User	Comment
Matty	posted 6-Oct-2008 11:19am   I am not gay, but I'm not ashamed of being hetereosexual either. However, given heterosexual intolerance of the gay community, I can see how some people may feel ashamed of themselves because of societal pressure.
Joanne	posted 6-Oct-2008 11:41am   I'm not gay. If I were, maybe sometimes. Not "ashamed", though, more along the same lines as a smoker who's with non-smokers, or an alcoholic with teetotallers. I know there's a huge difference between being gay and smoking or drinking, but my point is I think I'd be looking to surround myself with people who weren't edgy about it. I'd hope that's everyone!
they	posted 6-Oct-2008 11:54am   Good question.
Melf	posted 6-Oct-2008 12:08pm   Bi, actually, thanks. I'm not ashamed. It's not at all interesting, really.
Enheduanna	posted 6-Oct-2008 12:13pm   That would be so gay.
FauxLo	posted 6-Oct-2008 12:40pm   No. I used to be when I was a kid and didn't know any better, but now I do and I'm fine with being me.
LJD	posted 6-Oct-2008 12:45pm   I am not gay. I do have members in my family that are gay, and I love them they're being gay or not. I understand the gay issue.
Galomorro	posted 6-Oct-2008 12:53pm   Of course not. Why would anyone be ashamed of being gay? "Say it loud -- I'm gay and I'm proud."
romkey	posted 6-Oct-2008 12:56pm   I'm ashamed that this survey passed as-is!
Matty	(reply to romkey) posted 6-Oct-2008 1:39pm   > I'm ashamed that this survey passed as-is! Really, don't most surveys pass, regardless of how they are written? I wouldn't be surprised if the Obama's cock survey made it through. Anyway, is it such a big deal? It seems the author of a crapty survey catches some grief after it's passed qual. Look at this hot mess; the author isn't exactly skating into stardom.
Matty	(reply to Galomorro) posted 6-Oct-2008 1:43pm   > Of course not. Why would anyone be ashamed of being gay? "Say it loud > -- I'm gay and I'm proud." > > Okay; I LOVE BIG, UNDULOUS BREASTS, AND I'M NOT ASHAMED TO SAY IT!!!
Galomorro	(reply to Matty) posted 6-Oct-2008 2:00pm   Sure - go ahead. You're certainly not alone there!
JohnCD	posted 6-Oct-2008 3:41pm   I'm not gay and if for some reason I was, I wouldn't be proud of it and wouldn't admit it to very many people, especially my co-workers, friends, and family.
Irene007	posted 6-Oct-2008 4:12pm   What's wrong with being happy?
Irene007	(reply to Matty) posted 6-Oct-2008 4:13pm   > |> Of course not. Why would anyone be ashamed of being gay? "Say > it loud > |> -- I'm gay and I'm proud." > |> > |> > > > Okay; I LOVE BIG, UNDULOUS BREASTS, AND I'M NOT ASHAMED TO SAY IT!!! > So you like fatty tissue and glands?
bill	posted 6-Oct-2008 4:16pm   I'm ashamed of not being bisexual, since it shows a certain lack of open-mindedness.
Crayons	(reply to Matty) posted 6-Oct-2008 4:35pm   > I wouldn't be surprised if the Obama's cock survey made it through. I thought that was the greatest survey ever written! 8o I love the fact that we can see who qualified it though. Break out the torches and pitchforks!
cerealkiller	posted 6-Oct-2008 4:40pm   I'm not gay, by the new or 'real' definition of the word.
LJD	posted 6-Oct-2008 5:05pm   I do feel sexuality should not be made public. I do not want the homosexual lifestyle being pushed as an "alternate lifestyle".
LindaH	(reply to LJD) posted 6-Oct-2008 5:19pm   I don't think anyone is looking to push or promote it, trying to draw people into some sort of 'lifestyle.' In fact, I don't even think it's a lifestyle at all. I think all gays really want is for equal rights legally (marriage, partners being their beneficiaries, etc) and that people stop making such a fuss about it, as if it's some sort of appalling thing. They want to be treated fairly and to be left alone, just like everyone else does.
