Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Wednesday, May 16, 2012 | 2:01 a.m.
Congratulations to President Barack Obama, and welcome to the 21st century. Those of us who have made it here to the “future” have been waiting for a major U.S. political figure to state the obvious: that the adult you marry should be your own personal pick, not someone a group of strangers, a religion, your neighbors or family members picked for you. This ultimately isn’t about gay rights, it’s about personal choice. And it’s too bad that certain people expect it to be their right to put it to a public vote, especially because I wasn’t invited to vote on their personal choices.
Personal freedom means letting people make their own personal choices, not the limited choices their church or someone else would make for them. It’s taken way too long for a political figure to come forward with that. Too bad so-called libertarian Republicans like Ron Paul haven’t figured that out yet.
Mr. Klamann; I understand your letter to the editor. However, I am totally against gay marriage and gays in the military. Those are both my personal and religious beliefs. On a personal note, the mere thought of homosexuality makes me sick to my stomach.
I mean come on now, what's next? Gender free public restrooms? Gender free military barracks? I'm heterosexual. Where are my rights? I think this is a sick society.
But, as an American, and a firm believer in our Constitution and all the adjoining amendments, I am obligated to separate my personal and religious beliefs since there is a separation of church and state. I would reluctantly vote in favor of gay rights both in the military and marriage, even though in my eyes this is the most disgraceful passage in American history.
The bottom line is, the depraved of our society have finally been successful in manipulating our Constitutional guarantees in their favor.
------------
"I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian ... it is also a sacred union." -- Obama's response in April 2008 during a presidential campaign
--------
The flip-flop that Obama made is all about polls, Obama's re-election and getting campaign money from the flithy Rich in Hollywood and NewYork.
How can you trust anyone with such a huge change in four years.
What will he flip-flop on next jobs the economy?
Now that Obama rejected one of his core personal religious beliefs - What will Obama flip-flop on next will he become a deficit hawk and reduce runaway growth in entitlements?
The fact that gay marriage attracts
this much attention at all is a testamony
to the extent of America's deep societal
malaise. Marriage is and should be the relationship
between one woman and one man. Any alternative to this is morally reprehensible and dysfunctional.
I cannot fathom that our society has raised this matter to the level of a major issue.But unfortunately it has. If someone is gay they are gay, that's just plain fact. Nevertheless, the institution of marriage is defined by the relationship of a man and a woman. Any other configuration undermines society's health and moral foundation. Gay relationships should be treated as an "alternative life style",and not as a main denominator life style that is entitled to recognition as legal partnerhood for purposes of entitlements. The nature of the relationship should be treated legally as being in the realm of "good friends" and no more.
Civil marriage is an agreement, a contract if you will, between two adults who are old enough to legally make contracts.
Some religions would like us to think they should be the sole arbiter of who can make this contract.
People are entitled to love, honor and obey whomever they want. It is their personal freedom and choice. But on one issue there is no debate and no room for varying opinions. Marriage is not two men and/or two women, and/or one man and woman with more than one partner, who choose to make a life together. Never is, never was, and never will be.
Carmine A. DiFazio
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
I respect your right to have religious convictions. That is where your religious convictions involvement with my life ends.
"Too bad so-called libertarian Republicans like Ron Paul haven't figured that out yet."
Ron Paul and libertarians have but the letter writer hasn't [yet]. It's true for all ages. Words have meanings and meanings have consequences. Such is the way it is and always will be with marriage.
Carmine A. DiFazio
The New York times conducted a poll after Obama announced his support for Gay marriage after years sitting on the fence on the subject. 67% felt Obama supported gay marriage for political reasons while only 24% felt Obama did so because it was the right thing to do. Here is an excerpt from what the poll found:
"Most Americans suspect that President Obama was motivated by politics, not policy, when he declared his support for same-sex marriage, according to a poll released on Monday, suggesting that the unplanned way it was announced shaped public attitudes. 67% of those surveyed by The New York Times and CBS News since the announcement said they thought that Mr. Obama had made it "mostly for political reasons," while 24% said it was "mostly because he thinks it is right." Independents were more likely to attribute it to politics, with nearly half of Democrats agreeing.
The results reinforce the concerns of White House aides and Democratic strategists who worried that the sequence of events leading up to the announcement last week made it look calculated rather than principled."
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/15/us/pol...
It's amusing to read this sanctimonious blather about marriage being between one man and one woman as if two people in a committed long-term relationship is "sick," while a man and a woman can "marry" solely for financial gain/benefits, immigration status, or they can get drunk one night and decide to tie the knot. That's some twisted thinking going on in some conservatives' heads.
"one man and one woman as if two people in a committed long-term relationship is "sick,"
Not sick if their mutual choice. BUT...not a marriage by any stretch of the word.
Carmine A. DiFazio
Here is a Wiki page on "Same-sex marriage status in the United States by state". Most states seemed to have banned same-sex marriage by either statute or through its state constitution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_ma...
How Obama spins his thoughts on gay marriage cannot be taken seriously. His positions as he expresses them on a wide range of matters are usually misleading and self serving. He simply is not to be trusted..This matter will continue to be debated. This will be a continuing process. The main issue is whether this will end up a states rights matter or a constitutional matter.
One Citizen's religious BELIEFS do not trump another citizen's Constitutional RIGHTS. End of story. Long live the separation of church and state!
This not an issue of gay marriage- its politics
This is about the faux Obama flip-flop on his religious belief from the last campaign in 2008
Last week Obama said that this was up to the States to address.
This week Obama said there needed to be a change in the marriage act that Bill Clinton pushed through Congress and sign.
What is the real position of Obama
"...the adult you marry should be your own personal pick, not someone a group of strangers, a religion, your neighbors or family members picked for you. This ultimately isn't about gay rights, it's about personal choice."
Klamann -- such an excellent letter, and such obvious truths! Makes one wonder why the rabid opponents don't get it, no?
