| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/25/2004 09:15:37 PM · #126 |
It's called "context" but I am sure you are just being sarcastic :-)
T
|
|
|
|
02/25/2004 09:23:43 PM · #127 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
Hey, I have an idea. How about everyone that uses 'them,' 'their,' 'gays,' or whatever word they favor to refer to homosexuals or homosexuality, substitute the word 'Mousie'.
For example:
"That being said Homosexuality makes our Lord our God gag with anger and disgust" becomes "That being said Mousie makes our Lord our God gag with anger and disgust"
It's what you mean, isn't it?
- Mousie, a person, not a concept |
No. The correct usage would be: "That being said Mousie makes our Lord our God weep with sorrow and heartache" :( |
|
|
|
02/25/2004 10:00:47 PM · #128 |
Originally posted by frisca:
Originally posted by nborton:
there are laws though that are in place, such as suicide laws, which have no affect on others. |
I hope I did this quote thing correctly, but suicide is not illegal anywhere I know. For the simple fact that you would not have anyone to prosecute. It is illegal to assist in suicide (because that's murder, and who is to say that you didn't infact murder the person and then just say "oh they wanted to die and I just helped". Some places have made attempted suicide illegal, but even that is a stupid way to deal with what is essentially a non-criminal, usually mental illness type problem. |
In Texas, they'd likely put you to death if they caught you trying to commit suicide... |
|
|
|
02/25/2004 10:08:20 PM · #129 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
You are comparing the taking of a life with a marriage? Hardly the same thing. Suicide does have a great effect on alot of other people.
Originally posted by nborton:
Originally posted by Pedro:
Originally posted by nborton:
the central point of this whole issue for me has nothing to do with gay marriage specifically. the point is how do we decide what is legal and not legal or moral and immoral. someone has to decide. do we leave it up to a vote and majority rules? because if that were so, there is a chance that gay marriage if would loose, and all those in favor of gay marriage would have to accept the vote. |
assuming we all had to conform and be exactly the same, then yes, your logic would apply. Of course, then we'd all have to wear the same clothes, go to the same church, eat the same food, and watch the same TV shows.
Otherwise, your point has zero basis.
The POINT, Nick, is that you have no right to tell me or anyone else how to live if it doesn't affect your rights to live as you would wish. |
there are laws though that are in place, such as suicide laws, which have no affect on others. |
|
i'm not comparing suicide and marriage. i don't care if you choose to marry a tree. all i'm saying is that there are laws in place, like attempted suicide, that don't have any bearing on anyone else. it's true that suicide saddens those around you, however, it doesn't infringe on any of their rights.
basically all i am saying is, who gets to decide what we do? |
|
|
|
02/25/2004 10:30:14 PM · #130 |
That's a very legitimate question and the crux of this issue, Nick. I have stated in different places in this thread that it's about control and I think, in this situation, where there doesn't seem to be any negative impact of gay marriage on the rest of society or those individuals within society, that it should rest with those homosexuals who want to get married. There is no reason, from what I can see, why gay couples should not be treated equally under the law as straight couples. Who would you like to see in control of this issue?
I'm still waiting to hear from those opposed to gay marriages what negative impact gay marriage has on society and how it would corrupt the country's morals.
edit: spelling
Originally posted by nborton:
[quote=Olyuzi] You are comparing the taking of a life with a marriage? Hardly the same thing. Suicide does have a great effect on alot of other people.
i'm not comparing suicide and marriage. i don't care if you choose to marry a tree. all i'm saying is that there are laws in place, like attempted suicide, that don't have any bearing on anyone else. it's true that suicide saddens those around you, however, it doesn't infringe on any of their rights.
basically all i am saying is, who gets to decide what we do? |
Message edited by author 2004-02-25 22:35:27. |
|
|
|
02/25/2004 10:44:56 PM · #131 |
OK, look.
you're never going to understand it until you've lived it. you just won't.
walk a mile in my shoes before you criticize my "lifestyle" (which was not a choice -- why would someone choose to be persecuted constantly?) or tell me how to live.
people in this world need to take a break from lecturing everyone and instead think -- just for a few minutes -- what it might be like to be someone else. please.
and while you're at it, please think about how discriminating against a group of people that you probably have little to no contact with anyway is going to better your life.
