Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Kazan on February 24, 2004, 11:40:54 am
-
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/24/elec04.prez.bush.marriage/index.html
Fortunately it will NOT get a 66% supermajority in the house and then the senate
Then there isn't a snowball's chance in hell that it'll get a 75% (38) state supermajority
Mr [un]President should be impeached and removed from office for even suggesting such a propsertous violation of human rights. I am ashamed to call myself an american today, If this passes either the house or senate I will seriously start contemplating moving out of the united states.
-
What can I say, someone must have voted him in to power - the rest of the world knows he's a tit. It's just a shame he has to go around proving it.
That said, I dislike Tony Blair just as much. So don't say I'm just biased ;)
-
Erm, and, theological nonsensica aside, what exactly IS the definition of 'marriage'? I was under the impression that such a term only referred to heterosexual couples...
-
The (Christian, though now more legal than religious) binding of two people? At least as far as I can tell...
-
mar·riage ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mrj)
n.
1.
1. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
2. The state of being married; wedlock.
3. A common-law marriage.
[b]4. A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: [i]a same-sex marriage.[/i][/b]
2. A wedding.
3. A close union: “the most successful marriage of beauty and blood in mainstream comics” (Lloyd Rose).
4. [u][i]Games.[/i][/u] The combination of the king and queen of the same suit, as in pinochle.
Thank you american heritage
[the fact that it doesn't have the legal force is a violation of human rights]
-
Oh, we are. I think we pretty much all are.
It's not exactly a "violation of human rights" so much as a disgusting show of playing on hate to win votes, and a mockery of republican (lower-case, note, I'm not talking Party) politics. About as bad, though, and he's had his share of fundamental human rights violations, what with Guantanamo and all.
-
Thunder: it's purely a theological thing that has been forced into the government - the government shouldn't recognize "Marriages"
the legal part of the government would be a "Civil Union" that _any_ two people above the age of consent can get
a "Marriage" would be purely a church ceremony -- but we should keep protection laws about age of consent so the theologians don't try to return to the days of marrying off 13-year-old girls to 30-something guys arranged by their parents
-
I bet he'll declare war on Canada next since its legal here.
Seriously though, this merely reinforces my opinion of the man.
He. Is. An. Idiot.
Religion and Government have no business being together.
-
It's another example of why politics and religion have to be separated.......incidentally, bush also started a reform proramme in Texas for prison imates - the key thing about this program was/is that is requires the inmate to be/become a fully paid up, bible studying, chrch-gong Christian (and a Baptist specifically, IIRC). so if you're Muslim, sikh, Jewish, etc - or just an etheist - forget abou it.
EDIT -i keep reading that as 'the bigfoot in the whitehouse'.....
-
aldo_14: I didn't her about that.. and the inmates didn't sue over violation of church and state
GOD I JUST WANT THAT ASSHATE OUT OF THE WHITE HOUSE!
-
Why would they? They just say "Sure, I'm Baptist, I seeeeen the LIGHT! Now lemme out!"
-
Well, that's the whole thing, 'Marriage' as defined by the Church is different to 'Marriage' as defined by the government. I'm not sure where the two got mixed up, after all, Churches don't even officially recognise Registry Office marraiges or indeed, do Catholic churches recognise Protestant marriages etc. So it's all a pile of complete crap anyway.
I never needed a piece of paper to tell me how I felt about my partner either way. Bush is just sucking up to the lowest common denominator because he knows his election run is in trouble.
-
Flipside: bingo
Bush is sucking up to the 6 million fundmantalist christians -- and is going to lose everyone else and his job - he should loose his right to serve in a public office ever again
-
Originally posted by Kazan
aldo_14: I didn't her about that.. and the inmates didn't sue over violation of church and state
GOD I JUST WANT THAT ASSHATE OUT OF THE WHITE HOUSE!
There was a series of programs (over here) about Texas on Channel 4, one of which covered this.... it was essentially about the justic system in Texas, but also covered a number of early-release / rehab schemes which were open to habitual or serious offenders.... I forget the exact details, but IIRC there was one for hardened male convicts, and one of juvenile female convicts. Both were heavily based around religious worship, and very specifically Christian baptist.
To be fair, they were apparently effective - but as the same time completely sectarian.
IIRC, the Bush governemnt also subsidises some religious campaign groups (one promoting abstinance from shagging comes to mind), notably those who Bush shares his beliefs with.
-
I am ashamed and dismayed at my country, and am supremely saddened by how far we've gone today that this can happen, for it to even be suggested :(
-
i've been saying it for three years - bush is a neo-nazi
-
Hell even Cheney isn't going to vote for this one. He has a habit of quietly torpedoing anti-gay stuff cause he has a lesbian daughter.
The fact is that this is no doubt an attempt to deflect attention by Bush. He knows everyone hates him but he figures that America are stupid enough that they will vote or him (or at least not vote) rather than vote for someone who would legalise gay marriage.
The sad thing is he's probably right. After all they were stupid enough to almost elect him in the first place.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
i've been saying it for three years - bush is a neo-nazi
Christian Right, meet the Christian Reich! :lol:
Bush: Hail myself!
-
...how...did he...get elected in the first place?
...Anyways...it's not for the government to choose who gets the right to marry who...it's up to the people...f***ing government...at least Canada is...oh...wait...our government is suffering from a...*thinks*...1.6 billion dollar lawsuit...some ****tard thought it was cool to allow a bunch of "unsafe" businesses to continue operating, and someone "lost" about a billion dollars in tax money...I blame Chretien...but he was cool...not as cool as Trudeau (one of the best PMs in the world btw)...
...aaaaanyways...
the US gov is fuxored...
-
Wonder if the next step is to ship out the homosexuals to Guantanamo bay?
-
Originally posted by Corhellion
...how...did he...get elected in the first place?
He didn't.
-
Right, Kazan, Stryke, all you two ever do is ***** about Bush. When exactly are you planning on actually doing something about him? And I don't mean Stryke saying 'I'll post bombs to senators' or some other bull****. I mean like take this stuff your supposed to have in your Consitution and use it. Cos to be honest it's getting annoying
Clearly you tolerate Bush and his fuck-ups since you still live in the States and haven't, as far as HLP is aware, started any riots or civil wars or anyother stuff you're suposed to do as responsible citizens when the government fucks up
-
Well, there is an election coming up which requires fixing..............
-
my main problem with gay marriage is not the marriage part of it but the legal rights that come with it are a little disturbing.
I dan't think it would be cool to have a little boy say I am 5 and I have 2 dads. My problem is with rights like adoption and that is why I oppose it.
-
[color=cc9900]I don't see how that would seriously detrimentally effect a child, short of being bullied into the ground in school. They'd just become tough skinned after a while, and if they don't then that's their problem, they'll live.
Anyway. I gave up seriously caring about US internal politics a while back, it's not worth spending the time to understand. So long as they don't bring it over to mainland Europe then I'm happy, because that's where I'm going to be headed when I've done my time in England.[/color]
-
I suppose it does put the unknowlegable in an awkward position - a boy of 5 probably won't have much of a clue about homosexuality, but it's almost certain to cause problems for him somewhere down the line, either with peers or with teachers or anyone too close minded to except his parents orientation.
-
Originally posted by Kalfireth
I suppose it does put the unknowlegable in an awkward position - a boy of 5 probably won't have much of a clue about homosexuality, but it's almost certain to cause problems for him somewhere down the line, either with peers or with teachers or anyone too close minded to except his parents orientation.
That's true, but using that as a reason for making it illegal would be running away from the issue, rather than tolerating it.
Insofar as I can tell, the argument against it is that it makes the child more likely to be homosexual.....I'm not sure that's even true, because I doubt many of the present homosexual population come from that sort of background. The lack of a male / female role model is a complaint that could be made, but the same reason could be used for taking away the children of single parents.
-
redmenace: there are plenty of scientific studies that show cildren raised by homosexuals grow up to be perfectly normal (including being more often than not, heterosexual) -- so try and imply that homosexuals would only raise homosexuals would be to try and say that only heterosexuals raise heterosexuals -- which we all know is completely untrue
==========================
Here is something interesting
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Fascism/Nazification_GermanyvsAmer.html
I knew all of that before - but it's a nice article for those of you who don't
Are you aware that aroud 20000 people were illegally disenfranchised in florida - mostly democrats - when Jeb and his secretary of state created a false list of felons.
-
Originally posted by Kalfireth
I suppose it does put the unknowlegable in an awkward position - a boy of 5 probably won't have much of a clue about homosexuality, but it's almost certain to cause problems for him somewhere down the line, either with peers or with teachers or anyone too close minded to except his parents orientation.
They used to come out with the same sort of crap against mixed marriages.
"Oh. The child won't know what culture he's from. ", "He'll get racial abuse in school"
As the product of several generations of mixed marriages I for one am very glad that that sort of comment has been mostly consigned to the dustbin of history (Only far right wing propaganda even claims such crap now).
Originally posted by Kazan
Are you aware that aroud 20000 people were illegally disenfranchised in florida - mostly democrats - when Jeb and his secretary of state created a false list of felons.
I was aware of it BEFORE the election and I don't even live in the US. I'm deeply saddened that there are americans who don't know.
-
I also wonder about the safety of the child. just wondering. I mean it is possible to be stuck with a pair of abusive heterosexual couple. but I wonder if there is a greater chance with two homosexual males.
-
The balanced male-female role model thing is pretty much the only objection I would accept, and it's not by itself strong enough an argument to ban gay marriage.
I suppose you could at least rely on gay parents to teach the importance of open-mindedness to a child... you'd hope
[EDIT]Red, dude... there are pleanty of cases every day of hetero couples abusing their children in the manner of your choice. Saying gay couples could put a child in danger in that respect is not going to hold water
-
[color=cc9900]It's not like one a child raised by a single-sex couple would be overtly acting like one or the other gender anyway. You'd just end up with a nice neutral kid who could be friends with everyone. Well, that's probably not what'd happen, but it'd be nice wouldn't it?[/color]
-
I am not sure either way about which would be worse. I mean my parents did foster care, I know how many bad mothers there are.
-
It just annoys me that gay men and women can add to society and culture in America everywhere you turn, and yet are consistently treated like a 'sub race' by apparently large factions of it.
-
Well there are psychological influences on a childs upbringing and parents - I used to be a psychology student you know ;)
@ Kara, please don't for a minute think that I'm saying Bush is right in this issue or anything like that. I'm not condoning what he says and think that banning homosexual marriages is wrong.
However lets think about this. We've come a long way since the farming days of old America where black men were slaves to the whites of the land and generally looked down upon, racial tolerence has drastically increased (though granted, racists still exist - but that's not the point of this thread). So here's a scenario...
It's sports day at a boys school, all the parents have gone to watch - and all the kids are taking part. Who is more likely to be gossiped about by children, teachers, parents? The inter-racial couple kissing in the sun as they eat a picnic, or the two gay men holding hands as their adopted son runs on to his friends?
Both doing absolutely no harm to anyone. But society is not yet accomadating enough to give the child of the second couple an equal chance in life - not only will he be a source of ridicule for his adoption, but also for the fact that he was adopted by a homosexual couple. It's a sad but (very probably) true fact.
That said, I'd like to point out once again that homosexual union should not be banned. However there are issues further down the line to consider - and humanity on the whole has a long way to go before it can except them.
-
However, this is not what REALLY bothers me. According to the idea of interstate commerce and the way the states are set up, this decision entirly should be left TO THE STATE GOVERNMENTS. The Federal Gov't has no place to decide this. As you can tell I am NOT A FEDERALIST and am more of a champion of states rights.
-
May I suggest some reading, it highlights the actual purpose behind several current social controversies:
Michael Savage (http://www.homestead.com/prosites-prs/index.html)
Sean Hannity (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060582510/hannitycom-20/ref=nosim/002-2697022-0772021)
-
DG: When did I ever say anything even remotely like "I'll post bombs to senators"? Don't ****ing put words in my mouth. Even if I imagined that **** would get anything done, like **** I'd talk about it here.
You seem to flap mouth an awful lot. Have you ever tried to arrange a civil war? Have you ever tried to get a small demonstration going? Have you ever tried getting a single ****ing person to act on something they're largely apathetic about? No? Then shut the **** up. Twit.
It's enough that I have to live with the fact that people don't care enough about anything in the real world to get off their ****ing TVs and do anything with me (or anybody else), I don't need arrogant little passivist turds like you giving me **** about what I've failed to do.
Yeah, just start a ****ing revolution, it's so ****ing simple, wonder how nobody's ****ing thought of that before. Hell, if only the mail bomb thing'd do more than change the faces of the guys ****ing us. Mindless violence I can do.
-
I don't know one major change in mankinds thinking that has not been bought about by having reality rammed down our throats.
Humanity doesn't do 'tolerance' for the main part, nor does it do 'understanding' or even 'learn'.
Gay bashers will continue bashing Gay's regardless of what excuse they can think up, so I say what the hell?
Yes, kids will get taunted at school, for the first few years after the Equal Ops Bill, Black children got taunted at school, let's face facts, everyone gets taunted at school, people will find one 'uniqueness' about you and taunt you about it, that's what kids do. It won't be easy, but unfortunately, the first few will have to pave the way for the future.
Hanging on till people get used to the idea will mean it will never happen, thats just the way humanity is.
-
Originally posted by Kalfireth
Well there are psychological influences on a childs upbringing and parents - I used to be a psychology student you know ;)
@ Kara, please don't for a minute think that I'm saying Bush is right in this issue or anything like that. I'm not condoning what he says and think that banning homosexual marriages is wrong.
However lets think about this. We've come a long way since the farming days of old America where black men were slaves to the whites of the land and generally looked down upon, racial tolerence has drastically increased (though granted, racists still exist - but that's not the point of this thread). So here's a scenario...
It's sports day at a boys school, all the parents have gone to watch - and all the kids are taking part. Who is more likely to be gossiped about by children, teachers, parents? The inter-racial couple kissing in the sun as they eat a picnic, or the two gay men holding hands as their adopted son runs on to his friends?
Both doing absolutely no harm to anyone. But society is not yet accomadating enough to give the child of the second couple an equal chance in life - not only will he be a source of ridicule for his adoption, but also for the fact that he was adopted by a homosexual couple. It's a sad but (very probably) true fact.
That said, I'd like to point out once again that homosexual union should not be banned. However there are issues further down the line to consider - and humanity on the whole has a long way to go before it can except them.
Again. Everyone used to say the same crap about mixed marriages. The reason why we have more racial tolerance now is because people were willing to say "f**k it" to the objections and go ahead and get married.
If no one ever stands up nothing ever changes.
-
Fair enough, but there's a slight difference - tolernce or not - I don't see one member of any homosexual couple suddenly gaining the ability to create children with the other. That fact alone raises questions about whether a young child should have a homosexual couple "forced" upon them, and there's been no psychological research into what effects (if any) this might have on the child in later life.
As a simplified analogy, people might say "f*** it" and let people drive without lisences, but they'd be quick to change that once the death rate on roads sky-rocketed. Slightly different I know but the same lack of knowlege regarding the effects on the child applies. We know that letting people drive without lisences is asking for trouble. We don't know what would happen to an adopted child of a mixed sex couple.
NB: I realise how some of this sounds, but it has to sound that way to get the point across. I've nothing wrong with gay couples - but I've everything wrong with impressing a belief, way of life, sexuality or anything else upon a child without giving them the chance to choose their own way forward.
-
Fair enough Kalth, and I do understand what you are saying, but the only way we are going to find out what effects same-sex parents will have on their 'child' is to let some couples adopt.
It's a tough subject to talk about because it's very easy to have a reservation and find it interpreted as homophobia.
-
Kal, what about children from Amish family;s? what about those born in NeoNazi families? a childs birth will always impress the parents beliefs on it.
edit:
disclaimer: a glass of whiskey doesn't improve my typing skills, my spelling, or my rational thinking. feel free to ignore this if it doesn't make sense
-
That's true, but unless I'm wrong both of those are cultural differences - not sexual differences. And when a boy is born a boy - the so called norm is that the boy is attracted to girls in later life.
At its most basic, survival of the species dictates that homosexuality is not oppressed, but not actively encouraged in children to young to make a choice either.
-
Originally posted by Kalfireth
That's true, but unless I'm wrong both of those are cultural differences - not sexual differences. And when a boy is born a boy - the so called norm is that the boy is attracted to girls in later life.
At its most basic, survival of the species dictates that homosexuality is not oppressed, but not actively encouraged in children to young to make a choice either.
the last paragraph seems nonsense to me, for the species to survive homosexuality should be banished, disabled should be sterilized/killed, and only those with good genes should be allowed any social benifits.
as for the first paragraph, i can't really seem to see any real difference, a childs views and character will always be shaped by his or her parents, teachers, friends and general envirement.
disclaimer: same as the last, i seem barely comprehensible to myself, really.
-
I'm not gonna comment on the psychological aspect of gay marriage; I don't know diddly about that.
But as for the political aspect of it, this is just one more nail in Bush's political coffin. Once again, he's alienating everyone else just to get in tight with his ultra-conservative supporters. 60% or so of all Americans may not support gay marriage, but ask people whether they want a constitutional ban on it and close to 70% of all Americans will say NO. Two thirds of all the state legislative houses in the USA have to ratify it before it could go on the books. With those sorts of requirements and the number of people ambivalent about the proposed amendment, this amendment is NEVER going to get ratified.
I think Bush knows this. He's trying to use gay marriage as a wedge issue to split the Democrats. But this could VERY easily backfire on him because there are a lot of Republicans who won't support the proposed amendment. Lots of states' rights Republicans are dismayed that Bush is trying to rewrite the Constitution on an issue that they think should be left to the states. And the Log Cabin Republicans, a Republican gay-rights group, has already publicly announced that they are going to oppose Bush on the gay marriage amendment.
(I never understood what the Log Cabin Republicans were all about. I mean, they're in favor of gay rights, but they vote Republican? Cripes, what the hell are they thinking?)
Bush is already splitting his own party over this issue. If the Republican moderates are smart enough, they'll stay home in November because Dubya has been a disaster for eveything (environment, gay-rights, civil liberties) that they stand for. If they really get smart (not likely, but one can always hope), they'll vote for the Democrat nominee to send a message to the Republican right wing.
People are expecting a close race in November. I am too, but every time I see Bush run right instead of to the center, I can't help but think that his message of being a "compassionate conservative" is going to fall flat. One of the reasons Bush "won" in 2000 was that he managed to deceive people into thinking that he was a moderate Republican. After today (and after everything else that has happened in the last three years), he's going to have a MUCH tougher time of doing that.
No moderate Republican with half a brain should vote for Bush in November.
-
well, it's not the voting that counts, it's the counting.
but that's another discussion alltogether, already made.
and can someone explain to me the exact differences between the Dems and the Reps? i am so glad we (Holland) have a multi party system, where anyone over 21 and living here for more then 5(or more, dunno) years, and enough members/cash to produce a campaign fund can start a party. all the party's have pretty solid programs, no stuff where half that party goes here and the other half there.
ok, that was completely OT, sorry, read the disclaimer in my last posts.
-
Kalfireth: there have been studies about the effects of gay parents on children -- the effects were found to be _NONE_
-
Why would God create Homosexuals and then declare homosexuality a sin? This leaves the single conclusion that God did not create Homosexuals.
Therefore homosexuality is a choice, akin to having sex with a dog or a sheep. I'm not going to complain or try to control what people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms, but their is a such a thing as decency, and anybody here who claims to be a person of faith, any faith should decry the idea of consecrating such an unnatural, evil union.
-
******slaps Liberator*
Bigotous attitude
They have found that homosexuality has genetic foundings so EAT **** AND DIE RELIGIOUS ****!
-
Problem is, Kerry's campaign line isn't really much different than the platform Bush ran on.
-
Kerry is a ****ing asshole - i am soo pissed that the media caused dean to get elbowed out of the race
playing the scream 693 times within 48 hours.... the man is a ****ing human give me a break he yelled "YEAH!" in front of an excited crow of supporters
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Why would God create Homosexuals and then declare homosexuality a sin? This leaves the single conclusion that God did not create Homosexuals.
Therefore homosexuality is a choice, akin to having sex with a dog or a sheep. I'm not going to complain or try to control what people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms, but their is a such a thing as decency, and anybody here who claims to be a person of faith, any faith should decry the idea of consecrating such an unnatural, evil union.
Which is precisely why i hate organised religion.....
-
Religion - for me - doesn't enter into homosexuality. Religion may try and take some opinion on it but in the end they're entirely separate issues.
Kazan, can you state your source that found no effects of homosexuality on children - I'd like to read it if it's available :)
-
Agreed. It's funny how anybody who's not outright right of center- i.e. Kucinich and Dean (never mind Sharpton, who's an overt liberal) is painted as some kind of freaky far-out radical by the news these days, and anybody who voices disapproval of any of Bush's policies is accused of some foaming-at-the-mouth irrational hatred of the man.
-
Thunder: i don't remember where i read it - all i remember that it was an NAS approved study
Kucinich was an idiot
Dean was a smart man, a little unrestrained and enthusiastic, but he's a human. I'd much rather have someone _REAL_ that someone that's always "calm and restrained".
-
Originally posted by kasperl
and can someone explain to me the exact differences between the Dems and the Reps?
There are LOTS of differences, though a very few people (like Nader) still believe the two parties are mostly the same. Four years ago, a lot more people (like Nader) were convinced that the two parties were the same. In the last four years, lots of people wised up. Nader didn't. But that's a different rant.
(Some) Republicans believe that government should be kept small and has no business regulating business. They are very much into laissez-faire economics and that the market economy should function without ANY restrictions or regulations whatsoever. They also HATE taxes of any sort and many Republican right-wing extremists want to get rid of ALL taxes. (Grover Norquist, a very influential conservative and the president of Americans for Tax Reform and has been quoted as saying the following: "My goal is to cut government in half in twenty-five years," he says, "to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub." Many Republicans believe that government agencies of ANY type always do more harm that good and should all be abolished.
And those are just the economy-minded Republicans. The "neoconservative" foreign policy Republicans hate the United Nations and think the U.S. has the right to flout any multi-national treaty we've ever entered simply when it becomes inconvenient. The invasion of Iraq was all their doing.
And don't get me started about the evangelical Christian, Bible-thumping Republicans. They hate abortion, gay-marriage, the separation of church and state, no-fault divorce, and anything else that doesn't comport to their idea of "traditional values."
Democrats are pretty much the opposite of all that. They believe in environmental regulations, government programs that help the needy and poor and they also favor a woman's right to choose abortion. They favor working through the United Nations whenever possible and favor working with our allies instead of doing an end run around them. Democrats favor taxes on the highest wage earners ($200,000 a year or more) and fiscal responsibility.
