The best in arts & entertainment, news, pop culture, and your mom since 2002.

[Total: 48    Average: 3.8/5]
75 Comments - View/Add
Hits: 27108
Rating: 3.8
Category:
Date: 08/06/11 03:49 PM

75 Responses to Pro-Gay Marriage Billboard Makes Great Point [Pic]

  1. Profile photo of orange_panty
    orange_panty Female 18-29
    596 posts
    August 6, 2011 at 3:51 pm
    Link: Pro-Gay Marriage Billboard Makes Great Point - You can`t deny good common sense.
  2. Profile photo of kissmybim
    kissmybim Male 40-49
    439 posts
    August 6, 2011 at 3:56 pm
    meh!
  3. Profile photo of LazyMe484
    LazyMe484 Male 18-29
    10441 posts
    August 6, 2011 at 4:03 pm
    Is this still an issue? What is this? The middle ages?
  4. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10731 posts
    August 6, 2011 at 4:18 pm
    Just one problem:
    They already have those last two rights.

    On the other hand, why treat people differently?
  5. Profile photo of YugureKage
    YugureKage Female 18-29
    1205 posts
    August 6, 2011 at 4:22 pm
    "Is this still an issue? What is this? The middle ages?"

    Unfortunately, LazyMe484...I do feel like we are regressing to the middle ages...and not even the cool middle ages with swords and knights and horses. Although we DO have the pubs and orgies down pretty good I think, but I digress.
  6. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36653 posts
    August 6, 2011 at 4:29 pm

    Gay bridal registries could save the US economy.


  7. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36653 posts
    August 6, 2011 at 5:09 pm

    I don`t undestand why conservatives and gays can`t get along?

    We`re all tea-baggers.
  8. Profile photo of barberthe
    barberthe Male 18-29
    103 posts
    August 6, 2011 at 5:27 pm
    Lol at Gerry
  9. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36653 posts
    August 6, 2011 at 5:38 pm

    "A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin.
    If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed."

    Deuteronomy 22:13-21

  10. Profile photo of SmagBoy1
    SmagBoy1 Male 40-49
    4432 posts
    August 6, 2011 at 5:46 pm
    Cajun247, irony is a tricky concept, but it`s not all *that* tricky.
  11. Profile photo of VAJENGA
    VAJENGA Male 30-39
    532 posts
    August 6, 2011 at 6:14 pm
    @ Gerry1of1 "A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin.
    If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed."
    Deuteronomy 22:13-21

    I like where this is heading....go on.
  12. Profile photo of Blackstonev
    Blackstonev Male 60-69
    8 posts
    August 6, 2011 at 6:38 pm
    @ Gerry1of1 "A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin.
    If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed."
    Deuteronomy 22:13-21

    A commonly misunderstood verse that is constantly brought up, this refers to the first part of the two part marriage ceremony, betrothal.

    If the half-married woman was found to have had relations during the interim (there was usually a 1 year span between betrothal and consummation), she was guilty of adultery, and given the penalty of an adulteress, execution (the adulterer was executed as well).
  13. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36653 posts
    August 6, 2011 at 7:02 pm

    @ Blackstonev - if the bride can`t have sex before the engagement, nor during the engagement, then she still has to be a virgin at the time of wedlock so just shut up execute her! Duh!

    lol
  14. Profile photo of Sachi001
    Sachi001 Male 30-39
    599 posts
    August 6, 2011 at 7:11 pm
    Hmmm....when were LBGT`s not allowed to vote and pay taxes?
  15. Profile photo of Blackstonev
    Blackstonev Male 60-69
    8 posts
    August 6, 2011 at 7:14 pm
    @Gerry1of1

    Biblical betrothal was not engagement, it was half-marriage (usually the ring ceremony), but not consummated until later. The verse is discussing someone who was a virgin at the time of betrothal-marriage and found to have had sex with another man before the consummation.
  16. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36653 posts
    August 6, 2011 at 7:29 pm

    @ Blackstonev - talking in circles.

