Nothing Like Tolerance

gringaloca wrote:

SKINNYPIG wrote:

Ms. Kitty wrote:

Her response wasn't "The right to marry someone of the opposite sex" it was "the right to marry the person that you love". Therefore, she is correct. A homosexual man or women cannot marry the person that they love because the law doesn't give them that right!!!

If "the law doesn't give them that right!!!" why do you have a problem with it? Don't you think we should be law abiding citizens?

It used to be perfectly legal for people to keep slaves as well. Sometimes laws become outdated and need to be changed. Doesn't make the people asking for the change criminals.

Look, I didn't want to go here but what the heck.

Laws come from something, right? Well, in this particular country our forefathers used the Holy Bible as a moral standard when designing laws for this country. Other countries use a base to begin with also.

Don't scream Separation of Church and State, it doesn't apply.

The Bible (God's Word) views homosexuality as unlawful and even as a perversion. That will never become outdated.

I believe being gay is ones preference. If that's what they want to do, it's their business not mine. Do I condone it? No. Do I hate them? No.

It's a moral issue, and a very touchy one at that. IMO it could have a snowball effect. What if later down the road someone wants to marry their father, mother, sister, a goat or horse, you get the picture. Where do you draw the line. IMO the line is drawn perfectly right now when it comes to marriage.

OK, now let me have it!

SKINNYPIG wrote:

gringaloca wrote:

SKINNYPIG wrote:

Ms. Kitty wrote:

Her response wasn't "The right to marry someone of the opposite sex" it was "the right to marry the person that you love". Therefore, she is correct. A homosexual man or women cannot marry the person that they love because the law doesn't give them that right!!!

If "the law doesn't give them that right!!!" why do you have a problem with it? Don't you think we should be law abiding citizens?

It used to be perfectly legal for people to keep slaves as well. Sometimes laws become outdated and need to be changed. Doesn't make the people asking for the change criminals.

Look, I didn't want to go here but what the heck.

Laws come from something, right? Well, in this particular country our forefathers used the Holy Bible as a moral standard when designing laws for this country. Other countries use a base to begin with also.

Don't scream Separation of Church and State, it doesn't apply.

The Bible (God's Word) views homosexuality as unlawful and even as a perversion. That will never become outdated.

I believe being gay is ones preference. If that's what they want to do, it's their business not mine. Do I condone it? No. Do I hate them? No.

It's a moral issue, and a very touchy one at that. IMO it could have a snowball effect. What if later down the road someone wants to marry their father, mother, sister, a goat or horse, you get the picture. Where do you draw the line. IMO the line is drawn perfectly right now when it comes to marriage.

OK, now let me have it!

OK, here I go.

First off, most people know the difference between right and wrong, even without a Bible present. Not all of our founding fathers were Christians. In fact, several were atheists. And in none of the documents that formed this country will you see it say that we are a Christian nation. It refers to God but doesn't say which God they are referring to. I assume they mean God in general for all peoples beliefs.

Now regarding the Bible. I'm aware of what it says but I'm also familiar with the new testament. Jesus didn't teach us to hate homosexuals or anyone for that matter. I believe there is only one true judge that can deal with things of this importance and that is God. You and I were not put on this planet to pass judgment on people about who they choose to love or marry. Like a previous posted commented, marriage wasn't created as some sacred ceremony as much as it was for transferring ownership of women. If you believe that God still wants to destroy all gays like in the *old* testament, then why not let him deal with it when the time comes. Jesus came in the new testament and died for all of our sins so we could all be in heaven, even gays. Heck, that even includes us straights who are full of sin. We aren't living in the old testament and we don't stone people in the streets for cheating on their spouses. Could you imagine if we did? The streets would be running red with blood. Anyway, we are not God and this is an issue of church/state. If you don't like gays...don't be one. It's that simple. And as far as people wanting to marry their goat. lol. Come on. That's a cop out being used far too often. Gays are HUMAN BEINGS, not animals. Comparing gay marriage to marrying an animal is pretty low. Sorry.

gringaloca wrote:

SKINNYPIG wrote:

gringaloca wrote:

SKINNYPIG wrote:

Ms. Kitty wrote:

Her response wasn't "The right to marry someone of the opposite sex" it was "the right to marry the person that you love". Therefore, she is correct. A homosexual man or women cannot marry the person that they love because the law doesn't give them that right!!!

