Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Carl on November 28, 2004, 10:15:12 pm
-
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1802&e=1&u=/washpost/20041128/ts_washpost/a16443_2004nov27
-
Alabama! Birthplace of Democracy! :doubt:
-
:blah:
**** the south.
-
Alabama always had that problem it seems...yeah racism still exists.
****, slavory still even exists.
-
hey, wait a minute, isn't Liberator from Ala-
...oh.
:p :p
-
Frickin' Sterotypes...:hopping:
Ok, let's straighten this out.
1)The wording was already illegal by fiat of the United States Supreme Court. Therefore it didn't need to be removed. And if you knew anything about Alabama's current constitution you'd realize that it has to be amended everytime a dog wants to crap, we need a new one in the worst way.
2)The amendment in question also contained language that would allow Judges to levy taxes in certain situations. It was a vote against legalize Judcial Tyranny, not desegragration.
We're not now, and haven't been for a long time now, the racists rednecks that we are continuously stereotyped as.:rolleyes:
-
but amending the constitution to outlaw gays from marage is absolutely nesisary.
-
Isn't it great how politicians lump things like "Increase military spending" in with "Improve our education system" on votes like this? Florida had a whole bunch of 4-step backward laws passed because people really wanted one part of them, and didn't look any further at the rest of the amendments...
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
but amending the constitution to outlaw gays from marage is absolutely nesisary.
Of course! If they didn't, the entire population would be tempted to form homosexual couples and apply for marriages! There's no laws stopping heterosexual marriage! And look at how rampant that is!
-
Raa: (http://dynamic4.gamespy.com/~freespace/forums/images/edit.gif)
There's a difference between being anti-gay and racist. Homosexuality is not a racial trait. It's a choice, and I can dislike you as much as I want for a making what I believe to be a lousy choice. I should rephrase that, I can dislike the choice as much as I want. I don't care what the hell two people do in the privacy of a bedroom, but I'll be damned before I sit there and let them rub my face in it, which is what happens every time they sue someone for predudice.
-
"First the military, now marriage. Why do gays want in on our worst institutions?" -The Onion
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Raa: (http://dynamic4.gamespy.com/~freespace/forums/images/edit.gif)
There's a difference between being anti-gay and racist. Homosexuality is not a racial trait. It's a choice, and I can dislike you as much as I want for a making what I believe to be a lousy choice. I should rephrase that, I can dislike the choice as much as I want. I don't care what the hell two people do in the privacy of a bedroom, but I'll be damned before I sit there and let them rub my face in it, which is what happens every time they sue someone for predudice.
I didn't want to edit. For one thing.
And for the umpteenth time, though you cannot seem to understand this, Homosexuality is not a choice! Or... did you have a choice and you chose to be heterosexual? :wtf:
-
Originally posted by Liberator
There's a difference between being anti-gay and racist. Homosexuality is not a racial trait. It's a choice...
You don't know that. You're basing your prejudice off of a guess, an ignorant one at that. Not that is should ****ing matter anyway.
I don't care what the hell two people do in the privacy of a bedroom, but I'll be damned before I sit there and let them rub my face in it, which is what happens every time they sue someone for predudice.
Well no ****, sherlock. If you don't care what goes on in their lives, then why give them a reason to sue? Why not just leave them the **** alone and give them the same respect as any other human being and let them be on their merry way? If every person who hated homosexuals (I'll refrain from using "bigot" at the moment) would do that, we'd have no problems with this ****.
You're allowed to dislike people as much as you want, but the moment you infrindge upon their basic rights as citizens/people, you lose all grounds.
-
now lets not derail, this thread is about how bacwardsed some parts of my country are.
-
It's our country too, buddy.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
now lets not derail, this thread is about how bacwardsed some parts of my country are.
Discriminating against Gays being part of that.
But right, the south is also ****ed up for hating blacks.
-
And Hispanics! And Catholics!
-
Doesn't everyone discriminate against Hispanics in some fashion or another though?
-
In some fashion, yes...
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
this thread is about how bacwardsed some parts of my country are.
BY GOD!
Before you perpetuate some antique sterotype based on events half a damn century in the past, come down here and check it out! Frickin hell!!!!!!!! Do we have racists? Sure. But I'll bet we've a damn sight fewer than where most of you buggers live.
DEAR SWEET GOD IN HEAVEN!
I am sick to death of people assuming things about my home. Nobody I know is a racist. Some of the Old Timers have a few stereotypes that they mutter under their breath, but the Klan doesn't exist as such around here.
-
Thou shalt not recite the Lord's name in vain...
-
Originally posted by Liberator
BY GOD!
Before you perpetuate some antique sterotype based on events half a damn century in the past, come down here and check it out! Frickin hell!!!!!!!! Do we have racists?
You sure don't show it.
I am sick to death of people assuming things about my home. Nobody I know is a racist. Some of the Old Timers have a few stereotypes that they mutter under their breath, but the Klan doesn't exist as such around here.
Uh huh, no more KKK, replaced by homophobic conservatives, such as yourself.
-
Liberator: if you don't want those stereotypes to perpetuate don't prove their validity
-
Originally posted by Knight Templar
Well no ****, sherlock. If you don't care what goes on in their lives, then why give them a reason to sue? Why not just leave them the **** alone and give them the same respect as any other human being and let them be on their merry way? If every person who hated homosexuals (I'll refrain from using "bigot" at the moment) would do that, we'd have no problems with this ****.
You're allowed to dislike people as much as you want, but the moment you infrindge upon their basic rights as citizens/people, you lose all grounds.
are we talking about gay marriage? or just gay (civil) rights in general?
-
both
-
ohk. cause as far as i knew (now keep in mind i haven't kept up with the whole "anti-homosexual" views the last few years) the main reasons people wanted to ban gay marriage were not because of civil rights, it was because marriage always has been between man and woman, and they want to keep it that way, because of tradition, Biblical reference, and what have you.
-
Originally posted by Stealth
it was because marriage always has been between man and woman,
a claim which is undeniably false, and the entire american anthropological society has officially called the president out on for the false claim
-
Originally posted by Stealth
are we talking about gay marriage? or just gay (civil) rights in general?
Originally posted by Kazan
both
Only because you won't separate them. No one is talking about taking away people's rights because their gay, and I resent you intimating that.
The people(myself included) who are against gay marriage are against it because it is sinful and against everything we know to be right and good.
Marriage, Kazan, no matter how much you ***** and whine like a little doggy is inextricably linked to religion. As a religious ceremony, no matter the governmental statutes, it is a covenant between the participants to each other and between the participants as a single entity and God. How do you think God feels being maligned like that?
As I have said, repeatedly, I am willing to meet halfway. I shouldn't, but I'm willing to compromise. I'm willing to let them have a Civil Union as performed by and Officer of the Court, this would allow them the "benefits" of being married without defacing the religious ceremony.
Of course, I'd expect them to pay taxes like married people and enter into legal contracts like married people, you know, the myriad of no so beneficial aspects of being married.
-
ok, why can't they just call it a marrage then? if it is legaly equivelent what's the matter?
no one is proposeing laws to force you'r church to perform or condone them. if however some other church a thousand miles away from you wants to perform one you are denying the legal status.
all this argument is about is legal status
right now I'm thinking maybe we can come to an agreement, I'd be willing to put in any and all assurences that there can be no church forced to go along with this or recognise this. just a Civil Union that the government calls marriage. wich entails the exact same legal responsibilities as a 'normal' marriage.
ok, what do you need to alow the government to enact a civil union that it calls a marriage?
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Only because you won't separate them. No one is talking about taking away people's rights because their gay, and I resent you intimating that.
But that's just what your camp does by not letting them marry, opressing them in the military, in jobs, etc.
Marriage, no matter how much you ***** and whine like a little doggy is inextricably linked to religion.
Granted, marriage, in a church, perhaps. But not the union of two people.
As a religious ceremony, no matter the governmental statutes, it is a covenant between the participants to each other and between the participants as a single entity and God. How do you think God feels being maligned like that?
[/b]
1) You really think God prefers all this suffering rather than have a peaceful world where all his children, Homos or not, can live happily? :wtf:
It's not even your ****ing place to interpret how "God would feel."
2) I don't see you fundies *****ing everytime an Aethiest couple wants to get married. What's up with that? They proclaim that your God doesn't even exist, yet get married all the time. I'd consider that a greater sin than a bit of anal action.
As I have said, repeatedly, I am willing to meet halfway. I shouldn't, but I'm willing to compromise. I'm willing to let them have a Civil Union as performed by and Officer of the Court, this would allow them the "benefits" of being married without defacing the religious ceremony.
Of course, I'd expect them to pay taxes like married people and enter into legal contracts like married people, you know, the myriad of no so beneficial aspects of being married.
How ****ing generous of you, meeting "halfway" and all. :doubt: Though your attitude about it is retarded, I can't say I disagree. Let Gays marry and let them do it in some place other than a church, or leave it to the specific churches to decide if they want to allow the marriage ceremony or not. Not the State, not the Nation.
-
ok, so what you are worried about is "defacing the religious ceremony". if the law ensured a church's right to deny or not agnoledge a gay marriage (ie there is no way you would ever have to worry about one being held at your church), whould this be acceptable.
if the law allowed you to not recognise it (unless you were there boss in wich case you would have to handel insurence and tax things as if they were married, but otherwise didn't effect you)?
-
All right, just about everyone on this whole board has to come out of the closet, since you seem to warp just about every thread into a pro-gay-marriage bashfest. What is it with you people? :rolleyes:
-
ok, I'm in a mood to try to work this out.
tell me what the legal sort of reprucusions from gay marriage you are worried about, and I'll try to find a way to protect you from these consequences.
I am working under the pretense that we all agree that what happens in ones private life is there own busness and none of us care about "what happens in someones bedroom"
-
Actually, the question is: Why is the government doing marriages at all? A marriage is inextricably caught up in religon, that's where the word comes from, after all, and that's where the objections come from too.
Following from seperation of church and state, the government should only be giving out civil unions regardless of who is asking for them. Let the churches do the marrying.
-
yeah, well lets get that inch before we go for the mile.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Only because you won't separate them. No one is talking about taking away people's rights because their gay, and I resent you intimating that.
The people(myself included) who are against gay marriage are against it because it is sinful and against everything we know to be right and good.
Marriage, Kazan, no matter how much you ***** and whine like a little doggy is inextricably linked to religion. As a religious ceremony, no matter the governmental statutes, it is a covenant between the participants to each other and between the participants as a single entity and God. How do you think God feels being maligned like that?
As I have said, repeatedly, I am willing to meet halfway. I shouldn't, but I'm willing to compromise. I'm willing to let them have a Civil Union as performed by and Officer of the Court, this would allow them the "benefits" of being married without defacing the religious ceremony.
Of course, I'd expect them to pay taxes like married people and enter into legal contracts like married people, you know, the myriad of no so beneficial aspects of being married.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4049013.stm
-
I thought marriage was older than christ... :rolleyes:
From what I understand, marriage was supposed to be just the union of two people, but throughout the ages, as religions were being developed and becoming extinct, a need to reinforce the notion of marriage by applying paranormal power started to appear, to make the marriages "look better". And from there it went downhill to what we have today. Of course this might totally false, but I like to think about it like this. :nervous:
-
NB;
The amendment had two main parts: the removal of the separate-schools language and the removal of a passage -- inserted in the 1950s in an attempt to counter the Brown v. Board of Education ruling against segregated public schools -- that said Alabama's constitution does not guarantee a right to a public education. Leading opponents, such as Alabama Christian Coalition President John Giles, said they did not object to removing the passage about separate schools for "white and colored children." But, employing an argument that was ridiculed by most of the state's newspapers and by legions of legal experts, Giles and others said guaranteeing a right to a public education would have opened a door for "rogue" federal judges to order the state to raise taxes to pay for improvements in its public school system.
