Connecticut committee approves gay marriage.
Connecticut committee approves gay marriage.
“After three hours of impassioned debate the Connecticut General Assembly Judiciary Committee voted 27-15 to approve a bill that would make gay marriage legal in that state. It will now head to the House of Representatives.” The “most powerful moment came when state Rep. Beth Bye (D) spoke publicly for the first time at the legislature” about her same-sex relationship:
As tears rolled down her cheeks, Bye told members of the committee how her deeply religious father has come to accept and support her gay lifestyle and her partner. ‘My father, a devout Catholic, … has moved on this issue because he loves his daughter. He thinks of me as married,’ said Bye. ‘The broader world does not see me as married.’ Her voice shaking, Bye explained how, on her partner’s pension documents, she has been listed as ‘Other’ because she didn’t fit into any of the traditional legal categories. ‘I don’t want to be ‘Other,” insisted Bye, ‘I want to be married.’
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Wow. That is wonderful.
April 13th, 2007 at 10:28 amI hope their Rep’s have the courage to do what’s right.
Make marriage available to all.
April 13th, 2007 at 10:28 amWARNING! BEWARE! If this becomes the law, all the heterosexual marriages in Connecticut will be doomed just like what happened in…um,…that other state…that…allowed…homosexual…marriage…um, never mind.
April 13th, 2007 at 10:31 amWhile I agree with the allowance of gay civil unions, I disagree with the dilution of ‘marriage’ which is traditionally a religious ceremony. Indeed, I think the ‘marriage’ title should be limited to religiously conducted ceremonies – the remainder conducted outside the context of a church-sanctioned ceremony should be civil unions. For that is what they are – civilly (i.e. state) ordained unions. Civil unions – gay or not – should then be afforded all the tax & other benefits currently being fought over. This will restore ‘civil union’ equality while also restoring a thing called separation of church and state.
Indeed, I believe that is what is driving many to be opposed to gay marriage – the fact that ‘marriage’ is traditionally religious in connotation. Therefore, if ‘marriages’ revert to their religious context & every joe blow who runs to the courthouse – whether dick and jane or dick and dick or jane and jane becomes entitled to ‘civil union’ rights – I think this entire overblown controversy would be largely solved.
It’s sad that semantics and a confluence of church and state have led to such a long and drawn out debate and divide amongst many in our country.
April 13th, 2007 at 10:33 amOH NOOOZZ this is going to threaten my heterosexual marrage!!!
have any trolls arrived yet?
April 13th, 2007 at 10:34 am#4 well said.
April 13th, 2007 at 10:36 amEveryone should be entitled to go through an acrimonious, bitter divorce. I’m just sayin’….
April 13th, 2007 at 10:36 amThat’s fantastic. Now, let’s see how it goes with the house, hmm?
April 13th, 2007 at 10:37 am#4
“Indeed, I believe that is what is driving many to be opposed to gay marriage – the fact that ‘marriage’ is traditionally religious in connotation.”
Whose religion are you referring too? My religion allows for gay marriage.
I’m so sick of the religion card.
April 13th, 2007 at 10:38 amFantastic!
There’s not enough love in the world. We shouldn’t try to roadblock the love that exists.
Daryll should arrive in 3……2……1…..
April 13th, 2007 at 10:39 amComment by chris — April 13, 2007 @ 10:33 am
How do you feel about churches who have gay/lesbian ministers who perform same-sex marriages?
April 13th, 2007 at 10:39 amEveryone should be entitled to go through an acrimonious, bitter divorce. I’m just sayin’….
Comment by Badmoodman
Agreed. Why should anyone who decides to marry miss out on such an opportunity?
April 13th, 2007 at 10:40 amGreat!
April 13th, 2007 at 10:41 amJust don’t let them “marry” church and state.
It’s about time. Gay and Lesbian couples should have every right that heterosexual couples have.
Congrats to Connecticut.
April 13th, 2007 at 10:43 am#2 Chris
April 13th, 2007 at 10:44 amI know a hell of a lot of people who got married outside of a church. (JP) or other and still consider themselves married along with everyone who knows them. Get over it.
#4, who’s forcing churches to marry people who they don’t want to marry?
I’m a straight, non religious male and I plan to start a family eventually. I can’t get married?
Thanks. Let’s solve this problem by taking other people’s rights away. Genius!
April 13th, 2007 at 10:44 amSorry, Mis-numbered. #4 is what I meant.
April 13th, 2007 at 10:45 amWow…a thread about approving gay marriage is a whole 20 minutes old, and Daryll hasn’t yet shown up to quote passages out of his magic book?
It’s not like Daryll to miss an opportunity like this…I hope he’s OK.
April 13th, 2007 at 10:47 am4 chris,
I agree with your solution – a couple’s civil union would carry all the legal benefits and responsibilities and the marriage would carry all the religious ones. However, most people now opposed to gay marriage, as the debate currently stands, would probably be opposed to your solution as well, based on the same grounds they do now – trying to make a religious doctrine (call it “tradition” to hide the fact) into a law.
April 13th, 2007 at 10:50 amBye mentioned her father was a “devout Catholic…(who) thinks of me as married,’ ” Of course a devout Catholic has never been wrong about anything – ever.