If "the law doesn't give them that right!!!" why do you have a problem with it? Don't you think we should be law abiding citizens?

It used to be perfectly legal for people to keep slaves as well. Sometimes laws become outdated and need to be changed. Doesn't make the people asking for the change criminals.

Look, I didn't want to go here but what the heck.

Laws come from something, right? Well, in this particular country our forefathers used the Holy Bible as a moral standard when designing laws for this country. Other countries use a base to begin with also.

Don't scream Separation of Church and State, it doesn't apply.

The Bible (God's Word) views homosexuality as unlawful and even as a perversion. That will never become outdated.

I believe being gay is ones preference. If that's what they want to do, it's their business not mine. Do I condone it? No. Do I hate them? No.

It's a moral issue, and a very touchy one at that. IMO it could have a snowball effect. What if later down the road someone wants to marry their father, mother, sister, a goat or horse, you get the picture. Where do you draw the line. IMO the line is drawn perfectly right now when it comes to marriage.

OK, now let me have it!

OK, here I go.

First off, most people know the difference between right and wrong, even without a Bible present. Not all of our founding fathers were Christians. In fact, several were atheists. And in none of the documents that formed this country will you see it say that we are a Christian nation. It refers to God but doesn't say which God they are referring to. I assume they mean God in general for all peoples beliefs.

Now regarding the Bible. I'm aware of what it says but I'm also familiar with the new testament. Jesus didn't teach us to hate homosexuals or anyone for that matter. I believe there is only one true judge that can deal with things of this importance and that is God. You and I were not put on this planet to pass judgment on people about who they choose to love or marry. Like a previous posted commented, marriage wasn't created as some sacred ceremony as much as it was for transferring ownership of women. If you believe that God still wants to destroy all gays like in the *old* testament, then why not let him deal with it when the time comes. Jesus came in the new testament and died for all of our sins so we could all be in heaven, even gays. Heck, that even includes us straights who are full of sin. We aren't living in the old testament and we don't stone people in the streets for cheating on their spouses. Could you imagine if we did? The streets would be running red with blood. Anyway, we are not God and this is an issue of church/state. If you don't like gays...don't be one. It's that simple. And as far as people wanting to marry their goat. lol. Come on. That's a cop out being used far too often. Gays are HUMAN BEINGS, not animals. Comparing gay marriage to marrying an animal is pretty low. Sorry.

I asked for it didn't I.

Did I say I hated/don't like homosexuals? No. I love them. I love you too gringaloca.
Did I pass judgement? No.
I am a Christian and I fall short daily, just as everyone else.
Do I condone my own/any sins? No. I repent.
Do I condone homosexuality? No.
Do I condemn anyone? No. That's not up to me.
Did I say God wanted to destroy gays? No. If he wanted to he would.

I agree the "goat" thing was drastic, but honestly, the right to marry anyone you love does open the door to ugly situations you must agree. Gay marriage WILL open that door.

I'm sorry if you can't understand why I don't support same sex marriage. I can "understand" your view. I just can't agree.

SKINNYPIG wrote:

Jesus didn't teach us to hate homosexuals or anyone for that matter.

Why is it assumed that when person A disagrees with the behavior of person B, person A then must hate person B.

While I am appalled by people who beat their children or their wives, I don't hate them, I just strongly disagree with their actions and feel they should change their ways.

I think the hate term is used way too loosely in this matter.

Miss California's (Carrie Prejean) answer was anything but close minded as some would say rather it was her opinion and not the usual "politically correct" pagent answer that most were expecting. After all, Hilton ask "Her Opinion"! Ms. Prejean simply gave "her opinion" and because that opinion wasn't what Hilton and the other judges wanted to hear it cost her the crown. I don't care how they want to cover it up by saying that answer did not cost her it was very obvious that it did.
Ms. Prejean, in her answer also stated that she respected other opinions. A far cry from what Hilton and others that are slamming her were doing. Talk about no class! Hilton and all the others that came out against her are the "close minded" ones for bashing someone that gave a honest answer to the question......her opinion.

I applaud Carrie Prejean for standing up for her values and not changing them by giving the "popular" answer........That my friends is the definition of class. Hilton and others that came out bashing Ms. Prejean for giving her opinion (which again was how the question was ask) are in my opinion the perfect example of.......well, drop the first couple of letters from my earlier analogy .

Next time I will tell you how I really feel.

