Quantcast

Rave this if you think Gay People Should Have Equal Rights!

foxhound BN0 2012/01/27 22:57:44
Related Topics: Rights, Equal Rights, Gay
If you think gay people should have equal rights, rave this post and make it number one!
You!
Add Photos & Videos

Top Opinion

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Yoru abby 2012/02/26 21:15:06 (edited)
    Yoru
    various cultures that practiced polygamy, race restricted, indentured servants or concubines, castle system still used in parts of India with or without arranged marriage. Marriage has never had a single definition that was used or arranged universally. The truth is that there are almost as many definitions as they're are cultures in past human civilizations. If you honestly think that marriage was defined as being between a single man and woman for the entirety of human past, then you are simply denying factual archaeological records.
  • abby Yoru 2013/09/02 18:25:27
    abby
    manmade behavior not condoned by gods law .
  • Pat Yoru 2012/02/28 00:00:54
    Pat
    When not, it's usually been plural with one man/multiple women.

    Is that next?

    Is that OK?
  • Yoru Pat 2012/02/28 14:38:16
    Yoru
    Usually been? Try looking at the thousands of years of human history then come back to me. However, by just acknowledging other forms of marriages have and still exist, then you admit that one man/ one woman is not the concrete "definition" of marriage. And now you start seeing that is not just marriage as you like to claim, but YOUR view of marriage.

    Is that ok? marriage should be between any adult citizens that agree to be together. Nothing more, nothing less. Unless you can convince me how to adults loving one is another is bad? or how letting other adults marriage one another affects anyone but the party involved?
  • Pat Yoru 2012/02/29 23:54:57
    Pat
    +1
    More plural than same sex.

    Admitting that form doesn't legitimize same-sex at all.

    One other form doesn't mean ALL other forms.

    Ask any child of any nation who makes a "marriage" & how many will say a "husband & a wife".

    Which are YOU?
  • Yoru Pat 2012/03/01 01:46:39
    Yoru
    no, but it does end your argument that marriage IS by definition between a man and woman. many nations such as most of Europe and Canada has legalized same-sex marriage, and of course certain us states, so its not any nation, merely certain nations.
  • Pat Yoru 2012/03/04 01:15:09
    Pat
    My argument's that you'll never have "marriage", but it'll be "gay-marriage".

    Are you replying to the right post, or just attempting to set up a straw man ?
  • Yoru Pat 2012/03/04 01:24:29
    Yoru
    yes, im well aware of your argument in which in attempt to assume the motive behind passing legislation. However, to be blunt in really wont matter one way or another, what im explaining to you is that marriage will always be marriage in legislation. i could care less what you think about it, because at that point it will be recognized as such through law.
  • Pat Yoru 2012/03/04 01:28:43
    Pat
    You're aware?

    But you just said it was something else.

    And you're right. What either of us think doesn't matter one way or the other, except for those of your persuasion about whom I'm correct.
  • Yoru Pat 2012/03/04 02:07:00
    Yoru
    what exactly are you trying to say here pat? we can debate what you call marriage and what i call it, but in the laws, rights, status, and eyes of the government marriage is marriage.
  • Pat Yoru 2012/03/06 00:53:05
    Pat
    I've said the same thing over & over.

    I think that most of you people will never get what you really want.
  • Yoru Pat 2012/03/08 18:23:59
    Yoru
    Yes you have.
    and i think that you will be unable to stop "those people" from getting what they have a right to.
  • Pat Yoru 2012/03/10 14:54:43
    Pat
    Not trying.

    Repeatedly said I'm all for it.

