| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/04/2004 11:01:43 PM · #76 |
| The difference frychikn; gays getting married does not hurt anyone else. Where as all your examples do. |
|
|
|
11/04/2004 11:11:49 PM · #77 |
This has nothing to do with religion. The idea of marriage is born out of the procreation of children and the protection of the family. There is no other reason for marriage. One can argue that many marriages bear no children, but think, remove the newborn and there is no need for two people to have a church or state certify their unity. We know of marriage only from the religious institutions which created it so that two people will stay committed and make bolting more difficult. Look at the mess we are in and the high rate of divorce. If you do not have to, why would you?
However, the socialist income tax has brought this issue to the fore as an economical force. Again, remove the children completely from the equation and there is no need for marriage.
Now, since the socialist income tax is a fact then there should be a partners agreement to take advantage for gay couples. You can wonder all you want over the map but marriage is to preserve the safety of the children. Yes, it is used for the privilege of property, but property can be handled in other ways which are just as binding.
Anybody can live with whomever they want and this is what we are guaranteed but marriage was not invented to consumate the bonding of two souls. Its main object was to protect the unborn.
Notice how socialism is a system that interferes with one's private life and I do not see why anybody would invite this intrusion unto their world.
When marriage is used as a monetary devise it already plants the seeds for its very destruction. So, yes, I think an agreenment should be made available fronm the state to those who wish a gay union so that they will have similar benefits with property and guardian rights but I think it will attract less controversy if the union receives a different name because it serves a differnt purpose. Marriage per se was invented to protect the children. |
|
|
|
11/04/2004 11:27:05 PM · #78 |
No, it was an equal time issue.
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
Look: you are each responsible for what you do and say. I am a conservative and our theme is freedom of speech. Notice that the conservatives did not try to shut up Michael Moore and his kind |
Uh, wasn't that the point of reneging on his distribution contract? |
|
|
|
|
11/05/2004 01:31:24 AM · #79 |
Originally posted by frychikn:
That is not a very good argument. You could use this line of reasoning to say that ANYTHING (axe murder, drunk driving, bank robbery, etc.) is a right already guaranteed by the constitution. |
Actually no... What this says is that if it's legal for anyone, it's legal for everyone... Kind of like saying states can't pass laws saying White people can't drink from public water fountains. Axe murder, drunk driving, bank robbery, etc is illegal for everyone. Not just one segment of the population.
|
|
|
|
11/05/2004 02:01:21 AM · #80 |
I remember back in 1970's in Socialist Yugoslavia we had a political prison on island of Goli Otok (Bare Island),where hundreds of people spent time just for political jokes ,for making fun of the ruling (the only one ) party !
Are we heading there? Noo...... |
|
|
|
11/05/2004 09:02:54 AM · #81 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
No, it was an equal time issue.
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
Look: you are each responsible for what you do and say. I am a conservative and our theme is freedom of speech. Notice that the conservatives did not try to shut up Michael Moore and his kind |
Uh, wasn't that the point of reneging on his distribution contract? |
|
What are you talking about? There are no "equal time" provisions for theatrical distribution.
Perhaps you are thinking of the hit piece on Mr. Kerry which Sinclair Broadcasting was going to force its affiliates to show whether they wanted to or not. |
|
|
|
11/05/2004 09:38:28 AM · #82 |
|
|
|
11/05/2004 10:03:57 AM · #83 |
I liked this snippet at the top of the page even better:
Historically, America has never invaded a country that has McDonalds - it's a fact - US Marine quoted on BBC 4
Message edited by author 2004-11-05 10:04:26. |
|
|
|
11/05/2004 11:21:24 AM · #84 |
Originally posted by jimmythefish:
It's most definitely partisan. Patriot Act? Patriot Act II? These are partisan. If you want to reduce your government's control over you, you voted for the wrong administration. They're going to overturn Roe V. Wade and ban gay marriage. This is MORE control. This is a loss of personal freedoms. I can't believe that people swallow the sancitiy of marriage crap in a country which has umpteen 'marry a millionaire' programs on TV. IT'S NOT A MARRIAGE ISSUE. It's a gay hatin' issue. Plain and simple.
It makes me angry just thinking about it. All the work done by civil libertarians down the damned drain.
Originally posted by Anachronite:
Yes Big Brother is watching. A scary thought indeed. All the more reason to reduce government and it's power over us. |
|
That's very 1984 of you, to tell me what I really think and believe. |
|
|
|
11/05/2004 11:46:00 AM · #85 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
Look: you are each responsible for what you do and say. I am a conservative and our theme is freedom of speech. Notice that the conservatives did not try to shut up Michael Moore and his kind |
Uh, wasn't that the point of reneging on his distribution contract? |
Given that Disney/Miramax is a pretty liberal outfit, the more likely point was either, as already mentioned, protecting the company from a controversy, or, to take a more conspiratorial tone, an intentional move to drum up publicity - the film probably got more exposure through news coverage than through advertising. |
|
|
|
11/05/2004 12:30:15 PM · #86 |
I know this is all very touchy, but a few posts back Graphicfunk said that the issue of gay marriage has nothing to do with religion. I know that is for his own personal self.
