Should the state marry gay lovers?

[Jesus_N_Cherie]

The man who tried to rape me did it because he perceived me as lesbian. That was very VERY specifically done for an obvious reason. They thought they had power over me to change my orientation with sex.

I am a harder target than they imagined, but that does not change the mental scars the incident caused.

I am sorry to hear you were assaulted. Did you have the ability to get the police involved? I didn’t have that luxury. They LAUGHED at me instead. Due to the lack of laws covering me, it was not even considered a crime where I lived. The police refused to arrest the man. No records no nothing, I couldn’t even file a complaint, because there wasn’t an incident on record to reference.

People wonder why I am crazy. Try to imagine how your mind would race, freak out, as if you were in some parallel world. Something horrible just happened to you and the police laugh at you, they refuse to help you. It’s like being in a parallel world, some mockery of reality.

Pathia, I have already, and do again, express my sincere horror at what was done to you. I do not justify it, or excuse it in any way, shape or form.

However, there are people who are trying to make it illegal to say anything derogatory to someone about their sexual orientation. That takes away the First Ammendment right of anyone who chooses to speak against what is unlawful, immoral and sinful. And if they get to make that illegal, then I want it to be illegal for anyone who says something derogatory to or about me when I pass gas.
My point? You cannot regulate people’s opinions and speech unless you want to regulate every opinion and words. And that is no democracy.

 

[Jesus_N_Cherie]

Including sexual orientation within a “hate crimes” bill allows the feds to step in and prosecute when law enforcement at the local level isn’t doing its job. (ie if you have some johnny redneck who doesn’t like blacks or gays… calling the shots in a small town). This was often the case in the south before and during the civil rights period and still occurs occasionally.

What needs to happen is that the laws that are already on the books need to be enforced. If we put more laws on the books restricting the rights of people to have their own opinions, those who disregard the law aren’t going to pay any attention to those laws either.
We have to enforce the laws. The animals who did this to Pathia, and the law enforcement who sat by and laughted should be prosecuted to the absolute fullest extent of the law.
Making more laws will not make that happen. enforcing the ones already on the books will.

 

[Jesus_N_Cherie]

Unfortunately there are many cases like yours with merit and yes, those many others without merit that are usually unsuccessful for an award or a guilty verdict in your favor at the hands of a jury without strong evidence to convict that person accused. One just has to try to cope and accept it as an unfortunate life experience and march ahead and don’t dwell on the past. Think positive. It’s not about the past, it’s about the future.

that is horrible. People…all people…need to stand up and demand EQUAL rights for all Americans. We should make a loud noise about the unjustice. We need organizations that will be available to help in situations like Pathia’s. The laws need to be enforced…and where there are no laws giving you equal protection under the law without prejudice…then those laws need to change. The law should not allow the fat person, the black person, the woman, the homosexual, the Mexican or the Muslim or Christian to be descriminated against in such a way. That is not asking for special rights…that is asking for equal rights.

 

[Jesus_N_Cherie]

How entirely short-sighted of you! You are saying that homosexualpeople are incapable of loving each other and forming a relationship. I can tell you FIRST HAND that that is not the case, so I advise that you don’t post your quite frankly offensive comments without proof to back it up.

This is news to me, they’re gonna start forcing hetrosexual people to get married to people of the same sex? Woah.

Hang on, isn’t that what the church is doing now? Imposing it’s view that homosexuality is wrong onto the rest of us that know otherwise? The agenda of the homosexual activist comminity is simply for homosexuals to be recognised as equals in society. We’re not forcing anybody to become homosexual!

This shouldn’t be an issue that needs a vote. People who are not homosexual should not be able to vote on the rights of homosexuals. Rights are universal, and peoples oppinions should not interfere with them. Unfortunatly the majority of Americans are in some way religious, and hold the twisted view that homosexuality is immoral. Allowing them to vote against homosexual marriage allows them to impose those twisted views on people who do not share in their religion, and therefore should not have to be affected by their doctrine.

