Why is gay marriage such an important issue?

[Kiknskreem]

true christians believe that

And... you are one of these true christians?

[lasher]

And... you are one of these true christians?

Christians as a majority do not believe that, individually, or in denominational creeds. Every billion+ member group has it's outliers obviously.

[Fiyero]

no, bible defines christianity

Christianity existed before the Bible.

[Fiyero]

*shrugs*

There are multiple takes on what the Bible has to say about homosexuality. Historical, language, etc. Ultimately it's up to God.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bib..._homosexuality

Bible doesn't actually condemn homosexuality. Sexual orientation wasn't discovered until 1900 A.D. The Bible in all 5-7 verses that even mention same-sex relationships, are referring to pagan worship rituals among heterosexuals. Well documented by scholars, and even contemporaries of Paul said he was condemning temple prostitutes.

I don't have the patience to explain Leviticus, Romans, or Corinthians to the morons on this thread who will no doubt quote them out of context and original language, but it's not as clear as they want to pretend. Then again, these are the morons who probably think the Bible was written in English originally.

[Fiyero]

It's not just condemned lasher. It's officially a death penalty offense. You can make fun of Muslims killing homosexuals and oppressing women all you want but the BIBLE says the SAME ****.

Jewish law 101. No it doesn't. The offense in question was public sex orgies in the temples of the Caananite gods among heterosexual Israelites. The death penalty was a deterrent not a practice. It was consider grossly evil and unjust for any Sanhedrin to execute anyone.

Regardless, it's 100% impossible for the condemnations in Leviticus to be referring to a monogamous gay couple. They do not meet the stringent burden of proof required under Jewish law.

[lasher]

Bible doesn't actually condemn homosexuality. Sexual orientation wasn't discovered until 1900 A.D. The Bible in all 5-7 verses that even mention same-sex relationships, are referring to pagan worship rituals among heterosexuals. Well documented by scholars, and even contemporaries of Paul said he was condemning temple prostitutes.

I don't have the patience to explain Leviticus, Romans, or Corinthians to the morons on this thread who will no doubt quote them out of context and original language, but it's not as clear as they want to pretend. Then again, these are the morons who probably think the Bible was written in English originally.

I am not a moron. And I would be very appreciative to hear your views on Romans and Corinthians, if you feel they present a different picture from what i read of them.

[Fiyero]

this guy thinks he is a bible scholar after reading a wikipedia page. bible clearly condemns homosexuals to death u diiot

Leviticus 18:22 - "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." (NIV)

Leviticus 20:13 - "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

You're also apparently too much of a moron to realize those verses weren't written in English. How does a man even have sex with another man the same as he would a woman? Men don't have vaginas, so it's not talking about vaginal sex.

Btw, the same books command anyone who works on Saturdays to be executed.

Leviticus 18:22 - Can you show me where in the below verse it's referring to gay people?

כב וְאֶת-זָכָר--לֹא תִשְׁכַּב, מִשְׁכְּבֵי אִשָּׁה:
תּוֹעֵבָה, הִוא.

[Fiyero]

looks like u need help understanding simple english. "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

Still think Leviticus was written in English I see. And again, how does a man lay with another man as he would with a woman? Men don't have vaginas do they?

Seriously, is your IQ like 60, because you truly are a moronic troll.

[Fiyero]

true christians believe that

They do? Are true Christians in favor of executing people who work on Saturdays?

Exodus 35:2 For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it must be put to death.


You truly are a troll.

[Fiyero]

I am not a moron. And I would be very appreciative to hear your views on Romans and Corinthians, if you feel they present a different picture from what i read of them.

Wasn't referring to you, was referring to trolls like NYbrah.

Romans 1 is a complex discussion dealing with the philosophy of Plato, and pagan prostitution. The audience in question is heterosexual Christians who reverted back to their pagan ways and began worshipping animals and engaging in sex orgies in the temples of the Greco-Roman gods. These rituals often involved same-sex activity with temple prostitutes in order to gain favor with the gods. But despite their hedonism, Romans 2 explains that anyone who condemns these people will not escape God's judgement because the condemners do the exact same things.

