| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/26/2004 07:19:56 PM · #226 |
I want to respond but I should never argue with idiots because they will drag me down to there level and beat me with experience...not my idea of a good debate.
Not a fan of homosexual marriages...a SIN is a SIN.
Message edited by author 2004-02-26 19:24:25. |
|
|
|
02/26/2004 07:25:46 PM · #227 |
Originally posted by tjuneau13:
Originally posted by Kavey:
I'd be happy to use terms such as Civil Marriage and Religious Marriage if that would make people happier, but I see no reason why my union should have to be called by another name because a certain group of people think they own rights to the word. |
I agree - I was just using the example because people seem to get so caught up on the wording - figured maybe if we separate the two issues it might help. I believe the State should not discriminate against people and to make laws that specifically do so is just plain wrong (imho) - A church can choose to discriminate as its beliefs dictate. |
Unfortunately, that's becoming less and less the case. "Anti-discrimination" laws are being passed all the time (here in California, under Grey Davis and the Democratic legislature, it was almost literally daily for a while there) that erode the freedoms of religious institutions to uphold and defend principles they believe in. A time will soon arrive when you will only be allowed to "believe" what is politically acceptable, including within a church. |
|
|
|
02/26/2004 07:28:02 PM · #228 |
Originally posted by nborton:
My point the whole time has been that laws and rights are arbitrary depending on time period, location, and who has power. There are many countries around the world that don̢۪t believe in the same rights as the US, such as the right to bear arms and freedom of speech. Property rights have also been in question in past history with communism. Who can say what side is correct?
Once again, who gets to decide if gay marriage is ok? There are places on this planet that already say it̢۪s ok. At this moment, the US doesn̢۪t agree. So with no solid law in place who̢۪s correct? Both sides have to be seen as equally valid. |
why has no one responded with who gets to decide, and if the decision is actually correct?
Message edited by author 2004-02-26 19:30:29. |
|
|
|
02/26/2004 07:29:36 PM · #229 |
Originally posted by achiral:
see this shows a lack of understanding of different viewpoints. basically it comes down to I believe sexuality is not hard coded in our genes. no one has ever proven it. it is a choice, and always will be a choice |
wow. i hope that is some kind of unfunny joke. |
|
|
|
02/26/2004 07:32:43 PM · #230 |
| on a side note. we have a long long long way to go to break the record here for longest thread. 799 posts long |
|
|
|
02/26/2004 07:33:54 PM · #231 |
| ya that was a good thread too. its good to know issues like that (reality) can get that many responses on a site like this were many would rather just stick to there own reality box. |
|
|
|
02/26/2004 07:34:22 PM · #232 |
Originally posted by SirBiggsALot:
is a homosexual relationship an unatural union? (physical love,not emotional love) curious to see responses
edited to make sense
for the record...in retrospect i apologize for my sarcastic ill-advised comment regarding light posts and gas pumps... |
any takers on whether or not its an unatural or natural physical relationship? still curious to see responses |
|
|
|
02/26/2004 07:35:43 PM · #233 |
| i just realized someone is missing from this topic. anyone guess? |
|
|
|
02/26/2004 07:37:06 PM · #234 |
Originally posted by nborton:
why has no one responded with who gets to decide, and if the decision is actually correct? |
Because it's irrelevant to the issue. A red herring. You could argue the same about all laws, morality, systems of government. Go take Philosophy and Ethics. Come back and argue once you do. |
|
|
|
02/26/2004 07:37:56 PM · #235 |
Originally posted by mbardeen:
Originally posted by nborton:
why has no one responded with who gets to decide, and if the decision is actually correct? |
Because it's irrelevant to the issue. A red herring. You could argue the same about all laws, morality, systems of government. Go take Philosophy and Ethics. Come back and argue once you do. |
I already have. So I'm back. |
|
|
|
02/26/2004 07:40:00 PM · #236 |
Originally posted by nborton:
I already have. So I'm back. |
Just recently I take it? What did John Stuart Mills say about such matters? |
|
|
|
02/26/2004 07:40:03 PM · #237 |
Originally posted by SirBiggsALot:
Originally posted by SirBiggsALot:
is a homosexual relationship an unatural union? (physical love,not emotional love) curious to see responses
edited to make sense
for the record...in retrospect i apologize for my sarcastic ill-advised comment regarding light posts and gas pumps... |
any takers on whether or not its an unatural or natural physical relationship? still curious to see responses |
Sirbiggsalot,
Men and Men dont fit...its unatural for them to do what they do.
