Gay marriage ban passes - Page 4
Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 73

Thread: Gay marriage ban passes

  1. #31
    Socialist Utopia Donkey Punch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    In the basement
    Posts
    314
    Jimmy Swaggart, now there's a role model. Son't get ma started on Pat Pobertson or Jimmy Bakker.
    In loving memory of my step daughter 1987-2006

    Liberty In North Korea

  2. #32
    AO Curmudgeon rcgreen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    2,716
    For much of this century, homosexuality was defined by the medical and scientific community as a psychiatric disorder. In the last several decades, however, "homosexuality" has been removed from the diagnostic manual of disorders, and research emphasis has shifted to the other side of the problem: the study of the negative, sometimes pathological, reactions to homosexuals by heterosexuals.
    That about says it all eh? Suddenly, for political reasons, they redefine homosexuality
    from being a "disorder" to being OK. At the same time, normal people are stigmatized
    if they are slow in adopting the new "acceptable" attitude. I was taught, in a American
    public school, that homo was immoral, illegal, and unnatural. It's all politics.


    60 - Your score rates you as "homophobic."
    In his 1996 study of 64 Caucasian, male college students, Dr. Henry Adams classed 35 participants as "non-homophobic." In 1980, a different research team found 56% of their white, male sample scored in the homophobic range.
    so, what else is new? BTW, I love you JP!
    I came in to the world with nothing. I still have most of it.

  3. #33
    AO Ancient: Team Leader
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    5,197
    RC: You _still_ avoiding the question..... or is it too difficult?
    Don\'t SYN us.... We\'ll SYN you.....
    \"A nation that draws too broad a difference between its scholars and its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards, and its fighting done by fools.\" - Thucydides

  4. #34
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Posts
    1,100
    Originally posted here by rcgreen
    That about says it all eh? Suddenly, for political reasons, they redefine homosexuality
    from being a "disorder" to being OK.
    Uhm, no. Science advanced, and came to the conclusion that homosexuality isn't a disorder.

    Many times in history an accepted "scientific" view has been based on political pressure stemming from religion, not the other way around. The only reason homosexuality was ever defined as a disorder in the first place, was because of religion.

    Christians use to burn people at the stake for asserting that the earth wasn't flat, or that the universe didn't revolve around the earth, and the list goes on and on. Religion impeding science. They would sooner kill people and stare the truth in the face and ignore it than admit part of their doctrine is wrong. The more time that passes, the more of the doctrine that faces extinction thanks to knowledge gained from scientific progress....

    Unlike religion, science is constantly challenging its assertions, and adapting and making changes when they find their previous conclusions weren't accurate.

  5. #35
    Many people say, well heck, why don't we just make something else for gays other than marriage, that will help to protect them? I'll tell you why that WON'T work. Because there are over 1,200 FEDERAL protections and benefits that are afforded all at once, instantaneously, the SECOND a couple gets a marriage license. This, of course, doesn't even begin to touch the additional protections and benefits that are afforded to couples at the state and local level, or within the companies that they work for. It is inconceivable, and impractical, to expect that each of these laws will be re-written for gays in any sort of "new arrangement". We as a country learned a long time ago that separate is NEVER equal. Why are some trying to go down that road again?
    JP, I'm glad you've managed to calm your flames down enough to actually give us an intelligent argument. This is the best argument I've yet heard opposing my own, and I'll hand that to you. It still leaves plenty of questions in my mind though...I'll have to give this some thought.

    What did he say? Oh, nothing very significant, simply that if any of us get too close to him, he will kill us and then tell god that he's helped to send another evil soul to hell. Of course, all of the good little Christians in the audience applauded and cheered loudly.
    That guy's a hypocritical idiot then. If you equate the "typical christian" with Jimmy Swaggart, then you're a "christophobe" as much as anyone else is a homophobe. Those freaks are not typical, they're psycho. He is openly, blatently contradicting the faith. I'm just as opposed to the Jimmy Swaggart's as you are.

    By the way, I'm sick of being called "homophobic" because I disagree. Phobia is a fear, my stance is a difference in belief. That name-calling nonsense belongs on the playground. (Statement directed at no one inparticular, just a general rant.)

