DES MOINES — A prominent leader in the Iowa/Nebraska branch of the NAACP — the country’s oldest civil rights group — announced today that he is resigning as branch president and a national board member in the wake of the national organization’s decision to endorse marriage between people of the same gender.

The Rev. Keith Ratliff Sr. of the Maple Street Missionary Baptist Church in Des Moines issued a statement saying he was stepping down from the NAACP national board and as Iowa/Nebraska state conference president “due to the NAACP’s position and support of same-sex marriage.

“I want to thank the NAACP for the privilege to humbly serve in such an organization and thank all those I had the privilege to work with in the states of Iowa, Nebraska and throughout the country,” Ratliff said in the statement. He was unavailable for further comment.

Ratliff has been an outspoken critic of same-sex marriage rights and has spoken at Statehouse rallies seeking an amendment to the Iowa Constitution to undo a controversial, landmark state Supreme Court ruling in April 2009 that gave legal status to civil marriages involving same-gender couples. The proposed constitutional amendment would define marriage in Iowa as only between one man and one woman.

Earlier this year, the national board of directors of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People voted to support marriage equality.

During a Statehouse rally in March 2011, Ratliff said his support for traditional marriage was biblically based, adding, “This isn’t a private interpretation, a Burger King religion, and by that I mean a ‘have it your way’ religion.”

(324) comments

Gaius Baltar
Gaius Baltar

Amen Rev. Ratliff, amen.

JD4440
JD4440

Amen to Rev. Ratliff is right! Wonderful to see a true man of God taking a real stand and showing real courage. NAACP is now just another organization bought off and taken over by the Gay Lobby somewhat like the Iowa Democrats in Des Moines and D.C. too for that matter.

Alphamale
Alphamale

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
As clearly enunciated in the Declaration of Independence, the source of all our liberties is the Creator, not man. This is important, because man can take away as well as give. The rights granted by the Creator cannot be abridged.

twiggy
twiggy

So, what you're saying is... we all have to believe in a creator, right? The Declaration of Independence is a really nice, well written piece of history. A statement telling England we were leaving. It isn't the ten commandments, written in stone. It isn't the source of any liberties at all. No rights have been given you by God, Vishnu or the Buddha. We give them to ourselves. To think otherwise may make you feel "special", but it's silly.

just_a_voice
just_a_voice

ALF is a troll, still. He can't grasp the fact that we have freeom of, and freeom from religion, and the creator mentioned in the DC is whoever we believe it to be - in the case of atheists, one would figure we would be created by our parents.

just_a_voice
just_a_voice

Which creator, yours or mine? They are NOT the same. However, the DC is not the constitution. It is a declaration of freedom, period. Don't continue to show your ignorance, alpha. Creator, as referenced, does not mean god. It means a higher level of being, according to non-christians. A different state to atheists. what this has to do with the state of Iowa allowing civil marriage? Nothing. Alpha is blowing smoke, as usual. He does not uderstand the difference between civil marriage, which is nothing more than a legal, binding contract, and a church wedding.

What alpha also doesn't realize is that there are quite a few christian religions, including two catholic offshoots, that perform same sex marriage.

Since marriage is a legal (secular) contract, it is man.

tython34
tython34

Your creator just_a_voice is the same as mine. God. Jesus Christ. If you don't believe now, you'll believe when you die. Obviously, this is a free country. It's also a Christian nation. But seriously if you don't like the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution or whatever else, you're free to leave.

You can believe all you want that marriage is a secular contract. I'll believe what the Bible and God says about marriage.

But these forums have had enough of your attacks on Christians and marriage. You should change your name from just_a_voice to Just_a_fool for as the Bible says, "a fool in heart says their is no God." Psalm 14:1

twiggy
twiggy

OMG Another one telling us to leave the country!!! What is with you guys. We disagree with you and we have to leave the country! What simpleminded individuals you are. And you can say it a million times if you want, it isn't going to change the fact that this is NOT a christian country.


as I wrote before..."The bible also calls for the killing of rape victims. And allows a father to sell his daughter into slavery. It also states which family members can not marry or have sex, oddly it has no proscription against father daughter sex. Some take that to indicate fathers forcing their daughters to have sex is OK. It also does not say abortion is sinful and does not call for the same punishment for one who causes an abortion as for one who murders, so that must mean it does not see a fetus as human, right? It is quite the book when taken literally." If you are going to quote it, you should know all of what's in it.

just_a_voice
just_a_voice

Nope, no Jesus in my book, sorry. Still not a christian nation, and was founded on secular, not religious thoughts. In fact, we went so far in the treaty of Tripoli as to unanimously pass, and proclaimed to all states in all newspapers, to Tripoli, the famous article 11: "...we are not, and never have been, a christian nation..."

Not what our founding fathers state you say? It was signed in to law by our second president, who signed the declaration of independence.

You believe YOUR bible. I'll believe my religious freedom, and my religious books, which disprove everything you state.

I'm not claiming there is no god. I'm saying I'm reading translations from the original greek, NOT the misinterpretations that you are reading.

You do realize that up until 50 or so years ago, homosexual did not appear in the bible? Yet, you claim your bible never changes. Shows just how big a liar you are. Just a fool? Sounds more like you. Not knowing the difference of sex between men and men of the town raping angels of God. Ignorance must truly be bliss, for you to make these claims.

Anyway, Marriage is secular.

I stand by the constitution (which establishs our laws), and the DC, which has nothing to do with law). Why would I leave? I want equal rights for all people. You wish to hate and not allow all people the same rights.

You don't have the common sense to realize the difference between legal marriage, which is recognized by the states and federal marriage, and religious marriage, which is recognized by neither. In fact, for you to get your 1138 benefits, you must have your priest or rabbi sign the LEGAL marriage license, or else you are not legally married.

tython34
tython34

just_a_voice: please stop speaking about things you know nothing about.

Point one: "In the beginning, God" Genesis 1:1
That should tell you everything you need to know about what came first, the secular or the divine.

Point two: It's not my Bible, it's God's Word. Yes man wrote it but at the direction of God. Divinely inspired if you will. It's clear God is the reason the ducument survived for thousands of years.

Point three: God's Word never changes. But mans interpretation does. That's the difference. Calling someone a liar when you don't understand something is really unfortunate. I pity you.

Continue spewing your hate and filth on these forums. It's clear there's no use trying to make something clear to you when you're blind to the truth and would rather live in ignorance and your own view of the world. Sadly, there are many lost people like yourself in this world to keep you company supporting sin (homosexual behavior in all its forms... yes even gay marriage). One day (when you die), you'll understand. But by then, it will be too late...

Alphamale
Alphamale

The Declaration is THE primary founding document of this country. You are showing YOUR profound ignorance, or more likely, your profound distaste that this country is indeed founded on the principle that our rights are endowed by a higher power than man. It is the most important principle, and you are ignorant to the nth degree not to be able to understand the significance. You secularists all want man to be the highest power. Like it or not, our rights are based on that foundation. You must destroy that concept to allow all the destruction of the country to go forward.

BringBackSegregation
BringBackSegregation

I don't see the contradiction. The Torah that G-d made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve
and the book that was written by Moses through G-d (6 million people witnessed it not 6 people who try to claim the Jesus in a dream) is the book of "Life." How to conduct ourselves!

just_a_voice
just_a_voice

You don't have to be a follower of the Torah to believe in a God.

God most certainly did make Adam and Steve, whether or not you are a follower of Judeo-Christian-Islam thinking.

This country is founded on religious freedom. What that means is that your God doesn't make the laws. Neither does my God.

BringBackSegregation
BringBackSegregation

Oh yeah-G-d made man and law! the rest is free will (the story of Adam & Eve)

just_a_voice
just_a_voice

If you believe in God, then you believe God made people. Then God made Adam and Steve. End of discusion, BBS.

BringBackSegregation
BringBackSegregation

G-d didn't make Adam and Steve like you think. Its called free will-A CHOICE!

Proof that being Gay is a choice not a person is born this way (Don't give me this BS of "if it was a choice you think I would choose this way of life because of all the ridicule) **2 Identical twins, who look the same, eat the same food, have the same like and dislikes. If One of them is Gay then if it was by birth the other HAS to be gay too! (NOT TRUE-It's a Choice!)

just_a_voice
just_a_voice

It's Not a choice, accordig to intelligent people (created by YOUR GOD). Now you are claiming your God only created certain people. Yet, accordnig to you, God created us all. So, Bubba, you cannot have it both ways.

No one chooses to be gay. Just like no one chooses to be black, asian, native american. No one chooses to be mentally deficient, yet you seem to think people choose to be discriminated against.

The ONLY choice here is who someone sleeps with.

That is not the definition of homosexuality. Homosexuality is the ATTRACTION, not the physical sexual act. EVERYONE knows that, even children. Except for you. Just like woman below that claims to lust after women, she is still bisexual, since she also lusts after men. She's attracted to both sexes. It doesn't matter who she chose to marry.

Show some intelligence, and try to comprehend this. You think gender preference is who you have sex with. It's who you are attracted to. Otherwise, all men who are in constant close contact that get raped in prison are gay, and we all know that's a crock.

BringBackSegregation
BringBackSegregation

Just-a-voice. R U Serious! You are comparing a race to a choice of being gay-talk about being stupid. Adam and Eve who had children who had children etc.. It wasn't until the Greeks who were the ones that became attracted in your words to the same sex. Why would G-d make (in your words people who are gay and go against everything he stands for? G-d created man in his own image-what to be ATTRACTED to other men! Your CRAZY! peole chose to be gay, follow laws, what to eat, etc.. they don't choose their here color, race, their parents!!!

BringBackSegregation
BringBackSegregation

The American researcher Dean Hamer published research that seemed to prove that homosexual orientation could be genetically transmitted to men on the x chromosome, which they get from their mothers. However when this study was duplicated it did not produce the same results. A follow-up study which Hamer collaborated on also failed to reinforce his earlier results.

AND YOU JUST ADMIT LIKE ALL THE RESEARCHERS, SCIENTIST-IT ALL HAS TO DO WITH YOUR BAIN, ENVIRONMENT, FAMILY BACKGROUND. IT ALL COMES DOWN TO A CHOICE. NO ONE HAS EVER BEEN ABLE TO PROOVE ITS NOT A CHOICE!

BringBackSegregation
BringBackSegregation

Hey voice of no reason or common sense-good luck finding any proof, facts etc of being gay is nothing other than a choice! You can't! Next you will claim G-d created aids not humans on their own actions of free will!

BringBackSegregation
BringBackSegregation

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/genetics_of_homosexuality.html

BringBackSegregation
BringBackSegregation

Attempts to find a "gay gene" have never identified any gene or gene product that is actually associated with homosexual orientation, with studies failing to confirm early suggestions of linkage of homosexuality to region Xq28 on the X chromosome.

BringBackSegregation
BringBackSegregation

Marriage is not a relationship between two individuals. Marriage is a divine cocoon through which members of two different sexes become one whole. If there aren’t two sexes there can be relationships, but there can’t be marriage. Marriage is not accomplished by the performance of the ceremony but by the presence of G-d. When G-d absents Himself the marriage is not in effect.
If civil marriage were called legal agreements or civil unions I would have no further quarrel with the legislation.3 However, proponents of the legislation insist on calling it a marriage. Marriage is a religious ceremony that consummates a religious status ordained by G-d. The court, when conducting the legal dimension of marriage, borrows use of the term because it conveniently reflects the permanent bond between husband and wife. But the court per se` cannot accomplish a marriage, it can only oversee the legal ramifications.
As long as the courts sanction unions that are not sacrilegious I do not object to the use of religious terminology in the judiciary. But when courts confer marriage upon a couple that cannot be married religiously I must object to its use of the religious term marriage. Because a civil union is not a marriage, it is simply a legal agreement that confers legal benefits upon the parties involved.

Is this merely a case of semantics? No, it is actually one of definition but I would argue that semantics are also important. Words create images and form mental pictures in the minds of orators and listeners alike. These mental images often form impressions that in turn influence popular opinion.

This is why I refuse to accept marriage terminology in same sex unions.

just_a_voice
just_a_voice

Marriage is most certainly a relationship between 2 people.

Cocoon? Sorry - not an insect. Yo are babbling about religious sacraments, I am speaking of United states law and state law, which is called MARRIAGE. What you are required to do to have a legally recognized marriage in the United States.

What if there is no God? There is no state religion, bubba, so one is not required to believe in God. In fact, Buddhists don't believe in ANY GOD.

You aren't pope of the country, we aren't a theocracy, and honestly? No one in the two states gives a rat's behind if you think it should be renamed to civil unions. Why? Because it VIOLATES THE LAW.

The court doesn't borrow any term - marriage was around for thousands of years (documented proof) before organized religion. You do realize that life originated in Africa, where the people did not believe in a God, but they believed in marriage Sorry, your complete lack of intelligence on the subject is showing. Let's also not forget same sex marriages in the middle east, long before Abraham and his followers.

Courts CANNOT be sacriligeous - they ARe the law.

Marriage is civil, plain and simple. The court, in accordance with the laws of the country, is the ONLY agency that can allow for the legal bond between two consenting adults. In other words, you and your wife are NOT married in the eyes of this country until a LEGAL piece of paper is obtained from the court house, and signed by someone empowered by the state. Your minister mumbling words over two people means nothing, without the STATE DOCUMENT.

Hang it up, Iowa has ruled (supreme court), and Illinois is about to render judgement. This has also been ruled on by the first circuit ccourt, and headed for the SCOTUS.

Since any other ruling other than across the marriage would be considered violation of three rights guaranteed under the constitution.

You can refuse to acknowledge it, but no one cares, as it is the LAW.

