Gay Charleston

Anonymous is this sense is really a cliche' word for coward. The person/people behind this billboard must be afraid of having an intelligent discussion about their views and would rather hide behind the shadow of anonymity. Part of me is really angry by some of the things on this web page but the other part of me feels really sorry for anyone who is ignorant enough to actually believe any of it.

I bet they believe in Santa Claus, too

Mark, are you kidding? Santa Claus is the devil. He's not "biblical". ; ) My fundie ex-neighbor's 4 year-old told my kid there was no Santa. (Thanks for nuthin'.) No tricks or treats either for these Talibanistas. How do you spell "intolerance"?

I think they left out the word "bigoted" before the word heterosexual.

I am glad they put this up...it means that the only argument to prevent gay rights is religious based. And as my eighth grade civics class tells me: The Constitution reads there is a separation of church and state. Though it restricts congresses power to prevent religious congregation, I believe it works both ways and prevents religion from influencing the making of laws. I know whoever put this up probably didn't make it to the eighth grade but that just makes our fight for equality that much easier...Thanks!

"I will try to wrap-up their pitch (as subjectively as possible) so that you don't have to click over and give them traffic."

If their bullet-points are absurd as written, then why be subjective? Objectivity would yield the same effect, without the risk of "dud" jokes. Your writing actually encourages visiting their site to see what was actually their writing and what was editorialized. I'm actually interested in what wording they used to talk about hate crimes.

Just for you, however, I'll resist the temptation by watching a Justin Timberlake video.

If your eighth grade civics class taught you that, then you must have been educated in a government school. Nowhere in the constitution does the phrase "separation of church and state" appear. But that's another debate altogether.

I would personally rather the government stop using the word "marriage" at all and just recognize civil unions, rather than recognize gay marriage. My reason is that most Christians seem to think that when the government says something is okay, they go along with it (as in no-fault divorce).

Now why can't we all get along and love eachother? I saw the bilboard today and thought about putting up my own. This is what it will say, "Who cares..." We are all human after everything is said and done. I bleed, homosexuals bleed, chistians bleed and buddhist bleed. Everyone leaves out the buddhists. Now lets be nice and apologize.

I am sorry that hearing both sides of an argument bothers you. I am a straight male constantly bombarded with the gay rights side of the argument, Billboards, radio ad's, Bill Maher, and now a journalists working for a pretend paper with their panties in a bunch. Why shouldn't the other side have the right to share their argument as well?

Luckily I have the ability to admit when I am wrong. I am straight, Christian and Republican and I have no problem with Gays or gay rights. However after visiting the website and reading what they wrote I can do nothing but shake my head and apologize. There were several ignorant comments and almost no biblical references to back up any statements. Some to the point that even offended me.. Lets start with the word "peculiar". So again I apologize for this person's ignorance. Banter on Greg, banter on!

I oppose homosexuality. 1. physically 2. socially and 3. reproductively.

1. physically - man and woman are meant for each other. if one takes the time to look at the female and male bodies, one discovers where one is strong the other is weak and vice versa. The female reproductive organs are designed to accept male reproductive organs and vice versa. that is simple human design.

2. Socially- A society must have the female and male input. A male can not think like a female and a female can not think like a male. that is hard wired into us from birth. to approximate that other thought pattern is to attempt to replicate a tree from scratch.

3. Reproductively - if any one in this blog can scientifically prove that two men "had sex", that "sex" brought forth a living thing, that one male carried that new being in the anus, and nine months later gave birth to that being I will retract this statement. the same goes to two females who "have had sex" , without any [and I mean with out any outside interference (turkey baster with sperm, medical interference etc...), one female became pregnant, carried baby to full term, and gave birth to said child, I will retract this statement.

I have not seen this board and will make it a point to see it. if said board does indeed suggest, encourage, and or push for violence against this oxymoronic relationship, then I will be the first to champion it's immediate removal and the persons charge for conspiracy to advance violence against others.
As for the God issue, I have found that many in this blog hold fast to the mythical separation of church and state. if you take time to read our founding fathers you would discover that they did not want the state to become the church and the church to become the state. they wanted Judeo-Christian values to guide this nation. In fact, they wrote volumes on this issue. take the time to do so and you will discover that point. They said, "We have a great Nation and through God's guidance it will remain so."
You may notice that Iran's top leader is a Muslim Cleric. If a Christian cleric, priest, or other were the top leader of this nation and wielded the power that the Mullah does, you would see the aclu and other agencies immediately remove him under teh "separation of church and state". This Nation was born with the guidance of God and Judeo-Christian values guiding it [not becoming the state absolutely (you may notice that in many Islamic nations any other religion other then Islam is not only forbidden it is a felony (subject to death or imprisonment. Not only that, but any mention of any code other then Sharia law is a felony)
The good thing about Judeo Christian philosophy is that one can believe any thing they want and (a Christian will accept that belief and continue [without any violence against that particular belief]) I will say that many have taken the military approach and forced belief. they have violated the original judeo-christian belief and tainted it. they were not only wrong, they abandoned the true Judeo Christian belief Jesus established.
Again I state. If that sign in any manner, way, shape and or form suggests, encourages, and or establishes violence against any person practicing this oxymoronic practice, I will be the first to champion it's removal and the charging of the person for conspiracy to commit violence against another human being.

It is called freedom of speech and none of us have a right to judge.

