« Wake Up, America | Main

Comments

RocketPunch

>>>>But it doesn't change the fact that this country does not want to recognize gay marriage.

That doesn't make it right. Out of all of the gay marriage BS that Bush has used to energize his religious base, no one has given ANY reason how marriage between same sex couples would, in any way, affect heterosexual marriage. You can only site the Bible as a reason for so long. I can promise you that your view will be proven ineffective in our lifetime. People can only take so much of others telling them how they are allowed to live their lives.

L.D.S. Laura

Of course, out comes the name calling. If you don't agree with the libs you must be a bigot. And for those of you looking at scripture, you might want to remember Sodom and Gomorrah. Hence the term Sodomy!!! Two cities distroyed due at least in part to the practice of sodomy. Henry, you really didn't address the issue that if all gays really want is the protection of the law, civil unions give them this protection. But I don't believe this is really their only agenda. They say this is a personal issue and then proceed to shove it in other people's faces. Marriage is sacred and we want to keep it that way. Civil unions are the way to keep it that way.

Linda

That doesn't make it right.

Why, because you don't think so? Your logic is so childish. Just because you want something it doesn't make it right. Marriage between a man and a woman is normal in our society. Always has been, always will be. Marriage between two men or two women is not normal in our society. Never will be. No one is saying homosexuals can't be together. They just can't marry.

lewis

RP. I don't have a problem with gay marriage. I am pro-choice even though we adopted both our children who thankfully were not aborted by their mothers.I personally believe that the love between two people is what is important.I also support unlimited stem cell research.You and Henry are guilty of the worse kind of sterotyping of people of faith just as the leaders of the Dem. Party are.Except for three ocassions, I have voted for Dem. Presidential candidates and I am sure that I will again in the future . am concerned however about a party that adopts Michael Moore as their icon , and whose leaders agree that entertainers who call the President a thug, a criminal, and who use his name to describe a woman's vagina in a vulgar diatribe represent the heart and soul of the U.S. I'm afraid that the Party is losing touch with chuchgoing people who work with there hands and that need not be the case.As a popular pundit put it,"I think support for Bush is about not wanting to be led by east Coast pretentions. It is about not wanting to be led by people who are forever trying to force their twisted sense of morality onto us ,which is a nonmorality. That is constantly done, and there is real resentment." When the vast majority of people who don't ever attend religous services vote for Kerry and 70% of chuchgoers vote for Bush I believe if the Dems. want to remain relevant then they need to make some adjustments to connect with people of faith without blurring separation of church/state.

Phoenician in a time of Romans

Linda: "Many christian conservatives have compassion for gay people. No one wants to take their rights away. But marriage is between a man and a woman. No one is saying two gay people can't commit to each other just as a man and a woman committed to each other aren't forced to marry. They are free to live with each other in an unmarried state. But only a man and a woman can honor that committment with marriage. Like it or not it is one of the founding principles of this country. Just because the minority screams the loudest, does the majority have to grant their every wish? It is the will of the people - get over it."

Many christian conservatives have compassion for coloured people. No one wants to take their rights away. But marriage is between two people of the same race. No one is saying a biracial couple can't commit to each other just as two people of the same race committed to each other aren't forced to marry. They are free to live with each other in an unmarried state. But only two people of the same race can honor that committment with marriage. Like it or not it is one of the founding principles of this country. Just because the minority screams the loudest, does the majority have to grant their every wish? It is the will of the people - get over it.

There will come a time, Linda, even in the backward states of the US, when your comments will look as quaint as somebody ranting today about "miscegenation".

If you think this comparison is unfair, then consider these questions:
i, when did Alabama finally repeal its miscegenation laws, the last state to do so?
ii, What percentage of those voting voted for keeping said laws?

Phoenician in a time of Romans

Laura: "Of course, out comes the name calling. If you don't agree with the libs you must be a bigot. And for those of you looking at scripture, you might want to remember Sodom and Gomorrah. Hence the term Sodomy!!! "

Laura, as an expert in scripture, can you tell us what Ezekiel 16:49 says?

