| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/08/2009 04:56:07 PM · #126 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You guy just can't resist lines like this, can you? Paul's post alone could be dissected on four fronts. I'm gonna try to just stifle my response though, but it does show an ignorance. I know a lot of the usual Ranter's backgrounds, but I don't know yours Paul. Do you have any sort of "I went to church as a child" past? what's your story? |
I'm a native northern Californian; my grandparents were immigrants or children of immigrants from Romania, Poland, and Lithuania; I'd say I had a left-wing secular Jewish upbringing -- the yearly big family gathering was to open Christmas presents under a beautifully-decorated tree at my aunt's house.
I occasionally engage in a bit of (hopefully) humorous linguistic irreverence, much in the spirit of Mark Twain, Ambrose Bierce, H.L. Mencken, Mort Sahl, Tom Lehrer, and the like (I somehow missed the Will Rogers period), but I also try to make sure that there's some underlying bit of "truth" within the statement -- that it's not a complete non sequiter ... |
|
|
|
07/08/2009 05:03:08 PM · #127 |
Originally posted by Ivo:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
How is using selective phrases from the Bible as justification for bigotry and discrimination in a world which extends beyond the Middle East not "taking the Lord's name in vain?" |
Its evident that some people see the world in a broader sense than others. Nuff said. |
Narrowness of mind could be defined as refusing to investigate and consider the reasons for another's point of view. I suspect a lot of the Bible's biggest scoffers and critics have never read it.
And if the name Jesus Christ means nothing to you except as a off-handed profanity, why use it at all? If that name is completely without merit in your opinion, why does it have any impact as profanity? And would you use the name of Allah that way, in the presence of known Muslims? If your manner of usage is offensive to some, you are unkind to continue it.
Back to the discussion - discrimination in any form is not right. But then, neither is passing "special rights" to any particular group, for any particular reason. Government that is forbidden to make laws concerning religion should keep religious concepts...like marriage...out of its scope of concern.
|
|
|
|
07/08/2009 05:05:21 PM · #128 |
Originally posted by farfel53:
Originally posted by Ivo:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
How is using selective phrases from the Bible as justification for bigotry and discrimination in a world which extends beyond the Middle East not "taking the Lord's name in vain?" |
Its evident that some people see the world in a broader sense than others. Nuff said. |
Narrowness of mind could be defined as refusing to investigate and consider the reasons for another's point of view. I suspect a lot of the Bible's biggest scoffers and critics have never read it.
And if the name Jesus Christ means nothing to you except as a off-handed profanity, why use it at all? If that name is completely without merit in your opinion, why does it have any impact as profanity? And would you use the name of Allah that way, in the presence of known Muslims? If your manner of usage is offensive to some, you are unkind to continue it.
Back to the discussion - discrimination in any form is not right. But then, neither is passing "special rights" to any particular group, for any particular reason. Government that is forbidden to make laws concerning religion should keep religious concepts...like marriage...out of its scope of concern. |
The key is that marriage is not a religious concept. It is a human concept.
ETA: That's actually wrong too. Many animal species come together in a marriage for life. The meaning of the world is very simple, at the base. The 'religious' aspect is just one of many.
Message edited by author 2009-07-08 17:06:34. |
|
|
|
07/08/2009 05:11:19 PM · #129 |
Originally posted by farfel53:
Government that is forbidden to make laws concerning religion should keep religious concepts...like marriage...out of its scope of concern. |
You have it backwards -- the "marriages" we are talking about are completely secular contracts mandated by the government, and have nothing to do with religion.
The legal rights -- inheritance, tax, hospital visitation, etc. -- at issue are solely governed by the existence of a state-issued marriage license, and subject only to state and federal statutes; the performance of any religious ceremony (or lack thereof) is completely irrelevant.