Oh my God! The potential to raise taxes to pay for an improved & inclusive education! We're dooooooooooommmmmmmmeeeeeeeeeeddddddddd!
-
Hatred for the federal judiciary runs deep down south, even among fairly normal and otherwise enlightened people.
-
Please tell me this isn't some civil war hangover thing........
-
Being Southern, with a very Southern background, you would think I could answer this one... but no, I have no idea.
-
It's a civil rights movement hangover thing. Nobody likes having stuff dictated from on high, even if it's perfectly good and sensible stuff that they agree with.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Marriage, Kazan, no matter how much you ***** and whine like a little doggy is inextricably linked to religion. As a religious ceremony, no matter the governmental statutes, it is a covenant between the participants to each other and between the participants as a single entity and God.
So since they don't believe in God Hindus, Sihks and all other religions that don't believe in God can't get married?
-
What a lot of the people in this country fail to realize (or sometimes blatantly ignore) is that not everyone in America is Christian or Jewish. So writing laws based on the beliefs of Evangelical Christians, even in a very local area, inherently breeds inequality, cause unless absolutely everyone there is the same religion, there's bound to be someone that gets shafted.
Also, what in particular is so "immoral" about gayness that it has to be discouraged by federal law? Please give specifics, but please, no Leviticus.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
The people(myself included) who are against gay marriage are against it because it is sinful and against everything we know to be right and good.
Let Me Familiarize you with a couple simple concepts
A) AMERICA STANDS FOR FREEDOM
B) AMERICA IS NOT A THEOCRACY
you're taking away A for gays (and christians not of your sect, and atheists, and agnostics and budhists, etc) and/via destroying fact B
Originally posted by Liberator
Marriage, Kazan, no matter how much you ***** and whine like a little doggy is inextricably linked to religion. [/B]
A) no it's not
B) especially not when it's a state-sanctioned one
Originally posted by Liberator
As a religious ceremony, no matter the governmental statutes, it is a covenant between the participants to each other and between the participants as a single entity and God. How do you think God feels being maligned like that?[/B]
he/she/it doesn't feel at all BECAUSE THE ****ING THING DOESN'T EXIST --- So long as you force your view on marriage into government you are violation our constitution, and the rights of other people who are not of your sect of your religion
PS there are christian churches that marry gays too genius
Originally posted by Liberator
As I have said, repeatedly, I am willing to meet halfway. I shouldn't, but I'm willing to compromise. [/B]
what they hell are you talking about? saying you shouldn't be willing to treat people like human ****ing beings
Originally posted by Liberator
I'm willing to let them have a Civil Union as performed by and Officer of the Court, this would allow them the "benefits" of being married without defacing the religious ceremony.[/B]
you people writing bigotry into the law, and trying to write it into the constitution DEFACES THE COUNTRY
HERE IS A CLUE: Nobody is trying to force churches to marry gays against their will: this is about government marriage not religious marriage -- you bigots can do what you want, but the government has to respect everyone's rights
Originally posted by Liberator
Of course, I'd expect them to pay taxes like married people and enter into legal contracts like married people, you know, the myriad of no so beneficial aspects of being married. [/B]
and so do they
-
Originally posted by Mongoose
All right, just about everyone on this whole board has to come out of the closet, since you seem to warp just about every thread into a pro-gay-marriage bashfest. What is it with you people? :rolleyes:
A) im straight, i live with my opposite-gender fiance
B) resorting to insults like this shows conclusively that you have NOTHING to support your bigotry
C) BECAUSE WE BELIEVE IN THE GOD DAMN CONSTITUTION AND THAT EVERY IS DESERVING OF THE SAME RIGHTS
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4049013.stm
Originally said by my fiance
Oh my god! Someone is actually acting like Jesus in the church![/b]
(you know - that love your neighbor as yourself thing)
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Please tell me this isn't some civil war hangover thing........
basically
they don't like that the courts uphold the constitution in support of the rights of individuals they are bigoted against
-
Blahblahblahblah....
[size=99]BLAH![/size]
The mere fact that this is still an issue in a country that proclaims itself to be 'the land of the free' is truly humorous. And the fact that this issue won't be resolved for at the very least another few decades is outright hilarious.
-
i don't think it's hilarious - i think it's sad, i think it's pathetic
i think it's indicative of the right-wing agenda to destroy our constitution
-
Originally posted by Kazan
i don't think it's hilarious - i think it's sad, i think it's pathetic
True, but from where I'm sitting it's truly hilarious. The selfproclaimed superpower is about as socially advanced as medieval Europe. :ick:
-
yeah... just feel assured that some of us know that we're collectively being hypocrits
-
Originally posted by Tiara
The mere fact that this is still an issue in a country that proclaims itself to be 'the land of the free' is truly humorous. And the fact that this issue won't be resolved for at the very least another few decades is outright hilarious.
The fact I find most ironic is that the people who trumpet it being the "land of the free" the loudest are usually the ones who want to repress freedom the most.
As Bill Hicks put it
You are free... To do as we tell you
You are free... To do as we tell you
-
Originally posted by Tiara
The mere fact that this is still an issue in a country that proclaims itself to be 'the land of the free' is truly humorous.
You'll forgive me, but BUT THE HELL OUT AXE-LADY!
I'll not have a buncha pot smoking, amoral PC louts that couldn't find the right side of anything without help preach to me about morality.
That's what this comes down to:
morality
I, and millions upon millions of others, believe that being Homosexual and anything associated is morally wrong, period. I, personally, think it is abhorent for any church to openly support and promote homosexuals in any way when the book that they preach from so clearly is against it.
This is a battle for whether America will retain it's moral heritage and all that goes with it or sink into a cesspit of immorality where you can get away with almost any depraved act you could imagine.
That is what I'm against.
As to the question of Buddhists and Sikhs getting married. They are still making a covenent with The Divine, whether they acknoledge it as God or not.
-
You and your millions upon millions, should be lined up shot and hung from the balls. And not nessecarily in that order.
You and your millions are what is keeping this world from being free.
You and your millions are what is keeping humanity back.
You and your millions are what is keeping in the dark ages.
You and your millions are what caused the dark ages.
You and your millions are what is holding our race back.
You and your millions are what is keeping a Human being from choosing his or her own fate.
---
Sorry, but calling me amoral just because mine differ from yours is not something i take lightly, mister Superiority Complex.
-
This is a battle for whether America will retain it's moral heritage and all that goes with it or sink into a cesspit of immorality where you can get away with almost any depraved act you could imagine. That is what I'm against.
Mmkay. First off.
The slippery-slope argument is bull. Pedophilia and worse things will never, EVER, EVER[/u][/i] become legitimized by our society. There's a little thing called "age of consent", and I don't see that ever being struck down, by even the most rabid judge. Besides which, what politician or judge would ever want to be known for doing so? (Bestiality is even worse -- but animals cannot legally give consent, so there.)
Two. Consenting. Adult. Humans. Period. :P
Secondly, I'll ask again: What in particular about homosexuality do you (and others) find so immoral?
Thirdly, the vast majority of gays insist that their sexuality is not, and was never, a choice. I wouldn't know personally, cause I'm straight, but by that same token neither would you.
And conveniently, the Bible doesn't say whether it's a choice, either.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
You'll forgive me, but BUT THE HELL OUT AXE-LADY!
I'll not have a buncha pot smoking, amoral PC louts that couldn't find the right side of anything without help preach to me about morality.
That's what this comes down to:
morality
I, and millions upon millions of others, believe that being Homosexual and anything associated is morally wrong, period. I, personally, think it is abhorent for any church to openly support and promote homosexuals in any way when the book that they preach from so clearly is against it.
This is a battle for whether America will retain it's moral heritage and all that goes with it or sink into a cesspit of immorality where you can get away with almost any depraved act you could imagine.
That is what I'm against.
And you're going to be the one defining what is moral?
It's interesting how tolerance and understanding of freedom of both belief, expression and sexual orientation becomes the opinions of a 'pot smoking PC lout' when you disagree with it.....
-
lol well in fair defense of people that voted against it: I am sure there are some that didnt vote for it becuase it is a constitutional admendment. Here in Virginia, I AM VERY CAREFUL when I vote for admendments because of how far reaching they can be. If I don't lilke the way something sounds I will vote against it.
-
And the next Dutchman you call a potsmoker might just land a nice not-so-wooden-shoe in your groin. With good right too.
I'm not calling you a gun-toting-bible-bashing-drunk either, even though firearms are legal in the States, there are quite a few religious folk, and because alcohol is legal, right? Get it over with the stereotypes.
Sure, some people over here smoke cannabis. I don't give a ****, as long as they exhale away from my face, and refrain from smoking alltogether (including tabbacco)if I have to be near them for a longer period.
Redmanace:
(http://www.kasperl.huiswerksite.nl/redmanace1337.GIF)
-
I always thought of Liberator as a person with a well-voiced opinion and at least held a little bit respect for him. But today, he has only proven that he is just as bad as a Jehova's Witness on speed. :ick:
In short I will not take insults and outright lies like that easily.
-
Originally posted by Mad Bomber
Thirdly, the vast majority of gays insist that their sexuality is not, and was never, a choice. I wouldn't know personally, cause I'm straight, but by that same token neither would you.
When I am shown irrefutable evidence that the vast amount experts agree that homosexuality is anything but a choice, be it conscious or not, I'll change my position.
Aldo, my morality is based on the Divinely-Inspired Holy Bible.
This argument should really be separated from the somewhat less heated discussion about how dumb my state apparently is for not passing a poorly worded proposition that was proposed precisely to remove our ability to govern ourselves.
-
does it realy matter, if it's a choice, then it's there free will to do so, and liveing in the land of the free they should have the right to live thee lives the way they want.
now I'm still in a negotiateing mood, (though I'll be gone for a few hours after posting this) is there any sort of reasurences that we could give you in the form of provideing you and your church the right to not recognise these marriages that would allow us to come to an agreement, I'm thinking this whole thing might stem from a fundemental misunderstanding with the way we view the role of the government with respect to religion (ie we have no intention of forceing you to do/recognise anything). the legal status of this is not going to affect wether or not people engage in these activities and it's not going to make them any more present in your life (in fact it might calm them down and get them out of your life as little they are there to begin with)
so we want to let gay people marry, you want to uphold the integrity of your church. I think we can have both of these.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Aldo, my morality is based on the Divinely-Inspired Holy Bible.
And what if I, or anyone else, doesn't believe that Bible is divinely inspired or holy - what gives you any right to dictate what is moral based on a book which is no more relevant to us than a scrapbook or £2 paperback? You are advocating a theocracy, one of the most oppressive forms of government there is; simply because you think you agree with the supposed morals that would 'bring' (bigotry and prejudice).
Whatever happened to the whole 'judge not' thing? I thought a fundamental part of Christianity was supposed to be tolerance.
Not to mention that the Church itself cannot make its mind up about the homosexual issue - if it is such a sin, why are openly homosexual bishops being ordained?
Originally posted by Bobboau
does it realy matter, if it's a choice, then it's there free will to do so, and liveing in the land of the free they should have the right to live thee lives the way they want.
now I'm still in a negotiateing mood, (though I'll be gone for a few hours after posting this) is there any sort of reasurences that we could give you in the form of provideing you and your church the right to not recognise these marriages that would allow us to come to an agreement, I'm thinking this whole thing might stem from a fundemental misunderstanding with the way we view the role of the government with respect to religion (ie we have no intention of forceing you to do/recognise anything). the legal status of this is not going to affect wether or not people engage in these activities and it's not going to make them any more present in your life (in fact it might calm them down and get them out of your life as little they are there to begin with)
so we want to let gay people marry, you want to uphold the integrity of your church. I think we can have both of these.
I agree; the religious component of marriage should be a matter for the churches to dictate. People are free to choose a church or religion, the church is free to accept or spurn that congregation.
The civil component - such as spousal rights - should be of course equal and governmentally defined.
