DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> Honestly, what's the big deal about Gay Marriage?
Pages:   ... ... [52]
Showing posts 251 - 275 of 1298, (reverse)
AuthorThread
02/26/2004 08:58:48 PM · #251
I really did not want to jump into this thread, but I have a couple thoughts I have not seen brought up here but seem relevant to the thread.

1. I believe in a God who loves his children no matter what. I respect the right of others to believe in a different God.

2. In the 215 year history of our constitution, no amendment has ever been ratified whose primary purpose was to restrict the rights of a minority. In that span, ONLY amendment whose express purpose was restriction of rights was the 18th amendment (Prohibition), which was repealed by the 21st amendment a mere 14 years later.

3. When Britney Spears married her childhood friend in Las Vegas, only to have the marriage annulled the following Monday morning, everyone's reaction was "oh, those wacky Hollywood types." It strikes me as more than a little odd that for all those people who are up-in-arms about the idea of two loving, consenting adults marrying each other destroying the sanctity of marriage, not one person spoke up about how abusing the institution of marriage as a joke or a publicity stunt violates the "sanctity" of marriage.

4. For all that is wrong in the world, we all have better things to worry about than what goes on in the bedroom of two consenting adults. If two consenting adults love and care for each other, they should have a right to be able to provide for each other in the same way, regardless of gender or gender preference. That's what this debate is about.

-Terry
02/26/2004 08:59:49 PM · #252
Originally posted by muckpond:

Maybe Alecia will dump the fire hydrant she's been dating and be my gal.


A note from the Fire Hydrant:

Hey now...watch y'self.

;)

P-Ness
02/26/2004 09:02:51 PM · #253
i've never once tried to bash religion (and, in fact, have tried to stay out of the religious fray altogether), other than to say that i am not religious for personal reasons.

what i HAVE said, however, is that we need to recognize the fact that there is a difference between civil marriage and religious marriage. if those were not separate, then people would not be able to get married at a city hall or casino or cruise ship or wherever.

marriages, no matter where or in what context they are performed, are recognized as legal. whether or not individuals are joined under the watchful eyes of god is a separate matter from what is being discussed here. no one is suing the catholic church (or any church) for the right to get married within a religious context. they just want the same CIVIL rights as anyone else.

and i don't use the term civil rights to demean anyone else that has fought for and earned equality. i use it simply to mean that, as a citizen of the same country as my neighbors, i should have all the rights that they do.
02/26/2004 09:03:30 PM · #254
Originally posted by Mousie:

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


And, I forgot to point out in my last post (glad you brought this up, thanks!): I called your response kind of a closed-minded and intolerant, not you specifically.

And, OK, after 10 pages I remembered the comment but forgot which of you wrote it. Hey, at least I didn't attribute something Achiral or GoldBerry said to you, since you wouldn't want to be like them if I paid you! (Ah, come on, not even for a million bucks?) ;)

If it's that offensive to you, then I appologize. Please be more tolerant of my poor short term memory.
02/26/2004 09:06:00 PM · #255
Originally posted by MadMordegon:

i wonder how this topic would have turned out had nobody religious engaged. just out of curiosity.


Come on, this thread was started primarily with the purpose to bait Christians. That's part of why I stayed out so long.

Pride: another sign we're sinners in need of a savior.
02/26/2004 09:06:40 PM · #256
Originally posted by ScottK:

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 don't think specifically addressing of any of the things said earlier is necessary or worthwhile. My point is that people should take a closer look at who's actually using those inflammatory words and phrases. It's not me, though I've certainly endured enough of them myself in the last few days.

If you're willing to put the effort into looking it up yourself, good for you. I urge to to do a search for my name on each page, inspect each of my posts and the responses to them I've recieved from 'the opposition'. Then come back and tell me if you truly think I'm being any of the things characterized in those responses.

I know full well that I'm opinionated, quip, tend to be brusque, and am incredibly sarcastic. Remarkably, that's *not* what people have been chiding me for.

Why is that?

- Mousie, unaware of any religion bashing on his part
02/26/2004 09:09:41 PM · #257
Originally posted by Pedro:

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.


That's a much better way to say "correlation does not equal causation."

Thanks.

02/26/2004 09:12:49 PM · #258
Originally posted by Mousie:

That's a much better way to say "correlation does not equal causation."