As you may have guessed, I am a Democrat.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Why would God create Homosexuals and then declare homosexuality a sin? This leaves the single conclusion that God did not create Homosexuals.
Therefore homosexuality is a choice, akin to having sex with a dog or a sheep. I'm not going to complain or try to control what people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms, but their is a such a thing as decency, and anybody here who claims to be a person of faith, any faith should decry the idea of consecrating such an unnatural, evil union.
Let me guess, Liberator, you're a Creationist also, right? :rolleyes:
When did God declare homosexualtiy was a sin? Men wrote the Bible. And don't talk to me about "the Holy Ghost guiding the hands of the men who wrote the Bible" unless you can actually come up with some SCIENTIFIC PROOF of such a thing. (Yes, as you've probably guessed, I'm an atheist.)
But that aside, homosexuality is NOT the same thing as bestiality and only a fool would think otherwise. It's one thing for two men or two women, who are both of age and both consenting adults, to enter into a sexual relationship. It's damn well another for a guy to stick his willy into a goat that is incapable of consent.
My mother, may she rest in peace, was the best Catholic I ever encountered in my entire life (and coming from a South American country, I've known a LOT of religious Catholics) and she was very much in favor of gay rights. I don't share my mother's faith but I ALWAYS appreciated how much her faith made her stronger to deal with the cancer that eventually killed her. Don't presume to insult me or my dead mother by saying that every person of faith has to be as intolerant as you. Being an American, I've always known that being intolerant of others just because their lifestyle or beliefs may not match mine and who are not harming anyone else is inherently evil and un-American.
Libby, I think you have alot to learn about evil.
-
Whee! Quite possibly my longest post EVAR!
Originally posted by Stryke 9
DG: When did I ever say anything even remotely like "I'll post bombs to senators"? Don't ****ing put words in my mouth. Even if I imagined that **** would get anything done, like **** I'd talk about it here.
[/b]
The sentator thing was off the top of me head. I meant to say that you often talk about doing this and that with bombs and whatnot. See bottom of this post
You seem to flap mouth an awful lot
Dude... you're saying that? :eek2:
Have you ever tried to arrange a civil war?Have you ever tried to get a small demonstration going? Have you ever tried getting a single ****ing person to act on something they're largely apathetic about?
Nope. Which is why I don't complain about the government all the time, cos I don't do much to try and change the status quo (I was going to go crash a pro-fox hunting rally once but I didn't wake up till 2pm that day...). Which was my point in the first place.
Then shut the **** up. Twit.
Dude, that hurt
It's enough that I have to live with the fact that people don't care enough about anything in the real world to get off their ****ing TVs and do anything with me (or anybody else)
The very fact that you are living with it was my point. You're living with it. You're not acting to change the things of which you complain so bitterly all the time. Ranting on the interweb doesn't count
I don't need arrogant...
Pot, kettle, etc. If you didn't already know you're widely considered one of the most arrogant peeps on the board :)
... little passivist...
Passive? Well let's see, I'm attending a Navy interview board in July, and in order to bag my career of choice I'm currently spending much of my free time reading up on politics and whatnot and finally doing all the training and exercise I put off for so long. I feel postively pro-active these days, don't you know?
... turds like you giving me **** about what I've failed to do.
[/b]
'Cos you're not giving politicians **** about what they've failed to do?
Good effort on the use of 'turd' BTW :yes:
Hell, if only the mail bomb thing'd do more than change the faces of the guys ****ing us. Mindless violence I can do. [/B]
Ah, now see this is what I was talking about - claiming to be mindlessly violent. I'm not accusing you of bull****ting or talking bollocks (er... although I may have done in a previous post) but just what kinds of violent acts have you pulled off in your life, mindless or otherwise?
Wow, that was some serious editing went in to that'n :)
[EDIT]Blimey, this thing balooned to its third page while I was typing all that
-
Originally posted by Su-tehp
I'm an atheist.
You lost him here, I guarantee it.
-
Stryke 9: I gaurantee that you're correct
Liberator, like all other facist pig-dog theists, ignores anything an atheist says because atheists WORSHIP STAN (satan...)
Shall we flog Liberator?
-
I have a hobby. That's different from being the god-damned Unabomber. I also take pictures, are you gonna go around babbling about how I pretend to be some kind of important photojournalist in a couple posts? Love of things that go "boom" and mindless thuggery are not one and the same.
Get a ****ing clue.
I like how you seem to be under the delusion that there's only two possible responses to anything political, overt acts of idiotic terrorism and total apathy. It really says a lot about you, man. I'll have you know I've been working for ****ing years trying to get a movement going that doesn't involve people running around like retards presenting themselves as targets for the National Guard and fueling the siege mentality that allows fascistic ****s like Bush to exist in the first place but does involve an intelligent, coherent campaign to actually reintroduce genuine liberal policies to American politics. The fact that so far I have managed to get basically everyone to agree with me up unto the point where they have to move their idle asses is a sore point with me, else I would have ignored you ignorant post utterly. "Reading" my humongous, hairy, talking balls. Wow, you meet the minimum qualifications for sentience. And then brag about how that's political activism. How utterly unimpressive.
And I'm sorry, but I really can't bring myself to value the opinions of a bunch of people I don't know but converse with occasionally online over everything else in my life. I like some of you, and a few of you less so, and that's it. You think I'm arrogant, that's fine. Those who have actually met me in person don't seem to, and I'm really more interested in what they have to say, as they're the ones I need to deal with on a daily basis and they actually, y'know, know me.
I have not "given politicians ****" about anything. Whether I would given the opportunity I don't know. Talking about how ****ed up they are is not the same as directly accusing someone to their face of something. And, honestly, most of the politicians I give two ****s about are being quite successful in getting what they want. The people I know haven't ever even tried. Failure's nothing- provided it was met with an honest effort I can respect it sometimes even more than success. That's not what I'm seeing these days from any direction. Yes, I've failed so far, and I freely admit it. And now I'm stuck in the armpit of the Universe, where hardly anybody is even remotely interested in the outside world. And that grates on my soul such that metaphors fail entirely. Now, piss off.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
Liberator, like all other facist pig-dog theists, ignores anything an atheist says because atheists WORSHIP STAN (satan...)
Shall we flog Liberator?
Nah, Kaz, religious extremists tend to have a thing for self-flagellation (whipping themselves to get repentance). Give Liberator a few minutes and he'll flog himself. :D
-
rotfl su-tehp!
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
I have a hobby. That's different from being the god-damned Unabomber. I also take pictures, are you gonna go around babbling about how I pretend to be some kind of important photojournalist in a couple posts?
Um, I wasn't planning on it... so what's this hobby of yours? Oh, you mean the *****ing about the government.
I like how you seem to be under the delusion that there's only two possible responses to anything political, overt acts of idiotic terrorism and total apathy. It really says a lot about you, man.
[/b]
What does it say about me? I'm intrigued. I don't think its's true, mind, as I'm not an extremist in any sense really.
]I'll have you know I've been working for ****ing years trying to get a movement going that doesn't involve people running around like retards presenting themselves as targets for the National Guard and fueling the siege mentality that allows fascistic ****s like Bush to exist in the first place but does involve an intelligent, coherent campaign to actually reintroduce genuine liberal policies to American politics.
[/b]
Really? Oh... well this is the first I've heard of it. I mean obviously I apologise if I accused you of anything when not in possesion of all the facts. I can only go on what you post here after all, just like you judge me.
The fact that so far I have managed to get basically everyone to agree with me up unto the point where they have to move their idle asses is a sore point with me, else I would have ignored you ignorant post utterly.
:lol: No chance, you love to argue. Come on, seriously, you'd never have resisted replying. It's like a red flag to a bull :nod:
"Reading" my humongous, hairy, talking balls. Wow, you meet the minimum qualifications for sentience. And then brag about how that's political activism. How utterly unimpressive.
[/b]
Brag? I beg the pardon of your humungous, hairy talking balls but I mentioned the fact once and that was in replay to a comment you made. By the same token, you're 'bragging' about founding some sort of minor political movement. But I am proud that I'm trying to educate myself and learn about the world, certainly.
And I'm sorry, but I really can't bring myself to value the opinions of a bunch of people I don't know but converse with occasionally online over everything else in my life. I like some of you lot, and a few of you less so, and that's it. You think I'm arrogant, that's fine. Those who have actually met me in person don't seem to, and I'm really more interested in what they have to say, as they're the ones I need to deal with on a daily basis and they actually, y'know, know me.
Same here. Makes you wonder why we do this whole interweb thing at all dunnit? Well... apart from the pr0n, obviously
I have not "given politicians ****" about anything.
*thump* <-- sound of a huge stack of paper marked "Stryke's grievances against the US governement as catalogued on the HLPBB" hitting the table
whether I would given the opportunity I don't know. Talking about how ****ed up they are is not the same as directly accusing someone to their face of something.
Well where does that get you? You gotta communicate, dude. If you're not gonna tell people what you think, how are they supposed to know? You're an intelligent bloke, this shouldn't need explaining, seriously
The people I know haven't ever even tried. Failure's nothing- provided it was met with an honest effort I can respect it sometimes even more than success. That's not what I'm seeing these days from any direction. Yes, I've failed so far, and I freely admit it.
[/b]
See now that's what people like to hear. I know you'll tell us you don't care what people on interweb BBs think of you, and all the other cliches, but that's a genuinely admirable sentiment you posted there. More please :)
Now, piss off.
Oh. Er... sorry, I missed this last bit until I'd edited up most of the above waffle... and by then I didn't want to delete it all. My bad. I'm going to bed now, if that's any consolation :nod:
-
Guys, calm down a bit please - take it to PM or I lock the thread.
-
I agree - Stryke and DG you are off-topic
-
Lets skip the tired 6000yo judeo-christian dogma that declares this bad. Lets work with an older dogma that doesn't have a problem with homosexuality. There are any number of cultures as old as, or older, than those derived judeo-christian values, that don't have a problem with !heterosexual behavior. They're at LEAST as valid as this silliness that Liberator and his ilk like to bring up.
-
If I have any children, I wouldn't want to have to tell them that homosexuals exist in this world. It's just going to make them uneasy and it's just going to get more kids picked on.
I also wouldn't want my child to come up to me and tell me that this kid in his/her class has two mothers or two fathers. Then I have to tell them about why and it makes me feel that my rights of how I raise my kids are being deprived.
Even if gay couples do get married, the media is going to capitalize on this and create more shows for them then we'll end up having Queer Eye for the Straight Guy rip-offs and other gay shows on national networks. Again children are going to know about these shows and start asking questions.
I'm not saying that they have to cut themselves off from the rest of the world, but I just want the traditional way to stay.
-
Fundemental Christianity = A belief that eternal damnation awaits anyone who questions God's infinite love
-
JR2000Z - basically because someone elses human rights make you unconfortable and that you are not confortable talking with your children about real world subjects that You think that other people should be denied their human rights
how bigoted and irresponsible of you -- If you are afraid of your children asking questions YOU ARE SHELTERING them, and I will DUMP A ENTIRE STACK of studies showing that SHELTERING IS NOT THE ANSWER - IT IS THE PROBLEM.
-
Originally posted by Su-tehp
Let me guess, Liberator, you're a Creationist also, right? :rolleyes:
Yes, I am. But, I believe that humanity as a species has been around a lot longer than the ~7,000 that most do.
When did God declare homosexualtiy was a sin? Men wrote the Bible. And don't talk to me about "the Holy Ghost guiding the hands of the men who wrote the Bible" unless you can actually come up with some SCIENTIFIC PROOF of such a thing.
It's a matter of Faith, so as an Atheist I don't expect you to understand. But, reference Genesis 19, vs. 1-7
1 The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city. When he saw them, he got up to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground. 2 "My lords," he said, "please turn aside to your servant's house. You can wash your feet and spend the night and then go on your way early in the morning."
"No," they answered, "we will spend the night in the square."
3 But he insisted so strongly that they did go with him and entered his house. He prepared a meal for them, baking bread without yeast, and they ate. 4 Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom-both young and old-surrounded the house. 5 They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."
6 Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him 7 and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing.
and verses 15-17
15 With the coming of dawn, the angels urged Lot, saying, "Hurry! Take your wife and your two daughters who are here, or you will be swept away when the city is punished."
16 When he hesitated, the men grasped his hand and the hands of his wife and of his two daughters and led them safely out of the city, for the LORD was merciful to them. 17 As soon as they had brought them out, one of them said, "Flee for your lives! Don't look back, and don't stop anywhere in the plain! Flee to the mountains or you will be swept away!"
God destroyed one of the Ancient world's more populace cities because of the perverted behavior of the population.
As far the Amendment goes, the Activist Judges in the various federal courts around the nation have given us no choice. They have been amending the Constitution by Fiat for years and we have finally had enough. I for one, probably the only one on this forum, support the President in this effort and am saddened it came to this.
-
Liberator: i understand you better than you'll ever understand yourself - because i know the meaning of the following words: Compartmentalization, Neurotheosis
You cannot refute the fact that they have found a genetic basis for most homosexuals - so even by your god-illogic your GOD had to create that gene
eat **** and die illogical bigot
-
Instead of calling names, please provide a link to the information that backs up your claim. I haven't seen any such study, also a definition of Neurotheosis if you please.
Also, check the party that funded the studies you are referencing, you will probably find that they are fronts for or associated with radical Gay organizations.
-
The study was all over the national news about three months ago - NAS study go use google
Do you understand neurochemistry? then I could try and explain Neurotheosis to you and make sense
-
you know, I don't think sodom was destroied, becase it had a lot of gays in it, I think it was more the rapeing and murder (ect)
maybe
-
Er-hem. Well, to be quite honest, I can't see what all the fuss is about. Let them do what they like. If gay couples want to be married, civily-joined, whathaveyou, why should we have the power to tell them they can't? It seems terribly backwards and unfair to me. That's my two cents.
And as for you, Liberator, I am horrified. People like you are one of the core reasons why I refuse to be a part of any religion.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Yes, I am. But, I believe that humanity as a species has been around a lot longer than the ~7,000 that most do.
Most of who? People in general or right wing bigot christians like yourself? Idiots whoever they are, its been proven mankind has been around for at least 20,000 years. One of the main cities in the old testament itself, Jericho, has been dated at 10,000 years old. Other civilisations have been around for much longer: http://www.sullivan-county.com/id3/9500_city.htm
I suppose none of that matters when you have faith though.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Yes, I am [a creationist]. But, I believe that humanity as a species has been around a lot longer than the ~7,000 that most do.
That's interesting. So you actually do believe that the Universe is 12 billion years old, as astronomy has hypothesized? Or did God tell you it was a different number? Tell me, Libby, what did your faith tell you about how old the Universe is? Did you use scientific and reasoned analysis to come up with a number or did your faith come up with a random number?
"Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without any proof." ~Ashley Montagu
Originally posted by Liberator
It's a matter of Faith, so as an Atheist I don't expect you to understand. But, reference [irrelevant quote of the Bible] and [another irrelevant quote of the Bible].
God destroyed one of the Ancient world's more populace cities because of the perverted behavior of the population.
Once again, you're quoting the Bible thinking that it's scientific truth when the Bible is NOT a scientific document. If you can come up with definitive and/or mathmatical and/or archaeological proof that God exists and "hates gays," then you can come talk to me. But seeing as God, by his very nature is unknowable and unprovable, I expect I'll be waiting a loooooong time for you to come up with definitive proof that he exists.
And, please, don't quote the Bible again when I ask you for scientific proof. We all know that the Bible has NO scientific basis whatsoever. Don't waste your time trying to say otherwise. We all (yourself included) know better.
Originally posted by Liberator
As far the Amendment goes, the Activist Judges in the various federal courts around the nation have given us no choice. They have been amending the Constitution by Fiat for years and we have finally had enough. I for one, probably the only one on this forum, support the President in this effort and am saddened it came to this.
Of course, you're saddened. That's why conservatives all over the country are overjoyed at the prospect of writing discrimination into the US Constitution for the first time. Cry me a river, Libby. If you're crying at all, it's nothing but crocodile's tears.
Don't get me started about "activist judges." Conservative judges have absolutely no problem in interfering with states' rights when the state comes up with a result that displeases them. Just look at John Ashcroft. Granted, he's not a judge, but he is the US Attorney General, a position of HIGHLY important legal significance. (In law school, we studied a number of cases where conservative judges were activist, but I can't come up with any on the top of my head right now. More on that in a later post.) Remember when Oregon had a referendum in 2001 and voted to legalize self-assisted suicide? The first thing John Ashcroft did was to instruct the Justice Department to federally prosecute any doctor in Oregon who gave terminal patients any sort of drugs that would assist in their suicide. And he did all this despite that in Oregon doctor-assisted suicide was legal.
I'm not even going to talk about Bush v. Gore, where the conservative justices on the US Supreme Court usurped Florida's state right to count its own votes.
Conservatives are all for states rights unless the state decides to do something conservatives don't like. It happened in Oregon and it's happening in Massachusettes right now. Don't kid yourself, Libby. Don't talk to me about activist judges because you and I both know conservatives are just as activist as any "liberal" judge.:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Yes, I am. But, I believe that humanity as a species has been around a lot longer than the ~7,000 that most do.
SINNER! The world is flat and is only 6,999 years old! Thou hast insulted the holy work of all TRUE believers! How DARE you claim to be a member of the Christian Reich!
CONFORM. CONSUME. OBEY.
ACKNOWLEDGE//SUBMIT!
BTW Su-tehp the universe has been measured out to 13.7 billion years old based on the background radiation observations.
-
I believe the 7,000 year timeline is based on the lifespans of the prinicipal charachters in the bible. Apparantly the life expectancy was much better back then with moses living for nearly 1000 years.
Btw its nice to see Bush has his prioritys straight:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1153513,00.html
-
Originally posted by Ace
BTW Su-tehp the universe has been measured out to 13.7 billion years old based on the background radiation observations.
Yeah, I only knew that the Universe was somewhere between 12-20 billion years old the last I heard. But that was ten years ago or so that I heard that; I wasn't sure if the scientists had come up with new measurements or not. Thanks. :)
See, Libby? Background radiation measurements! THAT'S what I mean when I talk of scientific proof. No Bible quotes here, no sir. :p :D
-
Trying to explain what I mean to you people is impossible because any evidence I bring would be immeadeately ignored as right wing propagandist BS because you have made up your mind that we are wrong in believing as we do and idiots for not adopting your moral and ethical viewpoint. You accuse us of not having open minds and being hateful bigots.
I wish we could leave it a state issue, but there are politicians, judges and other individuals who would have it otherwise.
I don't mind giving same-sex some of the rights that a married couple has, but Marriage is a ceremony designed to sanctify the union of a man and a woman in the sight of God, which can't happen in a same-sex relationship.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
I don't mind giving same-sex some of the rights that a married couple has, but Marriage is a ceremony designed to sanctify the union of a man and a woman in the sight of God, which can't happen in a same-sex relationship.
By the same definition Hindus or buddists cant get married, this right?
-
the "evidence" you would brring up wouldn't even QUALIFY as EVIDENCE Liberator
YOU ASSUME THE VALIDITY OF YOUR POSITION A PRIORI - I DO NOT
Therefore I am atheist, you are not
I have debated with THOUSANDS OF YOUR ILK including with with DOUBLE DOCTORATES -- your KIN LOOSE MISERABLY -- even the 2x PhD made dozens of logical fallacies to try and make a single point
Go ahead, try and make your argument - i dare you - i will completely and utterly slaughter you at formal logic - and you won't even be able to try and claim A Priori bias like you just tried to
-
Why is there and arguement in this thread?
And arguement implies that someone has taken the side that Gays aren't full people and don't deserve full rights...
-
Originally posted by Knight Templar
And arguement implies that someone has taken the side that Gays aren't full people and don't deserve full rights...
because people, like liberator, have taken that position
-
@ Kazan
Somehow I doubt it, if so I doubt their capacity.
May I suggest this book (http://www.evidenceofgod.com/default.htm), it was written by a former atheist.
@KT
Gays are not being denied rights, the biggest gripe they have seems to be certain federal financial benefits that come from being married.
(I don't think they are including taxes in this however.)
And also, certain social benefits such as hospital visits.
-
Liberator: make the arguement yourself (will be back with analysis of that page in a few minutes)
any "former atheist" never was a real atheist
-
Originally posted by Liberator
@KT
Gays are not being denied rights, the biggest gripe they have seems to be certain federal financial benefits that come from being married.
(I don't think they are including taxes in this however.)
And also, certain social benefits such as hospital visits.
Are those not rights that would be applied to any other married couple?
And former aetheist? :wtf: Maybe you mean non-beleiver?
-
That would be Liberator. Gays don't get the same rights as everyone else, because his God says so.
You know, white people used to say that God approved of slavery. And of course, there was a time when the Church said that God only wanted priests reading the Bible.
I dunno about right wing vs left wing. All I know is that I was allowed to marry my wife--not by a priest or by a church. Because of this, my wife and I are accorded certain rights and priveleges by the state and federal government. I really don't give a good goddamn what the Church has to say about it. We're still married.
Gay people are exactly that: people. In this country, we have a wonderful document that begins thus:
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Not "We the straight people", or "We the People of whom God approves". Nor does it say "people of the Church" or "people of God" or "people of the United States (except gay people)".
Further, that same document goes on to say:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Note that it says "nor deny any person", not "nor deny any straight person", or "nor deny any person except those of whom we disapprove". Equal protection under the law is the guaranteed right of EVERY person in the United States.
Or how about this part:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Only a Constitutional Amendment can take away someone's right to marry. Can you imagine that? An amendment that DENIES the rights of a minority?
Oh, and here's one of my favorite bits of that grand instrument. It tangetally relevant, as it discusses the role of God in the governance of this nation:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
Try as you might to change it, your God has no place in my government or the running of my country. Your God stands apart, seperate, disconnected, and irrelevant to her governance and the lives and liberty of her people as a whole. Individuals may believe in your God, but your God will never be in any way necessary, or of value to the my country, her goverment or her people.
Side Note: I find it rather ironic that Liberator endorses the EFF and its defense of the rights of the people in his sig, yet seems to be arguing that gay people can be denied certain rights (marriage and its attendant priveleges) on the basis of sexual orientation.
-
Liberator - I'll start with his most basic claim "God Exists" -- if he cannot make this argument without commiting a logical fallacy then clearly all his other assertions are utterly pointless
====================================================================
Answers to Questions - God
How do we know God exists?
There are at least 2 objective, yet certain ways to know God exists.
I'll let him get away with not justifying that number
The first is through his Creation. Imagine finding a new, hi-tech watch in a forest. There would be no doubt in your mind that it was created, though you have never seen anything like it before.