I have no doubt there will be churches which allow gay marriage within them; I believe there may already be some willing to do so if the legal status is clear.
-
EDIt; dammit, need to remember to edit in next time......
-
Originally posted by kasperl
Redmanace:
(http://www.kasperl.huiswerksite.nl/redmanace1337.GIF)
kas, what are you trying to say by copying a image of my post?
Umm for the record I DO NOT support segregation. I never have. Those that have were being stupid. Personally if I lived in Alabama I would voted and campaigned for the admendment.
However, those that voted against the admendment because they are bitter represent a racial divide in this country that has remained silent but everpresent in the rural south. Unfortunatly it is not just whites, but members of the black community as well. You especially see this in churches in the south. Jesus Christ would be or I should say is, embarrased and furious. Here in Virginia, there are many integrated churches thankfully.
Only in recent years has there been any move to more of a melting pot(meaning becoming more like one another, not more like me) here in the US and this is because of what the south did concerning segregation.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
When I am shown irrefutable evidence that the vast amount experts agree that homosexuality is anything but a choice, be it conscious or not, I'll change my position.
[/b]
When I am shown irrefutable evidence that the vast amount experts can prove that God exist, I'll become a Jehova's Witness.
:rolleyes:
Aldo, my morality is based on the Divinely-Inspired Holy Bible.
As said, some people, including me, don't consider the bible to be holy nor divinely inspired.
This argument should really be separated from the somewhat less heated discussion about how dumb my state apparently is for not passing a poorly worded proposition that was proposed precisely to remove our ability to govern ourselves.
:wtf:
-
Originally posted by Liberator
You'll forgive me, but BUT THE HELL OUT AXE-LADY!
I'll not have a buncha pot smoking, amoral PC louts that couldn't find the right side of anything without help preach to me about morality.
That's what this comes down to:
morality
I, and millions upon millions of others, believe that being Homosexual and anything associated is morally wrong, period. I, personally, think it is abhorent for any church to openly support and promote homosexuals in any way when the book that they preach from so clearly is against it.
This is a battle for whether America will retain it's moral heritage and all that goes with it or sink into a cesspit of immorality where you can get away with almost any depraved act you could imagine.
That is what I'm against.
As to the question of Buddhists and Sikhs getting married. They are still making a covenent with The Divine, whether they acknoledge it as God or not.
Ok, I'm sorry. I was gonna leave this thread alone, but such a dumb-nut comment simply had to be rejected.
Excuse me, Liberator...well, I'm not quite sure where to start. Let's do the obvious: "America" as it is written in the constitution, is a land of the free. All citizens are equal, man, woman, black, white, gay or straight.
I don't care what your moral values are. America shouldn't care what the moral values of a single religion is, nomatter how much of the majority it contains. The simple fact is that you have absolutely no right to impose your moral standards upon others. Other religions have no problem with gays. If they were the majority, guess what? Gay marriages would be allowed, and we wouldn't have to listen to a bunch of one-sided arguments about how bad gays are.
Liberator, if you give me one, count 'em, one honest-to-God reason as to why gays should not be allowed to marry, that does not have to do with religion, I will retract all my arguments, and I will join your side.
Why do I make this promise? Because I know you can't. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with being gay, except for the fact that it is against your, I repeat, your religion.
The amazing thing about America, the America that I believe in, the America that I believe still exists beneath us all, is that one social group, or religious group (such as Christianity), is not, or should not be able to impose its will on others, simply because the other party is against their personal beliefs.
Liberator, I repeat: Give me one good reason as to why gays should not marry. If it is against your morals; why? What basis do you have for that? What makes them so wrong?
EDIT: And I just read down. Homosexuality is not a choice. There have been many scientific studies, as in sheep, where scientists found that sheep more prone to homosexual activities did indeed have different wiring in their brains. Would you like me to point you to the article so that you may retract your statements, as per your promise, as soon as possible?
-
Who gives a **** whether homosexuality is a choice or not? What possible difference could - should it make upon our treatment of fellow human beings anyway?
-
It shouldn't. But to Liberator, and others, it does. And I have some documents that prove to him that it's not a choice, but indeed involountary.
-
Dark Ages; Woman with a mole on her nose? WITCH! BURNINATE!!!!1111oneoneone
Pre-industrial age; Blacks? Negros? Niggers? **** THEM! THEY ARE NOT WORTHY BECAUSE GOD SAYS SO! THEY ARE SUBHUMAN! THEY ARE SLAVES! AND NOTHING MORE!
WWII; The Arian race is superior to all. All other are heathens and must be purged!
Today; Gays!? ARGH! Deny them their sovereign rights because they are the most immoral beings that have ever walked this green Earth!
---
Anyone see a pattern here? I can actually go back WAY before the Dark Ages with this pattern but its all essentially the same.
Does ANY religious person ever realize that if God creates all and everything, that he also creates those who are gay. Those who are different from you? Does your religion not preach about 'love thy neighbour as you love thyself' (or something)?
Seriously, it's just a bunch of hypocritical bull****.
I respect religion on a personal basis. Everyone has a right to believe in what they want. But when one's beliefs affect other persons and even society, it is just plain wrong and I don't respect those people and/or organizations AT ALL.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
As to the question of Buddhists and Sikhs getting married. They are still making a covenent with The Divine, whether they acknoledge it as God or not.
How arrogant of you to decide that Sihks and Buddists who break at least two of the ten commandments are somehow being fooled into christian marriages but somehow gay men and women who aren't actually breaking any of them are somehow comitting a worse crime.
Seriously Lib. Get your dogma straight before you insist on inflicting it on the rest of us. It appears as though you don't even understand your holy book. How can you then arrogantly preach to us that it's better than the way we choose to live our lives.
-
Originally posted by Tiara
I respect religion on a personal basis. Everyone has a right to believe in what they want. But when one's beliefs affect other persons and even society, it is just plain wrong and I don't respect those people and/or organizations AT ALL.
While I don't agree with the tone you put it in, I agree with this statement.
It's basically a super-short version of my post above.
-
Hmm...there is a fundemental problem with such a statement.
By practicing one's beliefs, you will invariably affect others and society. This is a given, whether you're a survivalist militiaman or an environmental extremist, or anywhere inbetween. Perhaps you might wish to rephrase that statement?
-
Libeartor is a fascist - need he prove it any more clearly than he has in this thread
he ASSUMES that he is 100% correct, and he presumes to FORCE EVERYONE ELSE TO THINK LIKE HIM
-
Just as you do?
Your objectives are different, but your methods are the same.
-
Originally posted by ngtm1r
Your objectives are different, but your methods are the same.
Quite the opposite. While Kazan can be quite... hard-headed, when you put clear cut facts in front of his nose, he'll concede his point. lib on the other hand just put his fingers in his ears and scream *LALALALALALALA*.
-
Originally posted by ngtm1r
Hmm...there is a fundemental problem with such a statement.
By practicing one's beliefs, you will invariably affect others and society. This is a given, whether you're a survivalist militiaman or an environmental extremist, or anywhere inbetween. Perhaps you might wish to rephrase that statement?
Ok, you have a point.
However, there is a difference between passively affecting society and pro-actively affecting society.
-
When he actually concedes a point, I'll agree with you. Until then, I remain skeptical, because so far as I can tell Kazan's dancing around with earmuffs on too.
The content of the posts the two make differ, but the style is quite similar. Liberator's English is slightly better...which is just enough to get him in trouble with poor wordings.
-
ngtm1r: i can _prove_ myself to be correct whenever i enter into an argument
liberator's english is better? now that is hilarious --- and I have conceded a point before - but you just weren't reading the thread.
-
What problem do you guys have with the South? You guys say how bad the South is, But how do you know? You don't live here. So please atleast try to show some respect to the ones living in Dixie.
-
Its just a joke guys, jeez.
No one really hates the South, they gave us Yosemite Sam.
-
Originally posted by Tiara
Quite the opposite. While Kazan can be quite... hard-headed, when you put clear cut facts in front of his nose, he'll concede his point. lib on the other hand just put his fingers in his ears and scream *LALALALALALALA*.
I dissagree. I think its just that most of the things Lib tends to argue over deal with belief, not facts (religion etc). When dealing with issues of faith and opinion, facts don't enter into it, cause there's no right and wrong opinon.
-
Originally posted by WeatherOp
What problem do you guys have with the South? You guys say how bad the South is, But how do you know? You don't live here. So please atleast try to show some respect to the ones living in Dixie.
i know a lot of people who DO live there and say this
-
*sighs, raises hand for a moment*
Yes, there are some real problems down here...
-
The notion that homosexuality is a choice defies reasoning. People who are homosexual struggle with depression and suicide because they can't even accept who they are themselves! And then they go through hell from bigoted people all over the place who tell them they're immoral freaks. Why would anyone CHOOSE to go through that?!
On a more basic level: I'm quite heterosexual, and I don't know about the other heterosexual guys here, but I find the sight of attractive, naked women extremely inticing, and the sight of naked men equally uninviting. Now if anyone here can explain to me how someone with this viewpoint can have sex with a man and enjoy it, I might reconsider my whole outlook on the phenomenon.
-
Originally posted by Mad Bomber
The slippery-slope argument is bull. Pedophilia and worse things will never, EVER, EVER[/u][/i] become legitimized by our society. There's a little thing called "age of consent", and I don't see that ever being struck down, by even the most rabid judge. Besides which, what politician or judge would ever want to be known for doing so? (Bestiality is even worse -- but animals cannot legally give consent, so there.)
with all due respect sir, i just wanted to point out that if you could climb in a time machine and go back 150 years, and tell Americans that 150 years from now, homosexual marriage would be legal, i'll bet 99% of them would laugh in your face, and the other 1% would punch you for mentioning 'homosexuals' in public.
Two. Consenting. Adult. Humans. Period. :P
ah but see "they" argue that that's a man-made definition ;) once again... go back 150 years and ask anyone to define marriage, and i'll bet you wouldn't get anyone saying "between two people whether of the same or different sex"... they'd all say man + woman = marriage.
Secondly, I'll ask again: What in particular about homosexuality do you (and others) find so immoral?
i'm going to take a stab in the dark here, and say that the reason most homosexual-haters hate homosexuals so much is because they're Christian and thus they believe what the Bible dictates is right and wrong, and not man.
And conveniently, the Bible doesn't say whether it's a choice, either.
true, but the Bible does say that homosexuality is wrong, and that nations were destroyed for practicing homosexuality, so Christians read that, and take the hint
-
Thank you Stealth. I've been trying to say that but I get distracted easily.
-
stealth none of that makes them correct - and there have been many cultures in the past with homosexual marraige -- hell the catholic church sanctified atleast one homosexual marriage in the 3rd century
-
So, Christian actually take the bible literally? Then it's worse then I imagined it. The bible has been rewritten a gazillion times by a gazillion different men, women and children it isn't even funny anymore.
If they take the bible literally they also shouldn't judge those who are different. that would be God's job, not something mankind itself should be concerned with.
And if the bible is taken literally, you'll find dozens if not hundreds of horrors you must obey. This isn't a 'pick and choose' thing.
:rolleyes:
-
some of them take it literally -- like liberator and mongoose
just like those oh-so-pesky muslim fundamentalists that they decry do
(hint: the term "fundamentalist" for someone who takes their holy documents literally was COINED BY A CHRISTIAN TO REFER TO CHRISTIANS)
-
Some of the bible is taken literally. Some of it is not. It depends on the context of the passage. The Corinthians Church *I think* were told women need to keep their heads covered. This is not for religous reasons, but to keep people from thinking that they were harlets[the corinthian women]. As a christian I lift an overall idea from the passage. As for the old testament law, some laws might not make sense when you first read them, but on close inspecion they make sense. Such as in Leviticus 11:9-12 -
9 " 'Of all the creatures living in the water of the seas and the streams, you may eat any that have fins and scales. 10 But all creatures in the seas or streams that do not have fins and scales-whether among all the swarming things or among all the other living creatures in the water-you are to detest. 11 And since you are to detest them, you must not eat their meat and you must detest their carcasses. 12 Anything living in the water that does not have fins and scales is to be detestable to you.