ReS
Message edited by author 2004-02-26 19:41:46. |
|
|
|
02/26/2004 07:43:04 PM · #238 |
Originally posted by mbardeen:
Originally posted by nborton:
why has no one responded with who gets to decide, and if the decision is actually correct? |
Because it's irrelevant to the issue. A red herring. You could argue the same about all laws, morality, systems of government. Go take Philosophy and Ethics. Come back and argue once you do. |
Here's why its relevant.
If the US decide this year that gay marriage is wrong. Then in another 10 years another president decides it's ok. Then the next says no. I wouldn't want to live in a world where what I am doing becomes illegal and then legal again depending on the whims of leaders.
Message edited by author 2004-02-26 19:46:47. |
|
|
|
02/26/2004 07:43:33 PM · #239 |
Originally posted by louddog:
I'm not an expert on the bible by any means, and I probably shouldn't have pretended to be. However, throughout the bible servents are refered to quite often. What do you think those servents were? |
Referencing and condoning or supporting isn't really equivilent. Also, you should keep in mind that what is refered to as slavery in the bible can have different meanings - it can be an indentured servant, who has basically sold themselves into servitude for a period of time; it can be someone who owed a debt or had committed a crime against their "master", and they are a slave for some period of time to pay off their debt; it might refer to people where vanquished in battle. I'm not sure there is a form of slavery in the bible that quite matched what developed in the western hemisphere in the 16th and 17th centuries.
Originally posted by louddog:
By the way, the mayor of SanFran has broken no laws, thus his order is still standing, he is not in jail nor has he been removed from office and all the marrages still stand (dispite arnold's protests). As Mayor he has that power on a city level. |
I don't believe that, legally, this is true. The state regulates marriage, not local cities (remember the phrase: "...by the powers vested in me by the state of _______, I now pronounce you..."). And, based on Proposition 22 passed a year or two ago:
Proposition 22
Limit on Marriages.
Background
Under current California law, "marriage" is based on a civil contract between a man and a woman. Current law also provides that a legal marriage that took place outside of California is generally considered valid in California. No state in the nation currently recognizes a civil contract or any other relationship between two people of the same sex as a marriage.
Proposal
This measure provides that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
It passed by something like 65%. Whether he's commited a "crime", punishable by jail time, I don't know - I doubt it. But those marriages are not valid. It's really just a publicity stunt.
Oh, and people like to praise how courageous he is. To support gay marriage in San Francisco is courageous??? Supporting gay marriage in Oklahoma might be courageous; opposing gay marriage in San Francisco might be courageous. This is just a guy making a name for himself on the national stage. (And, I might add, against the wishes of the liberal establishment.)
|
|
|
|
02/26/2004 07:54:42 PM · #240 |
Originally posted by Alecia:
and to compare the issue of gay marriage to marrying a lampost, et al--well, that's just not very rational. |
Yes, please, lets put the "marrying dogs, lampposts, etc." to bed. What a preposterous arguement. Instead, lets talk about a real consequence, a real extension that will some day occur: A 40 year old man wants to marry a 9 year old boy. That probably won't be the next step, but it will be an eventual step. The psychiatric community is already removing the "stigma" of pedophylia by classifying it not as an illness but a preference or a choice. How long before it's not a choice, but a genentic predisposition. And how can we deny someone what is biologically built in. And with our society's worship of children as just being little adults, capable of making their own choices and decisions, how long before the phrase "consenting adults" is watered down to "concenting people".
The future is set - it's only a matter of time.... :( |
|
|
|
02/26/2004 08:02:53 PM · #241 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
Do you people never cease in your quest to make me feel unwanted?
- Mousie, who wouldn't chose to be like you if you paid him |
But, isn't that what you *begged* everyone to do in your first post? It certainly isn't my intention (nor that of anyone else here, really, I think) to make you feel unwanted. But maybe that's how you want to feel....? You asked somwhere along the line (sorry, at 10 pages, I'm not going to scan for the exact quote - hope I get close), something like "do you think I like to be treated this way?" At this point, I have to wonder. |
|
|
|
02/26/2004 08:03:30 PM · #242 |
Originally posted by ScottK:
The future is set - it's only a matter of time.... :( |
Then obviously we have no need to be here debating. We can go on, let people marry who they choose and forget this issue. |
|
|
|
02/26/2004 08:06:32 PM · #243 |
|
|
|
02/26/2004 08:20:40 PM · #244 |
Originally posted by timj351:
Ok, I will try to make it clearer. There is a lot of presumptions being thrown around in this forum from those that are gay toward hetrosexuals and particularily to Christians. Words like bigot and homophobe. Now it is being said that gays are not wanted. |
A) I have not once used the word bigot, or intolerance, or referred to *anyone* as bigoted or intolerant.
