Printable View
It was a joke.....Quote:
You can see this "homosexual" behavior on several animals. So "homosexualism" wont destroy the human race. Due to statistics (and gens supremacy), most will follow the man-female strategy.
Besides...you see homosexual behavior in dogs....but you also see those "homosexual" dogs get themselves some fine bitch. I haven't heard of any gay guys sleeping with a woman...and vice versa.
Then you are hanging out with the wrong sorts there Cybrid old chap...... ;)Quote:
I haven't heard of any gay guys sleeping with a woman...and vice versa
There are a lot of gays and "straights" for that matter that have dabbled on both sides of the fence shall we say..... In fact many went through long marriages and had children in an attempt to hide the fact they were gay because of the "nice" way they were treated by the wonderful, "accept everyone, (tax collectors, whores etc), christians that were around.... Then they just said "screw it" and came out....
then they're called Bisexuals, not homosexuals ;).
No, bisexuals chose to be bisexual.... Many homosexuals live or have lived a fake life because of the way they are treated or because they know they will not be allowed to get where they could get professionally were it known they were gay.... They are not bisexual...Quote:
then they're called Bisexuals, not homosexuals
So It would be alright for a bisexual to marry someone of the same sex.... because they aren't homosexual.... Sounds reasonable to me... ;)
Holy cow, there's way too much going on here for me to even attempt to keep up with it all! I'll hit on a couple of points that stood out to me most though:
Ok, for the first time ever, I'm going to have to pick a fight with my security idol and great hero of Active Directories everywhere, Tiger. ;)
This is simply a fundamental difference in personal philosophy Tig. Now I consider myself a devout Christian, but at the same time I'm what many would probably consider a little out of the "mainstream". That said, my personal philosophy in that regard is the exact opposite of yours, as I strive to be a people-loving individual who cares about the world beyond myself. That means if it doesn't affect me, but affects the well-being of another, then it's still of interest to me. Granted there's a fine line not to cross -- and that is pushing oneself's beliefs on another -- but I still strive to make a difference with and for other people.Quote:
If it is doing you no physical or fiscal harm. If it isn't directly detrimentally affecting your life, and doesn't hold the potential for doing any of the above in the future then it is none of your business and you should shut up, live your life and accept that to others you are just as obnoxious, disgusting, uncivilized and heathen as you think they are.
I also believe that it is important to defend the core values and morals of a nation. Sure, you're marrying your boyfriend and cancelling your baby doesn't affect me directly, but it does go against the morals and values of my country, which I am sworn to protect as any good citizen should. If you don't like it, I say go to a country that agrees with you instead of trying to change this one.
I believe that once a country begins to go into moral degradation, it starts down a path of self-destruction, epitomized by the fates of Sodom and Gomorrah, if you believe the stories to be historical.
Ultimately, my argument, however, is that if you care for other people, then "Tiger's Law" cannot be applied. Now the argument you can make from here is well, should I care about other people? Well, IMO, yes.
Now Er0k -- You probably should research your Gilgamesh claim a little more, as it's not a solid argument. I read Gilgamesh some years ago and it certainly brought up intense curiosity, so I researched the matter then. You'll find it's not as blatent an issue as you seem to think. But, that's another thread altogether.
The core values and morals of the US... what are those exactly?
It can't be the Constitution, because the Constitution would have to be amended to ban same-sex marriages... Then what it is?
It affects the well-being of 600,000 openly gay households in the US in a positive way... who is affected in a negative way? Or what is? The "core values and morals of the US"?Quote:
That means if it doesn't affect me, but affects the well-being of another, then it's still of interest to me.
Moral degradation... pffttt.... it's 50 years too late for that in the US.
Ya know Neg, I hope you're not right, but I fear you are.Quote:
it's 50 years too late for that in the US.
Yes, that's a good point you bring up about the Constitution. As an aside, since you brought that up, I am weary of amending it more as some other conservatives seem to be eager to do.
The piece of paper that is our Constitution is not by itself our only moral base though. It's a basic foundation. Other morals we hold on to have been defined through years of our culture and heritage, and like it or not, many faith-based beliefs that this country is built upon.
And those 600,000 are affecting the millions of us who still hold on to opposing fundamental values. Are we standing for what's really right or are we desperately holding on to fleeting traditional values? You have to decide that in the court of your own mind, but IMO it's the former.Quote:
It affects the well-being of 600,000 openly gay households in the US in a positive way
Fine... So you can lay out demonstrably how two gay people being married "affects the wellbeing" of anyone else in this world. Now let's stay away from "mental anguish" and other such cop outs.... They are brought on by the individuals.Quote:
That means if it doesn't affect me, but affects the well-being of another, then it's still of interest to me.
What you are saying there, (but I understand that it isn't personal), is that because I don't share your core values and morals that I have none or that mine are inferior to yours. I could point out your arrogance... but I'm too nice of a chap.... ;)Quote:
I also believe that it is important to defend the core values and morals of a nation.
Actually, I'd be quite happy if everyone took nine of the ten commandmants and actually lived by them... (We can drop the "Not worship false idols" business for the sake of diversity). I pretty much live by them meaning that I pretty much live exactly the same way as you do without the extraneous 2000 year old.... er... garbage.... ;)
Poppycock, Sir, utter poppycock.... I want them to be happy without detrimentally affecting others.... You want them to comply with your contrived sense of decency..... Who has others wellbeing in mind, me or you?Quote:
Ultimately, my argument, however, is that if you care for other people, then "Tiger's Law" cannot be applied.