    At the time her husband consumates with her for the first time she has to be a virgin right? So what`s you point? Call the vet and put her down.
  17. Profile photo of limphotdog
    limphotdog Female 18-29
    673 posts
    August 6, 2011 at 7:31 pm
    It`s not an anti-gay rights billboard, it`s pro. Look at the small text below.
  18. Profile photo of Blackstonev
    Blackstonev Male 60-69
    8 posts
    August 6, 2011 at 7:34 pm
    @Gerry1of1:
    I didn`t know women weren`t capable of having sex with other men.
  19. Profile photo of I-IS-BORED
    I-IS-BORED Male 18-29
    2419 posts
    August 6, 2011 at 8:06 pm
    hmm wonder how many gays would give up marriage in exchange for not having to pay taxes...
  20. Profile photo of I-IS-BORED
    I-IS-BORED Male 18-29
    2419 posts
    August 6, 2011 at 8:07 pm
    @blackstonev
    They weren`t allowed to, do you understand what "virgin" means? Doesn`t matter when she had the sex, just that she had it. And I`ve never heard a woman say her first time was worth dying for...
  21. Profile photo of Blackstonev
    Blackstonev Male 60-69
    8 posts
    August 6, 2011 at 8:20 pm
    @gerry1of1
    A single girl would not be executed if she had sex before marriage. It was frowned upon, but did not incur any penalty, other then people being less likely to marry her.
  22. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36653 posts
    August 6, 2011 at 9:06 pm

    @ Blackstonev - I`m not sure how you can interpret "she shall be executed" into "don`t date her" but whatevah...
  23. Profile photo of Blackstonev
    Blackstonev Male 60-69
    8 posts
    August 6, 2011 at 9:12 pm
    @Gerry1of1:
    Well, obviously my last 3 posts went over your head, so I guess there`s no more use having this conversation. Using that verse just makes for a pretty dumb argument since you don`t understand the context - stick to the shellfish one instead.
  24. Profile photo of joosen52
    joosen52 Male 18-29
    206 posts
    August 6, 2011 at 9:33 pm
    Blackstonev concedes.
    Gerry1of1 is the victor!!!
  25. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36653 posts
    August 6, 2011 at 9:34 pm

    @ Blackstonev - oh, one of those that just has to have the last word huh?
  26. Profile photo of gothmo
    gothmo Female 18-29
    1324 posts
    August 6, 2011 at 10:38 pm
    that arguement made me lol, sounds like a lot of excuses really >> sounds pretty in context to me, that whole book was pretty horrid, I remember it from way back when.

    When you can`t win, call the other side stupid and stop replying!
  27. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    August 6, 2011 at 11:00 pm
    Blackstonev concedes.
    Gerry1of1 is the victor!!!

    Only if victory is measured by how determined you are to continue ignoring explanations and being wrong.

    We don`t use bethrothal any more, but Blackstonev has explained what it is and Gerry1of1 could look it up for themself if they wanted to.
  28. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36653 posts
    August 6, 2011 at 11:51 pm
    You are right, I chose not to "interpret" what "execute her" or "virgin" meant. I took those words at face value without adding any loop holes about half-marriages, engagements, etc. I stupidly insisted "virgin" meant a person who had not had sex...ever.

    Oh Dopey Me.

    I guess I am just not edjumicated enough to understand the aparent varied and sublte levels of virginity that only rabbis and biblical scholars can comprehend.

    Just as "she shall be executed" does not mean what it says. It means...well I still don`t understand that one. It still sounds like "kill the bitch" to me.

    But I try to keep in mind that if you can worship the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit and still claim it`s monotheastic, then you can talk yourself into anything.
  29. Profile photo of randomxnp
    randomxnp Male 30-39
    1293 posts
    August 7, 2011 at 12:32 am
    "Billboard Makes Great Point"

    Needs correcting to "entirely misses the point, written by someone clueless".

    Taxes and votes are not religious concepts. Marriage is a religious concept. Why not allow civil unions as being exactly equivalent in law (as they are here in the UK) but secular? Far more elegant solution.