Maarten	posted 6-Oct-2008 6:31pm   Very much so. Or so Mrs. Palin tells me.
kirst	posted 6-Oct-2008 7:14pm   How did this pass qual? This should have options and begin with a capital. As for an answer, I am not gay. If I was, I wouldn't be ashamed of it. Bad survey.
Crayons	posted 6-Oct-2008 7:48pm   HOW DID YOU KNOW? I mean uh.. I'm not.. gay.
cloudhugger	posted 6-Oct-2008 8:01pm   No, there is no shame in being happy
llamamama	posted 6-Oct-2008 8:51pm   So much so that I won't even admit it to myself? No, not at all. I'm not gay.
JessicaWoman99	posted 6-Oct-2008 9:56pm   No i am not a lesbian at all
LJD	(reply to LindaH) posted 7-Oct-2008 1:17am   Linda, the relationships that homosexuals have, are NOT marriages. Saying they are, is mocking the sanctity of marriage, sanctioned by God. The whole issue of the legalities of beneficiaries, can be settled by having a mere will, a living trust. They do not need to be "married".
Matty	(reply to Crayons) posted 7-Oct-2008 7:54am   OK
Matty	(reply to Irene007) posted 7-Oct-2008 8:00am   > |> |> Of course not. Why would anyone be ashamed of being gay? > "Say > |> it loud > |> |> -- I'm gay and I'm proud." > |> |> > |> |> > |> > |> > |> Okay; I LOVE BIG, UNDULOUS BREASTS, AND I'M NOT ASHAMED TO > SAY IT!!! > |> > > So you like fatty tissue and glands? When formed into womanly goodness...you betcha; I like the butt, too !!!
jettles	posted 7-Oct-2008 9:26am   no, of course not!
Irene007	(reply to Matty) posted 7-Oct-2008 9:39am   Yeah, I have to admit it; my body is a continuous source of entertainment to me...
jettles	(reply to LJD) posted 7-Oct-2008 9:39am   > Linda, the relationships that homosexuals have, are NOT marriages. > Saying they are, is mocking the sanctity of marriage, sanctioned > by God. The whole issue of the legalities of beneficiaries, can be > settled by having a mere will, a living trust. They do not need to > be "married". i can't even believe i am going to waste my typing energy or breathe again but YOU DO NO UNDERSTAND THE GAY OR LESBIAN ISSUE! you don't even have a clue! my life with my partner is not in any way MOCKING anything having to do with the "sanctity" of your marriage or anyone else's. and the WHOLE issue of legalities is NOT settled by merely anything!!! you may think so but we can make our lives as safe as possible legally but it is NOT as safe as if you are in a recognized marriage. and why should we have to spend all the extra money to have our relationship, money and home stay safe when you are assumed to have all of that because you are married. YOU mock my relationship and my life with everything you ever venture to say about the "GAY ISSUE".
cloudhugger	(reply to Irene007) posted 7-Oct-2008 10:14am   We are back on track!
Matty	(reply to jettles) posted 7-Oct-2008 10:14am   Why bother with this, she will never be convinced. Trust in your love for one another and that God knows what he meant for you. Otherwise, you will just get upset to no avail.
LindaH	(reply to LJD) posted 7-Oct-2008 10:21am   They have to be married to have each other on their life insurance and health insurance policies. I honestly think that (as bill mentioned before) the government should get out of the business of marriage altogether. If two people want to have all the legal benefits of "marriage" it shouldn't even matter if they are in love or sleeping together or not, so why should it matter if they are the same sex? Are platonic (not in love) couples who get married only to secure rights for one of them "mocking" the sanctity of marriage? Cheating the system?
jettles	(reply to Matty) posted 7-Oct-2008 1:06pm   i know, i knew before i wrote it and once i was finished. i was not going to send it because i don't want to sound petty but alas i had just gotten off a 24hr shift and was sleepy and the "questioning" of who's relationships "mean" something or are a "mockery" sent me that one step to pushing submit! i do trust us and i know i am all right with god and the universe..................... thanks matty! thanks for being a friend!
