and he voted for Harper in the Canadian elections.</p>
<p>American society may share some values with religions (at least in its early history), but even more central to American society is the seperation of church and state. It is ridiculous to continue to base American laws on outdated religious guidelines (that aren't even central to the religions in question). An equally important pillar of American society is the freedom of expression - and denying couples the freedom to express their love legally violates that ammendment. </p>
<p>If you were 'sympathetic' to fellow human beings you would allow them to have the same rights as you (It is also interesting to note that those who claim to be 'sympathetic' are very homophobic - such as when you say gays are 'gross'). How would extending to homosexual couples the 'special privileges (what, tax breaks? oh noooo)' of marriage in any way undermine the sanctity of the family or make traditional marriages less meaningful? The traditional families would still be married. </p>
<p>What is this 'sancity of the family' in the first place? Many, many traditional families are completely dysfunctional (domestic violence, alcoholism etc.) and about half of these traditional marriages end in divorce. Where is the 'sanctity' of these families - who is to say that a traditional family where the father assaults his wife and drinks excessively, harming everyone around him - is any more 'holy' than a loving, law abiding, moral gay couple just because in the former a man is married to a woman? If you would abandon your dogmatic religious thinking for one second and think clearly you would see that the latter couple is far more moral and righteous (is that not what holy is?) than the former. There is nothing to suggest that gay couples would be any less 'holy' than traditional couples. </p>
<p>As for legalised same-sex marriage violating the freedom of religion, this is one of the more ridiculous arguments I heard. If the government passes a bill saying certain people have to work on Sunday (which they have done in the past), then devout Christians would be forced to accept that people violate the sabbath by the government. Their freedom of religion is not at all compromised in this case, because they personally do not have to work on Sundays - they just have to accept that other people will do it. Many deeply religious people choose only to recognise marriages in their church anyway (which would not allow gay marriage- fair enough its seperation of church and state), so they would not even have to 'accept' these marriages. </p>
<p>Please respond, Jonathan K, and please do it with your own argument the next time. Oh yeah, one more question:</p>
<p>Why do you believe that homosexuality in general is deeply immoral - why do you feel that it is 'gross'?</p>
<p>I know, wasn't it a great article? They ran it in the B'ham News here... I thought the columnist was very well spoken.</p>
<p>Bush needs to be removed from the presidency before all civil liberties are put to question by the feds.</p>
<p>"I love how you said liberal/democrat..."</p>
<p>...why?</p>
<p>I agree, Martha - it brings up extremely good points. I plan to forward it to a few friends who will applaud it as well.</p>
<p>i think Jonathon should go thru puberty and then come back to the boards eh?</p>
<p>JK-- they don't always go hand-in-hand, and there are many, many conservative Democrats. Especially in our state elections.</p>
<p>Yep - puberty definitely awakens the senses.</p>
<p>"I love how you said liberal/democrat..."
In most other countires the phrase liberal means what most Americans think of as libertarian. By that definition, the democrats would not be economicly liberal.</p>
<p>Don't worry, most americans don't know the difference.</p>
<p>ENOUGH WITH MY AGE ALREADY! God.</p>
<p>Madd Stressed, I am not "afraid" of gay people. </p>
<p>You think STDs are crazy now? Wait until more gay people keep ''coming out'' or getting married. It's a proven fact that gay people have much more sex. (For some reason) Soon they'll be blaming us for giving them AIDS.</p>
<p>Where'd you hear that? Sunday school?</p>
<p>No. I don't attend Sunday school, and I rarely go to church.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You think STDs are crazy now? Wait until more gay people keep ''coming out'' or getting married. It's a proven fact that gay people have much more sex. (For some reason) Soon they'll be blaming us for giving them AIDS.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>wth... where did you get your information from?</p>
<p>60 Minutes.. last Sunday. I heard they have more sex because males are more open to it. lol</p>