Corinthians boils down to an issue of 2 Greek words the first of which Paul invented. Arsenokoites and Malakoi. Arsenokoites literally means "man (singular) beds". Malakoi originally meant weak moral composition. Around 1950 A.D., Conservative Bible publishers changed Arsenokoites to mean homosexuals. It has never prior to that time referred to that. In fact, since the Protestant Reformation, it referred to masturbation since Arseno is singular. It's also meant kidnappers at some point in its 2000 year history. The only times it's used after Paul invented it in Greek literature, it is NEVER included among sexual sins or vices. It is exclusively used to refer to economic crimes. Exploitation or prostitution for example. And Philo, a contemporary of Paul said in 30 A.D. it condemned temple prostitutes. Had Paul intended to condemn same-sex behavior in general, he would have used one of the Greek words already in existence to refer to that. He didn't, he invented a new word that meant something entirely different.

For further reading:

http://www.clgs.org/arsenokoités-and-m...d-consequences

http://wordandworld.luthersem.edu/co...3_Hultgren.pdf

[lasher]

Wasn't referring to you, was referring to trolls like NYbrah.

I meant that as more of I'm not a moron, and I'd like to hear what you have to say, not so much as I think you were calling me a moron.

That said, being it's Friday night, I am a moron right now, and I'll interact with the points you brought up tomorrow.

[curlz4dagurlz]

Still think Leviticus was written in English I see. And again, how does a man lay with another man as he would with a woman? Men don't have vaginas do they?

Seriously, is your IQ like 60, because you truly are a moronic troll.

So what does this verse mean then? What was 'God's' intention here...

Sounds to any laymen that this is condemning homosexuality..

Also if you're suggesting that only people who can understand ancient Hebrew can really truly understand the OT then how the fuk are all these non-Hebrew speaking Christians supposed to follow the Bible?

I'm well acquainted with translation and the whole idea of translating is to get the meaning across into the other language, you do lose the nuances of the original language ie style/rhyming/poetic aspects and even some deeper layers of meaning but the raw meaning is conveyed quite well.

[skinpoppin]

Its not an imprtant issue... its just gays being drama queens.























































Inbefore drama queens.

[kate00]

No use arguing with bigots anymore, gay marriage is happening, deal with it.

[pointbreaker]

Actually, you've got it entirely wrong. It is the other way around: individuals utilize the state to pursue their own interests in the outcome of certain unions. This is why, historically speaking, marriage has always been defined as one man and as many girls under the age of eighteen as he can acquire through means of trade or force. Pregnancies, resulting in human labor forces, happen regardless of marriage. Marriage is an institution of interests between individuals - not between the state and the married couple.

While it is true that individuals utilize the state for their own ends, this does not change the fact that the state stakes an interest in the union. So how is it "entirely wrong"?

It is ironic that you reject the idea of the 'definition' of marriage, as it stands today, having any meaning. While invoking the idea of marriage traditionally being based on the notion of the union between one man and several women (without actually citing where or when this was the case). I am not sure why you keep mentioning this 'fact', as by your own logic, that marriage may or may not have been defined that way is meaningless today - as definitions change. The point is that the institution of marriage in the year 2012 is based upon laws passed by a majority, enshrined through centuries of legal precedents. It is clearly defined as "the formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife."

Just because things can change does not mean necessarily that change is in the interests of a society, nor that changes should be enacted on the majority because of the will of a small minority.

So long as the state exists, the bargain between individuals in a union and the state must occur when those individuals interact with the state. In the absence of the state, individuals might do as they please - but then when they go to a hospital, because they are not married or because the state has not agreed to recognize their union, marriage or otherwise, they lose all of those rights granted to themselves in the absence of the state.

If gay people joined in civil partnership are not legally recognised as each other's next of kin, it does not mean that they never can be. Definitions are subject to change. All that is required is a little 'tweaking' (you see how this works both ways..). The same goes for any other legal rights or benefits they may lack through not being joined in marriage. You seem to think it contemptible not to anoint same sex couples with the right to marry on the basis that things would merely require 'tweaking'. And yet it seems to be a far greater matter to rewrite hundreds of years of marriage tradition predicated on a union between a man and a woman, where there is a tendency for children to be produced, rather than to much more simply 'tweak' civil partnerships to incorporate certain rights.

Acceptance of the rights of others to do as they please without harming others is not approval of said behavior. If I respect the rights of others to do drugs, I am not by default approving of that behavior. Do you even freedom?