Bye can consider herself married all she wants – when little girls “play house” they think of themselves as married, or mommies, or whatever they want to be… But they are just pretending.
April 13th, 2007 at 10:50 amUnlike adultry, gay marriage will change the definition …or some $hit.
April 13th, 2007 at 10:54 amI know a hell of a lot of people who got married outside of a church. (JP) or other and still consider themselves married along with everyone who knows them. Get over it.
Comment by Bluedahlia
Sure, if those couples are heterosexual they have all the legal benefits of marriage, regardless of the church’s sanction. However, because “the church” does not sanction heterosexual marriages, then the government currently does not either. So, yes, we do need to “get over” this infringement of religious freedom.
April 13th, 2007 at 10:54 amvaliant venus is “pretending” he/she has a valid point.
April 13th, 2007 at 10:55 amNothing personal against homosexuallity, but why want something that has always been heterosexual? The argument for equal rights has become moot since domestic partnership laws have been put in place. So why? Is the message now ‘revenge’ to hetero’s for being so mean? Revenge to the disfunctional churches – we’re going to make them see the light? Revenge to the world? This baffles me.
It sounds like homosexuals want to be on the same field as heterosexuals. Does that really make them heterosexuals? hehehehehehe
April 13th, 2007 at 10:57 amOur expert on “pretending” has arrived. Hey, Mighty Aphrodite, how is your pretend marriage? How about your pretend children, any more die? How about your pretend law practice?
April 13th, 2007 at 10:57 amBye can consider herself married all she wants – when little girls “play house†they think of themselves as married, or mommies, or whatever they want to be… But they are just pretending.
Comment by valiant venus
I know a woman who just lost her partner of 52 years. You tell my grieving friend that she was “just pretending” all those years.
Try pretending to be human, for once.
F*ck it, nevermind…
April 13th, 2007 at 11:01 amNothing personal against woman, but why do they want something like voting or workplace rights that have always been for males?
/sarc off
April 13th, 2007 at 11:02 amI lived in mass when that law was passed, my marriage didn’t fall apart becuase some friends of ours got married. mass has one of the lowest divorce rates in the country. What hurts marriage is people not taking their vows seriously. Let’s talk about Wolfiwitz and his affair, or Rudy having his mistress live with him in the mayor’s mansion while he was still married, or Clinton cheating on his wife, or anyone lib or con who gets married not out of love but out of fear of being alone.
April 13th, 2007 at 11:02 amAnna, you’re absolutely right. Why would gay and lesbian couples want to visit each other in the hospital when they’re injured? Why would they possibily want to start and raise families? Why could they possibility need the tax benefits afforded to married couples?
And even if all of those are given in “Civil Unions” isn’t that just “seperate but equal”. They’ll always be checking the “other” box instead of the “married” box on their forms.
It’s sick, sick to think that people who have been denied their rights for so long, simply want revenge. They just want to be treated like everyone else. They don’t want to be punished for who they love.
Hetersexual marriage is no more a privedged position in society than marriage between members of one race is superior to an interracial marriage. Get over yourself. Just give people the rights everyone else already has.
April 13th, 2007 at 11:04 amWow, right after the Easter Holiday. Per biblical scriptures, if Rep. Bye doesn’t change her ways, she could look forward to hell. How can you libs support something like this?
April 13th, 2007 at 11:05 amvaliant venus sez:
Coming from a person who plays make-believe on this site every day, this is downright hysterical.
How’d that ‘lunch’ with your ‘client’ go yesterday, VV? Do you use the Pooper-Scooper â„¢, or those little plastic baggies?
April 13th, 2007 at 11:06 am#24
What some gays and lesbians want is to be united in the church of their god. Domestic partnership laws are far from common, and are for the most part unrecognized by other states. remember the “defence of marriage act” rammed through by the wingnuts to fire up the base?
Why do you care what another couple wants? Why is it any of yours or anyone else’s business what makes other people happy?
April 13th, 2007 at 11:06 amDaryll, “judge not lest ye be judged”?
See you in hell.
April 13th, 2007 at 11:06 amLet’s see if THIS post makes it:
A certain known “pretender” posting that homosexuals “pretending” to be married, like little girls, is the apex of hypocrisy, immaturity, and intolerance.
April 13th, 2007 at 11:07 amIt sounds like homosexuals want to be on the same field as heterosexuals. Does that really make them heterosexuals? hehehehehehe
Comment by anna
I’m hoping your “hehehehehehe” means your entire comment was meant to be funny.
The argument for equal rights for gays is not moot, since they are not freely able to marry in this country; they have problems passing on their estates; they cannot collect Social Security benefits after the death of a partner; and sometimes cannot collect pension benefits.
You say marriage has always been heterosexual, so why would they want it. Slave owners in the South used to say the same thing — Things have always been this way, they’re better off being slaves, you know. Would you agree with that statement? Didn’t think so.
If I stand next to a gay man or woman, we are both human, and we are both Americans, but I have more rights than this gay person standing next to me, simply by virtue of my heterosexuality.
That’s wrong.
