[01010]

Originally posted by Stryke 9

Never mind that I honestly can't see how you can look at, say, FOX's reality show programme and then say that gays cheapen marraige. I mean, holy ****ing ****.

 

The most ****ing sensible thing in this thread.

[Warlock]

Originally posted by Su-tehp


I'm a lawyer, so I know how important it is to abide by the law and not flout it. However, in the case of the San Fransisco marriages, I have to disagree with Warlock. Yeah, the mayor might technically be "breaking the law" by providing marriage licenses contrary to California state law. However, two district court judges in California were asked to order a stay on the mayor's granting of marriage licenses. The fact that those two judges refused to order the mayor to stop places this situation from the "breaking the law" column to the "civil disobedience" column.

Kinda like what Rosa parks did when she refused to sit in the back of the bus. Technically, she broke the law then, too. And look at how much the nation improved from that broken law.

I see your point, only to me it's a bit different when a citizen, and especially on of the ones the 'law' is against, protests the law by violating it than when an elected official publicly breaks one.

Now if the mayor had priviously attempted to have that law changed and finally decided to be more direct, I'd feel differently about it. (Which may or may not have actually happened) But in my view, imagine if Bush had just decided to say, walk down the street tossing out Green Cards to illegal citizens (sorry just trying to come up with something similar on a national level) instead of a ton of ppl agreeing with him....he'd be publicly and perhaps literally flogged.

BTW as a slight side note,... I am amused at just how many posts I've read from folks with comments about human rights, and how this and that are insulting to gays ,....yet I seem to recall some of the same ppl insulting others by calling them fags or queers and such. Not trying to start a flame war, so have at me if you must,...it's merely amusing to me, as it gives the appearance that either this issue is a popular 'fad' for some....or it's just because Bush is against it so they must be for it. *shrug*

[Beowulf]

Who the hell cares?

America is a democracy. I don't want homosexual couples. I vote no.

If we can get an amendment to protect America, excellent!


~Wraith

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Warlock

BTW as a slight side note,... I am amused at just how many posts I've read from folks with comments about human rights, and how this and that are insulting to gays ,....yet I seem to recall some of the same ppl insulting others by calling them fags or queers and such. Not trying to start a flame war, so have at me if you must,...it's merely amusing to me, as it gives the appearance that either this issue is a popular 'fad' for some....or it's just because Bush is against it so they must be for it. *shrug*

You can disapprove / dislike homosexuality and still recognise the right of people to choose their lifestyle, though.   Escpecially in an issue such as this, where it amounts to an attack on the secularism of what is supposed to be a leader in democracy.

[Ace]

Originally posted by Beowulf
If we can get an amendment to protect America, excellent!

~Wraith

Yup, that's why the Go to the Moon Colony!!!111 act is being passed to protect America.

Islamic militants, fundamentalist Christians, white supremacists, all being sent to Bush's lunar colony, along with Bush.

The way the people who proposed the bill see it, is that when the British did something similar to this Australia came out okay.

[Bobboau]

you know looking at the world, I rhink it would be quicker if we just went to the moon colony

[Warlock]

Originally posted by aldo_14


You can disapprove / dislike homosexuality and still recognise the right of people to choose their lifestyle, though.   Escpecially in an issue such as this, where it amounts to an attack on the secularism of what is supposed to be a leader in democracy.

Actually I meant more that those same ppl where now tossing out "That's insulting to gays" right and left,...not whether they recognise their right to choose a lifestyle.

It'd be like someone who tosses out the "N Word" as a derogatory (though now that's used a bit more 'affectionatly by some) yet then jumping up and down about how something is insulting to African-Americans.
(Sorry if this example offends anyone...but it was the closest I could think of and I tried to be as "PC" with it as I could)

[Bobboau]

the terms 'fag' ,''gay', and 'queer have been used as an insult for so long there just part of the language, most homosexuals understand this and arn't offended unless it's directed at them for being gay.

[Liberator]

@Beowolf:
America is Constitutionaly governed Representative Republic.  The only thing democratic about us is our voting method.  True democracies are rule by the majority.  America, at least for now, is country governed by the Rule of Law.  May it always be so.

Originally posted by mikhael

• The divorce rate for first marriages is over 50%
• The divorce rate for second and subsequent marriages is over 60%
• 43% of all marriages are remarriages
• 43% of  all marriages end in the first 15yrs.

[/B]

And exactly who's fault is it that marriage isn't valued as highly as it once was, hmm?  I was always taught that marriage is forever, unless very specific criteria are met such as infidelity or death.