BTW, as an aside.... Do you notice how much more civilized "conservative on conservative" argument is here that "liberal on conservative"..... /Troll..... <LOL>
[Edit]
Neg:
...and Belguim, France, Germany, Great Britain..... etc.... ;)Quote:
Moral degradation... pffttt.... it's 50 years too late for that in the US
[/Edit]
Negative, out of those 600,000 openly gay households, you'll notice that many of them do not agree with same sex marriage ;)...just an observation.Quote:
It affects the well-being of 600,000 openly gay households in the US in a positive way... who is affected in a negative way? Or what is? The "core values and morals of the US"?
Homosexuals are just as divided on this issue as heterosexuals are.
Personally I don't care much of what they do, as long as they don't call it Holy matrimony...to me there's nothing holy about seeing to guys getting married to each other. My opinion on this: Allow them to commit to a civil union, and give the "civil union" the same benefits of a married couple (Taxes and whatnot...whatever they're seeking). But please, lets leave the word marriage out of it and both parties will be happy.
ROFL :D....maybe we understand each other :DQuote:
BTW, as an aside.... Do you notice how much more civilized "conservative on conservative" argument is here that "liberal on conservative"..... /Troll..... <LOL>
Btw, Tiger, i'd really appreciate it if you didn't call the Bible "garbage".
Exactly! You are starting to figure it out. Weomen achieved the right to vote by changing the mindset of American males, (probably denied their husbands sex) ;) to where weomen having the right to vote became a moral acceptance. If gays achieve this level of acceptance then laws will change.Quote:
eh hem.. ever hear of ammendments? laws change,
Who said anything about demeaning or dehumanizing here? My point is that all of these acts are considered to be illegal or without legal footing in the eyes of our present laws.Quote:
and gay marriage is not the ****ing same thing as marrying a 2 year old. don't demean homosexual people like that, nor dehumanize them by comparing gay marriages to marrying an object,
Nothing is wrong with me. I am the not the one whining about not being able to play rump ranger with my live in boyfriend and call it marriage. Now that is demeaning.Quote:
wtf is wrong with you?
You can't evovle anything by muffdiving and fudge packing unless your trying to evolve a yeast infection or an irritable bowel syndrome. Male Homosexuality should be henceforth referred to as alternative pollination. And female homosexuality sould be reffered to as Pop-tart free toasting, since toasters have two female slots. (typically) And that is dehumanizing.Quote:
wake up and smell the evolution.
This type of behavior has been acceptable in some societies throughout history, however most socities only tollerate homosexuality or outright reject it. But stop and think for a minute, if it was so "acceptable" then why is it considered to be a sin today? Where are all of the Greek Homosexuals nowdays?Quote:
for another, its just our society that is against gays, period. remember the greeks - they thought a relationship between an older male and a younger male (like 20 years old and 40 or so) was a good thing.
I care, yes. I know several gay people that I find to be decent people, but I cannot condone their lifestyle. This is because I know that homosexuality is Sin, and this Sin will keep homosexuals out of heaven. I would like for everyone to make it to heaven, thus I continue to educate people on how to get there.Quote:
Who gives a **** if gay people want to get married? does it really bother you that much?
Once again, I am not the one with a problem, and I became an adult way too many years ago. I do accept people for what they are... humans. And humans make mistakes. If someone is not there to hold people accountable for their actions/mistakes (not judging...big difference there) then these people will never know the error of their ways and never achieve the afterlife.Quote:
Wtf is your problem man, grow up. its called "Excepting people for who they are." not for who you want them to be.
I disagree that homosexuality should be a civil right, because homosexuality is an abhoration in the eyes of God. But you are entitled to your opinion as I am entitled to my belief.Quote:
And if its not a civil right, it damn sure should be.
Ahh... Human rights..... Now we move this into a whole new arenaQuote:
change the tax laws or whatever before you condemn human rights.
Human Rights as defined by Merriam Webster: : rights (as freedom from unlawful imprisonment, torture, and execution) regarded as belonging fundamentally to all persons.
Human Rights as defined by Britannica: As understood today, human rights refer to a wide variety of values and capabilities reflecting the diversity of human circumstances and history. They are conceived of as universal, applying to all human beings everywhere, and as fundamental, referring to essential or basic human needs.
The vast majority of humans do not have a "basic human need" to sleep with their own sex.
Ahhhh..... But that wouldn't give the gay rights activists the opportunity to foxx with the system.... which is what their goal is.... troublemaking over discourse and detente.... :rolleyes:Quote:
But please, lets leave the word marriage out of it and both parties will be happy.
IMHO...that would bring forth the difference between Homosexuals/Gays and "Fags".Quote:
Ahhhh..... But that wouldn't give the gay rights activists the opportunity to foxx with the system.... which is what their goal is.... troublemaking over discourse and detente....
Ever listen to Chris Rock ;)...don't agree with him much but he does make some really good points...sometimes.
i dont want to go back and argue anything else because ive made my points, but i do want to say something about this:
yes, you are entitled to your opinion. But should our country be ran by a few men's and women's opinions on god? Hrm..Quote:
And if its not a civil right, it damn sure should be.
I disagree that homosexuality should be a civil right, because homosexuality is an abhoration in the eyes of God. But you are entitled to your opinion as I am entitled to my belief.
i understand the whole "freedom of religion not freedom from religion," thingy. but why isn't it freedom from religion? We should not have a predomintantly muslim, buddhist, christian, jewish, etc executive, legislative, or judicial branch of government. If Bush is going to advocate something, or preach against it, at least don't ****ing say "well jesus told me to so im going to."