"I mean come on now, what's next? Gender free public restrooms? ... I'm heterosexual. Where are my rights? I think this is a sick society. . . . .The bottom line is, the depraved of our society have finally been successful in manipulating our Constitutional guarantees in their favor."
BChap -- I hear omnigender restrooms work fine in other parts of the world. Certainly the woman arrested in Houston who chose the short men's room line for the long, long ladies' room line over wetting her pants emphasizes the utter stupidity of those laws. As for YOUR rights, your hetero choices are being forced on them, not the other way around. Looks to me like the Rosa Parks civil rights in the last century -- it's about equality, and that's all.
"Marriage is and should be the relationship between one woman and one man. Any alternative to this is morally reprehensible and dysfunctional. . .Any other configuration undermines society's health and moral foundation."
Houstonjac -- another clueless post from one completely ignorant of the republic you live in. What part of "equal rights" do you fail to understand? Can you say "Jim Crow lives"? By contrast your later post "The main issue is whether this will end up a states rights matter or a constitutional matter" is right on point. Marriage is and has always been a state issue. The feds have zero jurisdiction over it, that's been clear at least since the U.S. Supreme's 1877 decision in Meister v. Moore.
"Civil marriage is an agreement, a contract if you will, between two adults who are old enough to legally make contracts."
pisces41 -- every state statute I've seen defines marriage as a civil contract. Nevada does, too. The problem here is our Constitution was changed recently to abrogate the rest of our Declaration of Rights by defining marriage to be strictly hetero. Stupid, stupid voters!
"I respect your right to have religious convictions. That is where your religious convictions involvement with my life ends."
VegasEngineer -- another excellent post, yet why are the opponents so rabid about ignoring our republic's duty to ensure equality?
"Most states seemed to have banned same-sex marriage by either statute or through its state constitution."
RefNV -- you'll find Nevada's version @ http://www.leg.state.nv.us/Const/NVConst...
"The greatest tragedy in mankind's entire history may be the hijacking of morality by religion." -- Arthur C. Clarke, 1999, from "God, Science, and Delusion: A Chat With Arthur C. Clarke" in Free Inquiry magazine
Why do teabaggers want Big Government to tell people they can't be married? Oh, now I remember. It's because teabaggers love Big Gov as long as it does their bidding.
LastThroes,
Judging by the vote counts of those states who voted to ban gay marriage, there were a healthy number of democrats who voted for the ban. Some states voted with a 60%-70% "yes" for the ban.
Even Five Deferment Dick Cheney has accepted the reality of same-sex marraige. If Dick can do it, so can all the other right-wing nuts.
The nanny state should not be in the business of dictating who can and cannot be married.
Comment removed by moderator. Personal Attack
Our country like it or not provides freedom of choice for all.Including 12% of unmarried couples currently living together. Of which 22% of these unmarried couples have first births without being married. The gay married and unmarried couples make 1% of all couples in our country.So one could say we have other issues, if we want to talk about morality.
The so-called problem with gay marriage isn't about being gay. It's about people cherry picking sections of the bible to suit their homophobia or paranoia while ignoring other parts of the bible. Stoning women for adultery is out of the question but I've heard people say gays should die because of their behavior. How times have we've seen signs stating "God Hates Gays" at demonstrations? The line is blurred when it comes to separation of church and state over this issue, and civil rights for some isn't quite the same as civil rights for all.
We are not to judge others according to the teachings of Christ, that is to be left to God.
"Couldn't care less what homos do to each other but I do object to being told I have to accept their deviant, dangerous, disgusting and deadly "lifestyle." I don't have to and won't. Can't they just shut their mouths and do their deeds in private?"
By your logic, why do others have to care about what YOU do? Why do you think you have the right to interfere with other people's lives because they made a choice you disagree with?
By your logic, you should forbid yourself from ever announcing any love towards women, because other people might find THAT objectionable.
Dipstick,
Seriously, your name doesn't show with your LVS handle "Dipstick" anymore. Additionally, when I click above to "Read the Full Article" it doesn't list you anymore. You're not listed with the trusted posters anymore. What's the deal?
Those who stand on the side of divisiveness, bigotry and hatred will always lose the fight in the long run. These "constitutional patriots" are nothing of the sort, draping themselves in the flag or the Constitution when it's convenient, and shedding it when it is not.
They would rather take their talking points from Bristol Palin and far-right hate groups, while they justify stripping liberty because it's popular. It's clear they don't comprehend the simple language of our Constitution.
Marriage equality will be realized, and sooner than you think. "Small government conservative" frauds tread ever closer to complete irrelevance.
It's pretty much like the kids say when they get picked up from church:
"The problem with religion is religion."
Until the federal tax code eliminates disparate treatment of married people versus non-married people, it remains UNCONSTITUTIONAL to favor some individual's pursuit of happiness over other people. States and local governments can legislate restrictions but those restrictions could be struck down by the SCOTUS as unconstitutional anywhere within this nation. I personally do not care what gets you thru the night--as long as it doesn't involve children, violence, intimidation.....
"...I do object to being told I have to accept their deviant, dangerous, disgusting and deadly "lifestyle." I don't have to and won't. Can't they just shut their mouths and do their deeds in private?"
lvfacts101 -- according to your post, our fellow citizens with dark skin can still be forced to the back of the bus and to use separate public restrooms. Remember that next time you pledge allegiance to that limp cloth symbolizing "liberty and justice for all."
"The line is blurred when it comes to separation of church and state over this issue, and civil rights for some isn't quite the same as civil rights for all."
VernosB -- good post, and it highlights the stubborn but steady usurping of dominionists into our national politics. Like most religions christians insist on their God Mandate to force the rest of us live by their principles, especially their moral code. That's why we have the Bill of Rights and Declaration of Rights. As the pigs in "Animal Farm" decreed, "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
"...bigotry and hatred will always lose the fight in the long run. . . . .It's clear they don't comprehend the simple language of our Constitution."
edgewise -- unfortunately they don't "always lose the fight," as national politics on this issue shows. Like Colorado's recent special vote smacking down their governor's call for equality shows. That few "comprehend the simple language of our Constitution" is so true, including the proponents. The threshold point is the promise of equality, not whether or not governments and the rest of the herd are in favor of it.