Let's take a moment to define marriage.

Marriage is a ceremony where vows are exchanged between a husband and a wife before their loved ones and God.  

Civic recognition and parties(before or after) be damned, that is the very root of marriage.  It's an act that goes back to the dawn of Civilization.

Let's also define three words:

vow:  a solemn promise or assertion; specifically : one by which a person is bound to an act, service, or condition.

husband:  a male partner in a marriage

wife:  a female partner in a marriage

Therefore marriage is where a man and a woman join in matrimony.

matrimony:  to take for wife or husband by a formal ceremony.

So understand, what you people want to change the very meaning of what it is to be married.


And now for something off topic...kind of.

It's taken me a couple of days to understand this.  But, Kazan, mikhael and any other so called 'aetheists', I understand now why you so vehemently dislike religion, Christianity in particular.

You're afraid.

Afraid that we're right and you're wrong.  Because if we are, then there's more after this life and you're actions in this life will govern how you spend what comes after.  You believe that if you can discredit us, that you discredit what we represent.  You have my pity.

[Kazan]

Beowulf - justify your dislike for them

Liberator: Your post was intelligent - right until your quotation, then all signs of intelligence left - you are simply trying to comfort yourself if you they're we ATHEISTS (spell the bloody word right) are afraid of you being right.   THose people that are afraid of you being right side with you and give in to pascal's gamble.

I have never and will never give into pascals gamble - and I am not afraid of you being right in the slightest because i know that possibility os so remote it might as well be impossible.



I dislike you and your ilk so much because your religion has bred hatred and bigotry, ignorance and war.  You and your ilk stubbornly refuse to be logical and when asked to support your poisiton logically you cannot.


Well i have to turn off my laptop now and catch the bus - maybe i'll finish this rant shortly.

[Knight Templar]

Originally posted by Liberator
You're afraid.

Afraid that we're right and you're wrong.  Because if we are, then there's more after this life and you're actions in this life will govern how you spend what comes after.  You believe that if you can discredit us, that you discredit what we represent.  You have my pity.

Now there's a stupid idea. Wouldn't it be a lot easier just to be a christian "just in case" if you were worried you could be wrong? Or at least a life of pleasurable sin, followed by a death-bed repentance?

[mikhael]

Originally posted by Liberator
@Beowolf:
America is Constitutionaly governed Representative Republic.  The only thing democratic about us is our voting method.  True democracies are rule by the majority.  America, at least for now, is country governed by the Rule of Law.  May it always be so.

Can I get an amen? AMEN. Thank you.

And exactly who's fault is it that marriage isn't valued as highly as it once was, hmm?  

I don't know, but it certainly wasn't gay people.

I was always taught that marriage is forever, unless very specific criteria are met such as infidelity or death.

Then you were taught incorrectly. Given that marriage is not, in all cultures, a lifetime contract, you have made a rather sweeping generalization for the entire concept of marriage from a rather narrow sampling. Perhaps you should do a little historical and anthropological research into the concept of marriage. I think you'll find that the marriage contract has a rather rich and varied history and is far less black and white than you seem to think.

Let's take a moment to define marriage.

A strict sociological definition would be "A legally recognized and/or socially approved arrangement between two or more individuals that carries certain rights and obligations and usually involves sexual activity. "
A looser, dictionary definition is:

Code: [Select]


mar·riage  n.
   1.
         1. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
         2. The state of being married; wedlock.
         3. A common-law marriage.
         4. A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.
   2. A wedding.
   3. A close union: “the most successful marriage of beauty and blood in mainstream comics” (Lloyd Rose).
   4. Games. The combination of the king and queen of the same suit, as in pinochle.


But lets get on to your ideas.

Marriage is a ceremony where vows are exchanged between a husband and a wife before their loved ones and God.  

Civic recognition and parties(before or after) be damned, that is the very root of marriage.  It's an act that goes back to the dawn of Civilization.

Quite right! Marriage has existed since the damn of civilization--which pretty much puts it before the dawn of your God, since he's only got history back about six to eight thousand years. Meanwhile, cultures and religions that don't include your God had marriage--some of which did not limit marriage to one man and one woman. Oh and they did it either in civil or religious ceremonies, without your God. I recommend keeping your religion clear of this, since, well, it just doesn't have enough history to face off against, Egyptian, Babylonian or Chinese (to name just a few) historical documentation on the subject.
During all those thousands of years (remember, the Egyptians have judeochristian dogma beat by over 4000 years, if you need some perspective), marriages were both secular and religious, contract and sacred. They were NEVER solely religious.