Phoenician in a time of Romans

What lies ahead for the American economy?

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=568&e=4&u=/nm/markets_forex_dc

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=223596

Linda

phoenician

Why do you keep comparing this issue to racism? That is like apples and oranges. Shall we have brothers and sisters marrying just because they want to? Fathers marrying daughters? Mothers marrying sons? Everyone should have the priviledge of marriage, correct? In our society a man marries a woman. That is just the way it is.

wasted potential

RP: "That doesn't make it right. Out of all of the gay marriage BS that Bush has used to energize his religious base, no one has given ANY reason how marriage between same sex couples would, in any way, affect heterosexual marriage. You can only site the Bible as a reason for so long. I can promise you that your view will be proven ineffective in our lifetime. People can only take so much of others telling them how they are allowed to live their lives."

I would not pretend to tell someone else how to live their lives. If a loving, homosexual couple wishes to rent a church, exchange vows and throw a reception afterwards, they are free to do so. However, the issue comes down to what we as a society believe about marriage and the family.

For the last 4000 years of recorded human history, marriage has been defined as between a man and a woman. There has been people all during these times that were attracted to people of the same sex, but I don't believe any society recognized these relationships as legally married couples. Inside of this institution of marriage, men and women have and raise children, teaching them the culture and mores of the society. Then when their children are grown, the children can enter their own marriage and start their own family.

The impression that the traditionalists in our country have is that the homosexuals not only want to live in peace, they want to tear down those things which we view as sacred and make them their own. They want to tell us our religion doesn't really say that their lifestyle is wrong, we are just homophobes. This presumed attack on the values of the traditionalist is why you are seeing these initiatives across the country succeed.

wasted potential

Phoenician

Here is the entire passage from Ezekiel 16:15 - 22 (NIV) -

15'But you trusted in your beauty and used your fame to become a prostitute. You lavished your favors on anyone who passed by and your beauty became his. [4] 16 You took some of your garments to make gaudy high places, where you carried on your prostitution. Such things should not happen, nor should they ever occur. 17 You also took the fine jewelry I gave you, the jewelry made of my gold and silver, and you made for yourself male idols and engaged in prostitution with them. 18 And you took your embroidered clothes to put on them, and you offered my oil and incense before them. 19 Also the food I provided for you-the fine flour, olive oil and honey I gave you to eat-you offered as fragrant incense before them. That is what happened, declares the Sovereign LORD .
20 " 'And you took your sons and daughters whom you bore to me and sacrificed them as food to the idols. Was your prostitution not enough? 21 You slaughtered my children and sacrificed them [5] to the idols. 22 In all your detestable practices and your prostitution you did not remember the days of your youth, when you were naked and bare, kicking about in your blood.

Make of it what you will, but the comparison of Jerusalem and Sodom was not nice one.

wasted potential

Phoenician:

Sorry, grabbed the wrong scripture, here is the full context Ezekiel 16:49 - 52:

49 " 'Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. 50 They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen. 51 Samaria did not commit half the sins you did. You have done more detestable things than they, and have made your sisters seem righteous by all these things you have done. 52 Bear your disgrace, for you have furnished some justification for your sisters. Because your sins were more vile than theirs, they appear more righteous than you. So then, be ashamed and bear your disgrace, for you have made your sisters appear righteous.

Sorry for the earlier mistake, but you can use the earlier verses in this chapter to help with the context of why God was comparing Jerusalem/Israel to Sodom.

wasted potential

Henry: "No, if the real republicans of this country want to stay a party they will sunset Rush and Hannity and jion the rest of the country in finding an honest way to solve the problems this country faces. Being Humble is not a show of Weakness, but a Stand of Self Knowledge ans Strength."

This statement flies in the face of the empirical evidence of the last several elections, going back to 1994. The fact is that the Republicans have been winning in the arena of ideas with the majority of the voting public. This is why they have consistently been adding to their majorities in the state houses, governorships, House seats and Senate seats.

