Page 18 of 20 [ 316 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20  Next

skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

10 Apr 2008, 1:18 pm

slowmutant wrote:
The admittedly extreme examples I used were just to illustrate my point.


a: i'm not griff.

b. how do extreme examples illustrate your point? all it does is to insult the topic at hand. i mean all you've done is bring up points that no one else has even thought to discuss nor are any of them especially coming to ahead anytime soon. so what i guess i'm trying to say is that it doesn't illustrate anything...it just implies* that you think of gay marriage on the same level as necrophilia, incest, and pedophilia.


*implies is the operative word here. it insults those who are pro-gay marriage (the legal issue, not church issue) and it gives the ignorant people another stupid thing to say. and yes, it is stupid because if you apply even the most basic of logic, you can see how those issues cannot be argued anywhere near the same as gay marriage.



slowmutant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Feb 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,430
Location: Ontario, Canada

10 Apr 2008, 1:25 pm

DeaconBlues wrote:
Slowmutant, no one has proposed changing any "sacraments" - if your church doesn't want to let gays marry within their sacraments, that's perfectly OK. No one is forcing Catholic priests to perform interfaith marriages, because for some, that violates their understanding of their faith, and that's OK. What's not OK is forbidding anyone from performing such a marriage because it violates one group's faith.

Marriage, as it is understood in the United States (and, I gather, most of the Western world) is a civil institution, intended both to solemnize a couple's commitment and to provide certain legal guarantees to both parties and any resulting children. As such, it is available only to those capable of legally signing a contract. Thus, no minors, no nonsentients of any species, and no nonhumans who cannot prove sentience in a court of law. Just adult humans. Removing gender discrimination from these laws does not change the requirements to sign a contract.

Now, if you'll kindly keep your religion out of my legal structure, I'll try to keep my legal structure out of your religion, as far as practicable (keeping in mind the old saw that "your right to swing your fist freely ends where my nose begins").


Amen, brother! :D

Seperation of church and state is a good thing. It is a very good thing. We do not want to confuse between between the two spheres of influence. But keeping them clean of each other is damned near impossible. When the church becomes the state, the Taliban appears.



skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

10 Apr 2008, 1:29 pm

slowmutant wrote:
But keeping them clean of each other is damned near impossible. When the church becomes the state, the Taliban appears.


well the problem is that many religious leaders fear irrelevance and so they try and force such "hot button" issues with their congregation and they encourage ignorance and they preach in vague but very emotional terms on issues that are very specific and very well defined (like gay marriage and then implying pedophilia).



slowmutant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Feb 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,430
Location: Ontario, Canada

10 Apr 2008, 1:29 pm

skafather84 wrote:
slowmutant wrote:
The admittedly extreme examples I used were just to illustrate my point.


a: i'm not griff.

b. how do extreme examples illustrate your point? all it does is to insult the topic at hand. i mean all you've done is bring up points that no one else has even thought to discuss nor are any of them especially coming to ahead anytime soon. so what i guess i'm trying to say is that it doesn't illustrate anything...it just implies* that you think of gay marriage on the same level as necrophilia, incest, and pedophilia.


*implies is the operative word here. it insults those who are pro-gay marriage (the legal issue, not church issue) and it gives the ignorant people another stupid thing to say. and yes, it is stupid because if you apply even the most basic of logic, you can see how those issues cannot be argued anywhere near the same as gay marriage.


Okay, fair enough. I'm just trying to provide some support for gays being able to marry. How many straight guys are willing to say what I'm saying? As far as rainbow supporters go, I'm a commodity. :o



slowmutant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Feb 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,430
Location: Ontario, Canada

10 Apr 2008, 1:36 pm

Quote:
well the problem is that many religious leaders fear irrelevance and so they try and force such "hot button" issues with their congregation and they encourage ignorance and they preach in vague but very emotional terms on issues that are very specific and very well defined (like gay marriage and then implying pedophilia).


Religious leaders are right to fear irrelevance. The body of believers form the basis of ecclesiastical power, and can push any issue on their clergy at any time.



snake321
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2006
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,135

10 Apr 2008, 2:11 pm

CityAsylum wrote:
snake321 wrote:
zendell wrote:

So much anger. If you lived just 200 years ago, I don't think you would have survived. Homosexual offenders were put to death, slavery was practiced in the Bible Belt, husbands were masters and ruled their wives, disobedient wives and children were beaten, criminals were punished and not coddled, abortion was illegal, evolution was banned in favor of creationism, only white males who owned property could vote, God and the Bible were taught in public schools, etc. Do you think almost everyone who lived back then was homophobic, racist, sexist, a child abuser, bigoted, hateful, intolerant, etc. You would have lived a lonely life back then if they didn't stone you to death. I think it's pretty intolerant of you to condemn the majority because they don't agree with your new age views.
I'll bet you miss those days. God forbid she doesn't sympathize for her prejudiced oppressive society's right to be social oppressors. But we're in the "land of the free", where your bible is the unquestionable law of secular society :roll: Well I recon it's about time for you to go home, chew your baccy and beat your wife Earl.... Or your slave, or whomever you've got on the plantation. You talk about how "far we've come" since the "old days", but people like you always wanna fight to have those "old days" back. You sicken me.
Dude, people need to get the f**k real, save the drama for your mommas. I may not agree with everything zendell says, but I support him/her on this one.