Let's also define three words:
vow:  a solemn promise or assertion; specifically : one by which a person is bound to an act, service, or condition.

Granted.

husband:  a male partner in a marriage

wife:  a female partner in a marriage

Granted. This is fun.

Therefore marriage is where a man and a woman join in matrimony.

Oopsy! False logic. It does not follow. Non Sequitr.
We call two shoes a pair when there is a left shoe and a right shoe, too. But a pair of shoes is also, technically any two shoes, left or right or ambidexterous (ambipoderous? ).
If the male partner in a marriage is a husband, and the female partner in a marriage is a wife, it follows that ALL female partners in a marriage are wives and all male partners in a marriage are husbands. Thus two men married to each other are husbands. Two women married to each other are wives. A man can have multiple husbands and multiple wives. A woman can have multiple husbands and multiple wives. Or they can have one from either set.
If you'd like, I could show you what I just said using rigorous mathematical logic and set theory. That might hurt your brain.

matrimony:  to take for wife or husband by a formal ceremony.

So understand, what you people want to change the very meaning of what it is to be married.

I much prefer this definition, since its rather more inclusive and happens to be the first one in the dictionary:
"The act or state of being married; marriage."
Using that definition, we're not changing the meaning of marriage. We're living up to all its possiblities.

It's taken me a couple of days to understand this.  But, Kazan, mikhael and any other so called 'aetheists', I understand now why you so vehemently dislike religion, Christianity in particular.

You're afraid.

Afraid that we're right and you're wrong.  Because if we are, then there's more after this life and you're actions in this life will govern how you spend what comes after.  You believe that if you can discredit us, that you discredit what we represent.  You have my pity.

Ouch. First of all, do not presume to question my faith. I'm not an Atheist. Not in the least slightest bit. I just don't buy into your minority religion. I'm what you might call a 'heathen':

"heathen: One who adheres to the religion of a people or nation that does not acknowledge the God of Judaism, Christianity, or Islam."

I'm not afraid: I am humble. I seek knowledge, I do not pretend to it. I question, I do not follow. I believe that my actions in this life govern my future in this life and that is all I can ever hope to know. I do not believe in an afterlife, or reincarnation. I do not believe in eternal punishment or reward.
I question my own beliefs rigorously, to see if they can stand up to scrutiny. If they cannot, I must reexamine my beliefs. Those that survive scrutiny are held, only to be reexamined later as new things are learned.
I do not seek to discredit you, or what you represent and I do not need, nor want, your pity. You might just be right and that's good. I'm glad for you. You might be wrong, and if you are, then I'm sad for you for laboring under a false belief for so long. I accept that your beliefs are YOUR beliefs and do not have to be mine.
I also expect--no, I demand--that I and others like me not be forced to live by your beliefs. My beliefs do not demean, cheapen, or lessen yours.
We are a nation of laws. The first law, the most important law, the supreme law of the land states very clearly:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Your faith has no place in my life, nor in the law that governs my life.

Gay people have the right to be married and enjoy the rights and priveleges and honors and accolades that attend such a union. They are not granted that right: they already have it. They are not able to excercise that right because--as you said--some people are afraid. They don't know how to make this concept work with the beliefs that they base their lives upon.
There's a simple solution to that situation though: stay out of their lives. No one, I guarantee, is going to force you to go to a gay wedding. No one, I promise, will make you marry a member of your own gender. Live your life and let them live theirs without the interference of your faith.

[Kazan]

To Expand on my previous rant -

I am not a fraid; I am logical and contemplating.  I find religion devoid of truth because it is devoid of support of evidence.  I find no logical syllogism that lacks a fallcy exists to support it.  I find no reason for one to exist and I see many psychological reasons for humans to fabricate one.

I see the behavior of addiction every time I argue with a theist, and I have argued with more than hundreds.  Always the same patterns - illogic, invalid "evidence", once challenged they start to become less mature in their argument.  Once they are cornered they strike out like a child.  

Faith which is defined as belief without proof (dictionary) is by definition irrational.  Psychology has a term for people who stick to irrational beliefs such as "I see people in the sky" without evidence.  It is a sad state when most of the human population sells their intellectual integrety off to the most emotionally appealing bidder, It does not bode we'll for our future.  

I daily see people of FAITH supplanting things supported with EVIDENCE for their illogic, I daily see people of faith being bigots, I daily see people of faith trying to force their morality on other people.  



The few redeeming qualities that religions has such as encouraging charitability (which is often ignored) and compassion (which is being flagrantly ignored by liberator, deepspace9er and ever other homophobe around) can be acheived without religion.


Religion is devoid of purpose in this day and age - we have outlived it.  To quote Friedrich Nietzsche "...it is all over with priests and gods when man becomes scientific. Moral: science is the forbidden as such -- it alone is forbidden. Science is the first sin, seed of all sin, the original sin. This alone is morality. 'Thou shalt not know' -- the rest follows."

[Bobboau]

hmmm, the old 'your afraid' dig.
you know what, I HOPE I'm wrong, becase I am going to die some day and even if I spend eternity in hell I'd rather still be around than no longer exsisting in any sence. what I have invisioned for myself and everyone else is the ultimate more horrific fate, worse even than an eternity of torment.
and I find it interesting that you assume I am liveing a live of evil that is deserveing of hell, granted by your defined veiw on the world yes I fit the bill, I don't go to church, I didn't get my ashes the other day, I don't go through the rigamoral, but I am probly one of the nicest people you could ever meet (if somewhat aragant) if your god is going to damn me for hell after the life I've lived, I'd rather not spend eternity with it anyway.

[Liberator]

It's called faith, people.  Kazan, whether you admit it or not, you have faith that when you pick up a glass full of water the will come with it.  Yes, we have empirical evidence that suggests that it has been so since the beginning of time and that it will continue to do so till the end of time.  Yet, it may not have, and might at some time in the future not do so.

@Bob
To be fair, I never said you were living a life of evil.  Being nice just doesn't cut it.  Just know that for my part, there are three ways into Heaven:

1.  Lead a just and perfect life.  Humans are not perfect, so this is out.

2.  Become a Kosher Jew and keep all the Commandments, all day every day for the rest of your life.  Difficult, but not much fun either.

3.  Accept Christ into your heart as Lord and Savior.  This one is easy, but no one does in till they are ready.  

I know people who accepted him as children and are some of the finest people I know, I also know a man who was a literal Drunken, Hell-Raiser.  And yet, the very week he accepted Christ, he was in church as has since become a shining example of the transforming power Jesus Christ can have over a life.

@mikhael
At that's one thing we agree on.  I do not however like how certain groups that have a definite liberal bent have used the court system to pervert some of that rule.  A case should stand on it own merits and evidence, not the decision of a judge or jury from 5 minutes ago, much less a decade or more.

Back to the issue at hand:
A man cannot have a husband and a woman cannot have a wife.

I was not talking about other cultures, I was talking about Judeo/Christian culture.  What you would call Western Civilization.  Your[liberals] problem is that you subscribe to Moral Relativism. You don't want to believe that there is absolute Right and absolute Wrong, you instead want everything to be Gray.  It has been my experience that there is very little in life that is Gray.

@Kazan pt. 2
I disagree with Nietzsche.  The first sin that all other's decend from is not science.  The first sin is knowledge that you are doing wrong.  

A 4-year old child can kill, but they cannot understand that what they did was wrong, you can explain it over and over, but their mind cannot comprehend the act.  An adult or even a young teenager on the other hand is quite capable of understanding.

[mikhael]

Originally posted by Liberator
It's called faith, people.  Kazan, whether you admit it or not, you have faith that when you pick up a glass full of water the will come with it.  Yes, we have empirical evidence that suggests that it has been so since the beginning of time and that it will continue to do so till the end of time.  Yet, it may not have, and might at some time in the future not do so.

Actually what you just described is not faith. I do not have 'faith' that glass will stay in the water when I pick it up in a particular way. What I have is knowledge and logic. Faith is "belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence" according to the dictionary. Scientific fact is not based on 'faith'. It is based on test and evaluation. No matter how hard I believe, no matter how much I have faith that the water will somehow stay behind in defiance of the laws of nature, that water is going with the glass. It will always do so, whether I believe it or not. It will always go, and my faith will have availed me nothing.

@mikhael
At that's one thing we agree on.  I do not however like how certain groups that have a definite liberal bent have used the court system to pervert some of that rule.  A case should stand on it own merits and evidence, not the decision of a judge or jury from 5 minutes ago, much less a decade or more.

This shows a monumental lack of understanding of how the law works and the role of the courts. Stu already addressed this.

Back to the issue at hand:
A man cannot have a husband and a woman cannot have a wife.