Catfish and other unscaled fish are notoriously unhealthy. But as I am trying to point out, you need to read the passage in light of the context.
-
Originally posted by Stealth
with all due respect sir, i just wanted to point out that if you could climb in a time machine and go back 150 years, and tell Americans that 150 years from now, homosexual marriage would be legal, i'll bet 99% of them would laugh in your face, and the other 1% would punch you for mentioning 'homosexuals' in public.
Go back 150 years and tell that slavery will be banned in the south states, same argument... (if you want to reinforce this, you can go further back in time)
ah but see "they" argue that that's a man-made definition once again... go back 150 years and ask anyone to define marriage, and i'll bet you wouldn't get anyone saying "between two people whether of the same or different sex"... they'd all say man + woman = marriage.
Go 150 years into the past and ask if black people are citizens.
You get the point... I hope...
-
What about mussels? I like mussels.
Hell, the Spanish have been eating paella for yonks, does that mean they're screwed religious-like?
-
So... the whole 'don't judge because that is god's work' is suddenly not to be taken literally?
-
Originally posted by Ghostavo
You get the point... I hope...
:nod:
In that context, then humankinds morals have been consistently improving over 150 years; becoming a fairer and more tolerant society of those who are different.
-
Originally posted by Tiara
So... the whole 'don't judge because that is god's work' is suddenly not to be taken literally?
"I'm not saying anything. I did not say anything then, and I'm not saying anything now.
-Delenn
In all seriousness though, I am saying it depends on the context of the passage.
-
Matthew 7:
1
"Do not judge, or you too will be judged.
2
For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
3
"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?
4
How can you say to your brother, `Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye?
5
You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.
It basically says 'Do not judge unless you are sinless.' And somehow I find it hard to believe that anyone in this world is sinless and has the right to judge others because they are different form you.
To support this;
1 John 1
If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.
Nobody is without sin and therefor nobody may judge another Human being.
And thos who cannot forgive 'sins' (at least in the eyes of Christians) will not be forgiven by God.
Matthew 6
For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. 15But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.
So, if being gay is a sin, you may not judge unless you forgive him/her because in fact, by *NOT* forgiving him/her you are commiting a sin[/u]. And i don't see many Christians do that.
There, I think that states my point about the hypocracy with which people try to voice their opinions.
-
As I've also said repeatedly, I hate the sin not the person.
I think Ellen Degeneres is quite funny. It's fine because she's not running around rocking the boat. She just lives. I just don't like these militants that run around screaming that they just want to be accepted and proceed to litigate the acceptance which cause them to be hated. I'd let live if they would.
-
Oh, so now gays who want equal treatment as straights are to be considered militants and "rocking the boat"?
All they want is CIVIL EQUALITY!
Goddamnit Liberator, I've tried to be "Oh, well, it's ok, he's entitled to his beliefs." But you calling people who want equal treatment "militants", and then trying to impose your moral values on others is not only wrong, it's sickening. Look past your own goddamn bigoted nose and see the world around you, and see what would happen if you truly got your way.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
ngtm1r: i can _prove_ myself to be correct whenever i enter into an argument
liberator's english is better? now that is hilarious --- and I have conceded a point before - but you just weren't reading the thread.
Liberator knows how to use a shift key.
And frankly, you can't prove jack here. This entire thread is opinion, not facts.
More to the point, your definition did not include being able to retract.
Assume you are 100% right. (Particularly on a subjective issue such as this, where right is in the eye of the beholder.) Check. You attempt to get everyone to believe as you do. Check. You fit your own description.
Be careful what you post, it can bite you if not properly considered.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
As I've also said repeatedly, I hate the sin not the person.
I think Ellen Degeneres is quite funny. It's fine because she's not running around rocking the boat. She just lives. I just don't like these militants that run around screaming that they just want to be accepted and proceed to litigate the acceptance which cause them to be hated. I'd let live if they would.
I don't see how another person wanting equality has any impact upon you. I'm not sure what 'litigate the acceptance which cause them to be hated' means anway - is it wrong to demand equal rights to be set in stone and guarenteed?
It's strange... maybe it's different in America, but I don't step out into the street and see lots of people running about with banners saying I'm gay, 'accept me'. I'd imagine, shockingly enough, that the majority just want to live their lives the same as everyone else does; they just don't want to be saddled with the biogotry of self appointed 'moral guardians'.
-
Actually, ngtm1r, there is a right and wrong to this issue. Not from a religious view, but from a moral and legal view.
The United States is supposed to accept all people of all social types, classes, and beliefs. If gays were different, say, let's for the sake of argument, say being gay is a religion. The US government would/should not have any problem with them, because we are obligated to encourage and support all forms of life and belief. Therefore, gays should not have to deal with all this. It's the same thing as the black rights movement, except it's your sexual orientation that's on the line, not your skin color.
What your morals are has nothing to do with this matter. A man just came on TV and said "You live in a land founded by Christians"---guess what? It wasn't founded JUST for Christians. It was founded for every man, woman, and child in this world. And gays are human, just like the rest of us.
They deserve to be treated as such.
-
Well, there's equality by bringing everyone below us up to the same level as we are, and there's equality by bringing us down to their level. Which, do you suppose, would you prefer?
That's really the core of the argument here. The two sides have different definitions of up and down.
-
Lib, I understand how reluctant you are to have a bunch of federal judges in Washington able to rewrite the laws and legislate their views on the nation.
Frankly, I feel the exact same way about evangelicals wanting to legislate their views on the nation.
Also, Lib, you missed a question from UT earlier (but as you said, you're distractable).
Liberator, if you give me one, count 'em, one honest-to-God reason as to why gays should not be allowed to marry, that does not have to do with religion, I will retract all my arguments, and I will join your side.
-
Thanks for pointing that out, Mad.
ngtm1r, I'd prefer to bring everyone below us up to our level. That would be more beneficial to everyone, don't you think? Doesn't seem like anyone loses in that scenario. At least, not as much as we have been losing lately.
-
ngtmr1 that "up" and "down" can be concretely defined too
-
Here is why I don't won't gays to get married. Lets say you are walking thru the supermarket, a Gay guy slapes you on your back side and says you're hot. Now if you are like me, you would probly beat his butt in, Even if you just tell him to get lost, he can say your a racist or something like that, make a huge deal about it and sue your butt off or send you to jail. If we let it get legal, that will probly happen a lot..
-
Originally posted by WeatherOp
If we let it get legal, that will probly happen a lot..
WORST EXCUSE EVAR
non sequitur
-
No, the first reason is that I don't belive in it, but that would probly make one of you mad and start another arguement.
-
Here is why I don't won't gays to get married. Lets say you are walking thru the supermarket, a Gay guy slapes you on your back side and says you're hot. Now if you are like me, you would probly beat his butt in, Even if you just tell him to get lost, he can say your a racist or something like that, make a huge deal about it and sue your butt off or send you to jail. If we let it get legal, that will probly happen a lot..
That's your fault for being a yahoo and not knowing how to conduct yourself in civilization. Besides, you should know when you're being complimented. :)
In addition, the fact that you think that's how gay people behave illustrates your total oblivion.
-
Originally posted by WeatherOp
No, the first reason is that I don't belive in it, but that would probly make one of you mad and start another arguement.
rightfully so - because your views are completely and totally bigoted and it's disgusting that human beings behave like you
Originally posted by Ford Prefect
In addition, the fact that you think that's how gay people behave illustrates your total oblivion.
BINGO
-
I would retaliate for the blow, not the compliment. I was tormented by girls in HS who pinched my butt.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
I would retaliate for the blow, not the compliment. I was tormented by girls in HS who pinched my butt.
stupid
they probably did it because you were "such a goddamn prude" -- ie they probably did it to piss you off (quoting my fiance)
if it bothered you that much you could have *****ed to a teacher/the principle for being sexually harassed
your expirience with being ueber pruder and bringing it on yourself doesn't make his non sequitur into a sequitur
-
Oh, I dunno, even if they were doing it in jest, it'd still be nice to have my butt felt by a female from time to time.
Problem is, and this is the crux of the matter, that's why it didn't ;) It's just one of those facts you have to accept.
Edit : It retrospect - You lucky Sod! How can you turn that into a negative aspect of your youth? ;)
-
Meh, a girl I've never even seen before slapped my a** in the middle of a public hallway. I'll never understand it.
Still, she was pretty damn cute...;)
Oh, and WeatherOp? You should be embarrassed for such a show of ignorance.
-
This thread makes me upset. :sigh:
It's disturbing to see how many people think America is the land of the free... just not for you, you, you you, or you... :(
-
Wow... :blah:
-
Originally posted by WeatherOp
Here is why I don't won't gays to get married. Lets say you are walking thru the supermarket, a Gay guy slapes you on your back side and says you're hot. Now if you are like me, you would probly beat his butt in, Even if you just tell him to get lost, he can say your a racist or something like that, make a huge deal about it and sue your butt off or send you to jail. If we let it get legal, that will probly happen a lot..
What the flying **** does that have to do with them getting married? To pretend that wasnt such a flamingly dumb coment, and that it was actually worth my time to discuss wouldnt single, wont unmaried gay people hit on guys more than married ones? And to get another point of view, whatabout straight dudes slapping lesbians asses? Eh? Same concept.
-
yeah that guy is gonna do that wether or not gays have the legal ability to get married, how did you even make that sort of connection? :wtf:
just just give him a stern/are-you-insaine/stupid look and if he doesn't back off beat the **** out of him, you could probly sue him for sexual harasment after that too.
-
How often do you get your ass slapped by men? :wtf:
Every gay man I've known has always proven themselves to be more self controlled and mature than 90% of the straight men I've known. Even the effeminant men have more self control, and decency than that.
I think what the real issue is that you're afraid. Or jealous, and repressing it. One or the other.
Seriously, stop flattering yourself.
-
Originally posted by Raa
Every gay man I've known has always proven themselves to be more self controlled and mature than 90% of the straight men I've known. Even the effeminant men have more self control, and decency than that.
:nod: :nod: :nod: :nod: :nod:
i was once hit on by a gay guy - i was like "Dude, im straight"
he was like "oh, sorry"
me: "no prob"
-
Here is why I don't won't gays to get married. Lets say you are walking thru the supermarket, a Gay guy slapes you on your back side and says you're hot. Now if you are like me, you would probly beat his butt in, Even if you just tell him to get lost, he can say your a racist or something like that, make a huge deal about it and sue your butt off or send you to jail. If we let it get legal, that will probly happen a lot..
While he might not be able to say you're racist, he could very well say you're sexist or discriminating against homosexuals. Unless you wouldn't be comfortable if a straight man did the same thing, in which case the sexual orientation of the fellow doesn't matter at all and the example is not relevant to the discussion.
Regardless, people just don't conduct themselves like that. At least, not around here they don't. I've yet to see anyone slap, pinch, or otherwise touch anyone's butt in a supermarket. Probably because they could/would get sued for sexual harassment.
-
Originally posted by Flipside
Edit : It retrospect - You lucky Sod! How can you turn that into a negative aspect of your youth? ;)
It embarrassed me immensely. I have a problem with initmate physical contact.
-
LOL weather, your 'argument' is pretty void :p just let the big boys argue, k? ;)
Originally posted by: Ghostavo
You get the point... I hope...
Ghostavo, mate, you're missing my point ;) in fact, in your endeavors to refute it, you actually helped me prove it:
You thought i was saying that we should go by what people 150 years thought on homosexuality. I was saying that 150 years ago, people would never have thought homosexuals would ever be allowed to marry (and you helped me prove my point by adding the part about slavery and civil rights for african americans in the south, 150 years ago... thanks), but it happened today, and could anyone have predicted it 150 yrs ago? no of course not... so by the same means, for all we know 150 years from now some things that we abhor (beastiality, etc.) in society today, may be perfectly legal. What i said was in response to Mad Bomber saying "Pedophilia and worse things will never, EVER, EVER become legitimized by our society", and i was just saying: you never know ;) Society changes...