How uncomfortable does that make a great percentage of the world? The US president basing his policy on what he learned in sunday school. I don't care if its kerry, bush, nader, sharpton, whoever. its bullshit, and i intend to help stop it.
Why not call it marriage? The word "marriage" is not something exclusive to religion as far as I know.
"Holy matrimony", now that's something else. That's a religious term, and is reserved for religious weddings. They're not looking for religious weddings, are they?
But if the word marriage really is the point: make up a new word for it, vote for it, and get it over with.
Heh heh...right on! ;)Quote:
Do you notice how much more civilized "conservative on conservative" argument is here that "liberal on conservative"
Ok, I'll respond to this:
with this:Quote:
So you can lay out demonstrably how two gay people being married "affects the wellbeing" of anyone else in this world.
I'm inclined to agree with Cyb. If they make it their own thing, then my trying to do anything more on that would be me unfairly subjecting my values on them. It's legally applying a religious term to it that I have issue with. Fine, let them have their union, just keep the religious institution of marriage out of it. Isn't this where liberals usually scream "seperation of church and state"?Quote:
I don't care much of what they do, as long as they don't call it Holy matrimony
Eh...That would be a rather difficult claim to make on my part at best. I'm just pointing out that the difference in belief is on a very fundamental level.Quote:
is that because I don't share your core values and morals that I have none or that mine are inferior to yours.
Touche, I'll give ya that one. I didn't see that in my initial reading of your viewpoint. Outside of legal matters though, on a personal level, I try to go beyond that and try and influence people not to detrimentally effect themselves either. Remember that those of my faith are taught to "love people" -- something many of use sadly fail to do and is lost under layers of religious zealotry.Quote:
I want them to be happy without detrimentally affecting others
From the perspective of the outsider -- yes. From my perspective -- no, as it's not contrived in the first place. So, depends on who's eyes you're behind.Quote:
You want them to comply with your contrived sense of decency
Then where did it come from?Quote:
The word "marriage" is not something exclusive to religion as far as I know.
The word itself? Who knows... wasn't invented by whoever wrote the Bible, that's for sure :pQuote:
Then where did it come from?
Latin maritare, meaning "to marry, to wed"... before that? Who knows... Sanskrit probably... before that... who knows...
Hmm...You're starting to step off onto ground that I've been curious about for some while...
Marriage has been a religious ceremony for as long as we know it, adopted as a legally binding union by government. It's hard to deny marriage is religiously rooted, I think.
But this brings up a question, and hopefully I can pose this without going too far off-topic -- If you don't adhere to any sort of faith, and thus no concept of one soulmate, what point is there to marriage? Isn't it just a pointless rule to force your loyalty to one person? Why one partner? Why not lots of partners? That's always puzzled me a bit...
Just curious pondering on that latter thought.
I respect your opinion EROK, and you make a good point. I look at it this way. Our laws are based upon Christianity, and I do not see how the implementation of these laws, based upon Christianity, are detremental to our Great Nation.Quote:
yes, you are entitled to your opinion. But should our country be ran by a few men's and women's opinions on god?
Christianity has never been about feeling comfortable when you are living in Sin. I could easily sink into Yoga, Killing Infidels, become a Porn star, or child molester and probably convince myself that everything is good. That is until I hear someone talking about how my lifestyle is sinful, then I start to feel uncomfortable. I chalk this up to God trying to impress upon these people that their lifestyle is wrong and that they are feeling uncomfortable for a reason.Quote:
How uncomfortable does that make a great percentage of the world? The US president basing his policy on what he learned in sunday school.
When I fail in the eyes of God, I feel uncomfortable too.
I've been in this debate a few times before, and so far I see that it all boils down to this:
A) You believe in God, and are against homosexuality, or
B) You do not believe in God, and are fine with it.
A) Thinks A is right, and
B) Thinks A is wrong.
Any arguments we throw out are thus based on A or B.
So, we're at a gridlock of opinion, and the only further you can go with it is to open a dialogue into apologetics, which doesn't apply here.
I have a "Marriage License", to "solemnize the Rites of Matrimony". Nothing religious about it: the ceremony was performed by a judge. The thing seems to be though that the "value" of the document is the same as the value of a marriage license issued by a "Christian minister/priest, Jewish Rabbi, a person who is an officer of a religious organization,..." (as it says on the document)..
And that's the entire problem, imo... most countries differentiate between the two: you marry for the church, you marry for the law, or you do both of them. A marriage for the church has no "legal" value in most countries (at least the ones who differentiate between church and state), and vice versa (simple example: divorced people aren't allowed to remarry for the Roman Catholic church - because it's a sin, I guess :rolleyes: - meaning that without separation of church and state, they would never be able anymore to get the same rights as "first-married people". The state does allow it, solving that problem.)
And faith comes in many forms... not all people withot "faith" are immoral... I don't need a higher power to tell me that I found my soulmate ;)
Just curious. Thanks for the insight.Quote:
And faith comes in many forms... not all people withot "faith" are immoral... I don't need a higher power to tell me that I found my soulmate
Well I think you're on to something. And this more or less goes with my point: separation of church in state does not go as far as it does in the other countries you're talking about. Therefore, we have to continue to look at marriage through at least a somewhat religious filter.
Some would say this is a problem. Others would argue it's a strength.