B) I did use 'prejudice' once, but only to compare it to the word 'sin', which was being referred to as 'opinion based fact'.
C) I have gone *out of my way* to express my respect for individuals, humanity as a whole, faith, and choice.
D) I have been repeatedly offended by the careless use of words (acknowledged by the authors themselves in many instances) that devalue my life, while hearing over and over that that my desire to marry devalues *heterosexual* marriage.
If my 'unwanted' comment offended anyone, I'm sorry. However, like I wrote, that's *how you make me feel*. That's how denying marriage to gays make them feel. Unwanted. Disrespected. Marginalized.
I have raised question after question in direct response to specific things that have been said, and continually provided a detailed rationale behind my own position when challenged, without feeling like I'm getting the same in return. Instead, have been accused (implicated, if you prefer) of being ignorant, closed-minded, of casting judgement, causing God to gag (or weep, if you prefer), being a sinner, presumptuous, an American (that's a little levity, for the levity challenged), that I have no respect, all I give is total flack, that I completely disregard everone's opinions I don't agree with, am intolerant, that my points are nonsense, and it's even been implied that I'm an idiot, so people should not 'argue' with me, in that order. Go ahead and re-read this thread. It's all there.
I rest my case for feeling unwanted.
|
|
|
|
02/26/2004 08:27:05 PM · #245 |
it is amazing how defensive people get when anything relating to God or Jesus in an argument is thrown out the window automatically. this thread has degraded into a bash on religion, God, the Bible, or anything opposed to the homosexual supporting viewpoint. effective commuication will never appear out of such an environment. in an attempt to save what ever respect i have left for certain people in this thread, i'm going to turn off my rant option now. truth be told i coexist and can work, live around, congregate with homosexuals but I choose to draw a line based on my faith. this will never be good enough for any of the opposite viewpoints in this thread so there really is no point in continuing this rubbish.
|
|
|
|
02/26/2004 08:28:50 PM · #246 |
To be fair, I did call one person's arguments junk, but that was about the argument, not the person.
Also, I never asked anyone to walk in my shoes. That was muckpond. If people can't even get simple facts like that straight, why are they even bothering to contribute?
- Mousie
|
|
|
|
02/26/2004 08:37:16 PM · #247 |
| i wonder how this topic would have turned out had nobody religious engaged. just out of curiosity. |
|
|
|
02/26/2004 08:46:49 PM · #248 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
Instead, have been accused (implicated, if you prefer) of being ignorant, closed-minded, of casting judgement, causing God to gag (or weep, if you prefer), being a sinner, presumptuous, an American (that's a little levity, for the levity challenged), that I have no respect, all I give is total flack, that I completely disregard everone's opinions I don't agree with, am intolerant, that my points are nonsense, and it's even been implied that I'm an idiot, so people should not 'argue' with me, in that order. Go ahead and re-read this thread. It's all there.
I rest my case for feeling unwanted. |
Just curious - which of those might be on my account? I don't want to spend too much time responding to something I'm not responsible for...
I'll assume that (on at least one occasion) the "closed-minded" was my doing. Just to clarify, I said yours was "Kind of a closed-minded, intollerant response....". It was brief, I admit, and you called me on it, so I detailed why I thought the response was as I described it. You haven't responded to that specifically (but then with all the noise here, I won't feel unwanted for that), so I don't know if you accept my explanation, ignore it, disregard it, or what. And, it was in response to you dismissing in fairly negative and somewhat derogetory terms something that very much mirrored my point of view, even if you used non-directed comments. So, Mousie, am I unwanted? ;)
- ScottK, putting a human face on the American right since 1964 |
|
|
|
02/26/2004 08:48:45 PM · #249 |
ok, i just read an article, and you guys aren't going to believe it.
Between 1975 and 2003, the number of Americans opting out of marriage at all has risen from 24% to 29%.
In 1975, both the laser printer AND the push through tab on soda cans were invented.
CLEARLY the logical assumtion should be that the invention of the laser printer and the push through tab on soda cans has caused people to abandon marriage, and if these two inventions are not constitutionally opposed, soon NO ONE will ever marry.
OK, it was two separate articles, but I still don't see that as reason not to panic.
P-Ness.
Message edited by author 2004-02-26 20:52:22. |
|
|
|
02/26/2004 08:53:36 PM · #250 |
Mousie,
Just for the record, I'm a Christian and there are many, many threads and places where I feel unwelcome.
Anything that makes people uncomfortable is going to estrange you (not meant just for Mousie, but for everyone) from most meeting places.
|
|
