Marriage equality

[LazyPooky]

This is a great opportunity for same-sex couples in the US who want to get marry.

Facebook has the option to change your profile picture with the rainbow flag.
http://gadgets.ndtv.com/social-netwo...quality-708699

I'm not so into marriage and I probably won't but for people who want to show their love for eachother and are religious it's a great step forewards.


A rainbow flag is projected on the White House


The top of the Empire State Building displays the rainbow flag


The Brandenburg Gate in Berlin displays the rainbow flag

[LT-Fan]

Re: Marriage equality

I'm not gonna get married at all too. But those who really want to should be able to do so, no matter what kind of person you like, male, female, shouldn't really matter for society. Love is what is important.

[boredjedi]

Re: Marriage equality

Next step is making polygamy legal!

[StingX]

Re: Marriage equality

Next step is making polygamy legal!

"Love wins" certainly does paint an awfully broad stroke.

Congrats to supporters all around the world and to Obama for being a misappropriation of credit for it happening.

[Glanni's Girl]

Re: Marriage equality

Went to the Theatre yesterday and ended up walking through a lot of broken glass as it was also gay pride day. I say that because I've never seen so many people wearing shorts at the same time, so I'm surprised everyone didn't have bloody legs.

[SportaKandy]

Re: Marriage equality

I generally don't delve into things of which I have no interest. I skim enough off the surface to simply stay informed. But the move to expose children to this lifestyle troubles me greatly.

I understand there are some people who just wanted more freedom from government. I have no problem w/ those people. What I have a problem w/ are those parents who have indoctrinated their young to take pride in perversion. I don't speak from an ill-informed perspective. My own sister is a militant gay activist. And while I don't love her any less, our relationship has changed for the worse.

The biggest problem is mixing children and concupiscence. Bringing kids to homosexual celebrations is not safe. I came across a photo of a tattooed man w/ a ring in his nose, carving a giant phallus right next to a group of bored children who were obviously dragged there so their parents could march. The sight was inhuman. It literally gave me nightmares.

Taking pride in sin is not beautiful nor does feeling equal require celebrating the very things that have marginalized you. You are now free to love and marry anyone. But cross a line, and u may very well risk losing your kids. Love wins? Perhaps. Or maybe evil has dressed itself up so brightly, that it blinds us to the truth.

[LT-Fan]

Re: Marriage equality

The biggest problem is mixing children and concupiscence. Bringing kids to homosexual celebrations is not safe. I came across a photo of a tattooed man w/ a ring in his nose, carving a giant phallus right next to a group of bored children who were obviously dragged there so their parents could march. The sight was inhuman. It literally gave me nightmares.

Taking pride in sin is not beautiful nor does feeling equal require celebrating the very things that have marginalized you. You are now free to love and marry anyone. But cross a line, and u may very well risk losing your kids. Love wins? Perhaps. Or maybe evil has dressed itself up so brightly, that it blinds us to the truth.

Why do you think that you might lose your kids with it? In Germany a person was asking what to do, to bring children to a gay marriage or not. The editor said, not to do it. Why? What would you tell your children why they don't see those people? They don't have to see them being intimate (or having a visible phallus tattoo/ring) but they are still people. And they should be treated like normal people.
Don't get me wrong: I'm not gay and I might not like when I get kissed by a man but if others like it between them, what would be wrong? If my neighbor is gay, I don't care.

[StingX]

Re: Marriage equality

I actually agree with you in a way, SportaKandy. This particular issue was dealt with by the Supreme Court because they determined that a) this was an issue of Constitutional civil liberties, and b) that banning gay marriage was a violation of the constitution. I think that it was the correct decision to make and people who disagree had better start getting over it because anti-gay marriage people have now officially lost the battle. A ruling like this by the Supreme Court is basically impossible to be overturned.

It does open the can of worms regarding folks whose religious beliefs are against gay marriage. For most, it is a non issue. If someone is religious and disagrees with the Supreme Court ruling on the basis of their religion, too bad. The Supreme Court made the correct decision by taking the secular approach on the issue as outlined in Amendment I of the Constitution of the United States: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. However, there are also many religious priests, pastors, etc. out there who marry people, and whose religious beliefs do not allow for gay marriage. These people's rights should not be overlooked. Should the law of the land force people with the ability to marry couples to also marry gay couples, even if it violates the doctrines of their religion? This is a question that will be worked out and we will be seeing a lot of news about it, I think.

It absolutely baffles me that there is a sociological idea or stereotypes of what a gay person is, or the fact that a "gaydar" exists. Why does a sexuality have bearing on a person's musical taste, hobbies, sense of style, etc? I don't think that it actually does. I think that a gay culture has arisen due to the oppression that been set upon them, and many young gay people seek this culture as a safe haven where they pick up various traits that the culture has produced for whatever reason. I've been to a gay pride parade before, and I actually agree that they are pretty inappropriate. People can have whatever sexuality they want, but should a bunch of men in nothing but thongs, dancing in a fake shower float, and throwing condoms at the crowd in the middle of a public area be okay? Eh..... I don't really think so. I think that there is a difference between being proud and being lewd, and I think that a lot of folks are using this kind of stuff as an excuse to be lewd.

I would really like to take a glimpse into the future to see if, in a few generations, the idea of gay pride and gay culture has dissipated, and we're just left with people who don't feel the need to put others down for or flaunt their own sexuality.

[LazyPooky]

Re: Marriage equality

...a bunch of men in nothing but thongs, dancing in a fake shower float, and throwing condoms at the crowd in the middle of a public area be okay? Eh..... I don't really think so.

Some say that they are a vital part of the water cycle but I don't think that is scientifically proven

[StingX]

Re: Marriage equality

It does open the can of worms regarding folks whose religious beliefs are against gay marriage. For most, it is a non issue. If someone is religious and disagrees with the Supreme Court ruling on the basis of their religion, too bad. The Supreme Court made the correct decision by taking the secular approach on the issue as outlined in Amendment I of the Constitution of the United States: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. However, there are also many religious priests, pastors, etc. out there who marry people, and whose religious beliefs do not allow for gay marriage. These people's rights should not be overlooked. Should the law of the land force people with the ability to marry couples to also marry gay couples, even if it violates the doctrines of their religion? This is a question that will be worked out and we will be seeing a lot of news about it, I think.

The whole Kim Davis incident is a good example of what I wrote here, and it helped me solidify what my opinions are on this. She is not a private citizen such as the priest of a church, so this really applies to the "etc." part.

For those who have not seen the news about it, she is a county clerk in the state of Kentucky who refused to give out marriage licenses to all citizens in protest of the legalization of gay marriage, citing that in conflicts with her religious beliefs. She was arrested with the charge of contempt of court after refusing to do her job even when commanded to by the Kentucky courts. She is an elected official and cannot simply be fired from her job, rather, she must be impeached by the Kentucky legislators. Under normal circumstances all signs point to this happening by now, but the legislators are not currently in session, and it would cost enough State funds to rally them to not be justified in doing so. As far as I can tell, she will be impeached and let out of jail once she can be. I admit that I am not entirely positive of how all of that works, but that is what is going on to the best of my understanding. She has gathered support and criticism from both everyday people all the way to presidential candidates; some calling her a hero and martyr, some calling her a hypocrite and bigot.

Given that she is a government employee, it is her duty to carry out the laws of the United States and the laws of Kentucky, as stated in the oath that all Kentucky government employees must take during their inauguration. Aside from the goofy antiquated stuff, it is clear that her allegiance is to be to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of Kentucky.

I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth, and be faithful and true to the Commonwealth of Kentucky so long as I continue a citizen thereof, and that I will faithfully execute, to the best of my ability, the office of ------- according to law; and I do further solemnly swear (or affirm) that since the adoption of the present Constitution, I, being a citizen of this State, have not fought a duel with deadly weapons within this State nor out of it, nor have I sent or accepted a challenge to fight a duel with deadly weapons, nor have I acted as second in carrying a challenge, nor aided or assisted any person thus offending, so help me God.

It troubles me that a member of the government has such a fundamental misunderstanding about the core values of the government that they represent. In case the Amendment I of the United States Constitution as quoted above does not seem clear enough, the following is a quote from Thomas Jefferson.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.

However, what is even more deeply troubling is that there are presidential candidates that hold the exact same values that Kim Davis has; that the law of God is higher than the law of the United States. To quote the GOP candidate Mike Huckabee,

Kim is a person of great conviction. When people of conviction fight for what’s right they often pay a price, but if they don’t and we surrender, we will pay a far greater price for bowing to the false God of judicial supremacy. Government is not God. No man – and certainly no unelected lawyer – has the right to redefine the laws of nature or of nature’s God. Five unelected lawyers have abused their power by ruling in favor of a national right to same-sex marriage with no legal precedent and with nothing in our Constitution to back it up. They have violated American’s most fundamental right guaranteed by our Constitution — religious liberty.

Many people are expressing that they feel as if Christianity is becoming outlawed and are feeling oppressed by whatever powers that be, as exampled by Mike Huckabee's quote. A common thing for these people to claim is that the recent ruling infringes their rights as a religious person. This is, more or less, a complete joke because people do not hold the right to take away somebody else's rights. The notion that these people, being radical fundamentalists, are now oppressed because they can no longer use their religious beliefs to oppress others is the kind of backwards logic that is in line with many of their other beliefs. The religious liberty as defined by the core values of the United States of America is not so much about liberty of religion, rather, is much more about liberty from religion on a governmental level. Although the term is thrown around to the point of banality, I truly mean it when I say that Kim Davis and those who rally around her are as un-American as it gets. Perhaps they would be more suited for a country where a fundamentalist government exists like Saudi Arabia.

[boredjedi]

Re: Marriage equality

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.

However, what is even more deeply troubling is that there are presidential candidates that hold the exact same values that Kim Davis has; that the law of God is higher than the law of the United States.

We have been a very confused country for quite few decades now. It started after WWII when "in god we trust" (middle 1950's) began to appear on the U.S. currency and we've been on a downward spiral ever since with christian religious extremism. Can't say for certain what started it but I do believe the cold war had a lot to do with it and the fear of total annihilation and to sooth the fears of U.S. citizens from the non-religious communist.

[Sportsicus]

Re: Marriage equality

i pretty much agree with a little bit of what 50% of these comments are, but i am not one for alot of discussion on this subject, so i'll leave it at that. i write gay fanfics, but beyond that, zippo.

[SportaKandy]

Re: Marriage equality

I truly mean it when I say that Kim Davis and those who rally around her are as un-American as it gets.

I usually consider myself an American. But if I'm forced to leave that identity behind, I will joyfully do so. For those of us who desire to be citizens of the heavenly city, there can be no compromising God's law. As most of you know, I am no saint. Thankfully, I've received the Lord's grace and been able to live a free life albeit imperfectly, to say the least. I am low, I am meek, I am a sinner. I don't go around taking stands. Honestly, If I was put in the position of Kim Davis I would probably resign in protest. If the marriage issue was that important to me, perhaps I would lead a life of prayer for the afflicted. But I would avoid the media circus because it's just not my way. I don't agree with Huckabee's political views. I think he's a big government hack who would continue the progressive spending policies that have put this country in debt. But I would argue his position here is not a radical, fundamental idea. The definition of being a Christian is to serve God in every area of your life, as demonstrated by Jesus Christ. Relegating a person's religious liberty to certain areas is not freedom. It is a leash. As to whether we are being persecuted, it is irrelevant. We have always been in opposition to the world and the culture. It is to be expected. I just always assumed we would be safe here given the country's history. The pilgrims came here to practice their religion away from a persecuting government. Now mistakes of the past are being repeated. Faith and freedom are taking hits. It's sad if you love America and those things for which it stood. It appears that in the end there will be no safe place left. In the Old World people are killed. In the New World people are jailed. Humanity is as divided as ever. We are united only in pain and suffering. Hate thrives, wars rage, cities burn. Love has not won.

[StingX]

Re: Marriage equality

Honestly, If I was put in the position of Kim Davis I would probably resign in protest.

That would have been the appropriate thing to do, not sit in her office and practice advanced pouting. She is in trouble because she refused to do her job, not directly due to any her of beliefs. That's the thing; it's not about what anybody thinks, because everybody is allowed to think and believe whatever they want but must resign those beliefs when in a secular governmental position. A fundamentalist Christian is allowed to think that gay marriage is wrong just like a fundamentalist Jew is allowed to believe that eating non-kosher meat is wrong just like a fundamentalist Muslim is allowed to think that women shouldn't be able to be independent of a man. But if a fundamentalist Jew was a meat inspector and refused to inspect any meat due to his religious beliefs, or if a fundamentalist Muslim was a congressman and refused to listen to deliberation on or vote on any bill introduced or endorsed by a female member of congress without her husband's consent and chaperone, then we would clearly have an issue. Normally these people would be fired, but as with Kim Davis's case, it's not that simple.

People are always up in arms whenever the quietest whisper of, "Islam," is said. They freak out and claim that Sharia law has officially taken over and ISIS has invaded the homeland. If Aadil Mohammad Masih was saying, "I cannot issue marriage licences because doing so would violate the Word of Allah and the teachings of Islam," tell me, do you really think this would be the same story even though it is the exact same belief?

I would argue his position here is not a radical, fundamental idea. The definition of being a Christian is to serve God in every area of your life, as demonstrated by Jesus Christ.

Yes, that is what is called fundamentalism.

The pilgrims came here to practice their religion away from a persecuting government. Now mistakes of the past are being repeated. Faith and freedom are taking hits. It's sad if you love America and those things for which it stood. It appears that in the end there will be no safe place left. In the Old World people are killed. In the New World people are jailed. Humanity is as divided as ever. We are united only in pain and suffering. Hate thrives, wars rage, cities burn. Love has not won.

The pilgrims came from Holland because they wanted to do religion their own puritanical way. They made the same core mistake that many, many religious folk make; they thought that their own religion, which is largely determined by the arbitrary time and place of one's birth, is the only correct religion and all others are wrong. The same mistake that drove them away from Europe. They came to what is now known as New England and persecuted the people already populating the area for their religious beliefs or what they determined to be a lack thereof as well as later doing the same to members of differing sects of their shared faith systems.

You should be happy because this court ruling expands the freedom of people in the United States. Now many more people are free to marry. Freedom is not a person's right to take away other people's rights, as Kim Davis is trying to do. And no, her rights are not being taken away either. She is completely free to believe that gay people shouldn't marry and to not issue them marriage licences. She can easily do so by leaving her government job, where secular laws govern, and finding a new job that does not require her to go against her religious beliefs for her to properly perform.

Both you and I, as well as the great majority of all people in the world, dream of a utopia where hate, pain, suffering, and war are all fragmented memories of a troubled past. I do not claim to know how to reach such a goal, nor am I certain that the goal is even attainable, but I can say that while looking back on the thousands of years of human civilization that have preceded this moment, it seems that religion is an obstacle on the path to a peaceful world, not the path itself.

[SportaKandy]

Re: Marriage equality

The fundamentalist thing is a cop-out. There is failure to adhere to doctrine, which is practicing one's religion falsely. It appears we disagree on both the history and the role of a neighbor here, so there's not much more I can add to the issue. I believe the peace we seek is within our hearts. Striving for a better world is a noble goal. Still it is an ideal. It shall always be that one person's vision of happiness looks like another's misery. The immutable truth is that any peaceful civilization of this world is transitory. The utopia we seek is not of this world. Christians do not tread the path to a peaceful world, they walk on God's path to a peaceful eternity. Know that the Lord's people have not chosen to become obstacles to anyone's vision of happiness. God chose us to be ministers of the Word, to live as servants of righteousness. Sometimes this involves rebuking people or wanting the best for them. Religious people are individuals with freedoms just like everybody else. It just so happens that our pursuit of happiness looks like His vision. Remember that if our liberty is an impediment to your sense of peace, your quarrel is not with us but with God.

As for the Islamists, they are a people of death. I have no respect for the poison they call a religion. Their god Allah is a bloodthirsty demon who instructs his pitiable souls to do unspeakable horrors. However, it is telling that when they put their barbarism under the cloak of religion, secularists are quick to compare them to Christians. It shows a lack of empathy for people who think differently than them. Honestly, I would say they lack a willingness to understand the difference between the two and cling to an animus against religion in general. When it comes down to it, by their fruits you shall know them. One group seeks to homogenize the world into an Islamic State and kill or enslave anyone who thinks differently. The other group seeks to live freely and spread the good news of their victorious risen Savior. Considering who put who in jail in this case, I find the comparison between the two insulting and harboring a complete lack of awareness.