I for one admire that we still have "freedom of religion" in this country without forcing "freedom from religion".
Aw, c'mon Angelic.... You avoided the question.... You sound like a liberal.... ;)Quote:
with this:
I repeat the question:-
You're argument stands on "territory".... "It's our word and we won't let you have it".... Should we throw in some foot-stamping there to give it emphasis? Show me a positive _detrimental_ affect it would have on anyone.... Please.....Quote:
So you can lay out demonstrably how two gay people being married "affects the wellbeing" of anyone else in this world. Now let's stay away from "mental anguish" and other such cop outs.... They are brought on by the individuals.
But yours are still better is what you seem to be saying.... I fully understand that your beliefs are deeply rooted.... What you could do is understand that yourself and do what you said in your earlier post and not try to "impose them on others". While you may think you aren't, in a very subtle way, you are and you agree with that.... As long as the status quo remains in your favor you are imposing your beliefs on me..... It's a fact of life I live with.... When that changesQuote:
I'm just pointing out that the difference in belief is on a very fundamental level.
you will be the "activist" or the "unconventional".
Ok... You got me on this one.... How are two people finding happiness to the detriment of none detrimentally affecting themselves???? That's illogical Captain.... ;) There are enough unhappy people in the world and you, through your religious belief, want to make a few more unhappy by denying them a peice of paper.... Gee... That's... er.... "christian"......Quote:
I try to go beyond that and try and influence people not to detrimentally effect themselves either.
It's contrived by human beings 2000 years ago, let's be honest about that..... While I have no problem with you believing it you need to step aside and understand that anything that humans write about any supreme being is "contrived" by the humans themselves.... maybe "contrived" isn't the appropriate word.... But I can't think of a better one... ok...Quote:
no, as it's not contrived in the first place.
[Edit]
You might need a higher power to protect her from me though.... ;)Quote:
I don't need a higher power to tell me that I found my soulmate
[/Edit]
Sorry, it's just I'm used to being fed liberal idealogy on a daily basis and all...I guess they subconsciously rubbed off on me! ;)Quote:
Aw, c'mon Angelic.... You avoided the question.... You sound like a liberal....
I'll take a better go at it then:
Heh heh...Don't tempt me! :DQuote:
Should we throw in some foot-stamping there to give it emphasis?
Either you meant negative detrimental affect or I'm really confused...I'll assume the former. Well, I have to be careful what I say here or I'll blur the lines of my own stance -- Legally, beyond not letting them "take our word" *foot stomp*, I don't see anything that should be done about it. Let them do as they please, as it's a free country. However, on a personal level, I feel the responsibility to say "Hey, I don't think this is right and here's why" if given the chance to say something. That's because, by my belief, that lifestyle is, on a spiritual level, self-harming. If I can have any hope of influencing them to a better lifestyle (at the risk of sounding arrogant), then that's what I want to do, out of simple concern for my fellow man.Quote:
Show me a positive _detrimental_ affect it would have on anyone
Of course, if you don't believe what I do, then from your perspective, I'm being quite an idiot. ;)
They can have a piece of paper if they must, just call it something other than marriage. What's so wrong with a civil union or some other term?Quote:
denying them a peice of paper
Ok, I'll bend on that one. Let's say "contrived" to you, "inspired" to me then. My belief is those men were the physical mouths of another higher source, so saying it's contrived by man falls a little short, but I see what you're getting at.Quote:
maybe "contrived" isn't the appropriate word.... But I can't think of a better one
I meant "positive" insofar as there should be an actual detriment. A negative "detriment" is actually a 'positive thing"..... Kinda like maths....
[RANT] Yes, I'm English... It's called friggin' Math_s_... It's short for mathematic_s_!!! Get it.... I hate you Yanks calling it "Math".... There's only one of them????? [RANT OVER ;)]
Then let them get "married"... How hard is that? We're back to the "territory" thing aren't we?Quote:
Let them do as they please, as it's a free country.
No you're not.... You are simply taking a position that I find utterly unacceptable at best and utterly illogical at worst.... But it's your belief, you are entitled to it, it's none of my business and you shouldn't, in any way, try to impose it on me be it by trying to "convert me". More importantly you shouldn't apply laws that make me comply with you vision of "right". Is that too difficult for you to live with? If it is then you are letting your religion "blinker" you to the reality of humanity.... Sit back... Think for a few minutes..... Then respond...Quote:
I'm being quite an idiot.
We're all human beings..... We see things different ways... Let people live without being a busybody that has to impose their vision of reality on the rest of us....
It would be appreciated by everyone.... really
[taunt]MATH MATH MATH MATH MATH MATH!!![/taunt]
Sorry...couldn't help it... :D
I'm about to be Internetless in a few minutes, so I'll have to respond somewhat quickly...
Yep. It's my right to protect it, darn it! ;) *stomps foot*Quote:
We're back to the "territory" thing aren't we?
I agree with you on that one, to an extent anyway. However, it opens up a whole other can of discussion:Quote:
More importantly you shouldn't apply laws that make me comply with you vision of "right".
How can any law be passed? Every law is based upon a concept of right and wrong, and any concept of right and wrong can differ from vision to vision.
And so we're off into a discussion of moral objectivity vs. moral relativism...another thread altogether...
Anyway, bottom line is I try to suggest and not impose -- while at the same time protecting "the other side" from imposing itself on me. No easy task.
There is logic behind my belief -- well, mine anyway -- I'll hand you that some believe without the use of logic. But there is logic to be had, just not necessarily easy to be found.