    I had a civil wedding, as I am an atheist. I would rather have had a civil union, but because I am straight I am not allowed. That is inequitable; not allowing marriage to gay people isn`t, it is just accepting the definition of marriage which is a religious idea.
  30. Profile photo of danthew
    danthew Male 18-29
    2122 posts
    August 7, 2011 at 12:40 am
    @randomxnp, you are the kind of atheist I hate. So what if marriage is based in religion? So is Christmas but I bet you celebrate that. And don`t say that Christmas has been secularised with most people ignoring it`s religious aspects. Because so has marriage.
  31. Profile photo of danthew
    danthew Male 18-29
    2122 posts
    August 7, 2011 at 12:45 am
    To quote Chief Wiggum: "The bible says a lot of things"
  32. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36653 posts
    August 7, 2011 at 12:48 am

    Religious types should just ignor Gay marriage.
    God still won`t let us in heaven so why does it matter to them?
  33. Profile photo of Blackstonev
    Blackstonev Male 60-69
    8 posts
    August 7, 2011 at 1:15 am
    @gerry1of1:
    First off, I was not making an argument for or against gay marriage, which I couldn`t give a crap either way about. I was making the point that quoting a verse as a way of sticking it to the religious folk, while fine and funny, only works if the verse in question is applicable.

    Now, execution means execution, in this case it means stoning. However this refers to a BETROTHED WOMAN WHO SLEPT WITH ANOTHER MAN. Not just any non-virgin. It is stating the law of a half-married woman, which is considered married in regards to adultery.

    If you`d like to see how this is so, look at the END OF THAT SAME chapter, where the bible deals with a virgin who was seduced and slept with a man before marriage (always the man`s fault, isn`t it?)

    Again, I`m not bible thumping, I`ve just read it in the same way I`ve read many texts, religious or otherwise - with more than a nanogram of intelligence.
  34. Profile photo of ZsaZsaGoar
    ZsaZsaGoar Female 18-29
    144 posts
    August 7, 2011 at 3:39 am
    To everyone arguing it`s a religious matter, if it`s religious make it legal and then let the CHURCH or whatever religious origination decide not the government...
  35. Profile photo of Turf_Moor
    Turf_Moor Male 18-29
    270 posts
    August 7, 2011 at 3:47 am
    When did other peoples business become such a problem for everyone else?

    I don`t care what anyone does, just don`t hurt anyone else and do your fair share and everything will be well.

    Why should this even be questioned? We`re people, with free will and cognitive thought. We can do what we want. Let`s stop the hate and start the love.
  36. Profile photo of ForSquirel
    ForSquirel Male 30-39
    2157 posts
    August 7, 2011 at 6:18 am
    seriously, at this point in time, who the drat even cares anymore? nobody really cared then and guess what nobody really cares now. It`s just some issue that people need to make to make themselves feel important. Let people get married, have kids, be miserable whatever. If gay/straight/(fill in your blank) people got married I`m pretty sure the sun would still rise the next day.
  37. Profile photo of SmagBoy1
    SmagBoy1 Male 40-49
    4432 posts
    August 7, 2011 at 6:22 am
    So, Blackstonev, you are qualified to provide definitive interpretation of the Bible (or its verses) for us due to your nanogram of intelligence? Surely, if you add another nanogram, you`d realize that your interpretation is one of the many, many, many "definitive" interpretations that’ve been offered up by many, many people through the years, just as certain as you of *their* superior intellect and interpretive ability. Some have started their own religions, some have led sects, some have died alone with a gaggle of cats. The common element? Each thought s/he had a lock on the *correct* interpretation because s/he was capable of applying his/her superior "intelligence" to the task.

    What you clearly fail to realize is that the application of intelligent interpretation to a myth, one written with a skewed agenda, no less, is so much folly. It will *never* be definitive, due to its failed premise. It`s a fool`s errand, yours, and, worse, your self
  38. Profile photo of SmagBoy1
    SmagBoy1 Male 40-49
    4432 posts
    August 7, 2011 at 6:23 am
    -satisfaction is showing. And it`s not pretty.
  39. Profile photo of tommy2X4
    tommy2X4 Male 50-59
    3447 posts
    August 7, 2011 at 7:09 am
    I just watched, "I Love You Phillip Morris" and I learned that love is love. Now get over it! It is not billboard worthy!
  40. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    August 7, 2011 at 7:14 am
    You are right, I chose not to "interpret" what "execute her" or "virgin" meant. I took those words at face value without adding any loop holes about half-marriages, engagements, etc.