Religion co-opted marriage later in order to provide a rationale for exerting control over who could marry whom, a sort-of baseline eugenics program. |
|
|
|
07/08/2009 05:16:15 PM · #130 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I occasionally engage in a bit of (hopefully) humorous linguistic irreverence, much in the spirit of Mark Twain, Ambrose Bierce, H.L. Mencken, Mort Sahl, Tom Lehrer, and the like (I somehow missed the Will Rogers period), but I also try to make sure that there's some underlying bit of "truth" within the statement -- that it's not a complete non sequiter ... |
I'll keep a healthy dose of this in mind. Good thing I didn't bite. :) |
|
|
|
07/08/2009 05:18:36 PM · #131 |
There we differ - God gave to Adam his "help-meet", and "for this cause shall a man leave his mother and father and cling to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh", and that was long before establishment of governments. But then, I know you don't accept that concept and time-line, so that point is not going to be resolved.
|
|
|
|
07/08/2009 05:27:29 PM · #132 |
| what so amazing about this thread is that , its about religion and gays and yet not in rant section. When this thread started i was thinking - another thread for rant, but i was wrong. |
|
|
|
07/08/2009 05:28:36 PM · #133 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Good thing I didn't bite. :) |
See, we can agree! ;-) |
|
|
|
07/08/2009 05:51:42 PM · #134 |
Originally posted by farfel53:
Back to the discussion - discrimination in any form is not right. But then, neither is passing "special rights" to any particular group, for any particular reason. |
Just to make it clear. The UAFA would NOT give any "special right" to gays. It would just include gay couples in the current legislation, so gays have the same equal immigration rights as straights do.
BTW, I am GLAD this is not getting ranty, because that is not what my post was meant for! :) |
|
|
|
07/08/2009 06:09:37 PM · #135 |
Originally posted by RulerZigzag:
First of all, let it be known that I didn't mean to offend anyone, I was trying to explain why the Church is against Gay marriages. I painted a little scenerio in my last post to explain why; probably a bad scenerio, but the Church's point is that in an old world, where there are far less than 6 billion people in the world, homosexuality doesn't lead to creation and expansion of a species and increases chances of extinction. This is why they consider marriage intrinsical.
My meaning of the word marriage was taken from the Catholic view as well. Marriage is one of the sacraments. and according to the Church, it is a biological union of two bodies, and two souls as well. DNA transfer for creation required for the offspring. According to them, Marriage is actually Impossible between Gays. It cannot happen because of this very fact.
Of course, nowadays, the meaning of Marriage has changed. It's old meaning is irrelevant. (to some)
But I do want to add that Gay people are some of the most humble and nicest people in the world. Like I said a few pages ago, the more love in the world the better, but marriage is something else. |
I prefer this argument to your prior one. It actually lets us know what you are trying to verbalize. Kudos.
Now, I have another scenario that puts aside marriage for a moment. Suppose that God loves all his children as it has been written. What if God put homosexuals on the Earth to reduce the chances of overpopulation while also giving them the option to adopt the children who were less abandoned and orphaned, so that they may also receive love and pass that love on to the rest of the world? Is it a coincidence that many gay people who are "out" are sensitive and maybe even more passionate and in touch with their inner selves than most straight people (especially men)? Could this be because maybe they were meant to mother the world's unloved children? Now, coming back to marriage, the bible states that 2 should be married before having/raising children. Therefore in this scenario, gay people should be able to marry in order to take care of those children.
Just a theory. You may consider it as ridiculous as I found your scenario, but just consider it for a moment about it. I look forward to a response.
|
|
|
|
07/08/2009 06:15:24 PM · #136 |
Ok guys, stereotyping is not beneficial even when it is "positive" stereotyping. There are lots of ornery, bitchy, grumpy, in-your-face gay people in the world. There are smart ones. There are dumb ones. There is Perez Hilton.
If you want to be treated "just like everybody else" then you can't go around saying the group is "more this" or "more that"...
Just saying... |
|
|
|
07/08/2009 06:17:16 PM · #137 |
Originally posted by RulerZigzag:
Thank you ! There are some people on here who called for my head and were completely ignorant on the true meaning of marriage.
|
You best not be referring to me (or anyone here) as ignorant. Just as you take 1 step forward in terms of respect, you take 2 backwards again. What a shame. And there is that "true" word again. Could you please tell me how you know what is true? I don't pretend to know the truth in the world because I know that I have to question everything in life in order to hopefully rule out any possible lies. Do I expect to ever find the truth? I hope I can find it in myself, but I will never impress it upon others as the one and only belief. |
|
|
|
07/08/2009 06:23:12 PM · #138 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Ok guys, stereotyping is not beneficial even when it is "positive" stereotyping. There are lots of ornery, bitchy, grumpy, in-your-face gay people in the world. There are smart ones. There are dumb ones. There is Perez Hilton.
If you want to be treated "just like everybody else" then you can't go around saying the group is "more this" or "more that"...
