There's a Brand New Day on the Horizon

Back on topic:

Here are PDF files of the Supreme Court decisions last week. They make for interesting reading.


Defense of Marriage Ruling

scotuswindsor062613.pdf

Proposition 8 Ruling

prop8.pdf

One thing to bear in mind here, Justice Robert's court is considered conservative, not liberal.

Food for thought.

You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

The Old Testament scriptures you cite are part of the manual of purity dealing with dietary rules for the Jewish people. Because the family table was an extension of the Lord's altar, God proclaimed what foods would defile them - that is, make them unclean. And which foods that would not defile them, that is, make them clean. By eating unclean foods, the people would die in their impurity.

You then cite Matthew 5:17-19 - the context is that the Pharisees and Scribes thought they could keep the Law perfectly and have salvation - they couldn't and we can't either. Jesus says in that passage that he came to fulfill the Law and He did.

That's a very convenient work-around. Keep eatin' that bacon!
Using your logic you could say that God proclaimed that a man lying with another man was an "abomination" because Jews were a small tribe; population growth was necessary so that Jews could outnumber their enemy. Not because it was sinful.

So if you can casually toss aside Leviticus 11:1-47, Leviticus 11:7-8, Deuteronomy 14:1-29, Deuteronomy 14:8 and Isaiah 66:17 just so you can stuff your face with bacon then I'd say you can casually toss aside Leviticus 20:13.

Like I said, don't worry about what other people do. Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy has spoken. Live with it.

Last edited by InheritTheWind on Thu Jul 04, 2013 5:48 am, edited 1 time in total.

poormadpeter wrote:

So being gay is the same as being a kleptomaniac, or you possibly not being able to keep you d*ck in your pants if you see Miss World pass by and give you the nod? Oooooook.

Not what I said or meant and I think you know that.

Sinful behavior is inherent in each of us. "Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me". Psalm 51:5

But we have the choice whether to act on that sinful behavior or not.

I say again - divorce was never intended as God's plan when God instituted marriage. Jesus emphasizes that marriage is a lifelong union between a man and a woman.

Well, here's news for you - not everyone in this world is Christian. There are vast number of us who basically don't give a damn what the bible says.

For someone who isn't a Christian and doesn't "give a damn what the bible says" you sure are fast to quote the Bible. I guess if It serves your purpose.


In the United States, from the time of our founding (actually before), our laws we're based on Biblical truths and principles. The whole reason Europeans came to America was for religious freedom - not freedom FROM religion but freedom OF religion. Hello Pilgrims.

I don't realy care what you do in private - but keep it private. I don't really care what your home country's laws are, but those aren't the laws or beliefs of the majority of Americans.

I always find it annoying how non-Americans want to tell us Americans how our laws should be.

What is very annoying to non-believers, of course, is the fact that you quote from the bible as if you have proof that it is the way we should live our lives. You can prove nothing in it, anymore than I can prove it is a pack of lies and a book of fairy stories. However, I'm not trying to tell YOU how to live your life, but you are trying to tell me, and millions like me, how to live mine.

Much of the Bible can be proven. Some is believed by what is called "faith" - by faith we believe.

I'm not trying to tell you how to live, but don't tell me we and millions of Americans we have to accept your beliefs and behavior.


I am always saddened when people reject the Gospel message of Christ as found in the Bible. Jesus died for the sins of the whole world and those that believe and are baptized shall be saved and have eternal life.



RKS

Please post on topic.

poormadpeter wrote:

So being gay is the same as being a kleptomaniac, or you possibly not being able to keep you d*ck in your pants if you see Miss World pass by and give you the nod? Oooooook.

Not what I said or meant and I think you know that.

Sinful behavior is inherent in each of us. "Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me". Psalm 51:5

But we have the choice whether to act on that sinful behavior or not.

What you are saying here are two things:
1.) I should adhere to what YOU believe is sinful
2.) I should remain celebate because I love someone from my own gender. So because I am gay, I must live a loveless life. Right?

Well, here's news for you - not everyone in this world is Christian. There are vast number of us who basically don't give a damn what the bible says.

For someone who isn't a Christian and doesn't "give a damn what the bible says" you sure are fast to quote the Bible. I guess if It serves your purpose.

I throw the bible back at you simply because you pick and choose which bits you believe in - very conveniently.


In the United States, from the time of our founding (actually before), our laws we're based on Biblical truths and principles. The whole reason Europeans came to America was for religious freedom - not freedom FROM religion but freedom OF religion. Hello Pilgrims.