Try and grasp the very simple concept - separate but equal has already been ruled unconstitutional by the SCOTUS. Civil unions and civil marriage are not the same. Perhaps if you could look past your hatred and bigotry, you could understand the rulings of the first circuit court. Just like black and white food counters are illegal, so is your concept of separate but equal.

just_a_voice
just_a_voice

You may want to look at the original people of this country, the native americans. The navajo believed in four sexes, male, female, feminine males and masculine females. Females that identified as males were considered male in the eyes of the navajo people.

They were the first, here. Not your faux god.

BringBackSegregation
BringBackSegregation

Also depends what your belief in G-d is? Some believe he created us and still runs the show while others believe he created us and...

Dallas
Dallas

No,what that means is that your wrong again, where in the Constitution does it say this country was founded on God, Christianity, Jesus, or any supreme being. Not sure if you've heard of the Constitution but it says so in the very first paragraph i believe, " We the PEOPLE of the United".....it was no accident that Christianity was left out of it

BringBackSegregation
BringBackSegregation

Who created the constitution-Man who created MAN and the legal knowledge. Study the (torah) it will take you years but law came from it by man!

BringBackSegregation
BringBackSegregation

Dah-"we the people" does that include blacks or woman to vote at the time. Courts still argue on the correct meaning. Of course there is no mention of Christianity for obvious reasons!

Defn: The first ten amendments are known as the Bill of Rights. The Constitution has been amended seventeen times (for a total of 27 amendments) and its principles are applied in courts of law by judicial review.

just_a_voice
just_a_voice

WRONG, BBS. This country was not founded on the Torah. Read the Treaty of Tripoli, signed by President Adams. It clearly states in Article 11, "....we are not, and never have been a Christian Nation...".

what part of this is hard for you to understand? We are secular, as identified in the constitution.

The constituti0n, with it's amendments, cover women and blacks and hispanics and asians and gasp, even gay.

Definition of people - male or female primates, species homo sapiens. Note, no mention of color.

tython34
tython34

RIGHT BBS! People like just_a_voice continue to confuse God's law with man's law. God's law trumps mans every time.

In reference to President Adams, one mans opinion does not the truth make. The next President could've made the opposite claim. The majority of America does believe this nation is Christian not secular.

Marschall Vorwärts
Marschall Vorwärts

I find all of this laughable. Allow me to illustrate..

This man, who is supposed to be a champion of civil rights, has left his position which afforded him the opportunity to make lives better because he doesn't like the way in which civil rights is going?

This man, who allegedly built his life and career to counter-balance discrimination, believes in the advancement of human liberties, but only as far as his interests are concerned?

This man, who would have been lynched in an age not too long ago for not deferring to a white person, does not support univeral human rights?

What I personally find so comical is all this argument hinges on the lynchpin of moral degradation - be the origin of those morals human, civic or on high from some unseen almighty - and how it is everyone's responsibility to uphold the "true" moral code of society.

But this begs the question - at which time in human history were the morals of society "true" and "pure'? What is considered right and what is considered wrong is and always has been arbirtrary. It isn't written in any book - certainly not any as contradictory as the sources we seem to rely upon - morals themselves have always been little more than a consensus. While we can all agree that we shouldn't kill in cold blood, this clearly has not always been the case. Then there are the trickier bits, such as abortion, gay marriage, how/when/if shellfish is acceptable for consumption, wearing white after Labor Day, etc.

Which tiny period of human existance really "nailed it" as far as ethics go? What zeitgeist are we trying to preserve? As much as we would like to turn the tides and revert to the bygone era of our parents when morals were true, men were real men, women were real women and they knew how to put two and two together. (in so man words)

But this is an illusion. We cannot romanticize the past and its corresponding moral code. To do so is fallacious. For instance, I am sure a few of us had ancestors that owned vast swathes of Europe, lived in outrageous palaces, enjoyed elite, hereditary rights and practically owned the ancestors of most European descendants while only having to obey their king and God. While I am positive that some would love to return to this (arguably more natural state, as it existed for the better part of human history) state, most of us recognize that this is absurd. Too much has happened in the relatively short time that seperates our times from those and the world is an utterly different place. Undoubtedly, those elite were quite pleased with the status quo, and every right, every advancement, every dignity that common man has fought for was taken directly out of their piece of the pie. I bet they were pissed off, too, but we can all agree that the world is a better place now that Duke FitzShewsbury of Astorcrumb XIV cannot walk into your house, seize your possessions and lay claim to your wife.

Today, those trying to prevent gay marriage are not unlike those nobles, whining, bitching, pissing and moaning like a spoiled child as they desperately cling to the decaying vestiges of an achaic world. Whether we like it or not, human rights is an unstoppable juggernaut. As much as we may like to return to the world of our youth, this world simply no longer exists. You can fight for it tooth and nail, but this is ultimately futile. Such is the inevitable march of progress, perpetually tredding over the world of old; you can either go with the flow, or you can be trampled into the dust.

just_a_voice
just_a_voice

Well put. Best post to date.

opie1
opie1

Proof that bigots can come in all shapes, sizes, and colors. Those who try using religion as a means to discriminate against other human beings have obviously never faced real discrimination. Try reflecting once on living through the 50`s and 60`s, where this minister could have found out what it was like to face death for looking at a white women. Now you want to continue what many thought was over in 1965, only now against gay men and women? Wake up, you can`t really be this stupid.

mikron1216
mikron1216

I commend the pastor for differentiating deviant behavior from the ontology of all persons' right to "be". He knows justice, and he exercised it well, because he knows this crucial difference.

tython34
tython34

I completely agree! This pastor needs our support!

Less Bias
Less Bias

It's really unfortunate that folks have such a drive to prevent everyone from having equal rights. I'll never understand what drives people to knowingly oppress others. Though I do take comfort in the tidal force of this movement. It's no longer a question of *if* same-sex couples will be afforded equal rights to marriage benefits; it's when?

just_a_voice
just_a_voice

And I don't think that some of these commentors, such as mikron, realize that they are assuring that it will happen sooner than later. I wonder how they would react, if this was one of their children that was gay,and I wonder how many of these men are so compartmentalized.

One of the women below admits she's sexually attracted to men and women, but since she's married, she's completely heterosexual, because she doesn't act on these urges.

The more this is kept in the news, the sooner it's going to happen.

twiggy
twiggy

Andrylyas, In answer to an earlier post of yours, don't assume none of us has a clue, because in my instance, you would be incorrect. Unfortunately, I have seem more than I care to remember.

What I am saying is that homosexuality is part of the natural order. You may not like it, but it is so. From gut worms, to primates, to humans, homosexuality is found. Deny it, or accept it or condemn it. It isn't going to make a difference. Homosexuality has always been a part of the human experience and always will be.

jaxsonb
jaxsonb

First of all, 99% of the population doesn't give a darn what gays are doing as long as they don't try to impose their views on the rest. I think the problem people have is when GLBT get militant and state, "We are this way and you WILL like and accept us."
Another point of view: Why are we so bent on eliminating our species___no matter what race you may be? Gays always say they can adopt kids. As the numbers of gays increase, coupled with abortion and now abortion of baby girls in particular, the wide use of birth control, and the fact that mens' sperm counts have dropped about 50% just in the last 40 years, how can you assume there will always be kids to adopt? Then add programs like Bill Gates pushing vaccinations by the millions of dollars because they also affect your ability to have children. (One of his main goals is to decrease the world population, if you didn't know it) The gov't should keep it's nose out of religion.

Less Bias
Less Bias

There are so many misconceptions and conspiracy theories in there, that I don't know where to begin. But here's one fact: The world population has *doubled* in just the last 50 years. By the end of the decade, there will be over 8 Billion people in the world. We are in absolutely no danger of "eliminating our species". As of right now, we have an incredible surplus of orphans, and there is no data available that would suggest that trend has any hope of reversing in our lifetime.

just_a_voice
just_a_voice

Not to mention that with surrogates, donors, etc, no problem. Counts dropping? Not really, not to the extreme you imply. Provide a source, because nothing released by HHS agrees with your coments You are referring to the tidy whitey claims, which can be resolved with boxers.

There is not an increase in abortion of baby girls, that's more right wing hype. The abortion laws have not changed in 40 years.

Watch out - behind you - they are out to get you! Seriousy - if you believe this, I have a bridge for you.

tython34
tython34

Yeah sadly the world continues to murder innocent children before they are born. Not something to brag about that the laws haven't changed...

Alphamale
Alphamale

Not a winning ploy for Obama. His hand was forced by the idiot Biden. Too much cultural change too fast.

just_a_voice
just_a_voice

focus - this isn't about what you think it is. Demonstrate maturity and QUiT namecalling. Seriously? Too much change? Gay rights issues were around in the 70's.....and moving right along.

tython34
tython34

Sadly it's not going away. Most people want it to go away kinda like this posters pro-gay agenda. Paid blogger?

tython34
tython34

Um no just_a_voice, I'm referring to you. I've been posting only under one name. How dense are you?

Less Bias
Less Bias

I'm sure there are paid posters in this forum. But based on the new names, and sudden shift in position, I don't think you have to worry about them, tython34. After all, most are probably on your side.

just_a_voice
just_a_voice

Not dense at all, tython. Sounds like you are the paid blogger.

Comment deleted.
just_a_voice
just_a_voice

You mean like the name calling you just performed? Yet, you object to having the fact that you are a racist redneck pointed out to the world?

Jenn E
Jenn E

GOD HATES SHRIMP!!!

All of you going to Bubba Gump's and Red Lobster after church on Sundays are going to burn in eternity! REPENT and go to Chik-Fil-A.

Leviticus 11:9-12 says:
9 These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.
10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.

Jenn E
Jenn E

GOD HATES SHRIMP!!!!

Leviticus 11:9-12 says:
9 These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.
10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.

All of you going to Red Lobster and Bubba Gump's after church on Sundays are HERETICS

stopthe
stopthe

lol

twiggy
twiggy

hear, hear

tython34
tython34

I love how people post verses from the Bible out of context. It displays their complete and utter ignorance in all it's pathetic glory...

twiggy
twiggy

Actually tyt, it isn't out of context at all. You might try reading it. The bible also calls for the killing of rape victims. And allows a father to sell his daughter into slavery. It also states which family members can not marry or have sex, oddly it has no proscription against father daughter sex. Some take that to indicate fathers forcing their daughters to have sex is OK. It also does not say abortion is sinful and does not call for the same punishment for one who causes an abortion as for one who murders, so that must mean it does not see a fetus as human, right? It is quite the book when taken literally.

Jenn E
Jenn E

satire (n)

a literary work holding up human vices and follies to ridicule or scorn.

mockery, irony, sarcasm, ridicule, wit, parody, invective (formal)
parody, lampoon, burlesque, caricature, sendup (informal), travesty, spoof, mockery

I love how people can't recognize satire. It display their complete and utter ignorance in all it's pathetic glory...

stopthe
stopthe

The hypocrisy is astounding. Blacks are people, but gays aren't? Or what?? What about gay blacks?

If we had complete separation of church and state this wouldn't be an issue. Which means, if people would stop legislating their religion, this wouldn't be an issue. Marriage is a religious issue, clearly, and so the states (and the federal government) should get out of it altogether.

That would solve this. If you want to get married, find a church that will marry you. No state paperwork required. Nothing the state does should care about marriage anyway - taxes, programs of any kind -- it's simply not a sensible place for government to be involved.

Of course, the only political philosophy that understands this is libertarianism, and since Americans are brainwashed about what that means, they'll continue to vote for morons like Bush, Obama, and Romney, and America will continue to be a cultural backwater, a global embarassment -- a nation of rubes.

just_a_voice
just_a_voice

But we aren't talking religious marriage - we are talking civil (legal) marriage, which grants over 1100 rights to people that are married. We do need some consistency between state and federal laws. People married in Iowa can file joint taxes, same sex or opposite sex. Not true with federal taxes.

Since it is civil marriage, need to leave it at that same term - do you know how many millions or potentially billions you would have to spend to change all laws, rules and regs to a different term?

stopthe
stopthe

"Get the state out of marriage" fixes everything. Repeal those laws, or rewrite them to be agnostic about marital status. Your 1100 rights of "married people" does not have to be changed; just let the issuing authority of a marriage license be the church, NOT the state. And then the problem fixes itself. And yep -- anybody and anything can get married, if their religion or culture/customs allow it.

THAT is true liberty. "Do it my way or not at all" is not liberty, it is tyranny. Lots of tyrants posting on this page.

just_a_voice
just_a_voice

I see your point, however, won't happen. In the meantime, perhaps we could all have the same rights, gay or staight.

Bobo
Bobo

I don't understand why we would ever consider changing our laws regarding gays to please only 2.8% of the population. That's right, 2.8% not the 25% you get from the media.

twiggy
twiggy

Bob, I've never seen a percentage of 25% anywhere, are you making that up? What I've seen in many places is approximately 10%. Could be less, could be more. Could be your 2.8% (seems low) So what? To the individuals affected it is very significant. So you believe that because it's "just a few people" they don't count? Very sad, very prejudiced. Civil rights and all that. You're opposed huh?

stopthe
stopthe

Because your liberty to do as you please should not depend on being a member of a majority group. i.e.,

"By a free country, I mean a country where people are allowed, so long as they do not hurt their neighbours, to do as they like. I do not mean a country where six men may make five men do exactly as they like." -Robert Cecil, British prime minister (1830-1903)

just_a_voice
just_a_voice

Tell that to blacks, asians, native americans, hispanics, that they don't count, until they hit your magic number - I thought you people don't like quotas, yet you are willing to put it on in this case....Various studies have the number anywhere from 5 percent to the average of 10 percent. other studies have the number at 50 percent, taking not just gay, but the entire LGBT community.

2.8? Nope. 25%? Nope. Simply another fact you made up.