one more thing: this whole argument about how marriage has been "historically" defined as one man plus one woman is PROBABLY due to the fact that before a very few decades ago the very acknowledgement of my sexuality would have gotten me fired, ostracized, beaten, shunned, torched or otherwise physically or emotionally maimed.
being able to go public was a HUGE struggle! and it still is for many, many people who are far less lucky than i. now that we've gotten to a point where our differences are in the open and, in many cases, embraced (i.e. Queer Eye), it's only natural to take things to the next level. the ability to love someone is a basic, fundamental human right. the ability to publicly declare that love should be a right as well.
i feel like i'm just flinging emotions out here. the fact is that everyone has such a huge gut reaction -- one way or the other -- to this topic. all i'm asking is for people to go beyond that first reaction and really think about what's at stake.
but a lot of people won't, so i'm back to
Message edited by author 2004-02-25 22:45:16. |
|
|
|
02/25/2004 10:47:05 PM · #132 |
and just to lighten the mood:
'you know me, marge. i like my tv loud, my beer cold, and my homosexuals FLAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMING!'
gay people aren't bad! we're just funnier and more creative than you!
ha ha. |
|
|
|
02/25/2004 11:08:46 PM · #133 |
here's something else to think about.
who got to decide infringing on other's rights was wrong?
there are only three ways to socially decide on these things.
1. majority rules
2. monarchy or dictatorships
3. anarchy
under all 3 there are multiple examples of what people feel was wrong. such as slavery under majority rules, and hitler killing jews under a dictatorship.
|
|
|
|
02/25/2004 11:11:41 PM · #134 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
gay people aren't bad! we're just funnier and more creative than you!
ha ha. |
hahaha..
heres a little story about a gay friend i used to have (my perspective).
i used to work for a gay art director at a web design company. he was cool as hell, and funny. not to mention he was damn good at was he did. he was not a flamer but one could tell pretty easy by his feminem ways. he didnt have many friends and got made fun of alot by the friends he did have and co-workers (even tho it was "all in good fun" sometimes it would hurt him). i used to feel bad for him by the way he was seperated from the rest of us at the company. he used to ivite me and another coworker over to his place everyeonce and a while to cook us some of his amazing thai cooking. he was well traveled and educated, we used to have good talks.
well, over time, that company started to be badly hit by the y2k and 9/11 tech bomb. i started to not get my paychecks on time w/ the company owner saying "well get you next week in cash, i promise. were just havin some hard times". well, my friend (well call him V) V, sacroficed one of his checks to me so i could pay my utilities a couple months into our eventual dying of the company. all the other boss's there did nothing but lie to me about the status of the company. until one day when i decided i couldnt work there anymore and not be paid. after i left the company they went bankrupt and the owners claimed they owed me nothing (which was bs). V stuck up for me and risked his own job to get them to pay me what i was owed. 2 months after contact was lossed w/ the owners of the company and i thought i was a sure victom of gettin it in the rear (and not in the good way.. :p ) V contacted me saying i should come to the office and pick up my back pay. they had a check for the money they owed me. i later learned V sold his part in the company to get the money to pay me.
he is/was one of the most honerable, moral people i knew. so you christians take your bs and point it somewhere else. i can tell you a story as equally oposite as this one about how i "took it in the rear" from a "born again" who ripped me off badly when i tried to help him start a business.
not to mention, not contributing to over population is great ;)
ok im going home now, work is done! w00t!
Message edited by author 2004-02-25 23:14:08. |
|
|
|
02/25/2004 11:16:17 PM · #135 |
If law allows a man to marry another man,then IMHO would be perfectly legal for me to marry 2 women (2 photographer women)!
|
|
|
|
02/25/2004 11:19:15 PM · #136 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
he is/was one of the most honerable, moral people i knew. so you christians take your bs and point it somewhere else. i can tell you a story as equally oposite as this one about how i "took it in the rear" from a "born again" who ripped me off badly when i tried to help him start a business. |
i don't know any so called "good" Christians either. |
|
|
|
02/25/2004 11:28:41 PM · #137 |
Originally posted by nborton:
here's something else to think about.
who got to decide infringing on other's rights was wrong?
there are only three ways to socially decide on these things.
