NOM March for Straight Marriage

[FloraKitty35]

http://www.advocate.com/politics/marria ... t-marriage

Starring Huckabee and "Frothy" Santorum (among other wingnuts). Smuggar is going to tweet about this.

[Coco]

Nike! The defrauding hot bod of the guy in the Gillette video commercial :lol:

But seriously, it's going to be interesting to see these conservative politicians flip-flop on the issue when it's legal. How are they going to keep votes unless they change their tune?

I bet their stance starts looking a lot like this article:

Christianity's New Look On Gays by Kirsten Powers June 3, 2014 usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/06/03/christianity-catholic-church-gay-homosexuals-column/9926489/

Could there be a future where most American Christians support same-sex relationships? If so, it will be due to the emergence of conservative Christians who say orthodox believers can support life-long, monogamous gay relationships without undermining their commitment to biblical authority.

New Testament scholar James Brownson, who wrote the 2013 book Bible, Gender, Sexuality, concurs. He told me, "Male-male sex in the ancient world was episodic. It was mainly young boys with older men or male slaves and masters. It was not mutual. These were not relationships, they were not marriage and they were not meant to turn into marriage." Brownson said to compare what ancient writers viewed as heterosexual "sexual excess" — akin to gluttony — with the modern concept of sexual orientation is misguided.

This is not a matter of molding biblical teaching to satisfy a personal belief. Both Vines and Brownson hold a "high view" of Scripture, meaning it is the final authority on all matters of faith and life. They oppose unbiblical divorce and premarital sex, for example. But Brownson says, "The issue of sexual orientation represents new data that the church needs to ask itself, 'Should this change the way we look at this?'"

The church has done this before on issues ranging from slavery to the solar system.

Vines writes, "Christians did not change their minds about (the sun revolving around the Earth) because they lost respect for … the authority of Scripture. They changed their minds because they were confronted with evidence their predecessors had never considered."

GOP Candidates Slow To Embrace Marriage Equality, Despite Growing Support From Base by Amanda Terkel March 31, 2014 huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/31/gop-gay_n_5049017.html

And the religious right isn't planning to go away. The latest tactic has been on the "religious freedom" front, which would allow businesses to deny service to gays and lesbians.

It'll just be interesting to see them all eat crow. Freedom allows for personal choice or it isn't true freedom. I can't demand someone else give me my rights without giving them their rights as well.

[Coco]

"If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual [gay] sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything," Santorum told the Associated Press two weeks ago. "All of those things are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family. And that's sort of where we are in today's world, unfortunately. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist, in my opinion, in the United States Constitution."

advocate.com/news/2003/04/24/no-apology-expected-santorum-8427

No, Rick. Laws like that exist to protect the innocent and the underage. Giving someone personal rights as an adult does not say that they can run roughshod over the rights of another. Just as battered spouses in legal marriages can seek help when someone violates their rights or hurts them even if they are legally married, so the law will always (ideally) be on the side of the injured no matter what. That's why we have to make sure that people who respect the rights of others and protect the powerless and innocent are put into office. That right to privacy is only valid if the innocent or powerless are not hurt.

[peacelovecoffee]

Oh god this sounds like such a borefest.

ETA: I think I may submit the name borefest for PRIDE! next year.

[Peas n carrots]

What will their flag look like? Black and white stripes?

[Coco]

What will their flag look like? Black and white stripes?

Stark black and white thinking? No rainbows around here, folks!

with gender symbols behind them like a prison? :lol:

yer locked in!

[Coco]

(sorry i should have made it clear that that would be the NOM people saying that!) :lol:

[uber frau]

It isn't a march to support straight marriage. Straight marriage isn't in any need of support.

Let's call this march what it is.

That article: WTF?

Since when was supporting same sex marriage vs supporting hetero marriage a zero sum game?

What exactly is it that they think hetero marriage is if they feel it is so threatened by the fact that gay couples might want the right to get married too?

It reminds me of my toddler when he doesn't want to share. It's not that letting the other kid having the pencil/scooter/whatever will affect him in any way, it's just that he doesn't want him to have it. Except that my toddler is two, these are grown adults we're talking about.

[docmom]

I support gay marriage and yet my own straight marriage is fine-going on 15 years now. What am I doing wrong?

[RosyDaisy]

These idiots don't seem to understand that marriage is a civil right not just a religious one. If it were a religious right, then why do couples need a marriage license? For civil reasons, that's why. There is not one single religious reason why couples need a marriage license. Therefore denying gay couples the right to marry is a violation of civil rights.

[Chowder Head]

These idiots don't seem to understand that marriage is a civil right not just a religious one. If it were a religious right, then why do couples need a marriage license? For civil reasons, that's why. There is not one single religious reason why couples need a marriage license. Therefore denying gay couples the right to marry is a violation of civil rights.

But logic is not their strong suit and lets be honest a lot of these people probably don't believe in civil rights in the first place.