Less Bias
Less Bias

Actually, Bobo, it's currently at 54%. That's right. Fifty-four percent of Americans believe that same-sex marriage should be legal.

Bobo
Bobo

He was right to leave as his values no longer agreed with the NAACP values. And as for Obama endorsing gay marriage. I am very happy he did so. For every gay vote he picks up, he will lose two other votes. It's a win win situation.

stopthe
stopthe

Yeah, because the only people that care about gay rights are gay, right?

Wrong. By your logic, slavery and the disenfranchisement of women should still be legal, because only slaves would care about abolition, and only women would care about women's suffrage.

Fortunately, many human beings have a conscience that extends beyond their own narrow self-interest, even if YOU don't.

just_a_voice
just_a_voice

Seriously? Check the polls and do the math. You have no clue. Only the evangelicals have such hatred.

truthlover
truthlover

Good job Pastor. God designed marriage the same way he designed all limits He put on our activities; not to cheat us, but for our best and for our blessing. Every restriction God ever put on human activity was to keep us from hurting/destroying ourselves. He created us and He knows what works. Beyond that He blesses obedience and withholds His blessing from disobedience. No civilization has ever survived that openly accepted homosexuality. Check history. It really doesn’t matter if you believe it or not, the things that God has given his blessing to build us up, make us strong, make us happy. The things He has declared wrong weaken us, hurt us, and make us as a people unhappy and un-prosperous.

just_a_voice
just_a_voice

God? Same sex marriage is not a religious marriage, it's a civil marriage.

Your God? Maybe you are misinterpreting and arriving at that decision. My religion welcomes gays with open arms, and performs same sex marriage - prior to gay marriage becoming legal in Iowa and Illinois.

EVERY civilization that accepted gays is still around in some form. It's called EVOLVING. Another term you miscreants deny.

I find it pretty telling that you claim God is wrong, since you claim God made man, which means God made gays. Which means, since you claim he's wrong, he's not really a god.

tython34
tython34

Once again just_a_voice, marriage was between Adan and Eve long before politicians and "civil" paperwork got into things. How many times do people have to say that marriage IS a holy sacrament before people wake up? Ever hear of the Catholic church anyone?

Comment deleted.
pacman116
pacman116

Amen brother

RJLigier
RJLigier

Good job standing on principle, Reverend.

Misinformation Rampant in the Mental Health Field
http://narth.com/2012/05/misinformation-rampant-in-the-mental-health-field/

Gay ‘marriage’ not a right, prohibiting gay adoption not ‘discrimination’: European Court of Human Rights (REJECTION OF THE SOCIAL ACTIVISM OF THE APAs/ABA AND THE SWEDISH MODEL IN THE INTEREST OF CHILDREN)

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/gay-marriage-not-a-right-prohibiting-gay-adoption-not-discrimination-europe#

Russians overwhelmingly endorse ‘gay propaganda’ ban

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/russians-overwhelmingly-endorse-gay-propaganda-ban?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com%20Daily%20Newsletter&utm_campaign=448adc7414-LifeSiteNews_com_Canada_Headlines_04_19_2012&utm_medium=email#

From the Republican Party…………………..

Republicans Quietly Retreat on Gay Marriage
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/page/273209_Republicans_Quietly_Retreat_on
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74661.html

From the Obama administration………………..

Obama says in the memo:
“I declared before heads of state gathered at the United Nations, ‘no country should deny people their rights because of who they love’ . . . Under my Administration, agencies engaged abroad have already begun taking action . . . as we in the United States bring our tools to bear to vigorously advance this goal.”

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/12/06/presidential-memorandum-international-initiatives-advance-human-rights-l

Uncommon_Sense
Uncommon_Sense

For Obama to say ‘no country should deny people their rights because of who they love’ that could be interpereted as an endorsement for pedophelia as well.

Not that Obama has a moral compass.

God forbid he gets four more years.

Rome is burning, and he thinks gay marriage is worthy of his attention??

How about fixing the economy?


mommakelly
mommakelly

How about understanding that consensual sex between two adults is not even in the same ballpark as a dirty old man raping a small child. Brilliant.

tython34
tython34

Some people are just as offended by the disgusting homosexual acts.

Bobo
Bobo

Yah, it's pretty gross when you picture it in your mind.

tettnanger7
tettnanger7

Mommakelly, fair enough but how about YOU understanding that marriage is a religious and cultural institution and by its very definition is between a man and a woman. For the most part, I don't care a whit what gay people do in their private lives. I also don't care if they have civil unions and are afforded the same treatment when it comes to such things as inheritance, hospital visitation privileges, end of life decisions, insurance coverage, etc. However, to DEMAND that the rest of society change the definition of a word to placate a group of people is preposterous and very unreasonable. Can you not see that?

stopthe
stopthe

tettnanger7, how can you fail to understand that if it were only the "definition of a word", no one would give a hoot?

This is like saying that the abortion arguments that hinge on whether a fetus is "human" are all about the "meaning of a word."

You're either being disingenuous, or alarmingly unthoughtful.

JustAGuy
JustAGuy

@mommakeyy, the man-boy love association would disagree with you. Why do you have a problem with pedophilia? For moral reasons? Hmmmm....... you discriminate against two loving human beings.

Have a nice day! ;-)

btw: I'm NOT endorising pedophilia. Just poking holes in your logic.

just_a_voice
just_a_voice

Tett, not true. Civil marriage is NOT religious. No one is talking about changing the law governing RELIGIOUS marriage. Try and focus.

How about you change ywhat you and your spouse have to civil unions, then? I'm not going to pay millions or billions to reword laws because of your ignorance of the laws of the US. Gay marriage doesn't affect you in the least!

Society is not being asked to change the definition, your religious paranoia is claiming that people are. My church marries two consenting adults, and always have, even before gay marriage was passed in any of the states.

We are NOT a democracy, we are a democratic republic, and we look out for the rights of ALL, not the majority only.

You have a very inflated sense of self worth, if you feel like the entire world needs to think as you do.

Tython, I'm disgusted when I go for a walk around here, and trip over heterosexual people having sex in their vehicles with their windows down and car doors open - when I have my small child with me. How can you be offended by acts you don't even see? Are you trying to be the thought police now?

That, and pretty amazing how many accounts you can post under at once.

tettnanger7
tettnanger7

stopthe, let me get this straight, you are seeking to change the definition of a word, impose your beliefs on a long-standing, cross-cultural, societal and religious institution and you call me thoughtless?! I don't disagree with you that it is about more than the definition of a word, but civil unions provides what you're looking for does it not?

tettnanger7
tettnanger7

just-a-voice, sorry, I know you have your standard, pat arguments that allow you to change the subject, but they don't apply to me. I don't argue against gay marriage from a religious perspective. I argue against it because it makes no logical sense to change the definition and purpose of a societal tradition to suit the whims of a particular group. Certainly you realize that marriage was a religious institution long before it was a civil institution? They are intertwined by history whether you like it or not. At any rate, I don't have a problem with civil unions.

tettnanger7
tettnanger7

just_a_voice. You want to alter the definition of a pillar of human civilization for your own benefit and you have the chutzpah to say *I* have an inflated sense of worth? Seriously? You just told me that gay marriage doesn't affect me in the least. Tell me, does calling a civil union a civil union rather than marriage affect you in the least? The answer is no. However, if your answer is yes then you would need to admit that your goal is not to just have the benefits derived by a civil union or marriage. What is your actual goal then?

Totally agree that we are a Constitutionally limited republic and not a direct democracy. However, you forgot to point out that we are also federalist meaning power is split between a central government and constituent (state) governments. Thus, the matter is entirely up to the states as it should be.

If you were to stop the "marriage" nonsense and promote civil unions, you'd be a lot more successful at making progress with independent people like myself.

twiggy
twiggy

Tet, YES, we are seeking to change the definition of marriage. We want to change it to that which is in the constitution of the State of Iowa. The Iowa supreme court found that marriage between persons of the same sex is constitutional. Things change. Times change. We no longer believe women are the property of men. Things change. We don't send little children out to work in factories anymore. We no longer have bear baiting as a sport. Nor do we believe humans can buy other humans, we have changed. It is time to realize we are evolving and changing, whether you and others like you want to or not. Get over it.

tettnanger7
tettnanger7

Great, go for it. I have no problem with a state doing that (have an enormous problem with the federal gov't butting in either way), but just be respectful of those who have respect for tradition or that have (gasp!) religious beliefs. I find it hilarious that some people get so absolutely riled up and offended by the term used (even when said term gives them exactly what they purportedly want) and then turn around and then act like they're absolutely shocked that someone else may in turn be offended by the idea of changing the fundamental meaning of something. Hypocrisy indeed!

Yes, times change but the meaning of words typically don't. We didn't redefine slavery so that it was legal as long as the master and owner were of the same race. We didn't prevent kids from doing chores around the house or working on a family farm (err, not yet at least, but our monstrosity of a federal gov't is working on the latter I hear). Uh, yes you can still bait bear (and deer and other animals) depending on where you live. The problem in many instances is that what you view as "evolution" can be viewed by others as "devolution".

twiggy
twiggy

Sorry tet, I don't get what you are saying in the first paragraph. Other than it's OK with you if states make gay marriage legal, but not the federal government. Didn't we have a war about that and slavery? I always try to be respectful of the beliefs of others, it's nice when they reciprocate.


The meaning of words doesn't change? The first one that comes to mind is the definition of the word "gay", it certainly has changed, as have lots of others. I think we are having another definition problem, You might look up the definition of "bear baiting", it isn't legal in the US.

just_a_voice
just_a_voice

No tet, thats a lie. Not close to what I'm saying. Grasp if you can, the truth. There is a difference between civil and religious marriage. No one is redefining religious marriage. Civil marriage is a legal binding contract between two adults. Not a redefinition according to the supreme court, who ruled on it in Iowa. Not really too hard to understand.

JustAGuy
JustAGuy

We need Obama to STOP trying to fix anything! Obama's *economic fix* amounted to the public debt going up by 1/3.

stopthe
stopthe

For you to compare behavior between consenting adults with the exploitation of children -- is ridiculous, and exposes you as a poor thinker who has no business commenting on anything. Please also don't vote, you're not qualified.

just_a_voice
just_a_voice

Pedophilia is a criminal act, and is between an adult and a child under the age of 12, who cannot give consent. Marriage is a legal binding contract between two adults.

Two different ideas completely. It's sad that you lack the common sense to see that.

just_a_voice
just_a_voice

Seriously? NARTH is not a recognized mental health organization, in fact, quite the opposite.

Don't really care what the EU stated, since this is the US.

Ditto Russia.

Lifesitenews.com? Typical hate filled racist propaganda from evangelicals, who want to deny civil rights.

Republicans? Again - violation of constitutional right of free speech, expression, and right to privacy, violation of the separation of church and state.

Keep up the hate.

If two consenting adults of the opposite sex can get married, then it is a right. You can no longer discriminate based on gender preference (Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended), ergo, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled that you cannot based on the FEDERAL constitution that you cannot deny same sex two consenting adults.

Kapish?

lun2ski
lun2ski

Firearms ownership and the right to self defense are natural civil rights as well as an explicit right guaranteed under the second and fourteenth amendments to the US constitution. The US Supreme Court recently affirmed these rights in the Heller and McDonald decisions.

The NRA was founded in 1871, which is 38 years before the founding of the NAACP and the ACLU. The NRA is unquestionably the oldest continuously operating civil rights organization in the United States.

The first gun prohibition laws passed in the US were state laws designed to keep firearms out of the hands of emancipated slaves.

Uncommon_Sense
Uncommon_Sense

As a happily married man, I have this to say, NO ONE has abused and screwed up the institution of marraige more than strait folks.

Undeniable.

Secondly, gay marriage inevitably leads to gay divorce, and gay divorce TV.

And I just can't wait to watch two queens fighting over a cat in front of Judge Judy, that's just awesome entertainment.

mommakelly
mommakelly

amen, no pun intended.

Uncommon_Sense
Uncommon_Sense

Now if you want to ban something, let's start with not allowing the Kardashians to marry ;-)

JustAGuy
JustAGuy

Your logic is flawed. If, for the vast majority of the part, only straights are getting married, of course only straights who failed at marriage are the ones who are giving marriage a bad name.

Based upon your post, you just want to see a couple of queens fighting over the cat in front of Judge Judy. I must admit, that sort of specticle will satisfy the prurient appetites far beyond straights fighting in front of Judge Judy.

stopthe
stopthe

JustAGuy -- his point, genius, is that all of the wailing and hand-wringing by "straight" people about gay marriage causing the "erosion" of the "institution of marriage" is pure B.S.

Therefore, allowing gays to marry isn't going to change marriage for straight people at all. It's just going to force them to think about gay couples differently, kind of like whites in the Reconstruction South had to think about ex-slaves differently. Yeah, that kind of disruptive social change is emotionally difficult for those that are losing their age-old privilege, because they can no longer oppress their victims. Too bad; equality is coming, and there's nothing you can do to stop it.

JustAGuy
JustAGuy

@stopthe, so you're Svenghali now? You jumped into his/her mind and discerend that poster's unstated intentions? Maybe that was the intention, bhut it wasn't stated.

So, you ARE equating people defined by their choices and behavior with people defined by their DNA? BTW, the markers that identify the "gay gene" still eludes scientists.

Black folks have a problem with that.

tython34
tython34

To stopthe:

Yes allowing gays to marry changes marriage for the rest of the straight population. It diminishes the instituion we are a part of and perverts it. What's next? People marrying goldfish and inanimate objects?

just_a_voice
just_a_voice

Justaguy, not just a lieon your part, but also a racist comment.

just_a_voice
just_a_voice

Over 50 percent of straight marriages end in divorce. 1-2 percent of gay marriages do. Who has it right? How come it's ok for you to use percentages for the number of gays in this country, but not ok to use percentages of divorce and marriage? Pretty hypocritical of you.

just_a_voice
just_a_voice

Saw that episode on Peoples Court AND Judge Judy before - with gays and straights - very entertaining!