    You`re basing your argument on interpreting (and despite your silly claim to the contrary, that`s what you`re doing) selected parts of a translation of bible verses that you`ve deliberately ignored the context for in order to fit it into what you want it to mean.

    You continue to ignore the difference between an engagement and a betrothal, even when it has been explained to you twice, because it`s a fact that`s inconvenient to what you want the Christian bible to be saying.

    What do you think when other people do the same thing in order to promote their position? Do you think it strengthens their argument?
  41. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36653 posts
    August 7, 2011 at 7:16 am

    SmagBoy1 - "So, Blackstonev, you are qualified to provide definitive interpretation of the Bible (or its verses) for us due to your nanogram of intelligence"
    I would say Yes, he is. If God exists then He can speak to anyone therefore anyone can put fourth their take on the matter just as valid as anyone elses. At least, that`s what all thes Prophets running around claim.

    @ Blackstonev - the topic was gay marrieage and the oposition to that is the bible thumpers so I posted a bible passage on marriage. I know the bible always treats marriage with the sanctity it deserves...as in the case of Sarah and Abraham. Okay, I really just did it to stir things up. And it worked :) Thank you for the discourse.
  42. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36653 posts
    August 7, 2011 at 7:23 am

    @ Angilion - Sorry if I didn`t make myself clear. I am not ignoring the cultural context. I`m saying it doesn`t weigh in much on this point. "Virgin" is virgin, regardless of what state of marrital relations the woman is in. If she must be a virgin at the final consumation of the marrital rights, the I don`t see how she can not be a virgin in the earlier stages of engagement and half-marriage. I simply am not allowing myself to get bogged down in minutia that, in the end, does not change the basic message of the passage which is: If she is not a virgin on the honeymoon night she is to be put to death. Nothing I`ve seen here from you guys effectively changes that "interpretation" of the passage. Staying focused on all that trivia does distract from the simple statment, but it does not change it`s meaning.
  43. Profile photo of madest
    madest Male 40-49
    7378 posts
    August 7, 2011 at 7:31 am
    Too much logic for the religious set to consume.
  44. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    August 7, 2011 at 7:32 am
    randomxnp:

    I think marriage is not inherently a religious idea. It has been implemented as such in some places at some times, but it has also been implemented as areligious in some places at some times.

    The basic idea predates history, so nobody can say for sure if there was any religion involved at the beginning of marriage. We can say for sure that there wasn`t any Christianity, since marriage hugely predates Christianity (and Judaism).

    The words we use are areligious. `wedding` is from OE and means `to vow`. It is a matter of honour, not religion - you give your word about something and you are therefore bound to it. `marriage` is from Latin and only the rarest form of Roman marriage (conferratio) was religious. It certainly wasn`t a requirement for marriage in ancient Rome, which was also done by vow.

    So nothing in concept or language makes marriage inherently religious.
  45. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    August 7, 2011 at 7:36 am
    Staying focused on all that trivia does distract from the simple statment, but it does not change it`s meaning.

    Get back to me if you ever stop ignoring the fact that in many cultures (including ancient Jewish, the relevant culture for this verse) adultery was considered a serious offence.

    You may regard marriage as trivia, but you`re wrong to assume that it was trivia to the people who wrote the verses.
  46. Profile photo of SmagBoy1
    SmagBoy1 Male 40-49
    4432 posts
    August 7, 2011 at 7:41 am
    Okay, Gerry, fair enough. *If* God exists, and, *if* He or She or It chose to speak to Blackstonev and provide Blackstonev with the definitive answers, then, sure, I agree with you. ;-) However, I would caution that even in our own time, with still-living authors, it`s interesting to note how many interpretations there are for modern works. Vonnegut’s stuff is a prime example. I think that Lit classes often gave him a chuckle when he was told, “definitively”, what he was writing about when he wrote. And he wasn`t even a God (well, in the mythical, ethereal way, anyway). ;-)

    I find it best to go back to Monty Python’s take in ‘Life of Brian’ wherein we’re told that “He wants us to follow the gourd! No, He clearly wants us to follow the shoe!” Or whatever.