This is a logical fallacy, infact it has an explicit name and is known as "The Watchmakers Fallacy" - it is saying that "complexity cannot arise naturally"
This is a fallcy for several reasons - the biggest of which
1st) It relies on a false understanding of the laws of Thermodynamics
Thanks to the electron microscope, we now know that a single living human cell is FAR more complex than the most modern factory. Creation of life, now is obvious - especially to experts in biochemistry. This necessitates a Creator (God).
This is assuming the conclusion a priori - he is dismissing all other options - such as naturally occuring events caused the first "biological" molecules to be created - and then the process of [micro]evolution took place.
Complexity can be increased by Work (physics term - Force multiplied by displacement) -- natural forces, such as gravity, electromagnetism, chemical reactions - can do work
But you don’t need a degree in molecular biology or quantum physics. The Bible says Creation by God has been obvious since the beginning of time... that we are "without excuse" [Rom 1:20].
Circular Logic - he's quoting from the bible which ASSUMES god exists to support god existing
Second, we can be certain from the statistical "proof" of divine inspiration of the Bible. Only a supernatural God, beyond time and space, could provide the hundreds of specific prophecies and insights, written centuries in advance.
"Statisical Proof" preposterous -- i want him to cite all these "specific prophecies" IN ORIGIONAL TEXT on PARCHMENTS, PAPRIUSES, etc DATED TO THE CORRECT TIME
HE has absolutely no evidence to suppor this claim, and yet again is relying on a document that ASSUMES god exists
Perhaps you think the Bible is biased, inaccurate, mythological or unprovable. Many of us felt the same way... until we investigated the evidence from the "eyes of a skeptic."
It is biased, inaccurate, mythological AND unproveable -- I want him to support any claim the bible makes without trying to appeal to the bible and without making logical fallcies
Mathematical analysis literally "proves" the existence of God’s inspiration many centuries in advance.
I want to see this proof - if any such valid proof existed then science would be all over it and I wouldn't be arguing this position
=========================================================
[SIZE=8]Kazan 1 - Religious Fruits 0[/SIZE]
-
You know, one day, I promise, We'll teach Kazan tact. ;)
Kaz, you're right, but damn, man, we really gotta teach you how to deliver the message on something other than a hand grenade. ;)
-
mikhael: i used to have tact - when I still have patience with the religiously insane, sadly the day my patience ran out was many years ago
every time a new one tries to argue with me they try to shrug of all their predecessors are incompetant - and now he tops them all cause he's the first since the Double PhD, thats taking the cake!
And they all repeat the same old arguements, over and over and over - i am sooo tried of refuting the same arguements overand over and over!
-
You are free to do whatever you want, as long as that something does not infringe upon someone elses freedom. Anything. Everything.
You can not, must not force your beliefs on other people. its not up to the state government, the federal government, the church or the courts to decide in matters of personal morality. Its up to you. No one else. You.
If humanity is to move forward, this idea must be embraced. If humnaity is to evolve and become enlightened, this must surely be one of the major principles. Live and let live.
_____________________
Liberator, I respect your opinions though I disagree with them. I think you're wrong, but that's your thing. So, why do you not think that everyone else is entitled to their own opinion? You may think gay marriage or anything else is wrong, but by what right do you think that you have the authority to decide how someone else should live.
Even if you believe that it is God's command, you are not God. If He wants something done, you can bet He's going to do a far better job than you. So, according to your own belief system, if God does not act on an issue, that must mean He's ok with it.
For all I know, you could very well be right. If you are, I'm screwed come the Second Coming. But, in the meantime, you can not pass judgement. OK?
Try to be more like Steak. He's the reason (and people and groups of people like him) that I more or less like Christianity. Despite all the hate, all the intolerance and the vast history of Very Bad Things, I still have nothing against Christianity. Why? Cause of the people who strive only to better themselves and better society, and leave all the judgement and hate to God.
Oh and, next time you want to prove a point, don't link to two of the most radical right-wingers on the Earth ;);)
___________________
DG, I'm going to have to agree with Stryke here. Your position is that either you do something about a matter that displeases you or you shut up about it. However, the way I see it, being politically active and aware is in and of itself a political act. Even more so if you make an effort to inform those around you. Double kudos points if you succeed.
Blowing up mailboxes and holding protest isn't going to accomplish ****. Knowledge is a greater weapon than anything else. Behind every gun, behind every policy, behind every dollar in the world is a person. The ability to influence people is the most effective method getting what you want.
Fortunately, people are all raised to be in possession of this powerful weapon. Every person can, at will, employ this weapon to devestating effects. Its called communication.
_____________________
Regarding gay marriage, I pretty much agree with what everyone esle said. Though, I am concerned about the effects on a child raised in a homosexual family. My opinions are far from scientific, but I think that it would affect the child.
____________________
Su-tehp: Leave Nader alone. He's what the Dems SHOULD be like, but are too cowardly and self-serving to be. Dems and Reps are moer or less the same. Take a look at how many Democrats support Republican policies. They're supposed to be the opposition damnit.
Every time someone does not adhere to The Formula*, they're branded a radical and a maniac. Just look how the media did the Dean thing. I mean, Kucinich and Sharpton were actively marginalized by the media. You can't possibly claim that the reason they were never serious candidates is because of their policies alone. The media intentionally, systematically discredited them. Please, please don't claim that the media (being the Big Four news corps) don't have an agenda. Just don't.You'll look like a idiot.
The Formula
1. Be best buddies with Big Business
2. Make promises, then break them as soon as you're elected.
3. Slander your political opponents
4. Reject any view other than your own. Moderation is for the weak.
5. Have no solid set of ideals. Be whatever will get you the most votes. If the people change their minds, you change yours.
6. Emphasise The War on Terror and Nation Security. This is all THEIR fault. We haven't done anything to deserve this. Damn terrorists.
7.Assert that AMERICA IS NUMBER ONE! Yeah! Woo! Despite the fact that the world hates the USA and that is actually not that good a place to live.
-
Kazan, I look forward to reading your analysis.
All of you, 38 states already have laws that prohibit same-sex marriage, Activist Judges, who legislate from the bench, would still force those states to recognize a SS Marriage from the other 12 states.
Another example of Activist Judges is the Roe V. Wade decision that is used hammer the Pro-Abortion agenda of the radical far-left. It's not an actual law, it's a judicial decision on one case from the 1970s. It's treated as a law though, and unscrupulous individuals use that misconception to murder hundreds of thousands of babies every year.
There is a small, very vocal minority who are using the general apathy of the American people to steal their country from them. That's what this is really about, the very future of America herself.
-
Liberator: look up - i already posted my analysis
YOU DID NOT JUST BRING UP ABORTION!
I knew you were anti-choice -- a featus is not a life, it is a cluster of cells still dependant upon it's mother - life begins when you're born, not when you're conceived.
Your opinion is that life starts at conception - FINE so be it - take it up with your god that more babies naturally abort than are ever aborted by humans - YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO FORCE YOUR OPINION ABOUT WHEN LIFE BEGINS ON ANOTHER PERSON - YOU DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO FORCE A WOMAN TO DO SOEMTHING WITH HER BODY SHE DOES NOT WANT TO DO - YOU DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO RESTRICT OTHER PEOPLES RIGHTS
WHAT PART OF THE CONSTITUTION DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND YOU FREAKING FANATIC
-
Don't have any retort against my analysis Liberator?
-
Kazan, take a deep breath, count to 10 and please calm down, I don't want you rupture something.
I entirely agree that life doesn't begin at conception, but neither does it wait until full term either, however that doesn't stop it from being an act of murder. You see, if left alone that mass of cells will eventually develop into a fully functional human.
You misunderstood my example, I was using Roe V Wade as an example of what Activist Judges are capable of.
As far as the proof you want from that author, that book has been out for a while now and should be in a public library near you. Or ask him yourself:
Ralph O. Muncaster
PMB-108
2560 E. Chapman Drive
Orange, CA 92869
Phone: 714-628-8767
Email: [email protected]
I do have one question, as I've never had a conversation like this with an actual atheist, what do you believe will happen to that unexplainable something that makes you you when you pass beyond the veil of death?
-
Liberator: there is no "unexplainable something that makes you you" or as you would say it "soul" -- you simple cease to exist. That is the scarriest piece of knowledge any human can posses and the reason why religions create afterlives -- elitism (heaven vs hell) is just a corruption
Did you see my analysis above? Where i dissected his basic claim supporting god
---------------------
If left alone the mass of cells will die - it must be a parasite upon it's mothers body for many months to become a life. Until it is no longer dependant upon it's mothers body is it PART of the mothers body
-
Yes, I saw it. I also saw that it was based on about 16 minutes of analysis. Read the book, or talk to him.
Also, and I should have said this previously, before you accuse someone whom you have never met of bigotry, check your own at the door. It is obvious that you have utter contempt and enmity for me and other Christians.
-
I think Kazan failed to mention that its not a human right to spread STDs all over the place through homosexuality. And he failed to mention that AIDS comes from monkeys in Africa that was spread to humans through sexual contact and now especially through homosexuals.
You also failed to mention Kazan that every civilization that has suppored homosexuality has been wiped off the face of the Earth. Say what you want but thats a bit more than coincidence, especially with the destruction of Sodom, now the lowest point in the world on land.
I also didnt know it was a human right to encourage children, the future of society, that its ok to be homosexual and not beget children through love.
Supporting marriage between only a man and a woman is not being a bigot, nor discriminating... we never said gays couldnt marry... we just said they couldnt marry each other.
-
Yeah Kaz, calm down. You'll live a lot longer if you simply accept theat there are some people who just plain don't agree with you.
However, Liberator, why do you feel that you (or the government, or anyone) have the authority to pass judgement on an act that concerns only two individuals - those getting married. Thats like if the government had the right to ban people from wearing blue shirts Its doesn't make sense.
Or actually, just read my post above.
______
The ancient Greeks were huge, flaming homosexuals. And as far as I know, the Greek civilization is doing just fine. But thats an errenous line of thougt in the first place, since it takes historical precedent (which is arbitrary) over logic (which is not).
-
Originally posted by Liberator
All of you, 38 states already have laws that prohibit same-sex marriage, Activist Judges, who legislate from the bench, would still force those states to recognize a SS Marriage from the other 12 states.
No. Completely wrong. The Massachusettes Supreme Court did not rule that Alabama's law prohibiting gay marriage or California's law prohibiting gay marriage was contrary to the Massachusettes state constitution. The Massachusettes Supreme Court only ruled that the Massachusettes state ban on gay marriage is uncinstitutional according to Massachusettes' state constitution. The question of whether a state ban on gay marriage would violate equal protection is a federal question, not a state one. Therefore, that question would go only to the US Supreme Court, not any state court.
And judging by how the US Supreme Court ruled against the Texas state ban on sodomy (the US Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional, if you don't remember), chances are, if this gay marriage ban amendment doesn't pass (very likely), the US Supreme Court could very well rule that a ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional.
Or are you going to tell me that Justice Kennedy, Justice Souter and Justice O'Connor, all appointed by Republican presidents are activist judges as well?
Originally posted by Liberator
Another example of Activist Judges is the Roe V. Wade decision that is used hammer the Pro-Abortion agenda of the radical far-left. It's not an actual law, it's a judicial decision on one case from the 1970s. It's treated as a law though, and unscrupulous individuals use that misconception to murder hundreds of thousands of babies every year.
Pure baloney. Any 1st year law student would shake his head at this. Law professors hearing you say this in their class would laugh in your face and suggest you find another line of work besides becoming a lawyer. Lawyers hearing you say this in the courtroom would immediately have your legal license taken away because of incompetence.
The US Supreme Court is designed to look at laws and see if they comport with the US Constitution or not. If they do, they are judged constitutional and remain as good law. If not, they are nullified. Roe v. Wade dealt with a Texas ban on abortion. The US Supreme Court looked at this law and said that the ban on abortion was unconstitutional and nullified it. The precedent from this case clearly states that any law banning abortion before viability is not compatible with the Constitution. Therefore, it is a matter of constitutional law that a ban on abortion is incompatible with a woman's right to privacy.
Defining the law is NOT just a matter of passing them in the legislature. Courts are asked every moment of every day to interpret what the law means. That's what they're designed to do. Cases in the court define the law just as much as legislatures do. Legislatures write the words of the laws, but it's courts who decide what they mean. Our system has been like that for more than 200 years.
Find out how the law works before you go off on a rant about "murder."
Originally posted by Liberator
There is a small, very vocal minority who are using the general apathy of the American people to steal their country from them. That's what this is really about, the very future of America herself.
Yeah, that minority is called the Republican right-wing, who are so desperate to force every other American to their views.
You're complaining about people getting their rights taken away and yet you're ranting about nullifing a woman's right to choose an abortion without being hassled by the state? You're moaning about people getting their rights taken away and yet you're ranting about not granting gays the same right to get married as straight couples?
If you can't see how utterly contradictory your arguments are, I pity you. Or at least, I would if I weren't laughing so hard. :lol: :lol: :lol:
-
Liberator: You seem to fail to grasp formal logic - if i can call a logical fallacy in 16 minutes then it doesn't matter how long he speaks, etc - his argument still fails miserable
============================
DeepSpace9er - I AM APPAULED - You know what the largest infected group is with aids? HETEROSEXUAL WOMEN - the whole "it's homosexual's fault" is not only biogted bull**** - but it was perpetrated by fundamentalist christianity
Support your claim about civilizations that supported homosexuality getting wiped off the face of the planet - did those civilizations get wiped off the face of the planet by the FUNDAMENTALIST HORDE
----------------------------------------
DeepSpace9er WOW YOU POST IS LACED WITH IGNORANCE
MANY STUDIES SHOW THE FOLLOWING
A) Homosexual parents raise normal children
=====================
DeepSpace9er - you are a bigot, no better than liberator, unPresident Bush, and Rush Limbaugh -- do the planet a favor and do not procreate
-
Kazan.. what do you call sexual contact between animals and people? Bestiality.. and you know what? That is a common stem from homosexuality.
Btw.. you are desriminating against me in the process... and that is hate speech. :no:
No those civilizations did not get wiped out by a Fundamentalist hoarde, their cultures seemed to self destruct.
Oh and by the way... where do you get these "studies" of yours that claim A). Many studies are made each year on these things but their accuracy is a completely different story.
-
you know the greeks wer quite into gayaty, and they didn't get ccataclismicly wiped off the face of the earth, and I beleve the Romans too (upon wich modern westurn civilisation is based)
-
DeepSpace9er
you are the stupidest person I have ever seen on the internet
-
I think it's time to close this thread, Kazan is frothing at the mouth, and we're not actually getting anywhere.
Su, if you actually believe that the Conservatives are the ones trying to take America from the rest of the people, I think that you don't actually know your enemy all that well.
-
I guess you have nothing better to say about the subject bobboau than to attack me personally... im sorry you had to stoop that low.
-
OK, admins please DO NOT close the thread. They always get closed right when the conversation is just beggining. The first 100 posts are "I agree" or "I disagree", then after that we get to the good part: the debate.
Kazan, just tone it down a bit. And stop making posts every 12.5 seconds. Put all you arguements into one post, or if you think its pointless trying to agrue with Liberator and DeepSpace9er, just don't post. Be constructive man.
I'm still not getting any respones to my line of thinking, which is Live and Let Live. Maybe I have to use more CAPS or something...
-
Originally posted by DeepSpace9er
I think Kazan failed to mention that its not a human right to spread STDs all over the place through homosexuality. And he failed to mention that AIDS comes from monkeys in Africa that was spread to humans through sexual contact and now especially through homosexuals.
"...Now especially through homosexuals." I've heard alot of ignorant statements but that's a doozie. AIDS is spread by heterosexuals just as much, if not more than homosexuals. Just look at Africa. The AIDS infection rate is booming over there and it's going to get a lot worse over there in the next few years. AIDS is spread in Africa mostly by heterosexual men and women, from husbands to wives because the husbands decided to sleep with a prostitute. It's spread among teenagers having unprotected sex. It's spreading all over the place because the African nations are having problems trying to convince their people that safe sex is, baring abstinece, the only way to prevent the spread of AIDS.
Saying that AIDS is a homosexual disease is just plain ignorant. I thought that stuff went passe in the 1980s.
Originally posted by DeepSpace9er
You also failed to mention Kazan that every civilization that has suppored homosexuality has been wiped off the face of the Earth. Say what you want but thats a bit more than coincidence, especially with the destruction of Sodom, now the lowest point in the world on land.
Guess what? Lots of other civilizations that didn't support homosexuality ALSO bit the dust. Civilizations are like people: they get born, they live and then they die. The length of time that they lived has NOTHING to do with the validity of their beliefs or not.
Originally posted by DeepSpace9er
I also didnt know it was a human right to encourage children, the future of society, that its ok to be homosexual and not beget children through love.
Well, you know better now. Homosexuality is not illegal or immoral, so it's perfectly ok. Don't you feel better now, DeepSpace9er? :)
Originally posted by DeepSpace9er
Supporting marriage between only a man and a woman is not being a bigot, nor discriminating... we never said gays couldnt marry... we just said they couldnt marry each other.
That statement is inherently discriminatory. That's what's called a double standard. Saying that one kind of people has to abide by a prohibition that other people don't have to abide by is the essence of discrimination. Saying that, all other things being equal, straights can marry but gays cannot is applying a double standard and is discriminatory and unconstitutional.
Tell me, DeepSpace9er, why would a gay man with no inclination of sexual desire for a woman want to marry a woman? How is it not discriminatory to say that a straight man can marry a woman but a gay man can't marry another man?
If you can't see the double standard here, you REALLY need to read up on equal protection.
Originally posted by Liberator
Su, if you actually believe that the Conservatives are the ones trying to take America from the rest of the people, I think that you don't actually know your enemy all that well.
Let's see, conservatives want to take away a woman's right to choose...
Conservatives want to write discrimination into the US Constitution by passing a constituttional amendment banning gay marriage...
Conservatives want to do away with environmental regulations that have provided health benefits worth billions of dollars to the American people...
Conservatives want to do away with the separation of church and state enshrined in the First Amendment of the Constitution, thereby ensuring that Christian values will supercede individual values...
Nope, I think I know my enemy pretty well. Do you think I'm your enemy, Libby?
-
thank you for summing that up for me
there was also a thing in there about gays being responsable for beastiality :wtf:
it's not a personal atack, it's an analitical observation
-
That statement is inherently discriminatory. That's what's called a double standard. Saying that one kind of people has to abide by a prohibition that other people don't have to abide by is the essence of discrimination. Saying that, all other things being equal, straights can marry but gays cannot is applying a double standard and is discriminatory and unconstitutional.
Its called morality and natural law... you know, that little voice in the back of your head telling you what is right and what is wrong?
Well, you know better now. Homosexuality is not illegal or immoral, so it's perfectly ok. Don't you feel better now, DeepSpace9er?
I never said that homosexuality was illegal, but apparently gay couples marrying in California is. They are breaking the law deliberately... whats the point of law then? Your trying to relativize morality. There are definites in the world like black and white.. it goes the same with morality.. thats why we have religion and establishment to inform people.
-
GREEKS!
-
I love these threads. :D The really funny thing is that the proceedings here are essentially what democracy is all about. Also, I should have the right to be unaffected by gravity, because gravity is immoral and discriminatory. It is so because I say it is, and I am god.
You know what I would really like to see? An argument between Kazan and Stryke. Now that would really be worth watching, as they express their views wonderfully. :D
-
that would be fun
-
Wow, that was unexpected. A post by CP saying how he looks down on us all with our petty feelng and emotions and justice and morality. We should all just study math. And ofcrouse, it has nothing to do with the subject at hand. And throw in some smilies for good measure. I have never, ever, seen anything of this kind before.
-
DeepSpacer9er: you cannot appeal to "morality" because morality is DEFINED - defined by your religion in your case
You wanna try an appeal to natural law? Finish the appeal and make it in it's entirely so we may destroy you
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Thats why we have religion and establishment to inform people" -- religion is unproveable to the point of being unsupportable - you're being a BIGOT because something that cannot even be supported tells you to.
------------------------
DeepSpace9er is posting post-lobotomy it seems
-
he didn't mention math, yet
why would people want gays to act strait and marry and have children, when that would cause the gay 'seed' to spread, if Gay marrageas were allowed within a few generation there probly wouldn't be any gays left to sully your world view
-
GRAVITY IS TEH IMMORAL!!!11
-
Originally posted by DeepSpace9er
Its called morality and natural law... you know, that little voice in the back of your head telling you what is right and what is wrong?
That little voice is telling me that treating two men, one gay and the other straight, diferently under the law is wrong. Remember apartheid in South Africa? What's the difference between treating a white man and a black man differently under South African law and treating a straight man and a gay man differently under the law here in the US? I thought American law was supposed to treat everybody equally... At least, that's what the Constitution says...
Originally posted by DeepSpace9er
I never said that homosexuality was illegal, but apparently gay couples marrying in California is. They are breaking the law deliberately... whats the point of law then? Your trying to relativize morality. There are definites in the world like black and white.. it goes the same with morality.. thats why we have religion and establishment to inform people.
The stuff in California is civil disobeidience, nothing more. Remember when Rosa Parks sat in the front of the bus to protest the Jim Crow laws back in the 1950s? This is the same thing.
As for relativizing morality, my moral code prevents me from discriminating against anyone. The gay man who marries his partner and lives his life with no desire to hurt anyone is just as worthy as the man who marries his girlfriend and lives his life with no desire to hurt anyone.
My morality is not relative; it's actually part of a stringient code I have. I do not judge people unequally or unfairly EVER. I make sure that I give my clients my best work that I can deliver ALWAYS. I make sure not to deliberately hurt ANYONE. And if I ever make a mistake that accidentally hurts anyone, I make restitution as best I can and move on. As a lawyer, I swore a lifetime oath to administer the law as fairly and as equally as possible. Anything less than 100% would violate my oath to American law. And I'm NOT about to violate my oath. Lawyers (the good ones at least, and there are more good lawyers than one might think) are like that.
Can you say the same, DeepSpace9er?
-
hmm this thread is a very fast growing one isn't it?
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
hmm this thread is a very fast growing one isn't it?
Less spam, more post! :D
-
hmm this thread is a very fast growing one isn't it?
It's a good thing; gives me something to watch while I wait for this long math calculation to be completed.
-
You know, I must say...
I feel dumber having read this. Kazan, please, find a little bit of tact. It's common knowledge that the sort of rhetoric you're throwing around (even if it is correct) only makes people respond with more force. You don't have to back off of your principles, just try not to inflame the subject so much.