JustAGuy
JustAGuy

Good for him.

People are learning when you get entangled with Barack Obama, you end up leaving your moral compass behind.

mommakelly
mommakelly

You're an idiot.

JustAGuy
JustAGuy

Resorting to name calling is a very poor way to go about life, child.

mommakelly
mommakelly

That's Grandma child to you, sir, and the idea that you all have that it's appropriate to bring Obama into EVERY conversation is the true sign of a simple minded individual. Get a hobby. Get a life.

JustAGuy
JustAGuy

@mommakelly, you gotta do better than that. The story IS about Obama! How so? Until Obama spoke on gay marriage, the NAACP didn't have an official position. Like good lackeys, the NAACP followed Obama's lead. Otherwise, they would have state an official position at previous opportunities, which there were many.

just_a_voice
just_a_voice

Ye, JAG, you don't give any examples, just unsupported accusations, as usual.

originalist
originalist

Dear Leader has come out in support of gay marriage so he can raise campaign cash. Won't Rev. Ratliffe be called a racist for disagreeing with Dear Leader??

Uncommon_Sense
Uncommon_Sense

It may be racist for you to mention it might be racist ;-)

mommakelly
mommakelly

Okay, here's what I want to know, as an Iowan, a grandmother, and a wife...for those of you who say that homosexuality is a choice...when did you choose to be straight? I know that I've never felt the need to sleep with a woman, my attractions have always been to men, but since you SAY it's a choice, it's obviously a choice you've made...so when did you choose?

And for those of you who cite the bible as your source of History and truth, I'll tell you what...you keep your church out of my government, and I'll keep my government out of your church. Our country was founded on the principle that we do not have representation without taxation. So, if you want to have a say in how the government works, then as soon as your church starts paying taxes, then they get to have a say in how this country works. Until then, keep your church out of my government.

Atlas Collins
Atlas Collins

" ... for those of you who say that homosexuality is a choice...when did you choose to be straight?"

On the very day I found out what filthy homosexuals do to each other.

mommakelly
mommakelly

So you considered it. You had the urge to be homosexual, but you consciously decided against it. Okay.

just_a_voice
just_a_voice

more than likely he's a closeted guy, who's interested or curious. He doesn't realize that 80% or more of female gays are not NFL linebackers. He better not crack a Playboy, since there are hundreds of gays that have posed, and that he's drooled over. Same with high priced call girls. He's ignorant, or uninformed.

mommakelly
mommakelly

And how about female homosexuals...Are they disgusting too? Do you find the thought of two women in bed together "disgusting?"

Atlas Collins
Atlas Collins

Depends. Do they look like NFL linebackers like most female homosexuals?

stopthe
stopthe

wow Atlas, you fell for that one. You must now be excluded from any serious, thoughtful discussion -- about anything. Another rube exposed.

twiggy
twiggy

It would appear that the "fascists" at the QCT did post your comment, I'm sure your apology will be accepted as soon as it arrives. My suggestion re "what filthy homosexuals do to each other" is quite simple. Don't become a homosexual. They probably find what you do quite filthy and disgusting too.

Atlas Collins
Atlas Collins

I see that. And I do apologize to the censorious newsfascists. I definitely jumped the gun there, but any comments critical of the disgusting homosexuals usually are censored on news sites.

just_a_voice
just_a_voice

So, before that day you were gay? It's not a choice.

Atlas Collins
Atlas Collins

I see the "gay"censors at the qctimes won't allow my comment to be posted.

All I said in response to mommakelly's question about "when did you choose to be straight?" was:

On the very day I found out what homosexuality was.

Why did the fascists at the qc times NOT allow that to be posted?

pacman116
pacman116

Ignore the Bible at your own peril mommakelly. Homosexuality is not normal. Not because I say so (for certain) but because God called it an abomination. Marriage is between one man and one woman. Period. You don't have to like it I suppose. But whether you do or not doesn't change the FACT that this is the way God established the family. And just FYI, God creates everyone (straight as you call it) with a free will to choose. Each person has to make choices all through their life and they must live with those choices. So if they choose this lifestyle, they are living in sin. God will forgive them, just as he forgives all sinners (that would be everyone by the way) when they confess to him and turn from those sins (once again, a choice). The sad part is, this once great country has turned their back on God and to many buy into these fallacies that "you're made that way." Sorry, but I'll take my chances standing on God's word. Hopefully one day you can come to that point as well.

stopthe
stopthe

Hey pacman116... what about homosexual or homoerotic behavior by animals in nature? Like bonobos for instance. Do they go to "He1l" too?

I dare any "Christian" that reads this to buy an read the book "Sex at Dawn." It will terrify you. It is a book written by anthropologists about the origins of sexuality in humans. i.e., it is modern and scientific, and will contradict most of what you believe.

Or you know, just keep reading the 2000+ year old Bible, that'll keep you up to date!

just_a_voice
just_a_voice

excellent

tython34
tython34

News flash. The Bible is older than 2000 years. You're referring to the New Testament. The Old Testament was around before Christ. How do you think people recognized him when he came? Prophecy.

But seriously, keep reading the works of atheist scientists with an agenda. After all, Darwin on his death bed wished he never wrote his Origin of Species. But people don't want to hear the truth. They enjoy their sin. But "there will come a day when every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord."

I truly pray all of you on these forums with your hate toward Christians and Christ will see your need for a savior and repent while you're still alive. For once you die, you will meet God. Then you'll have to give an account and will be judged. Better to have Christ as your advocate than not!

twiggy
twiggy

TYT, you are incorrect, Darwin never expressed regret at writing the Origin of Species. Where did you read that one? You can believe what you want re religion, it doesn't make any difference to me. You can believe any myth you want. I hold no antipathy towards you at all, I kind of feel sorry for you, but that's all. Why do you think you need a savior? Save you from what exactly? That's the main difficulty I have with Christianity. It's all about how evil humans are and all the sins. I truly believe people are not evil but good.

just_a_voice
just_a_voice

Nope, what you refer to is men in Sodom raping angels (literal translation from the greek). My religion allows gay marriage, so marriage is between two consenting adults.

If it's not normal, then why are there gay animals? It's still not a choice, and if you have same sex attraction to a person, it makes no difference who you marry or have sex with, you are still gay.

What if we are not christian, and don't use your "bible"? You sem to forget that.this country is NOT christian.

tython34
tython34

Gay animals? Seriously? They are animals. Man is man. Huge difference. But if you want to look at nature, insects eat their young. You can find all kinds of weird things in the animal kingdom. It doesn't mean human beings should adopt it unless you want anarchy. Maybe that's what gay marriage is; the first step toward the end of civilization. Because seriously if two people of the same sex can marry, why not marry animals or whatever else you want? It's this "I'll do it because it feels good" mentality that's degrading our society.

JustAGuy
JustAGuy

Wow, what a rant. I hope your grandchildren don't use you as a role model.

pacman116
pacman116

You got that right JustAGuy!!

mommakelly
mommakelly

I'm educated. I've been married to the most wonderful man in the world for 15 years. I've raised 3 wonderful daughters who are all employed and getting educations. I do everything I can to help those around me and try to treat people with as much respect as I can. You're right. I'm a horrible role model.

Andrilyas
Andrilyas

The government is already in the Christian church, and the Christian church is in government. There is no separating the two until Christians are banned from working for it. Christian church is not a building, it is "the body of Christ" which is anyone saved by the blood of Christ, and we are everywhere.
As far as when I decided to be straight was when I realized I was attracted to other women, at 15. I have been attracted to women all my life, but that's when I realized it. I sometimes cannot control who my body is attracted to, but I can control who I have sex with. And that was and is only with my husband, who I chose to love and will stay with until one of us dies.
Love is not a feeling, it is action. Infatuation and lust are the feelings that come and go, but love is a choice, and I choose to love other people by treating them how God wants us to treat them, and part of that is not sleeping with people you aren't married to, and not sleeping with a pretty narrow array of things after that, like relatives, people of the same gender, and animals. Other than that, the world is your oyster to find someone you will choose to love until death.
But I must say, if an unbeliever chooses to have certain lifestyles, I'm not going to care, but as long as people are given the right to vote in this country, Christians have a calling to vote for what the Bible teaches us.

stopthe
stopthe

Christians are nitwitted bigots, and it is high time that we started calling them out for what they are: xenophobic, anachronistic, anti-intellectual rubes.

The funny thing is, there haven't been any genuine Christians for at least 150 years. The "church" nowadays is mostly a social club. Christians use their supposed "Christianity" as a defense for their prejudices; they are completely UN-Christlike when they do this.

But no matter: the church is dying out. The fastest-growing "religious disposition" in the U.S. (and in the rest of the West) is irreligion, or weak atheism. This is why you can find rotting churches all over the country -- especially in the cities. I used to live in Pittsburgh where old churches and cathedrals have become -- no kidding -- breweries and dance clubs.

"God" really is dead, although in the Nation of Rubes, many people have clamped their hands over their ears about it.

just_a_voice
just_a_voice

Seriously? Should the buddhists, muslims, sikhs, etc just leave now? How ignrant are you? Seriously - the number of christians in this country is falling at a rate of 1 percent a year (according to the US Census).

You are trying to introduce your religion into the constitution, and as the SCOTUS has ruled numerous times - "AINT GONNA HAPPEN". Gosh durn first amendment rights. That's what allows you to say that prayer while you are walking the halls of school, taking a test, etc.

Gay is not the sex, it's the attraction. If you are a woman attracted to other women, you are gay, even if you only have sex with men.

Andrilyas
Andrilyas

What did I say indicate I think other people with different beliefs should leave the country or shouldn't be allowed to vote, either?
SO I guess, by your definition, I'm gay. That's funny because I've been told that I'm not because I haven't acted on it, coming from practicing homosexuals. Ah, truth sways left to right in a world of wishy-washyness.
Even if by your definition I AM truly gay, then I'm gay. The Bible doesn't tell me I cannot be attracted to women, it says I can't have sex with them. Mentally or physically.

tython34
tython34

Just_a_voice: Stop the name calling. I'm surprised your post are not being deleted. You can be "civil" on these forums without resorting to insults. It really diminishes your stance and makes you look petty.

Once the name calling starts, you've lost the argument.

Andrilyas
Andrilyas

@just_a_voice actually, I was strictly addressing the op's topics on keeping govt out of churches and vice-versa, and her question as to when someone chose to be gay or straight. I'm not part of your ongoing dialogue about religious vs civil marriages.
And actually, I believe heterosexuality and homosexuality are also actions. Do I have same-sex-attraction? yes. Do I have opposite sex attraction? yes. But I choose my heterosexual action of having sex with my husband and not another woman. Thus I'm straight.

just_a_voice
just_a_voice

Andri, government isn't in churches. No one chooses to be gay or straight, so wrong on two counts.

Not according to the DSM, honey. Not even close. You are a bisexual. You are in denial, and more than likely in need of professional help.

Civil marriage, which grants you 1138 civil rights, has NOTHING to do with religion. You fail to comprehend that your church marriage does not even guarantee you the right to be recognized by anyone as being married in this country.

It makes no difference what you think about thefact you are bisexual. You are. Check with the APA, call Vera French/Robert Young, they will tell you. If you have same sex and opposite sex attraction, you are bisexual.

You do grasp the concept that some couples that are married or in relationships cannot for medical or physical reasons, have sexual relations. It doesn't mean you are asexual. It means you aren't having physical relations = period. Taught in grade school to most people.

tettnanger7
tettnanger7

Mommakelly, maybe you could stop using the Bible as a crutch to make your argument. I know it does for quite a lot of people, but the Bible has nothing to do with my opposition to gay marriage. Marriage is a cultural (and yes, religious) institution for the joining together of a man and woman. What I can't understand why you and others (gay or straight) are so adamant about gay "marriage". That's not what marriage is. What is so wrong with civil unions that achieve the same goal without offending strong, traditional, cross-cultural, and long held beliefs about marriage? Please answer that question because I've never heard a good response to this question. If your goal were civil unions I'd care a heckuva lot less about this issue.

stopthe
stopthe

tettnanger7 - you can answer your own question by answering the converse question, which you are probably uniquely qualified to answer: "Why is it that (some) straight people are offended by the notion that other people have the right to do something that they disagree with?"

Put another way: why does your satisfaction with "marriage" depend so critically on excluding others from it?

just_a_voice
just_a_voice

Good point!

just_a_voice
just_a_voice

But marriage, as we are discussing it, is NOT religious, it is CIVIL (secular). please try and grasp this.

Marriage is a legal, binding CONTRACT between two consenting ADULTS. Look it up sometime in the lawbooks, online, in the dictionary, EVERYWHERE.

Quit using cross cultural, because that is simply a lie.

Civil Unions has already been ruled as separate but equal, and this was overturned in the 1960's. Here's some fascinating info for you - that was 50 years ago. Separate but equal is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Don't ask me, ask the SUPREME COURT.

tettnanger7
tettnanger7

just_a_voice/stopthe, sorry but marriage is indisputably intertwined with religion but that's completely beside the point anyways.

Really, you don't think marriage is a cross culture institution? You don't think that most cultures are unaccepting of gay marriage? Heck, the article above is about a black man leaving the NAACP because of their gay marriage stance. Black culture is mostly against it. In the California Prop 8 race, the Hispanic and black vote that made the difference. I know a lot of Indians (some religious Hindus, some not) and they are against it. It goes without saying the folks in the Middle East aren't fans of gay marriage. If you're in denial of all of this, well then, all I can say is that you and reality aren't exactly on a first name basis.