Zendell DOES support those days, and spends a lot of time advocating for bringing them back - and you agree with him???
Whose posts have you been reading? :?


Er, I got mixed up. I didn't mean I supported Zendell, I meant I supported the other person, the gay person/people he was attacking, possibly people like you CityAsylum (assuming you are homosexual). My bad, I made a mistake. Zendell is just a hate-ridden megalomaniac, like many sheep, who believes it is their "god-given right" to belittle and oppress others who are different from themselves.
However, this same mentality is also present on the left wing too though, just on the other extreme. "Political Correctness" is often just racism against whites, or sexism against males, etc. (chock full of unfair double standards based on things clearly out of our control today, things that happened over 200 yrs ago). I haven't witnessed any gay hate groups trying to attack heteros, but I have seen radical feminist groups that are heavy on man-hating, and black and hispanic "pride" groups that are centered on racism against whites.
I just try to call things down the middle though, I try to represent everyone equally through my perspective. "Liberal" and "conservative" labels just restrict individual thought and keeps people divided in ignorance. Liberals are biased against majorities, conservatives are biased against minorities. At the end of the day, we've all just got to get along, stop fighting one another, and work together. Let the past go, it'll only hold us back from our greater potential as a species. We need to look at the present and the future. That is my greatest hopes and aspirations for mankind, though sadly I know this will fall on def ears.



Last edited by snake321 on 10 Apr 2008, 2:24 pm, edited 4 times in total.

Aridarr
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Age: 32
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,294
Location: Over the stars...?

10 Apr 2008, 2:13 pm

If you hate gay people you are gay.


_________________
Effect of Blood Plasma from Psychotic Patients upon Performance of Trained Rats


LiendaBalla
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Oct 2007
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,736

10 Apr 2008, 2:15 pm

Thanks. I didn't write that post, however, out of picking any sides. That's the same oppinion and view point that I started with, period. And I also thanked you, Greyhound for being one of the people who had the balls to actualy reply with what the thread was meant for.



CityAsylum
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Jan 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,190
Location: New York City

10 Apr 2008, 2:21 pm

snake321 wrote:
CityAsylum wrote:
Zendell DOES support those days, and spends a lot of time advocating for bringing them back - and you agree with him???
Whose posts have you been reading? :?

Er, I got mixed up. I didn't mean I supported Zendell, I meant I supported the other person, the gay person/people he was attacking. My bad, I made a mistake.

Heh, I was wondering about that . . . :D



slowmutant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Feb 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,430
Location: Ontario, Canada

10 Apr 2008, 2:49 pm

Quote:
Er, I got mixed up. I didn't mean I supported Zendell, I meant I supported the other person, the gay person/people he was attacking, possibly people like you CityAsylum (assuming you are homosexual). My bad, I made a mistake. Zendell is just a hate-ridden megalomaniac, like many sheep, who believes it is their "god-given right" to belittle and oppress others who are different from themselves.
However, this same mentality is also present on the left wing too though, just on the other extreme. "Political Correctness" is often just racism against whites, or sexism against males, etc. (chock full of unfair double standards based on things clearly out of our control today, things that happened over 200 yrs ago). I haven't witnessed any gay hate groups trying to attack heteros, but I have seen radical feminist groups that are heavy on man-hating, and black and hispanic "pride" groups that are centered on racism against whites.
I just try to call things down the middle though, I try to represent everyone equally through my perspective. "Liberal" and "conservative" labels just restrict individual thought and keeps people divided in ignorance. Liberals are biased against majorities, conservatives are biased against minorities. At the end of the day, we've all just got to get along, stop fighting one another, and work together. Let the past go, it'll only hold us back from our greater potential as a species. We need to look at the present and the future. That is my greatest hopes and aspirations for mankind, though sadly I know this will fall on def ears.


Don't be so sure, snake. :wink:



slowmutant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Feb 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,430
Location: Ontario, Canada

10 Apr 2008, 2:58 pm

Aridarr wrote:
If you hate gay people you are gay.


Not necessarily, although it's very common.

Hatred of gays is a pretty brilliant cover for repressed homosexuality. It would not suprise me if Pastor Fred Phelps turned out to have a raging case of Gay. :lol:



Ragtime
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Nov 2006
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,927
Location: Dallas, Texas

10 Apr 2008, 3:39 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Strawmen/parodies. Very interesting. Ridiculing your opponent's side causes victory, wow.


Ya, and why was this posted in the PPR area? Is debate welcome? I'm confused. :?


_________________
Christianity is different than Judaism only in people's minds -- not in the Bible.


skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

10 Apr 2008, 3:51 pm

Ragtime wrote:
Ya, and why was this posted in the PPR area?



because it has to do with the political issue of whether homosexuals should be allowed to enter into the legal contract of marriage or not.