    What's your problem?
  • judge Pat 2012/02/21 06:03:21 (edited)
    judge
    +3
    It'll always be sodomy.
     sodom and gamorah
  • abby judge 2012/02/21 23:56:02
    abby
    +1
    1 Corinthians 6:9-10 ESV / 6 helpful votes
    Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
  • judge abby 2012/02/22 02:02:12
    judge
    +1
    What a blessing that all the unrighteous can be made righteous by turning from their sins and trusting the shed blood of Jesus Christ which makes all things new again. redemption by Christ
  • abby judge 2012/02/22 04:22:42
    abby
    +1
    for that reason jesus died for our sins so that we may repent and ask forgiveness so that we too can have eternal life and dwell and serve the lord. no material possession on this great earth is more valuable then the mercy shown to us from god to live in his kingdom forever

    now that is what i call real love.
  • Hermes abby 2012/02/23 20:24:18
    Hermes
    +2
    Ummmm --- Religion does not have a place in this discussion unless ALL religion has a place in this discussion. Many faith groups - including Christian ones heartily disagree with condemnation of homosexuals. Many entire denominations within Christianity, plus large majorities of other denominations, in addition to the largest branch of Judaism (Reform) and various other faith groups (Unitarians, Spiritualists, Wiccans, Buddhists, etc.) support full equality for homosexuals and see neither spiritual nor moral problems with homosexuality.

    So, NO CHURCH or other faith group should get to establish law, or practice. That is what the separation of church and state is about -- and without that establishment (for which you are tacitly arguing), religion, while divided, has no effect on the debate beyond a personal level. As a secular issue - separate therefore from religion there is no reason whatsoever for prejudice. The fact that your faith group says that being gay is wrong means no more than the fact that my faith group says its absolutely fine.

    Beyond that, abby, Christian means Christ Follower, not biblio-idolator. The Bible was not the foundation of Christianity and it never can be, nor can assertion change that fact. Yes, certain fundamentalist denominations may feel di...








    Ummmm --- Religion does not have a place in this discussion unless ALL religion has a place in this discussion. Many faith groups - including Christian ones heartily disagree with condemnation of homosexuals. Many entire denominations within Christianity, plus large majorities of other denominations, in addition to the largest branch of Judaism (Reform) and various other faith groups (Unitarians, Spiritualists, Wiccans, Buddhists, etc.) support full equality for homosexuals and see neither spiritual nor moral problems with homosexuality.

    So, NO CHURCH or other faith group should get to establish law, or practice. That is what the separation of church and state is about -- and without that establishment (for which you are tacitly arguing), religion, while divided, has no effect on the debate beyond a personal level. As a secular issue - separate therefore from religion there is no reason whatsoever for prejudice. The fact that your faith group says that being gay is wrong means no more than the fact that my faith group says its absolutely fine.

    Beyond that, abby, Christian means Christ Follower, not biblio-idolator. The Bible was not the foundation of Christianity and it never can be, nor can assertion change that fact. Yes, certain fundamentalist denominations may feel differently, but I seriously question whether or not they would have been considered Christian in the early days of said faith. Despite all the twisting and turning one can do, all the archaeological evidence indicates that early Christianity, regardless of all modern assertion, was entirely Eucharist, and by the way communal. The canon of books was not established until the Council of Carthage (397AD) acted on a recommendation of the Synod of Hippo (393AD), and the earliest codices that we have found that resemble the present canon are the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus -- neither of which dates prior to the 4th century. At the same time, we have found copies of the Eucharistic prayer dating from 45 AD. A bit closer to the source, wouldn't you say?

    Regards,

    Reyn
    http://www.rebuff.org

    http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/
    http://biblicalarcheology.net...
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
    (more)
  • abby Hermes 2012/02/26 07:36:09
    abby
    christianity came after jesus was crucified. you have your beliefs and i have mine.either way some people are always trying to defend sin which ever form it is practiced in. lying,stealing,killing, sodomy etc......
  • Hermes abby 2012/02/27 00:05:11
    Hermes
    +1
    Madam -- your assertion is just that, an assertion - - which was my exact point in my post. Obviously Christianity came after Christ (whether he was real or not and whether he was crucified or not and whether he was resurrected or not) -- that does not change anything else - and your subsequent assertion is totally meaningless without first proving a premise in which all of your givens are absolutely proven as facts. The division of the faith and of other faiths is exactly as I explained it -- and you can twist forever, you can't discard the people who share your faith in Christ but not the specifics of your theology. They exist, and their views are just as valid as yours. To attempt to argue otherwise you have to start with an assumption that isn't true and provably so.