If you are referring to civil unions and SCOTUS you must be referring to the Loving vs. Virginia case? As I recall, that was about INTERRACIAL marriage and trying to substitute civil unions. This had nothing to do with gays. I agree with Loving vs. Virginia because, quite obviously, it involved a man and a woman (i.e., the definition of marriage) and would have been in violation of the 14th amendment. This is inapplicable to gay marriage because there's no such thing as gay marriage; there's no man or woman involved. I would think you could make a much better argument for polygamy with this ruling than you could for gay marriage. You may want to read up.

stopthe, I guess I'd have to answer your question with a question, at least initially. If you derive the same benefits why in the world would you ever care if it was called a civil union vs. marriage? What difference does it make to you? Do you want to throw it in religious peoples' faces? Do you want to prove a point? What kind of satisfaction does it bring you? I don't get it. To answer your question from my perspective, call me crazy, but I don't like changing the definition of a word and I have a great deal of respect for tradition. I've already told you I'm cool with civil unions. Why is this so important to you.

Hmm, you guys have given me a lot of ideas though. Maybe we can interpret the 14th amendment to mean that a progressive tax system violates the separate but equal clause? After all, why should one person be burdened with a higher tax rate than another? Or heck, why should one person be burdened with a higher total tax BILL than another? And maybe we can redefine what the word tax means. Maybe we can "interpret" it to mean a voluntary contribution. Wouldn't that be fun? Of course I'm being facetious, but these are arguments are no less strong than yours.

just_a_voice
just_a_voice

wrong tet.

stopthe
stopthe

mommakelly - thank goodness, someone with some sense. It's awful lonely posting on the Internet with all the rubes, I imagine.

Sargesgiftshop
Sargesgiftshop

IMHO gays are their own worst enemies.
If they would just drop the mantra that "Homosexuality is NORMAL".

And admit that "well maybe it is a genetic abnormality, can you help us"?

The clouds would part, the sun would shine through and the world would embrace them.

Sceintists would search for clues to their genetic anomally
and everyone would walk hand in hand down the yellow brick road.

Will this happen?
Probally not..... my idea is too simple.... :-(

twiggy
twiggy

So you have decided that homosexuality is abnormal and needs fixing? Explain why it is found so pervasively in the animal kingdom. Left handedness is also "abnormal". It's quite inconvenient and caused many problems. Teachers have to adapt teaching methods, etc. We probably need to work on fixing them too, right? The numbers are similar re left handedness and homosexuality, roughly 10%. Because someone is "different" does not make them "abnormal"

Uncommon_Sense
Uncommon_Sense

I you start labeling everything done in the animal kingdom as acceptable conduct, keep in mind from insects to lions, many species eat their young.

That being said, I believe homosexuality is genetic.

Meat
Meat

I hope it is not genetic. So far all the research, even gay-agenda funded, has not produced any result to make this claim. Think of how many parents would abort their babies if that were the case. It is already being done in huge numbers when they find out it's a girl.

RJLigier
RJLigier

Can you please show all the animals, exclusive of sadomasochistic homosexuals/bisexuals, that engage in sadomasochistic sexual behavior? Then I'd probably say homosexual behavior occurs in the animal kingdom. Good luck with that.............

twiggy
twiggy

I'm not going to do your research for you, if you really cared you'd find that homosexual activity is rampant in the animal kingdom. My concern is that you seem to equate homosexuality with sadomasochism. Buddy, they ain't the same thing. And S&M is definitely NOT exclusive to the gay population! You must live a very sheltered life not to know that.

stopthe
stopthe

RJLigier... what about straight sadomasochism?

I have to say... that if the construction of your morality depends on observing nature, then you are in big trouble. Just because something "occurs naturally" does not make it acceptable; it only makes it natural. The converse is also true: just because we can't find an example of something occurring naturally, must we then condemn it as immoral or unacceptable?

I can't think of a more childish worldview, and yet -- that's exactly what all the rubes posting here seem to think. It's astounding. America truly is barbarous.

just_a_voice
just_a_voice

Hint - S&M is not the same as being gay. However, there are more heterosexuals into S&M than gays.

Sargesgiftshop
Sargesgiftshop

It DOES NOT Exist in the animal world dear girl.
You apparently are confusing 'show of dominace of same animal sexes"
with homosexual acts by humans.

twiggy
twiggy

"A 1999 review by researcher Bruce Bagemihl shows that homosexual behavior has been observed in close to 1,500 species, ranging from primates to gut worms, and is well documented for 500 of them." This isn't new "news". It's well documented and been known for decades. Deny if you want to. Let me guess, you also believe in creationism?

twiggy
twiggy

Also, it is not about dominance..."behaviors include sex, courtship, affection, pair bonding, and parenting among same sex animals. " Sorry to burst your bubble

just_a_voice
just_a_voice

Wrong - twiggy is stating a 1999 study, but it's also been observed at least 20-30 years before. This info was referenced in texbooks used by religious institutes of higher learning, including the catholic church.

Andrilyas
Andrilyas

You know what's also found in the animal kingdom? MOthers kill and eat their young. Animals will leave the weak to die, if they don't kill them themselves. Fruit bats have gang rapes. And there is a kind weasel the comes into a den of newborn baby weasels and mates with all the female babies while mom is out. So maybe we shouldn't use animals as an argument of morality.

twiggy
twiggy

And, all you say is true. But we have the same sort of activity in the human animal world. Is that your reasoning that homosexuality is evil? Sorry, doesn't hold water

stopthe
stopthe

Andrilyas.... 30 million abortions in the U.S. since 1972. Mothers killing their young.

Ahem. You were saying???

just_a_voice
just_a_voice

Yes, and so do human mothers - they kill their young more frequently than you acknowledge - Caycee, Susan Smith, and others come to mind.

Andrilyas
Andrilyas

You can't claim it's natural because the animal kingdom does it, either, Twiggy. My point is that horrific things happen in the animal kingdom, we cannot look at them for our moral reasoning.
@just_a_voice you have no idea how frequently I acknowledge mothers killing their children, or any number of horrific acts humanity has, especially performed on children. I can tell you more and more stories that I've read than just Caycee. Her's was tame to what I've heard done to children. It's disgusting. It's sick. I can't even look at my own babies without thinking of those women and what they did. I can't hold my babie's fingers gently and not think about the woman who bit her newborn's fingers off and ate his toes and some of his brain and claimed the Devil made her do it, look at my three year old and think about the man who ate his son's eyes, cannot look at my two year old and not think of a pedophile describing how he raped a little boy to death. None of you have a clue what goes through my head every day just because I get to see my happy babies and think about the children tortured to death, cut up into pieces in the womb trying to get away from the tools that rend them to pieces, the ones who starve and I can't feed, or how someone is attacking a child right now, near by an I can't help them because it's done in secret. I am NEVER able to stop thinking about all of it. You guys have NO clue.

just_a_voice
just_a_voice

Yet, you can't grasp a simple concept, that being pedophiles are mostly heterosexuals, and it is a criminal act. Being gay is not a criminal act.

just_a_voice
just_a_voice

Let's see - 10 percent or more of animals are gay. Tell me, what have you done to "cure them"? It's not a genetic abnormality. It may be genetic. If it's an abnormality, being heterosexual would also be an abnormality.

BringBackSegregation
BringBackSegregation

You are so stupid! Animals don't no the difference unlike humans which is what makes humans unique you fool!

Bohemy68
Bohemy68

Someone please explain the flap over same gender marriage?
If marriage is a religious institution, then religions allow/disallow same gender marriage.
Civil unions then are secullar institutions that the State, separate from religious standards, can be good for same gender unions. Give state accepted civil unions the same legal status as a religious marriage.

Less Bias
Less Bias

Religious marriage has no legal status in the United States. If I get married before a priest (religious marriage), but don't sign my marriage certificate (civil marriage), I am not legally married, and will receive none of the legal rights or responsibilities of marriage. You make the common mistake of assuming that since some legal marriages are performed with religious ceremonies, that all civil marriages are religious. That's simply not the case. Marriage became a secular term the moment it was adopted by a secular government. In fact, marriage *started* as a non-religious institution.
Don't get me wrong - I completely support your right to define religious marriage in any way you so choose. But per the First Amendment, you do not have the right to force everyone to be restrained by that religious definition.

stopthe
stopthe

Therein lies the solution. Get the state OUT of marriage. Marriage should have no legal status, because nothing the government does should discriminate against individuals based on their marital status.

True equality and governmental non-interference (which means, individualism and libertarianism) solves almost all ills. Too bad most people can't stomach this fact, because it would mean giving up their right to oppress.

just_a_voice
just_a_voice

So, when your spouse is in an accident, you have no right to see them? No insurance rights? There are 1100 rights granted to married couples.

It's too bad that you don't realize that it is a matter of all married people have these rights, or NO married couples have these rights.

jrspan
jrspan

I'm just curious here. If homosexuals want the same right as heterosexuals to marry and in just the same way then how are they going to consummate the marriage? Are they going to do that in the same way as heterosexuals or are they going to do it differently? Because after all, consummation of the marriage is required to make the marriage valid. It's not just a legal issue. So I just don't see how a homosexual marriage can be consummated without opposite genital organs coming together. And if I'm correct on this then aren't homosexuals really wanting to create something new and different? If so, then shouldn't they really call it something else and not marriage? But then again they are good at changing word meanings. Remember the gay 20s?

twiggy
twiggy

Why the interest in other people's sex lives? Are you planning to sue someone and say they aren't married as they don't have sex the "right" way?

just_a_voice
just_a_voice

OK, I'm done laughing now. I have to ask - what about heteroseuxal couples that cannot have sex? Are they not married, either? That's not the definition of marriage (consummation). Marriage is a legal, binding contract between two people. Religious? Then it's a binding contract between two people. Not even the catholic church requires you to have sex. You are incorrect.

Again - gosh durn consitution and separation of church and state, and equal rights for all, and rights to privacy. You can't have separate but equal - Think the 60's, when they had white only bathrooms and lunch counters - see those signs around any more?

Nice racism you show - "they are good at changing.... They want to create something different....they call it something else...

Please stay out of their bedrooms. You are too focused and too curious about same sex sexual acts. Sounds like you may need some help.

mommakelly
mommakelly

My goodness. I used to be proud to live here. After reading all these posts...not so much. Shame on you.

Comment deleted.
twiggy
twiggy

You must be one sick individual. This mighty country is NOT "a cesspool of filth." Shame on you.

just_a_voice
just_a_voice

Look at all the new posters on this thread - I wonder how many are alphamale?

jnobfan
jnobfan

For a minute there I thought I was going to get through the morning news without a gay story

NancyM
NancyM

I admire this pastor. Looks to me like the NAACP is a political action coalition for the Democratic Party. Too bad. Gay Marriage - whether you support it or not - has nothing to do with equality. The black civil rights movement had EVERYTHING to do with equality.

Gay men and gay women have the SAME right to marriage that ALL people of ALL races and ethnic groups have. A gay man may marry any woman he wants. A gay woman may marry any man she wants. Gay marriage is about creating a new, special, reinterpretation of marriage as a special new privilege just for them. And in the process of redefining this social, cultural and religious institution - to diminish it to even more insignificance than it already has reached.

Oh, and Obama has used any gay people who are one-issue voters.

just_a_voice
just_a_voice

Honey, get with the program. That's not the same right. The right is to marry the person you love. What you refer to would be the same as me telling you WHO you marry. Don't argue, so have said the court systems. Your pathetic arguments were used with interracial marriages - you can marry whoever you want - blacks can marry blacks, white can marry anyone but blacks. RACIST!

Gay marriage is about keeping the SAME LEGAL intepretation. Do you not know how to read? It's specifically spelled out in the Iowa Supreme Court ruling.

Marriage is a legal binding contract between 2 people. Only ADULTS can enter into a contract.

Marriage was civil for thousands of years before it was co-opted by religion.

Bush used heterosexual homophobes for almost every bill he passed. Speak for yourself.

By your comments, you gave away your party, your race and your religion.

Fortunately, the majority of people disagree with you.

The last time I looked, this was america. If you want to discriminate based on sexual preference, I suggest you go and move to the middle east, with the rest of your hateful ilk.

MikeJohns
MikeJohns

NancyM is actually right and you are wrong. The same "LEGAL" interpretation would actually disallow same-sex marriage because the law states many times that marriage is between a man and woman. Same-sex marriage advocates MUST change the definition of marriage under the law.

Your comment is filled with inaccuracies, ad hominem attacks, and generalizations... those arguments are the staple of same-sex marriage advocates.

I am not against same-sex marriage, I'm just against their ridiculous arguments which is based in an emotional plea/argument and politics.

just_a_voice
just_a_voice

Perhaps you should learn how to read, then. I am referencing both Iowa AND Illinois law, and you are 100 percent wrong.

Marriage is a contract. No wording has to be changed.

Nope, no attacks, no generalizations - just the facts.

Read the Iowa ruling - the definition of marriage was NOT changed. Gay marriage was actually upheld BY the existing definition. Please get your facts straight.

SoftwareEngineer
SoftwareEngineer

I think the NAACP went out of its scope in addressing gay marriage. To be honest, I think it was a purely political move to help Obama. The general scope of the NAACP is racial advocacy of non-whites. Instead of leaping into additional demographics, perhaps they should consider the interests of their poor American constituents. Where is the NAACP while entry-level and craft jobs are being converted to Spanish language to accommodate a specific group of immigrants? What is the NAACP doing for their constituents while a language barrier created and opportunities blocked? The NAACP has tilted the scales heavily away from poor American Blacks and toward Hispanic immigrants. The NAACP is seriously distracted by political favoritism. Gays votes are valuable and Hispanics are more politically valuable than Blacks. Has the NAACP turned into an election committee? The NAACP needs to review it's scope and get back to it's intended business. The NAACP should get out of election politics and away from issues beyond its scope.