    I just LOVE how the Christian Holy Rollers will use quotes from the bible that condemn gays, and ignore other quotes just a couple of lines above it that state things like disobedient children should be stoned to death, or that slavery isn't necessarily a bad thing in all instances.
    Don't you hate it when people who don't know much about homosexual life jump to conclusions and make ill-informed judgements about homosexual living? The OT never condoned slavery, but it was a historical element of the period, and the OT taught slaves how to live faithfully despite their tragic lot in life. Sadly, people write inbetween the lines to conclude this meant slavery was ok. It was NEVER ok, and you see this elsewhere, in verses that talks about treating slaves as sons and various other places. Same goes with polygamy, another common misconception. People assume polygamy was ok back then because everyone did it. No, that was just the historical context of the time, but the Bible never once condoned it, only included accounts of it in it's historical accounts. Because a "hero of the Bible" had many wives didn't mean it was ok, they were as flawed as the rest of us. Just an example of how accounting for something is misconstrued as condoning it.

    Granted, though, the OT years were harsher times, but it was a harsher world in general. Thankfully, that era is over.

    This is why I have much more respect for people like Tiger who can at least somewhat understand why I believe differently, as opposed to the secular "holier-than-thou" equivalents who deem me moron because I won't march in line like a good little sheep with the other trendy secularists.

    Of course, at the same time, I'm by no means a christian holy roller...I'm just a christian. The "holy rollers" are mostly either horribly confused, or horribly greedy. They aren't the real thing.

    Here's the deal Jesus basically came to earth and said, that old testmentt about hatred and hell fire and death is crap.
    Not crap. Just that times were changing, and a better way had come.

    Bottom line: I, personally, am opposed to homosexuality. I'll debate it without using a lick of religion too. For starters, from an evolutionist's perspective, it's swimming upstream against the grain of human evolution. Now that'd make for a great thread to discuss. However, I realize people have their valid reasons for believing otherwise, and I respect that, and try to coexist peacefully without handing down a judgement that's not mine to give. Sadly, most people seem to lack the ability to peacefully disagree on this issue.

  6. #36
    HeadShot Master N1nja Cybr1d's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    1,836
    I'm just trying to figure out how I ended up being called a Homophobic and a Racist :/.....I'm still waiting gothic....lets see some proof that I'm a homophobic and a racist.


    Yes that last argument by JP was very well written, I almost missed it because he's on my ignore list lol...thanks angelic for quoting from his post.

  7. #37
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Posts
    1,100
    Originally posted here by AngelicKnight That guy's a hypocritical idiot then. If you equate the "typical christian" with Jimmy Swaggart, then you're a "christophobe" as much as anyone else is a homophobe. Those freaks are not typical, they're psycho. [/B]
    I don't know, Jimmy Swaggart seems VERY typical of the prominent Christian leaders in society. He's exactly like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson who came out after 9-11 to announce that god is no longer protecting the US from attack because of all the gays that live here, or the Pope and the Catholic Church that was lobbying against gay rights at the exact same time they were shuffling pedophiliac priest from church to church, or Fred Phelps who held a protest rally outside of Matthew Shepard's FUNERAL after he was beaten to death for being gay. You can say that Jimmy Swaggart isn't your typical Christian, but the fact that virtual all prominent Christian leaders behave the way he does, it's hard not to assume that the MILLIONS of Christians that follow the teachings of EACH of them don't think or behave similarly.

    Christianity has been arguably the most bigoted, violent religion in the history of mankind. I think you'd be hard pressed to find a religion with more blood on its hands than the Christians. While Christians no longer hold crusades, tie people to stakes and set them on fire, or stone them to death, they're doing the modern-day equivalent with their enormous lobby groups that seek to cast out from society those they deem unholy...

  8. #38
    Agreed, there are many dark chapters in christian history. From where I'm standing, history shows these events as attacks meant to be set within the church in hopes of breaking it for good...divide and conquer from within if you will...fortunately we've survived despite those dark chapters.

    I think what you mean is that those guys are the typical tv christian...which I'm afraid I have to agree. Pat Robertson gives me the willies quite frankly. I just don't pay attention to Jerry Falwell.

    I'll put it this way: I think right now, one of the greatest enemies of true chrisitanity is religion -- Religion has its place, but sadly we have many modern-day pharisees.

  9. #39
    Socialist Utopia Donkey Punch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    In the basement
    Posts
    314
    Jerry Falwell took away my Hustler magazine
    In loving memory of my step daughter 1987-2006

    Liberty In North Korea

  10. #40
    AO Curmudgeon rcgreen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    2,716
    RC: You _still_ avoiding the question..... or is it too difficult?
    Both. I'm avoiding the question because it is too difficult.
    After all, some of the greatest philosophers have already spent a lot of effort on it. Who am I to add anything to their
    efforts.
    I came in to the world with nothing. I still have most of it.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

 Security News

     Patches

       Security Trends

         How-To

           Buying Guides