Matty	(reply to jettles) posted 7-Oct-2008 1:10pm   anytime, just continue to love your partner and whatever version of the Lord you fancy, and even try to love LJD if you can. And I think by the time it's all over, it will have evened out.
Irene007	(reply to cloudhugger) posted 7-Oct-2008 2:57pm
LJD	(reply to jettles) posted 7-Oct-2008 3:18pm   I understand the homosexual issue, as I've studied it a little. I have homosexuals in my family...my daughter, my niece, and my brother. I can generally tell how they become what they are. I love them all, do not treat them any differently, than the rest in the family. I once called a homosexual treatment place in Utah, and they started turning people around. The woman answered explained to me the many facets of homosexuality. Her husband used to be a homosexual. She explained how they did it. She also explained about homosexual women. I had called this treatment place to get my daughter some treatment. I also bought a book, and said the best time to "catch" the issue is before a person is 22 years old. The homosexual communities can solve much of their legal issues of inheritance through a will and living trust, much like heterosexuals do to protect their loved ones. You may be thinking of marital community property protection. That is something you may work with your congressman/woman on trying to protect you and yours. BUT, I draw the line at saying marriage is any relationship, because it's not. Marriage is between a MAN and a WOMAN, and should not be messed with.
LJD	(reply to LindaH) posted 7-Oct-2008 3:22pm   I don't know all the things homosexuals have to go through, BUT, marriage is between a MAN and a WOMAN....period. When talking of all the rights everyone wants that marriage gives, why can't they just be written up to protect "partnerships", and not label it MARRIAGE. If they passed the law saying homosexuals can call their relationships marriage, what is next Linda? Think about it.
LindaH	(reply to LJD) posted 7-Oct-2008 3:27pm   Oh, so it's a matter of semantics. "Protected partnerships" sounds pretty catchy.
jettles	(reply to LJD) posted 7-Oct-2008 5:25pm   again, i know i am wasting my breath, but you do not understand this issue at all. and you don't love "them" all with unconditional love because you want to change them, treat them and not allow them to have the same rights that you do. that isn't love in my book, not really even tolerance............ i don't think you even understand what a relationship is or marriage is!! and yes, there are always ways to protect yourselves outside of the rights given with a marriage but again they are not the same rights given to the rest of the population. so let's not talk anymore about these things that you can't and don't understand!
LJD	(reply to LindaH) posted 7-Oct-2008 10:03pm   Linda, this country has slowly been going downhill because of "tolerance". We've had laws that protected us from indecency, but was repealed. Our Constititution has been rewritten, twisted. Our laws on crime have become lax. These are only examples. Now they want to attack the family institution, the marriage...I'm against making a mockery of marriage, by allowing other peoples, outside a man and woman to call their relationships, a marriage. I ask you, can you imagine what other relationships someone can think of, calling them marriage? Where is the line drawn? Bottom line is....marriage is between a man and woman.
LindaH	posted 7-Oct-2008 10:12pm   I think you are talking about protecting the word "marriage". People can call it what they want. I wouldn't be all that opposed to traditionalists preserving the definition of it, as long as non-traditionalists get their rights, which is more important anyway. Men and women who are not in a romantic love relationship (not even sexual partners!) get married sometimes, to get legal rights for one of them. It's not a traditional marriage, but it is allowed.
LJD	(reply to jettles) posted 7-Oct-2008 10:39pm   I love my family, and they love me. They know my feelings, and they respect my feelings. They have never flaunted their relationships in front of me. If the law can give homosexuals protective rights, under a different name than marriage...this I can understand. Jettles, I know we'll never meet eye to eye on this subject. I do wish you well.
Cain	posted 8-Oct-2008 5:30pm   Oddly enough, no.
Pomeranian	posted 10-Oct-2008 4:06am   No, but then again I was born shameless.
Wicksy	(reply to they) posted 11-Oct-2008 6:30pm
cantilever	posted 11-Oct-2008 10:58pm   Yes, I'm a gay woman. Am I ashamed - absolutely not. It's who I am!!!
Pomeranian	(reply to LJD) posted 15-Oct-2008 4:13am   Homosexuality, for some, is the way that God planned it and that's the way God wants it to be.