You would do well to read the quotes in context. That will help you to respond to them intelligently. You have taken everything you quoted out of context…and I think you know it. And for the record, the person you quoted was totally UNITED STATES CONTSTITUTIONALLY CORRECT. And yours were not.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I really don’t see why not. Why shouldn’t they be as miserable as the rest of us?

It would not be marriage properly speaking - it would be a civil union IMO that should be fully available to them. Why not ?​

 

[Nepenthe]

I still think my idea of putting state partnerships of union between adults of any and all sexes under further contract law (it already technically is!) is a really good one. It’d also help keep all parties, certainly including two-person hetero, from signing into contracts without careful and due consideration, rather than impulse, obviously a very good idea. A ‘short form’ could certainly be available like with taxation, and while it could get pricey dealing with all those attorneys for a complex contract with lots of riders and so forth, since the demand for all kinds of domestic partnerships would still be sky-high, plus the time=money factor, that should help keep prices reasonable and this would help all parties, including children, have better legal protection.

As to what some Churches may think, well that’s completely up to them, but EVERY marriage is also legalized by the state, so yes, this would be a huge undertaking of the legal establishment, but very possibly one with long term benefits.

 

[Benadam]

It would not be marriage properly speaking - it would be a civil union IMO that should be fully available to them. Why not ?​

That about say’s it for me too. Speaking properly.

 

[AngelAshley]

but what of the 13 year old? You define your boundaries, but decline the same right to the voters.

I don’t believe that a 13 year onld is capable of understanding a marriage contract to it’s full extent. We already have age limits on marriage for this reason, these don’t need to change to include homosexuals.

The disharmony that is caused when homosexuals force their morals on traditional structures of society is the substance of hostility.

We’re not forcing our morals on anybody. We just want to be treated equally. Is that too much to ask for? The only disharmony it will create is in those areas where discrimination exists, and in these cases, the discrimination needs to stop.

additional substance is required by you to give reason to believe that the change of focus will not make the meaning hostile to religious communities.

Here you go then. The type of marriage we are looking for inclusion into is not religious marriage - it is purely legal marriage. We (most of us) do not look to be included in religious marriage. We do not care if religious institutions continue to not recognise our marriages, as long as those insitutions are not providing a public service that should be available to all. All we are seeking is quality under the law, not the Church. There is simply no good reason that there will be any hostility towards the Church aside from areas where the church is discriminating against homosexuals in public.

However, there are people who are trying to make it illegal to say anything derogatory to someone about their sexual orientation. That takes away the First Ammendment right of anyone who chooses to speak against what is unlawful, immoral and sinful.

I don’t know much about the First Ammendment, but isn’t Freedom of Speech subject to limitations on hate speech? If I truly believed that black people were the root of all evil, would it be OK for me to go around in public saying derogatory things about black people under the first ammendment, or would this be hate speech?

 

[goofyjim]

I don’t believe that a 13 year onld is capable of understanding a marriage contract to it’s full extent. We already have age limits on marriage for this reason, these don’t need to change to include homosexuals.

We’re not forcing our morals on anybody. We just want to be treated equally. Is that too much to ask for? The only disharmony it will create is in those areas where discrimination exists, and in these cases, the discrimination needs to stop.

Here you go then. The type of marriage we are looking for inclusion into is not religious marriage - it is purely legal marriage. We (most of us) do not look to be included in religious marriage. We do not care if religious institutions continue to not recognise our marriages, as long as those insitutions are not providing a public service that should be available to all. All we are seeking is quality under the law, not the Church. There is simply no good reason that there will be any hostility towards the Church aside from areas where the church is discriminating against homosexuals in public.

I don’t know much about the First Ammendment, but isn’t Freedom of Speech subject to limitations on hate speech? If I truly believed that black people were the root of all evil, would it be OK for me to go around in public saying derogatory things about black people under the first ammendment, or would this be hate speech?

Speech should be protected. Physical violence should not. I should have the freedom to walk around making derogatory remarks of anyone, even if it was my fellow Catholics. I personally don’t believe in limiting socalled hate speech. It is morally wrong to hate people but I see no reason to legislate the way someone feels in their heart. Let God take care of that.

