Support NeoGAF

[Father_Brain]

Simply horrifying. And yes, it's on Salon, so you'll have to go through an ad first.

 

[Banjo Tango]

If Issue 1 prevails, political and business leaders are extremely worried that an exodus of educated professionals will follow

Yeah, but what have smart people ever done for us?

 

[VitaBone]

Yeah, but what have smart people ever done for us?

Enhanced their own personal lives by making yours and mine a living hell?

 

[Drensch]

An awful lot of repugs in Ohio are against this-just due to the insane nature of this law, especially the anti-Biz stuff.

 

[teiresias]

Johnston, a blond, pink-faced 33-year-old, has no intention of arguing on Melamed's terms. "Even if Ohio would be better off, gays should not be allowed to marry," he says, because homosexuality is a sin that "merits discrimination." In fact, he says, "I support and endorse the criminalization of homosexuality."

Preaching like a street-corner revivalist, Johnston musters quotes from both the Bible and Dostoevski to make the tautological argument that those who reject his vision of Christianity lack the foundation to make any moral arguments. "The proof for the Christian ethic which condemns homosexual marriage is the impossibility of the contrary," he says. "Reject the Christian ethic and you have no basis for making moral judgments."

Later, he tells me that the decision to put gays to death is a matter best left up to the states. "If we ever had a nation sufficiently Christian" to make homosexuality illegal, he says, imposing capital punishment for homosexuality would be a subject for "an in-house debate. There were capital crimes in the Bible, and that would be something debated."

W . . . T . . . F . . . ??!!!!

This is what the right wants to turn America into. This is what George Bush wants to be the American doctrine of morality. This is the hate-mongering fascist hate-state the current right-wing hijacked Republican party wants to mold this country into. The founding fathers, wigs and all, are rolling in their graves.

 

[ManDudeChild]

W . . . T . . . F . . . ??!!!!

This is what the right wants to turn America into. This is what George Bush wants to be the American doctrine of morality. This is the hate-mongering fascist hate-state the current right-wing hijacked Republican party wants to mold this country into. The founding fathers, wigs and all, are rolling in their graves.

Think you might be pushing it a bit far, but this is horrible stuff. All the same, I don't see your Emperor going THAT far.

 

[teiresias]

I see it as only a matter of time in this country, as far too many people are caught in this mass hysteria that's gripped the bible-belt.

 

[olimario]

Does this guy claim to be a Christian? He's a sicko... What he says makes me sick.
Christians really need to get themselves in check... they are commanded first to love God and then to love their neighbor. There is no ammendment that says "unless your neighbor is gay", or "unless your neighbor is white".

Makes me sick.

 

[ManDudeChild]

Does this guy claim to be a Christian? He's a sicko... What he says makes me sick.
Christians really need to get themselves in check... they are commanded first to love God and then to love their neighbor. There is no ammendment that says "unless your neighbor is gay", or "unless your neighbor is white".

Makes me sick.

Or overweight

 

[olimario]

Or overweight

I'VE REPENTED!!!!1

 

[DarkAngyl]

As a Christian and a conservative(moderate really) that dude makes me sick to my stomach. People like him that pull things from the old testament, while ignoring others, to ram rod a social agenda need a reality check. Christianity should be, and is in my mind, a religion of tolerance and love. Not this bitter hatred and bigotry. Shit heels like that guy give Christians that hold to the values that Jesus taught a bad name. Please don't lump us all into the same category.

Even though I tend towards the conservative side, I support gay marriage and think that the hysteria being generated by low life fucks like is just horrifying. It really makes me sick to my stomach. We are all equals and should be treated as such and should all have the same rights. I think God has a special plan for people that preach hatred and venom in his name. Can't wait until dude gets his.

 

[FortNinety]

I know quite a few conservatives, Christians, and Republicans who are simply sick of idiots ruining their good name. Can't blame them for being frustrated.

 

[DJ Demon J]

Does this guy claim to be a Christian? He's a sicko... What he says makes me sick.
Christians really need to get themselves in check... they are commanded first to love God and then to love their neighbor. There is no ammendment that says "unless your neighbor is gay", or "unless your neighbor is white".

Makes me sick.