LJD	(reply to Pomeranian) posted 15-Oct-2008 3:22pm   From my understanding from the Center in Utah, homesexuality is caused by a lack of connection, bonding between father and son. And from a Chinese herbologist, I spoke to, she said if the first trimester is disturbed, traumatic, it can change the hormonal system to a slight degree. But primarily, it is lack of nurturing, break down of the family unit. For the female homosexual, it is a wanting to always get the approval of the father, seeking his love and approval. It appears a common thread in a home is a very passive father, dominating mother, possibly because the father is passive, or the mother is just naturally controlling, and dominating. The woman said what part of their program was to gather the fathers with their sons, and they had to bond in their treatment. They did things together, much what they should have done when they were younger. She said the men were recovering. She focused on the male treatment, discussing what her husband went through. I believe also, any molestation by a trusted adult could have something to do with it. There are variables, but bottom line, it's family dynamics.
LindaH	posted 16-Oct-2008 12:36am   When did you stop beating your wife?
Pomeranian	(reply to LJD) posted 16-Oct-2008 1:43am   There really isn't any evidence to support this theory, at least in the mainstream mental health community. btw, I find it curious that you believe Freud's theories repugnant and yet support this theory, which is at its core a Freudian way of looking at the origins of homosexuality (though not exactly what Freud believed, though that is way beside the point). In my life, I have know homosexuals who neither had a dysfunctional relationship with their father nor were molested. You say that you have homosexual relatives: do you believe they all fit this profile? More to the point, you need this kind of explanation because you believe that God considers homosexuality immoral. I don't believe this, so I stand by my conviction that it's part of the natural order of things and is not something to be seen as a problem. Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to debate the point, I know there is nothing I could say to change your mind. I just wanted to clarify where I was coming from.
LJD	(reply to Pomeranian) posted 16-Oct-2008 2:57pm   From my experience with homosexuals, I’ve noticed possible common threads….family dynamics My brother - My Dad was a workaholic, my Mother a homemaker, stay at home mom, with my sister, brother and myself. My Dad was always working, built himself a garage in the back of our home, always in the garage. My parents lived through the depression. My Dad was primary breadwinner, a good work ethic. My parents never argued that I can remember, except once behind doors. There was never a curse word spoken, no alcohol or drugs. I remember early in my youth, going to church, with very fond memories. My Dad was a very spiritual person. There was a break away from the church, because of my Mother I believe. She felt some of the people at church were judgmental...I don't know for sure, just through the grapevine. I think that was the beginning of the end of their relationship. My Dad, in a way become passive, my Mother in raising us girls, also babied my brother, raising him almost as a girl. I don’t remember my Dad and brother bonding….they didn’t. My Dad told my brother, to leave until he’s straightened himself out. My Dad was the one that tried to help me with homework. He was the one that talked to me about “the birds and the bees”. When he could, he was attentive. My Mother was a bit on the lenient side at times, She did the best she could. I feel thankful for having the parents I had, but unfortunately were divorced after 33 years of marriage. I feel that with some counseling, their marriage could have survived. I feel they loved each other til the end. I believe because of the break with the church, and outside interferences were instrumental in their breakup. My niece - My sister divorced my niece’s father when my niece was about 4 or 5 years old. She remarried, to a man that molested her daughter/my niece from 7 years old to 13 years old. My brother-in-law also molested my daughters. I filed an action against him. I had family members against me for filing an action against my brother-in-law. One being my sister, brother, and father. My mother believed me, but did not defend me. This suit helped stop the molestation of my niece, of which I did not know until later. My niece never really did know her real father. She had a horrible relationship with her “adopted” father. My sister is a weak person. Even after she knew of the molestation of her child, and nieces, she remained married, still married to the man. My niece was still in the house for an added 5 or 6 years after the lawsuit. My sister said she did not want to know what happened to my daughters, or her daughter…she couldn’t handle it mentally. I was/am disappointed in her. My niece told me she could have bought several homes for what she spent on psychiatry