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
So, Christian actually take the bible literally? Then it's worse then I imagined it.
well obviously those that don't live by its standards have no excuse, i agree with you there
If they take the bible literally they also shouldn't judge those who are different. that would be God's job, not something mankind itself should be concerned with.
right. i agree with you there too, that no one should judge... key word. however, that doesn't mean that if someone's doing/(living?) something that the Bible blatantly states as wrong, that Christians should just accept it and move on because God's going to judge. of course not. God will judge the individual performing the act, but Christians can hate what's being done. For example, if someone murders another person, does that mean Christians should just 'accept' them, because God will judge them? of course not. same with beastiality, same with prostitutes, etc...
And if the bible is taken literally, you'll find dozens if not hundreds of horrors you must obey. This isn't a 'pick and choose' thing.
is that from the old or new testament? the horrors i mean
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Also, thought i'd mention, since many people seem to be forgetting: Just because some people say that gay marriage shouldn't be allowed does not mean that they're anti-gay period. Many feel that gays should get the same rights by all means that the regular citizen should, since they are, still, citizens, regardless how they choose to live their lifestyle. However, they simply believe that allowing them to officially marry is wrong, to carry the term "married". Many of them are still all for giving them the same RIGHTS as a married couple, just not tacking the "married" title to them.
That's how i understand it anyway :nod: my interpretations of public opinion may be completely wrong though :p
-
Marriage and civil unions are completely different. Gays being married depends on the religion.
Civil Unions apply to everybody. It doesn't matter if you are marriatal/non-marriatal engaged to a woman, a man, a cross-dressing transvestite, or even a human donkey. It applies to everyone.
-
But what i'm saying is that a lot of people have absolutely no problem with gays getting the same rights that couples with marital status have, they just have a problem with the title: "marriage" or "married" for couples that are homosexual.
Not arguing with you on this, just clarifying ;)
-
It's just a word.
-
stealth: which makes those people absofraginlutely retarded
-
Kazan: what part of my post are you referring to :p lol
JR: that's not what a lot of people think ;) they think of it as having a definition with a long history backing it, a tradition that they don't want to change.
-
those people quibbling over a stupid word
i know it's true - but those people are morons, and in the process they're being bigots
-
oh, so part 3 of my post :D
yeah that seems to be the general consensus around here. but a very, very large portion of the population obviously feels otherwise, or there wouldn't be all the controversy today.
Also, didn't Kerry state that he was opposed to gay marriage?
-
he was opposed to "gay marriage" but in favor of "civil unions" - a little doublespeak that i wanted to put my boot up his ass for
-
cause that didn't make sense. i was watching the debate, and he says "In this area, i believe the same thing that the President does.....*etc.*" and i was like wtf... if Bush thinks something, aren't you supposed to automatically take a stand on the opposite side? ;) j/k, but still...
-
I'm always amused by how fundamentalists want to give homosexuals (who may even be Christian) less rights than non-theists who proclaim that Christianity is all lies and dogma...
-
Originally posted by Liberator
It embarrassed me immensely. I have a problem with initmate physical contact.
So all this **** about homosexual marriage being the anti-christ is comming from a guy who is afraid of girls touching him?
-
Not just girls, Anybody. :blah:
-
Originally posted by Ford Prefect
:blah:
**** the south.
Ditto.
-
Originally posted by WMCoolmon
While he might not be able to say you're racist, he could very well say you're sexist or discriminating against homosexuals. Unless you wouldn't be comfortable if a straight man did the same thing, in which case the sexual orientation of the fellow doesn't matter at all and the example is not relevant to the discussion.
not if he (the gay guy) started it
-
Eh?
-
person a gets hit on by person b, person b is not interested, person a cannot call person b sexist for not being interested. or from reacting violently when person a continues to bother person b.
-
Originally posted by Stealth
What i said was in response to Mad Bomber saying "Pedophilia and worse things will never, EVER, EVER become legitimized by our society", and i was just saying: you never know ;) Society changes...
Oh... :o misundestood... but society changes according to our will in our lifetime, so if a sufficiently great number of we act upon it, it will either be preserved through our lifetime or changed according to whatever desires we have. Anyway, what I am trying to say is, if you have elected pedophilians (in this case) that state that they would continue to do it and would legalize it AND a whole lot of other people to let de legalization process continue, you are in serious trouble even before any law is enacted.
Originally posted by WeatherOp
Here is why I don't won't gays to get married. Lets say you are walking thru the supermarket, a Gay guy slapes you on your back side and says you're hot. Now if you are like me, you would probly beat his butt in, Even if you just tell him to get lost, he can say your a racist or something like that, make a huge deal about it and sue your butt off or send you to jail. If we let it get legal, that will probly happen a lot.
Yeah... except you are the one that are going to make a huge deal about it and sues his ass off.
-
I don't know whether to be suprised or scared that no one made a snide comment on my fear of any sort of intimate contact.
-
hahaha! you fear intimate contact!
hahahahahahahahaha...ha...
*heim*
-
Originally posted by Liberator
I don't know whether to be suprised or scared that no one made a snide comment on my fear of any sort of intimate contact.
I was tempted... now i'm just going to do it :p
It's your problem that you fear intimate contact, not theirs. If someone (anyone) slaps you on the butt, just say "please don't do that again" and 90% of the time (s)he'll even apologize.
Also, when have people become so prudish that a slap on the butt is considered 'intimate contact'? Now, if someone grabbed you by the crotch and stated to massage it, it would be a whole different... 'ball'game. :p
Anyway, i find it astonishing that even after I directly quoted from the bible that people still continue to argue against homosexuality from a religious standpoint.
As I've also said repeatedly, I hate the sin not the person.
You hate the sin, but you judge the person.
That seems a little bit retarded to me. According to the bible you are the one also commiting a sin for no person is sinless and thus cannot judge without sinning.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
person a gets hit on by person b, person b is not interested, person a cannot call person b sexist for not being interested. or from reacting violently when person a continues to bother person b.
In the example, I was pointing out that there wasn't really a relevance to the current discussion, unless you want to bring up sexual harassment laws. It seems to me that the poster would've been offended by anyone slapping his butt, so providing an example where the person doing so didn't contribute anything.
On the other hand, his point could have been that he would only dislike it if the person doing the slapping happened to be gay (or lesbian) and he would be perfectly fine with someone who was straight slapping his butt. In which case the example would have relevance, if not being particularly supportive of his argument. Discriminating might be the wrong word, but it seems to me to be silly and inane to be making a distinction of whether someone thinks it's wrong solely because of the sexual orientation of the person doing the butt-slapping. And if the gay or lesbian who did the butt-slapping calls them on that, and they're right, they're right - and if the person being slapped is uncomfortable with them being right about that, maybe they should rethink their views.
After all, if a guy were to ask me out, I'd say no - and my reason would pretty much be that I'm not attracted to men. I wouldn't try to lie about it, I don't see a reason to, since I don't really see anything wrong with it.
-
You want homosexuality marriage justified by religion?
Ok, let's declare that homosexual marriages can happen under the ancient greek religion, and so opposing them is a religious discrimination.
Prove this wrong now.
-
Originally posted by Zarax
You want homosexuality marriage justified by religion?
Ok, let's declare that homosexual marriages can happen under the ancient greek religion, and so opposing them is a religious discrimination.
Prove this wrong now.
Thats a moot point. We don't live in ancient Greece. We live in a modern world which is supposedly more advanced and free.
Also, in Ancient Greece things were very different in regards of homosexuality.
-
Homosexuals were free and accepted member of the society.
-
Originally posted by Zarax
Homosexuals were free and accepted member of the society.
Not exactly like that though :p
-
Originally posted by Tiara
It's your problem that you fear intimate contact, not theirs. If someone (anyone) slaps you on the butt, just say "please don't do that again" and 90% of the time (s)he'll even apologize.
This assumes that I would get hit on in the first place, I'm hardly attractive. More along the line of "eww, get back you wretch" or "UNCLEAN! UNCLEAN!"
Also, when have people become so prudish that a slap on the butt is considered 'intimate contact'?
You didn't grow up in the enviroment I did. I got overexcited when commenting on something that happened the other day and called someone a jackass. My father went on a tyrade about how I hadn't been raised to talk like that. And that's now, when I'm 26, you can imagine how it was when I was younger.
-
Whoo.... I love coming back to these threads in the morning and having to edit in 2 pages worth of edited replies
Originally posted by WeatherOp
Here is why I don't won't gays to get married. Lets say you are walking thru the supermarket, a Gay guy slapes you on your back side and says you're hot. Now if you are like me, you would probly beat his butt in, Even if you just tell him to get lost, he can say your a racist or something like that, make a huge deal about it and sue your butt off or send you to jail. If we let it get legal, that will probly happen a lot..
That's just ****ing stupid. I struggle to dignify that with an answer...um.... firstly; sexual harassment lawas would apply against that. Secondly, you wouldn't beat up a women for doing that, so it's a homophobic response. Thirdly.... do you have any idea what you're on about? :sigh:
Originally posted by Stealth
LOL weather, your 'argument' is pretty void :p just let the big boys argue, k? ;)
Ghostavo, mate, you're missing my point ;) in fact, in your endeavors to refute it, you actually helped me prove it:
You thought i was saying that we should go by what people 150 years thought on homosexuality. I was saying that 150 years ago, people would never have thought homosexuals would ever be allowed to marry (and you helped me prove my point by adding the part about slavery and civil rights for african americans in the south, 150 years ago... thanks), but it happened today, and could anyone have predicted it 150 yrs ago? no of course not... so by the same means, for all we know 150 years from now some things that we abhor (beastiality, etc.) in society today, may be perfectly legal. What i said was in response to Mad Bomber saying "Pedophilia and worse things will never, EVER, EVER become legitimized by our society", and i was just saying: you never know ;) Society changes...
Bestality and paedophilia are in now way an equivalent or applicable situation; these are acts in which the non-adult party cannot give any form of consent, in which case you can equate them with the consistent history of laws against rape. In other words, they are demonstratably harmful to another party; it would take a near complete breakdown of society to intentionally legalise them, equivalent to allowing murder or rape.
Originally posted by Stealth
Also, thought i'd mention, since many people seem to be forgetting: Just because some people say that gay marriage shouldn't be allowed does not mean that they're anti-gay period. Many feel that gays should get the same rights by all means that the regular citizen should, since they are, still, citizens, regardless how they choose to live their lifestyle. However, they simply believe that allowing them to officially marry is wrong, to carry the term "married". Many of them are still all for giving them the same RIGHTS as a married couple, just not tacking the "married" title to them.
From what I see, it isn't; I don't think any argument I've seen 'for' gay marriage is suggesting churches are forced to allow their marriage within church buildings.... assuming it's the same as the UK, I'm imagining 'marriage' in the US has a wholly non-religious meaning (with regards to the legal status of married individuals and their registration et al).
Originally posted by Liberator
This assumes that I would get hit on in the first place, I'm hardly attractive. More along the line of "eww, get back you wretch" or "UNCLEAN! UNCLEAN!"
You didn't grow up in the enviroment I did. I got overexcited when commenting on something that happened the other day and called someone a jackass. My father went on a tyrade about how I hadn't been raised to talk like that. And that's now, when I'm 26, you can imagine how it was when I was younger.
1/ tell your dad to shut up; you're 26, you are more than old enough to decide what to do and say. What did he want to bring up anyway; a human being or a well-behaved sheep?
2/ get some self confidence, or you'll keep digging yourself in an emotional hole. Unless you're the elephant man, you're nowhere near as ugly as you think you are. And if you are the elephant man...well, even he found acceptance & normality in the end.
