|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/26/2004 02:26:55 PM · #176 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
It seems you're just looking for anything to retort negatively on, but hey, whatever floats your boat. |
This from the person who deliberately edited a burn *into* a post that had already been written. Please tell me *specifically* where I'm being pointlessly negative. I feel that on the whole I have been overwhelmingly positive, optimistic, and have gone out of my way to demonstrate respect for the *person* if not the *ideas* of everyone involved.
You on the other hand have said that I make God gag, that I am a sinner, that I 'obviously' don't respect straights, whites, or Christians, that I'm a hypocrite (even after your complaint about negativity!), and that that, in my last post, I've *finally* had my first 'good' reply. All directly pointed at me, no ambiguity.
Who here can see the difference between disagreeing with someone's ideas and respecting them as a person?
- Mousie |
Yeesh, I never said you personally as a human being make God gag, lets get that straight right now okay? The act of homosexuality is disgusting and makes him gag, there are other things like sex outside of marriage that do the same not just homosexuality [but that was the thread topic], and by gag, I should've said "weep". I stand firm on that but also apologize for bad terminology.
The quote of mine you used I thought I had deleted, atleast I meant to as I agree that I shouldn't have posted it. Also, I never said you don't respect all whites, christians,etc, I said you don't seem to respect me, me being all of those things, that being decided after reading all of your replies at great lenght. If that's not how you feel, then I have no problems saying that what I understood from your posts wasn't accurate. That being said, what you've understood from my posts isn't accurate either and that's probably entirely my fault for poor choices of words and phrases. Humble apologies. I think since nothing I've said is being interpretated correctly and at times I've said the wrong thing, this post should be my last. Thanks to all who've patiently stood by on the sidelines, holding their tongues, feel free to post as you wish and to continue to PM since your words of encouragement in private are still encouraging none the less!
God Bless [I mean it, no matter the opposition]
Lori |
|
|
|
02/26/2004 02:34:20 PM · #177 |
god weeps for everyone in the world
|
|
|
|
02/26/2004 02:37:50 PM · #178 |
Let's let god speak for himself/herself.
|
|
|
|
02/26/2004 02:50:58 PM · #179 |
Originally posted by Pedro:
not that I'm about to dig deeply into this, but...
Exodus 21:22 "If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,
24 Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
25 Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."
What do the laws of the earth have to say about that? I suspect in that case 'living the way of the Lord' (ok, the bible...there's a difference) will getcha thrown in jail...
just sayin'. |
You probably shouldn't dig to deeply in this only because you dig yourself deeper away from a good argument. I am an evangelical Christian, not a catholic and not a jew, so when you quote the OT esp. levitcal law to try to prove a point about homosexuality or beastiality its silly. As Christians Jesus was the ends to the legalism of the Levitical law. When Jesus died, he put to death all the need for animal sacrifice because he was and is the end all sacrifice for all sins. So to wrap that up, please, if your going to quote the Bible and mix it with Christianity, know what your talking about. We're not all catholics and jews.
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
You've confused Priests with being the Be-all-to-end-all of religion...and so have most people. There were NO priests in the Bible, I agree that priests have been placed apon pedestals and given power or authority that God NEVER intended. No man is higher than another, and only God Himself has the authority to rule over Faith. Same with the pope..he's JUST another man same as you or I. Nsoroma79, don't be bitter because so many other people are confused. And I said, having faith doesn't make you/me a homophobe, that opinion is completely false and unjust. |
There were high preists in the Old Testament they offered sacrifices for the sins of the people...If you read Hebrews you see that Christ is our High Priest now interceeding for us to God. Though the priests of the Catholic church are much different in purpose and power...much
quote=Gordon]
Do you eat pork ? or is it more of a selective application of the christian faith ? [/quote]
Read response above to Pedro about taking old testament laws out of context to the larger belief of Christianity. Eating pork is a largely Orthodox Jewish belief that is practiced by many...but not Christians since there is no need for it...Read Acts and Peters vision, or read Galatians about freedom in Christ.
Originally posted by louddog:
I find it disturbing that people use religion as an excuse to be a bigot. Mousie is an American (I think)and a creation of god just like everyone else and deserves the same rights.
The bible says animal sacrafices are acceptable methods of prayer. It also says it's okay to own slaves. In fact, the Vatican didn't denouce slavery until 20 years after the emancipation proclimation. I'm sure 20 years after homosexuality is proven not to be a choice the vatican will say it's acceptable. The Vatican also just recently said that we are being to hard on priest that molest children!!!