bills. She kept asking herself, “why didn’t her mother protect her”. She once told her mother, Auntie (me) helped protect her. My niece wasn’t given a chance to be young, not allowed to have friends over, or she to go with friends. She became an “over achiever”, which is typical of someone always wanting approval. My sister said she always wanted her daughter to get educated so she could make it on her own, something she felt she couldn’t. My sister had only one child, and was afraid to go out on her own. I say that was a poor excuse. My beloved daughter - My daughter really never knew her father. I divorced her father when she was a year old, my other daughter one month old. I remarried, about 1-½ years later, to my present husband, from the frying pan, into the fire. I immediately had two sons. From the beginning, my oldest daughter wasn’t “the favorite” of my husband. She looked like her Dad. My other daughter looked like me. I married a man that was on the rebound, big mistake. I had to protect my children from day one. I always said to myself, “it will get better”. My oldest daughter always wanted the approval of my husband, she never got it. My husband is the only father my daughters has ever known. I believe she craved the attention her brothers received from my husband. BUT, my husband really wasn’t attentive to the boys, other than with sports. She, after 25 years old, looked for her bio father, has stayed in contact with him, but he too is not an attentive father, because of his upbringing. He has improved over the years. He’s involved with his other family, and rightfully so, but his first daughter by his second marriage, is a homosexual. I don’t know about his marriage and the family dynamics of his other family. BOTTOM LINE….I feel, as researched, it all has to do with the breakdown of the family, at some level. A falling away from God’s Word and guidance. God loves the homosexual, but not the lifestyle.
JohnCD	(reply to LJD) posted 16-Oct-2008 11:39pm   > Linda, the relationships that homosexuals have, are NOT marriages. > Saying they are, is mocking the sanctity of marriage, sanctioned > by God. The whole issue of the legalities of beneficiaries, can be > settled by having a mere will, a living trust. They do not need to > be "married". Well put, I couldn't agree with you more. Who would have ever thought that one day we would have to specify what gender a person is married to......unbelieveable. Like yourself, I'm a firm believer in the Bible and it strickly condemns/forbids homosexuality which means it's a sin.
Pomeranian	(reply to LJD) posted 17-Oct-2008 12:11am   Have you stopped to consider the fact that millions, perhaps billions if you take the entire history of the human race into account, of people have been nurtured in the exact same family dynamics described and yet the vast majority of them turned out to be completely heterosexual?
LJD	(reply to JohnCD) posted 17-Oct-2008 10:00am   John, thank you. If the law allows every "relationship" to be called a marriage, it is mocking the sanctity of marriage between man and woman. Can you just imagine what other relationships will be able to come under the banner of marriage? I hate to think about it. God Bless!
LJD	(reply to Pomeranian) posted 17-Oct-2008 10:29am   There can be the same circumstances, but possibly a slight difference in a person's outcome. From what I understand there are many variables. If I knew, what I know now, things would have been different.
LindaH	(reply to LJD) posted 17-Oct-2008 7:08pm   And what about the fact that some homosexuals come from families that have excellent dynamics?
LindaH	(reply to JohnCD, LJD) posted 17-Oct-2008 7:12pm   Legal marriage should be distinguished from religious marriage then, to avoid confusion? It's just a word. You could call the union anything you want, but Christians are bothered by the fact it is called a 'marriage'. The whole issue starts to not make sense, when you look at it from the angle of protecting word usage.
LJD	(reply to LindaH) posted 17-Oct-2008 8:00pm   As I've said there are many variables. Acording to a specialty doctor, he said, can't remember the exact number, but at least 60 to 80 variables. There could be molestation, rape besides the rest I've mentioned. The human mind is fragile especially in the very first years of a child's developmental life. This was all on the Phil Donahue show years ago. There is a book by John Grey on love tanks. He said if a child does not get the love connection in any of 7 year stage in development in life, he/she will need to have that in order to go to another emotional stage. I believe the book is Finding love and keeping it, or some words to that effect. I have the book, it helped me to understand alot. I then read in another book, that homosexuality is a personality disorder, which in essence is the same. It is not the homosexuals fault in the development. There are places available for homosexuals to turn themselves around, but needs to be done early before the lifestyle takes a strong hold, I believe they said by 22 years old.