I only read threw page four before I couldn’t keep quite and longer so forgive me if im digressing here (on whatever page this happens to land on)
For the European misunderstanding of the gay marriage issue:
The majority of the people in this country are not opposed to gay unions allowing all the same rights as any other couple. Bush is not opposed to gay unions but most of us including our president are opposed to calling these unions a marriage. The real issue here IMO is that judges can make their personal beliefs into law and allow these marriages without regard to the will of the people, as in the state of California where the issue had been voted upon in the past but over ridden by a judge. I would call this governing without the consent of the governed.
MURACU, you brought up the issue of taxes, now if two men were to marry they would be entitled to a tax break. A tax break meant to ease the burden on families raising children. Its still true that men as a rule make more money than woman, so you have a couple bring in two male salaries getting a tax break just because they got married. Is that fair? The tax structure would have to be changed so two married females would get a tax break because of low wages caused by social injustice and males that marry would have to pay more in taxes for the same reason. Then comes the controversy between the states that allow same sex marriages and those that do not. Is all this really necessary when a civil union would fill the bill?
Tigershark, in regard to your abortion being none of your business statement, if you saw a kid had tied two cats together by their tails and was about to throw them over a cloths line or you saw a man beating a young girl in the street unmercifully, would you do nothing? I see doctors allowed to drive stakes threw partially born human children’s heads because someone has had second thoughts about giving birth or is pissed off at her husband or boyfriend. It’s my duty to at least voice an objection.
Now if like zorba the greek I made pottery for a living and decided my pinkies were an inconvenience what can I do about it. If I cut them off id be arrested for harming myself while every doctor around would refuse to amputate because they’d loose their license for performing unnecessary surgery. If I brought it before a judge s/he’d tell me to deal with it. yet ending a pregnancy, even in the late stages is done without giving a second thought. Isn’t abortion surgery? Isn’t an entire human life as important as a pinky? Some say a fetus is not a life. I say it is and I vote.
Where does it say we must make our laws around scientific reasoning?
I don’t believe ‘all’ abortion should be made illegal. Certainly partial birth abortion should be banned unless the woman’s health is at risk. I don’t think having an abortion in general should be approached with such a serendipitous frame of mind, where a woman can end a pregnancy (to me, a life) even if her husband objects saying that the man has nothing to do with it. (I say he does and I vote.) What would be the harm in demanding a woman talk to a councilor first or get a “prescription” from a doctor. The objection to this at the time of the passing of the abortion anarchy (it certainly doesn’t resemble law) was almost all of the councilors and doctors were male, but that’s not true anymore. This is my society as much as it is everyone else’s, and I think abortion as a form of planned parenthood is not acceptable. If I didn’t object to it I would be condoning it, so therefore that makes it my business for I have a moral responsibility to myself. If society disagrees than so be it. At least ive done what is right for me and isn’t that what it’s all about.
Tedob Actually they wouldnt be entitled to a tax break. They are taxed the same as a married hetro couple without kids so the tax system doesnt need to be modified. That may be good or bad for the couple.
The civil union idea is exactly what the PACs is. It allows gay couples to have the same legal security in a union as a hetro couple. The proof that it works is as I said that gay and hetro couples use it.
negative
The problem is the RC Church does not reconise a civil divorce. As such unless you get an annulment of your marriage from the church you are still married in the eyes of the church and as the catholic church isnt big into bigamie you cant get remarried. :DQuote:
divorced people aren't allowed to remarry for the Roman Catholic church - because it's a sin, I guess
If this is the case I fully agree.Quote:
The majority of the people in this country are not opposed to gay unions allowing all the same rights as any other couple. Bush is not opposed to gay unions but most of us including our president are opposed to calling these unions a marriage.
Interesting side note.
In my hometown in the netherlands (gay-marriage is legal over here) a governmental clerk got fired because she refused to 'marry' a gay couple. She got fired, took it to court and got reinstated.
Link (in dutch)
I thought Conservative means "tending to oppose change.".. Guess my dictionary is wrong..Quote:
AngelicKnight stated:
I am weary of amending it more as some other conservatives seem to be eager to do.
And we've all seen what fundamentalism leads to..Quote:
And those 600,000 are affecting the millions of us who still hold on to opposing fundamental values.
(or is their fundamentalism for some reason wrong and yours right??)
Now let's not call it a marriage, but a nerriage.. I mean, realy, what's the difference..Quote:
Tedob1 stated:
.. but most of us including our president are opposed to calling these unions a marriage.
Ow no, don't call it a marriage.. It never seizes to amaze me how people can fall over a word..
It's not just a word Jinx, it's an entire concept, something that once used to be considered "sacred".
"Sacred" is as good as a four-letter word in the eyes of many today though, as is "fundamental".
So yes, some fundamental concepts are good (what I'm talking about) and others are bad (psycho-fundamentalist terrorists, for example). I know libs don't like to hear that, but such is where I stand anyway.
Conservative means to conserve, not to resist change. ;) To resist change in general is idiotic. But to conserve, preserve, protect the base of who we are -- that's what conservativism is for me.
How many people fall for "I love you"? :DQuote:
It never seizes to amaze me how people can fall over a word..
Angelic:
It's actually not that difficult. There are "universal or societal wrongs", (murder, theft, screwing the neighbors wife etc.), that do not contribute to an ordered society insofar as they have a tendency to promote escalation/retaliation and the eventual breakdown of the society.Quote:
How can any law be passed? Every law is based upon a concept of right and wrong, and any concept of right and wrong can differ from vision to vision.