Liberator (such an ironic nick, isn't it?) and DS9er, I respect your religion and follow it to a certain extent (I consider myself a Christian), but I don't respect using it to justify some of the most ill-informed, bigoted, and biased opinions on the planet. There's nothing that bugs me more than someone who goes around criticizing other peoples' decisions knowing that "I am right and I have God on my side." I tend to group people like that into the same category as Osama bin Laden, and people believing that are every bit as dangerous as any middle-eastern terrorist. Unfortunately it's a trend that all of the major religions are plagued with, and there really isn't anything I can do about it. The truth is, fundamentally every religion is an attempt to understand the will of God, not to interpret or impose it.
Also, the fact that you use the phrase "liberal activist judges" shows a bit of bias toward the unfounded claims Bush is making right and left. He still hasn't learned that just because the President says it, it will happen (or maybe it's the American populace that hasn't figured that out yet) and using his rhetoric will not make many inroads on more liberally minded individuals.
I think that Marriage needs to be seperated from the state and made exclusive to religions. The states would then issue civil unions to all couples, and be done with it. The issue is primarily in the nomenclature, not the principle, of marriage. The child thing is a concern to me, simply because I cannot imagine the trials that a child growing up in a homosexual household would face, both socially and internally. However, since homosexual couples cannot naturally reproduce, there is only limited consequences. Parents putting their children up for adoption should be able to request that their child not go to a homosexual couple, and have that request respected, but that's as far as I would go with it.
And for the record, Bestiality and Homosexuality are two very different things. They may be lumped together as perversions here and there, but think about it. Ok, don't think about it. Nevertheless, one is a sexual interest in a member of the same species (albeit wrong gender) while the other is with an animal. And AIDS did not have to spread into humans sexually, there are other means of infection that, in reality, are far more likely (like blood). Everyone likes the sex route because it's perverse, but there really isn't that much evidense to say that's why the infection came into humans.
EDIT: wow, this thread grew expontially as I was writing this post.
-
very well, no one has desputed the claim that the Greek civilisation, one of the great civilisations of the world, wich lasted a long time and didn't explode in a firey plume of destruction, embraced homosexuality, and sufferd no ill fate due to it
-
/thows arms up in the arm
OK, never mind. Close the thread, burn the planet. Let the fanatics speak. Walk on your hands and have sex with the universe. Whatever. Just...whatever.
-
the full phraes you were looking for was
"liberal activist judges legislateing from the bench"
given how long and unweildly that phrase is it's suprizeing how oftine you see it.
-
And that bush got it all out without bumbling over half the words.
-
he's good at speaking when it's something he beleves in
-
Listen to StratComm. He seems to have far and away the least deranged viewpoint in this thread. Faint praise, this being a combination of HLP and politics, but then if I gave any other kind the demon clowns from under the bed would get me.
Well, okay, the probability that anybody'll pay him any mind, even given my direct orders, is negligible, but it needed saying anyway.
I also should note that I'm impressed by DeepSpace9er's ability to string properly-spelled words together into coherent sentences. That is honestly the first time I have seen anybody with his particular political outlook do that. On the other hand, I am equally unimpressed by his utter lack of effort to do any research or exert any mental energy on the subject whatsoever, as his claims are all the exact ones that have been torn apart so thoroughly and compellingly from the very start that even the Christian Right has abandoned them. Simply reading the most basic article on the subject beforehand would have prevented very nearly all his posts from ever happening. Which, because he is not functionally illiterate, leads me to believe that this total ignorance is self-imposed, an enforced shell of folly which probably wouldn't be worth breaking through. Once again, somebody will try anyway.
You lot need to back off on Liberator. He's the token representative of the theocratic fringe on the board, and used properly such can be valuable. A political thread with only one viewpoint is verbal masturbation- one with multiple opinions, no matter how repugnant you or I might find them, will at the very least probably shed light on the mentality of the "other side". And I, for one, kind of want to know just what in the hell the Bushies are thinking. Driving him off because you wanted to score a few puerile insults would be shooting yourself in the foot, or if not that, then I'd shoot you in the foot afterward. It's not like most of his arguments presented to this point can't be taken apart without this deranged screaming, anyway, were anybody to actually make the effort to try. And no, I'm not likely to today, I've got a ten-page paper due in a few hours. Maybe tomorrow.
Think of it like a lab test, if it'll help. If you can shut him and DS9er up without just screaming about how they're the Devil over and over again, the same could be applied to the larger population of theocratic right-wingers.
-
Originally posted by DeepSpace9er
Kazan.. what do you call sexual contact between animals and people? Bestiality.. and you know what? That is a common stem from homosexuality.
:wtf:
Uh...... ok. I'll be sure to inform my gay and bisexual friends that they have to start giving the animal kingdom some sweet, sweet lovin'.
-
Props to Su: Oh snap. Them suckas just got served.
-
Originally posted by Knight Templar
Props to Su: Oh snap. Them suckas just got served.
Lol, thanks, KT. I'm glad I have you in my corner. :)
But, really, all I do is speak the truth. :cool: :nod:
-
Sorry to jump in without reading the entire thread, and sorry for probably being completely naive.. I'm quite so when it comes to political issues, but doesn't the Constitution say something about marriage between a man and a woman? Or has that been challenged as "unconstitutional" along with those other things (one nation under God... etc...) that are basically written directly on it anyway? If the Constitution does have something to say on the issue, it says what it says, doesn't it? It seems people are trying to reinterpret it.. I mean, that's like saying while reading your barbeque instructions manual "oh, it doesn't actually mean I need to do all this stuff before step # 78: 'IGNITE GAS'." Okay, so that wasn't a very good analogy.. but work with me here. Okay, fire away at the naive and uneducated guy who throws his random opinions into the mix every now and then. ;)
-
Nope. The constitution was designed so that no part of it restricts the liberties of the citizenry- it guarantees freedoms the government cannot take away, not the reverse. And it certainly never mentions any Christian religious precepts- Jefferson and a significant number of the rest of the major founders were Deists. The only exception, historically, has been the ill-fated Prohibition amendment. Apparently sanctimonious religious activists still haven't learned their lesson from the last time. But then, learning was never their strong suit.
-
Originally posted by Su-tehp
"...Now especially through homosexuals." I've heard alot of ignorant statements but that's a doozie. AIDS is spread by heterosexuals just as much, if not more than homosexuals. Just look at Africa. The AIDS infection rate is booming over there and it's going to get a lot worse over there in the next few years. AIDS is spread in Africa mostly by heterosexual men and women, from husbands to wives because the husbands decided to sleep with a prostitute. It's spread among teenagers having unprotected sex. It's spreading all over the place because the African nations are having problems trying to convince their people that safe sex is, baring abstinece, the only way to prevent the spread of AIDS.
not to mention that the Catholic churches refusal to support (and outright opposition) to safe sex campaigns (such as encouraging use of condom) in Africa has increased the spread of Aids immesurably - every sperm may be sacred, but so should every life.
-
Not to mention the fact that the vatican has flat out lied about the effectiveness of condoms in preventing AIDS. But that's a whole other discussion.
-
God all mighty...This is the reason why I don't support any religion...I don't want to be a brainwashed idiot.
Does god exist? My oppinion: Give me Gods phone number, address, email, and I'll get back to you after we've had a chat.
I also know a few people who are gay and lesbian...and quite frankly they're the best people to hang out with, they are just like everyone else, except that they are gay/lesbian.
No one has the right to ban them from marriage not even god himself/herself.
Hey Lib, trust me on this. Why the hell are you in a gaming forum, doesn't that go against your religion or something?
Cor
-
Does god exist? My oppinion: Give me Gods phone number, address, email, and I'll get back to you after we've had a chat.
Cause and effect. You were caused by a cause, your parents, and they were from a cause, their parents etc. The first cause that brought into being and initiated all other causes must be an uncaused cause. The uncaused cause would have to have existed forever, thus possesing qualities of a Deity. If you think that the big bang caused everything into existence then you are applying those qualities to matter. Either way you look at it, some being greater than yourself caused you into being.
-
Originally posted by DeepSpace9er
Cause and effect. You were caused by a cause, your parents, and they were from a cause, their parents etc. The first cause that brought into being and initiated all other causes must be an uncaused cause. The uncaused cause would have to have existed forever, thus possesing qualities of a Deity. If you think that the big bang caused everything into existence then you are applying those qualities to matter. Either way you look at it, some being greater than yourself caused you into being.
Well, that's a spurious reason.
-
Originally posted by DeepSpace9er
Cause and effect.
I'll let you _try_
Originally posted by DeepSpace9er
You were caused by a cause, your parents,
Yes, his parents has coitus and fertiliziation then inplantation occured - thus far you're correct in that his parents were the cause
althought it's still a more that slight misuse of the word "cause"
Originally posted by DeepSpace9er
and they were from a cause, their parents etc.
still correct - albeit being redunant
Originally posted by DeepSpace9er
The first cause that brought into being and initiated all other causes must be an uncaused cause.
Not so fast - "causes" are not chain reactions - your being born doesn't cause you to have children (And I hope you never do)
Cause in effect refers to that which can be undeniably linked
Strong force and atoms staying togeather
Gravitation and earth staying in orbit
Fusion creating heavier atoms
Originally posted by DeepSpace9er
The uncaused cause would have to have existed forever,
non sequitur
now you have entered pure BS and contradiction
Originally posted by DeepSpace9er
thus possesing qualities of a Deity.
non sequitur
even if you had been making sense to this point then this would be assuming the proposition a priori
Originally posted by DeepSpace9er
If you think that the big bang caused everything into existence then you are applying those qualities to matter.
Non sequitur
Which qualities are that? That gravity, electromagnetism, etc are there?
Originally posted by DeepSpace9er
Either way you look at it, some being greater than yourself caused you into being.
Once again - a priori
-
Originally posted by Kazan
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/24/elec04.prez.bush.marriage/index.html
Fortunately it will NOT get a 66% supermajority in the house and then the senate
Then there isn't a snowball's chance in hell that it'll get a 75% (38) state supermajority
Mr [un]President should be impeached and removed from office for even suggesting such a propsertous violation of human rights. I am ashamed to call myself an american today, If this passes either the house or senate I will seriously start contemplating moving out of the united states.
I believe that a separate civil union for gay couples with equal legal status to marriage should be established. Marriage has ALWAYS been about a man and a woman and will ALWAYS be that way. Don't like it? Tough ****.
Now will you stop howling and *****ing every time someone does something you don't approve of?
-
Yeah but there's that inequality thing again... a "seperate but equal" institution for homosexuals sounds a lot like some other dubious laws that have been overturned by the Supreme Court. More correctly, marriage should imply a civil union, but not be required for one. That way you take all gender parameters out of the question.
-
Kudos, Kazan, well done. Take DeepSace9er's own twisted logic and tie him up with it. :)
Originally posted by Woolie Wool
I believe that a separate civil union for gay couples with equal legal status to marriage should be established. Marriage has ALWAYS been about a man and a woman and will ALWAYS be that way. Don't like it? Tough ****.
Now will you stop howling and *****ing every time someone does something you don't approve of?
It's called debate, WW. If the African-Americans didn't "howl and *****" back during the 1950s and 1960s during the civil rights movement, they would never have gotten the right to vote. And yes, a bunch of conservatives back then tried to argue that it went against religious tenets to give black people the right to vote. (They said "tough ****" too.) After all, no black Americans ever the right to vote before then. By your logic, just because black Americans had always been excluded from the vote, it should have always remained that way.
This gay marriage debate is just another civil rights issue. As such, it's inevitable that gay marriage will happen someday soon. Look at how far the issue has come in just the last ten years. Ten years ago, most people disapproved of the idea of civil unions; now most people approve of it if it doesn't mean having to approve gay marriage. With that many people changing their minds in only ten years, it's very likely that more people will become more tolerant of the idea of gay marriage. Gay marriage is inevitable.
Don't like it? Tough ****. :D
-
Bloody hell...
Right, here goes: I know precisely bugger-all about the American legal system, so I won't even go into it (there are people here far better qualified than me to talk about it).
People should be free to act as they wish, as long as their actions do not cause other people to suffer.
I cannot see a reason why anyone can hate gay people so much as some here seem to (Liberator, Deepspace9er, I'm talking to you). They are not causing you harm. They are not lowering the quality of your life. What possible reason could you have for this animosity?
Gay people do not CHOOSE to be gay. You don't get men going, "I know - I'm going to start having sex with men instead of women! That'll be fun!" or vice versa. It's not something they can change their minds about.
I have great respect for faith. It can be an immensely powerful force for good in the world, as it can influence people like no political movement can. However, when people use their religion as an excuse to inflict misery on others (be it through discrimination, restriction or terrorism) then it is something to be abhored, a frankly disgusting perversion of one of humanity's oldest creations. I treat all abuses of religious influence equally, so to me gay-bashing by Christian fundies, restriction of women by some Islamic countries, or people like bin Laden who use religion as a front for a political movement are all the same. Some may be less "severe" than others (to some people), but they are all part of the same problem.
If we are to stop all the pointless divisions in the modern world (which usually lead to shocking levels of bloodshed, if history can be taken as precedent), then people have to realise that we are all very different externally, but that we are fundamentally the same. I know that it is an animal instinct to weed out those weaker than or "different" to us, but I would have hoped that our intelligence would supercede our instincts and let us become something more than what we are given through our genes. If we can't do that (and do it soon), then quite honestly, we're fucxed.
Liberator, DS9er: I have great respect for you and your religion, and I accept fully that you have your own beliefs and opinions. However, I cannot respect your determination to force those beliefs on other people, particularly when those beliefs may cause suffering and misery for many of them.
My personal opinion of you, for example, is that you are religious extremists (which I do not like the idea of), but that's your choice. You can live your lives by the laws of the Bible, or you can renounce your faith and go off to be hippies or something. Doesn't matter to me one little bit, cos it won't hurt anyone. But don't go and condemn people because they're a bit different to you. They're still PEOPLE.
OK, that probably didn't come across very well, 'cos to be honest I'm not that eloquent, but hopefully I've made my point. :)
-
the problem is thay are athoratarian, meaning they beleve that it is the governments job to enforce a strict moral code on people (thus 'bettering' them), that's why they can't simpy be ignored.
-
I have long since lost my patience with their kind and hence my hostility and will to remove them from the face of the planet
Liberator: you have yet to try an make an intelligent remark in reply to my rebuttal of your ill-informed opinion on the validity of logical arguements
DeepSpace9er: Want to try your had at logic again, maybe this time with a little less illogic
-
but leave open the possibility that states could allow civil unions.
Thats what they want right? Equal Rights? So whats the big deal? Ooooh, its not called Marriage, big deal.
-
I wan't going to, but what the hell, this thread's in the tank anyway.
You guys must be immensely bored. I mean you know everything and all.
-
Wow Liberator - Argumentum Ad Hominem
Congratulations you just lowered yourself to the level of the first grade
I SAID TRY AND MAKE A REBUTTAL - Not try and insult us
-
Originally posted by Zeronet
Thats what they want right? Equal Rights? So whats the big deal? Ooooh, its not called Marriage, big deal.
"Seperate but equal" standing is not allowed on the grounds of not really being equal, Zeronet. Go back and read some history.
Let's set up a parallel:
Lets assume, for a moment that you have a girlfriend, whom you've been living with for years. The two of you have a child. Your neighbor is married but does not live with his wife. He has a kid too.
What if, under the law, you could not be the 'father' of your child. You could be the 'paternal genetic donor', but not the 'father'. Your neighbor, who has never seen his own daughter, is on paper as the 'father' of his daughter. There's a difference there.
The reality of the situation, currently, is actually worse. We don't even have 'seperate but equal'. Under the current system, not only are you not the 'father', but you couldn't even be the guardian of the child when your girlfriend died. You couldn't claim the child as a dependent (because, you're not the 'father').
-
thank you mikhael
(when are they going to learn, then Mik and I actually agree that they should just run for the hills)
-
can't this just break down to anarchy and the nastiest fighter wins, that's were it' headed anyway.
-
the "nastiest fighter" should be rephrased "the most effective fighter"
-
yeah, I guess, if you could fight in some non-nasty way that was more effective than a nasty one you would still win
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
can't this just break down to anarchy and the nastiest fighter wins, that's were it' headed anyway.
Cause anarchy is the weakest form of government. It always breaks down into order of some sort. :D
-
"Anarchy" in my mind is, rather, the lack of a government, or at least, the presence of one with no capacity to enforce its rule...
Bleh, Kaz, 'nother definition, please? :p
-
Originally posted by Kazan
thank you mikhael
(when are they going to learn, that when Mik and I actually agree that they should just run for the hills)
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGH! The two of them are actually agreeing on something! RUN FOR THE HILLS!
Hey, wait a minute, I actually agree with them both, too... :D
What's surprising me even more is that most everybody here on this thread (with the noted exception of Libby and DeepSpace9er) agrees that gays should be accorded equal rights in some form and/or think Bush's proposed constitutional amendment is a REALLY bad idea.
Damn, an entire forum of people (with the exception of 2 people who are so obviously incapable of justifying their prejudice) actually agreeing on something? There's hope for us yet. :) :D
-
an·ar·chy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nr-k)
n. pl. an·ar·chies
1. Absence of any form of political authority.
2. Political disorder and confusion.
3. Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.
-
What would you do Deepspace9er and Liberator if you had offspring that were homosexual? How would you respond to that?
-
Well, this is the problem isn't it, I wonder how many teenage suicides are because a young man or woman has found that they are something that society is being taught is 'evil'.
-
See, personally, the only people I discriminate against are pricks, be they black, white, gay, straight or a ****ing purple unicorn I don't really give a flying ****, however if they are a prick then I can't even stand to be in the same room as them.
-
Originally posted by JC Denton
"Anarchy" in my mind is, rather, the lack of a government, or at least, the presence of one with no capacity to enforce its rule..
I know. The point I was making is that anarchy is transitory. It never lasts for long because someone eventually comes along and starts making little pockets of order :D
-
I agree with 01010
(reference to Fundamentalist Christian "I Agree with So-And-So" college campaign)
-
Originally posted by 01010
What would you do, Deepspace9er and Liberator, if you had offspring that were homosexual? How would you respond to that?
This question is REALLY relevant, especially since Vice President Cheney's 36-year-old daughter Mary is openly gay. During the 2000 campaign, Cheney (the future-Veep, not his daughter) went on record saying that gay marriage should be left to the states to decide. But just last weekend, before Bush made his announcement to push for the gay marriage amaendment, Cheney said he "would support whatever decision the president made." Naturally, now that Cheney has spoken in favor of the anti-gay-marriage amendment, gay activists all over the country are wondering where Mary Cheney stands on this issue and have even set up a website imploring her to weigh in and speak up. You can find the website here (http://www.dearmary.com/mary/index.html).
Doesn't it seem strange to any of you that Cheney would relegate his own daughter to a second-class citizen status just for political advantage?
And how do Liberator and DeepSpace9er feel about that?
-
In my humble opinion, anarchy is where humanity is headed once it becomes truly enlightened.
It is at the same time the most primitive and the most sophisticated system of human government currently in existence.
Anarchy done right would be a State of Nature. Everything in between anarchy as cavemen and anarchy as enlightened humans is just experimentation to try to arrive at a substitue for it.
-
Ya know ... the only problem I've honestly had with any of this.... was Marriages being handled in states while that state's current laws are against it. If two men or two women want to marry.....fine...but I don't agree with city officials 'over looking' state laws.... or any body of government over looking the laws of the government above it. Change the law...., don't just ignore it.
-
Originally posted by Warlock
Ya know ... the only problem I've honestly had with any of this.... was Marriages being handled in states while that state's current laws are against it. If two men or two women want to marry.....fine...but I don't agree with city officials 'over looking' state laws.... or any body of government over looking the laws of the government above it. Change the law...., don't just ignore it.
I'm a lawyer, so I know how important it is to abide by the law and not flout it. However, in the case of the San Fransisco marriages, I have to disagree with Warlock. Yeah, the mayor might technically be "breaking the law" by providing marriage licenses contrary to California state law. However, two district court judges in California were asked to order a stay on the mayor's granting of marriage licenses. The fact that those two judges refused to order the mayor to stop places this situation from the "breaking the law" column to the "civil disobedience" column.
Kinda like what Rosa parks did when she refused to sit in the back of the bus. Technically, she broke the law then, too. And look at how much the nation improved from that broken law. :nod:
-
Originally posted by Su-tehp
Kudos, Kazan, well done. Take DeepSace9er's own twisted logic and tie him up with it. :)
It's called debate, WW. If the African-Americans didn't "howl and *****" back during the 1950s and 1960s during the civil rights movement, they would never have gotten the right to vote. And yes, a bunch of conservatives back then tried to argue that it went against religious tenets to give black people the right to vote. (They said "tough ****" too.) After all, no black Americans ever the right to vote before then. By your logic, just because black Americans had always been excluded from the vote, it should have always remained that way.
Their protests (usually) did not stoop to the level of what Kazan and some others are doing. You would never hear Martin Luther King or other prominent civil-rights leaders (with the notable exceptions of the Nation of Islam and Malcolm X) throw offensive and defamatory remarks at anyone who opposed them.
As for your voting thing, you're comparing apples and oranges--you can set up a different civil union system for same-sex marriages as a federal law and as long as you actually inforce this law, the civil union will be just like marriage...only with two men or two women. We can even come up with some nice name for it to make the gay people feel better. There cannot be a substitute for voting but there can be one for marriage. Besides, how long to you think a gay couple will stay together on average? Allowing same-sex marriage would cheapen the institution of marriage greatly as divorce rates skyrocket.
By the way, the amendment could just pass with a bit of luck. You have to get the ratification of 2/3 of the states (or was it 3/4?). The right-wingers have an advantage here in that liberals are concentrated in the east and west coasts while conservatives are spread out all over the country. The Midwest and South especially have a conservative lean. According to polls, over 60% of Americans are neutral on gay marriage or oppose it. This amendment won't go down without a terrific fight.
Originally posted by Rictor
In my humble opinion, anarchy is where humanity is headed once it becomes truly enlightened.
It is at the same time the most primitive and the most sophisticated system of human government currently in existence.
Anarchy done right would be a State of Nature. Everything in between anarchy as cavemen and anarchy as enlightened humans is just experimentation to try to arrive at a substitue for it.
Your humble opinion is sonewhat dubious. What is this "enlightening" you speak of? Anarchy doesn't work because humans are human. The only real way that I see to change the human race into a workable anarchy is to use genetic engineering to remove humans' highly advanced sense of self-awareness--the very aspect that really separates us from other animals.
