http://www.charlestoncitypaper.com/GayCharleston/archives/2009/06/17/anti-gay-billboard-up-on-i-26 Comments On: Anti-Gay Billboard Up on I-26 by Greg Hambrick en-us Copyright 2009 Charleston City Paper. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, Charleston City Paper readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact Charleston City Paper. jcurry@charlestoncitypaper.com (Charleston City Paper Webmaster) Fri, 20 Nov 2009 00:00:01 -0500 Fri, 20 Nov 2009 22:00:00 -0500 Foundation http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss Posted by HeyJudi]]> Wed, 15 Jul 2009 22:59:13 -0400 Charleston City Paper Posted by Sophia]]> Wed, 15 Jul 2009 17:44:46 -0400 Charleston City Paper 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."
Posted by HeyJudi]]> Wed, 15 Jul 2009 17:08:23 -0400 Charleston City Paper Posted by Tito Francona]]> Wed, 08 Jul 2009 13:46:31 -0400 Charleston City Paper
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.

Posted by annarlutz]]> Tue, 07 Jul 2009 11:53:45 -0400 Charleston City Paper 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.

Posted by pyises]]> Sun, 28 Jun 2009 10:09:24 -0400 Charleston City Paper Posted by BK]]> Fri, 26 Jun 2009 12:48:25 -0400 Charleston City Paper Posted by heroplus98]]> Fri, 26 Jun 2009 11:03:54 -0400 Charleston City Paper
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.
Posted by Lyn]]> Wed, 24 Jun 2009 19:09:48 -0400 Charleston City Paper Posted by MAC]]> Wed, 24 Jun 2009 14:09:16 -0400 Charleston City Paper Posted by TERRACE THEATER]]> Mon, 22 Jun 2009 11:40:20 -0400 Charleston City Paper
“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.      
Posted by WDChs]]> Sun, 21 Jun 2009 17:52:17 -0400 Charleston City Paper Posted by markalex]]> Sun, 21 Jun 2009 13:19:18 -0400 Charleston City Paper
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.
Posted by Kawika911]]> Sun, 21 Jun 2009 13:16:04 -0400 Charleston City Paper Posted by BT]]> Fri, 19 Jun 2009 10:26:05 -0400 Charleston City Paper Posted by Greg Hambrick]]> Fri, 19 Jun 2009 09:22:09 -0400 Charleston City Paper Posted by BT]]> Fri, 19 Jun 2009 08:51:01 -0400 Charleston City Paper Posted by nanners]]> Thu, 18 Jun 2009 17:13:00 -0400 Charleston City Paper Posted by Greg Hambrick]]> Thu, 18 Jun 2009 15:36:32 -0400 Charleston City Paper
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).
Posted by Jason Usry]]> Thu, 18 Jun 2009 15:05:04 -0400 Charleston City Paper
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.
Posted by factoryconnection]]> Thu, 18 Jun 2009 11:09:51 -0400 Charleston City Paper Posted by vjd]]> Thu, 18 Jun 2009 10:57:05 -0400 Charleston City Paper Posted by hiltina]]> Thu, 18 Jun 2009 08:54:15 -0400 Charleston City Paper Posted by BB]]> Thu, 18 Jun 2009 01:53:42 -0400 Charleston City Paper Posted by localyokel]]> Wed, 17 Jun 2009 21:23:45 -0400 Charleston City Paper