Then there are the "theistic wrongs", (eating pork is bad, homosexuality is wrong), which, while they may have served a purpose at some time in the specific theism of the society that created them they are, after all, a belief based in the theism rather than something that has relevance to the order of society, (I think you can see what I mean.... because I _think_ I can...;))
In a monoculture it may be valid to pass laws that are both universal and theistic but for a culture that prides itself on diversity and freedom of religion the theistic laws, be they of a majority or not, should not be, (in a truly diverse and intellectually honest society), considered.
What you are saying is "I'm all for diversity, I'm all for loving and helping all people - but only if they live the way I see fit... All men are born equal but I'm more equal, so there". That doesn't reflect a desire for diversity nor for loving and helping all people. Rather, it depicts someone paying lip service to those qualities which, I'm afraid I do find all too common.
Knowing that Bill and Fred across town are "married" should be no different to knowing that Bill and Fred kiss and make out at night and the difference in no way changes who _you_ are. In 2000 years christianity has summarily failed to stamp out homosexuality. In fact, they can't even manage to do it within their own ranks in the same period. So, for 2000 years christians have lived daily beside homosexuals. You continue to do so today whether you like it or not. So nothing has changed about you or your religion - it has been conserved as it has been for 2000 years. You accept the "sin" of homosexuality as you always have... Are you now trying to punish them for it by withholding "privilege" because you can't eradicate them?.... Hmm, are we back to the "stamping of feet" again? ;)Quote:
But to conserve, preserve, protect the base of who we are
OTOH, I can see your point of view.... I think the activists are simply messing around because they like to stir the pot.... They should grow up but I have a distinct feeling that, like some of my kind, (athiests), they would like to see the eradication of all forms of religion.... Which probably has a lot to do with their own insecurity in their belief system. But that's a whole other story.....
Hmm...Let's take a closer look at that --
Murder, theft -- ok, hard to debate. But how about that last one? You know, if there's no sacred union, who are you to say I can't screw my neighbor's wife? I mean, I'm happy, she's happy, doesn't actually do any harm to the husband. Makes him mad, sure, but lots of things make people mad. So why is that objectively wrong? Following the train of thought here, I didn't hurt you, hubby and I can have it out between ourselves, so how about you leaving me alone to screw as I please?Quote:
murder, theft, screwing the neighbors wife etc.
You see where I'm going on this? There has to be a line drawn. Ok, government marriage isn't sacred then, so why are we stopping with homosexual marraige? Why can't I marry a cow (no ex-wife comments ;))? What if I love my dog? Sure, the thought makes me sick too, but someone out there thinks it's ok. Why can't I marry more than one wife? That's a theistic value, Tig, so c'mon, let's not stop with homosexuals. If we're going to open up this concept of marriage, then let's open it up. If we're going to be fair, let's be fair to everyone. Then we can sit back and watch the moral bottom fall out of the country.
Hmm, now who's talking liberal now? That's a very lib concept, one that tries to rewrite history a little ever-so-subtly. But truth is, there has always been some theism in US government. Did we not come here as Protestants seeking freedom from the Catholic tyranny at the time? The freedom of religion was that you can have a different religion than mine and practice it freely, but it did not mean that our fine government was devoid of such theistic values. After all, "In God We Trust". In other words, the government is built off this, but you have the freedom not to believe in that God yourself. We won't bother you about it. No state religion. Libs have warped this to mean that government should be devoid of all theism...and that simply wasn't the original case.Quote:
for a culture that prides itself on diversity and freedom of religion the theistic laws, be they of a majority or not, should not be
"Separation of church and state" therefore means that one may not govern the other, it does not mean that one is devoid of the other altogether. Of course, the Anti Civil Liberties Union reads a different history book evidently.
Very true.Quote:
You continue to do so today whether you like it or not.
Doth mine eyes deceive me? Do I detect some spin? I don't remember saying that...I love them regardless of how they live -- I'll suggest there's a better way to them, but I won't force it on them, they do as they may. Just keep our sacred concept from being changed by Uncle Sam. *stomp* My desire for deversity does not mean I'm open to anything. Again, that's a liberal argument.Quote:
I'm all for diversity, I'm all for loving and helping all people - but only if they live the way I see fit
I will give you one thing Tig, and you can have all sorts of fun quoting me on this one. I do think I'm right, and that all the other viewpoints are wrong. Else, i wouldn't hold to this one.
Let's see how many people I stir up with that one. ;)
But, don't get me wrong, I do see where you're coming from, and you have some very valid points to throw out there. Indeed, that'd keep any self-respecting debater well on his toes. You do make a hard case to break in your own right.
Angelic: You do understand that I am playing a part here that is somewhere between Devils Advocate and "I'm an Athiest, proud of it and you shouldn't be imposing your morals on me"... Just so you know.... You've throw that nasty "liberal" word at me a couple of times and I'm tempted to break one of the ten commandments.... The one about killing people.... ;)
In the real world it's followed by him coming and kicking your ass... at which point your bothers go and give him such a good kicking that he dies......Quote:
Makes him mad, sure, but lots of things make people mad.
Thus I had stated in my previous post:-
There are many countries in the world where marriage is "committed" either in a theistic fashion or in a secular fashion such as a Registry Office in Great Britain. There is no mention of a god in the Registry office "ceremony" as far as I can recall and there doesn't have to be if you don't want there to be. The point here is that you screwing with my "wife", S.O., girfriend, woman that I married in a civil ceremony may promote or escalate and therefore should be something that carries some protection..... Otherwise the society begins to break down because the moral core of the society is eroded... sound familiar?Quote:
that do not contribute to an ordered society insofar as they have a tendency to promote escalation/retaliation and the eventual breakdown of the society.