I would not think that it is that clear cut. There are great debates had on this subject. The reason being people hold different values and morals. So the idea of not causing 'harm' is completely subjective. And as I mentioned above, how is it moral to dismantle the institutions of the majority for the sake of special interest groups? It is unclear how many same sex couples are even calling for the right to be married. On the subject of drug use, no man is an island. A person's selfish use of drugs can invariable lead to the great suffering on their families and friends. Not to mention the havoc wreaked on society through drug fuelled crime. And the crime of the government mugging the tax payer on behalf of the addict to the tune of hundreds of millions to pay for the addict's habit i.e. methadone and eventual treatment(s).

Actually, and this might surprise you, gay people can have children. This has no bearing on marriages, of course - marriage is not an institution that exists so that people will produce children for the state. So your argument is moot.

Actually, and this might surprise you, the inescapable fact is that that only women can become pregnant. And that because of this men and women are inherently in very different positions within a marriage. For instance, part of marriage law recognises and compensates for the fact that it is the woman who invariably sacrifices their career and earning potential to take time off work to give birth to children. In fact an article published this month reports that women who take maternity leave set back their future earnings 10-15 years when compared to their peers.

Sheila Lawlor, director of Politeia, said paid maternity leave was creating a “great burden” for women and stunted their growth up the career ladder to the boardroom, as taking time out to look after children meant many mothers missed out on vital promotions and experience at work.... She added it could take between 10 and 15 years for women who have taken time out to look after children to catch up on earnings they have missed; meaning many will never reach the boardroom.

There is also the unique circumstance of male-female relationships in that a woman's worth deteriorates over time as her beauty fades and her fertility escapes her. While conversely a man's increases, as he progresses up the career ladder and sees his income rise. This places married women in a precarious situation whereby it would be far easier for their husbands to leave and remarry a younger woman, whereas their own ability to remarry so easily is questionable. A marriage contract is security for a woman that her investment has not been in vain.

And gay people are doing exactly what straight people are doing: loving each other and seeking to have their union protected. That's what makes it sexual orientation discrimination.

Except gay people are not doing the "exact same thing". They are same sex couples 'loving each other' and their relationships, therefore, do not have the same asymmetries as those between a man and a woman do. Due to this it would be inappropriate for whole elaborate body of laws, policies and traditions, which evolved from the experiences of innumerable generations of male and female unions, to automatically apply to gay people's very different circumstances. You keep using the term 'tweak', which sounds benign, but the reality of what you are calling for is a total transformation of what marriage is and has been for centuries. The amazing thing is how blasé you are about this.

And BTW, Coretta Scott King calls the fight for gay civil rights . . . a civil rights issue. But, I mean, I'm sure you know WAAY more about civil rights struggles than her, right?

Since you like logical fallacies, that is a classic argument from authority.

Again, and again, and again, I've already addressed all of your lame, weak, tired, shoddy points. You've ignored those responses and repeated yourself. Do you have Alzheimer's? Are you on the right discussion board?

"Debating TH3SHR3DD3R on the topic of gay marriage is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; he knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to his flock to claim victory."

- Scott D. Weitzenhoffer

[Fiyero]

So what does this verse mean then? What was 'God's' intention here...

Sounds to any laymen that this is condemning homosexuality..

Read it in context. 21 “‘Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molek, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the Lord." is the preceding verse.

Leviticus 18:22 is structured in an odd way in the Hebrew Bible. It is placed, directly following an abrupt switch to temple worship rituals before the Caananite god Molech. There were no verse and chapter listings originally. It was a separate discussion from the surrounding passages.

I will also remind you, a man having sex with a man is not the definition of homosexuality. We're referring to sexual orientation here, which has nothing to do with behavior. Those men having sex in the temples of the Caananites were heterosexual. It was part of their ritual practice to gain favor from the fertility goddesses. In other words, pagan prostitution. This is later confirmed in Deuteronomy 23, where the Israelites are forbidden from becoming temple prostitutes. Leviticus itself, doesn't actually make sense when translated from Hebrew to English. It barely makes sense in Ancient Hebrew. It's closest meaning is, "A man shall not force another man in the lyings woman". The closet scholarly meaning would be that, the Israelite men are not to force or seduce another man to take the position of a woman, especially in pagan worship rituals before the god Molech. This was a patriarchal culture. Subjecting a man to behave like a woman, especially in pagan worship, was ritually impure (the correct meaning of the corrupted, "abomination").