I don't realy care what you do in private - but keep it private. I don't really care what your home country's laws are, but those aren't the laws or beliefs of the majority of Americans.

Actually, same sex weddings would be private affairs, wouldn't they? As are all weddings. You yourself would not be invited, so why shouldn't I get married? But you're] nothappy about gay marriage, which is a private union, so therefore you DO care what happens in private

I always find it annoying how non-Americans want to tell us Americans how our laws should be.

This is little to do with American life, it's to do with the lives of people like me, who have suffered inequalities for thousands of years, and who are still sentenced to death in parts of the world. I have every right to care and have an opinion, and to help them fight for their equality. Considering America intervenes in more domestic conflicts within the world than any other country, it seems a bit strange that you are so anti people commenting on how your own country is run.

What is very annoying to non-believers, of course, is the fact that you quote from the bible as if you have proof that it is the way we should live our lives. You can prove nothing in it, anymore than I can prove it is a pack of lies and a book of fairy stories. However, I'm not trying to tell YOU how to live your life, but you are trying to tell me, and millions like me, how to live mine.

Much of the Bible can be proven. Some is believed by what is called "faith" - by faith we believe.

I'm not trying to tell you how to live, but don't tell me we and millions of Americans we have to accept your beliefs and behavior.

But you are telling gay men and women how to live, because you don't think they should get married. You also think that a change in the law is against the will of the majority of the america people, but this appears to be incorrect also. The article below states that a poll shows 55% in favour and only 40% against (the rest presumably don't care or don't know)

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/07/01/poll-supreme-court-gay-marriage-affirmative-action-voting-rights/2479541/

Wikipedia cites over a dozen polls since 2010 with much the same result (more in favour), and none in which the opposite was true (except a poll of republicans and a battleground state).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opi ... ls_in_2013

I am always saddened when people reject the Gospel message of Christ as found in the Bible. Jesus died for the sins of the whole world and those that believe and are baptized shall be saved and have eternal life.

well, as yet, no-one's proved that eternal life bit, but for your sake I hope you're right - or not acting on those urges of yours will have been in vain...

RKS

Pardon me, but about the bacon. It's only for "the Jewish people" because "Christians" whose Bible is, well, largely "Jewish," decided they could just BREAK THE RULES! (And still tell yourself you're a-ok, because that's only for "the Jewish people." LIKE JESUS!)

ROFLMAO!

I love the convenient illogic! It all MAKES SENSE TO YOU, doesn't it?

BLTs are my favorite! (I know I'm being "bad," and I'll accept whatever consequences may occur, unlike certain hypocrites.)

Now, read the rulings the Doc posted, please. You might learn, against all odds, something.

rjm

intheghetto wrote:

How about this one:

RKSNASHVILLE wrote:"For 1000's of years societies have recognized marriage as between one man and one woman. In America, now for a few hundred years, marriage has been recognized as a life long union between one man and one woman. Slowly, many of the traditions that have formed the fabric of America are being eroded"

.

There are many things in the so-called 'straight world' of America that contribute more to the erosion of it's fabric than gay marriage ever could starting with the absurd notion of some people who think they have the right to push their religious agenda on others.

If you read the bible and live by it your way you are entitled to that, that's your 'civil right'. But your beliefs combined with your enthusiasm for challenging this issue says volumes about what you really feel, and IMO what you really feel is that those without your morals have no say and their civil rights should be denied. Too bad, that's not the way it works in America and no amount of biblical references is going to change that. You have your philopsophies and ideas about what god thinks, others have theirs. Get over it.

Just because I'm FOR traditional marriage doesn't mean I'm rallying against civil rights.

Is marriage a civil right?

The 14th Amendment to the Constitution was passed in 1868. This is the only place in the Constitution that addresses "civil rights". That Amendment formally defines United States citizenship and protects individual civil and political rights from being abridged or denied by any state. In effect, it overruled the Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision that black people were not citizens and could not become citizens, nor enjoy the benefits of citizenship. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 had granted citizenship to all persons born in the United States if they were not subject to a foreign power. The framers of the Fourteenth Amendment wanted this principle enshrined into the Constitution to protect the new Civil Rights Act from being declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and to prevent a future Congress from altering it by a mere majority vote. This section was also in response to violence against black people within the southern states. The Joint Committee on Reconstruction found that only a Constitutional amendment could protect black people's rights and welfare within those states. Portions from Wikipedia



I'm not telling anyone how to live. Poormadpeter asked me a question I gave an answer. It is a fact that for 1000's of years marriage has been defined as a life-long union between a man and a woman. Just because you don't like that fact, doesn't make it any less true.

