| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/15/2005 06:05:10 PM · #801 |
Originally posted by RonB:
I STILL contend that all of them are engaging in immoral behaviour, and I absolutely disapprove of it. |
OK, then let me ask you this... what is the correct moral behavior for someone born transsexual? Are you suggesting that this creation of God can never be married because it would be an affront to God?
This oughtta' be good... |
|
|
|
11/15/2005 06:05:47 PM · #802 |
Will this thread go on for ever?
Anyway, you might have not heard of it but Ricky Gervais, the guy who created "the office" has also done some stand-ups in the UK and in his "animals" show he gives his take on the evolution/creation debate, and it was about the most funny (and true) stuff I've ever heard... I don't know if you're aware of it in the US, but if you're a fan of the office you should try to order it from the UK, it's well worth it!
Thierry |
|
|
|
11/15/2005 06:10:51 PM · #803 |
EDIT...
Message edited by author 2005-11-15 18:18:03. |
|
|
|
11/15/2005 06:16:34 PM · #804 |
Will all due respect, here are some things that I consider moral desensitizers: Much of what's on television, Strip Clubs, lots of Rap, Country & Pop Music, Paris Hilton, Pornography...etc. Relatively speaking, these socially accepted cultural icons are more dangerous to our nation's moral fiber than two people who love each other forming a personal union. [/quote]
Hit the nail on the head and smashed it! |
|
|
|
11/15/2005 06:22:28 PM · #805 |
Jimmy
I hope you have gained a great deal of pleasure from the amount of support for the legalisation of gay marriage in this thread. It's good to see how many people are open to all humanity and their "rights". If this forum is representative of the population as a whole, the numbers are on the right side!
Personally I hope you will find happiness with a partner who loves you and that the future will be bright! If you read the thread on dating you will see it's not just the homosexual sector who have trouble finding the right person!
P
|
|
|
|
11/15/2005 06:31:31 PM · #806 |
Originally posted by Riponlady:
Originally posted by RonB:
Why do you insist on jumping to conclusions, Ray? Do you think that it logically follows that one cannot "hate the sin" but "love the sinner"?
As it so happens, I have a sister-in-law who is a lesbian, living in a committed relationship with her partner.
AND I have an unmarried daughter living with her boyfriend.
I love them both, AND I love their significant others as well, but I STILL contend that all of them are engaging in immoral behaviour, and I absolutely disapprove of it.
But what is a father/brother-in-law to do? I am not called to approve, only to love. |
I can't help but think what a shame it is for your daughter( and your sister in law) to feel that her father feels she is sinful. I wonder how she feels? I Tour penultimate sentence says a lot. You obviously feel you would like to be able to do something about it but can't.I'm not disputing your love for the people imvolved but pity you cannot just take pleasure in the fact they love and are loved and are happy. Both my children have been in live-in relationships but they always had our respect for their decisions and our wholehearted support. There was never any feeling we disapproved of their arrangements and therefore no invisible barriers between us or areas of discussion to be avoided. Out of interest do you let them sleep together in your home? Or do you stick to your principles ? No condemnation just regret!
P |
MY father ( my Heavenly Father that is - namely God ) feels that I'm sinful. And I know how I feel. I feel fine. I not only RESPECT Him for it, I EXPECT it from Him. It would diminish who He is if He did NOT feel that I was sinful.
However, I also know that He LOVES me, even though I am sinful. And that he forgives me, EVERY time, ALL the time.
You are wrong when you say that I would like to be able to do something about it. I wouldn't. What I would like is for THEM to decide to do something about it. But that is THEIR decision to make.
And I DO take pleasure in the fact that they are loved and happy.
There are no "invisible barriers" between us. We can, and do discuss issues openly and honestly. Why shouldn't we? My love is not something given or withheld based on whether I approve or disapprove of what she does.