"Multiple marriage partners will be coming soon."
acejoker -- other than your post being buffoonish, what's wrong with whatever consenting adults do with each other? Government at every level needs to get out of the marriage business, the sooner the better!
"Until the federal tax code eliminates disparate treatment of married people versus non-married people, it remains UNCONSTITUTIONAL to favor some individual's pursuit of happiness over other people."
Roslenda -- at last something we can agree on!
"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual." -- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Isaac H Tiffany (1819)
I have no problem with same sex marriage. The problem I have is I am tired of hearing about it. I lived next door to two gentlemen while I lived in Holland. They were great people. In the summer we would set up and umbrella in front of our house next to the water and drink Heineken and laugh, watch the boats and enjoy each others company. My wife felt a little uneasy at first but in the end we were fine. I resent the fact that people need to include their sexual preference when referring to them as in "that's so and so he's gay". We don't, however, say "there's so and so he likes missionary sex". I am offended every time I read about someone speculating about whether so and so is gay. Who gives a crap! I don't. That is a private matter.
Finally, I believe that California's recent legislation requiring the teaching of "gay history" to be sick.
Comment removed by moderator. - -
Freedom is doing what you like and happiness is some sense of liking what you see, do or feel. In work environments, employers control certain things such as dress code. Some women would like to wear modern, form fitted clothing that flatters their figure or positive features however, other women find this offensive especially if they themselves can't wear the same clothing and feel the same way as those who prefer flattering form-fitted clothing.
We all do have a sense of what unfiltered "full" freedom to do anything which doesn't harm anyone else is like but we also know when to curtail our freedom of being ourselves when we visit places: commercial, businesses, work, friends, family, etc. I think some people are struggling with the gay marriage issue not due to freedom but how it would affect others positively or negatively in all these other places: commercial, businesses, work, friends, family, etc. Admittedly, as a man, I am quite uncomfortable when a guy stares me down with an interested look. It can happen at a mall, grocery store, airport, lots of places and it just gives me chills. My question is, would this happen more often? If so, I will leave the confines of my home less to avoid it. Just like the women who don't want to see other women in their work environment wearing tight form-fitted clothing that flatters their figure because it makes other women uncomfortable, so to does the "stare" from another guy makes certain guys very uncomfortable. Would this happen more? I think most people are okay with the thought of same sex arrangements doing what they choose in their homes but question how it would affect people and the general public in other places outside the home. Seeing same sex couples around town wouldn't bother me, I just don't want my comfort zone violated by the same sex staring at me in an interested fashion.
The bottom line: People are (slowly) continuing to realize that the US constitutional guarantees of equal rights under the law do, indeed, extend to all citizens.
I love the comments from the libs complaining about the nanny state telling them what they can and cannot do or that conservatives want big government to tell us what to do.
Mitt Romney wants to use his divisive religion to control us.
"Multiple marriage partners will be coming soon."
Read about King David in the Old Testament. He had multiple wives. But, then again, so many choose to ignore this part of the Bible.
RefNV: Hilarious letter! Here's lookin' at cha!
P.S. Your feminine side is showing due to that "tight form fitted clothing" comment. Take a cold shower!
There has been a double standard for a very long time. How many of you remember going to a skating rink and hearing this when it was time for a "couples" skate: "A couple is a boy and a girl, two girls, but not two boys."
Or this one when a "trio" skate was announced: "A trio is 2 girls and a boy, 2 boys and a girl, 3 girls, but no 3 boys."
Lesbian activity has long been tolerated (and in some ways, encouraged) as long as the people who engaged in it did not try to get "pushy" about rights. Not so for gay males.
"The bottom line: People are (slowly) continuing to realize that the US constitutional guarantees of equal rights under the law do, indeed, extend to all citizens."
davestovall -- unfortunately our governments have always been slow to upset the status quo, and Constitutional limits and guarantees be damned. Always remember the Reconstructionist Amendments to the federal Constitution enacted in the 1870s (a guess) guaranteeing civil rights and equality to all everywhere still required widespread insurrection about 80 years later. And resulted in the deaths of its major figures -- Martin Luther King and the Kennedy brothers.
"The struggle for liberty has been a struggle against Government. The essential scheme of our Constitution and Bill of Rights was to take Government off the backs of people." -- Columbia Broadcasting Sys., Inc. v. Democratic Nat'l Comm., 412 U.S. 94, 162 (1973), Justice Douglas concurring
There is no such thing as "gay marriage". There are, and always have been, only two types of marriage. One is "religious marriage" and the other is "civil marriage".
Those who have been advocating and supporting the legal rights of two loving, unrelated, adults to marry each other, have never been talking about religious marriage. We are talking about civil marriage only.
Those who think the concept is "morally reprehensible" must be mentally incapable of separating the two types of marriage. They are the ones who might be sick and should seek professional psychological treatment. Saying civil marriage equality "undermines society's health and moral foundation" is precisely what the racists and bigots were saying about interracial marriage. Saying gay relationships should be treated as an "alternative lifestyle" implies that you chose to be straight. It also implies that gay people chose to be gay. You could not be more wrong.
Civil marriage is a legal concept. Religious marriage is a religious concept. I don't care if homosexuality makes Bradley Chapline sick to his stomach. But I respect his ability to separate the two concepts, and applaud his support of everyone's legal right to equality in this country. Kudos to other commenters who get it as well. Noone wants to take anyone's religious beliefs away. Why is it that those people fight so hard to take away other people's legal rights (or prevent them from even having the same legal rights that they have)?