It's only recently (since the 90's) that gay marriage has been an issue in the United States.

When "same-sex marriage" has been on the ballot and the people had the opportunity to vote, traditional marriage won eveytime with only a couple exceptions. See here - scroll down -http://www.ncsl.org/legislatures-elections/elections/same-sex-marriage-on-the-ballot.aspx

I trust the will of the people at the polling place much more than some skewed USA Today poll.


So when your side loses at the ballot box, the only option left is for the Couts to override the will of the people, legislate from the bench.


poormadpeter wrote:

I throw the bible back at you simply because you pick and choose which bits you believe in - very conveniently

How so? How would you know? I believe in the whole Bible. I believe it is the inerrant Word of God. I believe that God's Law shows me I'm a sinner, but it also shows me God's grace. That if we repent from our sin, God is faithful and just and will forgive my sin because of Christ's sacrifice and atonement for the sins of the whole world. For God so loved the world that he gave His onle and only Son, that who ever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life. John 3:16


Marriage is between a man and a woman. Always has been. Stop trying to co-opt something that's already defined (already claimed as it we're). It 's kind of like me saying I want my user name to be poormadpeter or drjohncarpenter - those are already taken. I have to call myself (identify myself) another way. Same with marriage.


As for the Supreme Court's decision - the only thing that changed was that the will of the people of California was over turned. Same-sex marriage is not the law of the land for the entire country.



RKS

intheghetto wrote:

How about this one:

RKSNASHVILLE wrote:"For 1000's of years societies have recognized marriage as between one man and one woman. In America, now for a few hundred years, marriage has been recognized as a life long union between one man and one woman. Slowly, many of the traditions that have formed the fabric of America are being eroded"

.

There are many things in the so-called 'straight world' of America that contribute more to the erosion of it's fabric than gay marriage ever could starting with the absurd notion of some people who think they have the right to push their religious agenda on others.

If you read the bible and live by it your way you are entitled to that, that's your 'civil right'. But your beliefs combined with your enthusiasm for challenging this issue says volumes about what you really feel, and IMO what you really feel is that those without your morals have no say and their civil rights should be denied. Too bad, that's not the way it works in America and no amount of biblical references is going to change that. You have your philopsophies and ideas about what god thinks, others have theirs. Get over it.

Just because I'm FOR traditional marriage doesn't mean I'm rallying against civil rights.

Is marriage a civil right?

The 14th Amendment to the Constitution was passed in 1868. This is the only place in the Constitution that addresses "civil rights". That Amendment formally defines United States citizenship and protects individual civil and political rights from being abridged or denied by any state. In effect, it overruled the Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision that black people were not citizens and could not become citizens, nor enjoy the benefits of citizenship. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 had granted citizenship to all persons born in the United States if they were not subject to a foreign power. The framers of the Fourteenth Amendment wanted this principle enshrined into the Constitution to protect the new Civil Rights Act from being declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and to prevent a future Congress from altering it by a mere majority vote. This section was also in response to violence against black people within the southern states. The Joint Committee on Reconstruction found that only a Constitutional amendment could protect black people's rights and welfare within those states. Portions from Wikipedia

I'm not telling anyone how to live. Poormadpeter asked me a question I gave an answer. It is a fact that for 1000's of years marriage has been defined as a life-long union between a man and a woman. Just because you don't like that fact, doesn't make it any less true.

It's only recently (since the 90's) that gay marriage has been an issue in the United States.

When "same-sex marriage" has been on the ballot and the people had the opportunity to vote, traditional marriage won eveytime with only a couple exceptions. See here - scroll down -http://www.ncsl.org/legislatures-elections/elections/same-sex-marriage-on-the-ballot.aspx

I trust the will of the people at the polling place much more than some skewed USA Today poll.


So when your side loses at the ballot box, the only option left is for the Couts to override the will of the people, legislate from the bench.


poormadpeter wrote:

I throw the bible back at you simply because you pick and choose which bits you believe in - very conveniently

How so? How would you know? I believe in the whole Bible. I believe it is the inerrant Word of God. I believe that God's Law shows me I'm a sinner, but it also shows me God's grace. That if we repent from our sin, God is faithful and just and will forgive my sin because of Christ's sacrifice and atonement for the sins of the whole world. For God so loved the world that he gave His onle and only Son, that who ever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life. John 3:16

Marriage is between a man and a woman. Always has been. Stop trying to co-opt something that's already defined (already claimed as it we're). It 's kind of like me saying I want my user name to be poormadpeter or drjohncarpenter - those are already taken. I have to call myself (identify myself) another way. Same with marriage.