-
Liberator: your father is a psycho, and it's clear he brainwashed you to have certain opinions without thinking about them and despite evidence to the contrary
let us help you bro
-
Originally posted by Kazan
Liberator: your father is a psycho, and it's clear he brainwashed you to have certain opinions without thinking about them and despite evidence to the contrary
let us help you bro
I think that's going a little bit too far, Kazan. His views and opinions might differ greatly from ours (nearly the opposite) but that doesn't mean he should just convert to our way of life because 8we* think that that is the best way. It would make us just as bad as the religious fanatics that we so adamantly despise.
While I do emplore Liberator to think for himself, ultimately the choice is his.
And calling his father psycho is way out of bounds. :doubt:
-
Kazan, as foreign and implausible as it may seem to you, did you ever suppose that Liberator has the opinions that he has because he chose them or because he feels that they represent him in the best way? The way you make it seem, everyone has to think exactly like you to have your approval. For someone who's incessantly obsessed with "minority rights," you certainly seem to enjoy infringing on the rights of the minority on this board. I happen to agree with Liberator on many of his points; does this make me "brainwashed" too? Yup, I guess it does. As much as you may scorn it, many people come to religious beliefs through a lot of rationalizing, thinking, and weighing of opinions; it's not all "mindless sheep" and "brainwashing." Maybe you should try learning more about the people you're stereotyping in such a fashion instead of jumping up and down like a petulant three-year-old, screaming "Christofascists!!!!11!1"
-
Originally posted by Mongoose
Kazan, as foreign and implausible as it may seem to you, did you ever suppose that Liberator has the opinions that he has because he chose them or because he feels that they represent him in the best way?
yes, but opinions should be based upon REALITY
Originally posted by Mongoose
The way you make it seem, everyone has to think exactly like you to have your approval.
no - they have to be based upon reality - even if they're conclusion is wrong
because they atleast the person is ATTEMPTION rationality
Originally posted by Mongoose
For someone who's incessantly obsessed with "minority rights," you certainly seem to enjoy infringing on the rights of the minority on this board.
and how exactly in the hell am i doing that?
I'm not infringing your right to have your opinion by arguing with your opinion
I am not proposing denying your right to have your opinion either
What I am proposing is changing your opinion, you don't have to you if don't want to: but you _should_ want to
Originally posted by Mongoose
I happen to agree with Liberator on many of his points; does this make me "brainwashed" too? Yup, I guess it does.
so long as you base your reality off your opinions then yes you are brainwashed
Originally posted by Mongoose
As much as you may scorn it, many people come to religious beliefs through a lot of rationalizing, thinking, and weighing of opinions;
they come to religious beliefs through THINKING they're rational, thinking and weighing the options
there are a great numerous logical errors that people make every single day, and don't realize it's an error in logic
wonderful things like fundamental atribution error, deying the anticedent, etc etc (those two I named by name because they're two of the most common used to support religion)
Originally posted by Mongoose
it's not all "mindless sheep" and "brainwashing."
yes it is - being religious fits every single primary psychological definition of a delusionary psychosis
furthermore religious individuals regularily distort reality to support their viewpoints --
you people think **** like "The earth is 10,000 years old" and think that scientists agree with you when we know that the planet is somewhere near 4.3 billion years old
you people think **** like creationism, you people think that it's a rational decision to believe in something that you HAVE NO EVIDENCE FOR (I know you think you have evidence, however everything that you think is evidence is because you're committing things like fundamental attribution error, denying the antecedant, etc)
Originally posted by Mongoose
Maybe you should try learning more about the people you're stereotyping in such a fashion instead of jumping up and down like a petulant three-year-old, screaming "Christofascists!!!!11!1"
A) that "stereotyping" you think i am comitting holds up 100% to the group I am applying it to: fundamentalist right wing christians like you
I would like to remind that any christian who is not a fundamentalist that I don't mean to lump you in with the fundamentalists: they're just as much a threat to you as they are to me.
B) you whine, and act like im wrong when i call people like you "christofascists", i wish you were correct on that count.
The sad truth is you are christofascists
Why don't you go read the article linked in this thread: http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,28132.0.html
Fascism is a far-right, extremely-authoritarian form of government, and that's exactly what you people are pushing for, and you are pushing for a religiously-controlled fascist state
If you were a student of history you'd know the scary resemblance between the USA in 2000-2004 and Germany during the initial rise of the nazi party
we're only missing one thing: as bad as an economy as they had
well guess what: indicators are pointing tword that horrendous economy becoming ours too
-
"The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool." -William Shakespeare
-
Ooookayyy, that last post of kazan makes me think of him much like I do about Lib. :doubt:
-
Originally posted by Kazan
ngtmr1 that "up" and "down" can be concretely defined too
Yes.
But your opponents have reversed definitions. And any moral issue is, by it's nature, subjective.
-
Kazan, do you have excess stock of "christofascist"s to use up or something?
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
From what I see, it isn't; I don't think any argument I've seen 'for' gay marriage is suggesting churches are forced to allow their marriage within church buildings.... assuming it's the same as the UK, I'm imagining 'marriage' in the US has a wholly non-religious meaning (with regards to the legal status of married individuals and their registration et al).
marriage in the US is beyond simply religion now, i mean to add definitions of marriage in the Constitution... i'm sure you see how far past religion it is. it's more tradition than religion at the moment.
-
mongoose you are christofascist :( i heard it in the television
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
From what I see, it isn't; I don't think any argument I've seen 'for' gay marriage is suggesting churches are forced to allow their marriage within church buildings.... assuming it's the same as the UK, I'm imagining 'marriage' in the US has a wholly non-religious meaning (with regards to the legal status of married individuals and their registration et al).
Whoops. Should have said "I'm imagining 'marriage' in the US also has a secondary and wholly non-religious meaning " there. heh :o
-
Originally posted by Kazan
The sad truth is you are christofascists
Why don't you go read the article linked in this thread: http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,28132.0.html
Fascism is a far-right, extremely-authoritarian form of government, and that's exactly what you people are pushing for, and you are pushing for a religiously-controlled fascist state
If you were a student of history you'd know the scary resemblance between the USA in 2000-2004 and Germany during the initial rise of the nazi party
we're only missing one thing: as bad as an economy as they had
well guess what: indicators are pointing tword that horrendous economy becoming ours too [/B]
I am a student of history, Kazan. An avid one. And once again, I tell you to show me the SA and Ernest Rohm. Show me the Krystalnacht. Or, most importantly: SHOW ME THE TREATY OF VERSAILLES, and the attendant resentment of it that Hitler exploited.
Your statements cannot, and do not, hold water.
Even the most dedicated Republican falls far, far short of facism. Belief in the democratic system runs deep here. It ought to, considering we have had one for a long time, and it has functioned quite well, meeting all challenges and crisises. At this point in time, it would take something simply catastrophic, a nuclear war or loss of life on a similar scale, to change the US system of government.
Even the Confederate States of America, which you probably regard as the living definition of christofacism, was a democratic government. Hardly an enlightened one, but a democratic one. The only major difference between the Constitution of the United States and that of the Confederate States was that the latter legally protected slavery. In every other respect they were almost, if not exactly, the same.
Furthermore, the very concept of christofacism is laughable. The tenants of Christian faith and the concepts of facism are often directly opposed. The world's greatest facists have been decidely anti-Christian. The two simply do not work together.
-
http://www.burlyadventurer.com/quiz/index.tcl?gay
-
Originally posted by ngtm1r
Furthermore, the very concept of christofacism is laughable. The tenants of Christian faith and the concepts of facism are often directly opposed. The world's greatest facists have been decidely anti-Christian. The two simply do not work together.
While I can't say much about the rest of your post, as I don't agree or disagree with it, I must warn you about this bit... do not go there... trust me. (Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, etc...)
-
I'm not gonna ask how you found that site Clave...
-
ngtm1r, I think you're working on the assumption that because something was founded on an ideal, it's immune to influence of an opposite nature. Yes, America is a democratic society, more or less, but there's a reason that democratic government is hard: It's not the natural state of human affairs. People naturally fall into line with a certain pattern of thought, and then exert effort to make their version of the truth the widely accepted one, and they will fight as hard as they can to make that happen. Democracy, on the other hand, only allows people's views to be expressed, not forced. Most people find that difficult to live with, myself included.
Thus, democracy is a constant, very precarious balancing act between allowing people to express themselves and preventing them from forcing their belief system on the rest of the population. Kazan's anger may be obnoxious, but it is not unfounded, because authoritarian regimes will not always be heralded by fanfares and goose-stepping in the streets; Control of thought is an ever-present danger that stares us in the face from all sides, and if we pretend that it can't happen to us because our constitution says so, then we risk having things slipped under the door, bit by bit.
-
IIRC Hitler was (born) an Austrian Catholic, too. Also, didn't Mussoline advocate seperation of church & state?
I wouldn't attach religious connotations to facism in such a way; it's deliberately insulting and a lazy way to try and get a reaction.
Facism is seperate and may include religious elements, or may not; contrast theocratic regimes against the persecution of religion in regimes such as Nazi Germany or Stalins Soviet Union. IIRC it's hard to exactly specify what government is facist vs being totalitarian, authoritarian or a police state.
-
"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord." - Hitler
"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people." - Hitler's speech, 12 April 1922
Hitler definately was a religious man. However, he interpreted it radically different then the standard Christian would.
If your teacher truly advocates that Hitler wasn't a religious man in the way of the Christians, (s)he's dead wrong and obviously either doesn't want to acknowledge it or is simply ignorant about it.
And as a history teacher, I must say that I am very distraught about such teachings.
-
(Warning: Kazan in extremely bad mood)
Originally posted by ngtm1r
Even the Confederate States of America, which you probably regard as the living definition of christofacism
this line right here clues everyone in to one thing
:hopping: YOU HAVEN'T THE SLIGHTED ****ING IDEA WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT :hopping:
The CSA weren't christofascist, they were just pro-slavery seccessionists
they don't even come anywhere near the definition of christofascist, and that makes it clear you're intentionally misinterpreting what i mean
FURTHERMORE not all fascism looks like hitler
Originally posted by ngtm1r
Furthermore, the very concept of christofacism is laughable. The tenants of Christian faith and the concepts of facism are often directly opposed. The world's greatest facists have been decidely anti-Christian. The two simply do not work together.
The ABSOLUTE NAIVETE to think that a group who call themselves christian actually followe everything in the bible is hilarious
:hopping:
If the tenants of the christian faith were followed then you're correct - but the right-wing authoritarian fundamentalist christians are not following them, they are cherrypicking sections to listen to, even though they say they believe in it all, and they take the cherrypicked sections literally
they are trying to force their view of the world on everyone else
PS: hilter wasn't anti-christian
-
Originally posted by Janos
mongoose you are christofascist :( i heard it in the television
Huh? :p
Hey Kazan, remember what I said about knowing the people you're talking about? I'm no fundie, Baptist, or Bible-thumper. I don't believe in creationism as defined by fundamentalists, and I believe that the age of the Earth is around 4.3 billion years old. Wrong on several counts there.
I am a student of history, and I do not see one sign of anything resembling Nazism in this country. You're stretching your own interpretations of current events, and it doesn't fit.
Oh, and just to play the Devil's advocate, why must a person's opinions be based upon reality? If what I believe truly is a fantasy, and what you believe truly is reality, then I think my fantasy world beats your real world hands-down, and I'll stay there, thank you very much. You seem so obsessed with "logic" and "reality," but can you truly define either one? You allow yourself to be limited by your own senses, yet your senses are perfectly capable of deceiving you. You, my friend, are perpetuating a fallacy. To quote a phrase that anyone who has played the Freespace games should know, "There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy." Science, human knowledge, and the senses are not absolutes, nor can they ever be. Go ahead and put your unique brand of spin on this; I'll be laughing over your response.