Another point is, the verse in English says a man can't lay with another man like he would a woman. Why the additional clause, "like a woman"? Why didn't it just say a man shall not have sex with man, period.? Men don't have vaginas. They can't have sex with each other the same way if this is talking about your everyday variety of sex.

And finally, Jewish law has a VERY VERY strict burden of proof. Only public sex orgies with witnesses would be capable of meeting the burden of proof based on this command. A monogamous "gay" couple having sex in the privacy of their own home is impossible to fall under Jewish law requirements, and thus would have never been included.

Also if you're suggesting that only people who can understand ancient Hebrew can really truly understand the OT then how the fuk are all these non-Hebrew speaking Christians supposed to follow the Bible?

Technically, not even Jews can understand the Torah without the Talmud. The Talmud is a very very complex explanation of the meaning of the Torah. Christians don't read the Talmud so they wouldn't understand the Torah.

Regardless, I don't think in all cases it's a big issue. Leviticus 18 in particular is a very complicated Hebrew passage and even the original Hebrew doesn't make much sense. My point is that people shouldn't blindly pull a random English verse out of context, and apply it to a culture 4000 years removed, and claim it applies to something that was unknown in those days.

The Torah ONLY applies to the Israelites. And their culture was absolutely nothing like ours. There was no concept of sexual orientation. They didn't perceive anyone to be gay or straight. Same-sex activity was very common in pagan worship. It had nothing to do with their orientation, or private behavior.

[mntbikedude]

Read it in context. 21 “‘Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molek, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the Lord." is the preceding verse.

Leviticus 18:22 is structured in an odd way in the Hebrew Bible. It is placed, directly following an abrupt switch to temple worship rituals before the Caananite god Molech. There were no verse and chapter listings originally. It was a separate discussion from the surrounding passages.

I will also remind you, a man having sex with a man is not the definition of homosexuality. We're referring to sexual orientation here, which has nothing to do with behavior. Those men having sex in the temples of the Caananites were heterosexual. It was part of their ritual practice to gain favor from the fertility goddesses. In other words, pagan prostitution. This is later confirmed in Deuteronomy 23, where the Israelites are forbidden from becoming temple prostitutes. Leviticus itself, doesn't actually make sense when translated from Hebrew to English. It barely makes sense in Ancient Hebrew. It's closest meaning is, "A man shall not force another man in the lyings woman". The closet scholarly meaning would be that, the Israelite men are not to force or seduce another man to take the position of a woman, especially in pagan worship rituals before the god Molech. This was a patriarchal culture. Subjecting a man to behave like a woman, especially in pagan worship, was ritually impure (the correct meaning of the corrupted, "abomination").

Another point is, the verse in English says a man can't lay with another man like he would a woman. Why the additional clause, "like a woman"? Why didn't it just say a man shall not have sex with man, period.? Men don't have vaginas. They can't have sex with each other the same way if this is talking about your everyday variety of sex.

And finally, Jewish law has a VERY VERY strict burden of proof. Only public sex orgies with witnesses would be capable of meeting the burden of proof based on this command. A monogamous "gay" couple having sex in the privacy of their own home is impossible to fall under Jewish law requirements, and thus would have never been included.
Technically, not even Jews can understand the Torah without the Talmud. The Talmud is a very very complex explanation of the meaning of the Torah. Christians don't read the Talmud so they wouldn't understand the Torah.

Regardless, I don't think in all cases it's a big issue. Leviticus 18 in particular is a very complicated Hebrew passage and even the original Hebrew doesn't make much sense. My point is that people shouldn't blindly pull a random English verse out of context, and apply it to a culture 4000 years removed, and claim it applies to something that was unknown in those days.

The Torah ONLY applies to the Israelites. And their culture was absolutely nothing like ours. There was no concept of sexual orientation. They didn't perceive anyone to be gay or straight. Same-sex activity was very common in pagan worship. It had nothing to do with their orientation, or private behavior.

Really interesting stuff right there, thanks for your posts. If nothing else they show how many different views there are about the interpretation of the bible and at the very least we have no business basing our laws around such things.