Repeating something already logically proven incorrect doesn't not render it correct. ITs still wrong, no matter how many times you say it.

I was not talking about other cultures, I was talking about Judeo/Christian culture.  What you would call Western Civilization.  Your[liberals] problem is that you subscribe to Moral Relativism. You don't want to believe that there is absolute Right and absolute Wrong, you instead want everything to be Gray.  It has been my experience that there is very little in life that is Gray.

You absolutely right. I do believe that morality is relative. Lets get right down to it: "goodness" only has meaning when you see it relative to "evil". "right" only has meaning relative to "wrong". You cannot define one without defining the other. Neither exists in the world, only in the human mind. They cannot exist seperate, any more than a compass can point to north without also telling you where south is.
You know what? That's not a bad thing. The society could not exist with absolutes. Can you imagine a world in which all punishments for a crime, regardless of mitigating circumstances, were absolute and unchangeable? Self defense becomes impossible, because killing your assailant just gets you punished the same as a murderer. As soon as you argue that there's a moral difference between killing in self defense and killing in cold blood, you have subscribed to moral relativism. One thing is somehow 'better' than the other. It need not be killing. It could just be a simple punch. A punch thrown in rage, and punch thrown in self defense are morally different. A lie told for advantage and a lie told to comfort a distressed person are morally different. One is more evil than the other, and yet, they are both lies.

Once again, though, I ask you to leave your religion out of the laws of my nation, and out of other people's lives. You do not get to force your religion on anyone else. You do not get to force your faith on anyone else. You do not get to force your morality on anyone else. You do not get to choose how they live their lives, or what legal contracts they can and cannot enter into based on your moral beliefs. The law of the land does not allow you to legislate your morals, beliefs or religion into my life or anyone else's.

[Genryu]

Originally posted by DeepSpace9er


If you think that the big bang caused everything into existence then you are applying those qualities to matter. Either way you look at it, some being greater than yourself caused you into being.

And here is where you're wrong. I'm too lazy to search myself, but if you were to do a research with the term 'energy, void, big bang', I'm sure you'd find at least ONE of the numerous articles talking about how energy can come from a void aka how the big-bang could have come from nothing.

[Stryke 9]

Uhm, Liberator, you might want to examine the last paragraph and somewhat of your last post before accusing others of moral relativism. The very definition of subjectivism (which, for you non-philosophy students, is like moral relativism on crack), and basically exactly what you said, is that if you don't personally recognize it's wrong it isn't wrong. Which'd leave the likes of Dahmer and Pol Pot virtual saints, I should note.

Relativism, to clarify, proposes that if those around you don't think it's wrong it ain't wrong- which is actually an idea which would probably appeal to you, given all the Bush-derived talk about how activist judges are imposing rights on a people that don't want them. It's really a much more functional way to look at morality, since after all it's everyone else who'll have to deal with you should you decide to go on a killing spree or something, but when applied to law must be treated cautiously else it can lead to mob rule and other unpleasantnesses, and isn't really my cup of tea.

Also, it's worth pointing out that from here (I don't read Nietzche, he's repugnant and utterly insane to boot), it looks like you two have roughly the same interpretation of original sin, actually. The apple in the Garden was banned specifically because it yielded knowledge- science. But that's another topic, for sometime when an out-and-out theology discussion is called for, and Kazan isn't likely to spend four pages screaming at me for actually having read the Bible.

[Genryu]

Originally posted by Liberator

You're afraid.

Afraid that we're right and you're wrong.  Because if we are, then there's more after this life and you're actions in this life will govern how you spend what comes after.  You believe that if you can discredit us, that you discredit what we represent.  You have my pity. [/B]

What you represent :
-Your head of church banning the use of condoms when it would save thousands of lives in Africa, where the people actually listen to the preachers.
-Discrimination against people who you think are rebelling against God. Didn't Jesus himself said something like 'love thy neighbours'. He said that, not 'love thy neighbours only if he has the same view as you'.
-Between the crusade, inquisition, and witch burning, Christianism has an ever bigger body count that recent Muslim jihad.

That being said, this is why I choose not to be christian. I believe that there is something bigger than us, call it God, Luck or Fate.
But as I said, bigger than us. Any religion speaking of an entity bigger than us in terms we can understand defeat the purpose of said entity in my opinion.

Sorry in advance for all christians out there, I don't believe any of you are like I described, I just wanted to explain why I don't like christianism.

[Nico]

"gets another popcorn bowl"

Get rollin', pals, all that is very entertaining