[Liberator]

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.

[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.

[aldo_14]

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.

[aldo_14]

EDIt; dammit, need to remember to edit in next time......

[redmenace]

Originally posted by kasperl

Redmanace:

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.

[Tiara]

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.

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.

[Unknown Target]

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?

[aldo_14]

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?

[Unknown Target]

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.

[Tiara]

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.

[karajorma]

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.

[Unknown Target]

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.

[NGTM-1R]

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?

[Kazan]

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

[NGTM-1R]

Just as you do?

Your objectives are different, but your methods are the same.

[Tiara]

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*.

[Tiara]

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.

[NGTM-1R]

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.

[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.

[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.