It sucks that 30+ states put legal rights to a vote, and that a majority of voters chose to prevent other citizens from having the same legal rights that they already have. But it's irrelevant. There are plenty of states right now that would approve laws banning interracial marriage too. Would a ban on interracial marriage would be constitutional because voters approved it? Fortunately, that's not how constitutionally guaranteed rights work in this country. Nobody gets to decide what groups of people are or are not entitled to their constitutionally guaranteed rights. Everyobody gets them. That's the guarantee!
Now you're going to argue the Constitution doesn't say anything about marriage, and certainly doesn't say anything about marriage between two guys or two women. You're correct. What it does guarantee, however, is that "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The equal protection of the laws means that if you have the legal right to marry the one you love, so does everyone else. It seems so simple, doesn't it?
When the US Supreme Court gets involved, and it will, I predict even Justice Scalia will join the majority as it firmly and unequivocally overturns the 30+ unconstitutional state laws (including state constitutions) that so blatantly clash with the US Constitution.
"KillerB"; To quote you, "Looks to me like the Rosa Parks civil rights in the last century -- it's about equality, and that's all." As stated in my post, whether I agree with anyone's choices or lifestyles, "I would reluctantly vote in favor of gay rights both in the military and marriage".
To continue with your Rosa Parks analogy, if a homosexual sits next to me at the front of the bus, I have several options. I can remain seated or move to another empty seat. As long as I do not infringe on anyone else's rights, I still retain my own.
It appears that you are the hypocrite here. You demand rights for anyone except a person honest enough to admit that they have standards which grant rights to others while maintaining their own personal values.
And by the way, I would much rather sit next to a homosexual on the bus than next to someone of your ilk who lacks complete moral turpitude.
The Bible says that King Solomon had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines.
David had at least 7 wives and may have had many others that were not documented because they did not have sons by him: 1 Chronicles 3:1-9 Ahino-am, Abigail, Maacah, Haggith, Abital, Elgah. These 6 wives each had a son by David. He married Bathsheba who gave him 4 sons.
Polygamy was common in Biblical times. If Holy Matrimony is defined as a marriage between one woman and one man (and vice versa) why should the Bible be the discriminator of morals, as it comes from ages so ancient that the ways of life from those times are nearly alien.
Decades back, if a book was "Banned in Boston", it's sales was certain to increase. During those times, it was also more exciting to live together and not get married. Focusing energy and debate on a controversial subject will normally increase it's appeal.
When the legal costs of new divorces start piling up, the realities of marriage will set in and many will return to their pagan value systems, if for nothing more then to find peace and survive.
"P.S. Your feminine side is showing due to that "tight form fitted clothing" comment. Take a cold shower!"
I'm glad to give liberals like you a good laugh every now & then. LOL
I managed a business in the early 2000's during the time when the younger ladies would wear tighter shirts. Our dress code addressed tank tops, halters, tube tops and low cut shirts but not how tight a shirt/blouse can be worn. The older ladies took offense to this new look so I had to call HR to get a ruling. Many out there do not realize there is a beauty bias out there as women who look more average try to make life miserable for women with above average looks. Ostracizing, silent treatment, intimidation, failure to help, spreading false rumors, you name it I've seen it all. They try to make an above average-looking woman miserable so they will quit, it means more attention for them if she does. So yes, Willie, I've been around the block on the dress code issue. The gay marriage topic does dove-tail into what is comfortable behavior for non-gay people as a possible motive for many to resist gay marriage. I lived in Europe and in places like France you see women holding hands or walking with arms locked all the time. Of course, the French women kiss as a form of greeting twice on each cheek. It doesn't involve me so I'm fine with it. c'est la vie....that's life.
"Polygamy was common in Biblical times.."
Old Testament, not New and Acts. Recall the Samaritan woman at the well and Jesus. Jesus scolds her for having several husbands and then living with a man who was not. New Testament versus Old. God, through Moses, gave the Jews the 10 Commandments. God, through the Son, gave all people the Beatitudes. Old versus New.
Carmine A. DiFazio
abostonboy said this: "There is no such thing as "gay marriage". There are, and always have been, only two types of marriage. One is "religious marriage" and the other is "civil marriage"."
Given those terms, I would be happy to see all legislation changed to reflect that a "marriage license" refers to a civil contract between two consenting adults without regard to gender, race, etc.
Religious groups could still decide whether or not they would perform a ceremony for any given couple, but the absence or presence of such a ceremony has no bearing on the rights and benefits that attach to a civil marriage contract.
That said, I see no reason why a church could not perform a religious marriage ceremony for a given number of consenting adults with the understanding that only the adults that have a civil contract are the ones recognized by the government.
The private sector would of course be compelled to recognize the civil marriage contract, and have the option of granting rights and benefits above those if they so wish.
In short, I simply don't see any valid argument against gender-neutral civil marriages. The only arguments I have seen against it all depend upon religion and are therefore invalid in the context of separation of Church and State.
Correction to above entry:
And by the way, I would much rather sit next to a homosexual on the bus than next to someone of your ilk who does not lack any portions of complete moral turpitude."
"BostonBoy"; go ahead in your comments trying to nail the Christians to the cross just for being Christians. We're used to it.
Precisely, boftx.
Bradley, I am doing no such thing and am stymied by how you could say that I am. I said there are two types of marriage. After I mentioned that one type is religious, I made it quite clear that I never have and am not now discussing religious marriage. I also said noone wants to take your religious beliefs away. Other than that, I specifically did not make any comment regarding religion because when the subject is the law and legal rights, religion is wholly irrelevant.
"Nobody gets to decide what groups of people are or are not entitled to their constitutionally guaranteed rights. Everyobody gets them. That's the guarantee!"
abostonboy -- funny how they keep missing that point, no?
"And by the way, I would much rather sit next to a homosexual on the bus than next to someone of your ilk who lacks complete moral turpitude."
BChap -- opinions vary. It's sad to see you just can't seem to keep from getting personal, but then that's what you end up doing. Unless and until you post something actually relevant to this Discussion, expect to be shunned.