[TH3SHR3DD3R]

While it is true that individuals utilize the state for their own ends, this does not change the fact that the state stakes an interest in the union. So how is it "entirely wrong"?

For one thing, there are no State documents, official or otherwise, that say this. If the State has such an interest in heterosexual unions that produce offspring, where are these interests outlined? Where is the propaganda for heterosexuals to marry and produce offspring for the State? Why doesn't the State punish heterosexuals that marry and do not produce offpsring, especially in a time when birth rates are declining?

And if the State has an interest in heterosexuals marrying and producing offspring, why does the State allow, and even outright endorse, divorce, abortion and birth control?

It is ironic that you reject the idea of the 'definition' of marriage, as it stands today, having any meaning. While invoking the idea of marriage traditionally being based on the notion of the union between one man and several women (without actually citing where or when this was the case). I am not sure why you keep mentioning this 'fact', as by your own logic, that marriage may or may not have been defined that way is meaningless today - as definitions change. The point is that the institution of marriage in the year 2012 is based upon laws passed by a majority, enshrined through centuries of legal precedents. It is clearly defined as "the formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife."

http://www.gospelgazette.com/gazette...may/page20.htm

I actually said nothing about marriage traditionally being between one man and many women - I said one man and many girls under the age of eighteen, or more specifically, one man and many pubescent girls that had had their first period. Historically, this has been roughly considered the age of twelve years and one month. I'm not suggesting that we return to this age old tradition - one that has been around far longer than marriage between men and women as defined by the age of eighteen - I am merely pointing out the hypocrisy of the position that tradition should have any bearing on the definition of marriage. I'm perfectly aware that laws are passed by a majority. We call this tyranny.

You argue that marriage laws are based off of legal precedent, and yet, you ignore the precedence of many, many centuries of men marrying pubescent girls. Basically, I'm calling you a hypocrite.

And I'm aware you are just rehashing arguments made by some douchebag. Clearly his arguments fail hard if the response to criticisms of his arguments are to repeat what he already said.

Just because things can change does not mean necessarily that change is in the interests of a society, nor that changes should be enacted on the majority because of the will of a small minority.

If everyone turned gay in the next instant, the rate of child production would not much as hiccup. Furthermore, no one is suggesting the will of the tyrannical majority be bypassed - indeed, there are already places where the majority has voted in favor of gay marriage.

If gay people joined in civil partnership are not legally recognised as each other's next of kin, it does not mean that they never can be. Definitions are subject to change. All that is required is a little 'tweaking' (you see how this works both ways..). The same goes for any other legal rights or benefits they may lack through not being joined in marriage. You seem to think it contemptible not to anoint same sex couples with the right to marry on the basis that things would merely require 'tweaking'. And yet it seems to be a far greater matter to rewrite hundreds of years of marriage tradition predicated on a union between a man and a woman, where there is a tendency for children to be produced, rather than to much more simply 'tweak' civil partnerships to incorporate certain rights.

I'm actually for civil unions with the same rights and benefits as marriage. But please, continue to quote this asshat Sowell.

I would not think that it is that clear cut. There are great debates had on this subject. The reason being people hold different values and morals. So the idea of not causing 'harm' is completely subjective. And as I mentioned above, how is it moral to dismantle the institutions of the majority for the sake of special interest groups?

Sowell is aware that heterosexual marriages do not change a single iota if same sex marriages exist, right?

It is unclear how many same sex couples are even calling for the right to be married. On the subject of drug use, no man is an island. A person's selfish use of drugs can invariable lead to the great suffering on their families and friends. Not to mention the havoc wreaked on society through drug fuelled crime. And the crime of the government mugging the tax payer on behalf of the addict to the tune of hundreds of millions to pay for the addict's habit i.e. methadone and eventual treatment(s).

I refer you to societies where drug use is legal. They are doing just fine. Your argument only works if drug use is illegal. See: the US.

Actually, and this might surprise you, the inescapable fact is that that only women can become pregnant.

Ladies and gentlemen: pointbreaker actually thinks that being gay changes a person's reproductive system.

And that because of this men and women are inherently in very different positions within a marriage. For instance, part of marriage law recognises and compensates for the fact that it is the woman who invariably sacrifices their career and earning potential to take time off work to give birth to children. In fact an article published this month reports that women who take maternity leave set back their future earnings 10-15 years when compared to their peers.