 

[cristininha]

 

[AngelAshley]

Speech should be protected. Physical violence should not. I should have the freedom to walk around making derogatory remarks of anyone, even if it was my fellow Catholics. I personally don’t believe in limiting socalled hate speech. It is morally wrong to hate people but I see no reason to legislate the way someone feels in their heart. Let God take care of that.

So if you have no problem dishing it out, do you have a problem recieving it? What if people started personally attacking you, to your face, to your friends, family and co-workers? What if I started a hate-campaign against you, writing derogatory things about you in newspapers, on the internet and everywhere else I could possibly find an outlet? What if your friends and family started believing it and distanced you from them? What if you lost your job because your boss started getting sick of hearing about you? What if your partner left you because of it?

Would you sit back and take it, and still defend my right to hate speech?

 

[goofyjim]

So if you have no problem dishing it out, do you have a problem recieving it? What if people started personally attacking you, to your face, to your friends, family and co-workers? What if I started a hate-campaign against you, writing derogatory things about you in newspapers, on the internet and everywhere else I could possibly find an outlet? What if your friends and family started believing it and distanced you from them? What if you lost your job because your boss started getting sick of hearing about you? What if your partner left you because of it?

Would you sit back and take it, and still defend my right to hate speech?

My friends and family know me too well to accept lies. I could always be free to accuse you in court of slander. But to legislate against general hate speech is a waste. Look, I have admitted I am a homosexual Catholic who still refuses to live the lifestyle. I get enough from both sides and it doesn’t bother me in the least. I walk with Christ and know Him well.

 

[Newbie2]

We’re not forcing our morals on anybody.

Really?

All we are seeking is quality under the law, not the Church. There is simply no good reason that there will be any hostility towards the Church aside from areas where the church is discriminating against homosexuals in public.

It’s already happening, friend.

I don’t know much about the First Ammendment, but isn’t Freedom of Speech subject to limitations on hate speech? If I truly believed that black people were the root of all evil, would it be OK for me to go around in public saying derogatory things about black people under the first ammendment, or would this be hate speech?

Depends on how “hate speech” is defined. For example, I could say that I believed nasty such things about black people and be protected by the first amendment. The line seems to be that if it’s threatening to an individual, even by virtue of their membership in the group (being black, in this example), it’s hate speech.

However, that line is being made thinner and thinner to the point that one cannot hardly express a personal opinion lest he be accused of “hate speech”. Where it’s really dangerous is when religious beliefs become “hate speech”, something that has already happened in other parts of the globe, and is on the way to happening here.

Problem is, the Left-wing Pols must accept Christian free speech if they want to defend trashy talk such as that of Howard Stern and the like. They will be continuing efforts to muzzle the Catholic Church in her condemnation of homosexual behavior.

 

[AngelAshley]

It’s already happening, friend.

Maybe, but if people are being hostile towards the church, it is not the fault of the gay marriage activists and it is clear there are more issues at work here.
If the Catholic Church is having a problem with Free Speech for example, thats a seperate issue that they need to deal with spereately. At the very basic level, adjusting the law to include same-sex couples into marriage does not directly make the Catholic Church guilty of hate speech violations - it is the other laws that define that on a more direct level. They may be linked to marriage law, but the inclusion of same sex couples isn’t the direct law that makes the Church guilty of anything. Therefore, it is these other laws which need overhauling as well if there is unjust hostility to the catholic church. Stopping gays from getting married does not address the root cause of these problems - it is simply an easy way for the Catholic church to not have to deal with the other problems it has with the law.

 

[Elizabeth502]

We’re not forcing our morals on anybody.

Wrong. In all 5 States which have passed gay marriage laws, gay couples have challenged and sued Christian private parties (Catholics and Protestants) to require them to reverse a conscientious objection to activity which implies validation of these marriages, *****although in all cases the gay couples have been referred to alternate parties of different beliefs *****where the same service or material purchase could be enjoyed, and where such providers had no moral objections to serving/providing for gay “married” couples. (From “wedding” photographers to IVF)

Gays are not interested in merely asserting their subjective interpretation of “rights” – erroneous as it is. They are determined to destroy religious institutions with a different moral outlook from theirs.