April 13th, 2007 at 11:08 am#22 PLC,
April 13th, 2007 at 11:08 am#4’s post to me sounded like hi wants to ensure that those belonging to the church are considered “married” while those that are not are considered a “civil union”. To me, that stinks of separating the church from the “undesirables” even more. If that gets done, what is to say the the benefits attached don’t change as well, marginalizing the “no-church going” populus? Whomever that might be. Gays, strait, whatever. That was just how I took it. Perhaps I am taking it out of its intended context, but it seems some others here took it that way as well.
I would support a retroactive abortion if it was you darrel, that rhyms with barrell where you the bottom of.
April 13th, 2007 at 11:08 amComment by Daryll — April 13, 2007 @ 11:05 am
Daryll!!! Glad you could make it, buddy…we were worried.
A thread on ThinkProgress concerning homosexuality just wouldn’t be the same without your demented Fundie rantings. ^_^
April 13th, 2007 at 11:09 am“Wow, right after the Easter Holiday. Per biblical scriptures, if Rep. Bye doesn’t change her ways, she could look forward to hell. How can you libs support something like this?”
Daryll, please provide this scripture you speak of that claims such a thing?! Surely you follow all the old testament laws writtin ON THE SAME PAGE don’t you? TELL US YOU’RE NOT REALLY A CAFETERIA CHRISTIAN are you?
April 13th, 2007 at 11:10 amWow, right after the Easter Holiday. Per biblical scriptures, if Rep. Bye doesn’t change her ways, she could look forward to hell. How can you libs support something like this?
Comment by Daryll
Wholeheartedly.
BTW Daryll, I’m pretty sure Rep Bye didn’t turn gay just since Easter.
Regarding hell — I’ll save you a seat.
April 13th, 2007 at 11:11 amHow can you libs support something like this?
Comment by Daryll
Easy. Because 1) we believe in individual rights of conscience, including religious belief and behavior, and 2) we believe in free will. You, on the other hand, want to try to use the power of government to FORCE people to ACT consistent with YOUR religious doctrine which does not make them into TRUE disciples but only oppressed people.
April 13th, 2007 at 11:14 amDaryll will burn in hell for watching football. It says right in Leviticus not to touch pig skin. I’m sure his support for pigskin-touching goes right along with those who support gay marriage.
ok sarcasm off.
Daryll can you honestly look yourself in the mirror and not feel guilty that you totally support a God who happily sentences people to eternal torture just for loving someone of the same sex and wanting the right to marry them?!
Why do you support eternal torture?! Why is your god so hung up on revenge? Hell is no rehabilitation – it’s simply revenge for not kissing god’s arse. Revenge = evil; your god=evil; you support it so you=evil.
April 13th, 2007 at 11:14 amNothing personal against homosexuallity, but why want something that has always been heterosexual? The argument for equal rights has become moot since domestic partnership laws have been put in place. So why? Is the message now ‘revenge’ to hetero’s for being so mean? Revenge to the disfunctional churches – we’re going to make them see the light? Revenge to the world? This baffles me.
It sounds like homosexuals want to be on the same field as heterosexuals. Does that really make them heterosexuals? hehehehehehe
Comment by anna — April 13, 2007 @ 10:57 am
Domestic partnership laws don’t affect your financial history, don’t allow you to file jointly on your tax form, don’t help you adopt children as much as marriage.
That’t the problem with civil unions. All the institutions we have now that treat married couples differently than single people will treat civil unions differently than marriages. Of course legally they should be the same, but if that were so, then why would we need both anyway?
Religions can deal with their own flocks however they wish to, but outside of the church, marriage should be for everyone. Maybe at one time you could claim that marriage was the responsibility of the church, but not anymore. People forget that the separation of church and state protects the religions too. They abdicated the responsibility for telling us what is and is not marriage by making the ceremony and the legal terms linked. Just like we’re not going to get crass commerce out of Christmas, you can’t get the legal issues out of marriage, and I’m sorry to say, LEGALLY society has already decided not to discriminate against the gay community. You can’t have it both ways. Either we agree that everyone is equal under the law, including marriage, or we reverse our course and head back to things like a woman’s place is in the home and blacks are an inferior race, not to mention all the other ethnics we would discriminate against legally.
I know which society I’d like to live in. Even if I thought homosexuality was wrong, I’d still think it’s better than the alternative.
April 13th, 2007 at 11:16 amSpeaking of Easter Daryll, why do you think it’s called that? It has about jack and $hit to do with Christ (and Jack just left town). Eastre, the goddess of fertility; eggs=another symbol; do it like rabbits, etc., – Easter is really about getting it on. So go out there, stop hating women, and try to get you some – maybe then you won’t give hoot what other mutual consenting adults do in the privacy of their own lives.
April 13th, 2007 at 11:17 amAnd has anyone on the radical right given evidence exactly how Rep. Beth Bye’s same-sex marriage is harming my marriage? Or Rudy Guiliani’s or Rush Limbaugh’s three marriages?
April 13th, 2007 at 11:17 amComment by Daryll — April 13, 2007 @ 11:05 am
Daryll!!! Glad you could make it, buddy…we were worried.
A thread on ThinkProgress concerning homosexuality just wouldn’t be the same without your demented Fundie rantings. ^_^
Comment by TripMaster Monkey — April 13, 2007 @ 11:09 am
They’re not rantings. I’m stating Jesus’ laws. How can you and other libs contradict our lord and saviour Jesus Christ? If you support this approval, you can’t be a christian (Christ-like). There is nothing right about the homosexual lifestyle. I wonder why Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton haven’t protested against Gay marriage. I thought they were ordained ministers.
April 13th, 2007 at 11:18 amThey’re not rantings. I’m stating Jesus’ laws. How can you and other libs contradict our lord and saviour Jesus Christ? If you support this approval, you can’t be a christian (Christ-like). There is nothing right about the homosexual lifestyle.
Comment by Daryll
Maybe this is news to you, Daryll, but not everyone is christian! Amazing, I know.
And guess what!? You are the least christ-like christian I’ve ever experienced. If you’d like an excellent of a great christian, talk to PatrioticLiberalChristian (PLC).
April 13th, 2007 at 11:22 amComment by Bluedahlia
OK, I think all three of us are basically on the same side so we should avoid “friendly fire”. I am not too concerned about the label of “married” because the government won’t be able to do anything about it if there are equitable civil union laws and a homosexual couple call themselves “married”.
April 13th, 2007 at 11:22 amDon’t worry Daryll, gay people don’t hate you and I’m sure the same Jesus I understand would find a place in his heart for gay and straight people–even those who are full of hate. You will likely find the people who post here are more closely aligned to the teachings of Jesus than they are to the ideologues of the radical right. Just ask Pastor Ted Haggard.
April 13th, 2007 at 11:23 amDaryll,
It must be nice to live in a world of ignorant faith. Never questioning a book filled with contradictions.
It is religious fanatacism such as your that has gotten us the two worst terror attacks ever perpetrated on American soil. 9-11 and the Oklahoma City bombing.
Since you are so fond of those “laws”, would it be safe to say you support the stoning of women for adultery. I should also suppose you support the stoning of children for getting out line with their elders. See leviticus for some more of your “forgiving” God.
April 13th, 2007 at 11:24 amIf you support this approval, you can’t be a christian (Christ-like).
Comment by Daryll
Not your call.
You would do well to remember that Jesus was not considered to be following Biblical teachings either. So, I guess he wasn’t very Christ-like either. The stance against homosexuality is NOT based on Jesus’ teachings but solely on a few lines in Leviticus, repeated and expanded on by Paul but not Jesus.
April 13th, 2007 at 11:28 amHold on, now. Just how passionate was that debate?
April 13th, 2007 at 11:31 amDaryll sez:
Looks like it’s time to post the questions again. Kudos and thanks to Your Conscience for originally posting this list.
April 13th, 2007 at 11:33 am
Daryll will burn in hell for watching football. It says right in Leviticus not to touch pig skin. I’m sure his support for pigskin-touching goes right along with those who support gay marriage.
ok sarcasm off.
Daryll can you honestly look yourself in the mirror and not feel guilty that you totally support a God who happily sentences people to eternal torture just for loving someone of the same sex and wanting the right to marry them?!
Why do you support eternal torture?! Why is your god so hung up on revenge? Hell is no rehabilitation – it’s simply revenge for not kissing god’s arse. Revenge = evil; your god=evil; you support it so you=evil.
Comment by Patrick Sux-a-duck — April 13, 2007 @ 11:14 am
There’s a reason why he was against homosexuality. PROCREATION!!!! I’ve previously used this example, If you leave lesbians on one island and gays on another, they would die without being replaced.
April 13th, 2007 at 11:33 amDaryll,
The Christian community can’t even agree on whether or not marriage is a sacrament, that is a religious ceremony sanctioned by Jesus. The Catholic Church says it is. Protestants do not.
Zooey,
Thank you. I try, not always successfully.
April 13th, 2007 at 11:35 amto follow up on my #4 and the many responses to it – i would wager we agree more than some of you think. I think gays should have all the civil rights of heteros – they should get to check the same box for taxes, get to visit in hospitals, get to inherit through wills, get to be generally recognized by the state and country they live within.
my entire point was that maybe the debate should be about clearing up the semantics issues between ‘civilly recognized’ unions and ‘religiously ordained’ marriages. I wasn’t suggesting that rights be taken away from anyone; rather I gave a solution to put everyone on an equal playing field of civilly recognized unions – or whatever you want to call them.
on the flip side – marriage would return to what it is – a religiously ordained ceremony that really carries with it no civil purpose. the last time I checked people who got married ‘in a church’ didn’t usually do it so they could get a tax break; rather they did it because the religious sanctity of it meant something to them. Thus, by re-establishing the separation of church and state – and I don’t mean a stigmatism or divide b/w church and state – I mean a distinction between what is state supported and what is church doctrine – I think the entire issue become moot.