-
Woolie Wool: what part of the supreme court decision that says "seperate but equal laws" are unconstitutional don't you understand?
it's a 75% ratification in the states - which WONT HAPPEN
Iowa has a conservative lean - but we also have a stronger pro-rights lean
According to polls 60% of americans are AGAINST the ammendment, no matter what their personal opinion of gays are
-
Originally posted by Kazan
Woolie Wool: what part of the supreme court decision that says "seperate but equal laws" are unconstitutional don't you understand?
it's a 75% ratification in the states - which WONT HAPPEN
Iowa has a conservative lean - but we also have a stronger pro-rights lean
According to polls 60% of americans are AGAINST the ammendment, no matter what their personal opinion of gays are
Where did you get that poll? I would trust the poll I used, which comes from the Wall Street Journal more than some poll taken from some political site on the Internet.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
"Seperate but equal" standing is not allowed on the grounds of not really being equal, Zeronet. Go back and read some history.
Let's set up a parallel:
Lets assume, for a moment that you have a girlfriend, whom you've been living with for years. The two of you have a child. Your neighbor is married but does not live with his wife. He has a kid too.
What if, under the law, you could not be the 'father' of your child. You could be the 'paternal genetic donor', but not the 'father'. Your neighbor, who has never seen his own daughter, is on paper as the 'father' of his daughter. There's a difference there.
The reality of the situation, currently, is actually worse. We don't even have 'seperate but equal'. Under the current system, not only are you not the 'father', but you couldn't even be the guardian of the child when your girlfriend died. You couldn't claim the child as a dependent (because, you're not the 'father').
I was going to say somethnig else but i'll generally be a better person and agree that, at the end of the day, i, its just a name at least, in terms of the non-religious marriages and that your point holds weight.
Anything other than that, would be a argument for the sake of saving face mostly.
-
[advertisement]
Join the ABBB Party.
Vote anybody but Bush.
[/advertisement]
-
Surely 'Seperate but equal' is an contradiction in terms, anyways?
Secondly, wouldn't defining marriage by the Christian definition* be a step on the road towards the destruction of state secularity? (Which I always felt was a key aspect to proper democracy).
* (i.e. as oppossed to civil partnerships, which I think is the equivalent being discussed over here to give rights to non-married partners)
-
I always felt that the moment you start mentioning conforming to any holy book as part of a nations laws then you are certainly headed for fundamentalism.
Bush says he is concerned about Iraq becoming a 'State of Islam' and yet tries to turn his own country into a 'State of Christ' leaving the rest of us in a 'State of Panic'.
-
Originally posted by Woolie Wool
The [civil rights protesters of the 1950s and 60s] protests (usually) did not stoop to the level of what Kazan and some others are doing. You would never hear Martin Luther King or other prominent civil-rights leaders (with the notable exceptions of the Nation of Islam and Malcolm X) throw offensive and defamatory remarks at anyone who opposed them.
I doubt that flaming on a BB would fall under the category of defamation, WW. Harsh language and childish behavior are par for the course on Internet bulletin boards. And I doubt that you'd be able to make a case that Kazan's calling you a "poopy-head" or whatever would rise to the level of causing you a serious injury to your reputation, which is required to show defamation.
But that aside...
Originally posted by Woolie Wool
As for your voting thing, you're comparing apples and oranges--you can set up a different civil union system for same-sex marriages as a federal law and as long as you actually enforce this law, the civil union will be just like marriage...only with two men or two women. We can even come up with some nice name for it to make the gay people feel better. There cannot be a substitute for voting but there can be one for marriage.
Baloney. The Massachusettes Supreme Court heard that exact same reasoning and struck it down as the same fallacy that was the rationale for "separate but equal." The Massachusettes considered gay unions but said that "separate has almost never equalled equal in the history of this country."
My guess is that the US Supreme Court would reach the same conclusion, if this issue ever got there.
Sorry, WW. Your idea of setting up a "different civil union system" just doesn't hold water.
Originally posted by Woolie Wool
Besides, how long to you think a gay couple will stay together on average? Allowing same-sex marriage would cheapen the institution of marriage greatly as divorce rates skyrocket.
This is so plainly insulting to gays and lesbians, I don't even know where to begin. The divorce rate is ALREADY skyrocketing even without homosexual marriage entering the picture. Last I heard, 60% of marriages end in divorce. Lots of those gay and lesbian people getting married in California have been couples for 20 years or more. And you're here *****ing about how the divorce rate MIGHT behave if gays are allowed to marry? You know nothing about how marriage works and you know nothing about how gay partners behave. It's extremely self-righteous of you to say that gay marriage would "cheapen" marriage, when all the evidence I've seen suggests that most, if not all, of these gay couples are EXTREMELY committed to each other and might never consider divorce. Hell, if gay marriage is permitted, the divorce rate might even go DOWN as the gay couples who stay committed to each other drive down the average of divorces to marriage. And if the divorce rate were to go down with gay marriage entering the picture, wouldn't that mean that gay marriage would actually STRENGTHEN the institution of marriage?
Originally posted by Woolie Wool
By the way, the amendment could just pass with a bit of luck. You have to get the ratification of 2/3 of the states (or was it 3/4?). The right-wingers have an advantage here in that liberals are concentrated in the east and west coasts while conservatives are spread out all over the country. The Midwest and South especially have a conservative lean. According to polls, over 60% of Americans are neutral on gay marriage or oppose it. This amendment won't go down without a terrific fight.
A majority of Americans (58%) may oppose gay marriage but the most recent Gallup poll ALSO says that by only a VERY slim majority (51%) people favor this proposed amendment to the Constitution. With such a slim majority, the amendment is not going to get 3/4 of state legislatures needed to ratify it. Even a significant number of conservatives, who are against gay marriage, oppose amending the Constitution on an issue that is still in flux.
And if you cant take my word for it, go see the results of the latest Gallup poll yourself here (http://www.gallup.com/content/default.asp?ci=10792).
Another poll at the National Annenburg Election Survey (see here (http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/naes/2204_03_gay-marriage-update-2_2-24_pr.pdf)) also shows that people aged 18-29 oppose the amendment 58% to 30%. People aged 30-44 oppose it 49% to 42%. People aged 45-64 split virtually down the middle, 45% to 44% against the amendment. Only with senior voters (aged 65 and older) is there a clear majority (49% to 40%) in favor of the amendment.
So it seems clear, with so many young people against the amendment, even if it passes (something I consider highly unlikely), it's going to get repealed inside 20 years.
-
Anybody who's openly gay and tries to get married in this country has already shown they're made of stronger stuff than the vast majority of people here. I don't think divorce over stupid **** is a worry. Incidentially, since the stereotype is obviously that of the homosexual man-skank who sleeps with anybody else who's gay within 400 miles and doesn't care about commitment or any of that crap, wouldn't banning gay marraige directly target those who don't fall under that stereotype?
Never mind that I honestly can't see how you can look at, say, FOX's reality show programme and then say that gays cheapen marraige. I mean, holy ****ing ****.
You wanna strengthen marraige, why don't you all try and make the state refuse to recognize divorce. This is just poorly concealed picking on an unpopular minority.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Surely 'Seperate but equal' is an contradiction in terms, anyways?
Secondly, wouldn't defining marriage by the Christian definition* be a step on the road towards the destruction of state secularity? (Which I always felt was a key aspect to proper democracy).
* (i.e. as oppossed to civil partnerships, which I think is the equivalent being discussed over here to give rights to non-married partners)
Yes, it would be a step on that ugly road, Aldo.
Marriage, of course, is NOT a Christian institution. They don't hold the patent on it. Its not 'their' idea. Almost every culture has allowed for some for of marriage--including some that Christians would hold to be abhorrent, like matriarchal polygamy (double whammy!). In many of the cultures throughout history and many still extant today, marriage was/is a strictly secular contract.
In the United States today, marriage is a secular contract. Any church performed marriage must be recognized by the state before it can be considered a valid marriage for legal purposes. The state can dissolve any marriage and its real bonds, regardless of the religious factors involved. No church can dissolve the marital contract on its own. It can only dissolve the religious bonds, but without a state filing, the couple remains married for all secular intents and purposes.
Now, given that I can hop a plane to Nevada and get married by a licensed Elvis impersonator with a pair of hookers as witnesses in the modern incarnation of Sodom, Las Vegas, and within the hour get it anulled by another licensed Elvis impersonator, I'd say we have a lot of other issues to take care of before we worry about gay marriages "cheapening" the institution.
Woolie Wool, lets look at some facts about straight marriages. Let see if this is an institution that could possibly be 'cheapened':
- The divorce rate for first marriages is over 50%
- The divorce rate for second and subsequent marriages is over 60%
- 43% of all marriages are remarriages
- 43% of all marriages end in the first 15yrs.
These are very obviously not people who value the institution of marriage very highly.
Take, on the other hand, any random gay couple that want to be married (given the above statistics, they seem to be the only people who want to be married). I'd say that any couple that had to actually FIGHT for the right to be married, values it one hell of a lot more than these straight people do. You value something you earn far more than you value something you're given.
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
Never mind that I honestly can't see how you can look at, say, FOX's reality show programme and then say that gays cheapen marraige. I mean, holy ****ing ****.
The most ****ing sensible thing in this thread.
-
Originally posted by Su-tehp
I'm a lawyer, so I know how important it is to abide by the law and not flout it. However, in the case of the San Fransisco marriages, I have to disagree with Warlock. Yeah, the mayor might technically be "breaking the law" by providing marriage licenses contrary to California state law. However, two district court judges in California were asked to order a stay on the mayor's granting of marriage licenses. The fact that those two judges refused to order the mayor to stop places this situation from the "breaking the law" column to the "civil disobedience" column.
Kinda like what Rosa parks did when she refused to sit in the back of the bus. Technically, she broke the law then, too. And look at how much the nation improved from that broken law. :nod:
I see your point, only to me it's a bit different when a citizen, and especially on of the ones the 'law' is against, protests the law by violating it than when an elected official publicly breaks one.
Now if the mayor had priviously attempted to have that law changed and finally decided to be more direct, I'd feel differently about it. (Which may or may not have actually happened) But in my view, imagine if Bush had just decided to say, walk down the street tossing out Green Cards to illegal citizens (sorry just trying to come up with something similar on a national level) instead of a ton of ppl agreeing with him....he'd be publicly and perhaps literally flogged. :lol:
BTW as a slight side note,... I am amused at just how many posts I've read from folks with comments about human rights, and how this and that are insulting to gays ,....yet I seem to recall some of the same ppl insulting others by calling them fags or queers and such. Not trying to start a flame war, so have at me if you must,...it's merely amusing to me, as it gives the appearance that either this issue is a popular 'fad' for some....or it's just because Bush is against it so they must be for it. *shrug*
-
Who the hell cares?
America is a democracy. I don't want homosexual couples. I vote no.
If we can get an amendment to protect America, excellent!
~Wraith
-
Originally posted by Warlock
BTW as a slight side note,... I am amused at just how many posts I've read from folks with comments about human rights, and how this and that are insulting to gays ,....yet I seem to recall some of the same ppl insulting others by calling them fags or queers and such. Not trying to start a flame war, so have at me if you must,...it's merely amusing to me, as it gives the appearance that either this issue is a popular 'fad' for some....or it's just because Bush is against it so they must be for it. *shrug*
You can disapprove / dislike homosexuality and still recognise the right of people to choose their lifestyle, though. Escpecially in an issue such as this, where it amounts to an attack on the secularism of what is supposed to be a leader in democracy.
-
Originally posted by Beowulf
If we can get an amendment to protect America, excellent!
~Wraith
Yup, that's why the Go to the Moon Colony!!!111 act is being passed to protect America.
Islamic militants, fundamentalist Christians, white supremacists, all being sent to Bush's lunar colony, along with Bush.
The way the people who proposed the bill see it, is that when the British did something similar to this Australia came out okay. :)
-
you know looking at the world, I rhink it would be quicker if we just went to the moon colony
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
You can disapprove / dislike homosexuality and still recognise the right of people to choose their lifestyle, though. Escpecially in an issue such as this, where it amounts to an attack on the secularism of what is supposed to be a leader in democracy.
Actually I meant more that those same ppl where now tossing out "That's insulting to gays" right and left,...not whether they recognise their right to choose a lifestyle.
It'd be like someone who tosses out the "N Word" as a derogatory (though now that's used a bit more 'affectionatly by some) yet then jumping up and down about how something is insulting to African-Americans.
(Sorry if this example offends anyone...but it was the closest I could think of and I tried to be as "PC" with it as I could)
-
the terms 'fag' ,''gay', and 'queer have been used as an insult for so long there just part of the language, most homosexuals understand this and arn't offended unless it's directed at them for being gay.
-
@Beowolf:
America is Constitutionaly governed Representative Republic. The only thing democratic about us is our voting method. True democracies are rule by the majority. America, at least for now, is country governed by the Rule of Law. May it always be so.
Originally posted by mikhael
- The divorce rate for first marriages is over 50%
- The divorce rate for second and subsequent marriages is over 60%
- 43% of all marriages are remarriages
- 43% of all marriages end in the first 15yrs.
[/B]
And exactly who's fault is it that marriage isn't valued as highly as it once was, hmm? I was always taught that marriage is forever, unless very specific criteria are met such as infidelity or death.
Let's take a moment to define marriage.
Marriage is a ceremony where vows are exchanged between a husband and a wife before their loved ones and God.
Civic recognition and parties(before or after) be damned, that is the very root of marriage. It's an act that goes back to the dawn of Civilization.
Let's also define three words:
vow: a solemn promise or assertion; specifically : one by which a person is bound to an act, service, or condition.
husband: a male partner in a marriage
wife: a female partner in a marriage
Therefore marriage is where a man and a woman join in matrimony.
matrimony: to take for wife or husband by a formal ceremony.
So understand, what you people want to change the very meaning of what it is to be married.
And now for something off topic...kind of.
It's taken me a couple of days to understand this. But, Kazan, mikhael and any other so called 'aetheists', I understand now why you so vehemently dislike religion, Christianity in particular.
You're afraid.
Afraid that we're right and you're wrong. Because if we are, then there's more after this life and you're actions in this life will govern how you spend what comes after. You believe that if you can discredit us, that you discredit what we represent. You have my pity.
-
Beowulf - justify your dislike for them
Liberator: Your post was intelligent - right until your quotation, then all signs of intelligence left - you are simply trying to comfort yourself if you they're we ATHEISTS (spell the bloody word right) are afraid of you being right. THose people that are afraid of you being right side with you and give in to pascal's gamble.
I have never and will never give into pascals gamble - and I am not afraid of you being right in the slightest because i know that possibility os so remote it might as well be impossible.
I dislike you and your ilk so much because your religion has bred hatred and bigotry, ignorance and war. You and your ilk stubbornly refuse to be logical and when asked to support your poisiton logically you cannot.
Well i have to turn off my laptop now and catch the bus - maybe i'll finish this rant shortly.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
You're afraid.
Afraid that we're right and you're wrong. Because if we are, then there's more after this life and you're actions in this life will govern how you spend what comes after. You believe that if you can discredit us, that you discredit what we represent. You have my pity.
Now there's a stupid idea. Wouldn't it be a lot easier just to be a christian "just in case" if you were worried you could be wrong? Or at least a life of pleasurable sin, followed by a death-bed repentance?
-
Originally posted by Liberator
@Beowolf:
America is Constitutionaly governed Representative Republic. The only thing democratic about us is our voting method. True democracies are rule by the majority. America, at least for now, is country governed by the Rule of Law. May it always be so.
Can I get an amen? AMEN. Thank you. :)
And exactly who's fault is it that marriage isn't valued as highly as it once was, hmm?
I don't know, but it certainly wasn't gay people. ;)
I was always taught that marriage is forever, unless very specific criteria are met such as infidelity or death.
Then you were taught incorrectly. Given that marriage is not, in all cultures, a lifetime contract, you have made a rather sweeping generalization for the entire concept of marriage from a rather narrow sampling. Perhaps you should do a little historical and anthropological research into the concept of marriage. I think you'll find that the marriage contract has a rather rich and varied history and is far less black and white than you seem to think.
Let's take a moment to define marriage.
A strict sociological definition would be "A legally recognized and/or socially approved arrangement between two or more individuals that carries certain rights and obligations and usually involves sexual activity. "
A looser, dictionary definition is:
mar·riage n.
1.
1. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
2. The state of being married; wedlock.
3. A common-law marriage.
4. A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.
2. A wedding.
3. A close union: “the most successful marriage of beauty and blood in mainstream comics” (Lloyd Rose).
4. Games. The combination of the king and queen of the same suit, as in pinochle.
But lets get on to your ideas.
Marriage is a ceremony where vows are exchanged between a husband and a wife before their loved ones and God.
Civic recognition and parties(before or after) be damned, that is the very root of marriage. It's an act that goes back to the dawn of Civilization.
Quite right! Marriage has existed since the damn of civilization--which pretty much puts it before the dawn of your God, since he's only got history back about six to eight thousand years. Meanwhile, cultures and religions that don't include your God had marriage--some of which did not limit marriage to one man and one woman. Oh and they did it either in civil or religious ceremonies, without your God. I recommend keeping your religion clear of this, since, well, it just doesn't have enough history to face off against, Egyptian, Babylonian or Chinese (to name just a few) historical documentation on the subject.
During all those thousands of years (remember, the Egyptians have judeochristian dogma beat by over 4000 years, if you need some perspective), marriages were both secular and religious, contract and sacred. They were NEVER solely religious.
Let's also define three words:
vow: a solemn promise or assertion; specifically : one by which a person is bound to an act, service, or condition.
Granted.
husband: a male partner in a marriage
wife: a female partner in a marriage
Granted. This is fun.
Therefore marriage is where a man and a woman join in matrimony.
Oopsy! False logic. It does not follow. Non Sequitr.
We call two shoes a pair when there is a left shoe and a right shoe, too. But a pair of shoes is also, technically any two shoes, left or right or ambidexterous (ambipoderous? ).
If the male partner in a marriage is a husband, and the female partner in a marriage is a wife, it follows that ALL female partners in a marriage are wives and all male partners in a marriage are husbands. Thus two men married to each other are husbands. Two women married to each other are wives. A man can have multiple husbands and multiple wives. A woman can have multiple husbands and multiple wives. Or they can have one from either set.
If you'd like, I could show you what I just said using rigorous mathematical logic and set theory. That might hurt your brain.
matrimony: to take for wife or husband by a formal ceremony.
So understand, what you people want to change the very meaning of what it is to be married.
I much prefer this definition, since its rather more inclusive and happens to be the first one in the dictionary:
"The act or state of being married; marriage."
Using that definition, we're not changing the meaning of marriage. We're living up to all its possiblities.
It's taken me a couple of days to understand this. But, Kazan, mikhael and any other so called 'aetheists', I understand now why you so vehemently dislike religion, Christianity in particular.
You're afraid.
Afraid that we're right and you're wrong. Because if we are, then there's more after this life and you're actions in this life will govern how you spend what comes after. You believe that if you can discredit us, that you discredit what we represent. You have my pity.
Ouch. First of all, do not presume to question my faith. I'm not an Atheist. Not in the least slightest bit. I just don't buy into your minority religion. I'm what you might call a 'heathen':
"heathen: One who adheres to the religion of a people or nation that does not acknowledge the God of Judaism, Christianity, or Islam."
I'm not afraid: I am humble. I seek knowledge, I do not pretend to it. I question, I do not follow. I believe that my actions in this life govern my future in this life and that is all I can ever hope to know. I do not believe in an afterlife, or reincarnation. I do not believe in eternal punishment or reward.
I question my own beliefs rigorously, to see if they can stand up to scrutiny. If they cannot, I must reexamine my beliefs. Those that survive scrutiny are held, only to be reexamined later as new things are learned.
I do not seek to discredit you, or what you represent and I do not need, nor want, your pity. You might just be right and that's good. I'm glad for you. You might be wrong, and if you are, then I'm sad for you for laboring under a false belief for so long. I accept that your beliefs are YOUR beliefs and do not have to be mine.
I also expect--no, I demand--that I and others like me not be forced to live by your beliefs. My beliefs do not demean, cheapen, or lessen yours.
We are a nation of laws. The first law, the most important law, the supreme law of the land states very clearly:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Your faith has no place in my life, nor in the law that governs my life.
Gay people have the right to be married and enjoy the rights and priveleges and honors and accolades that attend such a union. They are not granted that right: they already have it. They are not able to excercise that right because--as you said--some people are afraid. They don't know how to make this concept work with the beliefs that they base their lives upon.
There's a simple solution to that situation though: stay out of their lives. No one, I guarantee, is going to force you to go to a gay wedding. No one, I promise, will make you marry a member of your own gender. Live your life and let them live theirs without the interference of your faith.
-
To Expand on my previous rant -
I am not a fraid; I am logical and contemplating. I find religion devoid of truth because it is devoid of support of evidence. I find no logical syllogism that lacks a fallcy exists to support it. I find no reason for one to exist and I see many psychological reasons for humans to fabricate one.
I see the behavior of addiction every time I argue with a theist, and I have argued with more than hundreds. Always the same patterns - illogic, invalid "evidence", once challenged they start to become less mature in their argument. Once they are cornered they strike out like a child.
Faith which is defined as belief without proof (dictionary) is by definition irrational. Psychology has a term for people who stick to irrational beliefs such as "I see people in the sky" without evidence. It is a sad state when most of the human population sells their intellectual integrety off to the most emotionally appealing bidder, It does not bode we'll for our future.
I daily see people of FAITH supplanting things supported with EVIDENCE for their illogic, I daily see people of faith being bigots, I daily see people of faith trying to force their morality on other people.
The few redeeming qualities that religions has such as encouraging charitability (which is often ignored) and compassion (which is being flagrantly ignored by liberator, deepspace9er and ever other homophobe around) can be acheived without religion.
Religion is devoid of purpose in this day and age - we have outlived it. To quote Friedrich Nietzsche "...it is all over with priests and gods when man becomes scientific. Moral: science is the forbidden as such -- it alone is forbidden. Science is the first sin, seed of all sin, the original sin. This alone is morality. 'Thou shalt not know' -- the rest follows."
-
hmmm, the old 'your afraid' dig.
you know what, I HOPE I'm wrong, becase I am going to die some day and even if I spend eternity in hell I'd rather still be around than no longer exsisting in any sence. what I have invisioned for myself and everyone else is the ultimate more horrific fate, worse even than an eternity of torment.
and I find it interesting that you assume I am liveing a live of evil that is deserveing of hell, granted by your defined veiw on the world yes I fit the bill, I don't go to church, I didn't get my ashes the other day, I don't go through the rigamoral, but I am probly one of the nicest people you could ever meet (if somewhat aragant) if your god is going to damn me for hell after the life I've lived, I'd rather not spend eternity with it anyway.
-
It's called faith, people. Kazan, whether you admit it or not, you have faith that when you pick up a glass full of water the will come with it. Yes, we have empirical evidence that suggests that it has been so since the beginning of time and that it will continue to do so till the end of time. Yet, it may not have, and might at some time in the future not do so.