Think for yourself. Don't let your church tell you what is right and wrong. |
Again, not all Christians are catholic, and really in the majority of the American church the vatican carries little or no power, if it did, there would be no gay bishops or women bishops or anything like that. Regarding animal sacrifice...again, please look to understand that which you critisize. Even in the new testament you'll find allusions to slavery but never condoning it, it was a fact back then that empires were built on the backs of slaves...it happened, but it was never condoned.
Originally posted by louddog:
Not to be repetitive, but don't use religion as an excuse to be a bigot.
The bible says sex without the intent to procreate is wrong. Does that make god gag too? If so I'd bet most of us has made him gag. Let's make a constitutional ammendmendment on that.
Among the seven deadly sins: Greed, Lust, Gluttony... How many of us has broken one of those today?
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone (isn't that in the bible too?)
Hypocrisy!
Also, is it choice??? Do a quick research on how many teenage boys kill themselves every year simply because they are gay. Many of them from religous familiys where they were told they were wrong and were going to go to hell. If it's a choice, why would they chose death over simply changing their mind? |
About the "seven sins" there is never mentioned a list of seven sins that are more deadly than others...the smallest child lying to his mother separates him from God just like the sin of murdering someone. The consequences are different but the result is the same...separation from God. As for the procreation comment...find the reference and then read the context, study the cultural context, then look at the rest of the Bible and its redemptive scheme...quit prooftexting, albiet poorly.
That should clear up the poor Bible knowledge. As for the matter at hand, as a Christian, I will not and in good conscience cannot argue that marriage is solely a religious institution...only those with historical tunnel vision will say that this is trul only a Judeo Christian thing. People of all tounges, tribes, and nations have been married without Christian beliefs for years. My opposition to Gay marriage is from a cost benefit analysis:
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" |
|
|
|
02/26/2004 02:53:49 PM · #180 |
I can respect anyone's opinions on things even when I don't agree with it but it takes getting to know a person before I truly can respect who they are as people. That part has to be earned. To me, that's what respect means.
I have already expressed that I do not agree with the gay life(style), whatever you want to call it, but just because I feel this way does not mean I can't respect what a gay person says or believes. It's not an issue of respect it's an issue of beliefs or preferences. Is that really such a hard distinction to make? I've also said that if we want to do more to support the "union" of gay couples that is also ok with me, again, even though I don't agree with it personally. Does this make me a bigot? Maybe you want to change the meaning of bigot as well. My whole issue on this has been about what the word "marriage" means and has always meant here, in America, not somewhere else, and that is the uniting of a man and a woman. I believe if you want something other than that than it needs to be called something else and have its own criteria.
T
|
|
|
|
02/26/2004 03:09:45 PM · #181 |
Originally posted by SirBiggsALot:
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. |
I agree with almost everything you said up to this point. Here, I have to disagree. Marriage is an agreement, a consensual commitment. A dog, a dead person, a light post, gas pump and any other inanimate object or non-human entity, is incapable of providing consent and is thus incapable of entering into marriage.
|
|
|
|
02/26/2004 03:39:49 PM · #182 |
Originally posted by SirBiggsALot:
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. |
Yes, this is a perfectly valid argument, seeing as how based on history alone, this is exactly the sort of thing that happens when we succumb to a radical new cause. Why, thanks to the wacky, liberal establishment of women’s lib—i am now forced to go into my very well paying and competitive salaried job everyday and work side by side with equally well paid dogs, dead people, light posts and gas pumps. This is because, as you know, historically—by allowing the institution of all these crazy ideas—such as allowing women to be treated as equals, or allowing african american people to be treated as equals—they of course opened the door to all sorts of unspeakable things.
i find fear of change and the unknown to be a sad thing.
|
|
|
|
02/26/2004 03:48:07 PM · #183 |
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 don’t 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 it’s ok. At this moment, the US doesn’t agree. So with no solid law in place who’s correct? Both sides have to be seen as equally valid.
|
|
|
|
02/26/2004 03:50:14 PM · #184 |
Originally posted by Alecia:
i am now forced to go into my very well paying and competitive salaried job everyday and work side by side with equally well paid dogs, dead people, light posts and gas pumps. |
That sums up my office pretty well. I think the light posts are the worst, but the gas pumps are right up there. I think the dead people get paid more, though. :(
And man, if I'd had a version of the Bible that discusses God gagging, Sunday School would have been so much more interesting. (Do people who can't spell make God gag? I hope so.)