In sum – those arguing that gays aren’t on equal footing until they get gay marriage and that civil union is insufficient miss the controversy that is firing up the conservative Christians (which I might add I am not one of). But I was raised in such a family, so I understand their perspective, and I honestly believe that if there were a way to restore/maintain the sanctity of marriage within the church – leaving all of the social benefits to be applied equally in the ‘civil union’ context – everyone would be open to that solution. The problem is that as of today – ‘religious marriage’ is what carries the social benefits; and the distinction has been lost to date.
anyway – i’m sure some of you will find holes in this yet again, and I even will admit that this probably won’t assuage many of the extreme Conservatives out there, but I think it would provide a solution that would keep the religion card out of the debate – which is what, in my opinion, is making this such a heated topic in the first place….
April 13th, 2007 at 11:36 amCT is still a bad state, because they re-elected Traitor Joe Lieberman.
April 13th, 2007 at 11:37 amDarryll, Jesus never spoke a word about homosexuality. Not a single word, in any of the gospels. Ever.
anna, Nothing personal against homosexuallity, but why want something that has always been heterosexual? The argument for equal rights has become moot since domestic partnership laws have been put in place. So why?
Let me turn that around on you – why do you oppose granting the title “married” to committed gay couples? Because you want to exclude them, and mark their unions and families as “less than” those featuring opposite sex couples.
I prefer gay marriage to civil unions for exactly the opposite reason – because I don’t want gay people, or their families, or their kids, defined as “less than” or “not really” a family.
Oh, and I’m a married straight guy.
April 13th, 2007 at 11:39 amOK, I think all three of us are basically on the same side so we should avoid “friendly fireâ€. I am not too concerned about the label of “married†because the government won’t be able to do anything about it if there are equitable civil union laws and a homosexual couple call themselves “marriedâ€.
Comment by PatrioticLiberalChristian(PLC) — April 13, 2007 @ 11:22 am
I am agreed with you on most things and do not wish to engage in “friendly fire” either. :-)
April 13th, 2007 at 11:39 amWith that said, I AM concerned about how these things get labeled. Labeling is just another form of segregation. I am also concerned because you said our government wouldn’t be able to do anything about it. They are now! Our government could do anything! Just look at what is happening right now. Our government seems to be changing all the time, depending on how the wind blows. so yes, it does concern me. Other than disagreeing with that minor point, I would like to add I have a great respect for your posts and enjoy reading your view.
For the record, #41, the “god” that you speak of as being full of revenge and hate, is not the God and Jesus that TRUE Christians serve. OUR God is merciful and OUR Jesus reached out to the poor, social outcasts that others discarded. Just because a few have taken the scriptures and twisted them into meanings that serve and legitimate their prejudice and hate, doesn’t mean that is what Chrisitanity is about. Jesus was not and is not a Republican or a Democrat and doesn’t want anyone to kiss “arse.” It is, actually, all about love and acceptance. We are taught not to judge others, lest we ourselves be judged, unfortunately, the views that are most often heard from “Christians” are the narrow-minded views of the minority. I can assure you that the God and Jesus I serve is loving and accepting of ALL people, regardless of race, color, nationality, political affiliation, or sexual orientation. I think EVERYONE could learn something from THOSE views!
April 13th, 2007 at 11:40 am#54 – I totally agree; where’s the inconsistency there? personally i only think marriage is a religious sacrament and all else is nothing more than a civilly recognized union between two people that does – AND should – carry certain benefits. the only benefit that should come with a religiously ordained marriage is the religious benefit associated with that per church doctrine.
however, given the fact that the term ‘marriage’ has infiltrated our society in general, and even in light of my above post – I doubt our gvmt leaders will be adept at resolving this conflict in a logical manner so as to re-establish the distinction between what is religiously and civilly recognized. hell, they can’t even win the war on terror or find their lost emails; i doubt they can resolve this conflict in a productive and meaningful way.
April 13th, 2007 at 11:40 amChris,
The problem with your analysis is that when we refer to marriage today, we are discussing contract law. Marriage, whether it takes place in a church a court house or wherever, is a matter of legal contract.
If that wasn’t the case then why would we need a marriage license. Anyone could stand up on a street corner with a partner and make to each other. What makes it a marriage, in the eyes of the law, is tha contract that is enterd into.
That being the case, what you are suggesting is “seperate but equal”. That doesn’t work.
April 13th, 2007 at 11:41 amZooey,
Thank you. I try, not always successfully.
Comment by PatrioticLiberalChristian(PLC)
Doing your best — It’s all any of us can do, right? :)
Daryll is a sad creature. He has committed intellectual suicide.
April 13th, 2007 at 11:43 am#52 – TMM
Excellent post, my man! Loved every word of it!
I eagerly await Daryll’s (or his pastor’s) answers.
April 13th, 2007 at 11:44 amfor the record #59 – thank you for bringing some logic to the ‘christian’ view – it is nice to see that it exists. I agree with your views 100%; unfortunately, while I too believe that God that about being merciful, reaching out to the poor, not judging others – that is NOT the view espoused by the ACTIONS of many of the religious conservatives that have a vocal platform in our country. While they too, if you talk to them, will claim they believe the same – to me, their actions speak much louder – and they speak of judgment, hatred, and intolerance.
its somewhat sad that this extremist view has come to be the preconceived notion that many have of religious individuals; indeed, those people, while having a wide and loud platform represent a very small minority of the entire christian world. Indeed – I would characterize their views as no better (or different) than those of the extremist Muslims who are promulgating terrorism – both thrive on hatred and intolerance. And sadly – neither accurately represent the real beliefs of the religious doctrine they claim to be promoting.