As for whether I let them sleep together in my home? My daughter and her boyfriend - no. My sister-in-law and her partner, yes. Why the difference? Because my daughter was reared in my home, and knew from the very beginning what my values were, AND, she and her boyfriend could marry, if they chose to. On the other hand, I had no influence on my sister-in-law's upbringing, she and her partner are guests in my home, and she and her partner couldn't marry, even if they DID choose to.
By the way - in response to MuckPond's post. I'm truly sorry that you were treated in such a manner. Especially by family.
But to your point, as it relates to Pauline's post - I do NOT say to my daughter, her boyfriend, my sister-in-law, or her partner "I love you 'anyway'".
Only "I love you".
Period.
I think that they know that. But I'll take your post as a reminder to tell them that yet again. I don't think that it ever hurts to hear it - even if you already know it. |
|
|
|
11/15/2005 06:32:09 PM · #807 |
Originally posted by mpemberton:
Originally posted by bear_music:
Originally posted by jsas:
Ok this is a serious question I have been (really fatuous about this whole thread) but are you saying that it is ok for the government has the right to come into my home and tell me how I should live? I hope not, they can't even take care of their own business, sure don't want them in mine, as I don't want to be to someone else's. Homosexuality and Pedophilia is comparing oranges to apples, in my humble opinion. |
The government is ALREADY in your home telling you how to live. The only question is where we draw the line, or indeed whether the government can even be STOPPED from expanding its control over your life.
R. |
In the US you can. :-) Well, at least, some one in the past said you could. |
Under the Patriot act, an FBI agent can get a note from their supervisor and search your home while you are out, and never have to tell you about it. |
|
|
|
11/15/2005 06:34:22 PM · #808 |
Originally posted by Riponlady:
Jimmy
I hope you have gained a great deal of pleasure from the amount of support for the legalisation of gay marriage in this thread. It's good to see how many people are open to all humanity and their "rights". If this forum is representative of the population as a whole, the numbers are on the right side! |
DITTO! I was raised a Methodist in a VERY religious family and, while I prefer the fairer sex, my gay brother was beaten and left for dead by a group of people who felt HIS lifestyle was immoral. Oh, the irony. He was doing nothing more offensive than riding his bicycle home from work at the time and still walks with a limp. So, while I don't have a personal stake in the issue, I absolutely abhor open prejudice and bigotry paraded under the flag of righteousness. *sick* |
|
|
|
11/15/2005 06:37:49 PM · #809 |
Originally posted by jsas:
There is no stopping a monster! Greed and hypocrisy really runs this nation. |
Exactly my opinion of the people running the country too : ) |
|
|
|
11/15/2005 06:48:05 PM · #810 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
so, by extension, what gives the state the ability to determine who i should marry? |
As and Second Amendment advocate will tell you, the answer is they have the guns, the money, and get to make the rules. Ask the Chinese .... |
|
|
|
11/15/2005 06:52:31 PM · #811 |
Originally posted by RonB:
As it so happens, I have a sister-in-law who is a lesbian, living in a committed relationship with her partner. |
"In-law" in what state? She can't be an in-law unless the marriage is recognized by the state. And wouldn't that make her partner your sister? Or is she living a lie, married to your brother? |
|
|
|
11/15/2005 06:59:16 PM · #812 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by RonB:
As it so happens, I have a sister-in-law who is a lesbian, living in a committed relationship with her partner. |
"In-law" in what state? She can't be an in-law unless the marriage is recognized by the state. And wouldn't that make her partner your sister? Or is she living a lie, married to your brother? |
She is the sister of my wife - thus my sister-in-law. And, as far as I know, my marriage is recognized in EVERY state. And so, to the best of my knowledge, she is my sister-in-law in EVERY state.