LindaH	(reply to LJD) posted 17-Oct-2008 9:48pm   I believe homosexuality develops in puberty, at the same time all of our sexual interest/preferences are developing. Just before discovering that we are turned on by certain traits (height, hair color, certain voice, certain facial features, etc) we have discovered which gender it is we prefer, including those that discover they prefer both. All of it happens at sexual discovery. That's the way I've always understood it, anyway.
LJD	(reply to LindaH) posted 18-Oct-2008 9:42am   From my understanding it happens in the very early stages of life. I believe a human being learns a certain way, and if that way is fractured in developmental years, homosexuality occurs.
JohnCD	(reply to LJD) posted 18-Oct-2008 6:03pm   > John, thank you. > > If the law allows every "relationship" to be called a marriage, it > is mocking the sanctity of marriage between man and woman. Can you > just imagine what other relationships will be able to come under the > banner of marriage? I hate to think about it. > > God Bless! I would also hate to think about what other relationships will be able to come under the banner of marriage if the sanctity of marriage between a man and woman isn't protected. It's outragous what's going on. God Bless you also.
JohnCD	(reply to LindaH) posted 18-Oct-2008 6:19pm   > Legal marriage should be distinguished from religious marriage then, > to avoid confusion? It's just a word. You could call the union anything > you want, but Christians are bothered by the fact it is called a 'marriage'. > The whole issue starts to not make sense, when you look at it from > the angle of protecting word usage. To avoid confusion, the sanctity of marriage needs to remain a union between a woman and a man. Marriage is more than just a word; it's a social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments.Nobody can stop two men or two women from having a partnership, but marriage should only be between a man and a woman like God intended it to be. You don't have to be a genius or a physiologist to figure out that God didn't design humans for homosexuality.
LindaH	(reply to JohnCD) posted 18-Oct-2008 7:27pm   But the gays want their partnerships recognized by the State. For good reason. Marriage has legal benefits that unmarried single people don't get. This whole issue could be totally avoided by letting any two people (whether they are romantic partners or not) get all the benefits any married couple can get. I think benefits should be extended to non-romantic partners as well. There's no sane reason they should be left out either.
LindaH	(reply to JohnCD) posted 18-Oct-2008 7:28pm   I don't think the government has any business defining "marriage" at all.
LJD	(reply to JohnCD) posted 18-Oct-2008 10:17pm   Thank you John It is a comfort you are here....God Bless!
cantilever	posted 20-Oct-2008 2:35am   Besides being rubbish? What does your herbalist say causes lesbianism. PS I came from a close, loving family. Absolutely no skeletons. My 2 sisters are rabidly hetero.
JohnCD	(reply to LindaH) posted 25-Oct-2008 12:12am   > I don't think the government has any business defining "marriage" > at all. I believe the government does have a right to define and protect the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman.
LindaH	(reply to JohnCD) posted 25-Oct-2008 12:20am   Why? It's not the state's business what people's relationship statuses are. What business does the government have in people's love life? "Sanctity" is to be protected by churches and religious people. The government is there representing all people, religious or not. Non-religious people can define their relationships how they want. I don't even think the government should be in the business of protecting religious concepts from being redefined by non-religious people, or even be in the business of approving or disapproving of marriage at all. I see no reason why any given relationship should be officially "recognized" or not by the state.
JohnCD	(reply to LindaH) posted 25-Oct-2008 12:27am   > But the gays want their partnerships recognized by the State. For > good reason. Marriage has legal benefits that unmarried single people > don't get. This whole issue could be totally avoided by letting any > two people (whether they are romantic partners or not) get all the > benefits any married couple can get. I think benefits should be extended > to non-romantic partners as well. There's no sane reason they should > be left out either. Only married couples (man & woman) should have the legal benefits of marriage. Like I said before, the sanctity of marriage needs to remain a union between a man and a woman like God intended it to be. God put men and women on this earth to be together. Who would have ever thought that one day you would have to specify what gender a person is married to; it's totally outrageous.