Just saying... |
I can only state things based on my observations. I have observed certain things that happen to be more positive than negative in this case. However, you are right. There will always be "ornery, bitchy, grumpy in your face" people, but I find it offensive to someone who has gay friends to refer to them as "bitchy." I thought we already discussed that you dislike profanity, and I think it's more offensive to call someone a bitch than to say someone's name who died 2000 years ago.
Just saying...
Message edited by author 2009-07-08 18:23:40. |
|
|
|
07/08/2009 06:28:31 PM · #139 |
Originally posted by Azrifel:
And the visas here and there were a huge amount of work too. F*** all those borders. |
F yeah. |
|
|
|
07/08/2009 06:53:38 PM · #140 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
How is using selective phrases from the Bible as justification for bigotry and discrimination in a world which extends beyond the Middle East not "taking the Lord's name in vain?" |
It has nothing at all to do with bigotry or discrimination or the OP's topic at hand,  GeneralE.
 escapetooz addressed me by name regarding a side conversation having nothing to do with the topic, and I was responding to that.
I was not adding to the topic of Homosexuality/Laws at all.
But since you ask, since I did not use the Lord's name in any sentence at all except as a direct scripture quote, I do not believe I used his name in vain.
If you'll check back, you'll see that I have not 'weighed in' on homosexuality in even the most vaguest sense.
Carry on. *smile* |
|
|
|
07/08/2009 06:56:42 PM · #141 |
Originally posted by Blue Moon:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Ok guys, stereotyping is not beneficial even when it is "positive" stereotyping. There are lots of ornery, bitchy, grumpy, in-your-face gay people in the world. There are smart ones. There are dumb ones. There is Perez Hilton.
If you want to be treated "just like everybody else" then you can't go around saying the group is "more this" or "more that"...
Just saying... |
I can only state things based on my observations. I have observed certain things that happen to be more positive than negative in this case. However, you are right. There will always be "ornery, bitchy, grumpy in your face" people, but I find it offensive to someone who has gay friends to refer to them as "bitchy." I thought we already discussed that you dislike profanity, and I think it's more offensive to call someone a bitch than to say someone's name who died 2000 years ago.
Just saying... |
That's vulgarity, but I'm sorry about it. I agree it's a word that I probably shouldn't have used.
Stereotypes are tough to know what to do with. Maybe gay people ARE more in touch with their feelings (you have personal observation to back that up). Maybe gay people ARE more sexually promiscuous (there are studies to back that up). Even if they are true, I'm not sure how they advance the conversation because the small subset participating in this conversation may be very out of touch with their feelings as well as monogamous.
It's also a mild, backhanded insult to heterosexual men by making the assumption that they are not in touch with their feelings. |
|
|
|
07/08/2009 08:08:51 PM · #142 |
Originally posted by Blue Moon:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I can only state things based on my observations. I have observed certain things that happen to be more positive than negative in this case. However, you are right. There will always be "ornery, bitchy, grumpy in your face" people, but I find it offensive to someone who has gay friends to refer to them as "bitchy." I thought we already discussed that you dislike profanity, and I think it's more offensive to call someone a bitch than to say someone's name who died 2000 years ago.
Just saying... |
That's vulgarity, but I'm sorry about it. I agree it's a word that I probably shouldn't have used.
Stereotypes are tough to know what to do with. Maybe gay people ARE more in touch with their feelings (you have personal observation to back that up). Maybe gay people ARE more sexually promiscuous (there are studies to back that up). Even if they are true, I'm not sure how they advance the conversation because the small subset participating in this conversation may be very out of touch with their feelings as well as monogamous.
It's also a mild, backhanded insult to heterosexual men by making the assumption that they are not in touch with their feelings. |
I don't mean to "backhand" anyone. However, I want to point out that there is actually psychological data that shows that many straight men in our culture (and many others) are indeed NOT in touch with their feelings. You are probably not aware of this since Psychologists only started considering that being homosexual was not a disorder about 20 years ago and began comparing them with the straight population. Thus, being in college now, I am far more exposed to knowledge on this subject that you were not aware of when you were in school. Think about it, when little boys cry, they are usually told to stop it because "big boys don't cry," where as girl's emotions are more nurtured by parents. This is effectively telling boys to shut out their emotions because if they let them out, they will never be men. Similarly, in a relationship, if there is an argument, it is usually the man who does not know how to verbally express his emotions and keeps quiet, or just says "whatever" than communicate with the woman, who is much more verbal with how she feels. Interestingly, it has been found that men are naturally more verbal than women, but that block that was put in when they were toddlers, doesn't allow those words to come out. This is why there have been cases where a man will see a psychologist, start actually talking about how he feels, and then have pointed out by the psychologist that he is crying, when the man himself did not realize it.