SKINNYPIG wrote:

Did I say I hated/don't like homosexuals? No. I love them. I love you too gringaloca.
Did I pass judgement? No.
I am a Christian and I fall short daily, just as everyone else.
Do I condone my own/any sins? No. I repent.
Do I condone homosexuality? No.
Do I condemn anyone? No. That's not up to me.
Did I say God wanted to destroy gays? No. If he wanted to he would.

.

Skinny, I quoted just this one part of your post although I agree with everything that you said. All I have to say to you is............. AMEN!

Some think that Christians believe that they are perfect when in reality it is anything but that. I am a Christian and am proud of that but as the Bible says......all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.
I will not compromise my values or beliefs to fit what this world wants. I am guilty of sometimes being too harsh with expressing my opinions and you have just summed up what I feel in a very good way.
Thank you my friend.

I agree that Ms. Prejean should not have been judged on her answer. She IS entitled to her opinion. However, on the subject of same sex marriage, I have been married.....and divorced. I can't say that there is a great deal of "sanctity of marriage" these days. And I don't think that allowing those of the same sex to marry is going to make it any worse.

Wyatt Earp wrote:

While I am appalled by people who beat their children or their wives, I don't hate them, I just strongly disagree with their actions and feel they should change their ways.

You should hate them. Anyone who takes advantage of, or abuses someone should immediately have their right to exist revoked...and in the most painful way possible...twice.

Doc Holiday wrote:

Wyatt Earp wrote:

While I am appalled by people who beat their children or their wives, I don't hate them, I just strongly disagree with their actions and feel they should change their ways.

You should hate them. Anyone who takes advantage of, or abuses someone should immediately have their right to exist revoked...and in the most painful way possible...twice.

I hate no one. There are some I don't care for and others whose actions disgust me but I really don't think I honestly hate anyone.

Doc Holiday wrote:

Wyatt Earp wrote:

While I am appalled by people who beat their children or their wives, I don't hate them, I just strongly disagree with their actions and feel they should change their ways.

You should hate them. Anyone who takes advantage of, or abuses someone should immediately have their right to exist revoked...and in the most painful way possible...twice.

Doc, I try not to hate anyone but in this case I agree with you. Nothing is worse than someone who abuses/molests the innocent. If I had to choose to "hate" someone, it would be them. They don't even qualify as humans in some cases.

gringaloca wrote:

Doc Holiday wrote:

Wyatt Earp wrote:

While I am appalled by people who beat their children or their wives, I don't hate them, I just strongly disagree with their actions and feel they should change their ways.

You should hate them. Anyone who takes advantage of, or abuses someone should immediately have their right to exist revoked...and in the most painful way possible...twice.

Doc, I try not to hate anyone but in this case I agree with you. Nothing is worse than someone who abuses/molests the innocent. If I had to choose to "hate" someone, it would be them. They don't even qualify as humans in some cases.

Absolutely. There's no excuse for it.

Ms. Kitty wrote:

I agree that Ms. Prejean should not have been judged on her answer. She IS entitled to her opinion. However, on the subject of same sex marriage, I have been married.....and divorced. I can't say that there is a great deal of "sanctity of marriage" these days. And I don't think that allowing those of the same sex to marry is going to make it any worse.

What about my marriage? It's lasted 27 years and has all kinds of sanctity and still going strong. Just because some marriages fail don't mean you disregard the rest. Do you??

SKINNYPIG wrote:

Ms. Kitty wrote:

I agree that Ms. Prejean should not have been judged on her answer. She IS entitled to her opinion. However, on the subject of same sex marriage, I have been married.....and divorced. I can't say that there is a great deal of "sanctity of marriage" these days. And I don't think that allowing those of the same sex to marry is going to make it any worse.

What about my marriage? It's lasted 27 years and has all kinds of sanctity and still going strong. Just because some marriages fail don't mean you disregard the rest. Do you??

Yeah and during that time gays have married and it hasn't effected your marriage at all nor mine. I've been married going on 17 years now and I haven't let any other marriage effect mine, straight or gay. It all depends on how strong your bond is.

gringaloca wrote:

SKINNYPIG wrote:

Ms. Kitty wrote:

I agree that Ms. Prejean should not have been judged on her answer. She IS entitled to her opinion. However, on the subject of same sex marriage, I have been married.....and divorced. I can't say that there is a great deal of "sanctity of marriage" these days. And I don't think that allowing those of the same sex to marry is going to make it any worse.