JohnCD	(reply to LindaH) posted 25-Oct-2008 12:59am   > Why? It's not the state's business what people's relationship statuses > are. What business does the government have in people's love life? > > "Sanctity" is to be protected by churches and religious people. The > government is there representing all people, religious or not. Non-religious > people can define their relationships how they want. I don't even > think the government should be in the business of protecting religious > concepts from being redefined by non-religious people, or even be > in the business of approving or disapproving of marriage at all. I > see no reason why any given relationship should be officially "recognized" > or not by the state. Why not? The government does have a right to keep marriage between men and women only. Nobody can stop same sex partnerships/relationships, but it needs to remain only that, not marriage. I have my beliefs and opinions regarding this subject and there's absolutely nothing anyone can say or do that will make me change my views. I think I've made it quite clear that I'm a very firm believer in marriage between a man and woman only and that's all there is to it. I base my principles on God's word and law, the Bible and in the end that's all that really matters. In 1 Corinthians chapter 6 and Galatians chapter 5, it clearly says that homosexuals (along with murderers, thieves, idolaters, liars, adulterers, slanderers, swindlers, greedy, etc) will not inherit the kingdom of God and eternal life in Heaven. Knowing what that says, don’t you think that gays should be very worried about their eternal destination?
LindaH	(reply to JohnCD) posted 25-Oct-2008 1:11am   So single people should not be allowed to file jointly on taxes or share health benefits? That's discrimination based on relationship status, and it's grossly unfair to people who choose to never get married at all. It's also grossly unfair to people who don't want to enter into a romantic relationship at all. Why should love life determine health benefits and tax filing?
LindaH	(reply to JohnCD) posted 25-Oct-2008 1:14am   Well then they should get rid of all laws giving beneficial status to any married people, and apply it to any and all people, gay and straight, married and single, in love and platonic. That's the only way it will ever be completely fair. Prefering married relationships over all other relationships is just wrong.
JohnCD	(reply to LindaH) posted 25-Oct-2008 1:20am   > Well then they should get rid of all laws giving beneficial status > to any married people, and apply it to any and all people, gay and > straight, married and single, in love and platonic. That's the only > way it will ever be completely fair. Prefering married relationships > over all other relationships is wrong. Prefering married relationships over all other relationships is right, not wrong
JohnCD	(reply to LindaH) posted 25-Oct-2008 1:29am   > So single people should not be allowed to file jointly on taxes or > share health benefits? That's discrimination based on relationship > status, and it's grossly unfair to people who choose to never get > married at all. It's also grossly unfair to people who don't want > to enter into a romantic relationship at all. Why should love life > determine health benefits and tax filing? That's right, single people should not be allowed to file jointly; that's the way it always has been and it should remain that way. I don't believe that's discrimination or being unfair. Everyone has the opportunity to get married (to the opposite gender) and for those that choose not to, so be it, that's the choice they make. Like I said before, I have my beliefs and opinions and there's nothing anyone can say or do to change my views so give it up.
LindaH	(reply to JohnCD) posted 25-Oct-2008 1:29am   What?! Even single, platonic relationships? So, it's okay to treat single people as second class citizens? Why should married people get the breaks? Why should a Person be able to work and buy health insurance for a spouse, but someone couldn't do the same if they were unmarried? It's discriminatory. Married people should not be getting these extra rights and benefits.
LindaH	(reply to JohnCD) posted 25-Oct-2008 1:30am   Lifestyle discrimination. There's no reason for government to be preferring that to all and any other relationships.
JohnCD	(reply to LindaH) posted 2-Nov-2008 8:57pm   > Lifestyle discrimination. There's no reason for government to be preferring > that to all and any other relationships. There is every reason for the government to prefer marriage between a man and a woman.
LindaH	(reply to JohnCD) posted 2-Nov-2008 9:06pm   There's no reason for the government to prefer marriage to remaining single. Absolutely none whatsoever.
JohnCD	(reply to LindaH) posted 2-Nov-2008 9:19pm   There is every reason for the government to prefer marriage between a man and a woman versus gay marriage.
