DEDICATED TO MICHAEL STIPE
full discussion here… http://mpinkeyes.wordpress.com/2008/07/16/san-fransisco-court-to-decide-religions-rights-on-gay-adoption/#comment-20031
VOTE FOR CHANGE
Deciders,
Even though your comments were addressed to Mr. Pink Eyes and he did a good response, I would like to add my 2 cents to this.
From a Biblical perspective, Jesus reaffirms the foundations of the Jewish system that marriage and the raising of children is solely the domain of a man & a woman. That goes back to the first few chapters of Genesis. For any entity or government to have the audacity of trying to redefine the basic tenets of any faith is unconstitutional in the highest degree.
Now covering the topic of attempting to compare “race” to homosexuality brings in a false argument. The color of the skin of an individual and other genetic features is not an issue of choice. Race is merely a societal concept to segregate individuals based on appearance. We are all part of the human race as is duly noted in any medical journal and basic biology or we would not be able to “cross-breed”.
The act of homosexuality is a choice. Smoking cigarettes and cigars is a choice. Neither is good for your health. But one is “bad” and the other is “good” as defined by some. If one studies the basic tenets of Christianity and the Jewish faith, you would find that the choices of the individual are what are categorized as good or bad. Not the individual themselves.
It would be fair to say a responsible society would not condone teaching children to lead destructive lifestyles that will result in increased medical and other impacts in their lives when it can be prevented. The choice of doing illegal drugs, the choice of smoking cigarettes, the choice of drinking alcohol excessively, etc. are all condemned and the children are protected from the marketing pitch for those products.
But somehow it is perfectly fine to promote the choice of homosexual behavior despite the negative medical and societal impacts?
No matter whether someone is interested in the opposite gender or not, what one does when the drop their pants is their choice.
So please do not equate what someone is born with to choice. The argument does not hold. To further press my point, I’m a caucasian guy married to a lady from the Philippines.
Oh, Gary. Just when I thought I’d seen this brand of BS peddled for the last time, you had to post it on an otherwise interesting blog.
I never said that any “entity or government” should “have the audacity of trying to redefine the basic tenets of any faith”. If you don’t want gays in your church, fine. I’d venture that the majority of them (excluding extreme sadists) wouldn’t want to be there anyway. If some do, tell them to hit the skids and go form their own group whom holds identical views to yours on every “issue” besides homosexuality. No one would blame you for that.
And what do you say to the millions of American citizens (I’ll leave the illegals out of this because I assume you’re a hater) that don’t refer to “Biblical perspectives” for instructions to live their lives? You know, your countrymen and women whom might be inclined to look to writings such as the Koran, the Upanishads, or the Pali Canon for such guidance. Those three aren’t on your summer reading list are they, Gary? The point is, you don’t get to decide what everyone believes in. This is not a “Christian” nation anymore than it is a nation of any other faith. I got my B&N hardback U.S. Constitution right next to me, bitch. ($15- good deal) I’m not picking anything up on a scan about everybody having to be Christian. You might want to take a look at this shit before you start citing it in your posts. It is a fascinating read, I assure you.
How can there be a “marketing pitch” for illegal drugs? And what is the difference between drinking alcohol and abusing drugs? (Don’t tell me that one is illegal. This isn’t a bad joke contest). You need to get out more, Gar. Or at least around some people who have been exposed to the things that you are trying to offer an opinion on. I promise you it’s not that bad out here in the real world Gary, the gays won’t bother you. Nor will most of the chicks. The old parted hair/tie clip/fear monger look isn’t cutting it with most girls these days, Gar. Ask Tom DeLay. I’m happy for you that you’ve found a good one.
Lastly, the only way for you to possibly know that homosexuality is a choice is if you in fact are a homosexual. Otherwise it’s just another of your unfounded opinions. You must have been faced with such a decision at some point in your life to be so sure. When did you choose to be “straight”? You know, when did you come to the conclusion that those feelings you had for men was “bad”? Some haters I know would say of you, “that fucking faggot” upon hearing this. I don’t harbor such hatred for someone in your situation. But given the opinions you have offered, I think you need some QT in Ted Haggard’s “I want to be straight again” rehab. You got some serious shit going on, my friend.
My advice, from a clinical perspective, would be to let it go, Chief. Nobody cares what your opinion is about gays or anything else. It’s cool, my friend. Look up Pinky’s aforementioned Bingo Bill. That might be more your speed.
Please sit this one out, Gar. You and your kind have done enough damage to this great country of all of ours. Vote Bob Barr if you have to. McSame ain’t your kinda pubber anyway. Be well, my friend. Heaven surely holds a place for those with such faith as strong as yours. You just need to learn to love, learn, and grow.
Your Friend,
Bunny
The McBush campaign is upset that Barack Obama used the line “You can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig” in a speech today. Of course, Sarah Palin was first to bring the subject of lipstick into the campaign with her corny joke in her RNC speech last week. And John McSame himself used the same line about lipstick and pigs when criticizing Hillary Clinton’s healthcare proposals last year. What’s so “offensive” about pigs and lipstick?
Deciders 