April 13th, 2007 at 11:46 amThere’s a reason why he was against homosexuality. PROCREATION!!!!
Comment by Daryll
Here is where you and I can agree. God wanted the tiny tribe of Israel to thrive and grow, so he needed the Hebrews to be sexually pure – which included marrying only other Hebrews. He also needed the Levites, the priests, to be pure – meaning to not copy the fertility rites of the Baal worshippers, which included both homosexual and heterosexual intercourse between the Baal priests and their followers. Most of the cleanliness laws (which include the sexual laws) were practical laws meant to protect the Hebrews. They did not understand the practical reasons, such as the danger of eating pork that might be undercooked, but, like the children that they basically were, followed the dicatates of their Father until the Hebrews matured and, under Jesus, were freed from the laws and given a new interpretation. The new interpretation of how to act is Jesus’ indication that loving God and loving your neighbor are the basis of all laws. Paul was able to see how circumcision, as a cleanliness law, was not a requirement to be a follower of God, but he could not extend the logic to homosexuality. As the faith of Christians matures, perhaps we will all be able to do so.
April 13th, 2007 at 11:48 amI’m stating Jesus’ laws. How can you and other libs contradict our lord and saviour Jesus Christ?Comment by Daryll — April 13, 2007 @ 11:18 am
Jesus’ Law? You mean the guy who hung around with 12 other guys and never got married. What do you think they were doing together all the time playing football. That wouldn’t be kosher.
Wait until you run into your lord and saviour and he kicks your ass for being a pious, judgmental jackass. I’m sure he’ll want to hear all about that bible your quoting that was written 1,500 years and hundreds of interpretations after his death. You don’t worship Jesus, you don’t even know what he said, you worship that marketing tool, bible, that’s used to herd you sheep into a manageable cult.
April 13th, 2007 at 11:48 am#52 TMM,
April 13th, 2007 at 11:49 amI copied that one down to pass on to my fundie relatives. That is great!
#57 Joe,
April 13th, 2007 at 11:51 amThat was my point as well, although not as succinct. Thank you.
Just happened to glance at this thread, but I knew, I mean, I KNEW, that 2 second daryll would post non sensical, holier than thou statements.
One sentence for quick draw daryll:
Thou shall not bear false witness.
Read It! Learn It! Live It!!!
I can assure you that the God and Jesus I serve is loving and accepting of ALL people, regardless of race, color, nationality, political affiliation, or sexual orientation.
Comment by EK — April 13, 2007 @ 11:40 am
So eloquently said, EK! I feel the exact same way, but couldn’t type those words as well as you did!
Sorry, have to pull a MA or VV or whatever, but truly a busy day…
April 13th, 2007 at 11:52 amI’m off!
which included marrying only other Hebrews… Comment by PLC
Oh, dear. I am a lapsed Methodist who married a Southern Baptist. I am going straight to HELL!!! (/snark)
April 13th, 2007 at 11:53 amOther than disagreeing with that minor point, I would like to add I have a great respect for your posts and enjoy reading your view.
Comment by Bluedahlia
Thank you. Actually, I don’t think we disagree at all, except maybe in how big a bite we take in getting change to occur or the order of making those changes. Normally, I think changing the label comes first (as a psychologist counseling people, this is how I tend to operate) because your point about the power of labels is spot on. However, with this issue, I think making the practical change in the legal structure is most important and must come first. Once there is equality legally for both homosexuals and heterosexuals, most Americans are going to be so involved in their own lives and won’t see any problems with their homosexual neighbors’ civil union that the “marriage” label will flow unimpeded. Now, if we could get both simultaneously, great.
April 13th, 2007 at 11:56 amOh, dear. I am a lapsed Methodist who married a Southern Baptist. I am going straight to HELL!!! (/snark)
Comment by Proud Dem
I was raised Lutheran (”Catholic Lite”), married and became Methodist (got to like that Wesleyan Quadrilateral for including “reason”).
Well, if HELL is where we are headed, we’ll save each other a seat.
/sarc off
April 13th, 2007 at 12:01 pm#63, Yes you are correct. Actions do speak louder than words, and actions are, in my opionion, a more accurate reflection of character. I just wanted to set the record straight here that most of the people you hear on TV and radio claiming to be Christians are just religious extremists. While they may feel that they are doing “God’s will” I think they have just lost sight of the Jesus’ goal.
I don’t believe this issue should be one of “right” and “wrong,” it’s certainly not MY place to judge another’s morality. I’m getting married next weekend, and I do not think that the vows I make to my husband (to love, honor, cherish, til death to us part), would be any less powerful if he were a she. The point of “marriage” or “civil unions” is to make public a commitment that two people made to one another, and every couple should have the same rights and privledges here on Earth; because if they don’t, it’s a form of discrimination just as vile as racism. If someone is a true believer, then they know that the other matters will be settled later. If you not a believer, you have nothing to worry about. :)
April 13th, 2007 at 12:03 pmActually, I don’t think we disagree at all, except maybe in how big a bite we take in getting change to occur or the order of making those changes. -PLC
Heh, I can be a little impatient and idealistic. Thankfully, my husband thinks it is endearing. lol I am thrilled for CT today! Way to PROGRESS forward!