Hey so how about that tiny little Thou Shalt Not Kill clause in Christianity? Changed your mind on the death penalty yet?

 

[jecclr2003]

Sorry, I don't agree to to gay marriage(I find homosexuality morally wrong, nthing personal. I won't judge how you live as long as it isnt forced upon me like a over-caffeinated southern baptist preacher), but this guy is a whack job. And I'm from Ohio to boot.

 

[ManDudeChild]

Sorry, I don't agree to to gay marriage(I find homosexuality morally wrong, nthing personal. I won't judge how you live as long as it isnt forced upon me like a over-caffeinated southern baptist preacher), but this guy is a whack job. And I'm from Ohio to boot.

:lol

 

[Matlock]

 

[MIMIC]

I voted "NO" on it yesterday.

I don't agree with gay marriage, but I don't think you should make an actual LAW that bans it.

 

[EmSeta]

I find homosexuality morally wrong

Your avatar looks like something Suerte or Adelgary would have though.


BTW, this stuff is simply insane. Insane.

 

[jecclr2003]

Mandude, nothing to laugh at there. I may find it wrong, but I'm not going to judge you on it.

I've worked and hung out with open homosexuals, never had any problems. I'm fine with it, their life is their life. As long as they are trying to preach from the mountaintops about it.

Sorry MY views don't match yours.

EmSeta the avatar in question is 2-time NCAA champion wrestler, and former WWE talent and current NFl hopeful (although that will ever happpen) Brock Lesnar.

I've been meaning to change it for some time now, it's just a matter of making one.

 

[Escape Goat]

I can't wait until all these bigots die and our generation dominates government positions. Our generation is very inclusive on the whole, placing value on working together and such. Until that day...

 

[ManDudeChild]

I can't wait until all these bigots die and our generation dominates government positions. Our generation is very inclusive on the whole, placing value on working together and such. Until that day...

Our generation isn't exactly perfect you know. But I do agree, many of the old views that aren't exactly enlightened will hopefully fall away. I just cant help but wonder what new views will replace them. We've always had something similar to this, it has just been a different group of people each time.

 

[Escape Goat]

Our generation isn't exactly perfect you know. But I do agree, many of the old views that aren't exactly enlightened will hopefully fall away. I just cant help but wonder what new views will replace them. We've always had something similar to this, it has just been a different group of people each time.

Whoa, I never said we were perfect :lol

 

[ManDudeChild]

Whoa, I never said we were perfect :lol

No, but you implied it was all the fault of the older generations. To an extent I agree, but we too have work to do and, in the course of many of our lifetimes are likely to create a new group that fills the roles that are being filled today. But at least we (as a race) always manage to work through it. Hopefully there will come a time in which we don't have this problem, but I dont see it happening in our lifetimes.

 

[jecclr2003]

Sorry, our generation may be a bit more toerant, but there are still the same minority of narrow minded bigots out there.

No matter when you may live that minority will always exist. Especially on an issue such as this, not only do you have your standard hate mongoring bigots, but you have the bible thumpers.

Although I can't really fault anyone religous for the convictions. Their religon says it's wrong. So be it, once again, don't force your views on me. I'm intelligent enough to make my own decisions and don't need to follow blindly in a faith that regularly contradicts itself.

 

[megateto]

Later, he tells me that the decision to put gays to death is a matter best left up to the states. "If we ever had a nation sufficiently Christian" to make homosexuality illegal, he says, imposing capital punishment for homosexuality would be a subject for "an in-house debate. There were capital crimes in the Bible, and that would be something debated."

Please, do tell me that there are very few people like this over there (I'm in Spain, Europe).

I was reading that and Bowie's "I'm afraid of Americans" came to my mind....

 

[Goreomedy]

I'm intelligent enough to make my own decisions and don't need to follow blindly in a faith that regularly contradicts itself.

And still, you think it is morally wrong.

Why?

 

[Pimpwerx]

Yeah, it's mostly our parents and their parents that continue that culture of segregation. Idiots really. And a lot of it has been passed on to our generation, make no mistake. Still, it's just a matter of time before gay marriage is legal. Gay couples have the same kind of relationships as anyone else, and they have families. The same people preaching the word of God and compassion and all that bull are the first ones to deny a gay couple and their kid(s) the same priveleges they enjoy. Just asses, that's all it is. A bunch of ignorant fools who are blinded by faith.

What I hate the most about this is that the black community is still so against this. We sit around and complain about unfair treatment and being judged on the merit of your character and work, and not your skin. We make this big deal about appearance not being everything. But then the vast majority of the black community is homophobic. So go figure. I don't get it. PEACE.

 

[jecclr2003]

Gore, that is my opinion. I've always thought that a marriage was/is between a man and a woman. Not 2 guys or 2 girls (although thats HOT! I kid, I kid.)

Marriage itself is a religous thing, the binding of 2 souls and defined as a holy union of man and woman. Eventually resulting in offspring. Even though I may be agnostic/semi-atheistic, the bible still states that the deviants were struck down for their lifestyle choices. Sodom & Gammorah anyone?

If 2 men or women want to be in a civil union or what ever non-religous term may be, fine. Go for it, live a long happy life together. But don't come bitching up a storm because you can't have something you want. But sorry marriage IS religous, whether you like it or not. Show me a religion practiced today that will condone a marriage between 2 like sexes.

 

[Mega Man's Electric Sheep]

Canada is still here, God didn't strike us off the map!

Yet......

Incest was ok in the bible. Adam and Eve's children all had kids with each other. Is incest still considered ok? No. The bible says a lot of dumb things. People tend to pull out what suits them and ignore the rest.

 

[jecclr2003]

Mega Canada is a weird place... all that snow and cold and people still live there. YOU WEIRDOS. 3 times the land mass yes a 1/3 of our population...

But great healthcare.

 

[Vennt]

... Show me a religion practiced today that will condone a marriage between 2 like sexes.

Start here:

http://www.iwgonline.org/marriage/

Religious Support for Equal Marriage Rights

Many Meanings of "Marriage"

Marriage is not a monolithic, unchanging institution, even though many people define it that way (or believe that God has defined it that way). Civil marriage and religious marriage are different institutions, but are often confused with each other because states allow the religious ceremony to double as the state ceremony.

There are different marriage laws in all the states and different definitions of marriage in every religious tradition. In addition to this diversity, civil marriage rights in the U.S. have been significantly broadened during the last fifty years.

Civil vs. Religious Marriage

Unlike some religious definitions, civil definitions of marriage do not usually mention childbearing, sexual relations, living arrangements, or religious beliefs or observance.

When clergy or congregations marry couples it is a religious rite, not a civil ceremony, although the government may recognize it. Clergy and congregations choose whom they marry. They aren't compelled to accept the state's marriage definition, and indeed, many religious institutions don't accept it. Many religious institutions are more restrictive than the state, rejecting interfaith marriages or remarriages after divorce. And some have a broader definition, blessing the unions of same-gender couples.

Many religious organizations, including some that do not recognize religious same-gender marriage, either directly support civil marriage for same-gender couples, support equal rights for same-gender couples, or are opposed to the denial of equal rights for same-gender couples. These include ALEPH: Alliance for Jewish Renewal, American Friends Service Committee, California Council of Churches, Central Conference of American Rabbis, Church of Religious Science, Ecumenical Catholic Church, Hawai'i Council of Churches, Interfaith Working Group, Pacific Congress of Quakers, Presbyterian Church (USA), Reconstructionist Rabbinical Association, Unitarian Universalist Association, and Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches.

The reasons religious organizations support equal rights for same-gender couples are varied. But it is fair to say that most see it as a matter of love, justice, basic fairness, and civil rights. Many agree that legal recognition of same-gender marriage would make very positive moral and social points--that we as a people value committed, caring relationships and do not discriminate on the basis of gender, sexual orientation or religion.

 

[megateto]

Marriage itself is a religous thing, the binding of 2 souls and defined as a holy union of man and woman.

When did JesusChrist got the patent for the concept of marriage??

C'mon.. we are havind a similar argument over here: PSOE is working hard to make gay marriage legal. And the Catholic church is having such a hard time with it... If all the trouble they have is about semantics... Sad, quite sad. And as I said: humans were getting married thousands of years before Jesus.

 

[teiresias]

But sorry marriage IS religous, whether you like it or not. Show me a religion practiced today that will condone a marriage between 2 like sexes.

Civil marriage and all the rights, privileges, and associated penalties as well is not religious. I have no problem if a church doesn't want to recognize a marriage between two men or two women - let the pope bitch all he wants, I don't give a crap. But if the government gets involved in granting privileges and responsibilites based on such unions then the government's role is not religious and therefore must adhere to equality and non-discriminatory tests.

 

[Mega Man's Electric Sheep]

Mega Canada is a weird place... all that snow and cold and people still live there. YOU WEIRDOS. 3 times the land mass yes a 1/3 of our population...

But great healthcare.

Our population is actually closer to a tenth of your population. And guess what, many places in the states get snow. I'm looking out my window right now, no snow! We don't get snow until winter in most populated areas you know.

And we have great heathcare......for married gay people!

 

[Vennt]

Civil marriage and all the rights, privileges, and associated penalties as well is not religious. I have no problem if a church doesn't want to recognize a marriage between two men or two women - let the pope bitch all he wants, I don't give a crap. But if the government gets involved in granting privileges and responsibilites based on such unions then the government's role is not religious and therefore must adhere to equality and non-discriminatory tests.

Thread over.

(In other words, IAWTP )

 

[jecclr2003]

ok, perhaps I should have been more specific. I wasn't intending on getting organizations derived from a religions, but faiths. As they are written, not a small sects interpretation.

It's fine that these organizations do recognize it, even though their scripture of which it's based condemns it. Therefore, they are in violation of their God's(whatever it may be) law. The Catholic church has all but excommunicated pastors/prechers who performed gay marriages. They had a VERY hard time approving a gay bishop due the fact of him being gay does make him a sinner in the eyes of ther faith.

But when you give marriage rights to gays, your inevitably going to piss off the louder majority, that being the 35-65 year old majority who actually vote. They will be the nes asking for the state's senators and representatives heads on a platter. This message board is a strange microcosm of society and the majority here is more well read than your average trailer park resident. You can't judge something here based on just the users here, the outside world isn't nearly as tolerant of matters like this subject. Most will dismiss it as being wrong without giving a second though as to why or help be part of a larger solution.

But like I said, marriage is a relgiously based act. A holy union between a man and woman. Hell, I still have the passage that was read from MY wedding somewhere.

As for an earlier post, yes marriages were performed before Christianity, but even then it was a religious matter. Even in the times of the Greek Gods.

Now for the states rights for civil unions, I don't care, but don't call it a marriage when it can't be one. Be it a civil-union, or whatever you may want to call it. If they want the same rights as marriage fine, it all gets chalked up to semantics. You make everyone happy... same rights, just a different name for a small minority. Whatever yanks your chain. This just means my taxes get another spot for someone to put a checkmark.

For the bill, don't count on that getting very far. Many stupid bills are presented and most are shot down before they even hit the floor for a vote, this should be one of those. I don't see too many people going for it, too touchy of a subject.

 

[impirius]

Whoa whoa whoa, what's the amendment process in Ohio? Surely you don't just need a majority popular vote, right? What else did that have to go through?

 

[Mega Man's Electric Sheep]

"But like I said, marriage is a relgiously based act. A holy union between a man and woman. Hell, I still have the passage that was read from MY wedding somewhere."

You can get married at city hall. I'm betting you don't have to quote the bible.

 

[Vennt]

But like I said, marriage is a relgiously based act. A holy union between a man and woman. Hell, I still have the passage that was read from MY wedding somewhere.

Let me ask you something, if you go to a church, just off the cuff, no plans, ask a clergyman of required experience to "marry" you and your opposite partner, and leave it at that, failing to register such with the relevant authorities, are you married in the 'legal' sense?

No, becuase it is NOT solely a religious ceremony, there is a civil, legal aspect.

Maybe it is your choice to ignore such a detail, but to many others marriage is JUST about this legal aspect. Just because you fail to recognise it doesn't make it disappear.

 

[xsarien]

Please, do tell me that there are very few people like this over there (I'm in Spain, Europe).

Unfortunately, here in the States, people - a lot of them - tend to put religion before common sense, and basic decency to fellow human beings. It's part of the core of my argument that organized religion is, perhaps, the worst single thing ever invented next to the Pocket Fisherman.

But like I said, marriage is a relgiously based act. A holy union between a man and woman. Hell, I still have the passage that was read from MY wedding somewhere.

And tell me what happens if a gay couple finds a clergy within their own religion tolerant enough to marry them? How is that reconciled?

 

[shoplifter]

^^^aw hell no, you did not diss Mr. Popeil.

But like I said, marriage is a relgiously based act. A holy union between a man and woman. Hell, I still have the passage that was read from MY wedding somewhere.

Then the government shouldn't recognize them at all if that's truly all they are.

Why are so many people unable to see the difference between secular and religious marriage (not directed at you!)? To solve the problem you just remove every instance of 'marriage' from the lawbooks and replace it with civil unions.


There, problem solved. The fundies get to keep their 'sacred union of marriage' and everyone gets the benefits since 'marriages' are no longer recognized by the government. This is even better since there's a clear delineation between religious marriage and secular 'marriage'.

And yes, the support this is getting makes me ashamed to be from Ohio.

 

[jecclr2003]

Shoplifter fine, don't have the government recognize marriage as it is. It's one of those sticky things of seperation of church and state anyway. I myself have found it odd that you get benefits (marginal at best) for doing something religous in nature.

But I'm just calling a spade a spade here.

 

[ge-man]

I agree with shoplifter's post. Frankly, instead of people trying their hardest to amend the laws, maybe they should looking at the difference between the religious and legal aspects of marriage. A little common sense should be enough to recognize that these efforts to protect marriage are a waste because the gay community is asking for something that has nothing to do with the sanctity of marriage.

 

[IJoel]

Stuff like this is what drives me away from the church.

This IS, sadly, SANCTIONED by the religious organizations. One has to wonder what the hell have they learned from our history of persecution, intolerance and bigotry.

Hopefully, the newer generation keeps growing more tolerant of alternative lifestyles. It's really a progression that can't be stopped and eventually it will become accepted. I doubt it will be during our lifetimes, but at least there's hope for a better future.

 

[pnjtony]

you know, I could give a shit if no church in the land wanted to marry a gay couple. Fuck em, but ANY state legislation banning same sex unions is just disgracefull. I'm so pissed reading this and i'm not even gay...it almost makes me wanna BE gay just to go punch someone for it. grrrrr

 

[ge-man]

you know, I could give a shit if no church in the land wanted to marry a gay couple. Fuck em, but ANY state legislation banning same sex unions is just disgracefull. I'm so pissed reading this and i'm not even gay...it almost makes me wanna BE gay just to go punch someone for it. grrrrr

Why would you need to be gay to punch someone for this? I'm not gay but I feel angry enough. I see this as an attempt to bring Christianity into our law. We ALL should be disappointed and worried, not just gay people.

 

[kurisu]

But like I said, marriage is a relgiously based act. A holy union between a man and woman. Hell, I still have the passage that was read from MY wedding somewhere.

Marriage is absolutely NOT simply a religious institution. Marriage has been practiced by humans for many thousands of years as a way to trade and consolidate wealth. It only took on religious undertones more recently in human history with the inception of the modern religions. They kinda claimed it as their own.

 

[Pimpwerx]

Gore, that is my opinion. I've always thought that a marriage was/is between a man and a woman. Not 2 guys or 2 girls (although thats HOT! I kid, I kid.)

Marriage itself is a religous thing, the binding of 2 souls and defined as a holy union of man and woman. Eventually resulting in offspring. Even though I may be agnostic/semi-atheistic, the bible still states that the deviants were struck down for their lifestyle choices. Sodom & Gammorah anyone?

If 2 men or women want to be in a civil union or what ever non-religous term may be, fine. Go for it, live a long happy life together. But don't come bitching up a storm because you can't have something you want. But sorry marriage IS religous, whether you like it or not. Show me a religion practiced today that will condone a marriage between 2 like sexes.

Seperation of church and state doesn't apply only to politicians. The people voting also need to exercise this restraint as well, otherwise, what's the point. As a result, you shouldn't be using your religion as a basis for determining what's really a human rights issue here for gay marriage. Are there reasons other than homophobia that makes a marriage ban necessary? If not, why vote for it? I could go on and on about how flawed and hokey the Bible and its teachings are. A lot of bullshit has been passed off in the name of religion in the past. I think it should stay as far away from RATIONAL discussions as possible. Religion is the epitomy of irrational. When your justification is the word of a manufactured god, it makes it totally worthless IMO. That's the problem with religious morality IMO. People don't seek further explanations for their decisions b/c they trust to damn much in the "Word of God." I don't really care if that offends anyone, b/c it's true. It's about damn time people woke up to what religion is/was really about, control. PEACE.

 

[shoplifter]

I posted this in the other thread, but it's relevant here.

From The Other Paper, Columbus OH

Oct. 7, 2004

Bigotry is an ugly word, but most of us are guilty of it in some form or another. Whether we're willing to admit it or not, most people harbor prejudice against somebody because of what they are, rather than who they are.

For the majority of people, bigotry is a character defect that we try to work on. For Phil Burress, it's been a career.

Burress is the Cincinnati activist who's leading the campaign in favor of Issue 1, an amendment to Ohio's constitution that would prohibit same-sex marriages or civil unions and keep unmarried partners from receiving the legal benefits thereof.

Burress also testified in favor of Ohio's Defense of Marriage Act, passed earlier this year to strengthen the state's policy against same-sex unions. In 1993, he spearheaded the successful fight in Cincinnati to pass a charter amendment that made it illegal to enact or enforce any law protecting gays from discrimination.

Burress would have you believe that his career crusade against gays and lesbians is motivated not by hate but by Christian love.

That isn't true. If it were, Burress would apply Biblical teachings to everyone, not just those whose sexual orientation is different than his.

Burress is a schoolyard bully with a grudge against gay people.

"Activists promoting a self-destructive, same-sex lifestyle have aligned themselves with sympathetic, tyrannical judges to do the unthinkable—'redefine' the Divine truth of marriage as the union of one man and one woman," says the website of Ohio Campaign to Protect Marriage, Burress's pro-Issue 1 organization.

But if the "Divine truth of marriage" is to be found in the Bible, Burress has quite a bit of explaining to do.

He wouldn't talk about it this week, but Burress told the Dispatch earlier this year that he's on his third marriage. His first two were destroyed by his admitted addiction to pornography. He shared this with the Dispatch in hopes of promoting himself as a redeemed sinner.

But according to the doctrine that Burress would have the rest of us live by, he's not redeemed at all. In fact, he's mocking the institution of marriage.

The Gospels don't record Jesus saying anything about homosexuality, but they do quote Jesus speaking very specifically to the issue of divorce and remarriage.

"Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her," Jesus said, according to the 10th chapter of Mark, Verse 11. Jesus says the same thing in Matthew 5:32 and Luke 16:18.

However, Burress doesn't like to talk about life as a practicing adulterer.

When asked about it this week, Burress refused to say how he reconciles his own lifestyle choice with his purported religious faith.

Maybe he's been so busy telling other people to live by the Bible that he hasn't found time to read it himself.

The Bible aside, I think most of us would be happy for Burress if he's found true love. It doesn't seem too much to ask for him to allow his fellow Ohioans to do the same.

But Burress's tolerance for nontraditional marriage doesn't extend beyond his own. Through Issue 1, he now seeks to further dehumanize gays and lesbians, and to do so in the name of God.

According to the polls, the issue will pass easily on Nov. 2. If so, it won't just be hate-mongers voting for it. A lot of decent people will vote for Issue 1 because they think it's the right thing to do, because they've been convinced it's what Jesus would do.

Truth is, we don't know what Jesus would think of gay marriage. We only know what he'd think of a hypocrite like Phil Burress.

-Dan Williamson

 

[DJ Demon J]

Throughout OT's many threads involving Christianity or religious intolerance in general I'm continually reminded of that one Simpsons episode where Flanders loses his faith:

"God, I've followed every instruction in the Bible, even the ones that contradict the other ones!"

:lol