As for the Supreme Court's decision - the only thing that changed was that the will of the people of California was over turned. Same-sex marriage is not the law of the land for the entire country.

RKS

You are mistaken when you talk of a skewed poll for USA Today. The Wikipedia article I also linked to has references regarding polls carried out by or for the following:

Gallup
CBS News
The Washington Post
ABC News
Quinnipiac University
Fox News (FOX NEWS!!)
CNN
NBC
The pew Research Center
The Public Religion Research Institute
Wall Street Journal
Associated Press

Out of all the polls carried out by the above (and some carried out more than one) between 2010 and the present day, not one found more people against same-sex marriage than for it. Not even Fox News. But once again, you pick and choose your facts.

"Marriage has always been between a man and a woman". Yes it has. You are correct. But that doesn't mean that thousands of years of discrimination is right and should continue.

"Marriage has always been between a man and a woman". Yes it has. You are correct. But that doesn't mean that thousands of years of discrimination is right and should continue.

Well, not necessarily in the so-called "traditional" form usually referenced. There have been a great variety of mating configurations throughout history, and in many religions, including that which is discussed here.

This is a particularly detailed Wiki entry on the matter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy

Not saying that many of these forms are appropriate because there is the important matter of consent (and likely, age), which is missing in many of these odd configurations. But this "tradition" really isn't so traditional as it might seem.

rjm

I think that's kind of complicating the issue, RJM. nashville is clearly talking about the traditional view of marriage we have today.

What i always find fascinating about these arguments is quite why people believe what they do when it comes to religion. Where does this faith come from, and why are they so confident they are right that they not only give up their own lives to acting in a specific, designated way, but are not happy when other people do not.

I think that's kind of complicating the issue, RJM. nashville is clearly talking about the traditional view of marriage we have today.

What i always find fascinating about these arguments is quite why people believe what they do when it comes to religion. Where does this faith come from, and why are they so confident they are right that they not only give up their own lives to acting in a specific, designated way, but are not happy when other people do not.

That's the big question: why do some people feel deeply and personally offended by someone else's life? I wish I could answer that.

Coming from the south, I know how much evangelism takes place. I often voluntarily went to church with some friends so it would make them happy! They would pray that I would accept Jesus as my personal Lord and Savior if I only knew. Shoot, I HAD to go every week in my high school, but the Holy Spirit didn't get inside. I learned lots! Knew the Bible! But I merely admired Jesus. Not good enough.

My friends wanted my salvation.

I didn't mind, then. It was the 1970s. Things have a different tone now. It isn't always out of friendship and caring now. It's more like "my way, or the highway." Just a different tone than back when I was a teenager. Things are definitely unsettling today. I don't know why. Or what has changed. But it has.

Maybe rapid change is frightening, and the tone in the air is just a reflection of that. I would think it's that, rather than faith.

rjm

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

why do some people feel deeply and personally offended by someone else's life? I wish I could answer that.

rjm

Maybe because there are children out there who get affected by this, I for one don't want to take my children to the park so they can see two men, or two women kissing and lusting on each other. I, just as many other respectable parents try to raise my children as a normal and commonly lifestyle as possible.

Regardless there is a reason we are male and female.

What someone does with their own life is their own business, until it affects someone else.

This is the way I feel about the whole issue, and I have no intention of offending anyone, it's my opinion, and my reply to this subject.

According to the Bible, marriage was instituted by God as the life-long union of one man and one woman. Same-sex unions are contrary to God’s will, and gay marriage is, in the eyes of God, no marriage at all.

Scripture calls homosexuality sinful (see Lev. 18:22; 20:13; Rom. 1:24–27).

Have a Blessed day.

poormadpeter wrote:

perhaps you should explain why gays and lesbians should not have equal rights and be allowed to marry. People say that it is damaging to the concept of marriage, but then so is divorce - so much for "till death us do part". Right? As it has been established within the scientific community that homosexuality is not a life choice, but as natural as the colour of hair, eyes or skin, what exactly do you object to?

According to the Bible, marriage was instituted by God as the life-long union of one man and one woman. Same-sex unions are contrary to God’s will, and gay marriage is, in the eyes of God, no marriage at all.

Scripture calls homosexuality sinful (see Lev. 18:22; 20:13; Rom. 1:24–27).

I agree that the divorce culture has done great harm to the institution of marriage as well. While it was and is God's intention that male and female be a life-long union and marriage was to be until "death do us part", divorce is not sinful behavior.