Message edited by author 2005-11-15 19:23:27. |
|
|
|
11/15/2005 07:51:31 PM · #813 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by frisca:
It was repugnant for you to compare the loving relationships of people from different racial or cultural backgrounds or people of the same sex with the abuse of animals or sex with children (who by law and by any standard applied in history cannot consent to sex). |
For the sake of clarification, what is your definition of "child"? Or what do you accept as the social, legal, or otherwise definition of "child"? Does "childhood" end at a specific age? If so, what age is that? Does it end at a particular stage of development? If so, what stage is that? Without agreement on what a "child" is, the accusations against me are just based on "their" interpretation of what a "child" is? |
You said "9 yr old". That is what I meant by child. If you are asking me what I believe is the "age of consent" I can provide that answer, but that issue was never on the table. We haven't been talking about what the age of consent is. For the record, I don't believe 9 to be the age of consent by a long shot.
|
|
|
|
11/15/2005 07:59:41 PM · #814 |
Originally posted by frisca:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by frisca:
It was repugnant for you to compare the loving relationships of people from different racial or cultural backgrounds or people of the same sex with the abuse of animals or sex with children (who by law and by any standard applied in history cannot consent to sex). |
For the sake of clarification, what is your definition of "child"? Or what do you accept as the social, legal, or otherwise definition of "child"? Does "childhood" end at a specific age? If so, what age is that? Does it end at a particular stage of development? If so, what stage is that? Without agreement on what a "child" is, the accusations against me are just based on "their" interpretation of what a "child" is? |
You said "9 yr old". That is what I meant by child. If you are asking me what I believe is the "age of consent" I can provide that answer, but that issue was never on the table. We haven't been talking about what the age of consent is. For the record, I don't believe 9 to be the age of consent by a long shot. |
I just want to be clear where the cutoff is between "child" and "not child". And the issue IS pertinent, VERY pertinent to me at least, since people are implying if not directly accusing me of proposing that child sexual abuse in an extension of current social trends. |
|
|
|
11/15/2005 08:05:33 PM · #815 |
| If we were to take a poll on this rrrr these subjects, I think the majority of the community of DPC would lean towards the left,(except doin'a horse or child, atleast I hope!) so speaking out against an issue while in the minority is to be commended, but it is the way you try and get your point across, that is lost in translation. Let the message offend not the messanger. There is no doubt our society is more open to things kept in the dark 100 yrs ago. So what I want to know is. Who or what is the moral compass that everyone goes by? Or do you even believe in morals? Do you believe in a compass? I think we all have similar ways, but we get to puffed up in our own pride. Don't take yourself too serious, you might turn into Rush Lim(blowhard)baugh. |
|
|
|
11/15/2005 08:08:08 PM · #816 |
in all fairness, RonB, you did state "sex with a 9yr old" (consenting) will be legal. No one has mischaracterized your words.
If you wish to talk about the age of consent, I think we should start a new rant thread. As it is, no one has mistaken what you said. Its here in plain black and white. You said that first comes interracial, and now gay, and in 35 yrs (or was it 50?) we could well be seeing sex with animals and 9yr olds (consenting). I could quote your words directly, but their meaning is quite plain and repeated throughout this thread (by direct quote).
So, if you want to talk about the change from "child" to young adult or adult, start a new thread and I'll respond there.
|
|
|
|
11/15/2005 08:12:24 PM · #817 |
Originally posted by RonB:
And the issue IS pertinent, VERY pertinent to me at least, since people are implying if not directly accusing me of proposing that child sexual abuse in an extension of current social trends. |
Ron, Hopefully you are not referring to my posts. My comments about child sexual abuse are merely an example of a social issue that I feel should take priority over regulating the definition of marriage.
IMO, the age of consent is also more important than the issue of marriage. I find it strange that children who are not old enough to consume alcohol, legally, are allowed to represent our country in the military. 16 year olds are free to propel themselves at high speed in deadly metal boxes (called automobiles), yet they are not mature enough to smoke cigarettes. This is probably something that would make more sense to argue about than how homosexuals are going to destroy our lives by signing a personal contract of committment to each other. |
|
|
|
11/15/2005 08:24:20 PM · #818 |
Originally posted by frisca:
in all fairness, RonB, you did state "sex with a 9yr old" (consenting) will be legal. No one has mischaracterized your words.