What about my marriage? It's lasted 27 years and has all kinds of sanctity and still going strong. Just because some marriages fail don't mean you disregard the rest. Do you??

Yeah and during that time gays have married and it hasn't effected your marriage at all nor mine. I've been married going on 17 years now and I haven't let any other marriage effect mine, straight or gay. It all depends on how strong your bond is.

YOU are the one that said "I can't say that there is a great deal of "sanctity of marriage" these days". What does that have to do with changing laws?

SKINNYPIG wrote:

gringaloca wrote:

SKINNYPIG wrote:

Ms. Kitty wrote:

I agree that Ms. Prejean should not have been judged on her answer. She IS entitled to her opinion. However, on the subject of same sex marriage, I have been married.....and divorced. I can't say that there is a great deal of "sanctity of marriage" these days. And I don't think that allowing those of the same sex to marry is going to make it any worse.

What about my marriage? It's lasted 27 years and has all kinds of sanctity and still going strong. Just because some marriages fail don't mean you disregard the rest. Do you??

Yeah and during that time gays have married and it hasn't effected your marriage at all nor mine. I've been married going on 17 years now and I haven't let any other marriage effect mine, straight or gay. It all depends on how strong your bond is.

YOU are the one that said "I can't say that there is a great deal of "sanctity of marriage" these days". What does that have to do with changing laws?

You are avoiding my point here. Has gay marriage destroyed your marriage since it's been going on? No, you said it's still going strong. Point made.

Bank robberies, murders etc. haven't affected my marriage either. Again, what does this have to do with changing laws?

I can certainly agree with others on the child molesters, rapist, wife beaters, child beaters/abusers and the like. I do not go out to "hate" anyone but I must say that I have absolutely no use for them at all and really don't care what happens to them. Like the old Hank,Jr. song says.........."take em' out in a swamp, chain them to a stump and let the birds, snakes and gators do the rest".

Maggie Gallagher, President of the National Organization for Marriage, released the following statement regarding Carrie Prejean:

Quote :

“Because Carrie honestly said what she believed in answer to a question--marriage is the union of a man and a woman-- she is now the subject of ongoing character assassination. The level of hatred directed at her is astonishing. Even more astonishing is her personal courage and strength of character in the midst of these attacks. Of course Carrie is not perfect. On a personal note, as a former unwed mother, I want to say to Americans: you don’t have to be a perfect person to have the right to stand up for marriage. Nothing gay marriage advocates can do can change the fact—we all saw it on national TV—that Carrie is a young woman who surrendered all the glitter Hollywood has to offer, because she would not become the kind of person afraid to say the truth.

SKINNYPIG wrote:

Bank robberies, murders etc. haven't affected my marriage either. Again, what does this have to do with changing laws?

Are bank robbers trying to have bank robber marriage rights? lol Apples to oranges skinnypig.

You said gays being married would effect marriage. It hasn't.

And did you know that the vast majority of pedophiles are straight? Food for thought.

gringaloca wrote:

Are bank robbers trying to have bank robber marriage rights? lol Apples to oranges skinnypig.

You said gays being married would effect marriage. It hasn't.

And did you know that the vast majority of pedophiles are straight? Food for thought.

Gringa, here is a Catholic view of that:

Quote :

One of the downsides to redefining marriage to include same-sex couples would be the weakening of the meaning of marriage, which would cause more divorces. Human nature being what it is, if the meaning of marriage is weakened, it will be psychologically easier for even more people to divorce. Look at what happened when "no-fault" divorce was legalized. The divorce rate skyrocketed. If the nature of marriage is further undermined in the minds of couples then when things get rocky, more couples will be tempted not to work through their problems and get happy again but rather to divorce and find someone else.

That is a bad idea, because most marriage therapists agree that divorce generally "doesn't work." Divorce doesn't solve the problems that caused the first marriage to break up. Divorced people bring the same problems to their new marriages that broke up their old ones. That's why second and later marriages are statistically far more likely to end in divorce than first marriages are. Also, a large majority of couples who contemplate divorce but stay together describe themselves as "happily married" five years later. So staying together "works" better than divorce.

I found this here.

gringaloca wrote:

SKINNYPIG wrote:

Bank robberies, murders etc. haven't affected my marriage either. Again, what does this have to do with changing laws?

Are bank robbers trying to have bank robber marriage rights? lol Apples to oranges skinnypig.