As for homosexuality not being a "life choice" but just the way you are naturally - there are many sinful behaviors that we have a 'natural' propensity to commit. I am a married man and I have a love for women - it's just natural to me - and if I'm being honest, at times I have sinful thoughts when I see another beautiful women. While even the thought is sin that I must confess and repent of, I have never committed the "act" of adultery - even though I could easily say "I should be able to do that because that's the way I am 'naturally'".

Or someone who is born with a desire to steal or take someone elses property (kleptomaniac). Should they act on that just because they we're born that way? Of course not.


The Bible also says plainly that those who “hunger and thirst for righteousness,” that is to say, those who repent and show genuine sorrow over their sin, are forgiven and loved by Christ.


And so as Christians, we forgive and love too, following His lead with compassion and humility. We forgive and love because we are all sinners. None of us are perfect and ALL of us are in need of His grace and mercy; because no matter the sin, we have all rebelled against our Creator and fallen prey to unbelief; because He has justified us by grace through faith, freely given and joyfully received (Rom. 3:23–24); because Christ has reconciled us to the Father; because He has declared us righteous and we are.


For 1000's of years societies have recognized marriage as between one man and one woman. In America, now for a few hundred years, marriage has been recognized as a life long union between one man and one woman. Slowly, many of the traditions that have formed the fabric of America are being eroded.

Maybe this is what Michelle Obama meant when she said: "Barack knows that we are going to have to make sacrifices; we are going to have to change our conversation; we're going to have to change our traditions, our history; we're going to have to move into a different place as a nation."




RKS

POST OF THE YEAR!!!

Last edited by promiseland on Sun Jul 07, 2013 3:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Maybe because there are children out there who get affected by this, I for one don't want to take my children to the park so they can see two men, or two women kissing and lusting on each other.

Some thoughts:
- do gay people spend a lot of time at your local park, "kissing and lusting on each other"?
- do children who see two people of the same gender kissing "turn gay" when they grow up?
- do children get affected by the current 50% divorce rate of marriages between men and women?

As the Supreme Court led by Justice Roberts is well-regarded as conservative in its approach, why do you feel they made the decisions they did last week?

Maybe because there are children out there who get affected by this, I for one don't want to take my children to the park so they can see two men, or two women kissing and lusting on each other.

Some thoughts:
- do gay people spend a lot of time at your local park, "kissing and lusting on each other"?
- do children who see two people of the same gender kissing "turn gay" when they grow up?
- do children get affected by the current 50% divorce rate of marriages between men and women?

As the Supreme Court led by Justice Roberts is well-regarded as conservative in its approach, why do you feel they made the decisions they did last week?

To be honest Doc they don't spend a lot of time in just the park, but the park was just 1 of 100,000 examples of places to take your children so that brings the odds up pretty high in all.

It's not the point "do they turn gay when they grow up". I wouldn't want them to watch someone torturing an animal either, even though I knew it wouldn't led to them doing it.

Yes they are sometimes affected by divorces, they are also affected by losing a pet, or a loved one, or being made fun of, but these things are part of the normal life - Being Gay, and Gay Marrage is Not.

Justice Roberts made that decision for political reasons the same way the Ten Commandments, and Prayer was taken out of schools. Because anything in this country that was ("One nation under God") that is evil, wrong, or a burden to society, they know God has to be removed from the picture for it to benefit, just like they have done so, to get their same sex marriages into law, because traditionally we know it's wrong and unmoral, and the words of God says so in testament several times.
The book of Sodom and Gomorrah is a true testament of what this world is becoming.
And if there truly is a God, I hope I am there to witness what he does to those who have corrupted his word.
That Doc will be "The Brand New Day On The Horizon" not this...

I'm done with this sinful topic.

Maybe because there are children out there who get affected by this, I for one don't want to take my children to the park so they can see two men, or two women kissing and lusting on each other.

Some thoughts:
- do gay people spend a lot of time at your local park, "kissing and lusting on each other"?
- do children who see two people of the same gender kissing "turn gay" when they grow up?
- do children get affected by the current 50% divorce rate of marriages between men and women?

As the Supreme Court led by Justice Roberts is well-regarded as conservative in its approach, why do you feel they made the decisions they did last week?

To be honest Doc they don't spend a lot of time in just the park, but the park was just 1 of 100,000 examples of places to take your children so that brings the odds up pretty high in all.

It's not the point "do they turn gay when they grow up". I wouldn't want them to watch someone torturing an animal either, even though I knew it wouldn't led to them doing it.