If you wish to talk about the age of consent, I think we should start a new rant thread. As it is, no one has mistaken what you said. Its here in plain black and white. You said that first comes interracial, and now gay, and in 35 yrs (or was it 50?) we could well be seeing sex with animals and 9yr olds (consenting). I could quote your words directly, but their meaning is quite plain and repeated throughout this thread (by direct quote).
So, if you want to talk about the change from "child" to young adult or adult, start a new thread and I'll respond there. |
With all due respect, not only HAVE they mischaracterized ( or mistaken ) my words, but YOU are now as guilty as they of doing it.
Specifically, not ONCE in ANY of my posts have I referred to interracial marriage even though YOU say that I said it.
Please DO use my quotes directly. By doing so, it will be plain to all if I have just charged you unfairly. |
|
|
|
11/15/2005 08:34:27 PM · #819 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Specifically, not ONCE in ANY of my posts have I referred to interracial marriage even though YOU say that I said it.
Please DO use my quotes directly. |
In all fairness, frisca, RonB never said anything about interracial marriage. It was scalvert, I believe, who brought up interracial marriage as an example of societal change we now accept which was once resisted. RonB, however, has not say anything negative, implicitly or explicitly, with regard to that subject.
Message edited by author 2005-11-15 20:35:14. |
|
|
|
11/15/2005 08:37:49 PM · #820 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by RonB:
As it so happens, I have a sister-in-law who is a lesbian, living in a committed relationship with her partner. |
"In-law" in what state? She can't be an in-law unless the marriage is recognized by the state. And wouldn't that make her partner your sister? Or is she living a lie, married to your brother? |
She is the sister of my wife - thus my sister-in-law. And, as far as I know, my marriage is recognized in EVERY state. And so, to the best of my knowledge, she is my sister-in-law in EVERY state. |
Sorry ... I wasn't thinking in a hurry and overlooked the obvious. |
|
|
|
11/15/2005 08:41:02 PM · #821 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by ericlimon:
And to think,
just 35 years ago it was still illegal in some parts of the united states to enter into an interracial marriage. |
Yeah. That is something to think about. What's more frightening to me, though is to think that in another 35 years it will be legal, in some parts of the U.S., for a 40 year old man to have sex with a consenting 9 year-old ( male or female ), or a horse ( but only if it's in the privacy of his own barn ). |
Originally posted by RonB:
not ONCE in ANY of my posts have I referred to interracial marriage even though YOU say that I said it. |
Right here ron, you are referencing my quote. right here YOU, yes, YOU ron, are making a comparison and equating a+b=c
A (interracial marriage 35 years ago became legal)
+
B (gay marriage, going on today, and legal in Massachusetts)
=
C (legalized pedophilia in the future)
here is the quote again, if you want to read it:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by ericlimon:
And to think,
just 35 years ago it was still illegal in some parts of the united states to enter into an interracial marriage. |
Yeah. That is something to think about. What's more frightening to me, though is to think that in another 35 years it will be legal, in some parts of the U.S., for a 40 year old man to have sex with a consenting 9 year-old ( male or female ), or a horse ( but only if it's in the privacy of his own barn ). |
Message edited by author 2005-11-15 20:42:16.
