USVI-On-Line

DELETED

SJfromNJ wrote:

flip-flop wrote:

Further, though I am not religious, I was not forbidden to marry my husband. Again, chuches should be able to marry whoever they want, but our states and our federal government should not be denying RIGHTS and benefits to a subset of the population based on their sexual orientation. PERIOD.

Your screen name appear to be very fitting.

The Bible also says all will be judged by the Word of God, not the word of Flip Flop and Gromit. Tell me about your God.

My mistake. I choose to keep an open mind and do seek God. I may not have found what I am looking for, but that does not mean I am not seeking it. Your definition of God and religion doesn't fit me. It is not something I am comfortable with - the judgement part. This by no means I lack spirituality or the ability to seek God. Reread some of my posts instead of clinging to one off the cuff remark and you will see what I am about.

I do not presume to know the path. I am on a continual journey.

SJfromNJ wrote:
In nature, homosexuality is rare and mostly not in monogamous relationships. If we evolved from single cell organisms, why aren't there homosexual relationships throughout the species? Have they lost they gayness? Why are only humans wired for homosexuality? Flip, Gromit Lulu, Bueller, Bueller....

I am going to follow the SJ logic train. In nature isn't monogamy quite rare? If so, does that make it ok to have mulitple partners because it occurs in nature. This is the reverse of your argument that homosexuality is rare in nature thus it must be wrong. What's your point?

"which hunt" ???
I said witch hunt- at least learn which witch is which ;>

it seems that you clearly are so threatened by gay men, gay marriage , etc. that you simply can't wrap your mind around it. or maybe not. Is this just out and out hatred? I hope not. that hasn't done many very well in the past.

anyway, that's my last on this topic here. i won't be changing your mind, nor will you be changing mine.

SJ wrote:

"I should clarify my statement about gays and lesbians not being religious. They do find places to worship where the Word of God is so watered down it really is not the truth anymore."

I'm glad you know "the truth." I'll be sure to tell my Congregational ministers that devote their lives to teaching things like tolerance and openness that they shouldn't waste their time any more teaching us these lies.

SJ---Is it possible that neither of us really know the truth?

Anyone who thinks humans are the only species who exhibit gay activity never met my grandparents' pet Pomeranian.


Anyhow, there is plenty of research in plenty of respected medical journals dating back to the mid-1990s on the topic of genetics and homosexuality. They have done extensive studies with gay twins.

I could provide a detailed bibliography, but that would really be a waste of time because it's not going to change anyone's minds here.

Believe me, I know a lot more about this topic than I ever expected nor wanted to know. I'm not just spouting some soundbites I heard somewhere.

Also, just an observation here. A few people here have mentioned that they are still seeking something religiously. Rather than condemn them and call them mean names, wouldn't it be more constructive to show them the kindness and compassion that true Christians should show others? Really, personal insults and hostile misinformation isn't going to bring anyone to the flock, and isn't that the ultimate goal?

DELETED

DELETED

DELETED

I'm kind of embarrassed that my name is attached to this thread as "Author." If you all intend to continue in this vein, I wonder if someone would be willing to begin a new thread so that I won't be directly linked to it. I really find some of the opinions and much of the tone to be very distasteful. It's not that I'm suggesting that people stop posting. I'm always in favor of maintaining a thread where people can go to be nasty, disrespectful and insulting to one another. It keeps it contained so it doesn't contaminate the rest of the forum. Sort of like a cesspool. It's just that I wish it wasn't labelled "Lex's Cesspool".

It's an odd thing that talking about God brings out the absolute best in some people, while it reveals a very nasty side of others. And this forum is so unique in having sort of resident trolls. Trolls usually hit and run. Pop up on forum, jerk people around, create a bit of a mess, then disappear. This forum has resident trolls who appear periodically to provoke, then lay low for a while before resurfacing.

I'm still enchanted by Iowa and the things that have occurred there recently. Not only permitting same sex marriage, but also Obama's victory in the caucuses.