Yes they are sometimes affected by divorces, they are also affected by losing a pet, or a loved one, or being made fun of, but these things are part of the normal life - Being Gay, and Gay Marrage is Not.

Justice Roberts made that decision for political reasons the same way the Ten Commandments, and Prayer was taken out of schools. Because anything in this country that was ("One nation under God") that is evil, wrong, or a burden to society, they know God has to be removed from the picture for it to benefit, just like they have done so, to get their same sex marriages into law, because traditionally we know it's wrong and unmoral, and the words of God says so in testament several times.
The book of Sodom and Gomorrah is a true testament of what this world is becoming.
And if there truly is a God, I hope I am there to witness what he does to those who have corrupted his word.
That Doc will be "The Brand New Day On The Horizon" not this...

I'm done with this sinful topic.

So, no kissing in the park, but I bet you have no problem with your kids watching people getting killed on TV.

Promiseland, I ask a person who is against this for religious reasons:

1.) Why do you believe your religion to be the truth?
2.) Why should everyone else be forced to follow your beliefs. And don't say this isn't the case. Because you don't want to men kissing in a park, those two men are having to follow your rules as set out by your beliefs. I'm sure you don't want your kids hearing swearing in the park either, but I'm sure you don't intend to ban that.
3.) I fail to see where something proven to natural can also be immoral. After all, God made us all equal, right? You should love your neighbour, right? You mustn't eat shellfish, right? Or are you a Christian just picking and choosing the bits of the bible to suit yourself and to basically hide behind your own homophobia?
4.) I sincerely hope one of your kids never finds out he or she is homosexual because, if so, their life is going to be well and truly f*cked by a parent who can't handle two people loving each other.

Maybe because there are children out there who get affected by this, I for one don't want to take my children to the park so they can see two men, or two women kissing and lusting on each other. I, just as many other respectable parents try to raise my children as a normal and commonly lifestyle as possible.

Well then good for you, you continue to raise your children in a 'normal' environment. Nothing wrong with that. While you're at it, maybe you can stop pretending that the world you raise them in fits your idea of normality. Maybe you can show them that the reality of life on earth involves people with other lifestyles and those that choose that way of life are entitled to live that way as long as they mind their own business and respect others, just like you are entitled to live the lifestyle you choose.

'Lusting on each other'? Seriously? Have you seen the other things kids are exposed to in our current world of corporate over stimulation, and you're worried about the behavior of gay people in public?

Personally, I don't think it's appropriate for anybody, straight or gay to be 'lusting on each other' in public and to imply that this is all that gay people do in the open is pretty atrocious. Do believe martians are going to land in your back yard too?

Sadly promiseland's view of homosexual behaviour is one that was commonplace around thirty or forty years ago (encouraged by films of the period, such as Cruising), but most people have moved on and realised that the "sex" in homosexual is just a minor part of the person. Sadly, however, there is still a sizeable minority that think that all homosexuals think about is sex itself, being "lustful" (to use promiseland's own words), listening to Judy Garland records and watching Joan Crawford films.

Also sad, is that much of the media continues to encourage this viewpoint and, even worse, I have to confess that it is not just the heterosexual media either. Gay-themed movies by gay directors seem to have as their sole selling point handsome young actors and full-frontal nudity, thus encouraging the myth that sex is all we think about. Independent movies aside, Hollywood for the most part can't get its head around the fact that gay men should be allowed to live happily ever after and don't need to die in a car crash or of AIDS by the end of their movie. Even Glee, a TV show created by a gay man, shows its gay characters as somewhat stereotypical. It's very rare, it seems, for a young gay character to live a normal life, be happy, and not go around wearing high heels and make up, while coming on to straight guys in public toilets. The United States of Tara bucked this trend, but it's an exception, not the rule.

After our teenaged years, our biggest source of education is TV and the web, and if both of these often show gay men as nothing but sexual beings, I guess we really can't blame Promiseland for his rather archaic views.

However, I'm quite curious as to where all these gay men are being lustful in public - I'm sure for most gay men, the fear of homophobia and gay bashings is still so great that something as harmless as holding hands is seen as being brave when in public. I'm lucky to live in a UK city which is remarkable relaxed about such things, but I realise that it's not the norm for the UK beyond a handful of towns and cities, and that gay friends I know elsewhere in the country would never dream of holding hands in public or sitting with their arm around one another on a bus or train. My assumption is that Promiseland must either be in San Francisco or Greenwich Village!

Promiseland seems to perceive a link between legal freedom to marry and inclination to head to the local park to make out in front of children. I seriously doubt that the decision would have any impact on whether or not gay men indulge in public displays of affection.