@Bob
To be fair, I never said you were living a life of evil. Being nice just doesn't cut it. Just know that for my part, there are three ways into Heaven:
1. Lead a just and perfect life. Humans are not perfect, so this is out.
2. Become a Kosher Jew and keep all the Commandments, all day every day for the rest of your life. Difficult, but not much fun either.
3. Accept Christ into your heart as Lord and Savior. This one is easy, but no one does in till they are ready.
I know people who accepted him as children and are some of the finest people I know, I also know a man who was a literal Drunken, Hell-Raiser. And yet, the very week he accepted Christ, he was in church as has since become a shining example of the transforming power Jesus Christ can have over a life.
@mikhael
At that's one thing we agree on. I do not however like how certain groups that have a definite liberal bent have used the court system to pervert some of that rule. A case should stand on it own merits and evidence, not the decision of a judge or jury from 5 minutes ago, much less a decade or more.
Back to the issue at hand:
A man cannot have a husband and a woman cannot have a wife.
I was not talking about other cultures, I was talking about Judeo/Christian culture. What you would call Western Civilization. Your[liberals] problem is that you subscribe to Moral Relativism. You don't want to believe that there is absolute Right and absolute Wrong, you instead want everything to be Gray. It has been my experience that there is very little in life that is Gray.
@Kazan pt. 2
I disagree with Nietzsche. The first sin that all other's decend from is not science. The first sin is knowledge that you are doing wrong.
A 4-year old child can kill, but they cannot understand that what they did was wrong, you can explain it over and over, but their mind cannot comprehend the act. An adult or even a young teenager on the other hand is quite capable of understanding.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
It's called faith, people. Kazan, whether you admit it or not, you have faith that when you pick up a glass full of water the will come with it. Yes, we have empirical evidence that suggests that it has been so since the beginning of time and that it will continue to do so till the end of time. Yet, it may not have, and might at some time in the future not do so.
Actually what you just described is not faith. I do not have 'faith' that glass will stay in the water when I pick it up in a particular way. What I have is knowledge and logic. Faith is "belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence" according to the dictionary. Scientific fact is not based on 'faith'. It is based on test and evaluation. No matter how hard I believe, no matter how much I have faith that the water will somehow stay behind in defiance of the laws of nature, that water is going with the glass. It will always do so, whether I believe it or not. It will always go, and my faith will have availed me nothing.
@mikhael
At that's one thing we agree on. I do not however like how certain groups that have a definite liberal bent have used the court system to pervert some of that rule. A case should stand on it own merits and evidence, not the decision of a judge or jury from 5 minutes ago, much less a decade or more.
This shows a monumental lack of understanding of how the law works and the role of the courts. Stu already addressed this.
Back to the issue at hand:
A man cannot have a husband and a woman cannot have a wife.
Repeating something already logically proven incorrect doesn't not render it correct. ITs still wrong, no matter how many times you say it.
I was not talking about other cultures, I was talking about Judeo/Christian culture. What you would call Western Civilization. Your[liberals] problem is that you subscribe to Moral Relativism. You don't want to believe that there is absolute Right and absolute Wrong, you instead want everything to be Gray. It has been my experience that there is very little in life that is Gray.
You absolutely right. I do believe that morality is relative. Lets get right down to it: "goodness" only has meaning when you see it relative to "evil". "right" only has meaning relative to "wrong". You cannot define one without defining the other. Neither exists in the world, only in the human mind. They cannot exist seperate, any more than a compass can point to north without also telling you where south is.
You know what? That's not a bad thing. The society could not exist with absolutes. Can you imagine a world in which all punishments for a crime, regardless of mitigating circumstances, were absolute and unchangeable? Self defense becomes impossible, because killing your assailant just gets you punished the same as a murderer. As soon as you argue that there's a moral difference between killing in self defense and killing in cold blood, you have subscribed to moral relativism. One thing is somehow 'better' than the other. It need not be killing. It could just be a simple punch. A punch thrown in rage, and punch thrown in self defense are morally different. A lie told for advantage and a lie told to comfort a distressed person are morally different. One is more evil than the other, and yet, they are both lies.
Once again, though, I ask you to leave your religion out of the laws of my nation, and out of other people's lives. You do not get to force your religion on anyone else. You do not get to force your faith on anyone else. You do not get to force your morality on anyone else. You do not get to choose how they live their lives, or what legal contracts they can and cannot enter into based on your moral beliefs. The law of the land does not allow you to legislate your morals, beliefs or religion into my life or anyone else's.
-
Originally posted by DeepSpace9er
If you think that the big bang caused everything into existence then you are applying those qualities to matter. Either way you look at it, some being greater than yourself caused you into being.
And here is where you're wrong. I'm too lazy to search myself, but if you were to do a research with the term 'energy, void, big bang', I'm sure you'd find at least ONE of the numerous articles talking about how energy can come from a void aka how the big-bang could have come from nothing.
-
Uhm, Liberator, you might want to examine the last paragraph and somewhat of your last post before accusing others of moral relativism. The very definition of subjectivism (which, for you non-philosophy students, is like moral relativism on crack), and basically exactly what you said, is that if you don't personally recognize it's wrong it isn't wrong. Which'd leave the likes of Dahmer and Pol Pot virtual saints, I should note.
Relativism, to clarify, proposes that if those around you don't think it's wrong it ain't wrong- which is actually an idea which would probably appeal to you, given all the Bush-derived talk about how activist judges are imposing rights on a people that don't want them. It's really a much more functional way to look at morality, since after all it's everyone else who'll have to deal with you should you decide to go on a killing spree or something, but when applied to law must be treated cautiously else it can lead to mob rule and other unpleasantnesses, and isn't really my cup of tea.
Also, it's worth pointing out that from here (I don't read Nietzche, he's repugnant and utterly insane to boot), it looks like you two have roughly the same interpretation of original sin, actually. The apple in the Garden was banned specifically because it yielded knowledge- science. But that's another topic, for sometime when an out-and-out theology discussion is called for, and Kazan isn't likely to spend four pages screaming at me for actually having read the Bible.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
You're afraid.
Afraid that we're right and you're wrong. Because if we are, then there's more after this life and you're actions in this life will govern how you spend what comes after. You believe that if you can discredit us, that you discredit what we represent. You have my pity. [/B]
What you represent :
-Your head of church banning the use of condoms when it would save thousands of lives in Africa, where the people actually listen to the preachers.
-Discrimination against people who you think are rebelling against God. Didn't Jesus himself said something like 'love thy neighbours'. He said that, not 'love thy neighbours only if he has the same view as you'.
-Between the crusade, inquisition, and witch burning, Christianism has an ever bigger body count that recent Muslim jihad.
That being said, this is why I choose not to be christian. I believe that there is something bigger than us, call it God, Luck or Fate.
But as I said, bigger than us. Any religion speaking of an entity bigger than us in terms we can understand defeat the purpose of said entity in my opinion.
Sorry in advance for all christians out there, I don't believe any of you are like I described, I just wanted to explain why I don't like christianism.
-
"gets another popcorn bowl"
Get rollin', pals, all that is very entertaining :D
-
Originally posted by Liberator
It's taken me a couple of days to understand this. But, Kazan, mikhael and any other so called 'aetheists', I understand now why you so vehemently dislike religion, Christianity in particular.
You're afraid.
Afraid that we're right and you're wrong. Because if we are, then there's more after this life and you're actions in this life will govern how you spend what comes after. You believe that if you can discredit us, that you discredit what we represent. You have my pity.
I have absolutely no doubt that the God you believe in doesn't exist. Your holy book is too full of errors and serious immorality to ever fool me. So I'm not afraid that I've got it wrong and I'm going to hell. The possibility of Hell even existing is laughable to me.
What I am afraid of is what the world would be like if people like you ever got total control. That possibilty gives me nightmares.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
You're afraid.
Afraid that we're right and you're wrong...
Ha. That's rich, coming from someone who has to invent false ideas to comfort them from the real truth.
I think a non-religious person has a bit less to be afraid of (with respect to there actually being an afterlide), than someone who bases their whole life and philosophies on something that can't actually be proven to exist.
If I die and end up at the pearly gates being juded by St Peter (whoever it is), then fair enough.
If you die and find nothing - since your dead, its going to be a bit more dissapointing for you, isn't it. You've lost everything you ever believed in; I've lost... well, nothing really.
-
1) I wouldn't like to be that judging guy, considering the hundred of peoples whi die every second ( he better do his job fast :D )
2) but since there's nothing after death, he won't be disapointed or anything, since he'll just vanish, you know ;)
-
@ Genryu
Your head of church banning the use of condoms when it would save thousands of lives in Africa, where the people actually listen to the preachers.
I never said I was Catholic, I am in fact Southern Baptist. I am therefore a Protestant. And the primary error that everybody is making, you are judging modern religions by what was in the past, the far past. I could hardly judge one of you from your actions when you were a child.
However, this morning I realized what it's all about, the controversy about Gay Marriage, the Janet Jackson debacle and what has come after, all of it.
Right and Wrong
There is such a thing as Right and there is such a thing a Wrong. The controversy arises because a portion of the population wants to believe that Wrong is based on what will be accepted by people around them then it's okay. I'll answer them by asking a question, if the people around them were killing innocents for fun and laughing about it, does it make it any less wrong?
On a basic pre-conscious level, most people realize that homossexuality is wrong. Now, consciously, they may behave otherwise, but honestly when you find out the guy standing next to you is gay, you try and put a little distance between you and him don't you?
-
Liberator: "right and wrong" are always relative
and your assertion that on a "basic pre-conscious level, most people realize that homosexuality is wrong" is PROPOSTEROUS - have you even taken a psychology class. You merely conmtinue to be a BIGOT
ATTEMPT to justify your dislike without using appeals to religion or "morality"
-
Originally posted by Liberator
@Beowolf:
America is Constitutionaly governed Representative Republic. The only thing democratic about us is our voting method. True democracies are rule by the majority. America, at least for now, is country governed by the Rule of Law. May it always be so.
You're right, I know that.
So, if we can get a constitutional amendment making only marriages between a man and a women legally recognized, than good. Because we ARE a constitutional republic.
Why do I want this amendment? Because everyday I see the destruction of my society, I see the destruction of all that is good in this world. Everytime I see two homosexuals kiss or nuzzle, I feel so sick to my stomach that If I don't leave immeadiatly, I'll vomit. That is the ONLY time in my life I have ever felt that way. I've seen my share of disgusting things and acts, but nothing compares to two homosexuals going at it. (Mangled dead bodies don't even come close.)
Homosexuality is wrong. From anyway you look at it. I don't care what you do in your bedroom, but I will not have the sanctity of marriage eroded so that homosexuals can get a tax benefit. Marriage like most things, is what you make of it. Let's not degrade it to the level of mere carnal lust. Marriage is meant to create a stable enviroment to raise children. (What's half the reason the world is going to hell? So many divorces and f***ed up families.)
The trick here is not to focus on homosexuality, it is to focus on marriage.
~Beowulf
-
Why the focus on the marriage aspect? It's the Homosexual part people are having a problem with.
Let me quantify, the Homosexual part is what people are having the biggest problem with right now.
You are right however when you talk about how marriage as an institution isn't what it once was. It's decline corresponds to the removal of any kind of religion from the public consciousness that has occured since the 1960's. What we're seeing is the backlash to the total removal of religion from public life. People need something greater than themselves to believe in, we are just wired up that way. mikhael and his ilk would have it be the government. I and mine would have it be God.
The problem is government was designed to work for the people and their common defense. Instead the current government actually does more harm than good in most cases. People work nearly half the year to pay their tax burden in this country. Europeans, most of you work nearly three quarters of the year to pay yours and your ####### VAT tax causes everything to be more expensive that it actually should be, I don't understand why you haven't risen up against such a horrible disservice.
-
Only people like YOU need something greater than themselves to believe in. You're so dependant upon your greater thing that it doesn't even enter into your mind that some individuals of this species aren't like you and don't have to have something higher to believe in.
Religion has no business in government, especially not your religion with it's bigotry and hatred.
You and Beolwulf have yet to try to support your dislike for homosexuality - because you CANNOT your ONLY justification is that you're religious BIGOTS.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
I never said I was Catholic, I am in fact Southern Baptist. I am therefore a Protestant. And the primary error that everybody is making, you are judging modern religions by what was in the past, the far past. I could hardly judge one of you from your actions when you were a child.
That's a great comment considering you then make the primary error of assuming that he was talking about something far in the past. The Pope banning condoms is something the Vatican did recently because people wanted to hand out condoms to prevent AIDS.
I don't think the pope can be called a child in any sense of the word :D
Originally posted by Beowulf
Let's not degrade it to the level of mere carnal lust. Marriage is meant to create a stable enviroment to raise children.
You're showing you prejudice here again. In fact I put it to you that marriage between god-fearing christians is more about lust than it ever is between homsexuals.
Most hetrosexual and homosexual couples get married because they are in love with each other. They get married because it is a celebration of their love and a way of showing people that they are commited to each other.
However most homosexual couples will have slept together before getting married while the christian couples your so proud of won't have. So I ask you. Which couple is going to be thinking of the carnal delights that await them in the marriage bed? ;7
-
Originally posted by Liberator
@ Genryu
I never said I was Catholic, I am in fact Southern Baptist. I am therefore a Protestant. And the primary error that everybody is making, you are judging modern religions by what was in the past, the far past. I could hardly judge one of you from your actions when you were a child.
On a basic pre-conscious level, most people realize that homossexuality is wrong. Now, consciously, they may behave otherwise, but honestly when you find out the guy standing next to you is gay, you try and put a little distance between you and him don't you?
My bad. I'm not an expert on the differents sub-cultures in christianism. And if you want me to judge christianism on a more modern POV : WW2. Sorry, but I didn't see christians being that sorry other what happened to the jews in germany.
And my second point on discrimination still stands.
As for your last argument, I've never known one, so I can't say.
I've seen transexual on the other hand, and they creep me out way more than a gay couple could in my opinion. My eyes still burns when I remember this guy in a dress :shaking: .
-
I've had gay friends in the past and I've never felt any discomfort in being around them.
Sure if a gay man I knew wanted me I'd be uncomfortable around him but I'd be similarly uncomfortable around a woman who wanted me when I had no interest in her.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Sure if a gay man I knew wanted me I'd be uncomfortable around him but I'd be similarly uncomfortable around a woman who wanted me when I had no interest in her.
greatest post so far
-
Most of the christian right make the assumption that every gay man wishes that he was screwing them.
Kind of egotistical when you look at some of them :)
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Most of the christian right make the assumption that every gay man wishes that he was screwing them.
Kind of egotistical when you look at some of them :)
:: Insert Bill Hicks "creationists looking unevolved joke" here ::
Beowulf, you know what makes me sick? Bigots like you, hatemongers like you, people that are so insecure in their own skin that they have to spread it onto people that have done nothing wrong other than be born the way they are. People like you are the reason this world is rapidly going to ****, not two gay men who do what they do behind closed doors and personally, as much as I try to be tolerant to pure imbeciles like you, I'd love to take every single one of your ilk and sew your goddamn flapping mouths shut, preferably with a homosexuals pubic hair.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
There is such a thing as Right and there is such a thing a Wrong. The controversy arises because a portion of the population wants to believe that Wrong is based on what will be accepted by people around them then it's okay. I'll answer them by asking a question, if the people around them were killing innocents for fun and laughing about it, does it make it any less wrong?
I notice that you qualified your statement: "killing innocents for fun". Almost as if, somehow, killing "innocents" is some how worse than killing the corrupt, or as if killing for fun were worse than killing out of necessity. It looks like moral relativism to me--especially when your moral absolute is "Thou shalt not kill."
On a basic pre-conscious level, most people realize that homossexuality is wrong. Now, consciously, they may behave otherwise, but honestly when you find out the guy standing next to you is gay, you try and put a little distance between you and him don't you?
No, I don't. And if he hits on me, I'm flattered. When I'm in a club, dancing on the floor, and some guy comes to dance with me, I don't freak out. I dance with him. You have to understand: some of us aren't homophobic. We don't have this idea that homosexuals are wrong--and never did. Its not 'preconcious'. Hate is something you're taught. It's something you learn.
Originally posted by Beowulf
Everytime I see two homosexuals kiss or nuzzle, I feel so sick to my stomach that If I don't leave immeadiatly, I'll vomit. That is the ONLY time in my life I have ever felt that way. I've seen my share of disgusting things and acts, but nothing compares to two homosexuals going at it. (Mangled dead bodies don't even come close.)
Wow. Someone's insecure. Me, I groove on seeing two girls kiss.
Homosexuality is wrong. From anyway you look at it. I don't care what you do in your bedroom, but I will not have the sanctity of marriage eroded so that homosexuals can get a tax benefit. Marriage like most things, is what you make of it.
First you say that marriage is something that has "sanctity", then you say it "is what you make of it". What if my marriage has no "sanctity". I wasn't married by a church. I was married by a public official on the floor of my wife's father's living room, barefoot, wearing jeans and a t-shirt. Oh, sure, six months later, there was a wedding ceremony, but that was just so we could invite everyone over to give us money and gifts. ;)
What's half the reason the world is going to hell? So many divorces and f***ed up families.
Can you show me facts and figures that show "the world is going to hell" because of "divorces and f**ed up families"?
-
lol @ mik... get em! :D
-
Originally posted by mikhael
Me, I groove on seeing two girls kiss.
Dead on, man :D
And as for guys, well, I just ignore them, not like they're gonna bite me.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
Wow. Someone's insecure. Me, I groove on seeing two girls kiss.
Damn straight, my G/F is up to it all the while, I love it.
Originally posted by mikhael
Can you show me facts and figures that show "the world is going to hell" because of "divorces and f**ed up families"?
See, I thought it was because we have right wing ****wits like Bush in office who is a corporate handpuppet, but obviously I was mistaken. ;)
-
i just realized "liberator"'s name is very ironic
is he trying to liberate the world from the tolerance and heathenism?
PS Libby - see my new sig, it's there for you
-
Originally posted by 01010
Damn straight, my G/F is up to it all the while, I love it.
[Monty Python Voice]You lucky, lucky bastard[/Monty Python Voice]
-
This thread is funny, yet quite tragic as well.
It's not as big as other threads I've seen, though. I've seen 30-pagers - this simply doesn't compare.
Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing, I haven't decided yet.
Just one thing I ought to point out, for all those screaming 'they're destroying our society!'
Consider the following options.
A) Heterosexual marriages ONLY
B) Heterosexual and homosexual marriages
C) Homosexual marriages ONLY
Now think. Which one is truly a threat to your values? Which one actually outlaws your beliefs? Which one oppresses you, makes you unable to practise what you preach and marry a member of the opposite sex? A, B or C?
Now, which one are homosexuals pushing for? A, B or C?
Think about it.
-
There you people go tossing out the hate card. I don't hate homosexuals, quite the contrary, I feel pity for them, I would help them if I knew how.
It's just like saying a portion of the black community is a bunch of thugs and lowlifes who prey on they're brothers through gangs and drugs.
It sounds racist, but it's not. I wish I knew an easy soloution.
For the record, condom's can't prevent the spread of HIV, they're not even an effective contraconceptive. In fact, they probably help spread it by promoting promiscuity.
The only perfect way to not spread HIV is for infected persons to abstain from sexual contact in any way and not donate blood.
-
Any barrier contraceptive has an impact on preventing the spread of HIV, by blocking fluid transfer.
-
woah, that's the most ridiculous post I've ever read, congrats, lib.
fact 1) they couldn't care less about your pity. Those who are open to it, well, are happy being homosexual. I guess they'd pity you for not knowing how it feels to... hmm, not gonna get there, even to offend you.
fact 2) it sounds racist and it damn is. there's no more low livfes in the black community than in any other community.
fact 3) when used correctly and 100% of the time, condoms ARE efficient. pb is, nobody really respect that. Promoting promiscuity? lol.
last fact 4) Didn't it occur to you that the use of condoms to prevent HIV and others froom spreading was directed to those not aware that they are infected? If someone told me I had to explain that, I wouldn't have believed him.
-
Lib... you pity homosexuals? You want to cure them?
You've just set a new standard with those two.
-
But the percentage there they are successful is offset by the increase of overall risky behavior.
The primary benefit of monogamous relations between one man and one woman after they are wed is the only way to guarantee that neither will spread any sort of STD.
I mean really, think about it. Use your noggin for something other than life-support and flappin your gums.
I myself haven't had sex yet. What is are the percentages that I'll transmit an STD to my future wife on our Wedding Night?
-
Somewhere in the region of the two gay men who've carefully practiced safe sex all their lives and have never had other partners, on the night of their wedding
-
It's not about STD's, quite frankly, I have to teach sexual health to a bunch of heterosexual teenagers, and theres nothing that Gays can get that Hetero's can't get, often more easily. Also, it is perfectly possible to get an STD even if you've never slept with someone before, how do the think they got started in the first place?
As for pitying gays, well, lucky you, I have a couple of gay friends who have been happily together monogomously for 15 years, which is longer than most of my hetero friends.
It seems to me that there is so much being said here against gays in ignorance and misinformation it is actually quite sickening, and the moment one argument is disproved (like this whole moronic bestiality thing) another equally ridiculous one pops up to take it's place.
I'm sick of seeing homosexuals alloweed to contribute to art, science, music, culture, fashion etc, and yet being treated like a sub-race, depite everything they've done. Gays fought in the civil war, the world wars, for your freedom, and this is the freedom they fought for? I am sure they pity you, for never taking the time to learn understanding or tolerance in this matter.
You are entitled to have your point of view, but please take the time to research it, because throwing accusations without backup here, or resorting to 'morals' will get you flamed from the top down. In the certain parts of the Middle East, it is 'Morals' to kill an unmarried mother, and not do a thing to the Father, in Ancient Japan, it was 'Morals' to kill someone for not bowing low enough to suit your rank etc. So Morals are far far too transient to base anything on.
-
Originally posted by Flipside
It's not about STD's, quite frankly, I have to teach sexual health to a bunch of heterosexual teenagers, and theres nothing that Gays can get that Hetero's can't get, often more easily. Also, it is perfectly possible to get an STD even if you've never slept with someone before, how do the think they got started in the first place?
As for pitying gays, well, lucky you, I have a couple of gay friends who have been happily together monogomously for 15 years, which is longer than most of my hetero friends.
It seems to me that there is so much being said here against gays in ignorance and misinformation it is actually quite sickening, and the moment one argument is disproved (like this whole moronic bestiality thing) another equally ridiculous one pops up to take it's place.
I'm sick of seeing homosexuals alloweed to contribute to art, science, music, culture, fashion etc, and yet being treated like a sub-race, depite everything they've done. Gays fought in the civil war, the world wars, for your freedom, and this is the freedom they fought for? I am sure they pity you, for never taking the time to learn understanding or tolerance in this matter.