Message edited by author 2004-02-26 15:58:59. |
|
|
|
02/26/2004 04:00:27 PM · #185 |
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
Yeesh, I never said you personally as a human being make God gag, lets get that straight right now okay? The act of homosexuality is disgusting and makes him gag, there are other things like sex outside of marriage that do the same not just homosexuality [but that was the thread topic], and by gag, I should've said "weep". I stand firm on that but also apologize for bad terminology.
The quote of mine you used I thought I had deleted, atleast I meant to as I agree that I shouldn't have posted it. Also, I never said you don't respect all whites, christians,etc, I said you don't seem to respect me, me being all of those things, that being decided after reading all of your replies at great lenght. If that's not how you feel, then I have no problems saying that what I understood from your posts wasn't accurate. That being said, what you've understood from my posts isn't accurate either and that's probably entirely my fault for poor choices of words and phrases. Humble apologies. I think since nothing I've said is being interpretated correctly and at times I've said the wrong thing, this post should be my last. Thanks to all who've patiently stood by on the sidelines, holding their tongues, feel free to post as you wish and to continue to PM since your words of encouragement in private are still encouraging none the less!
God Bless [I mean it, no matter the opposition]
Lori |
Hey Lori, I guess I am on the Sidelines....But I got your back...*lol*
you know me never very good with words....Getting better at holding my tongue...hehe
Melissa
|
|
|
|
02/26/2004 04:06:46 PM · #186 |
Originally posted by SirBiggsALot:
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. |
Umm...ok. The way I read this is: "If we legalize homosexual marriage then the birthrate will decrease!"
Wha??
I am in the dark? Is there a huge contingent of gay people out there that are just marrying the opposite sex and breeding because they have no other options yet?
How in sam hill would allowing two persons of the same sex get married negatively impact the population? If nothing else, a certified, recognized marriage between two men or two women would make it EASIER for them to either procreate or adopt and suitably raise children abandoned by their straight parents! Can someone explain this to me? Please? |
|
|
|
02/26/2004 04:07:39 PM · #187 |
Originally posted by frisca:
Mousie, you are MY new hero. |
Great. Mousie stole the closest thing I had to a girlfriend. Now I'm practically FORCED to go all gay...
Maybe Alecia will dump the fire hydrant she's been dating and be my gal.
Message edited by author 2004-02-26 16:09:17. |
|
|
|
02/26/2004 04:14:17 PM · #188 |
Originally posted by SirBiggsALot:
The society ends up paying for workers instead of getting them for free, as with heterosexual marriages. |
Hello big brother!
So should we amend the Consititution to prevent anyone who's sterile, barren, has had their tubes tied, had a vasectomy, passed menopause, has erectile disfunction, or just *doesn't want kids* from marrying?
The economic argument is junk, not even considering that the world's *current* exponential *increase* in population growth is leading us down a path of 'growth' that us unsustainable. We can't even support our own poor *now* and I honestly think that the fewer of us there are the better. Our culture is not a Ponsi scheme, constantly requiring more and more poor saps to buy in lest it collapse. You may broadly claim that everyone disagreeing with you chooses to 'refuse' to think about the future. That doesn't mean it's true.
What about the economic cost of this battle against gay marriage (marriages which are already happening) and the hostility and division our President is wedging into our society? What about the econimic cost of social support for a newly homeless gay spouse who, on top of having their partner die, then loses everything he's worked for because his spouse's family lays legal claim to their shared assets? What about the economic cost of a stay-at-home gay parent becoming seriously ill with no health insurance provided by their spouse's employer, and who's entire medical bill becomes the either responsibility of the state or destroys that family's finances utterly, removing them from productive society? This is happening NOW, and is *exactly* why gay marriage is so important!
If marriage is an institution for pumping out babies, you have a point. I don't believe it is, and you don't need an amendment to jam your beliefs down my throat.
Hell, if it's babies you want I'll take it upon myself to bang as many needy chicks as possible, leaving a littered trail of fatherless babies in my wake, if only to crack into the heterosexual monopoly on deadbeat dads.
Any volunteers?
Message edited by author 2004-02-26 16:22:21. |
|
|
|
02/26/2004 04:17:49 PM · #189 |
| where do bisexuals fall into all this. i feel they are getting left out. |
|
|
|
02/26/2004 04:20:53 PM · #190 |
Originally posted by nborton:
where do bisexuals fall into all this. i feel they are getting left out. |
I think a bisexual, if they want to make a *commitment* to a spouse, should have every right to marry whoever they chose. I'm pretty consistent that way. Frankly, I think a gay guy should be able to marry a lesbian they love, if they want to make that commitment. It's not that I feel it would be a healthy relationship, but that's none of my business! |
|
|
|
02/26/2004 04:25:00 PM · #191 |
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...