LindaH	(reply to JohnCD) posted 2-Nov-2008 9:26pm   Why should the government care? There's more serious, pressing things the government should worry about and take care of. Gay marriage affects no one outside the marriage itself. I don't even think the government should concern itself with romantic relationships of any kind, at all, or the promises made in them. It seems a far reach of power to even be concerned with such a thing. The government shouldn't be sanctioning (or refusing to sanction) relationships at all. They are such a personal thing, that I find it downright loony that the state even has a part in it at all. If we get rid of state sanctioning of marriage, we can get rid of the stupid rule that insurance companies can deny benefits to household members who lack a marriage certificate. Marriage should be minor detail fluff, as far as the state should be concerned. Just as it's not the government's business who a person makes friends with and becomes room mates with, it should not be the government's business who someone chooses as a life partner.
JohnCD	(reply to LindaH) posted 2-Nov-2008 9:55pm   > Why should the government care? There's more serious, pressing things > the government should worry about and take care of. Gay marriage affects > no one outside the marriage itself. I don't even think the government > should concern itself with romantic relationships of any kind, at > all, or the promises made in them. It seems a far reach of power to > even be concerned with such a thing. The government shouldn't be sanctioning > (or refusing to sanction) relationships at all. They are such a personal > thing, that I find it downright loony that the state even has a part > in it at all. If we get rid of state sanctioning of marriage, we can > get rid of the stupid rule that insurance companies can deny benefits > to household members who lack a marriage certificate. > Marriage should be minor detail fluff, as far as the state should > be concerned. Just as it's not the government's business who a person > makes friends with and becomes room mates with, it should not be the > government's business who someone chooses as a life partner. I'm not going to continue a this long debate regarding gay marriage. You have your beliefs and opinions and I have mine which will never change no matter what anyone says. Since you probably won't ever change your beliefs and opinions, we are wasting our time with the continuing debate on this topic. We need to simply agree to disagree and leave at that.
LindaH	(reply to JohnCD) posted 2-Nov-2008 10:02pm   Okay. I hope you realize that my beliefs go way beyond gay marriage though. I think marriage is a religious thing or a personal thing, and should be something people do 'just because they want to' and that the government should play no role in it at all, even in the courthouse, and even among straight people.
JohnCD	(reply to LindaH) posted 12-Nov-2008 7:57pm   > Okay. I hope you realize that my beliefs go way beyond gay marriage > though. I think marriage is a religious thing or a personal thing, > and should be something people do 'just because they want to' and > that the government should play no role in it at all, even in the > courthouse, and even among straight people. I strongly agree that marriage is a religious sacrament, but the Bible clearly condemns and forbids homosexuality.
LindaH	(reply to JohnCD) posted 12-Nov-2008 8:11pm   So why should that should affect nonbelievers? Why do Christians care what nonbelievers do, enough to legislate it?
JohnCD	(reply to LindaH) posted 12-Nov-2008 8:17pm   > So why should that should affect nonbelievers? Why do Christians care > what nonbelievers do, enough to legislate it? What the Bible says is applicable to absolutely everyone and affects believers and nonbelievers alike.
LindaH	(reply to JohnCD) posted 12-Nov-2008 8:27pm   Why should it apply to everyone? And how does the behavior of two non believers affect your life?
JohnCD	(reply to LindaH) posted 12-Nov-2008 8:33pm   > Why should it apply to everyone? And how does the behavior of two > non believers affect your life? The Bible applies to everyone because it contains God's laws and instructions that nobody on this earth is immune to.....hellooooooo!
LindaH	(reply to JohnCD) posted 12-Nov-2008 8:44pm   No it does not. It contains rules that people who believe in it need to live by. If someone is NOT a believer, they are on 'the other side' anyway, so it makes no difference what a nonbeliever does. You don't need to concern yourself with what an 'unsaved' person does. They aren't volunteering to be under your religion's laws.
JohnCD	(reply to LindaH) posted 12-Nov-2008 8:53pm   Yes it does. Like it or not, God's laws and instructions contained in the Bible apply to absolutely everyone. Just because a person is a nonbeliever doesn't mean they are exempt from God's laws an