    What a shame that the minds of men are so easily distracted by the desire to absolve themselves of responsibility for their own actions, hatreds and judgm
  47. Profile photo of SmagBoy1
    SmagBoy1 Male 40-49
    4432 posts
    August 7, 2011 at 7:43 am
    ents.
  48. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    August 7, 2011 at 7:45 am
    I had a civil wedding, as I am an atheist. I would rather have had a civil union, but because I am straight I am not allowed.

    Since they`re the same thing, why care? They`re explicitly defined that way. For the time being anyway - the campaigning is now (unsurprisingly) to give homosexual couples rights that heterosexual couples don`t have and it might succeed at some point in time.

    Given a clean slate, I`d drop the word `marriage` entirely, attach all legal rights to a legal process of civil union, administered by the state, and leave giving or denying religious blessing of unions to the whims of religions.

    But we`re stuck with the word `marriage`, unfortunately.
  49. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36653 posts
    August 7, 2011 at 8:00 am

    @ Angilion - ? I have not ignored that adultry is serious, nor have I said anywhere that marrige is trivial. I hold that the passage is simply written and does not need a great deal of interpretation. I`m not making any excuses for adultry as it is serious. Nor have I said that adultry is okay in any cultural context.

    You see what I mean by "getting distracted"? I think a lot has been read into what I said which takes the focus off of what I actually did say.
  50. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    32785 posts
    August 7, 2011 at 8:14 am
    A fine point! Simple, makes sense, witty and cuts right to the point: equal rights for all! I concur!

    Marriage goes back to the CaveMan times: if a woman is pregnant, she`ll survive far more often if a male is helping her while she`s incapacitated, correct? But what`s in it for the CaveDaddy? If he`s SURE the child is his, that`s what! Thus HIS DNA is carried on, HER DNA is more successful = married CaveCouples survive better than singles.
    QED!
    Reading comments now.

    Madest: THIS is for you!
  51. Profile photo of jtrebowski
    jtrebowski Male 40-49
    3359 posts
    August 7, 2011 at 8:22 am
    Angillion said: " For the time being anyway - the campaigning is now (unsurprisingly) to give homosexual couples rights that heterosexual couples don`t have and it might succeed at some point in time"

    And, what rights would those be?
  52. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    32785 posts
    August 7, 2011 at 8:28 am
    vv @Angilion: I heartily agree! Just call ALL unions "civil" and keep the gov`t OUT of the marriage issue as much as possible.

    vv @Gerry1of1 I think the idea is "IF" she`s a virgin at betrothal. If she`s not (for whatever reason: widowed, has 3 kids & etc) then she wouldn`t get killed on her wedding night, eh? It`s specific for violating her vow of betrothal.

    @Nyan: lolz, all those white people pretending they`re coloured!
  53. Profile photo of cyborg
    cyborg Male 13-17
    2790 posts
    August 7, 2011 at 8:57 am
    ...they don`t pay taxes?
  54. Profile photo of dramaeco
    dramaeco Male 18-29
    305 posts
    August 7, 2011 at 12:10 pm
    I remember I worked at a Kenneth Cole outlet when he was putting out a lot of this kind of stuff. We started getting threats and stuff over the phone, finally there was a tip-off that there was gonna be a nasty protest the next day in the mall where I worked... That was Sept.10, 2001, needless to say, people forgot to show up.
  55. Profile photo of tatripp
    tatripp Male 18-29
    1196 posts
    August 7, 2011 at 12:34 pm
    why don`t we also just let people practice polygamy and let them get married to animals too?
  56. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    August 7, 2011 at 12:48 pm
    You see what I mean by "getting distracted"? I think a lot has been read into what I said which takes the focus off of what I actually did say.