"...I would be happy to see all legislation changed to reflect that a "marriage license" refers to a civil contract between two consenting adults without regard to gender, race, etc."
boftx -- why? And that would conflict with the recent Nevada Constitutional change defining marriage as strictly heterosexual. Better that We the people demanded the legislature do the right thing and get the state out of the marriage business completely.
"...a legislative act contrary to the Constitution is not law." -- Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177 (1803)
edgewise - "These "constitutional patriots" are nothing of the sort, draping themselves in the flag or the Constitution when it's convenient, and shedding it when it is not."
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross." - Sinclair Lewis: How Fascism Will Come To America (1935)
Proponents talk about civil rights, opponents talk about religion.
Hmmm.
And which will prevail? Civil rights, of course, thank God.
Sinclair Lewis also said "if thine enemy doth smote you, spread the other cheek". I ain't about to do that.
spread?? Don't you mean turn?
"Unless and until you post something actually relevant to this Discussion, expect to be shunned."
Bradley- Your posts are always interesting to read and relevant.
KillerB,
Can you make your point(s) without either slamming, mis-interpreting or misrepresenting someone else's point?
Just tell us what you believe and why you believe it.
Carmine: Since the Old Testament doesn't mean anything to you, please point out where Jesus says anything about homosexuals. Thanks.
"BostonBoy"; you stated, "Those who think the concept is 'morally reprehensible' must be mentally incapable of separating the two types of marriage. They are the ones who might be sick and should seek professional psychological treatment. I don't care if homosexuality makes Bradley Chapline sick to his stomach."
And you liberals have the nerve to accuse conservative based Christians of being uncaring of those with opposing views? The gay community got my vote for their equal rights. That's all they will get from me.
"KillerB"; You write, "BChap -- opinions vary. It's sad to see you just can't seem to keep from getting personal, but then that's what you end up doing. Unless and until you post something actually relevant to this Discussion, expect to be shunned."
Thank you very much for the great news. To be shunned by you, there is no greater gift that I could ever receive.
Bradley: It's so strange that you actually went back and copied something from BostonBoy's post, yet you neglected, again, to see the sentence immediately after it.
"I don't care if homosexuality makes Bradley Chapline sick to his stomach. But I respect his ability to separate the two concepts, and applaud his support of everyone's legal right to equality in this country."
Um, that's doesn't sound like a personal attack on you at all.
KillerB,
Regarding the subject of same-sex marriage, the other day you mentioned in an "Other Voices" article titled "Islam and Muslims: Same-sex marriages" comment section that:
"Given this society's rabid and thoughtless, blanket condemnation of all things sexual involving children, Freudian considerations notwithstanding, that creates a fierce conflict between your beliefs and the laws of the land."
KillerB, are you suggesting that "all things sexual involving children" should not be discouraged?
http://www.lasvegassun.com/users/KillerB...
"Carmine: Since the Old Testament doesn't mean anything to you "
Not true on any level. The Old Testament is the best history book I ever read about the origins of civilization. My favorite by far.
Carmine A. DiFazio
Yeah, Carmine, didn't think so. Nice evading, though. ;-)
WRT your question:
Look here:
"When the Pharisees questioned Him about divorce, notice what Matthew 19:4-6 says, "4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5 And said, For this cause (that they are male and female) shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together (a man and a wife), let not man put asunder."
Carmine A. DiFazio
"Yeah, Carmine, didn't think so. Nice evading, though. ;-)"
I wasn't finished. ;-) Now you can rebut.
Carmine A. DiFazio
Mr. Freeman, as "Siskel and Ebert" did so popularly years ago for a high rated movie, "Two thumbs up" on your post to "KillerB".
Carmine: To refresh your memory, this was my question - "...please point out where Jesus says anything about homosexuals." Your post didn't answer my question, so there is nothing to rebut.
"Just tell us what you believe and why you believe it."
RefNV -- no
"...are you suggesting that "all things sexual involving children" should not be discouraged?"
RefNV -- first, you're taking my post out of context. For some strange reason that article invited Comments, then abruptly became "Print" and deleted all posts. Second, define "child." My post there pointed out the big conflict between Islam, which considers a girl eligible for marriage at the onset of menses, and our states' conflicting age of consent laws.
"With morality the individual is led into being a function of the herd and to ascribing value to himself only as a function. . .Morality is the herd instinct in the individual." -- Frederich Nietzsche 1882 "The Gay Science"
KillerB,
Thanks for your answer. Hopefully you can understand why someone might misinterpret your sentence because you basically stated that the "condemnation" of "all things sexual involving children" is "rabid and thoughtless". Again, thanks for clearing up the confusion.
"Hopefully you can understand why someone might misinterpret your sentence because you basically stated that the "condemnation" of "all things sexual involving children" is "rabid and thoughtless"
RefNV -- but it is. Check out law enforcement's knee-jerk reactions in Reason mag's stories about teens convicted of being their own child porn victims, and at least one kid resulting suicide, @ http://reason.com/search?cx=000107342346...
Again, how are you defining "child"? At one extreme I'm 60 years old and a child, etc.
"Where once the criminal law might have stood as a well-understood and indisputable statement of shared norms in American society, now there is only a bloated compendium that looks very much like the dreaded federal tax code. The end results can be downright ugly: a soccer mom thrown in jail in a small Texas town for failing to wear a seatbelt; a 12-year-old girl arrested and handcuffed for eating french fries in a Metro station in Washington, DC; and defendants serving 25-year to life sentences in California prisons for, among other things, pilfering a slice of pizza." -- "Overextending the Criminal Law" @ http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/v...
"Again, how are you defining "child"? At one extreme I'm 60 years old and a child, etc."
Why of course KillerB, a child can be age 1 thru 99. That throws more light on your meaning to your phrase of "all things sexual involving children".
"Your post didn't answer my question, so there is nothing to rebut."
A poor excuse for nothing to say in response. I didn't and wouldn't expect you to believe my answer. That is not my mission. Mine is to answer you since you asked me and the rest is on you.