The book of Sodom and Gomorrah is a true testament of what this world is becoming.

Yes, the three people who survived in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah were great role models. Lot ended up drunkenly having sex with his two daughters in a cave. Both daughters were impregnated by their father (Lot). The older daughter had a son, Moab, and who was father of the Moabites. The younger daughter had a son, Ben-Ammi, who was father of the Ammonites. According to the Bible, Lot and his daughters were the GOOD guys. I'm not sure this was a very good example, promisedland. Please re-read your Bible!

And if there truly is a God, I hope I am there to witness what he does to those who have corrupted his word.

This may top ritchie valens deleted post as the most offensive ever. Let me get this straight: Are you saying that you're looking forward to the day that you can watch gay people burn in hell? What on earth do you mean by this? I really thought you were smarter than this, promisedland.

I'm done with this sinful topic.

I think it's a fantastic topic. So drjohncarpenter started a "sinful topic"? Is he going to hell, too? I know you're an Obama supporter. He supports Gay Marriage. Is he also going to hell? Are you going to hell for voting for him?

4.) I sincerely hope one of your kids never finds out he or she is homosexual because, if so, their life is going to be well and truly f*cked by a parent who can't handle two people loving each other.

I agree, PMP. I will welcome whoever my two boys decide to love -- male or female. I can't imagine what it would be like to grow up in a bigoted home. It's all so very sad.

Promiseland seems to perceive a link between legal freedom to marry and inclination to head to the local park to make out in front of children. I seriously doubt that the decision would have any impact on whether or not gay men indulge in public displays of affection.

Excellent point, TJ! That was a truly illogical statement by promiseland; it made no sense.

Maybe because there are children out there who get affected by this, I for one don't want to take my children to the park so they can see two men, or two women kissing and lusting on each other.

Some thoughts:
- do gay people spend a lot of time at your local park, "kissing and lusting on each other"?
- do children who see two people of the same gender kissing "turn gay" when they grow up?
- do children get affected by the current 50% divorce rate of marriages between men and women?

As the Supreme Court led by Justice Roberts is well-regarded as conservative in its approach, why do you feel they made the decisions they did last week?

To be honest Doc they don't spend a lot of time in just the park, but the park was just 1 of 100,000 examples of places to take your children so that brings the odds up pretty high in all.

It's not the point "do they turn gay when they grow up". I wouldn't want them to watch someone torturing an animal either, even though I knew it wouldn't led to them doing it.

Yes they are sometimes affected by divorces, they are also affected by losing a pet, or a loved one, or being made fun of, but these things are part of the normal life - Being Gay, and Gay Marrage is Not.

Justice Roberts made that decision for political reasons the same way the Ten Commandments, and Prayer was taken out of schools. Because anything in this country that was ("One nation under God") that is evil, wrong, or a burden to society, they know God has to be removed from the picture for it to benefit, just like they have done so, to get their same sex marriages into law, because traditionally we know it's wrong and unmoral, and the words of God says so in testament several times.
The book of Sodom and Gomorrah is a true testament of what this world is becoming.
And if there truly is a God, I hope I am there to witness what he does to those who have corrupted his word.
That Doc will be "The Brand New Day On The Horizon" not this...

I'm done with this sinful topic.

So what should the punishment be, for such behavior? There have been punishments.

FlowersAtFence.jpg

phpBB [video]

Visiting the Matthew Shepard murder site, 13 years later

General December 28, 2011

By Dan Tham


After Matthew Shepard’s bloodied and frozen body was found tied to a buck fence on October 7, 1998, the city of Laramie, Wyo., changed the names of the streets.

On a wintry day, at the intersection of Pilot Peak and Snowy View Roads, the sky and the snow-covered ground appeared to have no boundary in the Equality State. The desolation of the place 13 years after the murder could be felt despite the houses in the distance.

At 21, Matthew Shepard, 5’2” and 102 lbs, met two Laramie men who were pretending to be gay at a local bar. Planning to rob Shepard, Aaron McKinney, 22, and Russell Henderson, 21, held their victim at gunpoint and took his wallet containing $20. After driving Shepard away from Laramie and tying him to a fence in an isolated area, the two men continued to beat him and finally left him to die.

18 hours later, a cyclist found Shepard’s body. The police officer who responded to the 911 call testified, “Though his face was caked in blood, his face was clean where streaks of tears had washed the blood away.”



About Dan Tham

Dan Q. Tham (b. Dec. 4, 1990), was born and raised in Salt Lake City by Kim Hoa Nguyen and Hoa Tram, immigrants who fled Vietnam by boat shortly after the Vietnam War ended.

