Yes... Fred Phelps is about as vile of an excuse for a human being as you can find.

It was actually asses like him that got me involved in secular activism.  I cannot fathom why anyone would be filled with so much hatred based upon what consenting adults choose to do with their genitals.

I try to be as vocal as possible on the subject.  I find that many other straight people are afraid to stand up for gay rights for fear of being "accused" of being gay.  It reminds me of the good old days of the witch trials... nobody would stand up for those being tried for fear of being branded witches themselves.

I think it is the obligation of every decent person to take a stand for the dignity of all people.

I'll have to check out the videos later but the whole gay marriage issues is really what got me interested in activism.  I find it insulting and unconstitutional that a group of people can push their religious values on another group of people.  They don't even see their own prejudices.

Very true.  As far as the government is concerned, marriage is a civil contract between two people.  There is no reason two adults should not be allowed to enter into such a contract.

Any of the moral or ethical issues raised by same sex marriage should be a matter of concern ONLY to the church.  If churches choose not to perform or recognize gay marriages, so be it.  They should not, however, be allowed to dictate civil law.

Last year I went to a party to help raise funds to campaign against Rick Santorum. There were several gay activists there, and they actually liked what Phelps does.

It actually makes a lot of sense... a lot of moderate christians who are unsure about their views on homosexuality see what Phelps is doing and ask themselves if that's who they want to be. The answer is almost always "NO!!!!!!!"

Phelps has elevated himself to a cartoonish level. The only people who take him seriously anymore are his own family.

The people you should be worried about are groups like the American Family Association. They hide their bigotry behind the cloak of "family values". Far more people take them seriously.

Maybe we'll all get lucky and they'll kill themselves in religious fervour.

Philadelphians Against Santurom had a Santorum impersonator contest shortly before he got his ass handed to him in the election last year.  I loved the line one of the guys came up with...

"If we allow one man to marry another man, then we must also allow a dog to marry a rock!"

It was a parody of Santorum's comments SUPPORTING anti-sodomy laws.  He claimed that if sodomy is legal, then we must also legalize incest and bestiality... as if there is no distinction between the former and the latter.

Hehe... yes. He actually did a lot of fundraising for the group.

For the benefit of those who don't know what he's talking about, Dan Savage held a contest to create the most vile definition for "Santorum".  The winner was...

... the frothy mixture of anal lube and fecal matter that is often the result of anal sex.

Classic!

I hate people. -_-

Please, someone help me understand this. In the United States, we have this thing in the Bill of Rights that is supposed to not allow Congress to make any law that supports or establishes any religion. This is supposed to be interpreted as a "wall of separation," according to Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Church in 1802, whence the phrase comes from. In addition, we have laws against discrimination.

So, if any church, anywhere in the United States of America, wanted to marry two men, two women (or two men and a woman, two woman and a man, two men and two women, etc), then any action by Congress against this would be an establishment of one group of religious people over another--which is essentially an establishment of religion, right?

So, all it would take is for a Unitarian Church (for example; it could be any religious group) to announce that they would start marrying any couple who wanted to marry, and if the government tried to say that they could not, then the church could sue for discrimmination of their religious beliefs.

If marriage is a religious rite (as many people claim), then a church which will allow gays to marry should be able to do so, because government cannot support one religious view over another without acting as an establishment of said religious belief (and thus the religion said belief is based upon). If marriage is civil, then the beliefs of some religious people should not even be legitimately considered as relevant in terms of what rights couples have. Thus, New jersey recently made civil unions legal, which is good. Thus, in New Jersey if a church, syagogue, temple, etc wanted to marry two men, then how can the state prevent this?

What I don't understand is how, legally, the state (especially New Jersey, at the moment) or the Federal government can disallow gay marriage at all.

Shaun

By the way, i've said this before just not here. One thing I like about people like Fred Phelps is they make Atheism look so good!

I did law for two years at school , the law actaul does state a condtion of marrige is the unioun between a man and a woman.

Dabura13

i did a persasive oral on same sex marrgie, since your an activist i would really like to hear your opinion on it http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.ListAll&friendID=73591395

sorry i should of been more clear , i was talking about Australias laws.

It hasnt been narrowed down , it always been stated that the condtions of marrige inclued that it is a unioun between a man and a woman.

ther problem with Australias laws are that same sex marrige isnt really illegal by defination, thier is no law that forbids it, thier are just no laws that validate it, so even if a couple were to find someone to marry them , thier marrige is non existant and is not recognised.

If it were to be illegal , activists would be able to claim the whole were being discriminated against. 

I take it you can't turn the other cheek 

I'm a little hazy on exactly what the american laws are for gay marriage, but I know you can't get 'married' in a traditional sense.  There are certain protections and rights that a civil union would provide a couple, but civil unions aren't recognized in every state.  Again, I could be wrong and freely admit so, I haven't really looked into it in some time.  From a legal standpoint, homosexual couples can't receive certain things if their partner passes away like a federal pension, for example.  I know companies are now offering benefits to both unmarried hetero and homosexual couples, but I don't believe many are doing that. 

In my opinion, I believe that there is absolutely no reason why a gay couple should not be afforded the same status or rights as a heterosexual couple.  The only reason it is an issue is because of religious stigmas and I find that a violation of the separation of church and state as well as a violation of human rights.  I know we're not supposed to post from the heart on these forums but I just did, so there!  I suck at debating anyway.  I am trying to get better. 

no i kinda cant religion uses fear 2 force me 2 belive

i aplogize for saying that

As a bird of a feather I have to tell you I find that in the GLBT community the entire problem is that they are always REACTING instead of being PROACTIVE. What the hell are we going to accomplish doing nothing but defending ourselves all the damned time? I keep saying that we just need to address the issue of religion being a safety nest for protecting hate speech. If you don't have a religion and say it you're evil but if you do you're a beloved follower. Until that issue is addressed, we're going to see it occurring for the rest of our natural lives!

I think one of the biggest things that people fail to realize is where "marriage licenses" in America came from. They don't exist b/c of Christians, they exist because the government wanted to keep blacks and whites from marrying and Christians had a royal fit about it. They didn't want marriage to become a state institution. Now I find it is ironic that they think they OWN it when it's something they didn't and shouldn't want to have anything to DO with. (After all, they're marrying both the STATE and their PARTNER so essentially, it's *gasp* adultery!) The fact of the matter is that marriage licenses don't belong to Christians. Period.

Here in Indiana they have been trying some outlandish laws. Procreation laws (only straight, married and religious people can use sperm donors and doctors and patients who use it illegally could have their child taken and both the dr. and patient imprissoned), adoption laws (gays are equated to murderers), employment laws...you name it. But you've got the same people saying "the government should just stay out of people's lives!" actually voting for the very people who create these laws...and it's because it DOES NOT AFFECT THEM! People could really care less if it doesn't affect them.

And you're right, I've never found a more open minded and completely comfortable and honest group of people than I have in other  atheists. I'm more comfortable around these people than other gay people!!! (Of course, many gay people are not very apt to leaving behind their religion, either)

  I'm more comfortable around these people than other gay people!!! (Of course, many gay people are not very apt to leaving behind their religion, either)