You don't have to take my word for it. I plagiarized a Bible expert. Here is the full text if you care to read. I suspect if you research the subject yourself you will find more. ;-)
http://www.summit1.edu/gun15/gun03.htm
Carmine A. DiFazio
"Why of course KillerB, a child can be age 1 thru 99. That throws more light on your meaning to your phrase of "all things sexual involving children"
RefNV -- oh, you want to dance. I decline. Check some of the stories in the link I provided, especially the first one. That lends considerable credibility to my "rabid" post.
"In upholding and enforcing the Bill of Rights, this Court has no power to pick or to choose. When we lose sight of that fixed star of constitutional adjudication, we lose our way. For then we forsake a government of law, and are left with government by Big Brother." -- Ginzburg v. United States, 383 U.S. 463, 501 (1966), Justice Stewart dissenting
Carmine: I'm not the one who is trying to use the Bible as the basis for the definition of marriage. That's on you.
From Merriam-Webster:
marriage
noun \mer-ij, ma-rij\
Definition of MARRIAGE
1
a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage.
From the Free Dictionary:
marriage (mrj)
n.
1.
a. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife, and in some jurisdictions, between two persons of the same sex, usually entailing legal obligations of each person to the other.
b. A similar union of more than two people; a polygamous marriage.
c. A union between persons that is recognized by custom or religious tradition as a marriage.
d. A common-law marriage.
e. The state or relationship of two adults who are married:
From the Oxford Dictionary:
marriage
Pronunciation: /mard/
noun
1the formal union of a man and a woman, typically as recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife: she has three children from a previous marriage
[mass noun] the state of being married: women want equality in marriage
(in some jurisdictions) a union between partners of the same sex.
The point is that language is continually changing. You may not like it or agree with it, but there it is.
BChap - I'm not sure if you missed the rest of the sentence but I'll say it again. I respect your ability to separate the two concepts, and applaud your support of everyone's legal right to equality in this country. Thank you again.
For a better world, keep the Bible in your bedside drawer and express your religious beliefs in your church. More people are persecuted and killed in the name of God than will ever be saved in his name.
Two guys getting "married"? The World is coming to an end. Marriage is about LOVE between a man and a woman, not a guy doing it to other guy's a.. [makes me sick!].
"Carmine: I'm not the one who is trying to use the Bible as the basis for the definition of marriage. That's on you."
Thank you...BUT I can't take the credit. The Bible is the Word of God.
I suggest you read the religious authorities on a principle called: Invincible Ignorance and the Erroneous Conscience. You can google for yourself or if you like I'll suggest several persons and sources to you. Just have to ask.
Carmine A. DiFazio
BTW, you probably know, but if you don't, in Webster's dictionary the definition that appears first is always the most correct and preferred. Those that follow are lesser in importance.
Hope that helps you in the future when you use a dictionary.
Carmine A. DiFazio
Carmine A. DiFazio said (and cannot be viewed as anything but heretical when it comes to God, the Bible and religion):
"God the Father is a republican, Jesus Christ is a democrat, and the Holy Spirit is an independent"
I say:
A self proclaimed Teacher from the INNER CITY whose mommy and daddy an all of da naybors watched over you -- a teacher of what?
A teacher of Blasphemy:
Blasphemy (Page: 153)
Blas"phe*my (?), n. [L. blasphemia, Gr. : cf. OF. blasphemie.]
1. An indignity offered to God in words, writing, or signs; impiously irreverent words or signs addressed to, or used in reference to, God; speaking evil of God; also, the act of claiming the attributes or prerogatives of deity. &hand; When used generally in statutes or at common law, blasphemy is the use of irreverent words or signs in reference to the Supreme Being in such a way as to produce scandal or provoke violence.
2. Figuratively, of things held in high honor: Calumny; abuse; vilification.
To affix political parties to the Godhead is blasphemy.
You may want it to be the way you have claimed but if what you say is true is true, you CONSTANTLY rebuke the wishes of Jesus Christ, siding with the Father against the Son. And by default lay claim the Holy Spirit is an inbetweener?
Here these words clearly:
Mark 3:28-30 NKJV
"The Unpardonable Sin
28 "Assuredly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they may utter; 29 but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is subject to eternal condemnation"-- 30 because they said, "He has an unclean spirit."
Repent.
"Repent."
JeffFromVegas -- why?
"After coming into contact with a religious man I always feel I must wash my hands." -- Friedrich Nietzsche, 1888 "Ecce Homo - Why I Am a Destiny"
KillerB:
I have no use for organized religion. It ceases to be Godly after 5-6 years. Look at the Catholic Corporation as an example.
You must like my parable because you quote it all the time. After all these times you still cut it off at the end. It reads as follows:
God is republican, Jesus is a democrat and the Holy Spirit, the love that binds them together, is an independent.
Great quote. I am an independent.
Carmine A. DiFazio
BTW, the Bible quote is:
Repent and follow the Gospel. The source is St. John the Baptizer, whose saint day is coming up.
Carmine A. DiFazio
So many of you would be awesome Sunday School teachers. You also would be horrendous Constitutional Law teachers. Constantly referring to the Bible when the issue is the law is just as inane as referring to the telephone book when discussing anatomy.
Jim the Socialist claimed:
"Only an idiot liberal would ask the following question: "what is wrong with consenting adults to doing anything they wish with each other?" To start male homosexual contact has been one of two major sources of spreading the deadly AIDS."
I say:
Are you sure this isn't you being afraid to come out of the closet?
"Only an idiot liberal would ask the following question: "what is wrong with consenting adults to doing anything they wish with each other?"
acejoker -- and only the U.S. Supremes, Read it 'n eat crow @ http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?c...
". . .for centuries there have been powerful voices to condemn homosexual conduct as immoral, but this Court's obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate its own moral code. . . The Nation's laws and traditions in the past half century are most relevant here. They show an emerging awareness that liberty gives substantial protection to adult persons in deciding how to conduct their private lives in matters pertaining to sex." -- Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, syllabus (b) (2003)
Abostonboy said:
"So many of you would be awesome Sunday School teachers. You also would be horrendous Constitutional Law teachers. Constantly referring to the Bible when the issue is the law is just as inane as referring to the telephone book when discussing anatomy."