Ragtime wrote:
Is debate welcome?


always! unfortunately, pointing out fallacies on the con side seems to just result in circular arguments with no real reasoning behind their decision and explanation on how it affects society (afterall, we're supposed to be talking law here, not scripture).



Ragtime wrote:
I'm confused.



you've established this for us many times in many many other threads dealing with evolution, gay marriage, the middle east, and maybe some other things i've missed (or maybe not).



Apuleyo
Pileated woodpecker
Pileated woodpecker

Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 199
Location: None

10 Apr 2008, 4:04 pm

slowmutant wrote:
Apuleyo wrote:
ROFL, maybe the whole thing is a tongue-in-cheek joke!! XD!! ! Because no one is THAT naive and stupid!! XD

[joking]TOP REASONS WHY GAY MARRIAGE IS WRONG:

1-BECAUSE ALL MARRIAGES SUCK

2-MARRIED PEOPLE DON'T HAVE SEX, AND GAY PEOPLE HAVE A RIGHT TO HAVE SEX

3-MARRIED GAY PEOPLE WOULD ARGUE ALL THE TIME AND THE FASHION BUSINESS WILL SUFFER THE LOSS OF THEIR BEST MINDS

SO FOR THE SAKE OF GAY'S HAPPINESS, DON'T LET THEM MARRY. THEY WILL THANK US LATER![/joking]


Good God, are all gays this jaded? My own Ma & Pa happen to have a wonderful marriage ... since 1974. You should come to Oakville and tell them why their marriage sucks. I know for a fact that married people do indeed have sex. I was born in 1979, my sister in 1977, and my other sister in 1982. None of us were born out of wedlock. :?

. One's sexual orientataion neither negates nor guarantees a successful union.


I was joking, suggesting that nobody should impose gay people something as "horrible" as marriage.
Although I was kidding, most marriages really do suck =P


_________________
I left this site and if any mods read this please delete my posts. Thank you.


Griff
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Nov 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,312

10 Apr 2008, 4:57 pm

slowmutant wrote:
Easy, Griff! Easy.
Look, man, I'm not in a big raving fit over YOU, and I really apologize for any impression that I may have given that I was.

Okay, let me explain: I'm really freaking out over these people who are going with the "crime against nature" theory on homosexuality. That mentality is just plain WRONG, and the results of it were horrible. They ARE horrible in those countries in which this mentality is still used for forming laws regarding homosexuality. People are being persecuted and hunted down like animals in some countries because of this mentality. I don't hold you to blame for that, SM.

My issue with you is something completely different. It's not even that big a deal. Some of my BEST FRIENDS have offended me at some point in our relationship, okay? As far as YOU are concerned, I'm just irked. You're under a completely different classification of negative emotion.

Quote:
I wasn't trying to be insulting,
I know you don't MEAN to cause me to feel offended, and I know you're just going by what you believe in. I understand fully that you're not an advocate of restoring the sodomy laws. I understand fully that you don't advocate treating homosexuals the same as you would advocate treating, for example, pedophiles. I understand that fully.

Quote:
and I'm not ignorant.
Dude, I know you're not ignorant, and I know you're not crazy. You have made this clear. As long as you're neither willfully ignorant nor crazy as a fruitbat, you are AT LEAST on the PATH toward being alright with me. I see you as having the right BASIC intentions. I want to make this clear before we go any further on the gay marriage issue.

All the shouting and raving I've done on this thread is NOT directed at you, and it's not over the issue of gay marriage. It's just been me freaking out over the idea of the sodomy laws coming back or something else horrible like that. Maybe I'm just being paranoid or something. Between Parakeet going off on the Natural Law theory, though, and Zendell pulling up quotes from Leviticus and Acts, I just flipped out. I just completely flipped out. It wasn't directed at you. I really want to very much stress this.

We, me and you, have a disagreement on the gay marriage thing, but, hey, we can work it out. We can have compromises like, for example, civil union laws or something similar. I'm not fully happy with it, but that's part of what compromise is all about. I'm not even extremely worried about the gay marriage thing. Just don't even worry about it. We can work it out. Peace and compromise and all that stuff, you know?

Two different subjects. Two completely different subjects. One puts me in a state of paranoia, and the other just kinda gets me irked. The former is NOT something that can be worked out with compromise because I consider outright, baldfaced injustice as a perfectly valid premise for civil disobedience. The latter IS something that can be worked out with compromise, and I expect myself and other gays and lesbians to sort this gay marriage crap out through normal legal, social, and political channels.

You see, SM, YOUR position is something that I can handle myself rationally and maturely over. It's not something that has me waking up in cold sweats in the middle of the night. It's not something that I have traumatic nightmares over. The worst thing it's going to do is cause me to whine and be annoying, and you can bet your ass that I WILL complain about it.



slowmutant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Feb 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,430
Location: Ontario, Canada

10 Apr 2008, 5:06 pm

Okay, then ... I think.

BTW the sodomy laws are like a restrictive curfew for gays, or is it more than that?