Forwards and backwards, at the same time.

Percentage wise we had to give women the vote, they constituted, I suppose, 50% of the populace. I must confess I have no idea of the percentages with regard to African Americans, which is what they prefer to be referred as, not blacks. That could be considered by some to be both insulting and bigoted. Both of these points are sort of irrelevant on the numbers alone. Again no idea of the percentages but faggots are in a very small minority.

Time shifts and trends, that's a bit of a curveball. Two years ago the trend for house prices was up, now it's down. A trend reversal. You're right, the old will die and we may have to suffer the law being repealed and let the gay times roll. But those voters will get older and their attitudes could change, we all have a habit of becoming more like our parents as we get older and more conservative in our approach. I and likeminded will have to accept the transitionary period with good grace, accepting the law as is, even though the law may be an ass. You have to accept it now.

Apparently the constitution of the State of California no longer extends those freedoms to gays and that is the law and was not anything to do with God.

To be frank, I wish they would never leave the house but leave they must to go about normal lives, shopping; although they could do that on line; working etc. Do they really have to be married to go outside and be gay? This bill, was after all, to recind the right to get married in the same way normal couples do and NOT to in any way criminalise being gay. At the outset this post has envoked strong feelings for one point or the other but it was suggested it to have been a "travesty of justice". Surely a travesty is when a law is not enacted correctly, that isn't the case here. It would be a travesty if after the law being in place gays were still allowed to marry in those three states.

Once again I would ask why they want the legal right to marry? To be honest, I can think of only one valid reason that the liason is legally recognised, inheritance or property rights. I fully accept that a relationship; no matter how sordid I find it to be; should after the same time for normal marriage/relationships, protect these rights. If two gay men live and contribute to a shared future, the death of one should not disadvantage the other. That however doesn't require that the law recognises gay marriages. Another law could cover those rare contingencies. Why do you think they want to be recognised in law?

I'm gratified to know that bigotry has some legal protection. I never suggested that it was easier to explain the second amendment but to explain the couple thing. As previously stated that shouldn't happen in public either.

You find this a condemnation of homosexuality. It is a protest against the protest that the bill was a travesty of justice. The, for want of a better description, marriage bill was simply amended to deny a group of people the right to call themselves married. In my opinion, rightly so. They really have no need to trample over years of tradition; one man, one woman; they do their own thing and be damned. They are not being enforcably separated or being forced to use gay bars only. There are no "gay only" supermarkets and no shops or offices where "no gays" tolerated here, are displayed. They are, to all intents and purposes, allowed to do what they want, with of course the exception of getting married in those three states. I know America is a big place but a little road trip to a neighbouring state where it is allowed is an easy option. No doubt the San Franciscans will love the brash bling of Las Vegas, it's not that far.

You are absolutely right, lewd behaviour has no place in public, did I not say that? Where's the harm with two men holding hands in the street, well, perhaps not much. They just look like a pair of fairies. It's what they'll be holding in their hands a bit later on that disgusts most people who have an opinion on the matter.

 

I think you will find that gay marriage is not allowed in Nevada either. In fact, only Massachusetts recognises it, and they have a residency requirement for marriage.

Your language is really quite unpleasant - "faggots", "fairies".

As for "another law could cover those contingencies" - That would be along the lines of "separate but equal"?

What you've said is that you agree that monogamous relationships should be recognised and inheritance rights, etc granted. You just have a problem with the word marriage being used?

 

Hi G.
I assume you don't own a Pink Triangle turntable. Faggots very offensive and then you call gay people fairies and say you wish they'd never leave the house, yet you pull I.S. for using the term black. My girlfriend if anyone asks her is black, and thats her preferred description of her ethnicity. There's very little point in red mist arguments like this... I'm just going to stick to the music on here, you're what 15 posts in?, and somehow I've had enough of this kind of politicking on the forum. The last comment is frankly puerile.

 

I'm with you on that one. I mean, really....Garlic? Bread?

 

Oi! Less of that please. It's the future, don't ya know?

 

Sorry

 

So all of America, except Mass; rejects the idea that it's ok to "marry" another man and call it a marriage. Then it's settled, it's almost totally democratic.

SMEagol, I don't suppose your girlfriend wants to be referred to as African American if she's a British citizen which from your location I assume she is. I may, of course, be wrong. She may indeed be an American citizen who resides here and prefers to be referred to as black.

 

Hi G

I answered this thread some time ago and then thought better of it so I deleted most of what I said but your comments have made me want to try and offer an opinion.

Firstly there is no need to use offensive language to have a debate, which you are more than entitled to do. I would ask the mods to remove the offensive words from these posts, but not the content. On the topic of possibly/more than likely offensive things I S Issac's signature of ......... the dead terrorist is more than likely going to be offensive to Arabic/Muslim people. So I think it is fair to say to you in the context of this thread that those without sin should not throw stones. Think about that.

Mr G I just can't work out where you are coming from in this thread at first I thought you were a Christian but as your tone degenerated to that of hate words I had to hope that you were not as if you are, you are a very bad witness to this faith.

To have a meaningful discussion about this topic it is impossible not to talk about The Bible and the fundamental beliefs of the Jewish/Christian faith. I leave out the Muslims here as their beliefs grew out of the first two and are not original but a reinterpretation of the first two.