|
|
|
|
11/15/2005 08:41:10 PM · #822 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Riponlady:
Jimmy
I hope you have gained a great deal of pleasure from the amount of support for the legalisation of gay marriage in this thread. It's good to see how many people are open to all humanity and their "rights". If this forum is representative of the population as a whole, the numbers are on the right side! |
DITTO! I was raised a Methodist in a VERY religious family and, while I prefer the fairer sex, my gay brother was beaten and left for dead by a group of people who felt HIS lifestyle was immoral. Oh, the irony. He was doing nothing more offensive than riding his bicycle home from work at the time and still walks with a limp. So, while I don't have a personal stake in the issue, I absolutely abhor open prejudice and bigotry paraded under the flag of righteousness. *sick* |
Thanks! :-) I think there's somebody out there for each of us... It may just take a little bit of time and patience. I've got lots of both! ;-) |
|
|
|
11/15/2005 08:49:02 PM · #823 |
Originally posted by ericlimon:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by ericlimon:
And to think,
just 35 years ago it was still illegal in some parts of the united states to enter into an interracial marriage. |
Yeah. That is something to think about. What's more frightening to me, though is to think that in another 35 years it will be legal, in some parts of the U.S., for a 40 year old man to have sex with a consenting 9 year-old ( male or female ), or a horse ( but only if it's in the privacy of his own barn ). |
Originally posted by RonB:
not ONCE in ANY of my posts have I referred to interracial marriage even though YOU say that I said it. |
Right here ron, you are referencing my quote. right here YOU, yes, YOU ron, are making a comparison and equating a+b=c
A (interracial marriage 35 years ago became legal)
+
B (gay marriage, going on today, and legal in Massachusetts)
=
C (legalized pedophilia in the future)
here is the quote again, if you want to read it:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by ericlimon:
And to think,
just 35 years ago it was still illegal in some parts of the united states to enter into an interracial marriage. |
Yeah. That is something to think about. What's more frightening to me, though is to think that in another 35 years it will be legal, in some parts of the U.S., for a 40 year old man to have sex with a consenting 9 year-old ( male or female ), or a horse ( but only if it's in the privacy of his own barn ). |
|
Wow ... I walked right by that. RonB, I regret my decision to make a post defending you. |
|
|
|
11/15/2005 08:59:13 PM · #824 |
Originally posted by ericlimon:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by ericlimon:
And to think,
just 35 years ago it was still illegal in some parts of the united states to enter into an interracial marriage. |
Yeah. That is something to think about. What's more frightening to me, though is to think that in another 35 years it will be legal, in some parts of the U.S., for a 40 year old man to have sex with a consenting 9 year-old ( male or female ), or a horse ( but only if it's in the privacy of his own barn ). |
Originally posted by RonB:
not ONCE in ANY of my posts have I referred to interracial marriage even though YOU say that I said it. |
Right here ron, you are referencing my quote. right here YOU, yes, YOU ron, are making a comparison and equating a+b=c
A (interracial marriage 35 years ago became legal)
+
B (gay marriage, going on today, and legal in Massachusetts)
=
C (legalized pedophilia in the future)
here is the quote again, if you want to read it:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by ericlimon:
And to think,
just 35 years ago it was still illegal in some parts of the united states to enter into an interracial marriage. |
Yeah. That is something to think about. What's more frightening to me, though is to think that in another 35 years it will be legal, in some parts of the U.S., for a 40 year old man to have sex with a consenting 9 year-old ( male or female ), or a horse ( but only if it's in the privacy of his own barn ). |
|
Well, I have to admit it. You've nailed me. I DID reference it. I said
quote - "Yeah, that ( the fact that 35 years ago it was still illegal in some parts of the united states to enter into an inerrracial marriage ) is something to think about." end-quote
And that I found that ( the fact that .... ) was frightening.
And from THAT many of you have inferred that I consider interracial marriage to be a point on the "progressive expansion of sociological acceptance of sexual practices once unacceptable."
So, it would now appear that YOUR view of MARRIAGE, or at least interracial marriage, is that it is "a sexual practice". Not a legal partnership; not a religious covenant; a sexual practice.
No wonder we're debating. I really disagree with that distinction. I never felt that interracial marriage was about sex.
Message edited by author 2005-11-15 21:03:04. |
|
|
|
11/15/2005 09:01:07 PM · #825 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by RonB:
I STILL contend that all of them are engaging in immoral behaviour, and I absolutely disapprove of it. |
OK, then let me ask you this... what is the correct moral behavior for someone born transsexual? Are you suggesting that this creation of God can never be married because it would be an affront to God? |
No takers? |
|