You are entitled to have your point of view, but please take the time to research it, because throwing accusations without backup here, or resorting to 'morals' will get you flamed from the top down. In the certain parts of the Middle East, it is 'Morals' to kill an unmarried mother, and not do a thing to the Father, in Ancient Japan, it was 'Morals' to kill someone for not bowing low enough to suit your rank etc. So Morals are far far too transient to base anything on.
and to add to this......
Oh, Liberator - one of the principle architects of this 'ere magic box wot you be using - was a man named Alan Turing. A genius mathematician who worked at Bletchly Park in WW2, developing the 'Colossus' code breaker - the first computer - and defining the 'Turing machine' and basic theories and tests for future AI.
Guess what? He was gay.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
For the record, condom's can't prevent the spread of HIV, they're not even an effective contraconceptive. In fact, they probably help spread it by promoting promiscuity.
Oh dear. You really don't know anything about anything to do with this subject do you?
It is a scientifically proven fact that condoms cut down the rate of infection from HIV drastically if used correctly. Sure they aren't as effective as abstinence but they are very effective. Of course scientifically proven facts probably mean nothing to a creationist :rolleyes:
The majority of HIV infections are [Drum roll] amongst people not using condoms. Who would have thought that!
-
Originally posted by Liberator
It's just like saying a portion of the black community is a bunch of thugs and lowlifes who prey on they're brothers through gangs and drugs.
It sounds racist, but it's not. I wish I knew an easy soloution.
Actually, yeah, that is racist.
For the record, condom's can't prevent the spread of HIV, they're not even an effective contraconceptive. In fact, they probably help spread it by promoting promiscuity.
Someone has been listening to conservative propaganda without looking at scientific data. Condoms, properly used, are a better than 99% effective means of contraception AND barrier to fluid transferred diseases. My wife and I use condoms every time we make love in order to prevent conception (what else does contraceptive mean?). Interestingly, she's never gotten pregnant. Not once, in the 12yrs we've been a couple. You don't get a much better record than that: 100% efficacy (so far).
If you believe are not an effective contraceptive, you're in direct denial of reality.
I have to say though, condoms do not promote 'promiscuity'. That would be like claiming that cough drops promote coughs, or that bandages promote bleeding.
The only perfect way to not spread HIV is for infected persons to abstain from sexual contact in any way and not donate blood.
So sharing needles is okay--because its not in your 'perfect way'. Oh, and you couldn't possible get HIV from getting bathed in an infected man's blood in an emergency room situation. My mother works in a hospital, and indeed, one of the nurses was infected with HIV because she managed to get cut by a patient who, in a pain induced haze, pulled a knife on her while she was treating the massive trauma induced by the gunshots in his legs and belly. He was infected and now so is she. Notice: no sex, no donation of blood. Be careful about using the word 'perfect'.:rolleyes:
Lets take thse two things further and address your third point, which I forgot to paste in here: I engaged in premarital sex. Both with my wife and other people. Because I am reasonably well educated, I knew to use contraception to mitigate the possible price of my pleasure. Because of this, at 30, I am both disease and child free. There was zero chance of me passing anything to my wife in the marriage bed (or any of the other beds we shared before we were married).
-
Originally posted by mikhael
My wife and I use condoms every time we make love in order to prevent conception (what else does contraceptive mean?). Interestingly, she's never gotten pregnant. Not once, in the 12yrs we've been a couple. You don't get a much better record than that: 100% efficacy (so far).[...]Because of this, at 30, I am both disease and child free.
Maybe, tho, after 12 years, and at 30, it would be time to get rid of the hat, no? :p
Afraid of being a father? ;)
And if you tell me I'm sticking my nose where I shouldn't and this doesn't concern me in any way, well, darn you, you're perfectly right :p
-
Originally posted by Liberator
There you people go tossing out the hate card. I don't hate homosexuals, quite the contrary, I feel pity for them, I would help them if I knew how.
Refusing them their human rights is hatred and bigotry whether you admit it or not
You blantantly ignored a fact i posted earlier so let me get your attention with it this time
Science has shown a genetic basis for homosexuality these people are BORN that way
You continue to hate monger by denying this fundamental fact and saying that it's 100% psychological when it is not.
Originally posted by Liberator
It's just like saying a portion of the black community is a bunch of thugs and lowlifes who prey on they're brothers through gangs and drugs.
Just like a portion of the white community is
Originally posted by Liberator
It sounds racist, but it's not. I wish I knew an easy soloution.
Shut your mouth?
Originally posted by Liberator
For the record, condom's can't prevent the spread of HIV, they're not even an effective contraconceptive. In fact, they probably help spread it by promoting promiscuity.
ROTFLMAOPMP
Who fed you that load of crap? Your MINISTER? Condoms are nearly 99.99% effective and their effectiveness is only dimished by the occasional breakage.
IT is also a misconception to think they promote primiscuity - NAS approved and peer reviewed studies show that they had no such effect, and that they decrease the rate of STD transmission immensely
Before you try and "teach us" you need to get your fact's straight.
Originally posted by Liberator
The only perfect way to not spread HIV is for infected persons to abstain from sexual contact in any way and not donate blood.
I will not debate this statement because this statement is 100% true - the only 100% effective way to prevent STD transmission is abstitance - this is true. However condoms are 99.99% effective in barring the transmission of STDs and preventing inpregnation. This does not mean you shouldn't tell people they alternatives and the ways to protect themselves if they don't chose this option. Ignorance is the greatest danger ever to face our species and especially when it comes to sexually transmitteded diseases. We are the only developed nation which has areas in which abstinance only education is practice and out of those developed nations we have the highest teenage pregnancy rate.
If you were to map the US in terms of sex education and then in terms of teen pregnancy rate you will find that where sex education is the worst [least informing, closest to being A-Only] you will find that the teen pregnancy rate increases dramatically where A-Only [lack-of-]Education is practiced
If you then map out STD contraction probability you will see it also correclates to the lack of quality in sex education - with the highest probability of transmission being in the same places that practice A-Only [lack-of-]education.
[edit forgot to address the even more ludacris claim]
SECOND Donoated blood is screened and tested for an immense number of pathogens and other contaiminants
-
Originally posted by Nico
Maybe, tho, after 12 years, and at 30, it would be time to get rid of the hat, no? :p
Afraid of being a father? ;)
There's a lot of ways I can answer that.
[list=a]
- Yes, I'm afraid of being a father. My children would be raised in a world that included people like Bush.
- Yes, I'm afraid of being a father. My father wasn't so great and I don't want to be like him.
- Yes, I'm afraid of being a father. I don't have much patience for children. I think they're the worst form of sexually transmitted disease.
- Yes, I'm afraid of being a father. I don't want to have to explain to my children that some people hate them because of the color of their skin, their religious views, their sexual orientation, etc.
- Nah, I'm not afraid of being a father. Pregnancy would really mess up my sex life though.
Pick whichever one you like the best.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
Science has shown a genetic basis for homosexuality these people are BORN that way
You continue to hate monger by denying this fundamental fact and saying that it's 100% psychological when it is not.
That's so true that ( F34r ), EVERYBODY has latent homosexual tendancies.
The shock :p
-
Originally posted by mikhael
There's a lot of ways I can answer that.
[list=a]
- Yes, I'm afraid of being a father. My children would be raised in a world that included people like Bush.
- Yes, I'm afraid of being a father. My father wasn't so great and I don't want to be like him.
- Yes, I'm afraid of being a father. I don't have much patience for children. I think they're the worst form of sexually transmitted disease.
- Yes, I'm afraid of being a father. I don't want to have to explain to my children that some people hate them because of the color of their skin, their religious views, their sexual orientation, etc.
- Nah, I'm not afraid of being a father. Pregnancy would really mess up my sex life though.
Pick whichever one you like the best.
Meh, you're just being a coward :p You won't know until you try ;) ( that smiley is placed here especially coz I know that in this context, it can be very irritating :p - prefer this discussion to the original one, so sue me ;) )
And in truth, I wanna have little Mikhaels so my childs can take the legacy of our arguments and make them go forth for generations to come :D
-
Originally posted by Nico
That's so true that ( F34r ), EVERYBODY has latent homosexual tendancies.
The shock :p
not everyone carries the gene
-----
hey mik, i think you'd make a much better father than a great many people - especially liberator and deepspace9er.
You children would grow up in a house where rationality andcompassion are valued above faith and hatred, where understanding is fostered.
Despite your fathers mistakes you have turned out well, and I think you are not doomed to reapated his mistakes
-
< 31 and not a father?
Reason f)
I'm the one who goes to work and grafts all day for my money, and Sharon grafts all day for hers and we will both be damned if we have enough to spend on another member to the family :)
Well, it's honest :D
-
Links, I need links people
I mean if your not going to take my word, why should I take yours. Bear in mind I want multiple sources, not one study from 15 years ago.
@Nico
Why is my statement racist? Because I used the qualifier Black? I could have just as easily said French or German or American and it would have been just as true.
-
Originally posted by Nico
Meh, you're just being a coward :p You won't know until you try ;) ( that smiley is placed here especially coz I know that in this context, it can be very irritating :p - prefer this discussion to the original one, so sue me ;) )
And in truth, I wanna have little Mikhaels so my childs can take the legacy of our arguments and make them go forth for generations to come :D
Okay:
f. we're not having children until we move back to Australia because of the better health care. We use condoms for now, becuase hormone based contraceptives affect her strongly, either by removing her libido, or by giving her mood swings that make our relationship something akin to war zone. Further, I don't want to raise my children in the American South, where they might fall pray to the children of christian evangelicals and christian fundamentalists. If my children are going to be instilled with any religious ideas or ideals, they will be Catholic.
And they'll be trained to debate from an early age. ;)
-
Originally posted by Flipside
< 31 and not a father?
Reason f)
I'm the one who goes to work and grafts all day for my money, and Sharon grafts all day for hers and we will both be damned if we have enough to spend on another member to the family :)
Well, it's honest :D
Heh. I known someone at uni who's more or less your age & has 3 kids :)
amazingly, he manages. Nice bloke, too - dotes on the weans.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
I mean if your not going to take my word, why should I take yours. Bear in mind I want multiple sources, not one study from 15 years ago.
Actually, I'll take your word, just not the word of a book that been constantly revised over the course of the last six thousand years, adding and removing things as the current editor saw fit. This is especially true of the New Testament.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Links, I need links people
I mean if your not going to take my word, why should I take yours. Bear in mind I want multiple sources, not one study from 15 years ago.
Try google (er, best put on safesearch)
http://salmon.psy.plym.ac.uk/year1/psychobiology_site_backups/homosexuality-debate/genetics.html
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/biology/b103/f97/projects97/Newman.html
Based on a paltry 2 out-of-date links :), it's still under discussion.
But, i don't think it matters, anyways.
-
Center for Disease Control
http://www.cdc.gov/nchstp/dstd/Condom_Use_Among_Adolescents.htm
Avert.org - they cite their sources like good academians
http://www.avert.org/condoms.htm
i could pull more - but im busy explaining abiogenesis chemistry to a friend
-
http://www.qrd.org/qrd/world/asia/hongkong/legislative.report.on.discrimination-96
1996 Equal Opportunities Report on Homosexuality done in Hong Kong.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
Woolie Wool, lets look at some facts about straight marriages. Let see if this is an institution that could possibly be 'cheapened':
- The divorce rate for first marriages is over 50%
- The divorce rate for second and subsequent marriages is over 60%
- 43% of all marriages are remarriages
- 43% of all marriages end in the first 15yrs.
These are very obviously not people who value the institution of marriage very highly. [/b]
Just because event A will make problem B worse doesn't mean that problem B is not already bad. I think that steps should be taken to emphasize that marriage is supposed to be a commitment to establishing a long-term, meaningful relationship and make it harder for a couple to divorce.
Take, on the other hand, any random gay couple that want to be married (given the above statistics, they seem to be the only people who want to be married). I'd say that any couple that had to actually FIGHT for the right to be married, values it one hell of a lot more than these straight people do. You value something you earn far more than you value something you're given.
But not forever. Besides, gay couples are in general far, far more sexually promiscuous than men (Don't believe it? Believe it.). If you were a gay guy married to another gay guy, how would you feel if your gay husband cheated on you constantly?
The very concept of true love is sinking like a torpedoed boat in our society. It's sad, really.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
just not the word of a book that been constantly revised over the course of the last six thousand years, adding and removing things as the current editor saw fit. This is especially true of the New Testament.
They actually removed several gospels from the New Testament because they didn't fit in with the doctrine of St. Paul and the institution that was to become the Catholic Church.
-
Originally posted by Woolie Wool
Besides, gay couples are in general far, far more sexually promiscuous than men
there is absolutely no evidence to support that claim
-
Originally posted by Woolie Wool
Besides, gay couples are in general far, far more sexually promiscuous than men (Don't believe it? Believe it.). If you were a gay guy married to another gay guy, how would you feel if your gay husband cheated on you constantly?
And your basis for this is what exactly?
All the gay couples I know are, and have been, monogamous for the entire time I've known them. The single gay men and women aren't mongamous (nor are the straight ones). Of the straight couples I know, all but one has had infidelity on one side or the other.
All that is anecdotal, however. I'd like to see some hard, scientific fact to back up your claim. "Believe it." just isn't going to cut it.
-
http://www.geocities.com/bahaimarriage/articles/marriagebreak.htm
Interesting table in this one, seems that Hetero's aren't so hot at staying together either :)
-
Originally posted by mikhael
Okay:
f. we're not having children until we move back to Australia because of the better health care. We use condoms for now, becuase hormone based contraceptives affect her strongly, either by removing her libido, or by giving her mood swings that make our relationship something akin to war zone. Further, I don't want to raise my children in the American South, where they might fall pray to the children of christian evangelicals and christian fundamentalists. If my children are going to be instilled with any religious ideas or ideals, they will be Catholic.
And they'll be trained to debate from an early age. ;)
Now I understand that reason very well :)
Ok, leaves me some time to... hem... get a girlfriend ( let's be reasonable for a start ) :p
I'm doomed: I suffer from the "I'm the best friend to which you can tell everything" syndrom... you don't go out with your best friend. Darn.
-
Especially when 3 years later they are talking about their fiance and saying....
'I love him because he's not just a lover, he's a friend too'
:blah: lol
-
People have been posting as I was writing this, but that’s cool. It means the debate is well underway and still going. :)
And so, with no further ado…
Originally posted by karajorma
Of course scientifically proven facts probably mean nothing to a creationist :rolleyes:
:lol: :lol: :lol: Truer words were never spoken. :nod:
Originally posted by Beowulf
Why do I want this amendment? Because everyday I see the destruction of my society, I see the destruction of all that is good in this world. Every time I see two homosexuals kiss or nuzzle, I feel so sick to my stomach that If I don't leave immediately, I'll vomit. That is the ONLY time in my life I have ever felt that way. I've seen my share of disgusting things and acts, but nothing compares to two homosexuals going at it. (Mangled dead bodies don't even come close.)
So you didn’t feel at least sick to your stomach when religious fanatics hijacked a few airliners and flew them into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon? I was less than a half-hour’s drive away from the World Trade Center on September 11. I watched live on TV as the second plane flew into the South Tower. You’re trying to tell me that seeing two guys going at it evinces a more disgusted and/or horrified reaction from you than seeing 3,000 of our own countrymen murdered live on television?
What kind of monster are you?
I’ll admit, the first time I saw two guys holding hands, I was a little perturbed. That was twelve years ago. I’ve seen gays hold hands and even kiss each other alot more times since then, and you know what? You get used to it.
Beowulf, maybe what we need to do with you is pull a Clockwork Orange on you: to get you over your homophobia, we’ll tie you to a chair, wire your eyes open and show you movies of two guys going at it for the next two years. I GUARANTEE you, you’ll get used to it.
And who knows? You might even grow to like it enough to indulge in it yourself. Unlikely, but you never know. :lol:
Originally posted by Beowulf
Homosexuality is wrong. From anyway you look at it. I don't care what you do in your bedroom, but I will not have the sanctity of marriage eroded so that homosexuals can get a tax benefit. Marriage like most things, is what you make of it. Let's not degrade it to the level of mere carnal lust. Marriage is meant to create a stable environment to raise children. (What's half the reason the world is going to hell? So many divorces and f***ed up families.)
The trick here is not to focus on homosexuality, it is to focus on marriage.
You refuse to recognize that the concept of marriage has evolved since this country was founded. It has NOT remained constant since the beginning of civilization.
Centuries ago, a woman had to swear an oath of loyalty to her husband because she was regarded as his property. Would you claim that today a wife is the property of her husband?
Back in Dec. 12, 1912, Rep. Seaborn Roddenberry (R-Ga.) proposed this amendment to the Constitution: "Intermarriage between negros or persons of color and Caucasians ... within the United States ... is forever prohibited." You got that? Southern conservatives tried to pass a constitutional amendment barring interracial marriage, claiming that interracial marriage was immoral and would threaten the sanctity of marriage. Obviously, it didn’t pass. Would you support that same amendment today?
NEW LEGAL ANALYSIS ALERT: Ok, peeps, remember how the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution has been mentioned that would require a state to fully recognize another state’s acceptance of gay marriage? It turns out that I found a gaping wide exception to this which completely nullifies the necessity for the anti-gay marriage amendment.
I didn’t know about this until this morning (my legal expertise is in environmental law, not civil rights, remember) so any legal analysis (I think I said this, too) about claiming that a gay marriage recognized in one state would have to be recognized in all states is false.
It seems that marriage has NEVER been one of the "public acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings" that the Full Faith and Credit clause mandates are transferable from state to state. If that had been the case, we would never have had a struggle over interracial marriage. As soon as one Northern state legalized it, it would have been legal in every Southern state. (Civil divorce, ironically, is such an institution. It is the result of a judicial proceeding. Civil marriage, in contrast, is a license. I know this myself because my parents weren’t married in a church, they were married at New York City Hall.) It has long been established law that the states have a public policy exception to recognizing marriages from other states; and Massachusetts' marriage licenses, to cite the current controversy, are even issued on the condition that they are void elsewhere if unapproved in other states. So the notion that four judges in Massachusetts can impose civil marriage for gays on an entire country is simply mistaken. Some argue that “activist courts” these days will over-rule these precedents. But with 38 states explicitly saying they won't recognize such marriages and with the Defense of Marriage Act (a.k.a. DOMA, passed in 1996 and signed by president Clinton) backing that up the likelihood is minimal.
You got that, kids? Since the Full Faith and Credit clause has an exception that allows a state not to recognize another state’s marriage, the entire premise for the anti-gay marriage amendment BECOMES COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY. Conservatives think that this amendment is needed because the FF&C clause would require gay marriage recognized in Massachusetts would inexorably spread to all the other 49 states. BUT IT DOESN’T REQUIRE THAT AT ALL BECAUSE OF THE EXCEPTION FOR MARRIAGE.
In light of that little tidbit of information, this proposed amendment looks like nothing more than a power grab to exclude gays from marriage wholesale BEFORE any gay marriages can occur. The problem is, they already are occurring in San Francisco(granted, arguably illegally) and will start occurring in Massachusetts in May (legally b/c the Mass State Supreme Court required it), less than three months away. It takes YEARS to ratify a federal constitutional amendment, so by the time this amendment gets ratified, hundreds of thousands of gay couples, if not more (3,200 gay couples have been married in San Francisco in just the last two weeks alone), will already be married. If the amendment passes, it will take away a fundamental right to marry from hundreds of thousands of Americans who are ALREADY married in the eyes of San Francisco and Massachusetts. In over 200 years, Americans have always used the Constitution to GRANT rights, NOT take them away, with one glaring exception: Prohibition. Remember how well THAT turned out?
Peeps, this proposed amendment looks like nothing more than a classic Republican right-wing overreach. Once people start realizing (and some already have) that the gay couples getting married aren't bogeymen and will have already fulfilled rights nullified by this amendment, everyone barring the most die-hard religionist will start having second thoughts, including true conservatives who don't support changing the Constitution on a whim, especially to remove a group's already enshrined right.
EDIT: Amendment Ratification Update: I just heard that Georgia(!) just yesterday couldn't muster enough votes in their state House of Representatives to get an anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment on the books. There's an interview by former Rep. Bob Barr on MSNBC, found here (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4401144/), a noteworthy conservative who actually DISFAVORS this anti-gay marriage amendment because he wants the states to decide for themselves. Now THAT'S a real conservative.
Peeps, if a Southern Old Dixie state like Georgia is having problems with this anti-gay marriage amendment, it's not gonna pass. No way is this amendment gonna get 3/4 of the states' approval to ratify it, even if the US Congress approves it.
Thank God for Bush because he did the one thing the Democrats couldn't do for themselves: he unified the Democratic party.
I guess he really was a uniter, after all. *snicker* :p :lol: :thepimp:
-
Originally posted by Liberator
On a basic pre-conscious level, most people realize that homossexuality is wrong. Now, consciously, they may behave otherwise, but honestly when you find out the guy standing next to you is gay, you try and put a little distance between you and him don't you?
Er, no? Umm, and no again. YOU might, but I don't.
Originally posted by NicoThat's so true that ( F34r ), EVERYBODY has latent homosexual tendancies.
How do you feel about that, Liberator? Are you offended by the fact that your genes could be whispering "go shag a man"?
OK, that was nasty. I apologise if that offends you. The point is, some people are gay. There's nothing you can do about it, it's the way they are. Now, what is the point of getting all worked up about it? Do they hurt you? Do they make your life a living hell? Do they make you scared to go outside in case a man gets turned on looking at you?
The answer to all these questions is NO.
This leads me on to the most important question I can ask you. Given that the answer is no, WHY DO YOU CARE? What does it matter that these people are doing? They may well be shagging senseless, but how does that affect you? There isn't going to be some sort of huge cloud of gay-ness that floats across the world and makes everyone fancy people of the same sex! Society won't come crashing down (at least, not at any accelerated rate) because ladies are sleeping with other ladies! It doesn't matter, so leave them to it. Live your own life the way you see fit, but don't expect everyone else to want to live like you. :)
-
I give up, I'm butting my head against a wall here. I don't know what it's composed of except that I get a sense that you are all on some level very unhappy people. You may not even realize it, but someday I hope you will. May God bless you.
-
Actually, aside from not having a job, I'm pretty happy, Liberator. Sure, I've got my problems, but all I really have to do is look to my wife, and those problems kinda melt away. She's my partner, my comfort, my guide-star. As long as I've got her, I can face the world. Everyone should have the kind that kind of companion in their life--which, is really what I'm arguing for.
But I'll certainly take the blessing in the manner in which it was intended.