I don’t know much about the First Ammendment,

No kidding.

 

[magdelaine]

Look, I have admitted I am a homosexual Catholic who still refuses to live the lifestyle. I get enough from both sides and it doesn’t bother me in the least. I walk with Christ and know Him well.

:hug3:

You are right, there is an ocean of difference between accepting yourself as a homosexual and living the lifestyle. It’s a simple misunderstanding of Church teaching; just as many misunderstand that it’s not a sin to get a divorce; it’s a sin to get re-married if your first marriage was valid.

Blessings!

 

[AngelAshley]

Gays are not interested in merely asserting their subjective interpretation of “rights” – erroneous as it is. They are determined to destroy religious institutions with a different moral outlook from theirs.

You speak as someone who has read a couple of news articles about some radicals. I am speaking as someone who is in fact gay, has many gay friends, and is active in the gay community. Quite frankly, wrong or not, I’m not surprised that some gays are lashing out at religion, after all that we have been through in the past few decades!

 

[Elizabeth502]

You speak as someone who has read a couple of news articles about some radicals. I am speaking as someone who is in fact gay, has many gay friends, and is active in the gay community. Quite frankly, wrong or not, I’m not surprised that some gays are lashing out at religion, after all that we have been through in the past few decades!

No, I speak “as someone” (in fact I am someone) who has read the actual news, not spin, not misinterpretation, not opinion, but factual news. I am speaking as someone who is in fact a reader of news about actual events. The fact that I also have gay friends and associates (close ones) does not alter the facts as reported in the news in FIVE states, in which the enactment of gay “marriage” rights has been merely the avenue for full-throttled, wholehearted opposition to Christian institutions as institutions, period. Violations of both First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitutions, not pretend rights, not new rights, not wished-for rights, but the established rights of religions and religious believers to act according to their consciences without compromise to enacted rights of others. (There was no compromise in any of those cases; yet lawsuits were filed for the hell of it.)

Oh, whoops, I forgot: You “don’t know much about the First Amendment” (in your own words). Apparently you also don’t know much about the news.

 

[brazenarticle]

You would do well to read the quotes in context. That will help you to respond to them intelligently. You have taken everything you quoted out of context…and I think you know it. And for the record, the person you quoted was totally UNITED STATES CONTSTITUTIONALLY CORRECT. And yours were not.

Yes, a lot of those who are pro gay marriage and deem it a constitutional right and universal right need to read the US Constitution if they are US Citizens.

As former Gov. Jim McGreevey opts to become an Episcopal priest, the gay couples can flock to that Church and get hitched by Jimbo! There you go. All nice and holy like. A great place for Jim to live out his days.

 

[brazenarticle]

So if you have no problem dishing it out, do you have a problem recieving it? What if people started personally attacking you, to your face, to your friends, family and co-workers? What if I started a hate-campaign against you, writing derogatory things about you in newspapers, on the internet and everywhere else I could possibly find an outlet? What if your friends and family started believing it and distanced you from them? What if you lost your job because your boss started getting sick of hearing about you? What if your partner left you because of it?

Would you sit back and take it, and still defend my right to hate speech?

If it was slander, sue them for the comments. If it was their thoughts and opinion, so be it. Sticks and stones may break your bones but names will never hurt you. It may cause you mental anguish, but that’s life and unfortunately you can’t easily change many people’s attitudes and feelings. It may be harsh to suggest, but best to just “grow a skin” I think the youngest generation will always be more tolerant than the elder ones. Many Protestants firmly believed Gay people can change their sexual preference as a matter of will. I happen to believe they are born with that same sex attraction and cannot, but some are blessed to be bi-sexual and can therefore live the straight way, have children to not make waves in life. McGreevey did this for awhile, but he was a homosexual, period. Who the hell would want to be gay, choose to be gay if they had a choice and could change it? It’s a lifetime affiliction for them. Not easy getting through life.