    You don't even attempt that impossible task.

    I stand by the analysis I gave.

    Regards,

    Reyn
    http://www.rebuff.org
  • peggy 2012/02/20 23:48:20
    peggy
    +2
    Nay. They are on tbe same level as animals that's all the rights thry should get. I don't vare if your posts getd to be number one. That is vrt
  • Yoru peggy 2012/02/21 00:02:47
    Yoru
    +2
    wow, so people that have differing views other than yours should be treated like animals? what a sad view of life indeed. All humans are equal and operate with the same rights.
  • peggy Yoru 2012/02/21 00:48:24
    peggy
    +2
    Yep thats fine. Your entitled to your own opinion .....let me hsve mine. Thank you
  • Yoru peggy 2012/02/21 00:54:05
    Yoru
    +2
    and you are entitled to that opinion, but not to infringe upon others through it.
  • peggy Yoru 2012/02/21 01:01:23
    peggy
    +2
    Do not try and intimidate me. U came after me Toll.
  • Yoru peggy 2012/02/21 01:09:27 (edited)
    Yoru
    +2
    intimated you? corrected maybe. just because someone has a different view and responded doesn't mean they're "intimidating" anyone. And go back and look up the word troll, before trying to use it.
  • peggy Yoru 2012/02/21 01:13:04
    peggy
    +2
    Leave me alone you bully. I will report you gor harassment.
  • Seiryuu peggy 2012/02/21 21:11:01
    Seiryuu
    +1
    u mad?
  • peggy Seiryuu 2012/02/22 21:45:46
    peggy
    No
  • Seiryuu peggy 2012/02/27 23:42:04
    Seiryuu
    qq moar
  • Yoru Jerry 2012/02/21 03:31:37
    Yoru
    +2
    look it up jerry, and then come tell me how many states allow gay marriage, then come back with some facts. And if you expected me to ever back down to injustice keep waiting.
  • Jerry Yoru 2012/02/21 03:33:46
    Jerry
    +2
    injustice my ass, it's not justice to legalize gay marriage. It's justice keep gay marriage illegal!
  • Yoru Jerry 2012/02/21 03:39:08 (edited)
    Yoru
    +2
    if your justice consist of discriminatory practices and social inequality then yes it just might be.

    however, i want to point out since the last time we talked. Legislation was passed in Washington state, and is moving through Colorado, Minnesota, and Maine. Even though you may not agree with it, if you honestly believe it will never come to realization, your simply in denial.
  • Jerry Yoru 2012/02/21 03:41:40
    Jerry
    +2
    there is no discriminatory practice here just cause you fags can't get your rights! Who care if it's been passes in those states, that's not all 50
  • Yoru Jerry 2012/02/21 03:43:03
    Yoru
    +2
    allow some to marriage, while you restrict others and try to claim its not discriminatory, dont kid yourself. your losing this battle state by state.
  • Jerry Yoru 2012/02/21 03:44:09
  • Yoru Jerry 2012/02/21 03:45:10 (edited)
    Yoru
    +2
    sure you aren't jerry, sure you aren't. In fact keep telling yourself as more and more states join.
  • Jerry Yoru 2012/02/21 03:46:09
    Jerry
    +2
    Give it up, don't you see that you whining over rights you ain't going to get?
  • Yoru Jerry 2012/02/21 03:47:45
    Yoru
    +2
    then explain to me, why more and more states pass these laws? exactly.
  • Jerry Yoru 2012/02/21 03:48:24
    Jerry
    +2
    lol until it's every state don't get your hopes up!

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/04/21 09:46:11

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals