Anyone read this Rosie O'Donell BS?

[Sidebinder]

LMAO. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4381717/

It appears that Rosie a.k.a. veiwed from the back and you have the penguin from batman, has gone and married her long time affair Carpenter something. What do you think of this?

Banned or let them marry?

[Maniacmous]

My personal and religious beliefs say that it is wrong...and thus, my vote would be for banned. That being said, however, I am not going to persecute someone based upon their sexual orientation....that goes well beyond my limits. I have a certain "live and let live" mentality by which I disagree with things such as this for my own life, but won't hold it against someone else who chooses it.

[LordKappa]

I personally believe that there is no such thing as "being gay", and that people who are need psychological help. For some reason everyone has accepted that this is normal and are unable to consider that it may be a mental condition.

vote for "Banned".

[Orangepeel]

Looks like some good publicity for Rosie. She needs it after going through that odd trial she had against her old magazine company.

Didn't the judge throw that trial out of court because both Rosie and the mag. company really had done each other wrong and had no case(s) to stand on to sue each other?

Oh well, whatever floats your boat :).

[bejohnson]

There are genetic differences in people that are truly homosexual. That being said there are a lot of people that are confused about their sexuality also.

I believe that marriage as we know and define it is a religious ceremony that celebrates the joining of two lives under the auspices of and by the swearing of an oath to God. Since every religion that I know forbids the homosexual lifestyle I would say the 'marriage' is not an option for a homosexual couple.

Now, if they wish to have a civil union I have no problem with that. Any spousal benefits from such a civil union would have to be determined by the location where they lived and what the people of the community wished.

[Tivon]

Originally posted by bejohnson
Any spousal benefits from such a civil union would have to be determined by the location where they lived and what the people of the community wished.

I think this is the big question they are trying to avoid. For Gay people to fill out taxes with the benefits of doing so is sort of an odd thing because they don't "Make" kids. However, at the same time they could adopt a kid. Yet this is also another problem because most people don't like the idea of Gay couples doing just that sort of thing, I guess in fear of Spreading *******? So all of this comes back around to not letting gays get married.

Another point for some people is that they have proven many times before that the brains of gay people are not they same. It's not just the way you think, it's also the way the brain has grown. This might be a flaw in nature, but it's also their life, so who are we to say they can't get married?

You know Gay people have straight sex.

[wazman]

Originally posted by bejohnson
There are genetic differences in people that are truly homosexual. That being said there are a lot of people that are confused about their sexuality also.

Did they ever really prove that to be true? Isn't that like saying people that prefer margarine to butter have genetic differences in their brains.

And another point. I find religion to be hypocritical here. In the same breath that a religious person says "Love thy neighbor", he or she turns around and says "Homosexuals are an abomination and will burn in hell!"

Which is it? If God himself is no "respecter of persons", as the King James Bible so clearly states it, then how can you or I be? What right do we have to say what's good and what's bad? If God can't make up his mind, what hope do the rest of us have?

(Note - the second point is not directed at bejohnson. I'm looking for answers from any Christian that wishes to reply on that point - when I say "you or I", I don't mean bejohnson and I, I mean any other person and myself. Just so nobody gets the wrong idea here.)

[Maro]

Who cares?


It doesn't bother me.

[wazman]

Me either.

[Maro]

Originally posted by wazman
Me either.

Cool

:thumb

[tantousha]

Quite frankly I think they should be allowed to marry. I mean big whoopdeedo if they don't have sex the same way...I'm sure that what some people do in their bedrooms is even more perverse and disgusting....

I really can't see how marriage is a religious event when you can get it done at your local city hall by a marriage official....no religion or bibles involved...If it was religion specific like attending mass or confession than I could see if being up to the church...but you know what? IT'S NOT!

[wazman]

What the trouble here is, is the definition of wedding and the definition of marriage.

A wedding is a ceremony that unites two people forever (or hopefully forever). It can be performed in a church, or a courthouse, or a boat, or inside a refridgerator box, but it's still just a ceremony. Like graduation from a school or receiving an award.

Marriage is what those two people make of their lives together after the ceremony is over. And how they do that is their business and no one else's.

[tantousha]

Originally posted by wazman
What the trouble here is, is the definition of wedding and the definition of marriage.

A wedding is a ceremony that unites two people forever (or hopefully forever). It can be performed in a church, or a courthouse, or a boat, or inside a refridgerator box, but it's still just a ceremony. Like graduation from a school or receiving an award.

Marriage is what those two people make of their lives together after the ceremony is over. And how they do that is their business and no one else's.

Exactly and since a wedding and marriage isn't specific to one central or any specific religion than I don't see how it can be limited based on religious preferences...someone isn't connecting the dots properly :spin

[egarrard]

I think it's because marriage implies sex.

[tantousha]

Originally posted by egarrard
I think it's because marriage implies sex.

And the thought of gay sex is very taboo in modern society...figures...

[wazman]

Originally posted by egarrard
I think it's because marriage implies sex.

Not in my house, it doesn't... :)

[egarrard]

Originally posted by tantousha
And the thought of gay sex is very taboo in modern society...figures... Modern society maybe, but definitely taboo biologically. The human anus was designed/evolved to have stuff come out of it, not be put into it. There's also the matter of there being 2 different sexes. If homosexuality was the biological norm, there would only be one sex.

To me, a civil union is a better notion, since it fits more non-standard couples. Maiden aunts, for example. "Marriage" just gets too many people upset for it to be worth it.

Plus, the push for gay marriage seems to fit the agenda of gay activists to destroy the churches from within. The current gay pedophelia episodes in the Catholic church are just the most visible. Most churches abhor homosexuality and sanctify marriage. What better way to create strife in the enemy camp than for the gay activists to push for homosexual marriage.

I've never met God in person so I don't know if His mind has changed in recent times regarding homosexuality. However, God, or Nature, or just plain Fate, designed human sex to operate in only one fashion. A man and a woman. Anything else is a deviation and therefore deviant. Deviant behavior should not be honored by equating it with the normal.

[Orangepeel]

I remember watching a show on Roman civilazation about a year ago. Can't remember what channel it was...probably TLC or Discovery :).

Anyways, the show actually got into the topic of homosexuality and bisexualuty in Roman times. I found a link to a book on the topic, and a critique that kind of gives you an idea about their views on sexuality.

http://www.historyamericas.com/Roman_Homosexuality_Ideologies_of_Masculinity_in_C lassical_Antiquity_Ideologies_of_Desire_0195125053 .html

The show itself was very informative. I saw a different side, to see that human sexuality is a very complex social issue. Obviously sex was a necessity from day one to procreate the species :KICK ASS. Religions were an afterthought as people tried to understand where they originated and how their world was made.

Wherever homosexuality comes from, it is obviously a part of being human. It's just a minority that have strong sexual attraction to the same sex or both sexes. Whatever one enjoys in their own home is their own choice, as long as they are not forcing their will on another, or including children who have not decided their own sexual identity yet.

Marriage for gays? Sure, why not :)? There will still be the same number of heterosexual people around to continue having children...no worries there!

edit - I actually just noticed that the above link is not working properly, but you guys can proabaly get around it :).

Here's another on the topic :)

http://ancienthistory.about.com/cs/sexuality/a/aa011400a.htm

[bejohnson]

All the lawyers are for homosexual marriage. Imagine all the new divorce clients.:lmao

[wazman]

Originally posted by Orangepeel
I remember watching a show on Roman civilazation about a year ago. Can't remember what channel it was...probably TLC or Discovery :).

Anyways, the show actually got into the topic of homosexuality and bisexualuty in Roman times. I found a link to a book on the topic, and a critique that kind of gives you an idea about their views on sexuality.

http://www.historyamericas.com/Roman_Homosexuality_Ideologies_of_Masculinity_in_C lassical_Antiquity_Ideologies_of_Desire_0195125053 .html

The show itself was very informative. I saw a different side, to see that human sexuality is a very complex social issue. Obviously sex was a necessity from day one to procreate the species :KICK ASS. Religions were an afterthought as people tried to understand where they originated and how their world was made.

Wherever homosexuality comes from, it is obviously a part of being human. It's just a minority that have strong sexual attraction to the same sex or both sexes. Whatever one enjoys in their own home is their own choice, as long as they are not forcing their will on another, or including children who have not decided their own sexual identity yet.

Marriage for gays? Sure, why not :)? There will still be the same number of heterosexual people around to continue having children...no worries there!

edit - I actually just noticed that the above link is not working properly, but you guys can proabaly get around it :).

Here's another on the topic :)

http://ancienthistory.about.com/cs/sexuality/a/aa011400a.htm

Let's try it this way. (http://www.historyamericas.com/Roman_Homosexuality_Ideologies_of_Masculinity_in_C lassical_Antiquity_Ideologies_of_Desire_0195125053 .html)

Dammit, it didn't work. It's throwing a line break into the middle of the thing for some reason. Just copy and paste will work though.