    You consistently referred to a marriage as an engagement, despite knowing the difference. I`m not distracted enough to ignore that because it`s very relevant.
  57. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    August 7, 2011 at 12:55 pm
    Angillion said: " For the time being anyway - the campaigning is now (unsurprisingly) to give homosexual couples rights that heterosexual couples don`t have and it might succeed at some point in time"

    And, what rights would those be?

    To begin with, a right to religious content in a secular wedding.

    If that gets through, the campaigning for more will continue. The first draft that got to parliament would, if it had passed in that form, have allowed for churches to be forced to conduct marriage rituals and blessings for homosexual couples. This "oversight" was amended in debate. This time.

    It should hardly be surprising that a political ideology that exists for the purpose of getting more for a specific group will continue to campaign for more for a specific group. That`s what such groups are for.
  58. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    August 7, 2011 at 12:58 pm
    why don`t we also just let people practice polygamy

    Yes, why don`t we?

    and let them get married to animals too?

    For the same reason we don`t allow animals to sign other contracts. They`re not able to understand abstract legal concepts. If they were intelligent enough to do so, they`d be people.
  59. Profile photo of Heureux
    Heureux Male 40-49
    1054 posts
    August 7, 2011 at 12:59 pm
    tatripp

    Please stay out of pet stores, zoos, farms, and any other place where you might be alone with animals.

    Since you cannot, apparently, tell the difference between a consensual relationship between two adult human beings, and raping animals, who knows what you might do if left alone with someone`s pet, or with livestock, or animals on exhibit in a zoo.
  60. Profile photo of Zeegrr60
    Zeegrr60 Male 40-49
    2106 posts
    August 7, 2011 at 1:53 pm
    Why is it called "common" sense when no-one seems to have it?
  61. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36653 posts
    August 7, 2011 at 2:20 pm

    Angilion - no one in favor of same sex marriage says you cannot have a religiouis cerimony if you choose so how do you lose the "right to religious content in a secular wedding". If it`s secular it`s not religious but I get your point. Currently a judge at city hall will not say a prayer over you if you get married down town. You lose nothing.

    churches are not forced to do anything against their religious dogma. A catholic priest is not compelled to marry a jew/catholic couple. That arguement is a non-starter.

    that fact is you don`t like it because it`s against your idea of normal or against your faith. I`m cool with that. But you can`t force those beliefs on others no matter how strongly you feel they are the correct, moral choice.
  62. Profile photo of LtFurpie
    LtFurpie Male 30-39
    1013 posts
    August 7, 2011 at 2:48 pm
    Equal rights for rights and lefts? Sorry, school systems allow for 10-15% lefties when it comes to ordering desks.
  63. Profile photo of Kiwigirl2
    Kiwigirl2 Female 30-39
    1048 posts
    August 7, 2011 at 5:35 pm
    Get over it! Marriage is such an out-dated concept anyway - used to be (and still is in some places) the "purchasing" of a woman for a man. Not matter how its gussied up with frocks and parties you never see the dude walking down the aisle to the lady standing waiting.
  64. Profile photo of Errand_boy
    Errand_boy Male 30-39
    621 posts
    August 7, 2011 at 6:13 pm
    This all stems from that bitch Susan B. Anthony I tell ya. No, seriously, good for you.
  65. Profile photo of itstevens
    itstevens Male 18-29
    18 posts
    August 7, 2011 at 8:23 pm
    @gerry1of1

    Thank you. You could not have said it better. First let me say that I am a christian and I firmly believe that homosexuality is a sin. That being said some of my best friends are gay. It is WRONG to condemn somebody for their sins unless you yourself are sinless (which you`re NOT) even if sins like homosexuality and murder did outweigh sins like lying and fornication(which they DON"T) Because the fact of the matter is(SURPRISE!) all sins(and people) are created equal. No sin is worse than another, and everyone has the right to lead their own life and make their own decisions. Someone who is gay is no worse or better than someone who has lied or someone who has fornicated or some lazy sumabitch who spends their day on sites that are a good remedy for boredom. Sites that stimulate discussion of gay marriage for example. My point is, everybody has their own baggage and sins to carry around so quit worrying about others and focus on minimizing your own.
  66. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    August 8, 2011 at 2:04 am
    so how do you lose the "right to religious content in a secular wedding".