But speaking of same sex marriages---this thread has veered off pretty much into indictment and defense of homosexuality. The states have moved well beyond that matter. These democracies can make you crazy, can't they? It's a lot simpler in a theocracy, which it seems some on this thread would welcome. Sometimes on this forum I feel like I'm from another planet. But in this thread I feel like some posts might be from visitors from another planet.

States are not looking at homosexuality to determine if it is wrong or sinful or immoral. Homosexuality has been legal in the U.S. and most all of the world's developed countries for years. It's not going to be forbidden or recriminalized. It's legal and the states all accept that. That issue has been legally resolved (although not everyone may be happy with the resolution). What's being looked at is whether same sex couples should be able to marry. There are some illegal relationships (incestuous, polygamous, adults involved with minors), but homosexual relationships are not illegal (although some people may not approve of them). And as long as homosexuality is legal, why wouldn't a same sex couple be able to marry?


I'm always amazed that some people seem to spend an entire day on this forum. Maybe one day I'll figure out how to have the kind of job (and life) that allows for that.

Legal and political debates like this are usually won by whichever side can argue for the expansion of freedom, and the side that can’t argue in these terms will most likely see their cause go down to defeat. Thus, gay marriage opponents’ persistent disadvantage. They can make compelling arguments from tradition, custom and Christianity; they can note the perils of weakening the link between marriage and childbearing; etc. etc.
But supporters of gay marriage can make their argument from the standpoint of personal liberty - the freedom to marry, the right to marry – and that’s reflective of our political history and will be tough to beat.

DELETED

Lex I think any debate/discussion about gay marriage and marriage equality is always going to go in the direction of discussing the issue of homosexuality. How could it not? Considering the only anti-gay marriage stance I can decifer here is one based on strong religious conviction.

Back during the great abortion debate, SJ very consistently avoided citing religious reasons for his opposition to abortion. There are plausible other arguments there. In this issue I really could not come up with a singular argument against same sex marriage that isn't religiously based. My pushing him here on this topic was really to satisfy my own curiosity. I was hopeful based on earlier discussions that there might be a rational reason that I should consider. I do try to maintain an open mind and consider both sides of an issue before making a decision.

If you remove the opposition or opinion that gayness is biblically wrong (thank you Miss CA - has anyone seen the lovely pictures of her surfacing now? wow what a nice Christian girl) then really what is the argument against allowing same sex marriage?

I was genuinely curious if there is one. Apparently not. And that's ok. As I have said for the very beginning if it is deeply held religious opinions that are the foundation of ones opposition to same sex marriage, I can understand that. I just am thankful that while anyone has a right to hold that opinion, it is not appropriate to legislate a religious opinion.

SJfromNJ wrote:Lex - I am equally enchanted by Prop 8 in California. It seems when put to a vote in a state where gays and lesbians have the numbers and is traditionally a very liberal state, the people voted against same sex marriage. Does anyone know how many other states have let the people vote for or against same sex marriage? It seems that in some liberal state where courts and politicians are making the choices, the laws are being changed. I'm good with that. The Federal Government has also determined the definition of marriage. I'm good with that too.

So as it stands right now in America, most of the laws are in favor of the same principals I believe in. Does that mean I am winning? I don't see it that way.

In 1948, about 90% of American Adults opposed interracial marriage when the Supreme Court of California legalized it.

In 1967, about 72% were still opposed to interracial marriage. This was the year when the U.S. Supreme Court was legalized interracial marriage everywhere in the U.S.

In 1991, those adults opposed to interracial marriage became a minority for the first time!!!!

1991, the year I met my husband. Less than 20 years ago. That is unfathomable to me because it is SUCH a non-issue to me and to most people I know today.

Just because the majority opinion says something is wrong, doesn't make it wrong. And it also doesn't mean that the tide can shift dramatically in a relatively short period of time. Like someone else said, in a democracy those for the expansion of freedoms always prevail.

DELETED