RMichael Gailey Sr
RMichael Gailey Sr

Gays are not what is wrong with this picture,
MIXING POLITICAL DECISIONS OVER THE GAY VOTE IS SICK.

After the election, Obama will drop you like a bad habit, then you can see how you have been USED as a pawn in his political circus.

Self respecting people are selling their souls to the devil over a vote.

Gays, after selling yourselves out, go look up ELECTORAL COLLEGE and see how
YOUR VOTE DOES NOT ELECT THE PRESIDENT.

You folks need to be smarter than that. YOU JUST GOT USED!

just_a_voice
just_a_voice

RMG, you may want to also read the article. If the popular vote elects Obama by a landslide, it doesn't mean that Romney has any chance of talking the state. The reverse also applies.

Your ignorance is astounding. Selling souls? Over a LEGAL term? We aren't talking religous marriage, we are talking LEGAL (CIVIL) MARRIAGE. Pull your head out!

MK-ULTRA
MK-ULTRA

Marriage is a Religious rite. If the shameful same sex people dislike the laws of the religion, perhaps they should stop trying to partake in a religious rite? Maybe they should start their own religion, or try to get legislation passed saying they can have a domestic partnership? Marriage is a civil right for those the rite was meant for.
These same sex individuals espouse tolerance and yet show none.

just_a_voice
just_a_voice

It's civil. check the law. Since it's a law, it's meant for ALL.

tython34
tython34

Nope. There's always exceptions to many laws.

just_a_voice
just_a_voice

Seriously? You are wrong. If there is an exception, it's written INTO the law.

Apparently, you aren't a legal scholar, either. But this is very simple CIVICS.

just_a_voice
just_a_voice

And maybe you shouldn't have slept through civics class, and maybe, you would be able to grasp the fact that we have equal rights for ALL, not some.

The rite was meant for all, or else it wouldn't be a right.

Wake up, bubba.

tython34
tython34

Not everyone believes a deviant lifestyle deserves a right as your put it. We don't want pedifiles in our society engaging in their behavior either and homosexuality is just as abhorrent.

tython34
tython34

The Supreme Court doesn't get everything right. Abortion ranks #1 on that list. But I digress. My point (because I have to again spell it out to you) is that homosexuality is deviant like pedophiles, like beastiality and other lifestyles that are morally and natuarlly wrong.

Just because 2 adults decide to do something, doesn't make it right. There are plenty of legally binding contracts between two people that are quite bad.

It's not a matter of education but right and wrong. You don't have to have a master's degree to know what marriage is. Children have been taught who mommy and daddy is for thousands of years. Today, we're trying to warp and corrupt that and therein lies the tragedy.

stopthe
stopthe

Do you have any evidence to back up your belief that there are more gay pedophiles than straight ones? Or is this just more of your uninformed, xenophobic, little-boy bigotry?

stopthe
stopthe

tython34 - I suppose the prevalence of pedophilia and homosexuality in ancient Greece, the cradle of western civilization, is excluded from your "thousands of years" of history when children were "taught what marriage is?"

The relationship that "marriage is" for most of (Western) history is not something that most moderns would want any part of. Including gays. "Marriage" today is a form of legal and cultural enfranchisement. Xenophobic straight people understand this intuitively, which is why they resist it. It means cultural equality, and they want to continue their hatred, bigotry and discrimination instead.

But they will lose, just like the South lost. The inexorable march of human progress has been stamping out one injustice at a time, faster than new ones can spring up. Too bad it takes so long; hopefully we are nearing the knee of the curve.

just_a_voice
just_a_voice

Pssst - pedofiles are not gay, they are 97 percent heterosexual. So....are you claiming heterosexual behavior is abhorrent? Quit trolling.

just_a_voice
just_a_voice

Tython - Abortion is the law and has been for 40 years. It is right.

This has been upheld by both state and federal courts.

Your ignorance and comments are deviant - however, several churches recognize gay marriage, so it makes you quite the hypocrite.

Marriage is between two adults. Note that animals (bestiality) and children (pedophilia) cannot legally give consent, ergo, it's ILLEGAL. I find your morality wrong, I find your comments offensive. However, feel free to voice your opinion, since it's ONLY an opinion, and quite opposite of the law.

just_a_voice
just_a_voice

Yes, stopthe. It's called the APA, the AMA, court rulings, etc. Yes, you must not comprehend that as in rape, pedophilia is about CONTROL.

Nemoque
Nemoque

It is refreshing to see someone put morality above politics. Homosexuality is intrinsically evil and contrary to nature. It undermines marriage and creates immoral behavior of the worst kind. If a person cannot see or will not see that homosexuality is destructive to society and the personhood of males and females, then they choose to be blind.

just_a_voice
just_a_voice

You mean making people secondclass citizens? slaves? Wow. You must be a redneck, if you believe that.

tython34
tython34

Not second class at all. Hate the sin, love the sinner. Christians follow the will of God as best they can. Being sinners themselves, they are open to mistakes for "all have fallen short of the glory of God." Like sex before marriage, we're not going to support something that's absolutely wrong.

just_a_voice
just_a_voice

When you raise a class of people (heterosexuals this time, whites, 40 years ago) above another class (homosexuals this time, blacks 40 years ago), it's making them SECOND CLASS CITIZENS. Don't take my word for it, read supreme court decisions.

Sinners? Seriously? You are talking YOUR RELIGION, not mine. You are talking RELIGIOUS MARRIAGE, YOURS, not CIVIL.

Sex before marriage - know any Buddhists? Followers of native american religions and african religions? Many don't have "marriages" in the sense you use them, therefore, they are all having sex before marriage.

Are you claiming another religion is wrong, just because you disagree with it? Why do you think we have a constitution in this country? To protect the people of this country from fools repeatedly trying to impose their hate and religion onto others. Freedom of religion doesn't mean freedom to be protestant. I can worship the flying spaghetti monster, or none at all. That's my right under the constitution.

However, bubba, my religion believes in same sex marriage. It's not your call. You don't have to marry the same sex, why can't you wrap that mind of yours around the fact. My religion teaches two adults, in love, can get married, regardless of sex.

tython34
tython34

I feel like my civil rights are violated if marriage becomes something other than between a man and woman. How about that?

Our Constitution is built upon religious beliefs/laws. Look at the 10 commandments and compare it our laws today.

No one is imposing anything by saying they don't want gay marriage. In fact, homosexuals are imposing their lifestyle on us by degrading the sanctity of marriage, a religious institution despite your best efforts to prove otherwise!

just_a_voice
just_a_voice

Yes, second class citizens. You feel your civil rights are violated? What rights would those be? Name the violated rights. How are you impacted by other than a man and woman being married personally? What is your point of law? I have the SCOTUS behind me. You have religious claptrap, and no civil rights violations. Been tried in Iowa Court, tossed out, all the way up, to the IA Supreme Court. That would be a big lose on your part.

pacman116
pacman116

You sure seem very good a putting words in people's mouths. You should be a mainstream media news creator...er reporter. On the other hand, you would probably make a good Democratic presidential nominee. LOL!

RogerWilliams
RogerWilliams

The online article "Gay Marriage: The NAACP Betrays Fact, Evidence, Common Sense and Real Civil Rights" illustrates 37 reasons why Keith Ratliff is right. A stunning amount of evidence militates against the decision of the leadership of the NAACP.

twiggy
twiggy

So many of the posters write of God and what HE wants. I do not accept your description of god and what "he" accepts and expects. It is not relevant to me, if it is to you fine, but don't expect me to give a darn what you believe, and even less to incorporate it into the laws. Homosexuality isn't natural? Tell that to the Bonobo chimps who practice it regularly, or the myriad other species that incorporate homosexuality into their existence. Left handedness isn't "naturall", most people are right handed. Should we forbid left handness? What a gray and dull world if we were all the same.

Zoney
Zoney

Well, rant all you want -- conscionable, astute people don't accept gay "marriage." The very definition of marriage is steeped in religion and faith -- a suitable pairing, the union of one man and one woman in the eyes of God, cementing fidelity and family. The various states and bureaucracies as they exist around the world, have accommodated this institution into civil law.

But with the warped liberals it's always about undermining what is sublime.

As for what you "accept" about God and those who believe, it doesn't amount to anything other than the dubious perceptions and opinions of an obfuscating liberal. and as for the rest of your rant, it's more of the same tedious liberal rope-a-dope. We're talking about homosexuality vs marriage and you're off about left-handedness. That's like taking a predilection for oil-paints versus watercolors, and saying that it's along the same lines as a predilection for hardcore p o r n versus watching TV sitcoms.

Leave ... marriage ... alone.

just_a_voice
just_a_voice

Not even close - over half the country accepts gay marriage.

tython34
tython34

And where are your facts to back that up? Some liberal survey by CNN? 7 out of 10 surveys are made up...

The fact that the majority of the states do NOT support it is a proven fact that supports that over half of the country does NOT accept it. But nice try. Just like the liberal media, saying something enough might make some people believe it.

just_a_voice
just_a_voice

No, tython34, by the conservative polls as well. In fact, the only place the majority is the reverse is in the evangelical (talibani) televangelist followings, and not even all of those people concur.

It's based on intelligence (IQ), education, age, not ignorance, hatred and stupidity.

Even the latest Pew polls, the MOST conservative by far, has gay marriage at 48-49 percent in favor, with a 3 percent margin of error.

Your apology for your mistruths is accepted.

When Obama was first running for office, only 38 percent of the population were for gay marriage. Now it's over 50 percent, by most polls.

65 percent of Democrats, 57 percent of Independents are in support.

It's also age based. The younger you are, the less hatred there is, and the less fear there is.

Share with us, tython, how does this personally impact you? Does allowing equal rights for all force you to marry that same sex person? Nope. Does it make you have sexual attractions to someone of the same sex? Nope. How does it impact YOU?

tython34
tython34

Sorry the vast majority of the country don't want it. That's why so many are putting it on the ballot for the people because so many liberal activist judges are ruling in favor of it. Because they know the people will vote it down. Maryland did just that; a blue state even.

Your mistruths are astounding just _a_voice. The church is against it, the republican party is against it, Romney is against it, older Americans (the ones who vote) are against it. I could go on.

The younger they are, the less informed and more open to the influence of the liberal media. When the media or Saturday Night Live say gay marriage is in, they flock to it to appear cool. Saying the younger generation has less fear is not only wrong but shows your ignorance. All they have is fear; fear for their future, fear of not getting a job, etc.

Gay marriage personally affects me in a number of ways. When it's plastered over the tv, I have to turn it off after I explain to my daughter why it's wrong. When I go out in public, I have to explain to my friends, co-workers, etc why it's wrong. I shouldn't have to feel uncomfortable to be in public and fear a homosexual couple distorting the natural order of things. I could go on...

Meat
Meat

Which is why 30 of the last 30 states to voted NO on amending the definition of traditional heterosexual marriage.

just_a_voice
just_a_voice

tython, it's wrong to you. It's not wrong to over half the country. It still doesn't impact you. How is that gay couple hurting you? Are they fondling you? Kissing you? Paying attention to you? A resounding NO NO NO.

What do you tell your daughter when she asks why someone is black, brown, red or yellow? How about handicapped? It's just another minority group, recognized by the country of ours.

mommakelly
mommakelly

Twiggy, I''m really sorry for the hatefulness and horrible people on this thread. I'm really glad to know that there are some out there who show real compassion and love, not this bible thumping, unconscionable horrid hatred that is justified by a belief that their god loves them ore than anyone else. I would hate to think that my father loved me more than any of my siblings, because that would mean that my father was a horrible, horrible judgmental animal...but obviously these people need to have their sky-daddy love them more than anyone else to justify their existence. Nanu Nanu, Twiggy...Nanu Nanu.

el polacko
el polacko

all of this talk of religion and 'sin' has nothing to do with civil marriage equality. i do not find any reference to 'sin' in the constitution. marriage licenses are issued by the state, not the vatican. there is no requirement for a religious ceremony in order to be legally married. whether or not any religious group wishes to bless any particular coupling does not have any relevance to the discussion of equal treatment of all american citizens under the law. time and again, the courts have struck down laws that seek to single-out any particular segment of society for denial of rights and responsibilities made available to others. you are free to practice your religion, believe anything you want to, discriminate as you choose in your churches, but your religious bias or animus toward any group does not give you the right to dictate who is to be treated as a full citizen and who is not.

Zoney
Zoney

Part of what I said above:

The very definition of marriage is steeped in religion and faith -- a suitable pairing, the union of one man and one woman in the eyes of God, cementing fidelity and family.

The various states and bureaucracies as they exist around the world, have accommodated this godly institution into civil law.

But with the warped liberals it's always about undermining what is sublime.

just_a_voice
just_a_voice

Except, we are talking CIVIL marriage, not religious, which took place AFTER civil marriage was around. You aren't married in this country until the CIVIL license is signed. Try and wrap your mind around the fact.

Marriage was civil first, religious later.

tython34
tython34

Really because the first marriage between Adam and Eve didn't have a civil contract. Wrap your mind around that fact!

So I'd submit that marriage was religious first, civil later.

just_a_voice
just_a_voice

Except that Adam and eve only exist in your book, not in Buddhist, Sikh, Atheism or any other non-abrahamic religion. Guess what - you all don't run the country. So, since there was no adam and eve according to the Africans, greeks, Romans, the first marriage was what they decided, which was SECULAR.

Meat
Meat

Of course you won't find reference to sin in the constitution. It is a secular piece of writing. What you will find are laws that shape our behavior because they are right for the "good of the society." You'll find laws against rape, arson, and theft. They aren't called sins, they are called crimes.