Although the sign itself does not suggest violence, I would argue that the website is no less hypocritical than any other fundamentalist rant - Christian, Muslim, whatever - that ultimately leads to discrimination and sometimes violence. If taken literally, as the website suggests in many ways, the following scripture (when taken out of context) directly condones violent behavior:  

“Jesus said to his disciples: ‘Things that cause people to sin are bound to come, but woe to that person through whom they come.  It would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around his neck than for him to cause one of these little ones to sin.’”  Luke 17:1-2 (NIV)

Let's face reality - throughout history the first ammendment to the constitution has been used in many State and Federal supreme court rulings as a means of settling "separation of church and state" cases.     In fact, that very phrase has been used in several of them as a reference to the constitution. But you are correct, it is probably true that the original text was written in the context of preserving the individual rights to freedom of religion. However, I am inclined to believe - based on the fact that the original passage was written by those who's spirituality is still questionable to prevent discrimination against minority religous beliefs other than their own- that the authors would be pleased to know that we have adapted its meaning to aid the quest of furthering the fight for freedom and equal rights. In fact, Thomas Jefferson - one of the two primary advocates for this text - clearly demonstrated that this document should be used as a tool to aid in decision making at a state level when he advocated against a Professor of Divinity position while founding The University of Virginia because it was a state supported school. 

Whatever your view on separation of church & state, it is moot when it comes to the topic at hand. Either you will use this website's hypocritical & out of context references as a means for reassuring your own insecurities with yourself, or you will see it as simply a tool for doing exactly that for individuals that would rather not face reality, but choose to cling to the hypothetical as absolute truth in an effort to resist change. To those people that believe this unethical ranting, I truly hope that on day you come to grips with the fact that change itself is truly the only thing that we can really count on in this world. It has always been & always will be. The sooner you accept it & learn to use it to your advantage, the sooner your insecurities will evaporate.      

''OUTRAGE' Opens Friday @ Terrace,James Island for 5 days only ! Times -2 pm--7pm &8:50 pm

Wow, what year is it? Oh that's right 2009. All those that oppose gay marriage/rights ask yourself this "Does the relationship between a man and a man or a woman and woman affect YOUR life in any way?" I'm pretty sure it doesn't. Stop being so concerned with the way other people live their life and worry about your own.

"2. Socially- A society must have the female and male input. A male can not think like a female and a female can not think like a male. that is hard wired into us from birth. to approximate that other thought pattern is to attempt to replicate a tree from scratch."

Heehee. Bad case of typing diarrhea or are you just this silly a person all the time? Who says homosexuals think like the opposite sex? I doubt you know anything about the "hardwiring" of the human mind, but I do, so lets just leave it at: you missed any kind of point by a mile. Whoosh!

"physically - man and woman are meant for each other. if one takes the time to look at the female and male bodies, one discovers where one is strong the other is weak and vice versa. The female reproductive organs are designed to accept male reproductive organs and vice versa. that is simple human design."

I also see that you are sexist, carry on then.

'I oppose homosexuality. 1. physically 2. socially and 3. reproductively."

You could have just wrote "I think homosexuality is icky" and saved me the time it took to read your comment; also, it would have been just as convincing an argument as anything else you typed.

Amen, Lyn. Amen!

Please stop embarrassing yourselves. We are all now significantly dumber for having read your posts (both sides).

markalex posted, "It is called freedom of speech and none of us have a right to judge".
It is freedom of speech but we do have the right to judge. You put yourself out there, willingly, and what you say is open to any criticism, also freedom of speech.

When we argue for rights for a particular group, we are engaging in discrimination. This is because if we are successful, then we will be placing the rights of that particular group over the rights of all others. Meaning that Gay people, or Black people, or women, or disabled people would get something at the expense of another. Gay people don't deserve to have rights because they are gay. They deserve to have rights because they are human. If we all pushed for greater individual rights and smaller government, we would all triumph and enjoy greater freedom.

Additionally, why are we fussing about a billboard? Freedom of speech doesn't mean that everyone has to agree with you. Your argument is hypocritical. They don't have the right to speak up against something they find offensive, but you do? I support their right find homosexuality offensive, I support your right to find their billboard offensive and I don't want either to go away.

I have no comment.

The Constitution says that the federal government shall "make no law respecting an establishment of religion".
The "no establishment" clause separates the institutions of church and state by prohibiting any government action that has the primary effect of advancing or inhibiting religion. Thus, gay marriage is argued against according to religious conviction, not federal or civil prudence. Don't believe in being gay, then don't be gay.

As for Kawika's comment:
1. physically, as you put it, does not in any way pertain to a person's ability to reason. To suggest that people have limitations on their rationality based upon their genitalia is absurd.

2. socially, ability of humans to reason, once again, does not depend upon their genitalia. There is a lot of irony in your statement as it suggests that our thought processes are hard-wired due to our gender. Actually, our thought processes are hard-wired due to how we are SOCIALIZED according to our gender.

3. reproductively, we are not arguing about the common sense of whether or not woman with woman can breed and/or man with man can breed. We are arguing for rights that treat everyone equally without having to resort to sexual orientation. Men and women can marry, have children and carry on their lives in every possible way without having to go around justifying their heterosexuality. A gay person shouldn't have to describe and/or qualify themselves based on whom they have sex with. Sex is not always reproduction. Sex is also based on pleasure and bonding. Even animals engage in homosexual activities in the pursuit of pleasure. There are several other cultures on this planet that consider homosexuality to be normal and sometimes even revered. That it is not so in this country is proof of social/religious indoctrination. In other words, homosexuality is natural; rejection of it is socialized.

In the immortal words of Dorothy Parker, "Heterosexuality is not normal, it's just common."

How does one "oppose" homosexuality "reproductively"? I believe you should then act on what I'm guessing is your poorly-articulated belief and thus refrain from homosexual reproduction!

Oh, and I forgot to add... if sex is purely for reproductive purposes then all marriages that do not produce progeny would have to be annulled under Kawika's definitions. Also, people who have sex for pleasure should be put in jail as well... this would include Mark Sanford.