From the blog "Traveling With Twain: In Search of America's Identity" http://travelingwithtwain.org/2011/12/28/general/visiting-the-matthew-shepard-murder-site-13-years-later/

----------

rjm

You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

I didn't see Richie's post - perhaps for the best - but perhaps he should stop private messaging me about film as I might be a bad influence.

It's often quite difficult to know as a gay man whether to laugh or cry at people like promiseland - a guy who's using very similar rhetoric to the Legion of Decency when they were attacking Hollywood for making immoral films in the early 1930s. And, perhaps rather ironically, similar rhetoric to those Christian groups that were attacking a young man called Elvis back in 1956...

As for Matthew Shepherd, his death was a tragedy, but he certainly didn't die in vain as America finally awakened to the horrors of homophobia and the turn in opinion that started then has arguably led to the same-sex marriage victory that started this topic. Anyone interested in Shepherd's story, and the effects it had on the community, should seek out The Laramie Project, a film made a couple of years after the event.

For his album, Songs from the West Coast, Elton John and Bernie Taupin wrote a song about those events. Like most of the media coverage, songs and films about the film, there is much concentration on the 911 call, where the caller described Shepherd as looking like a scarecrow tied to a fence.

phpBB [video]

I get the impression that Mr Shepherd is not burning in hell.

When Chris Colfer appeared on Inside the Actor's Studio, he and his castmates got asked the infamous questionaire, one question asks:

"If Heaven exists what would like to hear God say when you arrive at the pearly gates?".

Colfer's reply: "Don't listen to them -- you get to come in too".

Interesting topic.

I could never be gay though.

It's not that im homophobic, i just don't think i could handle being turned down by men as well as women.

I didn't see Richie's post - perhaps for the best - but perhaps he should stop private messaging me about film as I might be a bad influence.

It's a good thing. Insanely offensive AND illiterate. And yet he's still a member here.

It's often quite difficult to know as a gay man whether to laugh or cry at people like promiseland -

I find it horribly sad. I had no idea that promiseland felt that way. I was saddened and shocked. Homophobia is something I'll never, ever understand.

I could never be gay though.

It's not that im homophobic, i just don't think i could handle being turned down by men as well as women.

I didn't see Richie's post - perhaps for the best - but perhaps he should stop private messaging me about film as I might be a bad influence.

It's a good thing. Insanely offensive AND illiterate. And yet he's still a member here.

It's often quite difficult to know as a gay man whether to laugh or cry at people like promiseland -

I find it horribly sad. I had no idea that promiseland felt that way. I was saddened and shocked. Homophobia is something I'll never, ever understand.

Well, it certainly has little to do with religion, no matter what he says. If I was a gay man who refrained totally from sex, but had the odd peck on the cheek in the park I'd still be burning in hell, no doubt!

I didn't see Richie's post - perhaps for the best - but perhaps he should stop private messaging me about film as I might be a bad influence.

It's a good thing. Insanely offensive AND illiterate. And yet he's still a member here.

It's often quite difficult to know as a gay man whether to laugh or cry at people like promiseland -

I find it horribly sad. I had no idea that promiseland felt that way. I was saddened and shocked. Homophobia is something I'll never, ever understand.

Well, it certainly has little to do with religion, no matter what he says. If I was a gay man who refrained totally from sex, but had the odd peck on the cheek in the park I'd still be burning in hell, no doubt!

If it had to do with religion then a lot of Christians are in serious trouble. I know very few Christians who have actually read the Bible that they love so much. Many will skim easy-to-read pamphlets but very few are willing to give up the time to read the whole thing cover to cover. They will follow the rules that they like but they will completely ignore the rules that are inconvenient. Christians who are homophobic will zealously cite Leviticus 20:13 but will conveniently be ignorant about Deuteronomy 22:11 (clothing), Leviticus 19:28 (tattoos), Leviticus 11:7 (pork consumption), Exodus 31:15 (working on Sabbath -- punishable by death!), Leviticus 19:27 (hair and shaving), Leviticus 15:19 (female menstruation), Luke 12:33 (giving all your money to the poor) Genesis 17:14 (circumcision) and about half of the 10 Commandments!

Sadly, promiseland demonstrated his ignorance about the Bible when he cited the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. The two cities were filled with "wickedness" but the hero, Lot, first tries to offer his daughters to the mob ("...you can do what you like with them") and then later ends up performing incestuous acts with them and impregnating them! How's that for a confused, mixed up message?