Frankly, the democrats are the party in trouble. Since 1968 they have allowed themselves to be defined by the small special interest groups of their party, taking them further and further away from the mainstream of America on the issue of values.

Bill Clinton understood this and was quite a formidable foe for the Republicans to defeat. He was able to articulate the message that resonated with the voters in the "retro" areas. Many of us would say he was a wolf in sheep's clothing, but he at least articulated the message. John Kerry did not know how to do this.

If the Republican party is in so much trouble let me ask you this question: Which presidential candidates received the two highest vote totals in the history of our country? The answer - George W Bush 2004 and Ronald Reagan 1984.

L.D.S. Laura

We are really getting bogged down and distracted with this issue of gay marriage. This election was NOT about gay marriage. The libs want to debate that now because they can't understand how they lost this election. This election was about who would keep us safe from terrorism, who would create more jobs, who could lead our troops, etc. The libs can't understand that their party has been co-opted by the far left. This election was also about who had core values and who did not. Core values does not translate into gay marriage. It's about a lot of issues. Stop being distracted and lets start debating the real issues.

Carol Hoffman

Liberals continue to say the Republicans have to move to the left. Huh? Please, someone, tell them Democrats didn't win and it isn't theirs to dictate what happens now.

Now a one of them has offered the suggestion that THEY need to get a set of values and try living with them.

Wow! They're even demanding that Bush doesn't put a -- horrors! -- conservative judge on the Supreme Coutr. Remind them...they did NOT win and it's not for them to say. They do NOT ask, they demand.

The Democratic Party used to be a huge umbrella for the little guy, the working family, those who lived their lives knowing what's right and what's wrong. Now, the Party consists of elite rich, decrepit souls from Tinseltown, demented old men like George Soros who's purchased 7 sections of the 527 groups in order to gain personal control of the party so he can remodel it to fit his fancy of a society controlled by him.

When the Democrats figure out what there are few real people in the party anymore and that's why long-time Zell Miller escaped from their insanity, maybe they'll have a chance. Meanwhile, Mrs Clinton has already started her begging campaign for 2008 and is fully backed and supported by George Soros, Peter Lewis and Stephen Bing. Goofy Harold Ickes is running the show, just as he did when the Clintons were putting on a show those vividly lurid 8 years.

Phoenician in a time of Romans

Linda: "Why do you keep comparing this issue to racism?"

I'm comparing denying marriage on the grounds of miscegenation to denying marriage on teh grounds of sex, and I suppose I'm comparing homophobia to racism. Try not to confuse the subject by vague references to "this issue".

Linda: "Everyone should have the priviledge of marriage, correct?"

Linda, in the US, marriage is a right, not a privilege. Look it up.

Linda: "In our society a man marries a woman. That is just the way it is."

Think for a moment, will you? This is not an argument; it is a statement of prejudice. The best way to demonstrate this is compare it to a similiar argument against miscegenation.

Linda, if you were living 120 years ago and someone said to you "In our society whites marry whites and blacks marry blacks. That is just the way it is.", how would you reply?

GWB-2004

Something makes me laugh. The liberals thought that there hate for Bush was going to get Kerry elected. That didn't work. Now they want Bush to reach out to them. I say slam the door in there face and tell them to move to Mass or Canada.

Phoenician in a time of Romans

WP: "Sorry, grabbed the wrong scripture, here is the full context Ezekiel 16:49 - 52:
49 " 'Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. 50 They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen. "

Uh-huh. Laura, are you reading this?

Interestingly enough, in context of that particular bit of scripture, look at this:

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/42/61/31504039.pdf

Note particularly the column "ODI/GNI%", which shows how generous a nation is.