*COUGH* There is at least one judeo-christian religion that thinks this is perfectly ok. There are many other religions in the world that thinks this is fine too..... So how do you know you are right? [Poke fun] Is it because "your theism is better than theirs" [/poke fun]Quote:
Why can't I marry more than one wife?
As to marrying animals..... Feel free..... Have a good time..... Just don't beat on them when they don't have your dinner on the table when you get home or crap the bed while you are sleeping in it..... Have at it my old fruit, have at it..... ;)
Actually it's a _very_ freedom oriented statement/concept. It equates to "live and let live".Quote:
That's a very lib concept, one that tries to rewrite history a little ever-so-subtly
I can't disagree that there is theism in every government. My argument was that the laws that emanate from a single theism in a country of many theistic beliefs is a little "out of place" when "freedom" is the very cornerstone of the country's philosophy. You see, whenever you impose the theistic beliefs of your group on all the other groups with a different theism you _are_ restricting their freedom, there's no avoiding that.
I fully understand the concept of "Separation of Church and State" and I fully understand that it doesn't have anything to do with freedom from religion. It would be, IMO, an utter tragedy for the country if, all of a sudden, everyone's religions just disappeared..... Why, because, IMO, their belief in a god is the only set of rules that keeps the vast majority anywhere close to being on a moral track. Without that I would be carrying my friend Mr. Browning _everywhere_ I went. Conversely, if you took the subset of the population that can actually determine an acceptable, (societally), moral track without the "guidance" of a supreme being, (which isn't that small of a subset), and removed the rest then we wouldn't need theistic laws anyway.
Errr.... What's a constitutional amendment to prevent gays marrying? It's forcing it on them!Quote:
I'll suggest there's a better way to them, but I won't force it on them, they do as they may.
But Angelic, the difference between you and me is you "think" you are right.... I _know_ I am.... :pQuote:
I do think I'm right, and that all the other viewpoints are wrong.
Oh yeah?! Well, all I gotta say to that is...not in the face!! *ducks*Quote:
You've throw that nasty "liberal" word at me a couple of times and I'm tempted to break one of the ten commandments.... The one about killing people....
I must concede that's not too shabby a defense of your point there. But, if there is no sacred element of mariage, I would have to question why it's a at the moral core of society. Shouldn't we seek, in our growing enlightenment, to remove it? Wouldn't we be happier if we could "screw whoever we pleased to" without it leading to moral erosion? This doesn't seem to be a moral that should have such an effect in a secular world, to me anyway.Quote:
The point here is that you screwing with my "wife", S.O., girfriend, woman that I married in a civil ceremony may promote or escalate and therefore should be something that carries some protection..... Otherwise the society begins to break down because the moral core of the society is eroded... sound familiar?
But I think you dodged my point --
But should we not bend our laws further to allow for it then? Especially multiple wives. If I can marry a dude, why can't I marry two dudettes? I know that would make the day of quite a few AOers. ;)Quote:
As to marrying animals..... Feel free..... Have a good time..... Just don't beat on them when they don't have your dinner on the table when you get home or crap the bed while you are sleeping in it..... Have at it my old fruit, have at it.....
Hey, you're catchin' on. ;)Quote:
Is it because "your theism is better than theirs"
If it's that horrible, then they should pick a country to live in more suiting to their desires. They have the freedom to leave. It might not be your philosophy, but it's the current philosophy of the U.S. of A., so that's what we go by until the people change it otherwise. I'm just tired of "freedom" equating "change the country to make every frickin' person perfectly content".Quote:
You see, whenever you impose the theistic beliefs of your group on all the other groups with a different theism you _are_ restricting their freedom, there's no avoiding that.
See, I think this is the underlying problem. Freedom for all yes, bu that doesn't mean everyone fits in nice with everyone else. I say if you don't like it, go find a better country. There's lots of them out there ya know.
If nothing else, it would certainly prove to be a fascinating scenario to watch.Quote:
Conversely, if you took the subset of the population that can actually determine an acceptable, (societally), moral track without the "guidance" of a supreme being, (which isn't that small of a subset), and removed the rest then we wouldn't need theistic laws anyway.
All things in perspective, my friend. First of all, I'm not for a constiutional amendment. I think that's overkill and I fear it opens the door to start amending the basis of our government rather trivially -- which would open the door for all sorts of possibilities with our liberal friends.Quote:
What's a constitutional amendment to prevent gays marrying? It's forcing it on them!
Prevent gays from marrying, allow civil unions, or whatever the heck you wanna call it. Sounds more compromising than forceful to me. What? Wait? Compromise? No...Let them friggin' have their way, all the way!
See what I mean? I'm willing to make some concessions here and there, but I don't see the same notion from the other side. "What? Compromise with you, you psycho right-wing religious fanatic?" Why do they have to call it marriage? Hmm? Would it not, I'll dare say, even help "gay pride" for them to have something that's solely theirs? Sounds like an "everbody wins" scenario to me. We keep our marriage, they get to play house, everyone's happy.
Hey...no fair...that's my line! ;)Quote:
But Angelic, the difference between you and me is you "think" you are right.... I _know_ I am...
