Gay Marriage at Cedar Point: Please help us!

Which reminds me, we missed you at our annual "we dont believe in God but believe AND worship the Devil......cause that makes sense" rally. The cookies were to die (for Satan) for.

There's nothing I could really contribute to this whirlwind of "back and forthness" that would make a huge difference since. There's SOOOOOOOO many points to make that would, really, only be my opinion. My only 2 cents would be; If the interpretation of God in the Bible is even close to being real or right, then by Joe he is not real and I don't want to be associated with him. I see his lack of presence (for the lack of a better word) and lack of humanity (also for the lack of a better word) to be the main drive in my disbelief. Well that and the whole scope of the universe. :)

In the end, the world will change for the better, and the old views will die out. History has taught us this and it will continue through our generations. In the mean time, anyone who wants to join me at the Church of the Fonz, service will be at Aaaaeeeyyyt 0 clock on Tuesdaaaaeeeyyy. :)

The Church of the Fonz is great and all, but the Jeffersons, Capt. Steubing, and Mike Seaver will come along shortly to "rescue" people from that False religion... ;~)

If history has taught us anything it's that intelligent man has struggled with their beliefs for thousands of years and it doesn't look like that's gonna stop any time soon regardless of some saying that its happening.

Well in previous centuries, most of the world was at war at any given time, usually over religion. Now the religion inspired violence is largely limited to bombing abortion clinics and hijacking planes, so I guess that's an improvement.

How exactly was your request refused etrainimac? Did he not respond? Can you give us a quote?

I'm not sure what the talk of the U.S. boycotting the 2014 olympics is really about. But I suspect it's to make the U.S. look superior to Russia in regard to human freedoms when in fact the U.S. has just finished a silent state by state social cleansing of gay youth via popular votes. Can't get anymore vile then popular votes against a minority. It's the idea, the sentiment wields power.

The biblical reality of marriage is a gay reality. "Until death do us part" was first spoken between two women... Ruth & Naomi in the bible in the book of Ruth. David and Jonathan also established marriage as a union proclaimed before God and uniting their decedents for all eternity.

Same gender union began the lineage that brought forth the Christ.

Nowhere in the bible is there a family like you see today on T.V. Strange ideas spoken by everyone everywhere for 50 years does not make them accurate. In short... are you for real etrainimac?

ApolloAndy said:

I'm more referring to the attitude of the "left" being tolerant of everything and making room for all kinds of viewpoints except those coming from the "right" which are dismissed as ignorant, hateful, and/or discriminatory.

because they usually are. Been a long time since I've seen anyone of the Religious Right, spend their time in front a camera saying we should tend to the poor, and those less fortunate. It's usually more about stopping teh gays from getting married and how Tax Cuts for the Rich are somehow god's plan.

Jeff said:

Well in previous centuries, most of the world was at war at any given time, usually over religion.

No the religion thing is kinda recent. LAND used to be in style. I mean, Britain and France fought for one hundred years in the One Hundred Year War over land. Or something...I forget. But I did learn about it in High School....

Britain and France didn't exist in the time I'm talking about.

aerodynamic said:

The biblical reality of marriage is a gay reality. "Until death do us part" was first spoken between two women... Ruth & Naomi in the bible in the book of Ruth. David and Jonathan also established marriage as a union proclaimed before God and uniting their decedents for all eternity.

Really? That's where you're going to go? You're just going to ignore the fact that Ruth was married to Naomi's son and then to Boaz and their covenant with each other had no romantic or sexual implications at all? (Not to mention the quote was "May God do thusly to me (typical covenental oath formula) and more as well if even death separates me from you.")

David and Jonathan may have been closer to a bromantic relationship and they did make a covenant to each other, but that's far from a marriage. God made covenants with Abraham uniting him with his descendents for all eterenity (see also Noah, Jacob, etc.) ; does that mean he married him (them)?

CreditWh0re said:
Been a long time since I've seen anyone of the Religious Right, spend their time in front a camera saying we should tend to the poor, and those less fortunate. It's usually more about stopping teh gays from getting married and how Tax Cuts for the Rich are somehow god's plan.

That's beacuse those are the ones that get the airtime. The vast majority of people who oppose gay marriage do not fit this "Religious Right" profile and do care about tending to the poor, but they don't make good strawmen (or in the case of Fox News, poster boys).

Can you back that statement up, Andy?

Sure, go out and find soneone that claims to be conservative and spend some time with them
And make up your mind instead of believing what you hear from a vocal minority.

Does anyone have proof that all Muslims don't support terror?

#facepalm

Okay. I can only speak anecdotally, but I live in Fort Worth, TX which is a super-duper conservative urban center (admittedly, being an urban center, it's still only slightly right) and I am involved at the national level in a slightly left but still very diverse church (Presbyterian) and of the 100 or so people I personally know who are opposed to gay marriage, none think it is more important to stop gay marriage than to help the poor. 0 out of 100. Maybe there's a skew in my sample, who knows?