You say you're not opressing other people's opinions, yet in your own words, I "should want to" have your opinions. Why is that? What gives you the right to define what I should think? Nothing, that's what. You seem to think that your opinions are infallible; there are several billion people on this planet who would beg to differ. I don't think that you should accept what I say or believe what I believe, but you're applying that to me. Who's the overbearing one?
As for "brainwashing," if I have been brainwashed, then so have you. As has been mentioned by other people, your obsession with your own viewpoints borders on religious fervor; I guess that makes you a candidate for brainwashing as well. As for people making logical fallacies, as I've said above, logic isn't everything. A world run by logic alone would turn humanity into the Borg. Apparently, you don't put much stock in basic human emotions; of course, being you, I would expect that. Here's a massive hint, minus the capital letters you're so fond of: a different train of though from your own is not necessarily illogical or irrelevant. I don't expect that to sink in, but here's hoping. Have you ever considered the possibility that this "logic" you rely on is illogical in and of itself? Where would that leave you?
P.S. I'm eagerly anticipating your most likely foul-minded response. The more you get pissy and arrogant, the more respect you lose. Pretty soon, you're just going to be seen as the village crazy, ranting to himself in the corner.
-
To quote a phrase that anyone who has played the Freespace games should know, "There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
Well technically, it's a quote that anyone who's read Hamlet should know, but, err... *cough.* Whatever. :p
-
I barely have time to read good books, never mind Hamlet...
-
Oh dear.
I am disappointed... for what it's worth, anyway.
-
Originally posted by Ford Prefect
ngtm1r, I think you're working on the assumption that because something was founded on an ideal, it's immune to influence of an opposite nature. Yes, America is a democratic society, more or less, but there's a reason that democratic government is hard: It's not the natural state of human affairs. People naturally fall into line with a certain pattern of thought, and then exert effort to make their version of the truth the widely accepted one, and they will fight as hard as they can to make that happen. Democracy, on the other hand, only allows people's views to be expressed, not forced. Most people find that difficult to live with, myself included.
Thus, democracy is a constant, very precarious balancing act between allowing people to express themselves and preventing them from forcing their belief system on the rest of the population. Kazan's anger may be obnoxious, but it is not unfounded, because authoritarian regimes will not always be heralded by fanfares and goose-stepping in the streets; Control of thought is an ever-present danger that stares us in the face from all sides, and if we pretend that it can't happen to us because our constitution says so, then we risk having things slipped under the door, bit by bit.
Or is that really true? I've had this discussion before, I assure you. You begin with an assumption of the normal of human society, one that is demonstrably flawed. So far as America is concerned, democracy IS the norm. Expression IS the norm. It has been this way longer then anyone alive today can remember. Further, one will note an interesting trend: the world, for the most part, wants to be democratic. Any reasonably developed country in exsistance today has either made an attempt to be or is in fact a democratic country. This implies something interesting: that democracy is the end-state of government, the final act. All government has been evolving to this point, the point at which the norms may finally and fully be expressed.
Democracies since the birth of Christ have either lasted only two decades at most, or effectively forever. Democracy faces much greater hurdles in its infancy then any other form of government, but should it survive that infancy it has considerably better longetivity. It takes an outside force, an invasion, to upset a long-standing democracy. And once the occupation is lifted, it will return. Look around. The world is littered with examples which prove my point. France. Britain. America. The countries of Eastern Europe, now that Soviet Union has collapsed.
Few internal forces have managed to shatter a long-standing democracy, and none have done so since the birth of Christ. It takes an exceptional person to do so, a Casear. Do you see such a person here? Surely you will not compare George W. Bush to Casear favorably. Such a person can no longer exsist. A monolithic figure of that sort attracts media attention the way a dump attracts flies, and they will have their life torn to shreds, their every action analyzed and criticised.
Hitler Christian? Amusing. Hitler included Catholicism among his list of unacceptable beliefs. Catholics were shipped off to Auschwitz too. The effort was not as determined, not as organized, as that against the Jews, but it was made. Ultimately it was only curtailed because even Hitler could not project enough force of will to keep the Catholics of Germany from turning on him, including many promenient officers in the military. Hitler himself was an athesist, regardless of his upbringing. More properly, he believed in himself the way others believed in God.
Priests suffered heavily in Nazi Germany. Many went to concentration camps. Their denomination was immaterial. Lutheran, Catholic, Orthodox, it did not matter. Religious faith, ultimately, threatened what Hitler tried to create, for religious faith was faith to something other then him. Faith to something that advocated a considerably less harsh approach.
Believe not the words of the man, Tiara, for as history shows he was a liar, a master manipulator who knew that cloaking oneself in religon could work very effectively, and quite probably delusional.
The CSA is what you seem to believe Republicans want this country to become, Kazan: a heavily Protestant society discriminating equally heavily against all who are not of Caucasian descent and Protestant religon. You merely show your lack of historical knowledge with your assertions otherwise.
Am I naive, Kazan? Or are you? You apply to them the label of christofacists because they claim to be Christian. Yet you KNOW, just as I do, that they are not. Why do you call them what they wish to be called, not what they truly are? Or do you believe them?
-
mongoose the fact that you don't know the difference between nazism and fascism shows why you don't have any basis to be talking
-
Originally posted by ngtm1r
Hitler Christian? Amusing. Hitler included Catholicism among his list of unacceptable beliefs. Catholics were shipped off to Auschwitz too. The effort was not as determined, not as organized, as that against the Jews, but it was made. Ultimately it was only curtailed because even Hitler could not project enough force of will to keep the Catholics of Germany from turning on him, including many promenient officers in the military.
Utter complete bull**** and you know it...
Hitler made Christian school prayer mandatory!! Also, even if that wasn't true (extremelly large if), explain how did the entire nazi army wore this for a belt!!
(http://www.creationtheory.org/Morality/buckle.jpg)
(translation: God is with us.)
Please don't try to rape history... yes christians were killed by him for disobediance (sp?), but does that make him any less christian? During the inquisitions, catholics killed thousands of catholics... are you saying those leading the inquisitions weren't?
-
Originally posted by Ghostavo
Utter complete bull**** and you know it...
Hittler made Christian school prayer mandatory!! Also, even if that wasn't true (extremelly large if), explain how did the entire nazi army wore this for a belt!!
Please don't try to rape history... yes christians were killed by him for disobediance (sp?), but does that make him any less christian? During the inquisitions, catholics killed thousands of catholics... are you saying those leading the inquisitions weren't?
No, actually I don't. And you need to check your facts. The Wehrmacht resisted Nazism quite heavily, and registered Nazi Party members were not allowed to be officers in the military until sometime in mid-1944. You're going to need to find better evidence then that.
To claim the inquistions were truly religious in nature is absurd. They were the equivalent of the SS, as the Catholic church tried and failed to maintain control. They claimed to be Catholic. That does not make them so.
-
Yea, I have heard of what Mongoose was talking about. I am pretty sure Catholics were oppressed. I will say I dont remember the exact details though.
-
Originally posted by Ghostavo
Utter complete bull**** and you know it...
Hitler made Christian school prayer mandatory!! Also, even if that wasn't true (extremelly large if), explain how did the entire nazi army wore this for a belt!!
(http://www.creationtheory.org/Morality/buckle.jpg)
(translation: God is with us.)
Please don't try to rape history... yes christians were killed by him for disobediance (sp?), but does that make him any less christian? During the inquisitions, catholics killed thousands of catholics... are you saying those leading the inquisitions weren't?
I believe Hitler suppressed the church in Germany in order to strengthen his own position - i.e. no higher power above his own could be allowed.
However, where possible he would have used God as a justification for his own actions and to reinforce loyalty.
Basically, the thing about Hitler is that he was a complete and utter nutcase; it doesn't really matter what his beliefs were..
-
Did I say officers? I said army!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler#Economics_and_culture
Hitler's policies emphasised the importance of family life: men were the breadwinners, women’s priorities being Church, Kitchen and Children.
About the inquisition...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition
The Inquisition was an office of the Roman Catholic Church charged with suppressing heresy.
According to this you will say that certain popes weren't christian... interesting... no matter how hard you try to forget or ignore this, this will always be true, read his biography, his speechs, his actions in Nazy Germany and whatever you can find about him, he was christian. Denying this is like saying Kazan is a devoted catholic and that Lib is a firm atheist.
Also note, that Hitler wasn't catholic, he was christian protestant.
-
Originally posted by Ford Prefect
Well technically, it's a quote that anyone who's read Hamlet should know, but, err... *cough.* Whatever. :p
Yeah, I hoped people would assume that. :p
Originally posted by Kazan
mongoose the fact that you don't know the difference between nazism and fascism shows why you don't have any basis to be talking
"Help, help, I'm being repressed!"
-
Hitler was a masterful manipulator, and wrapping oneself in the Bible has always been an effective tactic. You cannot afford to take any of his actions at face value.
Yes, Ghostavo, I do believe that certain Popes were not Catholic. If you do not practice what your religion claims to be for, you are not truly of that religion. Surely that is a reasonable belief.
I said military too, in case you didn't notice. Wermacht. The Wermacht, for example, refused to adopt the Nazi salute (something also overturned in 1944). The highest rank a Nazi Party member could obtain before 1944 was Private First Class. They couldn't even become an NCO, for crying out loud. Before 1942, a Nazi Party member could not even JOIN the Wehrmacht. The regular military and the SS often clashed adminstraitively, and sometimes in the field as well. Regular Wehrmacht officers placed under the command of the SS were far more likely to disobey orders, and also far more likely to get away with it: the Wehrmacht looked after its own.
-
Christian = anyone who believes Jesus is the messiah
Christianity is a group of several sects, each with their own views, just because a group doesn't agree with another one doesn't mean the second group is not christian.
Please don't think I am saying Hitler acted the way he did because he was christian, I am not, although I think it influenced him (Luther's anti-semitic stuff mainly, I suppose) like everything around him that could influence his personality.
-
Pretty much all Christianity condemns what happened during the inquistion, so the point stands. But since you chose to use a specifically Catholic example, I responded to as a Catholic example.
What ARE you trying to say, then? You seem to be trying to prove that Hitler was not anti-Christian, and taking the obvious tack that if he was Christian it would difficult for him to be anti-Christian.
-
I am trying to say that Hitler was christian period. Simply that. What you said in a previous post about him being atheist is totally false as you can see in any complete biography about him.
-
He may have simply been trying to look superficially Christian, because that would engender loyalty from Germans, who are a predominantly Christian people.
On the other hand, in later life he rarely if ever went to church of any denomination, he indulged in decidely un-Christian practices both in person and for the government he created as a whole. And any biography will also support the belief he saw himself as the moral equivalent of the Second Coming. Like I said, he did not believe in God, because he believed in himself they way one might believe in God. He was the all-powerful and all-knowing one.
-
For the n'th last time...
1- If a christian rarely goes to church, he does not stop being a christian, he just has a less active role as a christian, otherwise you would say all soldiers in times of war are not christians, etc...
2- The inquisition was also un-christian and it was practiced by christians. Even if they are ashamed of it it continues to be something that was "built" by christians. They sinned if you will... just because someone sins doesn't mean that they stop being christians... has anybody not sinned?
3- Even if that is true (about him seing himself as the second coming) doesn't it mearly reinforce the notion that he thought himself to be "son of god" (and therefore, christian).
4- I give up... if you haven't been convinced by now, you will never be convinced by me. Talk to your history teacher or anybody who has taken history in college or something.
-
I did say the "moral equivalent" did I not? I didn't mean he saw himself as the son of God, I mean he saw himself as being LIKE the son of God.
There is a point that comes when you stray too far from a set of values to truly claim they are your values anymore. Hitler was way, way the hell past that point. And he did make attempts to supress the church, which argues against what you're saying quite effectively.
-
hitler was not an atheist - plain and simple
hey ghastavo - 4 doesn't cut it because im sure they can find one who will intentionally destort the truth to fit their worldview
-
Of course he made attempts to supress the church, but it was the church institution in germany. He also made deals with the Vatican so...