[edit]Tig, I think we scared everyone else off this thread with our back-and-forth antics. [/edit]
I wouldnt get a tax break though :(Quote:
As to marrying animals..... Feel free..... Have a good time..... Just don't beat on them when they don't have your dinner on the table when you get home or crap the bed while you are sleeping in it..... Have at it my old fruit, have at it.....
AFAIK 196 countries.Quote:
There's lots of them out there ya know.
I was curious about what the Islamic faith had to say about this, and so I found the following:
Hmmmm..... at least under Christianity you still have a chance to be forgiven.Quote:
Book 38, Number 4447: Narrated Abdullah ibn Abbas: The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: If you find anyone doing as Lot's people did, kill the one who does it, and the one to whom it is done.
Book 38, Number 4448: Narrated Abdullah ibn Abbas: If a man who is not married is seized committing sodomy, he will be stoned to death.
Book 38, Number 4449: Narrated Abdullah ibn Abbas: The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: If anyone has sexual intercourse with an animal, kill him and kill it along with him. I (Ikrimah) said: I asked him (Ibn Abbas): What offence can be attributed to the animal/ He replied: I think he (the Prophet) disapproved of its flesh being eaten when such a thing had been done to it.
And you thought we were bad. ;)
That would require a higher level of society than humanity can achieve at present.... You see, no matter how superior we like to think we are we still operate to a great extent on our animal instincts..... Overlaid, of course, with a healthy dose of our theism that shaped our society when it was _really_ needed. As we advance we will, hopefully, find that our reliance on a supreme being as the giver of our moral core will wither and we will be left with a self-sufficient society that has a self determined moral core that is no less strong than the one you believe your theism gives you. I, for one, am not holding my breath.... ;)Quote:
Wouldn't we be happier if we could "screw whoever we pleased to" without it leading to moral erosion?
No dodging required, it's just kinda hard to type a full discussion of the issues and concentrate on work issues at the same time.....Quote:
But I think you dodged my point --
I dunno.... That's the usual argument of the intolerant..... I guess tolerance only extends as far as those being tolerated don't request anything from you or your response is "GTF outta here".... Is that the "I love them all" thing again? Do you see the little "inconsistencies" in your attitudes... I do... They change very quickly when you are questioned.... No problem, it's a defensive reaction based in your animal instincts and over-riding your theistic belief... It's absolutely normal.... [casting line with _huge_ bait..... Ask me about being able to speak the language of the country you live in..... ;) ]Quote:
If it's that horrible, then they should pick a country to live in more suiting to their desires.
I really don't care what you call it when you allow gays to marry.... The whole point is that two people who want to be together for life should be given the same rights under the law as any other two.... period.... By not doing it you are eventually going to cause other social problems that we all end up paying for. What you call it is irrelevant.... call it woghumphdemuff for all I care.... What I do see at the moment is an awful lot of people trying to deny a group the basic rights that they have on the grounds of a non-threatening theistic transgression.... That's BS...
Yeah.... I could also make the point that by not killing them christains are torturing them by keeping them alive and denying them their freedom/pleasure fo rthe rest of their life by trying to brainwash them out of the behaviour..... Yeah... that's nice....Quote:
Hmmmm..... at least under Christianity you still have a chance to be forgiven.
Point of note: Is it just me that has noticed that when level minded conservatives are arguing these points none of the screaming liberals have chosen to throw their usual 2c into the ring....
Oooh, I'm biting my lip on this one, as if we venture into this we'll go way off topic. But, I will say in short, this show's a critical flaw in evolution theory and nature, IMO.Quote:
Overlaid, of course, with a healthy dose of our theism that shaped our society when it was _really_ needed.
Yeah, just be glad you're day isn't being spent hour after hour copying and pasting database entries...*stabs self*Quote:
No dodging required, it's just kinda hard to type a full discussion of the issues and concentrate on work issues at the same time.....
Inconsistencies or balance? I'm not so tolerant that I can be bent on anything. There is a line drawn, and I will stand my ground if someone tries to push me over that line. Tolerance does not mean "anything goes". Also note the love is still there. You can love and still be opposed, though many seem to lack the dynamics to follow such logic.Quote:
Do you see the little "inconsistencies" in your attitudes...
Please note I'm not taking a "holier-than-thou" attitude though. I'm as screwed up as the rest of you guys. ;)
Actually, I'd rather have that discussion with SBC tech support...Quote:
Ask me about being able to speak the language of the country you live in.
Hmm...starting to go in circles. My answer this refers back to my previous post:Quote:
What I do see at the moment is an awful lot of people trying to deny a group the basic rights that they have on the grounds of a non-threatening theistic transgression.... That's BS...
Again, why can't we compromise instead of let them completely have it their way? Is it that I'm the only one who's actually willing to bend a little here?Quote:
Why do they have to call it marriage? Hmm? Would it not, I'll dare say, even help "gay pride" for them to have something that's solely theirs? Sounds like an "everbody wins" scenario to me. We keep our marriage, they get to play house, everyone's happy.
Now c'mon...don't you think that's a little overdramatic? Torturing? Brainwashing? All we're missing are the black helicopters...Quote:
I could also make the point that by not killing them christains are torturing them by keeping them alive and denying them their freedom/pleasure fo rthe rest of their life by trying to brainwash them out of the behaviour
Well I'm sure there's a level-minded liberal...out there...somewhere...maybe... ;)Quote:
Is it just me that has noticed that when level minded conservatives are arguing these points none of the screaming liberals have chosen to throw their usual 2c into the ring....