Being a super left Bostonian college student, and having moved to TX straight out of a fairly left graduate school in New Jersey, I found this surprising and it challenged my understanding of "the opposition." Getting to know many of these people very personally (burying their parents and spouses, baptizing and marrying their children) it became impossible to dismiss them as ignorant, hateful people even though I completely disagree with their position on homosexuality. They are the ones who volunteer to serve at the homeless shelter, who set up scholarship funds for under privileged kids, who fight for better immigration policies, etc. etc.

That's why I keep coming back to this topic, even though I think I agree with the large majority on gay marriage. I feel like people are being judged unfairly, which is exactly the thing the left claims to be above.

There's an important distinction to make about most conservatives with regards to helping the poor. As a conservative, many of the policies I believe in inadvertently (or perhaps not so inadvertently) help the poor. I'd rather have a governmental system that helps the poor help themselves out of poverty and let the local communities, churches, and various organizations help them in other ways. Just because we don't necessarily want government to give handouts doesn't mean we don't care about the less fortunate.

Even though I'm not old enough to know any of them personally, I have zero doubt that some people that owned slaves were wonderful, delightful people, who treated their children with kindness, helped out with local charities, opened doors for little old ladies.

And then also believed that black people weren't really human, or at least "more than 1/3" of a person.

And they owned slaves.

Does that make them complete a-holes? Completely ignorant? Completely horrid, waste-of-sperm humans? No, not completely...but on the issue of slavery, they were complete douche-bags.

On the same token, I know some lovely people who would never vote "yes" to legalize gay marriage in Ohio. They're not completely ignorant, dumb, etc...bit on this issue, they're complete douche-bags.

Bigotry is bigotry. Discrimination is discrimination. You can hide behind whatever god you want to, but that doesn't excuse believing something like "being gay is a choice", or that "gay people should be treated as inferior Americans".

It's like finding out someone you know is really, really racist...but, you know, other than that, he/she is such a great person! I may not disown them, but it certainly frames our relationship differently. Ultimately, I feel sorry, and in way, sad when I find out that these beliefs and attitudes persist within someone.

If you grew up in the south 200 years ago, do you think you'd have been different?

Um, no. Did everyone believe it was right?

Were human rights created after slavery was abolished?

I'm 100% confident that I would not have owned another human being.

If you grew up where I did, in the family I did, it makes no sense from a "nurture" perspective that I would ever support gay rights. In fact, had I been arguing this when I was 10, I would be on the other side of the coin.

But I grew up. I got out of my bubble that was Defiance, Ohio, and I matured emotionally, spiritually, and cognitively (and other ways...giggity giggity).

You made the point that people against gay rights get judged unfairly because other than that, they're super people. My point was, that's no excuse, nor does it lessen the impact their ignorance can have on the lives of others.

Everyone in the south did.

Wow. I consider myself a pretty progressive person, but I'm pretty sure I would have been okay with slavery (not because I now believe it's right, but because it was "just the way things were and had been since the dawn of time and there was no reason to question it.")

Similarly, I'm pretty sure that 100 years from now, people will look back at poverty and malaria in Africa and the fact that we spend thousand of dollars to ride roller coasters and assume that we are all ignorant, hateful douche bags.

Edit: I'm not making excuses for their position. I'm saying it's unfair to assume anything else about them and their treatment of other people. (And I'm not sure what it even means to say they're "douche bags on this one issue").

We're each of us the product of the time and place where we born.

My mother is racist.

She's uneasy around people who have a different skin color. She grew up in the early 50s, in a community that was exclusively white. When she says something overtly racist, it's hard for me to hold it against her, because I know where she came from.

I don't approve of what she says, but I understand why she says it.

Fifty or a hundred years from now, people will look back at the 2010s and wonder why so many states didn't recognize same sex marriage.

And I'm not sure what it even means to say they're "douche bags on this one issue"

I could be much nicer about it, true. It simply means they're wrong, which they are. It's wrong to support legislature that discriminates against gay people.

I'm saying it's unfair to assume anything else about them and their treatment of other people.

I completely agree. I thought I was clear on that.

Everyone in the south did.

I'm sure there are some slaves who would strongly disagree with you on this point.

Let me explain. For example, let's say you're hanging out with Mother Theresa. An all around cool gal. Not the snappiest dresser, but certainly a lovely person. Let's say you're out having dinner after a day of helping the poor and she leans over to you and says..."you know, those colored people really should have their own drinking fountains".

Then you would say..."Mother Theresa is a nice person, but when it comes to issues of race, she is a douche-bag!"