-
Well, I will agree that I am on some level unhappy, I am unhappy to see people treated like gays are treated, I am unhappy to see people starving in Africa, I am unhappy that discrimination on any level exists, I'm even unhappy that Mik hasn't got a job yet, being unhappy is the first step on the path to change.
That said, I'll echo Mikhael regarding the blessing :)
-
Originally posted by Liberator
I give up, I'm butting my head against a wall here. I don't know what it's composed of except that I get a sense that you are all on some level very unhappy people. You may not even realize it, but someday I hope you will. May God bless you.
you're wrong and you cannot handle it so you're running away. Saying your sure we're "unhappy people" as a parting shot like the five year old you've been behaving like.
I am happy with my life, I am happy with my job, I am happy with my girlfriend, and I am happy with sleeping with her each night and I am happy about getting nookie from her before marriage. I am happy that condoms work, and I am happy that some of our species can use logic.
I am unhappy that people like you exist - people that encourage intolerance, ignorance, bigotry and war. PEople that when presented with the facts refuse to see them and when showns inrrefutable sources evade the issue and run away because it doesnt agree with their representative of god's statements.
I am unhappy that people like you are parents, educators and politicans. Nobody like you should be teaching our children or leading our country. Bigots have no room in our society and yet they continue to thrive on ignorance, the ignorance bred for the church.
You refuse to acknoweldge when you are beaten in argument so you try to run away _AGAIN_.
Act like the man you purport yourself to be, step up to the plate and admit when you're wrong
And I'll take the blessing as it was intended - as sarcastic and an immature attempt to offend us by flaunting your piety as if it was something to be valued
-
Dude, Kaz. Can't you just let the guy bow out gracefully?
-
Besides, the poor guy's never been laid, he's bound to be up tight ;)
j/k! :D
-
Kazan, you're making yourself look like a close-minded ass. Stop it. :p
-
You know....IF Lib had "stepped up to the plate" and said he was wrong.... all it would prove is that he wasn't a relgious person after all. Why? Because the entire concept of any religion is based on FAITH[/i][/u]. By shear definition it can not be 'logical' and can not be proven. I could see being pissy with someone who is trying to force his or her religious belief on you, but someone who is defending that belief, as that right, whether you think they're wrong or right is meaningless. Debating the issue is one thing. Showing that you're a spoiled ass is another. Let the man have his faith, for some ppl faith is all they have. If you want to debate it with him, have some human decency and at least fake being civil,....curse out loud if you must,...call him childish little names that make you feel better,.. that may be reactionary...but you don't have to type it.
I have to say....while I may not agree with Lib...I respect the man for the simple fact he hasn't acted disrespectful to those that disrespected him. You don't need to respect his belief....respect his right to believe.
[Disclaimer] I don't give a **** if this pisses anyone off or if it makes me a target for the childish comments,...but damn someone had to say it.
[/Disclaimer]
-
Warlock, it's not that Lib expresses his opinions on a public forum - far from it, debate is what our society shoud in theory be about.
What I don't like is the fact that by using his powers as, say, a voter for example, he may be able to adversely affect the lives of perfectly innocent, law-abiding people simply because they're a little different from his ideal person. Despite Kazan's blatant hipocrasy in preaching his own views like a foaming-at-the-mouth zealot, his point about educating the young is valid. What if Liberator were to become a teacher and instill his views in the impresionably minds of two dozen kiddies... well, you make your own mind up about the consequences of that one.
Luckily history is on the side of reason, and no doubt Lib's grandchildren will wonder how their grandaddy could ever had held such views - just like the concept of black oppression in the time of Martin Luther King is almost unimaginable to me today :nod:
-
Warlock: i was talking about him admitting he was wrong about condoms which don't enter into his religion at all
Shrike: How So
mikhael: If he takes a pop shot in parting he's not bowing out gracefully - he if merely says "i cannot defeat you guys in argument" or some other thing that doesn't have a pop shot embedded he may leave (but not expect this to be over)
-
So, when does the theological dictatorship take over?
-
Fair enough Warlock, but it must also be bourne in mind that he made an awful lot of comments about homosexuals that were 'disrespectful' as in they were both un-researched and flame-invoking. Liberator has made it clear he does not believe that gays should have equal rights purely because they are gay.
In a multi-cultural board, that is verbal acetylene.
While I respect Lib's religion, even if I don't agree with it, I CANNOT stand by and watch people make blithe comments about a group of people who include good friends of mine, especially considering it is apparent that the person was making generalised, stereotyped statements. That is nothing to do with religion, simply to do with lack of understanding.
If theres one thing that needs to go into the HLP FAQ, it's 'if you haven't got evidence, don't say it' ;)
-
Originally posted by diamondgeezer
Despite Kazan's blatant hipocrasy in preaching his own views like a foaming-at-the-mouth zealot,
Excuse me? Foaming at the mouth zealots cannot justify their position
I have lost all patience with fundie bigots
-
Originally posted by Liberator
I give up, I'm butting my head against a wall here. I don't know what it's composed of except that I get a sense that you are all on some level very unhappy people. You may not even realize it, but someday I hope you will. May God bless you.
Originally posted by Kazan
And I'll take the blessing as it was intended - as sarcastic and an immature attempt to offend us by flaunting your piety as if it was something to be valued
I'm with Kazan on this one. You know, it strikes me as the highest form of condescension when a religionist tries to convince me of the righteousness of his religious beliefs, fails to do so and then says "God bless you." It's always struck me as meaning "Well, you're a dumbass for not believing for what I believe but since I can't win this argument, I'm just gonna cut my losses and forgive you for not believing what I know is true (even though I have no proof to back up my convictions) and I'll pray for God to forgive you too."
What do I need God's forgiveness for? I've done nothing that I need to atone for. And the concept that is central to so many religions (especially including Christianity) that I need to atone for my existence simply because I exist (because lots of people seem convinced that we're all irredeemable sinners unless we comply with their beliefs) is a belief that is anathema to everything I hold dear.
I know this world exists. I don't know of any afterlife. So it's plain and simple: I'm going to live my life that best that I can while I'm still here. Why waste this life when there is no proof of any other life?
Originally posted by Warlock
I have to say....while I may not agree with Lib...I respect the man for the simple fact he hasn't acted disrespectful to those that disrespected him. You don't need to respect his belief....respect his right to believe.
[Disclaimer] I don't give a **** if this pisses anyone off or if it makes me a target for the childish comments,...but damn someone had to say it. [/Disclaimer]
Libby can believe anything he wants. I have absolutely no beef with that. No one is disputing that. But this whole debate began with a constitutional amendment that, let's be honest, will take away a fundamental right to marriage to a group of Americans who want nothing more than to be treated equally. Libby's view is that they should not get that right. Libby is very much in favor of treating an entire group of people as second class citizens just because they don't meet his approval of "morality."
It plain for everyone to see that Libby wants to impose his beliefs (or allow those like himself to impose similar beliefs) on other people who do not share those beliefs. It is that imposition of values on people who don't share them (either by Liberator, DeepSpace9er or George W. Bush or anyone else) that I have a problem with.
EDIT: Kazan may have flown off the handle and said some stuff that MIGHT have been uncalled for, but in this sort of debate it's easy to get pissed off when fellow Americans want to deny their own countrymen equal rights to something we all take for granted. Hell, even I get pissed off sometimes, but my legal training makes it easier for me to keep my head. Kazan doesn't have that advantage of training to rein in his temper, but his arguments here have been thoughtful, concise and well-reasoned out.
That's more than Libby or DeepSpace9er were able to do.
-
DG: I've got no prob with Lib expressing his views anywhere. I was actually trying to defend his right to express that without being attacked, verbally or otherwise. As far as his beliefs affecting his vote which in turn affects someone's life, happens everyday and has thus for 200 years or so. Every man and woman that votes does so based off their beliefs. Be them religiously influenced, or otherwise. Sadly the "people's right to vote" has it's downsides. If they are more "Religious Nutcases" voting against the Marriage issue than there are voting for it....so be it, it's a MAJORITY vote. Besides, like any other law... it'll get hit with things to prevent it from actually being put into affect.
Kaz: Not from that post I read. You merely gave the man hell for giving up the debate with you. You've giving him and anyone that didn't agree with you hell through the whole thread. Not agreeing is fine, being forceful about it is fine, but insulting and just plain acting an ass is'nt. You want ppl to respect you and your views, respect them and theres. At least respect them and their right to have those views.
-
Originally posted by Warlock
Sadly the "people's right to vote" has it's downsides. If they are more "Religious Nutcases" voting against the Marriage issue than there are voting for it....so be it, it's a MAJORITY vote.
Yes, and I'd have to live with it cos that's exactly the kind of society I advocate. Annoys the hell out of me that I might fight to defend that right only to have **** like that happen
Originally posted by Warlock
Kaz: You've giving him and anyone that didn't agree with you hell through the whole thread.
And the rest of the BB. All I'm after, Kaz, is some respectful tolerance from the man who preaches it's importance the loudest :)
-
I think this (http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html) covers it.
Read Articles 1, 7, 18, 20 but especially 16. :hopping:
-
And don't forget Article 30. Article 30 is VERY important because it affects the interpretation of Article 16.
-
Originally posted by diamondgeezer
And the rest of the BB. All I'm after, Kaz, is some respectful tolerance from the man who preaches it's importance the loudest :)
there is one thing that shouldn't be tolerated and that's bigotry
and i think yuo can understand that this week i have no patience for the likes of Lib and DS9er -- they're comiong out of the woodwork
-
This week?
-
stryke: normally i have more patience than i've had in this thread
-
you do?
:wtf:
-
bob: with fundies
i think my impatience with n00bs is incurable
-
Originally posted by Warlock
DG: I've got no prob with Lib expressing his views anywhere. I was actually trying to defend his right to express that without being attacked, verbally or otherwise.
Of course Lib has that right but he's also making attacks of his own.
Originally posted by Liberator
I get a sense that you are all on some level very unhappy people. You may not even realize it, but someday I hope you will. May God bless you.
That's an attack. He's basically said that my life is unhappy because I do not agree with him. He then says that if I don't feel unhappy it's because I don't realise it. That's an insult to my intelligence right there.
What's worse is that he asked for facts to back up our arguement and when proved wrong he runs away rather than admitting he's wrong. That's pretty annoying and I don't consider it an attack to call him a coward for doing that. He should at least have the grace to admit he made mistake.
Kazan : While I can understand why you get annoyed with fundies (I do too) there is no need go to the extremes you're going to. I can understand why you'd need to if yours was the only voice giving the opposing arguement but the agnostics actually seem to outweigh the religious on this board. There are enough of us to trash the arguements of Lib and DS9er with out the need for shouting.
-
Originally posted by diamondgeezer
And the rest of the BB. All I'm after, Kaz, is some respectful tolerance from the man who preaches it's importance the loudest :)
:nod::yes:
-
*removed*
-
Originally posted by Liberator
I give up, I'm butting my head against a wall here. I don't know what it's composed of except that I get a sense that you are all on some level very unhappy people. You may not even realize it, but someday I hope you will.
Nah, not especially. Sure, I have my problems, but then so does everyone.
Originally posted by Liberator
May God bless you.
Thankyou. :)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by diamondgeezer
And the rest of the BB. All I'm after, Kaz, is some respectful tolerance from the man who preaches it's importance the loudest
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'll second that.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
Actually, I'll take your word, just not the word of a book that been constantly revised over the course of the last six thousand years, adding and removing things as the current editor saw fit. This is especially true of the New Testament.
there is no part of the bible (both NT or OT) that is 6000 years old.
Writing itself isn't even 6000 years old!
(orally tings may be different but even then monotheism isn't that old.)
just needed to get that of my chest as it's the second time in a short while I see that silly -Archbisshop Usher related- number pop up in relation to the age of the bible.
-
Originally posted by Crazy_Ivan80
Writing itself isn't even 6000 years old!
i doubt the validity of that statement [edit] Confirmed varacity - first known human writing 3500 BCE
Mikhael's correct in that it was revised - it was passed down for a great multitude of years orally
-
Actually, now that I think of it, EVERY ONE OF US (including myself) has missed the point of marriage itself and the ultimate reason for banning gay marriage: Marriage is not about the married, it's about having and raising children and extending and strengthening the family. Children function best with a mother and a father, so marriage is protection for children's futures as well as the glue that holds the family together. Gay couples, by their nature, cannot produce children or continue their family line. Now do you see what's wrong with gay marriage?
-
Originally posted by Woolie Wool
Actually, now that I think of it, EVERY ONE OF US (including myself) has missed the point of marriage itself and the ultimate reason for banning gay marriage: Marriage is not about the married, it's about having and raising children and extending and strengthening the family. Children function best with a mother and a father, so marriage is protection for children's futures as well as the glue that holds the family together. Gay couples, by their nature, cannot produce children or continue their family line. Now do you see what's wrong with gay marriage?
No, why don't you point it out. Why do you care so much about what someone who isn't anything to do with you does? What in the slightest bit of a difference does it make to your life?
-
Originally posted by Woolie Wool
Actually, now that I think of it, EVERY ONE OF US (including myself) has missed the point of marriage itself and the ultimate reason for banning gay marriage: Marriage is not about the married, it's about having and raising children and extending and strengthening the family. Children function best with a mother and a father, so marriage is protection for children's futures as well as the glue that holds the family together. Gay couples, by their nature, cannot produce children or continue their family line. Now do you see what's wrong with gay marriage?
I always though the point of marriage was a formal confirmation of love & life partnership, as well as a legal benefit of spousal status (i.e. next of kin rights, pension support upon the death of one spouse, etc).
Or are you suggesting that there should be a law that requires a) all pregnant women to be married and b) all married women to get pregnant?
EDIT; oh, and I presume that this alsos bars artificial insemination and adoption to all childless couples? (regardless of sexuality)
-
Originally posted by Woolie Wool
Marriage is not about the married, it's about having and raising children and extending and strengthening the family.
trying to redefine marriage because your other definition wasn't limited enough to justify bigotry - congratulations on passing Bigotry 101
Originally posted by Woolie Wool
Children function best with a mother and a father,
Factual error - studies have found that children adopted by homosexual couples fare no better or no worse than children raised by heterosexual couples - and both groups do better than children raised by single parents be the hetero- or homosexual
Originally posted by Woolie Wool
so marriage is protection for children's futures
this conclusion is invalid because it rests on a factual error
Originally posted by Woolie Wool
as well as the glue that holds the family together.
Factual error - take this up with the 11000 member american anthropological association
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/02/27/MNGSK59NGM1.DTL
Originally posted by Woolie Wool
Gay couples, by their nature, cannot produce children or continue their family line.
So what, big freaking deal - they can adopt abandoned children and give them a chance at life
Originally posted by Woolie Wool
Now do you see what's wrong with gay marriage?
no, because you haven't made one sound argument yet
-
Originally posted by Kazan
trying to redefine marriage because your other definition wasn't limited enough to justify bigotry - congratulations on passing Bigotry 101
Factual error - studies have found that children adopted by homosexual couples fare no better or no worse than children raised by heterosexual couples - and both groups do better than children raised by single parents be the hetero- or homosexual
I was speaking from the perspective of two biological parents versus other types of caregivers. Pointing to statistics of adopted children is irrelevant.
this conclusion is invalid because it rests on a factual error
See above.
Factual error - take this up with the 11000 member american anthropological association
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/02/27/MNGSK59NGM1.DTL
Have you ever met children who have been through a divorce? Breaking the bond between the parents leaves lasting emotional trauma. Besides, that particular function is irrelevant to whether the union is heterosexual or homosexual.
So what, big freaking deal - they can adopt abandoned children and give them a chance at life
If people would only stress the value of love, marriage, sex, and children, maybe people would exercise some judgement and take more caution with their sex lives and there would be fewer abandoned children in the first place. It's living proof of how badly the notion thast love and sex can be made "convenient" has affected our society.
no, because you haven't made one sound argument yet.
You still have yet to bring down my argument that society's increasingly casual attitude towards love, marriage, sex, and child-rearing is having s negative affect. If you do not address this particular argument, I will have no choice but to accept your concession.
-
You have yet to even support your point Woolie - and you infact tried summarily dismissing me when I found show-stopping errors in your argument and you tried to shift focus
how about NO
-
(http://www.angelfire.com/anime5/areoborg/images/Consession_Accepted_9.JPG)
And I have addressed several fatal errors in your argument. Stop trying to go off on a tangent and then complain when I steer back on course. This debate is about the MEANING of marriage and its implications for homosexual couples.
As for your idea of me proposing that restrictions be imposed on sexual intercourse, that is nonsense. This has NOTHING to do with restrictions on sex (legal restrictions on sex between consenting adults should NOT exist).
I believe that civil union and marriage be separate, with marriage making you eligible for extended maternity leave (~6 months with 66% pay that expires when the leave has been used up or the child reaches the age of three instead of 6 weeks without pay) but requiring you to be already in a civil union and fertile enough to reproduce (convicted felons are barred completely). Marriage will require a license but civil union will not. Laws will be put in place to require that other marriage benefits (tax breaks, insurance rate reductions, etc.) be extended to civil unions.
-
ROTFL -- I'm not in the positive propositional position, I am in the negative argument position
You are making the proposition and are trying to support it - you have flaws in your support and will not address them - instead you try and shift focus and act like i am making the proposition
That doesn't fly here
-
The only real rebuttal I found was the one about "studies", to which no link was provided and no hint of where it came from.
-
first i cited TWO factual errors to start with
the first one is available in psychological journals
-
Originally posted by Woolie Wool
I believe that civil union and marriage be separate, with marriage making you eligible for extended maternity leave (~6 months with 66% pay that expires when the leave has been used up or the child reaches the age of three instead of 6 weeks without pay) but requiring you to be already in a civil union and fertile enough to reproduce (convicted felons are barred completely). Marriage will require a license but civil union will not. Laws will be put in place to require that other marriage benefits (tax breaks, insurance rate reductions, etc.) be extended to civil unions.
How about:
Remove the government entirely from the concept of marriage. Lets put "marriage" in the hands of the churches and the like. It should carry no benefits from the government at all. Make it a strictly religious institution.
Civil unions--between whomsoever choose to enter them--will be entirely seperate from the concept of marriage. All legally granted rights would apply to anyone, anywhere, who is contracted in such a union.
Marriage would neither imply, nor prevent, such a civil union. Thus a married couple would still require the secular civil union to gain any benefits. A married couple not in a civil union have no rights or priveleges toward each other until such time as they are.
-
mikhael makes me smile
-
Actually, I can't take credit for that, Kaz.
A friend of mine is a telecom engineer. Does the low level stuff for SIP implementations on telco iron. She decided to sit down and try to trace the root cause of the problem and solve it. Obviously, the problem is the in muddled definitions and a crossing of the seperation between church and state. Since all the rights and priveleges granted by 'marriage' are secular in nature and none of them require involvement by any faith-based organisation, surely the problem lies in removing the unnecessary label from the civil union. This would keep the government from telling the churches who can and cannot marry, but it also keeps the churches from telling the government who can and cannot enter into a legally sanctioned civil union. It also takes the federal government out of the business of having to recognize church-based unions.
-
I had come to that idea independantly too - a lot of people had
bringing it up made me smile
-
Originally posted by mikhael
How about:
Remove the government entirely from the concept of marriage. Lets put "marriage" in the hands of the churches and the like. It should carry no benefits from the government at all. Make it a strictly religious institution.
Civil unions--between whomsoever choose to enter them--will be entirely seperate from the concept of marriage. All legally granted rights would apply to anyone, anywhere, who is contracted in such a union.
Marriage would neither imply, nor prevent, such a civil union. Thus a married couple would still require the secular civil union to gain any benefits. A married couple not in a civil union have no rights or priveleges toward each other until such time as they are.
I think that's what they're implementing over here (in the UK), both for homosexuals, and also for non-religious couples who would otherwise not be entitled to certain benefits (i.e. on widowhood)
Sadly, there has still been some minor dispute from variuous churches against this (specifically the apllication to homosexual couples), but it's still a positive step IMO.]
i.e. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3231324.stm
I can't a better page about the actual legislation, unfortunately, and I'm not sure if the legislation has been confirmed or whatnot.
EDIT: Little clearer here - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3031332.stm
Doesn;t apply to heterosexual couples, it seems.... there's a very valid attack made on that quoted in there.
-
Can I just get straight to the point here and say that I really really hate it when people attack gays because they fear them. That is exactly what the problem is, and most people can't even admit to that fear.
Yes, I used to be a bit homophobic myself, led on by generalised comments at school and 'what I heard down the pub'. Then I made a couple of friends who were gay, and learnt that most of what I 'knew' was a pile of garbage. So I re-learnt what I assumed, and replaced it with facts.
It's called 'understanding'.
-
There is a human tendency to be suspicious (at best) of anything or anyone different, I think.
-
aldo: yes there is - it's a survival trait
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
There is a human tendency to be suspicious (at best) of anything or anyone different, I think.
True.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
How about:
Remove the government entirely from the concept of marriage. Lets put "marriage" in the hands of the churches and the like. It should carry no benefits from the government at all. Make it a strictly religious institution.
Civil unions--between whomsoever choose to enter them--will be entirely seperate from the concept of marriage. All legally granted rights would apply to anyone, anywhere, who is contracted in such a union.
Marriage would neither imply, nor prevent, such a civil union. Thus a married couple would still require the secular civil union to gain any benefits. A married couple not in a civil union have no rights or priveleges toward each other until such time as they are.
Interesting idea, but this might cause even more of a controversy than gay marriage. Some people complain because they just like to complain and even the slightest justification will rouse their ire, and this will be reason enough for a lot of these types to start *****ing up a storm.
Plus, how will this affect those currently considered legally married? One of the reasons I hate Winblows XP so much is its lack of DOS compatibility (just providing an analogy).
-
Originally posted by Woolie Wool
Interesting idea, but this might cause even more of a controversy than gay marriage. Some people complain because they just like to complain and even the slightest justification will rouse their ire, and this will be reason enough for a lot of these types to start *****ing up a storm.
Plus, how will this affect those currently considered legally married? One of the reasons I hate Winblows XP so much is its lack of DOS compatibility (just providing an analogy).
Simple. The "civil partnership" encompasses marriage - i.e. it includes those married in a church or some other religious institution, but also those who have made a non-religious commitment to each other.
Sort of a totally secular definition of marriage.
-
Exactly. Which would make my wife and I, and my parents not married. We'd still have our civil union though. My sister and her husband would be married AND have a civil union.
Its not that difficult, Woolie.
-
Oh, I see it now.
"Sally, will you marry me?"
"You don't know me at all! I'm an atheist you twisted moron!"
*slap*
-
Originally posted by Knight Templar
Oh, I see it now.
"Sally, will you marry me?"
"You don't know me at all! I'm an atheist you twisted moron!"
*slap*
LOL!:D