April 13th, 2007 at 12:03 pmPLC, thanks for the conversation. :)
I’m stating Jesus’ laws. Comment by Daryll — April 13, 2007 @ 11:18 am
You are NOT stating Jesus’ laws. Show me the verse where Jesus mentions homosexuality or homosexual behavior ONCE. You won’t because you CAN’T. Jesus never spoke on the subject. Don’t you think that if it was that important, he would’ve said something…anything about it?
Stop distorting and cherry picking Scripture to suit your own agenda.
April 13th, 2007 at 12:03 pmWhat’s so ironic is that marriage is an option, straight or gay, but the list of marriage material candidates are almost zero.
1. Right morals, wrong body.
2. Right body, wrong morals.
3. Right person, wrong politics.
4. Right person wrong religion.
5. Right person wrong hygiene.
6. Wrong person, right bank account.
7. Right person, wrong bank account.
8. Right person, wrong libido.
9. Wrong person, right libido.
10. Right person, wrong parents.
11. Wrong person, right parents.
12. Right person, wrong sleeping habits.
13. Wrong person, right sleeping habits.
14. Right person, wrong friends.
15. Wrong person, right friends.
16. Right person, wrong city–too far away
17. Wrong person, right city.
18. Right person, wrong sexual orientation.
19. Wrong person, right sexual orientation.
20. Wrong person, right THINK PROGRESS posting.
21. Right person, wrong conservative posting.
22. Right person, wrong living status–dead.
23. Wrong person, right living status–alive
Marriage is an accident waiting to happen.
John
April 13th, 2007 at 12:05 pmBluedahlia
And thank you for the conversation as well. We seemed to have smothered St. Daryll in doing so. Not a bad consequence!
Unless, St. Daryll shows up, my “preaching” here is done.
April 13th, 2007 at 12:10 pmJohn Gilpins
WOW! Maybe you need to try eharmony.com
April 13th, 2007 at 12:12 pmPatrioticLiberalChristian (PLC) sez:
Before I met my wife, I enrolled at eHarmony.com, and filledout their tortuous questionnaire…only to be told at the end that I fell into the 20% of candidates that they couldn’t work with. In short, according to eHarmony, I was unloveable :P
I’m just glad my wife didn’t consider the eHarmony indictment before she said yes. ^_^
April 13th, 2007 at 12:18 pmI’m just glad my wife didn’t consider the eHarmony indictment before she said yes. ^_^
Comment by TripMaster Monkey
Awwww, that’s so sweet! **sniff**
I need to fill out that questionnaire, I bet I’m a 20%er. It would explain a lot. Heh.
April 13th, 2007 at 12:30 pmTMM – Congrats!! I would have thought e-Harmony would have jumped at the chance to feature you on one of their commercials! You’re living proof that there is somebody out there for everybody!!! Lunch was celebratory – an acquittal will do that!!
Tooodles….
April 13th, 2007 at 1:56 pm“I need to fill out that questionnaire, I bet I’m a 20%er. It would explain a lot. Heh.” Comment by Zooey
No doubt.
April 13th, 2007 at 2:06 pmI strongly disagree. This still creates a two-class society with partnerships. Those who are religious and attend a church that will marry them, and those without faith or those living a lifestyle not compatible with their faith. Any way you slice it, going to the courthouse will not longer carry the same title as using a preist, and that’s just silly.
One title, marriage. That’s it. You get married. Gay or straight. When two consenting adults want to fuse their lives, you get married. No multiple classes. No exceptions!
April 13th, 2007 at 2:10 pmComment by valiant venus — April 13, 2007 @ 1:56 pm
Comment by valiant venus — April 13, 2007 @ 2:06 pm
VV’s pathetic little digs really speak volumes about her character. I’m secure enough not to care what eHarmony has to say about my worth as a human being (as I suspect Zooey is), but it seems VV can’t say the same…else she would not have considered her comments to be as cutting as she no doubt believes them to be.
VV, I’m sorry, but you simply do not rate high enough on my scale to be worthy of contempt, let alone ire. But you do have my pity.
April 13th, 2007 at 2:15 pmvaliant venus was acquitted! She must have been charged with being a compassionate conservative.
April 13th, 2007 at 2:15 pmHey, there’s hope! I met my beautiful, sweet, intelligent, and PROGRESSIVE wife on eharmony. :-)
April 13th, 2007 at 2:16 pm#82 – you miss the point when you say that limiting marriage to religious ceremonies will make a two-class society; that is just not true.
what it will make is a distinction b/w religious ceremonies and civil ceremonies. civil rights (taxes, visitation, inheritance, etc) will come from civilly ordained ceremonies; religious rights/beliefs etc will be confined to religiously ordained marriage ceremonies.
that is not two classes of society; that is merely a distinction between church and state. the fact is marriage has a religious connotation and to preserve any separation of church and state in our country and to promote equality on the ‘civil union’ front – whether gay or not – this distinction needs to be drawn. bottom line.
atheists and non-religious people don’t believe in the religious benefits that come with marrriage anyway – so it seems like a win-win situation for everyone. unless you now want to claim religious discrimination, which of course would just be asinine.