I disagree, there is no one here who posts who would make a good Sunday school teacher. I think I would make an excellent constitutionalist.
I tell my fellow Born Again Christians that they don't know how lucky we are to be able to believe as we do, why they try to turn the country into the United States of Jesusland is beyond me.
I like the USA the way it is -- Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, atheists, wiccan, etc. -- my fellow Christians are a mostly insecure lot. If they would only believe in God instead of themselves they would know righteousness as a way of life.
And for those of you who disagree, I don't mind. If you are wrong, it will cost you, if I am wrong, it has cost me nothing.
Carmine:
Are you now turning into a San Francisco 1960's era hippie to defend your lie?
You have possibly, on occasion added the "and the love that binds them together." ending, but it does not matter. My quotation of you was NOT edited. For you to say it was is a lie.
You have proclaimed God the Father and Jesus Christ as political enemies, no amount of weaselly excuseisfying will let this pass.
Having the thoughts that you, being a republican voting Roman Catholic (Corporation) have the Holy Father as a republican party figurehead, while the rest of us are wrongheaded politically inferior people who have the Holy Spirit and Jesus Christ wrongfully on our side is blasphemy.
You said it. Admit it is a mistake, and grow from it.
He will forgive you.
I fail completely to understand the furor about single-sex marriage. NO ONE is even discussing the potential of making such mandatory. Only if, or when, single-sex marriages become mandatory will there be any possible issue for public discussion. Until that time, those opposed to such can simply exercise their freedom not to participate.
"You have proclaimed God the Father and Jesus Christ as political enemies, no amount of weaselly excuseisfying will let this pass."
Not at all. You say so doesn't make it so. I know many happily married couples, some for many many years, who do not share the same political party and beliefs and love, honor and obey each other dearly. They are the best of friends and lovers for eternity.
Please do add the "love that binds them together" to my quote when you use it. It is the essence of my parable.
Carmine A. DiFazio
Carmine:
So, does this mean you no longer claim that God the Father is a republican? Or are these just more smarmy weasel words?
It's a parable. My parable. I use it often and always. To my knowledge, I am the author. As such I can tell say with authority that it must be quoted in its entirety to appreciate and understand the meaning.
Like all parables, many meanings can be inferred and implied. Some right, some wrong. BUT always thought provocating for those who are so inclined to be mentally stimulated.
Carmine A. DiFazio
Carmine:
The only thoughts it brings to anyone with a lick of sense is that you are trying to claim your political thoughts are superior to everyone else because God the Father is on your side and the rest of the world is wrong.
You are no better than a carnival barker, Jimmy Swaggart and Jim Bakker have more credibility than you do with regard to their sins. They asked for forgiveness. You keep claiming there is a relevance to your unholy scree.
A parable should reflect a universal truth. The Holy Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit are so far above American Politics and should not be used to further your personal politics, and from a fair reading of the Bible God would consider almost all politicians in league with the tax collectors.
I will continue to warn people of your heretical ways.
I suggest you read Wm. Young's best seller, the Shack, if you haven't. And based on your demonizing interpretation of my parable, I opine you haven't.
Carmine A. DiFazio
"reading of the Bible God would consider almost all politicians in league with the tax collectors."
Jesus called Matthew, a tax collector, into the circle of 12 Apostles. He is a saint and one of the evangelists who wrote the Gospels.
Carmine A. DiFazio
Carmine:
The pop psychology of the book you recommend is similar in appeal to the kerfuffle around the book/DVD "The Secret"
Matthew surely realized that the transformation of his own life from a tax collector to a follower of Jesus was miraculous. It is surprising that Jesus should call a tax-collector, but even more so that that man should be ready so promptly to leave a business so lucrative. When will you accept change in your life Carmine?
Your book is an affront to people who utilize their own brains, here is what one person said:
"Please don't take offence if you read this book and you loved it. I'm not attacking you. If it changed your life for the better, good for you. I truly am happy that it did. The world needs more people who look at the bigger picture and do their damnedest to love one another. There's too much hate and anger simmering in the general populous. Just don't attack me because I didn't like it.
So here's my review in a nutshell: this book is poorly written drivel that will appeal to the under-read and under-educated who don't know to seek meaning in books of superior structure, quality, and constitution."
And another:
... the philosophy in this book is very weak. In fact, I still don't know the conclusion. If you were to try to communicate the lesson of this book in a syllogism, what would it be? I have an 8 year-old daughter and I hate to sound harsh, but this book terrified me and then never really gave me any satisfying resolution. I believe the problem of evil to be the best arguement in the atheist's arsenal, but this book did nothing to dull its sting. I believe there are powerful and effective answers to address the problem of evil, but in my opinion, this book didn't give them to me.
Wow. I really sound like I hated this book. I hope I haven't offended anyone. But I also have a commitment to communicate what I believe to be true. If you were one of those who really didn't understand the powerful love of God simply by reading the Gospels, then this book was probably a blessing. But other than that, I think it fell way short and may even be destructive for many."
Some people just never get it. Could be you Carmine.
The Shack was recommended to me by a Catholic priest who was ordained by Bishop Fulton J. Sheen and was appointed the Director of Homiletics at St. Bernard Seminary in Rochester NY by then Bp. Sheen. BTW, Bishop Sheen's cause for sainthood is before the Vatican.
I've recommended to and gifted many copies of the book and all who actually read, and don't rely on others to make up their mind for them, praise and enjoy it. Apprently, the reason it is a best seller regardless of the religion, or lack thereof, of those who read.
Like Matthew, the tranformation of Mack, the protagonist of the book, is not a function of themselves alone, it is the working of the Holy Spirit. One must be open to the Holy Spirit to work in them. Aka, not harden of heart and mind. That's on them [and you].
