Calif. Conservatives 'Disappointed' with New Harvey Milk Day

Gnosticgirl »

Thu Oct 15, 2009 10:49 am Agree: 20   Disagree: 14

Believer: I think it comes from all Milk did for the community - not just the gay community but all of those in and surrounding the gay community. He stood up for a lot of people who were being persecuted. I don't see what the big deal is in honoring someone who did good work and is such a big influence on a particular group of people. We should recognize more people willing to do great things in our nation. Recognizing and supporting the positive leaders in our world would do a lot for moving it in a more peaceful direction.

Calif. Conservatives 'Disappointed' with New Harvey Milk Day

Gnosticgirl »

Thu Oct 15, 2009 10:43 am Agree: 4   Disagree: 0

Believer - all is well. I just needed some time away to get perspective and chill. :) I hope all is well with you too. Everyone here was in my thoughts and prayers.

Has Obama Ushered in a New Era for LGBT Rights?

Gnosticgirl »

Tue Oct 13, 2009 4:07 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

This is all the time I have today. Blessings to everyone. :)

Has Obama Ushered in a New Era for LGBT Rights?

Gnosticgirl »

Tue Oct 13, 2009 4:01 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

"...however by voting for or acknowledging gay marriage would be in essence saying that I accept and agree with it..."

Again I understand your fear, however, there are plenty of laws and reforms which get voted in or put into place which I also don't agree with and probably things you don't as well, but that is kind of the way it goes. Just because the laws are there doesn't mean I have to accept or agree - I do have to respect them and respecting is different from acceptance and agreement.

I am sure many people didn't accept or agree with women getting the right to vote, so those opposing had to respect the law should they ever be placed in a position to prevent women from voting. But in this case, no one is going to force you to accept the marriage of two same gendered people. No one is going to force you to agree. Your church will not be forced to acknowledge it. This is a civil matter and only a civil matter. You probably won't even know when most of them get married or go about their lives, you probably don't even know now. So really, it is just a matter of them being able to partake of the legal commitments, responsibilities, and benefits of civil marriage. It is between them and them alone. It does not effect anyone outside of their relationship - just like your marriage (if you are married). When you got married, I didn't know. Heck, I wasn't even invited! And my life has gone on as it would have - I none the wiser of your life choices and you none the wiser or affected by mine. :)

Has Obama Ushered in a New Era for LGBT Rights?

Gnosticgirl »

Tue Oct 13, 2009 3:27 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Slacker - that is where we have a difference of opinion. You see it as special rights, I see it as participating in the already established legal set of rights called civil marriage. Marriage does not change because two people who are the same gender get married, in reality, the definition of marriage remains the same [two or more things forming a union - people, ideas, corporations..etc.].

Special would imply, not equal, and there is nothing this set of citizens is asking for which are different/ special from other sets of citizens.

Has Obama Ushered in a New Era for LGBT Rights?

Gnosticgirl »

Tue Oct 13, 2009 3:21 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

HM! Thanks for the hugs. I have had to take a serious break from sites like this one. Instead I have been working my own blog. :) I will be here off and on. Hugs back atcha!

Has Obama Ushered in a New Era for LGBT Rights?

Gnosticgirl »

Tue Oct 13, 2009 2:24 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

Slacker - and I understand that is what you profess to be true, and believe to be true with all of your heart. I respect that, but others do not agree with you and follow what they believe to be true and believe with all of their hearts. In a civil society and the kind of nation we have, there are many people of varying beliefs and creeds. Should we not have laws which protect them all equally?

Has Obama Ushered in a New Era for LGBT Rights?

Gnosticgirl »

Tue Oct 13, 2009 2:20 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Slacker - but there are some religions that disagree. So why should they follow your definition? Why should other religions not have religious liberty as well?

Calif. Conservatives 'Disappointed' with New Harvey Milk Day

Gnosticgirl »

Tue Oct 13, 2009 1:54 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 1

"...tragic news for California families..." Which families?

Has Obama Ushered in a New Era for LGBT Rights?

Gnosticgirl »

Tue Oct 13, 2009 1:23 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 1

Two Questions to ponder: what is "all of this will be forced on the American people" mean?

And second, what does religious liberty mean?

Okla. Judge Rules Against Abortion Law Requiring Ultrasound

Gnosticgirl »

Fri Aug 21, 2009 10:26 am Agree: 4   Disagree: 0

HM - I am not entirely sure why someone flagged your kind post to me. Thanks for the hugs.