1. majority rules
2. monarchy or dictatorships
3. anarchy
under all 3 there are multiple examples of what people feel was wrong. such as slavery under majority rules, and hitler killing jews under a dictatorship. |
I'm hoping this is rhetoric, because if you're really asking who got to decide that, you're clearly missing the point. |
|
|
|
02/25/2004 11:48:36 PM · #138 |
it's been fun discussing rights and whatnot. i love discussions on laws and what's legal.
so if there's ever another posts relating to law, i'm all in.
later for now. |
|
|
|
02/25/2004 11:48:41 PM · #139 |
I have to comment on this:
1) I believe homosexuality is not chosen, it's genetic, because I don't think anyone would what to choose the lifestyle on their own (or a VERY small number).
2) The majority of people in the US and all over the world don't want a small minority of people to force the rest of the country/world to have redefine the meaning of marriage according to their wants. Marriage, since the dawn of time, has meant a Man and a Women who are joined for the purpose of breeding and raising their children in a stable environment. It's literally the very foundation of all society in every country and civilization from the dawn of mankind.
3) I believe in equal rights for all people, but not in redefining a basic fundamental part of our society, based on a few people. I am, however, in favor of allowing "civil unions" for gays. I think that is fair and they do deserve that.
4) If you allow gay marriage, it opens the door to further "devaluate" marriage in the form of other types of marriage: A guy that wants to marry his dog. A women who wants to marry her uncle. I believe gay marriage would open the door to all kinds of things like this. You'd find law suits in the courts demanding all kinds of perverted "marriages" on a regular basis.
5) I think an amendment to the Constitution is needed now, because of the actions of the mayors of SF and Boston taking the law into their own hands and making a decision themselves to which 70% of the people are opposed.
So now Bush has no choice but to call for an Amendment to stop these liberals from shoving this down our throats. Those mayors/activists should have waited to take a legal avenue for this if they believe it's right, and NOT take matters into their own hands. Now, the only way to stop this anarchy by these radical liberals is to introduce an Amendment to stop it.
6) Bush has finally taken a stand on something (other then terrorism). :) So now let's see if we can get him to stop giving 10,000,000 illegal immigrants amnesty, and to stop shipping our jobs overseas to make his corporate buddies happy, and we may actually have an electable president. :D
|
|
|
|
02/26/2004 03:13:12 AM · #140 |
I invoke Godwin's Law! You lose! Thanks for playing!
Originally posted by nborton:
here's something else to think about.
who got to decide infringing on other's rights was wrong?
there are only three ways to socially decide on these things.
1. majority rules
2. monarchy or dictatorships
3. anarchy
under all 3 there are multiple examples of what people feel was wrong. such as slavery under majority rules, and hitler killing jews under a dictatorship. |
|
|
|
|
02/26/2004 03:34:09 AM · #141 |
YEAH...what Chris said!
sounds correct to me
|
|
|
|
02/26/2004 03:46:50 AM · #142 |
I think most of these issues have been touched upon before.
Originally posted by ChrisW123:
I have to comment on this:
2) The majority of people in the US and all over the world don't want a small minority of people to force the rest of the country/world to have redefine the meaning of marriage according to their wants. Marriage, since the dawn of time, has meant a Man and a Women who are joined for the purpose of breeding and raising their children in a stable environment. It's literally the very foundation of all society in every country and civilization from the dawn of mankind.
5) I think an amendment to the Constitution is needed now, because of the actions of the mayors of SF and Boston taking the law into their own hands and making a decision themselves to which 70% of the people are opposed.
So now Bush has no choice but to call for an Amendment to stop these liberals from shoving this down our throats. Those mayors/activists should have waited to take a legal avenue for this if they believe it's right, and NOT take matters into their own hands. Now, the only way to stop this anarchy by these radical liberals is to introduce an Amendment to stop it.
|
How do you take into account Mormons, or in Africa where multiple wives are still common? Furthermore, just because something is "traditional" it doesn't make it right. Rewind to the 1950s. Discrimination against blacks was a "traditional" part of life in the south. It was only because a few "radical liberals" had the guts to stand up to perceived injustice that the Jim Crowe laws were repealed.
No matter how you try to argue about "values", "tradition", the slippery slope to perversity and the definition of the word "marriage", this still boils down to one simple fact - They are different from us so they can't play.
That's discrimination in my book, plain and simple. |
|
|
|
02/26/2004 04:56:16 AM · #143 |
Originally posted by ChrisW123:
Marriage, since the dawn of time, has meant a Man and a Women who are joined for the purpose of breeding and raising their children in a stable environment. |
So, does this mean that sterile couples, or people who have no intention of breeding, should also be barred from marriage? That is the logical conclusion to the argument that marriage is all about babies.