-
He did? He must have broken them, then, since German troops eventually occupied the Vatican as well.
Making deals with the Vatican is something the People's Republic of China has done as well. They aren't Christian either.
Kazan: prove your point. Give evidence, or be ridiculed. So far you have not managed to refute any points I have made against you.
-
Originally posted by ngtm1r
To claim the inquistions were truly religious in nature is absurd. They were the equivalent of the SS, as the Catholic church tried and failed to maintain control. They claimed to be Catholic. That does not make them so.
Right. So you accept that its possible for someone to proclaim their christianity very loudly yet not be a true christian.
Apply that to your argument that America couldn't be becoming a facist nation because christianity would prevent it
See? What if the current american leaders aren't actually christians either but are mearly posing as such?
-
Then why is Kazan calling them "christofacists"?
More to the point, when did I make such an argument? I made reference to the birth of Christ as just that, a reference point.
-
Kazan relates the decisions made by, for lack of a better term, the neo-conservatives as being close to facism, and that these decisions are being (or claimed to be) justified by use of Christian scripture or doctrine.
Hence, facists using Christianity as a basis = Christofacists.
I don't find it a particularly useful or effective term myself, but I think that's the reasoning behind use of it.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Hence, facists using Christianity as a basis = Christofacists.
:nod: :nod: :nod: :nod: :nod: :nod:
especially when they're trying to make adherence to a certain sect of christianity's beliefs compulsatory
-
ngtm1r, explain this...
(http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/images/hoff1/hitler8.jpg)
What would a Hitler, a "non-christian", be doing in a church in 1932?
-
he was pissing on the alter of course
:lol:
-
Originally posted by ngtm1r
He may have simply been trying to look superficially Christian, because that would engender loyalty from Germans, who are a predominantly Christian people.
On the other hand, in later life he rarely if ever went to church of any denomination.
One visit to a church does not a Christian make you.
-
The fact that you claim that Hitler wasn't a religious man in the form of Christianity while there is no evidence to support that, is quite astonishing.
Everything, from his henchman to the very foundation of his views on the Third Reich, show he was in fact a religious man.
You are working under the assumption that there are only a few kinds of Christianity in this world. That is where you are wrong. Religion can be molded, shaped and viewed from the most extreme angles. While he viewed catholicism as one of the larger threats, he wanted to create his own religion. But that religion still included God and the Bible and were at it's roots Christian. He wanted to Nazify Christian Protestantism.
The following passage from Mein Kampf clearifies it a bit;
As long as leadership from above was not lacking, the people fulfilled their duty and obligation overwhelmingly. Whether Protestant pastor or Catholic priest, both together and particularly at the first flare, there really existed in both camps but a single holy German Reich[/u], for whose existence and future each man turned to his own heaven.
-Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)
The highlighted line is what I mean. He was trying to create a Holy Empire according to his own views on religion.
Also, if you read mein kampf (prefferably untranslated) you will notice the humongous amounts of references to God, many paraphrased biblical passages and many more Christian references.
-
And again I tell you: Hitler was a liar. He was manipulative. He was delusional.
Do not take his word for it.
-
But you see he made that up and faked his whole life!! He cannot be trusted for he is Hitler!!! He killed millions he cannot possibly be christian!!
HERETIC!!!!!!!!
:doubt:
EDIT:
wow... how the hell did I guess his answer... hm...
-
*shakes head sadly*
Unlike you, I am capable of reasoned argument. The man was clearly crazy. Are you going to believe a pyschopath?
-
sarcasm may not be "reasoned argument" but ghostavo's sarcasm is backed up with reasonable arguments as well
Like Tiara's thorough trouncing of you on the last page
just because they don't fit YOUR definition of christian doesn't mean they're not christian
-
I bet that pic was from a propaganda video. I dont know if we could call it conclusive evidence.
-
Actually the historical community has generally concluded that Hitler was not crazy, and quite frankly it doesn't surprise me.
People are very naive with regards to what normal, average people are capable of. Hitler was just a mediocre little man who failed at everything he tried in life, and when he discovered public speaking and propaganda, there was no stopping him.
-
Capable of reasoned argument? You mean like Tiara, I, Kazan, and others have repeatedly shown you that Hitler was christian and you keep ignoring that because and I quote:
Hitler was a liar. He was manipulative. He was delusional.
Even though he went to church, he repeatedly said he was christian in speechs, books, conversations with friends, etc, etc, etc... He was photographed leaving the church, praying, etc, etc, etc... and you claim that is all false because you say so and the bible blah blah blah without providing a single thread of evidence?
That is capable of reasoned argument? That is called ignoring people. You haven't argued, you haven't even brought a single piece of evidence, all you've done is sit there at your computer saying that what we brought is false! Is that your idea of an argument?
-
Would it matter if he was christian anyway? Are all christian's Hitlers? Osama Bin Laden is Islamic. Does that mean all islamic people are terrorists?
-
Indeed.
People are assuming that categories we conceive mean anything at all. Human behavior cannot be organized according to creed, so that Person A will only do such-and-such if he is a Christian, or a socialist, or a whatever. Behavior comes first, names follow. Not the other way around.
-
Ugh, just be glad you're not one of my students.
I still don't know why it is that with my degree in history and the plain facts laid out on the table you still try to rationalize your opinion* by unsupported self-generated opinions**.
*You have no facts to support it and thus it is nothing more then an opinion.
** the fact that you try to support your argument (which is really an opinion as staded above) with other opinions is outright stupid
I'm not saying that my degree makes me impervious to making mistakes and getting it wrong, but to disprove me at least put some actual facts, references or anything of substance on the table.
-
.::Tin Can::., Ford Prefect
Please don't think I am saying Hitler acted the way he did because he was christian, I am not, although I think it influenced him (Luther's anti-semitic stuff mainly, I suppose) like everything around him that could influence his personality.
I am trying to say that Hitler was christian period. Simply that.
-
Please don't think I am saying Hitler acted the way he did because he was christian, I am not, although I think it influenced him (Luther's anti-semitic stuff mainly, I suppose) like everything around him that could influence his personality.
Actually, it was Karl Lueger who influenced him. Karl Lueger was a member of the anti-Semitic Christian Social Party.
-
just like im saying the right wing fundamentalists, even though some of their behaviors are inconsistent with christianity, are christian in their own minds and believe their morals, etc to be christian and they fit the most basic test to be "a christian" - they believe in "jesus christ, as our savior"
they are christrian even if you don't find them very Christian, they are also fascist and are using their religion as a power-basis hence that makes them christofascists
-
I think people are mad at you because you forget to make the distinction between passive Christians and the christofascists. There's a huge difference between the two.
-
Yes, I saw that, but the argument still seems to be revolving around the notion that his religion was of some significance.
Whatever. This is a silly tangent. The question was whether or not the United States is capable of being subverted by authoritarianism, not whether mass murderers are religious, and I still can't get over how popular it is to assume that democracy has special immunity to such things.
-
Originally posted by Ford Prefect
Whatever. This is a silly tangent. The question was whether or not the United States is capable of being subverted by authoritarianism, not whether mass murderers are religious, and I still can't get over how popular it is to assume that democracy has special immunity to such things.
While I don't believe the USA will simply be subverted without anyone ringing the big bell, I can see it happening in such a degree that it will have serious detrimental effects.
-
He was photographed praying? Produce the photograph. All you have is him leaving a church. A single visit to a church doesn't make you religious. For all you can tell from such a photo, he was meeting someone, or he found it a convenient place to hold a Nazi Party rally.
You have offered me evidence with faults, and I have pointed them out. That you persist in the use of this faulty evidence is you ignoring people.
Evidence? You want evidence? I gave you evidence to refute your belt buckle. I have plenty of other evidence too: it's called the man's actions. He supressed churches of all denominations. He sent Catholics to the concentration camps until the backlash threatened him. He locked up priests of all denominations. He had Vatican City occupied and the Pope placed under house arrest. He had churches in Russia burned. Millions died as a direct result of his policies, not merely Jews but people of nearly every religion on the face of the planet, and nearly every ethnicty. Are these the actions of a religous man? Under what religon? Worship of some god of death and control? Please note the use of all, as well: Hitler was an equal-opportunity discriminator.
And anything the man said or did could have been proganda. He didn't get as far as he did without attention to detail. (In fact, he had an amazing passion for detail; I can cite several anecdotes to that effect.)
-
ngtm1r, a good percentage of the world is religious. Are you saying that all those people in the human population are incapable of atrocity?
-
A nice try, Ford, but that's not what I said. And since the man in question is Christian, irrevelant. To alter the teachings of Christianity far enough to justify his actions is to render them unrecognizable as such.
-
(http://www.nobeliefs.com/images/prayingHitler.jpg)
Him praying...
You gave me no evidence regarding the belt buckle, the belt was wore by soldiers at Hitler's desire! For someone who wanted to "destroy religion" he sure made nice religious uniforms. He didn't supress churches of all denominations, haven't you seen the wikipedia article I showed? One of the wife's concerns according to him WAS THE F******* CHURCH!!!!!
The fact that he sent christians to concentration camps means nothing. He sent germans, and austrians, does that mean that he wasn't one? Again I point the inquisition as an example.
Russian churches are ortodox (sp?) churchs and Hitler was not one...
Millions died as a direct result of his policies... interesting... the church in it's 2 thousands (a bit less) also killed millions... is that the action of a religious institution? You seem to think that anybody who is a criminal can't be automaticaly a religious person.
Also, by saying that he had an attention to detail, you would have to tell me that he knew that he would be chanceller since childbirth since he was christian all his life!!!!
-
Originally posted by Ghostavo
(http://www.nobeliefs.com/images/prayingHitler.jpg)
Him praying...
Nah Hitler had to much chili and was experiancing "mild" indigestion. :p
;)
EDIT: Im wrong it was the grilled cheese sandwich which had Mary's face on it.
-
Millions died as a direct result of his policies, not merely Jews but people of nearly every religion on the face of the planet, and nearly every ethnicty. Are these the actions of a religous man? Under what religon? Worship of some god of death and control?
What I get from this is the implication that someone who is religious would not commit such acts. Perhaps I'm completely missing your train of thought, but this seems to be a straightforward argument to me.
-
I got stuck on this:
Originally posted by Ford Prefect
Actually the historical community has generally concluded that Hitler was not crazy, and quite frankly it doesn't surprise me.
What kind of sane man deliberately and premeditadedly embarks on a course of action that he know will bring the armies of the world to his doorstep with death on their minds?
-
He was actually expecting GB to give into his demands for a little longer. And if they had, he would have had his armies ready. His military was far more advanced than all of ours, and more powerful to boot. He just got into the war alot sooner than would have been ideal for him.
And he was definately sane.
-
What kind of sane man deliberately and premeditadedly embarks on a course of action that he know will bring the armies of the world to his doorstep with death on their minds?
This, my friend, is what humans do.
-
hitler also needed to STFU and let his generals run the war -- he was a poor military tactician, but a great political tactician
[it should be noted that i am currently ignoring what he did to discuss specific aspects of him -- if you don't acknowledge that the enemy can be good at things you doom yourself to defeat via arrogance]
-
Originally posted by Liberator
What kind of sane man deliberately and premeditadedly embarks on a course of action that he know will bring the armies of the world to his doorstep with death on their minds?
Intelligence != wisdom
-
Although he was quite clever, I believe Hitler based a lot of his decisions on emotion rather than logic. Emotion is good for making speeches, but not of great tactical use....
-
It is, strangely enough, a mistake made be well-meaning dictators everywhere, that they believe what makes them popular to the majority of those who vote, is what their country needs......
The majority supplies not only the wisdom of the masses, but it's ignorance and superstition as well. If we are not aware of that fact, then nothing can be done to deal with it.
Edit : This is, in large related to your standard Democratically elected leader often being more concerned with staying in office for another term than in any actual long-term wellbeing of the country he is leading.