Amaranth - thank you as well for your kind words.

Okla. Judge Rules Against Abortion Law Requiring Ultrasound

Gnosticgirl »

Thu Aug 20, 2009 2:34 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

I fully support adoption, wish it was more readily available and not as expensive on both sides of the adoption table. I do so because I was adopted. If it hadn't have been for my birth mother having the courage to do so, my life would have been much much more difficult and maybe no so healthy as well. Unfortunately, then as may be the case now, support for after the adoption was non-existent. She struggled with depression and anxiety. She passed a few years ago.

Okla. Judge Rules Against Abortion Law Requiring Ultrasound

Gnosticgirl »

Thu Aug 20, 2009 12:07 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

Everyone should be properly informed BEFORE they make a decision in their care.

Even though I have mixed feelings on abortion legislation, I do not advocate abortion and I think if more people were educated / informed it wouldn't matter what the law said, more people would seek out adoption as the preferred method of negating responsibility of parenthood.

Lutherans Brace for Policy-Setting Sexuality Debates

Gnosticgirl »

Wed Aug 19, 2009 5:01 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

Actually, you are forcing others. You are forcing us to call you "married".

Prophet no one is saying you have to call a gay married couple married. But gays want the government to see them as legally married civilly. It is different. I don't think they care what you call them.

Lutherans Brace for Policy-Setting Sexuality Debates

Gnosticgirl »

Wed Aug 19, 2009 4:58 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

Slacker "Ok since i can vote how I like, why is there an argument... Voting for an amendment that defines marriage as between 1 man and 1 women is how i like to vote then why do you consider it legislating a religious belief, as has been stated before marriage isn't religious..."

And yet, if marriage isn't religious what is the problem with two adult citizens obtaining a marriage incense? The arguments eventually fall to the bible - which is one religious view. One man and one woman is almost always argued from a religious stance - not a civil stance.

Some people can't separate civil from religious belief. But what if Hindus or Muslims or any other religious group became the majority and started to create amendments to the constitution that reflected their beliefs only. That is why we have to see each other as citizens and what rights a citizen should be entitled to.

Denying gay marriage is a civil issue it should be approached from civil mind and with respect to the many various religious and non-religious beliefs in this nation.

Obama Administration Makes Clear Its Commitment to Repeal DOMA

Gnosticgirl »

Wed Aug 19, 2009 4:47 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

mathetes - just a quick hello. You have been in my prayers.

Peace be with you!

Lutherans Brace for Policy-Setting Sexuality Debates

Gnosticgirl »

Wed Aug 19, 2009 3:12 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

DP - not when the adding a group to be able to participate in a civil action has nothing to do with you. It prevents you from nothing. It compels you to no action. It does not ask you to participate in any ceremony. Adding same sex to the list of those who can legally marry, will NOT harm you or anyone you know, nor will it compel those who do not want to acknowledge it to do so. It will do absolutely no more than the married hetero couple's marriage compels any other person to do or not do something.

Preventing gays from marrying does however, compel them legally and civilly to abide by your religious beliefs. That is not right.

Lutherans Brace for Policy-Setting Sexuality Debates

Gnosticgirl »

Wed Aug 19, 2009 3:06 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

and let me repost: "We are not a country of mob rule."

Absolutely Correct. We are also a nation of many, and one religious rule should not be legislated. Because it sets a precedent. If say, Hindu beliefs became the majority, would it be right for Hindus to legislate their beliefs? or Muslims? Or Pagans? or god forbid... Gnostics?!

No - no matter what the religious majority is, it should not be allowed to mob rule or rule tyrannically over a minority of any kind.

Lutherans Brace for Policy-Setting Sexuality Debates

Gnosticgirl »

Wed Aug 19, 2009 3:04 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

Co-dependent people only want to do the same (it's called "enabling"). Is that healthy?

Are you serious? Now you are calling committed gay couples co-dependent? I am not even sure I can justify this with any kind of an answer.

You can vote how you like, but I think it is wrong to legislate one religious belief into law. Period.

Lutherans Brace for Policy-Setting Sexuality Debates

Gnosticgirl »

Wed Aug 19, 2009 2:54 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

DP - who is asking you to be gay? or be involved in a marriage with someone of the same gender?

Prophet - How is anyone forcing you to accept anything? A gay person only wants to be able to provide for, protect and maintain the family they have chosen. They don't need your approval any more than you need theirs. What they do need is a Civil marriage license so that they can have protections afforded couples by the US government (not US church, or congregation of xyz)