Sheila Lawlor, director of Politeia, said paid maternity leave was creating a “great burden” for women and stunted their growth up the career ladder to the boardroom, as taking time out to look after children meant many mothers missed out on vital promotions and experience at work.... She added it could take between 10 and 15 years for women who have taken time out to look after children to catch up on earnings they have missed; meaning many will never reach the boardroom.

That's all very fascinating, but has nothing to do with gay marriage.

There is also the unique circumstance of male-female relationships in that a woman's worth deteriorates over time as her beauty fades and her fertility escapes her. While conversely a man's increases, as he progresses up the career ladder and sees his income rise. This places married women in a precarious situation whereby it would be far easier for their husbands to leave and remarry a younger woman, whereas their own ability to remarry so easily is questionable. A marriage contract is security for a woman that her investment has not been in vain.

See above.

Except gay people are not doing the "exact same thing". They are same sex couples 'loving each other' and their relationships, therefore, do not have the same asymmetries as those between a man and a woman do.

And they don't have to.

Due to this it would be inappropriate for whole elaborate body of laws, policies and traditions, which evolved from the experiences of innumerable generations of male and female unions, to automatically apply to gay people's very different circumstances. You keep using the term 'tweak', which sounds benign, but the reality of what you are calling for is a total transformation of what marriage is and has been for centuries. The amazing thing is how blasé you are about this.

I refer you to places where gay marriage is legal. They are doing just fine.

Since you like logical fallacies, that is a classic argument from authority.

Meh. No fukcs were given on the day.

"Debating TH3SHR3DD3R on the topic of gay marriage is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; he knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to his flock to claim victory."

- Scott D. Weitzenhoffer

Perhaps, but places where gay marriage exists are nothing like what you say places where gay marriage exists will be like. So . . . *shrugs* . . . all I can really say is that everything you've said so far is moot. But I'm sure there are more arguments of Sowell's you can copy and paste.

[NYbrah]

Still think Leviticus was written in English I see. And again, how does a man lay with another man as he would with a woman? Men don't have vaginas do they?

Seriously, is your IQ like 60, because you truly are a moronic troll.

You're also apparently too much of a moron to realize those verses weren't written in English. How does a man even have sex with another man the same as he would a woman? Men don't have vaginas, so it's not talking about vaginal sex.

Btw, the same books command anyone who works on Saturdays to be executed.

Leviticus 18:22 - Can you show me where in the below verse it's referring to gay people?

כב וְאֶת-זָכָר--לֹא תִשְׁכַּב, מִשְׁכְּבֵי אִשָּׁה:
תּוֹעֵבָה, הִוא.

[TH3SHR3DD3R]

ITT, virgin miscer thinks that English is the only language in existence.

Virgin miscers: not even once.

[the8atman]

Because the homos like to feel like they're persecuted, it gives them some meaning in their worthless lives. Other groups are guilty of this also though, Christians love to feel persecuted for their beliefs (see Chik-fil-A fiasco).

[lasher]

Because the homos like to feel like they're persecuted, it gives them some meaning in their worthless lives. Other groups are guilty of this also though, Christians love to feel persecuted for their beliefs (see Chik-fil-A fiasco).

The fiasco where over a million people showed up for chic fil a appreciation day?

[wjs010]

Still find it quite hilarious that the homophobes are basing their political interests on the bible. You're saying you don't believe others should be allowed to marry because of a verse in the bible, but what if a gigantic portion of the United States don't get their marching orders from a book? That's the problem... You cannot force anything upon anyone , even if it goes against your personal beliefs.

Do I think a zygote is a human with a voice and rights, not really. Do I think a baby in the first trimester is a human with rights? Well, it's much closer, so I almost do ... I don't like the though of ending a potential life, but private matters of someone else's life are off limits to me. I don't have the right to barge in, and neither should you on gay marriage.

[Thinman]

The fiasco where over a million people showed up for chic fil a appreciation day?

It justs shows that bigotry is alive and well in America.

[lasher]

It justs shows that bigotry is alive and well in America.

I think most people are starting to realize the word bigot has pretty much lost all meaning, since it now describes anyone who disagrees with your view point.