GWB-2004

Here is how i see this. Kerry has made the left Hate Bush for over a year now. The country has spoken and Bush won BIG time. Left Kerry take care of his immoral,Slimy followers.

linda

phoenician

120 years ago they would say "white MEN marry white WOMEN and black MEN marry black WOMEN in our society". It would have been predjudiced, but would have reflected the times. Now we say "MEN MARRY WOMEN in our society". I realize that is not the society you want. But it is the mainstream of America and we don't have to change because you think we should. Ending racism is the right thing to do. Gay marriage is not. Do you think it is a brothers right to marry his sister?

Phoenician in a time of Romans

Linda, I asked you how you would reply to someone from 120 years ago who said to you "In our society whites marry whites and blacks marry blacks. That is just the way it is.".

You have stated that it is prejudiced. You have stated that ending racism is the right thing to do. But how would you REPLY to such a person as mentioned above so as to persuade THEM of these opinions?

Don't reply to me on gay marriage at the moment; how you would reply to someone from the 1880s America talking about miscegenation?

Linda

And I asked you if you think brothers should marry sisters.

Henry Schlatman

Wasted Potential,
If you are talking about the "Contract with America" Newt started in 94, I would like to ask you how many of those promises are still left broken to "We the People."

As an Independent voter, I am waiting to see if the Republican Party that promised all Americans will make money, enjoy employment, and return to a single income household will keep their promise this time.

No, I do not believe they nor the democrats can do what is right for Our Country. For example, social security could be easily fixed by forcing the financial market to pay 7% compounded interest on our IRA's. Yet do you want to bet that Bush and the republican party will not even discuss it?

Given the fact that Bush's administration as of October still has no stratigic plan to catch OBL,* no clue to protect the value of the dollar, and Palastine is in play, I want to be shown that the republicans can actually run Our Country.

*Source: Powell's remarks in the 9/11 National Intelligent Bill still in Congress.

This country will not wait an other 40 years before they hold these two political parties accountable for their lack of governing. How do I know this? Simple put Self Greed of the American citizen. How many voters can I get even today if I was to promise to make every working American a millionarie in their life time? Do you think I could become President?

Bush and the rest of the Newts in America needs to "Show Me" and others that they are intelligent enough to understand that Our Society and Nation exist on the lowest wage earners of America. If you don't believe me try going a week without food, gasoline, emergency services, nedical care, etc. Which one of these services do you want out of Our Society?

I'll enjoy debating the right over the next few years on the equal and fairness of our economic system as well as the so called "Christian Right" on their belief that "Their God" is right.

As someone who has lived a life of "Walking the Walk," I've been waiting for one of the political parties in Our Country who was dumb enough to put their belief in who "God" is in the political arena. Thanks to people like yourselve, we now can openly debate what is right and what is wrong on both legal and moral grounds.

Henry Schlatman

Linda,
Considering the human race is only made up of 5 or 6 families, we are all brothers and sisters.

Phoencian in a time of Romans

Linda: "And I asked you if you think brothers should marry sisters."

Firstly, I asked you first. And my question is pertinent.

Secondly, there are two good reasons for brothers and sisters not to marry. The first is genetic. The second is in-group avoidance.

Thirdly, historically brothers and sisters *did* marry in several societies, specifically ancient Peru, Egypt, China, Hawaii, and some of the East African kingdoms.

So my answer would be that, given genetic counselling, I see no particular reason why society should forbid it between consenting adults. I don't *like* it, but my prejudice isn't a sufficient reason for me to deny a right.

Please note that I am not condoning incest within coercive family structures, nor am I saying I like the idea, nor am I interested in fighting for it given a huge absence of people suffering as a result of such a ban.

Now, I've answered your question - if you're really interested in a dialogue rather than engaging in hysterics, it's time for you to answer mine.

How you would reply to someone from 120 years ago who said to you "In our society whites marry whites and blacks marry blacks. That is just the way it is."?

Linda?

Phoenician in a time of Romans

Don't you think you should read this for yourselves, rather than depending on what the media says about it?

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/79C6AF22-98FB-4A1C-B21F-2BC36E87F61F.htm

The comments to this entry are closed.