Article over-viewing emotional differences in men
Now, I'm not saying that this isn't the case with some gay men, but often gay men are associated with being effeminate. This was thought to be a behavioral choice, until a study was done last year showing that a gay man's brain is much more similar to a heterosexual woman's than a heterosexual man. This was the reason for my argument that they are more sensitive and in touch with themselves.
NY Academy of Sciences study. homo brains vs. hetero brains
This study also showed that gay men were much better at a verbal test than straight men.
As far as being sexually promiscuous, I think it has more to do with culture in the gay community than them naturally being more promiscuous (by the way, I hope you didn't associate my earlier use of the word "passionate" with "promiscuous", because that is not at all what I meant). I think being straight allows us to have more options and thus we can be more selective. Gay people are much harder to come by, so I think when they find each other, they are more likely to "pounce" than be as selective (and by this I don't mean that they don't have standards, just less options). The above study also showed that the part of the brain that controls sexual desire was actually smaller in gay men than in straight men. As for studies surrounding safe sex and number of parters in homosexual and heterosexual, there are many different results depending on the area in which they live. However, the consensus seems to be that yes, gay men are less safe and have more partners, but there is a much smaller gap in the statistics than one might think.
Studies showing promiscuity homo vs. hetero men
Message edited by author 2009-07-08 20:11:09. |
|
|
|
07/08/2009 08:26:50 PM · #143 |
| So at the end of the day, while it may be true for groups, we may both be equally annoyed if you assume I am not in touch with my feelings and I assume you have had dozens of sexual partners in your life... |
|
|
|
07/08/2009 08:30:39 PM · #144 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So at the end of the day, while it may be true for groups, we may both be equally annoyed if you assume I am not in touch with my feelings and I assume you have had dozens of sexual partners in your life... |
Actually, I've always assumed that YOU had dozens of sexual partners in your life. :P |
|
|
|
07/08/2009 08:35:29 PM · #145 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So at the end of the day, while it may be true for groups, we may both be equally annoyed if you assume I am not in touch with my feelings and I assume you have had dozens of sexual partners in your life... |
To "assume" makes an ass out of u and me. I'm sure you have heard this before. This is why I presented facts form available studies and research and choose my language carefully by using words such as "many" and "most," instead of "all" and "always." I have also said in this thread that I do not pretend to know the truth and hope others also do not do such things.
And for the record, you being annoyed by me saying that you may not not have emotions and you calling me a whore are two entirely different things. I am personally very hurt that you would assume such a thing. And by the way, I have had zero sexual partners, so who is the whore now? |
|
|
|
07/08/2009 08:41:32 PM · #146 |
| The preacher thundered from the pulpit: "Is an hour's sin worth eternal damnation?!" to which a small voice queried from the back of the room "How do you make it last an hour?" |
|
|
|
07/08/2009 08:43:29 PM · #147 |
Originally posted by Blue Moon:
To "assume" makes an ass out of u and me. I'm sure you have heard this before. |
At Harvard Medical school the write it Ass/U/Me ... :-) |
|
|
|
07/08/2009 08:44:00 PM · #148 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
The preacher thundered from the pulpit: "Is an hour's sin worth eternal damnation?!" to which a small voice queried from the back of the room "How do you make it last an hour?" |
lol :) thanks for giving me a laugh when I'm so frustruated |
|
|
|
07/08/2009 08:46:46 PM · #149 |
Originally posted by Blue Moon:
lol :) thanks for giving me a laugh when I'm so frustruated |
I can surely empathize, even if I'm not a Latina judge ... ;-) |
|
|
|
07/08/2009 08:49:20 PM · #150 |
Originally posted by Blue Moon:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
The preacher thundered from the pulpit: "Is an hour's sin worth eternal damnation?!" to which a small voice queried from the back of the room "How do you make it last an hour?" |
lol :) thanks for giving me a laugh when I'm so frustruated |
you can try taking the blue pill for him, the pink pill for her. prepare for two eternities of damnation though |
|