See, when those laws seek to endorse sodomy, a medically unsafe, psychologically harmful, and immoral behavior, they are not "good for the society." It would be like making theft or arson all of a sudden lawful. Where is the sense in that? Because thieves want equality? Because rapists do?

twiggy
twiggy

"endorse sodomy, a medically unsafe, psychologically harmful, and immoral behavior," According to you it is unsafe, harmful and immoral, fine... don't become a homosexual, end of story. You don't get to decide for the rest of society.

just_a_voice
just_a_voice

Sir, I hate to break this to you, but the majority of heterosexual couples have practiced sodomy at least once, and close to half more than once.

On the other hand, the majority of homosexuals (since half are female,) do NOT practice sodomy.

Jenn E
Jenn E

GOD HATES FIGS!!!!!

Matthew 21:18–20

12 The next day as they were leaving Bethany, Jesus was hungry. 13 Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to find out if it had any fruit. When he reached it, he found nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for figs. 14 Then he said to the tree, “May no one ever eat fruit from you again.” And his disciples heard him say it."

Jeremiah 29:17-18
Thus sayeth the Lord of hosts, Behold, I will ... make them like vile figs, that cannot be eaten, they are so evil.

SAVE YOUR SOUL AND EAT AN OREO!!!!!!!

Poppaduck
Poppaduck

Less Bias, your attempt to create a moral equivalency between all religions is inadequate at best. Your arguments appear to be retreads of those that have been espoused by critics through the centuries. Have you actually read the Bible in its entirety or done any comparative studies to give sufficient commentary on how it has been interpreted "many different ways in the past 1800 years."? What primary-source evidence do you offer to support your claims? Do you know what makes the Bible unique among ALL other religious texts in the entire world? Do you know what sets Jesus Christ apart from ALL other religious/political/philosophical leaders of recorded history? These are just a few questions that should be answered before one can seriously consider the merits of your opinions.

just_a_voice
just_a_voice

I have, and I can tell you that each christian religion interprets the bible differently, sometimes GROSSLY different.

What source? How about Martin Luther, for starters. How about listening to drooling evangelicals?

tython34
tython34

You mean Christian denomination. All Christians believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God. The difference is in the ceremonial aspects mostly.

just_a_voice
just_a_voice

Not even close. Catholics don't even have all the same books that the protestants have, and they believe that protestants are heretics. Look at the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints, that believe in plural marriage - not quite the same as what you believe. They are identified as religions by some, denominations by others. Denomination implies they are playing off the same sheet of music. They are not. They do not believe the same. Some churches misinterpret more than others.

tython34
tython34

Sorry just_a_voice. You are once again wrong. I went to Catholic school and never once did any nun or priest say Protestants are heretics. Both believe Jesus Christ is the way, the truth and the life.

You must have had a bad experience in a church in the past and hold some resentment to Christianity. Sorry for that.

just_a_voice
just_a_voice

I went to catholic grade school, high school and college, and took many theology classes. You are blatantly wrong. Martin Luther most certainly was a heretic. The other protestant religions are violating the tenents of catholicism, which, they believe, is the only true religion.

Less Bias
Less Bias

Yes, I'm fairly well-versed. Evidence of my "many different ways" statement can easily be found by listing out all of the different branches and denominations of Christianity. Each one represents a different interpretation, ranging from minor ceremonial differences, all the way up to differences in what works actually constitute the Bible. There are many things that make the Bible unique. Though I'm guessing that the list you're referring to is different than mine. I would also speculate that your list is not generally agreed to, but rather primarily espoused by those who (on faith) believe in that particular religion in the first place. I have no doubt that you have the utmost faith in your religion. But failure to acknowledge that there are followers of other religions, with similar conviction is simply arrogance, and ignorance.

Ghostmaker
Ghostmaker

Homosexuality is an illicit lust forbidden by God. He said to His people Israel, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination" (Leviticus 18:22). "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them" (Leviticus 20:13). In these passages homosexuality is condemned as a prime example of sin, a sexual perversion. The Christian can neither alter God's viewpoint nor depart from it.

just_a_voice
just_a_voice

That biblical fable is about the men raping visiting male angels. It sure would be nice if you had enough education to read the original Greek and hebrew.

We are a secular country - move on.

tython34
tython34

Then how come you can't go very far in this country without seeing a church?

just_a_voice
just_a_voice

How come there are twice as many bars as churches? How come more people are getting married at the courthouse than at churches?

How come stores, schools, and state/federal buildings are NOT religious?

tython34
tython34

Twice as many bars as churches? Where did you get that from?

More people getting married at the courthouse? Wow, I'd love to know where you're getting your information. Sounds completely and utterly made up!

tython34
tython34

Also my point was you can't go very far in this country without seeing a church and thus proving we are a predominantly Christian nation. You point out there's a lot of bars in this country. So what? People can't go to church and drink as well? I don't but some do.

There's also Christian stores and schools last time I checked.

Why do I keep having to point out the obvious to you?

just_a_voice
just_a_voice

Where did I get that from? By looking in the phone book, googling, checking stats online at various government sites, tython.

We are NOT a christian nation, read article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli, which was signed by the second president of the US, passed UNANIMOUSLY by Congress, and published in all the papers, which stated "...we are not, and never have been a Christian nation...."

I'm pointing out more bars than churchs is all. I'm pointing out the obvious to you. I'm pointing out that there are numerous SCOTUS decisions upholding separation of church and state. We aren't a christian country. Why do you think muslim children can have their moments of prayer in school (silent)...because we ARE NOT a christian country. Why do you think we don't have christian prayer in school (vocally) - because we ARE NOT a christian country.

It's not rocket science.

There are NO PUBLIC CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS. Wrap your mind around that, please. Christian STORES cater to CHRISTIANS, not muslims.

Please tell me where the closest CVS Christian Pharmacy is at? I looked it up under christian in the phone book, and it's not there. There are NO christian pharmacies - just owned by Christians - BIG DIFFERENCE.

Less Bias
Less Bias

If all my years studying the Bible have taught me anything, it's that folks who run around quoting Leviticus haven't read it.
If we were to live by even half of the rules set forth in Leviticus, we'd all be dead.
Search: "...shall surely be put to death."

Kevin Stowell
Kevin Stowell

How'd that race-based voting work out for ya', Rev?

Jay17145
Jay17145

I have pity on Rev. Ratliff, for he has just signed his own death warrant. But then again, Rev. Ratliff has greatly increased his chances of successfully entering the Pearly Gates, unlike the rest of the NAACP.

FloydDaBarber
FloydDaBarber

Rev. Ratliff must be a racist since, according to the mewling liberals, everybody who questions Dear Leader is a racist.

Less Bias
Less Bias

Rev. Ratliff doesn't appear to be a racist. But if you're looking for evidence that it still exists, just read some of the posts below.

Trixlette
Trixlette

Just know that racism comes in all colors and all walks of life.

just_a_voice
just_a_voice

We know, we've read your previous posts.

Zoney
Zoney

@ Lib Bias -- the OP was being ironic and you just made the OP's point: everybody who doesn't walk in lock-step with the intelligence-insulting, asinine, godless liberal agenda is a "racist." To illustrate that, there's you, an obvious flaming liberal trying to sound "reasonable" but instead coming across like a smarmy condescending shill, who responded by making a blanket statement that "gee there's all kinds of racists commenting below." I looked at the comments and was not exactly blown away by the blatant "racism."

But yes, we know -- everyone who doesn't lick the shoe-tops of leftist Democrats, embrace affirmative action, and sing about the glories of homosexual "marriage," is a racist. Yawn. My white walking-shoes are racist. Vanilla ice-cream is racist. Hank "King of The" Hill's dog is racist. We hear ya.

just_a_voice
just_a_voice

As are you - You left out your white pointy hat and white robes.

Less Bias
Less Bias

Please note that "some of the posts below", is the exact opposite of a blanket statement. Contrary to your claim, I've taken great care *not* to say or even suggest that "everybody who doesn't" agree is a racist. I simply pointed out that there are a select few in this very forum that have made undeniably racist statements. If you're still having trouble finding them, I'd be more than happy to point out a few.

Are there folks out there who falsely cry racism? Absolutely. But suggesting that literally every claim of racism by the "liberals" (which, by the way, *is* a blanket statement on your part) is unfounded is simply ignorant, and easily disproved.

AfriSynergy
AfriSynergy

It is good that Ratliff remained firm about the homosexual agenda. It is an agenda that has the EU and the US threatening African countries telling them they will receive no aid if they don't accept the homosexual agenda. The best thing for African countries to do is to reject this so-called aid and stop begging from people who are worshipers of power and death. Pure proliferating homosexuality is suicidal and an extinction behavior. The numbers for Denmark and Sweden bares this out. The agenda is to use it as one of the means of population control in Africa.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlW6Yby1v6s&list=PLAA3B04BBD3DA0612&index=1&feature=plpp_video

just_a_voice
just_a_voice

You can't make anyone gay. No matter how you spin it.

Extinction behavior? How many children can a man have? Zero. Not true for lesbians. Check your facts, racists bigots.

tython34
tython34

Okay if being gay is okay then how about if everyone does it? Oh yeah, then the human race would be extinct! Seems pretty much like extinction behavior to me.

just_a_voice
just_a_voice

Nope, still not a factual statement. Look at all of the gay couples with children. Their OWN children. They are called surrogates or donors. Just the facts.

Looneytoonsindville
Looneytoonsindville

God will bless this man for his right thinking!

tython34
tython34

Agreed

Wankantanka
Wankantanka

The NAALCP is trying sooooooooooooooo very hard to be relavent. But they are doing such a poor job at it. It is kind of like a dentists association trying to be relavent after the cavity has been cured. What is there to do? The Civil Rights Movement succeeded. Most people of good will in America agree that racism is stupid and counter productive. If anything, the last vestiges of racism are found not with whites but with blacks themselves who still hold on to centuries of hate. What does gay rights and marriage rights for gays have to do with black-white racism? Nothing! If the NAALCP really wanted to branch into a new area more up their alley so to speak, they should consider the horrible problems blacks inflict upon themselves: un wed mothers, welfare dependency, drugs, gangs and violence. This would greatly improve the life of the average African American.

Mickeyfinn
Mickeyfinn

Why don't the rest of the men follow his lead?

tython34
tython34

More men should.

Brodsve
Brodsve

Very refreshing. Rev. Keith Ratliff Sr. is a man of principal.

Wish we had a man of Rev. Ratliff's moral conviction and character in the White House.

albertm777
albertm777

Less Bais, what is a Baptist interpretation? do you believe in God? or do you Believe in religion. Why can't there be just one choice, is There Right Way and a Wrong Way? How do you know he is wrong did God tell you or did you just didn't like the way he stood up for his beliefs. You say there are so many ways and yet he got it wrong because you know that was not one of the ways that you did not like, Right.

Less Bias
Less Bias

I'm afraid you misunderstood my post. I said he is wrong in claiming that his faith was not a "have it your way" choice.
It's simply logic, really. He made the choice to become Baptist, just as a Catholic, Methodist, Buddhist, or Sikh made a choice for their respective faiths. Therefore, his faith is his choice, his way.

Zoney
Zoney

Lib Bias -- I'm afraid you couldn't be wronger. All the equivocation and liberal circular-logic in the world doesn't change what God wills, nor does it change what God judges right and wrong.

You can't "tailor-make" your own set of beliefs to be convenient to you and your politics, and claim to be a person living by faith in God's grace. That just makes you a blind and arrogant pretender. If you want to do that, just call yourself an atheist or agnostic who's a self-styled moralist.

The Reverend says, in so many words, that it's not a "have it your way" deal, and that homosexuality is a sin and gay "marriage" is at severe odds with his God, and he would be a hypocrite and be betraying his faith-based principles for staying on in a leadership position with an organization that encourages that agenda.

In this instance, the Reverend is not using double-speak and the Reverend is standing on conviction; perhaps it's the plainspeak and strength of conviction that have got you so confused.

just_a_voice
just_a_voice

Except, Zoney, my religion, a christian religion, welcomes gays with open arms. They also let them become ministers.

As Less pointed out, and you boys fail to grasp, is that there is more than one religion. Get a CLUE.

tython34
tython34

Again, hate the sin, love the sinner.

Less Bias
Less Bias

Everyone makes their own beliefs. Have you attended the same church your whole life? If so, you're in the minority. Most folks shop around, and find the denomination that most accurately reflects his/her own beliefs. Some even change religions entirely. Some (though even fewer still) find that no current religion is close enough for their beliefs, and invent their own, new religion or denomination. While it's easy for any one individual (like yourself) to claim that their faith is unchanged, and dictated by God, you cannot ignore the fact that many, many other people have conviction rivaling your own, yet have reached very different conclusions. I'm not saying that any of these are right or wrong, But if you're going to run around demanding that laws for all be set based solely on faith, well, be careful what you wish for. Because at some point, there will be folks in power whose faith does not mirror your own.

just_a_voice
just_a_voice

I can answer you - a Baptist interpretation is different than an evanelical interpretation, and diametrically opposed to Catholicism.

Bobd
Bobd

Where do you go once you've legalize as normal deviant homosexual behavior?

To the schools naturally... to indoctrinate the children that gay behavior is normal behavior. In California they couldn't wait, they are already on the move. Oh yes.... schools are target number one. Don't believe me? Google, "California Bill That Mandates Public Schools Teach Gay History Goes to Governor." Ask yourself this. How to you teach children about gay history without first teaching them about gay behavior? Answer... you can't.

In the not to distant future, if things are left unchecked in this regard, you shouldn't be surprised that those of faith (any religion that finds homosexuality deviant) will find themselves to be the new deviants and themselves outside the law. At best Christains and others of faith will be allow to practice their devinacy in their churches and homes. At worst they may find that legal authorities will no longer be able to allow people of faith to teach their deviant outlaw behavior to their children and therefore find that they must act to stop those who willingly corrupt the minds of children? Just a little food for thought.