Message edited by author 2004-02-26 16:50:31. |
|
|
|
02/26/2004 04:43:05 PM · #192 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
So should we amend the Consititution to prevent anyone who's sterile, barren, has had their tubes tied, had a vasectomy, passed menopause, has erectile disfunction, or just *doesn't want kids* from marrying? |
I guess that would be me - and to think that we held off getting married for 12 years and now I suppose our "marriage" will be null and void because we aren't planning to have kids. Oh well - I'm still pissed off about not getting some kind of marriage tax break so what do I know!
I really think people need to view the Legal aspect of a union between two people and the Religious meaning of a marriage as separate things. The State should view unions between two consenting Adults equally - Your religion and church can choose to accept(or not) them how they want.
|
|
|
|
02/26/2004 04:48:19 PM · #193 |
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 |
|
|
|
02/26/2004 04:57:12 PM · #194 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
Maybe Alecia will dump the fire hydrant she's been dating and be my gal. |
well, between you and i--i dumped the fire hydrant for commitment issues-- it seemed to have a better relationship with its dog.
so really the only thing standing between us now is this pretty awesome lamp post i met recently, even though i'm starting to think it only really likes other lamp posts. :) |
|
|
|
02/26/2004 05:07:56 PM · #195 |
Wow!
Reading this thread, one thing I'm really blown away by are all the people that seem to think they're entitled to speak for God.
"God gags at .. "
"God weeps when .. "
"It breaks God's heart .. "
Give me a break! Did you get an email from Him? Are you watching Him on closed-circuit TV? Yeah right!
Gotta hand it to you, you are some presumptuous pups to think you can speak for God!!
|
|
|
|
02/26/2004 05:12:19 PM · #196 |
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
Wow!
Reading this thread, one thing I'm really blown away by are all the people that seem to think they're entitled to speak for God.
"God gags at .. "
"God weeps when .. "
"It breaks God's heart .. "
Give me a break! Did you get an email from Him? Are you watching Him on closed-circuit TV? Yeah right!
Gotta hand it to you, you are some presumptuous pups to think you can speak for God!! |
all i would have to say is we're probably not thinking of the same God
|
|
|
|
02/26/2004 05:13:54 PM · #197 |
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 |
If marriage is dying, why do you want to stop more people from getting married? I'm sick and tired of heterosexuals blaming loving gay couples for their own problems. Whatever happened to personal responsibility? Wouldn't the solution be to reinforce people's *commitment* to marriage, not prevent people from marrying?
And frankly, why should I trust an American paper reporting on a foreign issue, let alone one that carries such an obvious slant to the right? I could throw link after link at you making the case for gay marriage, but you wouldn't be convinced by that either. What's your point?
Message edited by author 2004-02-26 17:15:01. |
|
|
|
02/26/2004 05:16:02 PM · #198 |
meaning what? you get to speak for Him? or for that matter any god? what give you the right?
does that mean i get to start doing that too when someone does something i don't agree with?
"Hey Bobby, you better give me the rest of that pie or God is gonna be pretty steamed."
"Mom, God says it's ok if I go to the concert tonite."
Give me a level break!
Originally posted by achiral:
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
Wow!
Reading this thread, one thing I'm really blown away by are all the people that seem to think they're entitled to speak for God.
"God gags at .. "
"God weeps when .. "
"It breaks God's heart .. "
Give me a break! Did you get an email from Him? Are you watching Him on closed-circuit TV? Yeah right!
Gotta hand it to you, you are some presumptuous pups to think you can speak for God!! |
all i would have to say is we're probably not thinking of the same God |
|
|
|
|
02/26/2004 05:16:46 PM · #199 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
Originally posted by frisca:
Mousie, you are MY new hero. |
Great. Mousie stole the closest thing I had to a girlfriend. Now I'm practically FORCED to go all gay...
Maybe Alecia will dump the fire hydrant she's been dating and be my gal. |
You know you're number one with me, rob!
|
|
|
|
02/26/2004 05:17:26 PM · #200 |
also, surprised you wrote that. christians believe there is only one God.
Originally posted by achiral:
all i would have to say is we're probably not thinking of the same God |
|
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 04/19/2024 05:15:53 AM  |
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: 04/19/2024 05:15:53 AM EDT.
|