You said gays being married would effect marriage. It hasn't.

And did you know that the vast majority of pedophiles are straight? Food for thought.

Did I say that?? No. I said "the right to marry anyone you love does open the door to ugly situations. Gay marriage WILL open that door, you must agree". Not one time did I say that gays being married would effect mine or any other heterosexual marriage.

What does pedophiles have to do with this discussion? I hope you're not trying to categorize me with them because I'm straight. Are you?

I'm looking at this issue as a "law", "moral" and "rights" issue. I have no idea how you're looking at it.

Judge Roy Bean wrote:

Maggie Gallagher, President of the National Organization for Marriage, released the following statement regarding Carrie Prejean:

Quote :

“Because Carrie honestly said what she believed in answer to a question--marriage is the union of a man and a woman-- she is now the subject of ongoing character assassination. The level of hatred directed at her is astonishing. Even more astonishing is her personal courage and strength of character in the midst of these attacks. Of course Carrie is not perfect. On a personal note, as a former unwed mother, I want to say to Americans: you don’t have to be a perfect person to have the right to stand up for marriage. Nothing gay marriage advocates can do can change the fact—we all saw it on national TV—that Carrie is a young woman who surrendered all the glitter Hollywood has to offer, because she would not become the kind of person afraid to say the truth.

Thanks for posting this Judge and kudos to M. Gallagher.

My opinion is the amount of people willing to "not" be "politically correct" is dwindling more by the day. I am one that is proud to say that I never have been or never will be politically correct. People like this so called "fair" judge.....P. Hilton and others that have out right slandered this woman for giving her opinion (again, that was his question) realize that they are in a minority in this country ( people that feel as they do). They counter that by having the majority of the "mouth" . They (Hilton and others) certainly have the right to feel as they do but do not want anyone to have a right to oppose their views.
These are the same people that preach and scream "Tolerance"?? What a joke Hilton and the others that have came out and publicly slandered Ms. Prejean are. I don't know if anyone has or not or are going to but I really would like to see a slander/deflamation of character law suit against Hilton and some of the other celebrities that have slandered this woman.

SKINNYPIG wrote:

gringaloca wrote:

SKINNYPIG wrote:

Bank robberies, murders etc. haven't affected my marriage either. Again, what does this have to do with changing laws?

Are bank robbers trying to have bank robber marriage rights? lol Apples to oranges skinnypig.

You said gays being married would effect marriage. It hasn't.

And did you know that the vast majority of pedophiles are straight? Food for thought.

Did I say that?? No. I said "the right to marry anyone you love does open the door to ugly situations. Gay marriage WILL open that door, you must agree". Not one time did I say that gays being married would effect mine or any other heterosexual marriage.

What does pedophiles have to do with this discussion? I hope you're not trying to categorize me with them because I'm straight. Are you?

I'm looking at this issue as a "law", "moral" and "rights" issue. I have no idea how you're looking at it.

Well, since you had compared gays to animals and used words like perverse, I just thought it was good for you to know that most perverts are straight. As far as the rest... there's no point in going there. It's obvious that fear is the main problem with republicans. Lots and lots of fear. Take care! I'm going out tonight. Wooohoooo!

gringaloca wrote:

Well, since you had compared gays to animals and used words like perverse, I just thought it was good for you to know that most perverts are straight. As far as the rest... there's no point in going there. It's obvious that fear is the main problem with republicans. Lots and lots of fear. Take care! I'm going out tonight. Wooohoooo!

Fear of what, gringa? I'm not sure I'm understanding your meaning.

Mongo wrote:

gringaloca wrote:

Well, since you had compared gays to animals and used words like perverse, I just thought it was good for you to know that most perverts are straight. As far as the rest... there's no point in going there. It's obvious that fear is the main problem with republicans. Lots and lots of fear. Take care! I'm going out tonight. Wooohoooo!

Fear of what, gringa? I'm not sure I'm understanding your meaning.

Everything. Muslims, gays, womens rights, terrorists, swine flu, atheists, socialism, etc..
You name it. When I turn on Fox News or read the republican "news" on the internet, all I hear them talk about is fear, fear, fear. It's why so many republicans follow their leaders blindly. OOOOO save us from all these horrible people. Save us from the non-christians. Just save us!! The only thing we have to fear is fear itself. Makes more sense now than it did when it was said all those years ago.