God the Father is a republican, His Son Jesus Christ, our Savior, is a democrat, and the Holy Spirit, our sanctifier, and the love that binds them, is an independent.
My parable. I authored. When you quote it, if you do and apparently you like to, at least try to get it right. If you don't, not to worry. God rewards the effort, not the result. Fortunate for those like you.
Carmine A. DiFazio
"Some people just never get it. Could be you Carmine."
Or you. Judge not lest you be judged.
Carmine A. DiFazio
Carmine said:
"God the Father is a republican, His Son Jesus Christ, our Savior, is a democrat, and the Holy Spirit is an independent."
He keeps on trying to embellish this sacrilegious, sanctimonious, blasphemous, heretical piece of modern psycho babble lard and call it "his parable". I quoted it as you originally wrote it, when called out on it you have tried to BS your way out of it. I called you on it and you know it is bad theology, but it fits your politics so you continue to lie to everyone that this is a parable. It is a lie.
A guy who covered for pedophile priests is not who I take advice on book reviews. That is Catholics like you who do that. Smart Catholics don't buy the BS, and have tried to change the system.
Regarding judging you. I, unlike you, will admit I am doing so. I am standing for God not being used for a political pawn by you. I like my position way better than yours.
Regarding liking your lie: Your self proclaimed "parable" creates more atheists and agnostics than the devil. Your "parable" is a sin.
And I have never misquoted you.
"And I have never misquoted you."
Not only misquote but misinterpret and misspeak to suit your own partisan beliefs. They go hand and hand.
I don't know how much religious related materials and sources you read regularly. I do as much as possible. The May 2012 edition of The Watchtower does a splendid job addressing the topic of "Religion and Politics Should They Mix?" In particular page 5 deals with "How Did Jesus View Politics?" If you haven't read, and like my other recommendations to you, I presume you haven't but still can speak with false authority, you should. If you think only I ascribe parables to the Holy Trinity in common every day real life terms, you might learn other religions and religious do and often.
God, the Father and Creator, is a Republican, Jesus his Son and our savior, is a democrat, and the Holy Spirit, our sanctifier and the loves that binds them, is an independent.
BTW, I teach Sunday School, but these days it's on Saturday mornings. 7th and 8th graders.
Carmine A. DiFazio
It always amuses me when a person like you tries so hard to convince me I'm wrong and they are right. If you really believe it so, why should/do you need to bother?
Carmine A. DiFazio
Are ALL Right-Wing Tea-types self-righteous, holier-than-thou, willfully ignorant hypocrites...
or just the ones that post here @ the Sun???
Carmine Posted on: Personal choices don't stop at altar
"It always amuses me when a person like you tries so hard to convince me I'm wrong and they are right. If you really believe it so, why should/do you need to bother?"
I say:
You are a 98% lost cause, I would help you get salvation if you repented your sinful ways, but you are lost in self righteousness. My comments are so you do not ruin other people with your thoughts, kind of like "Warning Ahead -- Blasphemy Zone" -- you are a danger to anyone who listens to you.
Carmine Said:
"
"And I have never misquoted you."
Not only misquote but misinterpret and misspeak to suit your own partisan beliefs. They go hand and hand."
Carmine: You just lie and lie and lie and lie. I hope you aren't spending too much time with the alter boys.
Carmine said:
"I don't know how much religious related materials and sources you read regularly. I do as much as possible. The May 2012 edition of The Watchtower does a splendid job addressing the topic of "Religion and Politics Should They Mix?" In particular page 5 deals with "How Did Jesus View Politics?" If you haven't read, and like my other recommendations to you, I presume you haven't but still can speak with false authority, you should. If you think only I ascribe parables to the Holy Trinity in common every day real life terms, you might learn other religions and religious do and often."
I say:
I use the Bible as my guide, and when I have questions I go to a friend of mine who has published translations of the Bible from the original text in Ancient Greek and is closer to God on her worst day than you were on your best. I do not use politically bent theology parading as an excuse to justify your blasphemous self serving proclamations.
Carmine Said:
God, the Father and Creator, is a Republican, Jesus his Son and our savior, is a democrat, and the Holy Spirit is an independent.
I say:
This is blasphemous, heretical thinking by a religious fraud.
Carmine claimed:
I teach Sunday School, but these days it's on Saturday mornings. 7th and 8th graders.
I say:
I hope one of the parents turns you in for posting the anti-Godhead preaching you spew at people here. You are a danger to good Christians and should not be left alone in a room with any young people teaching them such awfulness.
Other than this, you may be a likable guy, but your "baffle me with BS" didn't work.
Repent.
Bradley Chapline -- I'm grossed out by cerebral palsy. Does that mean it's immoral for people with cerebral palsy to get married?
Jim Reid says: "To start male homosexual contact has been one of two major sources of spreading the deadly AIDS."
Putting aside the fact that two men who aren't infected with HIV have zero chance of infecting each other ... and putting aside the fact that individual liberty has nothing to do with what disease anyone has (for instance, hetero sexual contact is a major cause of herpes, but I don't see anyone proposing that hetero marriage be banned) ... there is still this one question:
What about lesbians?
Hetero sexual contact has a much greater chance of spreading AIDS than lesbian sex. So does that mean it's OK for lesbians to get married, in your eyes?
"I say:
This is blasphemous, heretical thinking by a religious fraud."
It amuses me because you use religion as a veil to preempt my freedom of speech and religious beliefs. Both rights, [freedom of speech and religion], are guaranteed to all, not just you.
You do a very good job incriminating yourself [as you did with Zimmerman and Martin] as an obnoxious know it all poster who can't see beyond his nose without tripping over your own words.
Carmine A. DiFazio
"God is a Republican, Jesus is a Democrat, and the Holy Spirit, the love that binds them together, is an independent."
You can't appreciate my parable's wisdom because of your own lackings not mine. You didn't originate it and it sticks in your craw that I did.
Carmine A. DiFazio