If the argument is about the sanctity or spiritual significance of marriage, then come back to me when you can no longer go and get married to somebody you met 30 minutes ago by an Elvis impersonator.
Like it or not, marriage in today's society IS just a civil union in the majority of cases. |
|
|
|
02/26/2004 06:49:48 AM · #144 |
Originally posted by pitsaman:
If law allows a man to marry another man,then IMHO would be perfectly legal for me to marry 2 women (2 photographer women)! |
TWO woman, why on earth would you want TWO??? One is challenging enough. [She is already threatening me in the background for writing this comment - run away! run away!] Be careful what you wish for, you may get it...
|
|
|
|
02/26/2004 09:32:57 AM · #145 |
You dare me/us? I'll tell you why, although I'm not casting a judgment and if people choose to live a way I don't agree with as a Born Again Christian, it's still their life and affects me in no way..that being said Homosexuality makes our Lord our God gag with anger and disgust, although He loves everyone equally, He made it very clear in scripture that homosexuality wouldn't be tolerated. Marriage originally stems from the Bible hence why so many people do'nt agree with samesex marriages. If courts want to allow civil same-sex marriages than that's fine but you CANNOT as a gov't tell a religion what to do and then try to force their hand. ...blah, go ahead, I DARE THEM! I won't want to be around to see the repercussions. I would die for my faith and would die for my Lord and would NEVER let anyone force me to live the way of this earth instead of the way of our Lord.
AMEN!!!!!!!!!
P.S. I have gay friends and family, knowing the facts and having beliefs doesn't make me a Homophobe..
I'm sure you have a lot of gay friends with those thoughts of yours! |
|
|
|
02/26/2004 09:44:24 AM · #146 |
More misinformation, what was written in the Old testament was not applicable in the New testament, such as the pigskin. And just like today's crusades, historical crusades were unfortunately fought int he Name of Christ for the sole purpose to enhance and procure personal desires. It is and still is wrong, no one is disputing that and most people aren't blind to that fact.
Since you think the Old testament has nothing to do with the New Testament I assume you are anti-semetic also. You have a great record GoldBerry. |
|
|
|
02/26/2004 10:00:44 AM · #147 |
1) for all time, marriage has been man/woman, this gives great meaning to the word marriage because i'm sorry, it is exclusive
2) because people want to always blur moral lines, you say let men marry men and women marry women...to me that takes away from the bond that i will have with my wife
but that's just me being ignorant and intolerant, right?
I just don't understand how that takes away from the bond you will have in the future with your wife. If someone elses marriage/union or whatever can take away from your life then something is wrong with you. |
|
|
|
02/26/2004 10:09:31 AM · #148 |
Originally posted by sonnyh:
1) for all time, marriage has been man/woman, this gives great meaning to the word marriage because i'm sorry, it is exclusive
2) because people want to always blur moral lines, you say let men marry men and women marry women...to me that takes away from the bond that i will have with my wife
but that's just me being ignorant and intolerant, right?
I just don't understand how that takes away from the bond you will have in the future with your wife. If someone elses marriage/union or whatever can take away from your life then something is wrong with you. |
takes away from the definition of marriage, understand that and only that. i believe the word marriage defines a sacred bond between a man and a woman. that's all...it's hardly intolerant or old fashioned, just the way things have always been and ought to be.
P.S.and yes i can tell you the way things ought to be
|
|
|
|
02/26/2004 10:23:13 AM · #149 |
If you take out the words "gay marriage" and "homosexual marriage" and replaced them with "interracial marriage". We would be having the same argument that happened over interracial marriages.
God did not destroy the earth in a rain of fire then either..........
I'm sad to read all the condemnations, harsh words and judgements cast at each other in this thread. What happened to compassion and loving thy neighbor?
|
|
|
|
02/26/2004 10:53:27 AM · #150 |
Originally posted by Geocide:
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
And just like today's crusades, historical crusades were unfortunately fought int he Name of Christ for the sole purpose to enhance and procure personal desires. It is and still is wrong, no one is disputing that and most people aren't blind to that fact. |
9/11 was in the name of someone's "God." Is this right/just? To you, the victum: no. To them, the attackers: Yes. |
I"m pretty sure that's the point I just made. |
|