Thanks.


gotcher back, bro ;)
02/26/2004 09:20:15 PM · #259
ok, i think i've figured out the important aspect of this that we're all missing:

gay weddings would be nothing short of fabulous. yes! that's it! i've figured out how it would detract from heterosexual weddings! they'd be way better!

think about it: the food would be marvelous, the music would be a heck of a lot better (i guarantee no 'chicken dance' -- more like 'the hustle'). decorations would be nothing short of extravagant!

for the bridesmaids: you KNOW the dresses would be flawless. no orange chiffon for miles around. and there's nothing like a makeover by a drag queen. if they can make their ugly (U.G.L.Y.) mugs even semi-attractive, they'll take years off your looks.

shoot, no wonder everyone's paranoid. we wouldn't undo marriage. we'd outdo it.
02/26/2004 09:23:14 PM · #260
Originally posted by muckpond:

ok, i think i've figured out the important aspect of this that we're all missing:

gay weddings would be nothing short of fabulous. yes! that's it! i've figured out how it would detract from heterosexual weddings! they'd be way better!

think about it: the food would be marvelous, the music would be a heck of a lot better (i guarantee no 'chicken dance' -- more like 'the hustle'). decorations would be nothing short of extravagant!

for the bridesmaids: you KNOW the dresses would be flawless. no orange chiffon for miles around. and there's nothing like a makeover by a drag queen. if they can make their ugly (U.G.L.Y.) mugs even semi-attractive, they'll take years off your looks.

shoot, no wonder everyone's paranoid. we wouldn't undo marriage. we'd outdo it.


Don't forget the cocktails!!!

(Hehe, get it? I said... oh nevermind.)
02/26/2004 09:26:09 PM · #261
Originally posted by Mousie:


Don't forget the cocktails!!!


how could i have forgotten? must have had one too many mimosas at my desk today.

Originally posted by Mousie:


(Hehe, get it? I said... oh nevermind.)


Mommy! Mousie said a bad word!
02/26/2004 09:42:00 PM · #262
were not sinners, were just humans, and humans are imperfect beings. maybe one day well meet some aliens who are perfect beings (or at least alot better than us) and they can help us with our troubles.

in the mean time, we aught to be focusing on bigger and more pertanent issues. like maybe us killing planet earths ability to support us? dunno, maybe thats just me..
02/26/2004 09:48:14 PM · #263
Originally posted by Mousie:

I don't think specifically addressing of any of the things said earlier is necessary or worthwhile. My point is that people should take a closer look at who's actually using those inflammatory words and phrases. It's not me, though I've certainly endured enough of them myself in the last few days.


I'm just trying to engage in the conversation. You made a shotgun complaint, which I can't respond to. But if there's anything that I've said that makes you feel unwanted (the root of this branch or the thread), I'd certainly like to clear it up.

Originally posted by Mousie:

If you're willing to put the effort into looking it up yourself, good for you. I urge to to do a search for my name on each page, inspect each of my posts and the responses to them I've recieved from 'the opposition'. Then come back and tell me if you truly think I'm being any of the things characterized in those responses.


OK, I gave up after about the first 7 pages. But, looking at it honestly and objectively, noone seems to me to have really specifically characterized you in the way you say. I have to go soon, so I'm not going to go point by point, but I honestly think that you've over-reacted in most cases, and taken general statements as personal attacks.

To pick one point in particular, the issue of being a sinner. Nobody ever said "Mousie, you're a sinner!" GoldBerry did point out that, based on Christian doctrine, we are all sinners. It's not a personal attack, its a foundation of the faith. You did take it personally, but you can't by extention say that "you've been called a sinner".

So, objectively speaking, nobody's really attacked you quite so personally as you think, and you're own opinions have really been pretty much on par with those of 'the opposition'.

Originally posted by Mousie:

I know full well that I'm opinionated, quip, tend to be brusque, and am incredibly sarcastic. Remarkably, that's *not* what people have been chiding me for.

Why is that?

- Mousie, unaware of any religion bashing on his part


A couple of "quips" you've made that could be regarded as hostile, demeaning or offensive to religion, or Christianity in particular:

Originally posted by Mousie:

Tell me again why I can't marry.
Tell me again why it's wrong for me to live my life.

Is it anything more than prejudice? Don't try to pin this one on God either, the Bible says a lot of freaky stuff about what's right and what's wrong, and you're breaking a lot of the rules right now.


Originally posted by Mousie:

I'm afraid the Christian God's likes and dislikes, although I respect personal faith and the faith of GoldBerry, really do not carry much weight with me.


And there were some others, including the derogatory remarks about America and the right that I commented on already, but I'm late.

While they aren't personally directed, they do attack the faith that you claim to respect. At least, when taken with the same sensitivity that you had to the comments to you.

BTW, it was you who wrote "Mousie makes our Lord our God gag with anger and disgust". :)
02/26/2004 09:56:47 PM · #264
Originally posted by ScottK:


BTW, it was you who wrote "Mousie makes our Lord our God gag with anger and disgust". :)


only in jest as a verbatim (minus the name) response to a direct quote--spoken by another photographer.

**edited for odd grammar. and spelling. and punctuation. sigh.

Message edited by author 2004-02-26 22:53:50.
02/26/2004 10:22:27 PM · #265
Originally posted by ScottK:

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.... :(


Right, kind of like how 40 year old men are marrying 9 year old girls now, a real consequence of heterosexual marriage.
02/26/2004 10:33:18 PM · #266
Originally posted by ScottK:

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.... :(


Well let's see - first (where we started, and as Kavey brilliantly stated) The pedophile's rights end where the child's begin. So whether or not it's predisposed (and you're deluded if you think Pedophiles just choose to like children), it won't be acceptable.

Secondly, last time I checked children were still not legally entitled to consent to much of anything in the North American culture without their parents. So I guess when the parents start saying it's ok, then yes, maybe that'll happen. Until then, I rip the arms off anyone coming near my child.

02/26/2004 10:39:41 PM · #267
Originally posted by ScottK:

A couple of "quips" you've made that could be regarded as hostile, demeaning or offensive to religion, or Christianity in particular:

Originally posted by Mousie:

Tell me again why I can't marry.
Tell me again why it's wrong for me to live my life.

Is it anything more than prejudice? Don't try to pin this one on God either, the Bible says a lot of freaky stuff about what's right and what's wrong, and you're breaking a lot of the rules right now.


Originally posted by Mousie:

I'm afraid the Christian God's likes and dislikes, although I respect personal faith and the faith of GoldBerry, really do not carry much weight with me.


Why is my lack of acceptance of a biblical rationale for denying me the right to marry either hostile or demeaning? I don't abide by your Bible or your God. If that's what's offending religion, I guess religion will be offended.

Originally posted by ScottK:

BTW, it was you who wrote "Mousie makes our Lord our God gag with anger and disgust". :)


Yes, but it was GoldBerry who wrote that "Homosexulaity makes our Lord our God gag with anger and disgust". That's like me saying "New Yorkers are all a buch of arrogant bastards" and then expecting the guy from New York not to take it personally. I'm a homosexual, remember? How could I *not* infer that I make God gag with anger and disgust, according to GoldBerry?

However, this is all besides the point. What I am trying to get across is that most of the inflammatory language in this thread has been coming from the very people who claim it's coming from 'the gays,' whilst bemoaning all the (*very* dubious, IMO) religion bashing. What don't you understand about this? It's statistical analysis! You just look who's using those words, then compare it to who's making the complaints about religion bashing. I suspect you will find a large overlap. I *know* I did.

It doesn't matter if it's meant as personal or not. Why am I able to list off approximately a dozen instances of such language in the responses to me alone? All I see you presenting as a counterpoint is my own stance that I don't accept religion as an appropriate argument to deny me the ability to marry. Why does this offend? There's *are* a lot of truly bizarre rules in the bible. I have *yet* to meet a single person who doesn't break at least one.

Don't you think it's ironic that you quote me making it a point to say that I respect that GoldBerry has faith, or that faith as a concept does not bother me? What's so demeaning about expressing that faith-based rationale does not carry much weight with me?

I'm *not* trying to convince you to believe what I believe. I never have wanted to. You *don't have to* believe that gay marriage is right for me to get married. So why do you insist that I behave by *your* faith-based beliefs?
02/26/2004 11:26:01 PM · #268
Originally posted by RonB:

The question comes up repeatedly - how will allowing gay marriage harm anyone? Since it appears that no one took the time to read the article I posted a link to, Here is the opening paragraph:

"MARRIAGE IS SLOWLY DYING IN SCANDINAVIA. A majority of children in Sweden and Norway are born out of wedlock. Sixty percent of first-born children in Denmark have unmarried parents. Not coincidentally, these countries have had something close to full gay marriage for a decade or more. Same-sex marriage has locked in and reinforced an existing Scandinavian trend toward the separation of marriage and parenthood. The Nordic family pattern--including gay marriage--is spreading across Europe. And by looking closely at it we can answer the key empirical question underlying the gay marriage debate. Will same-sex marriage undermine the institution of marriage? It already has." ( emphasis mine ).

The full article ( The End of Marriage in Scandinavia ) is here: //www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/660zypwj.asp

Ron


Just goes to show what liberalism in Swedan and Denmark, and in much of Europe has done to those countries. Nobody commits to anything except to THEMSELVES. If you want to have a child, just sleep with the milkman, and who gives a crap if the child never knows his father... After all it's ME that counts and that's all that matters, and forget what is best for the child. This is what extreme liberalism has done to those countries and to marraige.

02/27/2004 12:12:36 AM · #269
Originally posted by Resurrected:

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...


Thanks, cause I'm not a fan of ignorance.
02/27/2004 12:27:15 AM · #270
In response to CBeller...hope this clears it up.

Lets view this situation as a puzzle. You have pieces - some fit together and some arent intended to go together...so do you sit there and ram the wrong pieces together? I think not. We should be nicly sliding the correct pieces together to create the perfect picture. If we keep ramming we all will never finish the puzzle. If you want the puzzle to work you need to stop ramming the wrong pieces together...thats just wrong...

Hope this doesnt offend anyone I just need to make a visualization to help interpret what I am trying to say.

ReS

Message edited by author 2004-02-27 00:27:53.
02/27/2004 12:37:57 AM · #271
And what gives you the right to say everyone has to put your puzzle together? Maybe some folks don't like puzzles.

I return to my comment from my previous post.
02/27/2004 12:39:12 AM · #272
I'm a born again Christian and must say I hear more christian bashing than gay bashing. I love the gays more than most gays love christians, by the sound of things. It seems to me that christians are the ones being viewed as "uncool" and different. Gays have just as much of an agenda as evangelistic christians, and they pursue their goal as zealously as any christian I've known.
Just a few years ago I returned to college. All the principles of my faith were methodically rediculed, and condemned, while "alternative lifestyles" were encouraged and praised.
Christianity is heavily opposed. But ya know what? Opposition and resistance builds strength. Righteousness will prevail.
I'm not judging anyone. There is ONE judge who will judge righteously. Every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is lord.
My intent is not to offend here, but rather to stand up and be counted.
The God I serve loves all equally. We were created in his image.

Peace +

"There are NO great men (and women) of God, only men (and women) of a great God" Don Potter
02/27/2004 01:06:35 AM · #273
Gay marraiges and unions multiplied will cause economic distress...it wont right now because its not a big enough event. The idea being this, if we need workers to populate plants, factories, and businesses a man and a man or a woman and a woman cannot create children by themselves without help. However, artificial insemination, surrogate mothers, adoptions are options. These are extremely costly options. The society ends up paying for workers instead of getting them for free, as with heterosexual marriages. I realize that most of you will think this is bunk only because you refuse to look towards the future if this really is legalized...take a second to look at it.
Secondly, if you allow this, you must allow marraiges to dogs, dead people, light posts, gas pumps and whatever else "I" really love...I say these things not to trivialize the love between those homosexuals. And lastly I'd like to apologize whole heartedly for those Christians on this site including myself, and those Christians who are in your lives who have tarnished our reputation with hate and biggotry. There will always be a fundemental conflict between us, but if we cannot separate the hate from the meaningful conversations, neither side "wins"


What stuff are you smoking because that statement is the most convoluted idea I have ever heard and to try to attach it to gay marriage is a joke.
02/27/2004 01:17:12 AM · #274
Originally posted by sonnyh:

Gay marraiges and unions multiplied will cause economic distress...it wont right now because its not a big enough event. The idea being this, if we need workers to populate plants, factories, and businesses a man and a man or a woman and a woman cannot create children by themselves without help. However, artificial insemination, surrogate mothers, adoptions are options. These are extremely costly options. The society ends up paying for workers instead of getting them for free, as with heterosexual marriages. I realize that most of you will think this is bunk only because you refuse to look towards the future if this really is legalized...take a second to look at it.
Secondly, if you allow this, you must allow marraiges to dogs, dead people, light posts, gas pumps and whatever else "I" really love...I say these things not to trivialize the love between those homosexuals. And lastly I'd like to apologize whole heartedly for those Christians on this site including myself, and those Christians who are in your lives who have tarnished our reputation with hate and biggotry. There will always be a fundemental conflict between us, but if we cannot separate the hate from the meaningful conversations, neither side "wins"


What stuff are you smoking because that statement is the most convoluted idea I have ever heard and to try to attach it to gay marriage is a joke.


At least your posts are an inteligent part of the debate and not just some poorly constructed pot shot.
02/27/2004 01:30:03 AM · #275
Men and Men dont fit...its unatural for them to do what they do.


Why do you make that statement. Everything that they do in the bedroom is done with heterosexual couples. What makes certain acts "unnatural" between 2 men when a man and woman do the same thing or are you willing to say that they are unnatural too.
Pages:   ... ... [52]
Current Server Time: 03/29/2024 11:45:20 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/29/2024 11:45:20 AM EDT.