April 13th, 2007 at 2:34 pmAtheists are a minority. What happens when you give different titles/benefits (even if they are “separate but equal”) to minorities? It’s just not right.
Example.. What do you do when you have to honestly fill out forms? You’ll be given: Single, Married, Widowed, Divorced, Civil Unioned. And don’t think for a second that this type of information will not be used against somebody. It is this type of scenario that has led to filling out sex and race as being optional for certain things and also led to things like Equal Employment Opportunity and so on.
Marriage may have started as a religious union, but it is so much more than that now. Because of this, there is no problem of mixing “church and state.” You are not forced to get married and you are not forced to get married in a religious sense. By removing the possibility of the state from marrying you, you remove that right.
Plus, it is just SO much easier to define marraige as a union of two consenting adults than to create a new class of legal rights and removing “marriage” from the government vernacular.
April 13th, 2007 at 2:42 pm#78 Just want to let people know that Neal Clark Warren, the head man at eHarmony is a right-wing evangelical with close ties to Focus on the Family. He split with them awhile ago because money is more important than his faith.
April 13th, 2007 at 2:43 pmLunch was celebratory – an acquittal will do that!!
Comment by valiant venus
What were you charged with?
April 13th, 2007 at 3:05 pmTMM – Thank you! Not needing e-Harmony to find my soul-mate, it’s easy to forget how difficult it is to find quality people to date and marry……My kindest regards to Mrs. Monkey.
April 13th, 2007 at 4:02 pmTMM – Thank you! Not needing e-Harmony to find my soul-mate, it’s easy to forget how difficult it is to find quality people to date and marry……My kindest regards to Mrs. Monkey. Comment by valiant venus — April 13, 2007 @ 4:02 pm
Yeah, right. You’re a 23 year old single, bitter, sexually confused and lonely Anorexic from San Diego. You’re the poster child of difficult to date and meet quality people – which is why it’s so ON YOUR MIND. St*pid c*nt, do you really think people don’t know EXACTLY who you are?
April 13th, 2007 at 7:51 pmWow, right after the Easter Holiday. Per biblical scriptures, if Rep. Bye doesn’t change her ways, she could look forward to hell. How can you libs support something like this?
Comment by Daryll — April 13, 2007 @ 11:05 am
I thought you believed that only God had the right to judge. WHERE was that verse that said judge not, lest ye be judged? I guess what you think Jesus said (he said nada about homosexuality) is divinely sanctioned while what he said according to the Gospels is just liberal bias at work…eh?
April 13th, 2007 at 9:33 pmhttp://www.familyresearchinst.org/
April 13th, 2007 at 10:06 pmThe bible says not to condemn.
It also says that love must be sincere, how can you truly show you love someone by not showing them the error of their ways? The Bible says to show your brother what it right and what is wrong, but to publically condemn someone, that is pretty much blasphemy since only God knows someones heart.
April 13th, 2007 at 10:09 pm#93 Why Phil? Do I really need to read anything by those pathetic, weak-kneed, closet cases?
April 13th, 2007 at 10:36 pmIt also says that love must be sincere, how can you truly show you love someone by not showing them the error of their ways?
Comment by Phil
Wow, Phil. I’d be interested to know how that’s working for you.
It’s a good thing we’re not dating or married, because your balls would be lodged in your body cavity.
April 14th, 2007 at 12:06 amAnyone , whether homophobe, religious fanatic, or just your run-of-the-mill nutcake, whose marriage is threatened by same sex marriage really doesn’t have much of a marriage. Anyone who suggests that same sex marriage is a threat to the “sacred institution” of marriage is irrational and belongs in an institution .
April 14th, 2007 at 12:29 amEach time I see this Daryll guy posting his weird stuff, all I can think of is Lisa Simpson heckling Daryll Strawberry in the classic softball episode.
April 14th, 2007 at 1:42 pmWith opponents like these, how could marriage equality lose in Connecticut?
April 15th, 2007 at 1:01 pmDaryll makes an interesting point, but his logic is flawed. (Who’s surprised?)
If you put all the straight men on one island and all the straight women on another island, they’ll die-off just as fast as gay men & gay women being secluded on separate islands.
The fact of the matter is that the majority of gay people come from heterosexual couplings. The majority of gay people that have children find that their children turn out to be straight.
April 16th, 2007 at 9:33 amhttp://connecticutblog.blogspot.com/2007/04/judiciary-committee-approve-same-sex.html
April 24th, 2007 at 5:52 pmhttp://www.familyresearchinst.org/
April 24th, 2007 at 5:53 pmSex Gay Sex Anime Sex
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 17th, 2008 at 1:53 amYoung Girls Young Girl Models Young Puffy Nipple
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 17th, 2008 at 6:24 pmGay Incest Gay Cumshots Gay Jock
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 19th, 2008 at 12:53 am