We already know where the homosexual agenda is headed first (schools) but, do you/we really know where their end game leads?

RMichael Gailey Sr
RMichael Gailey Sr

The entire Black Family problem is so obvious, but, the only one with any Moral convictions leaves and the rest of the rats are running the show.
Jackson and Sharpie are scum who want the blacks to stay in line and vote party lines, by doing that Blacks will remain in the current cycle of turmoil and drugs that they are accustomed to. They won't think for themselves and step up to the plate and support fixing black America.

The Black family is BROKEN, blacks ONLY can fix that.

Bobd
Bobd

Where do you go once you've legalize as normal deviant homosexual behavior?

To the schools naturally... to indoctrinate the children that gay behavior is normal behavior. In California they couldn't wait, they are already on the move. Oh yes.... schools are target number one. Don't believe me? Google, "California Bill That Mandates Public Schools Teach Gay History Goes to Governor."

Ask yourself this. How to you teach children about gay history without first teaching them about gay behavior? Answer... you can't. .

In the not to distant future, if things are left unchecked in this regard, you shouldn't be surprised that those of faith (any religion that finds homosexuality deviant) will be the new deviants and find themselves outside the law. At best christains and others of faith will be allow to practice their devinacy in their churches and homes. At worst how long will legal authorities allow people of faith to teach their deviant outlaw behavior to their children before they must act to stop those who willingly corrupt the minds of children? Just a little food for thought. We already know where the homosexual agenda is headed first (shools) but, do you/we really know where their end game leads?

just_a_voice
just_a_voice

The trolls are out in full force.

Most adults (over 50 percent) are for gay marriage/unions. Deal with it, you pathetic troll. You'll notice that one of the women in the other article is a RELIGION PROFESSOR at Augustana.

You're pretty clueless if you think you have to teach someone about gay sex to teach about history.

Do we have to teach that the white man raped the slaves (male AND female) to tell them about MLK, George washington carver, etc? Nope.

there are MANY christian relgions that accept gays. But the best thing about this country is that there is NO state religion.

It's not corrupting their minds.

Yes, I know the end game - equal rights for ALL americans.

tython34
tython34

"He who does not remember history is doomed to repeat it."

Gay rights is not something new. These civil rights movements are trying to make it into something resembling the African American civil rights movement and it's nowhere close.

The deviant behavior was accepted in two cities in the ancient times named Sodom and Gomorrah. We all know how God responded to them...

just_a_voice
just_a_voice

And if you had religious education, and a working knowledge of greek or arameic, you would be able to understand that that story you reference was about heterosexual men raping (male) angels. If you weren't aware, you should be questioning your minister, since those familiar with the original text know this as a fact.

just_a_voice
just_a_voice

Nowhere close? wrong again, according to the Supreme Court.

Comment deleted.
AndrewSlater
AndrewSlater

I think you meant to say "a member of the NAACP". That would make more sense and sound less racist.

AndrewSlater
AndrewSlater

Resigning from the NAACP is just one step in the right direction. Speaking out consistently and as publicly as possible is the next step. Acknowledging the NAACP's history of anti-white racism, its woeful record of treating Blacks as helpless victims deserving of handouts and the NAACP's despicable alliance a political party responsible for massive Black poverty and the birth of the grievance industry is another step.

just_a_voice
just_a_voice

Did your Klan brothers put you up to this? You apparently aren't aware of what the NAACP has done for you, the lily-white boy.

tython34
tython34

The NAACP has sadly fallen away from what it originally was founded to do and is now trying to be relevant. But seriously, it should be trying to help African Americans keep their families intact and teach their children morals and right and wrong, not gay marriage. Such a shame.

just_a_voice
just_a_voice

Seriously? That sounds racist. You area stereotyping again.

RufusVonDufus
RufusVonDufus

My congratulations to Mr. Ratliff, a man of integrity. The NAACP threw their integrity out the window when Obama voiced approval of the sick idea of men marrying men and women marrying women. The NAACP lost a very positive part of their organization when Mr. Ratliff resigned.

tython34
tython34

Agreed

starving actor
starving actor

EXCUSE ME QCTIMES!!! I do not know the date that NAACP was formed, but it was NOT BEFORE 1871, when the REAL ORIGINAL CIVIL RIGHTS GROUP, THE NRA was formed!
PLEASE HIRE A FACT CHECKER> NAACP is the oldest race based organization, that's not the triple K.

Maxtor
Maxtor

i thought the NAACP endorsed OB's agenda for same sex marriage...am i wrong but do i reread the article?? that is like voting for him cause he is black....dont really make sense!!

Comment deleted.
FloydDaBarber
FloydDaBarber

Last time. This time they know better.

just_a_voice
just_a_voice

You are wrong - that's extremely racist thinking.

Comment deleted.
just_a_voice
just_a_voice

Quit trolling, you pathetic racist.

PATRIOT_T
PATRIOT_T

First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me

Same applies here, Oh gays in the army,,,not my problem,,,,Women in combat,,,Not my problem.........Gays can marry.....Ohhhhh then you see how the road gets slippery. There are very distinct reason for male and female genders.....GOD INTENDED IT...and if you are not religous,,,THEN NATURE INTENDED IT...PERIOD. Natural order of things...

HuffSchuy
HuffSchuy

PATriot,
It is interesting that you are refering to specific instances of groups who were brutalized by the establishment and somehow manage to identify those wish to marginalize and suppress gay people with the victims. That, sir, is a new low.
If God (or nature) had not intended that there be gay people he would not have created them. Thank the Lord that most of the United States is coming to see that no benefit is served by demonizing a group of people in the way that Gay haters do.

AirFrank
AirFrank

He didn't create them. Homosexual is a choice that one makes or doesn't make. It isn't genetic.

just_a_voice
just_a_voice

Even though it's not a choice, as proven repeatedly, he most certainly did make them, according to your own religion. God made people, animals, everything.

Clueless trolling, as usual.

tython34
tython34

God made man. Man sinned by using his body as it was not intended. Homosexual behavior is sin. You can't say God made something evil when he's by definition sinless and holy. It's man's free willed choice to use what God gave him for evil.

Please stop trying to rearrange the facts to fit your argument. It's really not convincing anyone.

just_a_voice
just_a_voice

Good obfuscation, but simply not true, according to MY christian bible. God created all, God does not think that behavior is a sin. He does consider rape a sin, which is what Sodom was all about. Ergo, gay is NOT evil.

Please quit rewriting the original greek to add in words that didn't exist during that time. Homosexuality wasn't even in the bible 100 years ago.

Less Bias
Less Bias

Wow. So now you're using a poem created to illustrate the reason why it's necessary to stand up for the rights of minorities as a message to suppress the civil rights of a minority. Irony, or ignorance?
Probably both.

Trixlette
Trixlette

pedophiles are a minority...so, are they gonna get rights next? Check out NAMBLA. .just sayin'

just_a_voice
just_a_voice

Trix, quit being clueless. To be married, you enter into a (Civil) legally binding contract between 2 adults.

Talk about pathetic. Pedophiles prey on people under the age of 12 - Nambla is under the age of consent. Get rights? Quit trolling. Under age children cannot give consent.

tython34
tython34

To just_a_voice:

What about marriage to animals and inanimate objects? "Once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny." Gay marriage is only the beginning of what the world wants to make acceptable behavior. It's clearly not.

Less Bias
Less Bias

Ignorance abounds. If you believe that a consensual adult relationship has any similarities with pedophilia, or non-human relationships, then I'm afraid you're beyond rational discussion. There isn't one person in this forum who has suggested reducing the legal age of consent, or allowing non-humans to enter into legal contracts - well, except you two.

just_a_voice
just_a_voice

tython, since when can a child or non-human give consent? They cannot. This blather of yours is either sheer ignorance, or you are completely unnformed. Rational? Yep, I sure am. You? Not at all. Acceptable behavior? You are the only irrational person, bringiing up sex with children, animals, etc. They CANNOT enter into a legal contract. Try, just try and grasp that fact, instead of lying.

Less Bias
Less Bias

“This isn’t a private interpretation, a Burger King religion, and by that I mean a ‘have it your way’ religion.” - Ratliff

I'm sorry, but you're wrong. Everyone, including yourself, makes personal choices when it comes to religion. Why aren't you Catholic or Methodist, or even Buddhist or Sikh? Because you *chose* the Baptist interpretation of the Bible. It has been interpreted many different ways in the past 1800 years. Yours may or may not be correct, but it's certainly not the only choice. Don't get me wrong - I'm all in favor of you continuing to have your religion, "your way". But trying to legislate that choice is an affront to the very freedom of religion you so enjoy.

AndrewSlater
AndrewSlater

No interpretation of the Bible condones same-sex relationships.

HuffSchuy
HuffSchuy

Nor does it condone eating pork. When was the last time you ate from the pig?

USAFSTLSRVG
USAFSTLSRVG

HuffSchuy...like many liberals, you all quote OT and don't even know what it means. God had certain rules (laws) for his people (the Jews) to seperate them from the ungodly people. In Genesis God said that ALL food was good for eating. As the world grew more evil, he set certains rules (laws) for them to show the world that by NOT doing or eating certain foods, they were His people. Unless you're a born-again believer (Christian) and read, study and live the Bible, please keep your ignorance to yourself. Just like I can't read medical books and call myself a doctor, neither can you read the Bible as an unbeliever and claim to know the Bible.

just_a_voice
just_a_voice

Enough with the attacks, usAF. He has the same rights that you have to voice his opinion. You in fact do not speak for my christian church. Not even close.

HuffSchuy
HuffSchuy

Wow, I can see that quad cities is a pretty small-minded, scary place. May the Lord open you eyes to the kind of love that Jesus preached every day of his life.

Mickeyfinn
Mickeyfinn

Jesus did not approve of sodomy. He is the alpha and the omega, all things were created by Him. He was in the begining with God and He is God. He makes the rules, not current culture.

libslayer
libslayer

Read Matt 7:13-14 Jesus tells us that MANY will go to Hades and only a FEW will go to HEAVEN. When Jesus returns on Judgment Day... He will return to take His own and to send the rest to hades. When I read many and few in the above passage, I am guessing we are talking about 80%-20% or greater.

You have to be utterly CLUELESS to believe that sodomy and other forms of perversion are acceptable to a just and perfect God. This country has no future as it has succumbed to pervs and reprobates and have elected or appointed them to the highest levels of government. The end is near for this country.

just_a_voice
just_a_voice

micky libslayer - we are a secular country - deal with it.

You may also want to read up on sodomy - the literal translation of Sodom was in regards to the men of Sodom raping the angels god visited upon the town.

Mickey, look around - you are in the US - we have no state religion, and you cannot impose your misinterpretations of your religion onto others.

AirFrank
AirFrank

In fact it does exactly the opposite. It condems the act.

just_a_voice
just_a_voice

wrong - it depends on the bible and the church.

Less Bias
Less Bias

AndrewSlater -
You're either misinformed, or intentionally deceptive:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=gay+friendly+churches

tython34
tython34

Agreed. Just because some sinful and wrong churches accept it, doesn't mean God does.

Less Bias
Less Bias

Agreed. Just because some sinful and wrong churches promote intolerance doesn't mean God does. We both have equal access to God. You cannot speak for Him any more than I can.

just_a_voice
just_a_voice

Not true, not even close. Several do.

Tyler Guth
Tyler Guth

But... It's a civil rights group!

mfirebrand1
mfirebrand1

Civil Union is a civil right. Marriage is a union between a man and a woman that does not go against nature.

AirFrank
AirFrank

No such thing as civil rights. You have the rights God gave you that are enumerated within the Constitution. That's all folks.

Less Bias
Less Bias

So God kept slaves, and prevented women from voting?

just_a_voice
just_a_voice

Not even close. And, not even God, according to court rulings. Your creator is NOT synonymous with God.

JustAGuy
JustAGuy

@Less Bias, that was a dumb comment. You should start reading the DEeclaration of Indepoendence and the US Constitution, and learn the error of that opinion.

Less Bias
Less Bias

AirFrank claimed that there is "no such thing as civil rights" (by definition, rights bestowed to citizens, by citizens in a democracy). I was sarcastically pointing out his/her error. Interesting note - While the Declaration of Independence mentions god, our Constitution (the very document that establishes our government) does not. Therefore our government is, by design, not affiliated with any particular religion - or even religion in general.

just_a_voice
just_a_voice

Nope, marriage is a secular/civil contract between 2 adults. Going against nature? You do realize that there are homosexual animals, don't you?

tython34
tython34

Marriage is also a holy sacrament, a union between a man and a woman for life but the liberal media does not talk about that part.

There's also creatures that eat their young but man doesn't do that. There's always some outlier in nature that goes against the vast majority. That's what seperates man from the beasts. Once again, you leave the parts out that go against your support of homosexual behavior.

Less Bias
Less Bias

tython34 - Marriage is not just a holy sacrament. It is also a secular, legal relationship between two consenting adults. You're free to define religious marriage as you so choose, but our government (as prescribed by the First Amendment) cannot endorse your religion by restricting legal definitions based solely on that religion.

Less Bias
Less Bias

The "liberal media" doesn't talk about the holy sacrament because that isn't the issue being debated. Everyone (or most everyone) agrees that you and your church should continue to have the right to define marriage as you so choose, a right which is protected by the First Amendment). The debate about same-sex marriage is whether our *secular* government should afford equal civil rights to these couples - such as the right to visit each other in the hospital, or inherit property, or raise children, or receive health insurance, or file taxes jointly, or receive Social Security benefits, etc.

just_a_voice
just_a_voice

But, tython, no one but you is talking about the sacrament - they are talking CIVIL LAW.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.