Now before I say anything more it is important to state that I do not have a problem with different races or indeed those who are homosexual(Male or Female). I do however have a problem with those who choose to force their sexual lives into the faces of others who may find that uncomfortable or indeed offensive. This goes for all alternative sexuality and not just Homosexuality. I for one believe that Sexuality is for private times and not for public view. Modesty is unfortunately a very rare commodity in these days.

I also feel that the rights given to those in regard to taxes, distribution of property etc and wills should be equal to all those who have had a long term involvement with each other. However if the increasing tide of minority protest among some in the Gay community was only about that but it is not. If you take the time to look in to the mission statements of the first Gay activists you will find that they not only wanted these rights, fair enough but they also stated a desire to destroy and smash all of Gods laws and the Judeo/Christian moral code and family unit as well as the normal biological rules for child bearing. They declared war on these groups and not just a seeking of equality in civil law. This underlying goal is rarely mentioned in debate, but i do just to give a fuller picture to what is going on.

American Christians and others have decided to draw a line in the sand as response to these attacks. Now it is true that Jesus taught to turn the other check but equally he also said that wrong doing should be challenged in Love. But that Love is not human, fickle love but a pure and holly love, which no human can trully grasp as we/even the best of us are flawed. I think it is wrong to use violent language to defend or try and debate a point. To do so failsmiserably.

To believe in God is a choice we have all been given, equally not to is also a choice we have. It is however important to point out that not believing in God is a faith in itself. There is very little proof except some scientific theory to proove that God does not exist. For all creation to be a random set of chance is frankly stretching things. I think it takes more faith to believe this is all an accident than to believe in God.

Now if God exists and wrote the rules on his creation, do you not have to accept that he knows better than we do. He set everything into motion and knew full well that we would screw it all up. I wonder why, he did this knowing all that would follow. All the evil that would be done in his name by those who can not understand that all he wants is a relationship with us his children.
Religion is not this way. Jesus talked about the narrow path and the broad path, well religion is the broad path and along that way lies destruction. Religion is man made and a blend of truth and deception. The truth or as early Christians called it the Way is very clear and to be had for free but it is impossible for any human being to follow this path without Gods help.

The world which God created was perfect and he and early humanity enjoyed a close relationship with him but because he sought a people who would choose freely to want to be with him he gave us freedom of choice, knowing full well it would go wrong. When the mistake was made, encouraged by the father of lies(who is both Gods enemy and ours). The created order at that point went wrong. Death decay etc started the worlds climate went to pot and a slow but accelerating process began which sees us in the state we are in now. Look around and tell me if you don't see the end in sight.

The thing I find offensive is when certain things are singled out for attack every aspect of human existence is flawed and even the most lovely things lack purity. To single out the Gay community for attack is wrong but to respond to their attack is not if done in Love and not hate. The thing I don't understand is why many Christians say that being Gay is a lifestyle choice, it is not in the majority of cases. This form of attraction is not an Evolutionary success( If you believe in Evolution), the species that evolves this would not last long as it would die out. The natural order is male with female and not same sex however as this world is stuffed at every level it is only to be accepted that all sorts of things would crop up that don't reflect the original blue print as set out by God. People who are Gay must not be condemned for this as it would be wrong on every level as it would be to condemn those who have cancer, genetic problems etc as these to are as a result of Gods perfect world being broken(by ADAM), it is not their fault, just as it is not someones fault if they are born blind or with a missing limb;this is Adams fault and not ours. We have to live with the results of his actions and(if you believe this) there is an answer in the second Adam-Jesus. Something which restores the balance and mends the broken relationship. I know many find that uncomfortable even offensive but that is Jesus ultimate purpose and why he allowed himself to be brutally murdered. Watch Mel Gibson's the Passion, that is what this man suffered(again mentioned in the Bible long before it happened), a true account of the horrible death this man went through for us. Your view on this will of course depend on whether Jesus was the Son Of God or just some foolish Rabi but he died for what he believed, and he could have saved himself but did not.

It annoys me a lot when people who enter into these kinds of debates do so with a closed mind and a lack of the basic facts or even the bigger picture. Its also poor when things degenerate into a slanging match or the use of offensive words, something I hope I have not done.

All anyone has to do is approach the current world situation with an open mind and the pieces will fall into place we are getting closer and closer to the end of things and it is amazing that a book written thousands of years ago gets it right so many times. It is also amazing how many recent scientific discoveries made recently were known about then. Such as the earth being round and suspended in space, that rivers of fresh water flow at the bottoms of the oceans etc. Look with an open mind and the truth is out there.

I am not trying to preach here but it is impossible to have this discussion without going into the Book. I hope I have done so in a fresh way that is interesting. Do I believe that the Bible as a whole is Gods word to us(his Love letter) then I have to say yes. Are there a few errors that have crept in yes, but very few considering the age of the writings and none that change the fundamentals. And it is also amazing that despite the Devils best efforts to destroy the Jews and the Christians and their Book he has failed. Is there a History of evil coming out of the Church, Yes but this was created by Man and his version of truth(Religion) and not in any way to do with the real message of GOD. It is always we who turn everything to dirt because we are a flawed people living in a dying world. This goes for me too.

I write all this with the best intentions but no doubt have not done as good a job as I would like but this is better than the first version.

Regards D Louth 77