    Who said anything about losing it? I didn`t, so in what way is your reply relevant to my post?

    churches are not forced to do anything against their religious dogma. A catholic priest is not compelled to marry a jew/catholic couple. That arguement is a non-starter.

    That argument was in the bill put into the UK parliament with the intention of making it law. It`s what happens when people have a right to religious content because if they have a right to it then refusing to provide it to them is illegal. That`s what "right" means.

    that fact is you don`t like it because it`s against your idea of normal or against your faith.
  67. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    August 8, 2011 at 2:04 am

    The fact is that you`re throwing out baseless accusations, presumably because it`s the most effective way to stifle anyone who isn`t willing to give carte blanche to any old discrimination simply because it`s fashionable.

    Here`s my position, which I`ve stated clearly before and which I don`t mind repeating every time anyone starts spraying baseless accusations around:

    The difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality is negligable and irrelevant. No distinction should be made, neither in law nor in social custom.

    I am mildly interested in how you will pretend that is irrational prejudice against homosexuality. The easiest way would be if you just completely ignore what I`ve written and claim I wrote something completely different, but maybe you can find a more creative way.
  68. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10731 posts
    August 8, 2011 at 2:51 am
    @itstevens

    Oh yeah because clearly taking someone`s life is as bad taking their property, yeah equal sins indeed.
  69. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    32785 posts
    August 8, 2011 at 5:48 am
    vv I said "drat!" when I dislocated my toe the other day, I guess that`s the same as setting hobos on fire, eh?

    (picture later, gtg!)
  70. Profile photo of demetar
    demetar Male 18-29
    216 posts
    August 8, 2011 at 9:11 am
    Some human beings really disgust me.
  71. Profile photo of Quackor
    Quackor Male 18-29
    2856 posts
    August 8, 2011 at 9:56 am
    its stupid that union is called "marriage"
  72. Profile photo of last_metroid
    last_metroid Female 18-29
    87 posts
    August 9, 2011 at 2:18 pm
    I don`t have anything against two people loving each other, it`s a beautiful thing. If they`re the same gender I can`t say I like the idea, but hey if they want to be married that`s their prerogative.
    Just quit it with the gay pride parades and having men talk with that stupid "gay accent" ugh!
    I really hope this is where the line is being crossed with leniency, if not people will be marrying animals or inanimate objects next :S.
  73. Profile photo of Fatninja01
    Fatninja01 Male 30-39
    25420 posts
    August 14, 2011 at 7:58 pm
    lol
  74. Profile photo of sicker
    sicker Female 30-39
    325 posts
    August 18, 2011 at 4:52 am
    @last_metroid I see you`re from Canada. Were you perhaps born in the deep south? Hit on your head as a child? Because, I gotta tell you how disappointing it is to me to see a fellow Canadian spouting that backwoods, redneck trash talk.
  75. Profile photo of ohthedrama
    ohthedrama Male 30-39
    162 posts
    August 25, 2011 at 3:52 am
    How about my Billboard: Homosexuality - You can choose NOT to partake. Or how about, Marriage is not some kind of club membership. But in the end, people just want to feel marginalized probably to get attention, I don`t know why. Homosexuality is an action. People trying to argue it by two people being in love is irrelevant because two friends can be in love but not have sex, which is exactly what homosexuality implies and it is exactly what marriage implies. You marry to procreate and educate your offspring. To create a stable family from which the human race continues. Sure you can that homosexuals are not hurting anyone. Yes they are. They are depriving children from having a proper family and upbringing. They will either not have their biological father or mother to which every child has that natural attachment to. It`s no different than a child experiencing a divorce. What is backwards is that we think homosexuality is a born trait or even a lifestyle. It`s not. It`s a choice.

Leave a Reply