I don't endorse homosexuality because Christ doesn't. The Bible is very clear about God's stance on homosexuality, He doesn't like it. He also doesn't approve of a lot of the things that I do each day either (some things I don't even realize, like thinking about making out with that hot guy who passed me on the way to work this morning). We can only do the best we can and be asked for forgiveness (again, I'm talking in Christian terms). We're all forgiven in the same way no matter what we did or do.
I'm basically saying if you take a baloon and prick it with a small pin - it pops. If you take a baloon and hit it with a hammer - it doesn't pop anymore than with a pin prick. That's what sin does to us, one pin prick (ie sin) and we're a sinner. For life. No matter how big or small the act. Puts us all on an even 'playing' field.
Something to consider. |
|
|
|
11/05/2004 12:44:06 PM · #87 |
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
This has nothing to do with religion. The idea of marriage is born out of the procreation of children and the protection of the family. There is no other reason for marriage. One can argue that many marriages bear no children, but think, remove the newborn and there is no need for two people to have a church or state certify their unity. We know of marriage only from the religious institutions which created it so that two people will stay committed and make bolting more difficult. Look at the mess we are in and the high rate of divorce. If you do not have to, why would you?
However, the socialist income tax has brought this issue to the fore as an economical force. Again, remove the children completely from the equation and there is no need for marriage.
Now, since the socialist income tax is a fact then there should be a partners agreement to take advantage for gay couples. You can wonder all you want over the map but marriage is to preserve the safety of the children. Yes, it is used for the privilege of property, but property can be handled in other ways which are just as binding.
Anybody can live with whomever they want and this is what we are guaranteed but marriage was not invented to consumate the bonding of two souls. Its main object was to protect the unborn.
Notice how socialism is a system that interferes with one's private life and I do not see why anybody would invite this intrusion unto their world.
When marriage is used as a monetary devise it already plants the seeds for its very destruction. So, yes, I think an agreenment should be made available fronm the state to those who wish a gay union so that they will have similar benefits with property and guardian rights but I think it will attract less controversy if the union receives a different name because it serves a differnt purpose. Marriage per se was invented to protect the children. |
I think you would have a problem convincing every priest, minister or rabbi in the land that there is no reason for marriage without children.
Every ceremony I have attended talks about the mutual bond of love, responsibity, and sacrifice that the newlyweds give to *each other* which is formally acknowledged to the community through the ceremony of marriage.
That is a very different thing than your proposals.
BTW, Is there a subject that doesn't have a Socialism tangent in your opinion, GF? |
|
|
|
11/05/2004 12:44:50 PM · #88 |
|
|
|
11/05/2004 12:55:09 PM · #89 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by David Ey:
No, it was an equal time issue.
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
Look: you are each responsible for what you do and say. I am a conservative and our theme is freedom of speech. Notice that the conservatives did not try to shut up Michael Moore and his kind |
Uh, wasn't that the point of reneging on his distribution contract? |
|
What are you talking about? There are no "equal time" provisions for theatrical distribution.
Perhaps you are thinking of the hit piece on Mr. Kerry which Sinclair Broadcasting was going to force its affiliates to show whether they wanted to or not. |
And after which, they offered Mr. Kerry air time to respond and rebut. They declined. |
|
|
|
11/05/2004 12:58:47 PM · #90 |
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
I know this is all very touchy, but a few posts back Graphicfunk said that the issue of gay marriage has nothing to do with religion. I know that is for his own personal self.
I don't endorse homosexuality because Christ doesn't. The Bible is very clear about God's stance on homosexuality, He doesn't like it. He also doesn't approve of a lot of the things that I do each day either (some things I don't even realize, like thinking about making out with that hot guy who passed me on the way to work this morning). We can only do the best we can and be asked for forgiveness (again, I'm talking in Christian terms). We're all forgiven in the same way no matter what we did or do.
I'm basically saying if you take a baloon and prick it with a small pin - it pops. If you take a baloon and hit it with a hammer - it doesn't pop anymore than with a pin prick. That's what sin does to us, one pin prick (ie sin) and we're a sinner. For life. No matter how big or small the act. Puts us all on an even 'playing' field.
Something to consider. |
I think you make a very good points here, and your message of forgiveness is beautiful.
However, I think i disagree with your first point.
The proscriptions against homosexuality, cursing, touching a pig, speaking disrespectfully to your parents, wearing a dress made of two different threads, - all of which are considered equally evil - come in the Old Testament.
The best available evidence suggests that Jesus himself actually didn't have a problem with homosexality.
He was, I believe, a bit more about forgiveness, etc.
There is evidence of gay marriage ( among priests!) during or after the time of Jesus, and actually depicted in ancient stained glass panels, I believe.
Message edited by author 2004-11-05 13:24:53. |
|
|
|
11/05/2004 01:23:00 PM · #91 |
Originally posted by myqyl:
Originally posted by Anachronite:
Gay marriage definately should be banned....... Why would we extend marriage rights to those perfectly willing to violate the law? |
Ok, I'm as homophobic as the next guy... It creeps me out watching two guys kiss on CNN every other day. ... |
Thank you for saying that in such an honest way.
Because you have just shattered the idiotic proposition that homosexuality is * a choice*.
There is not a truly heterosexual man in this country who doesn't feel uncomfortable when seeing gay men kiss.
Is anyone actually making the argument that they could, for some unknown reason, put aside that natural revulsion and CHOOSE to start kissing men as a new lifestyle?? It is absurd!
I'll tell you who CAN make that "choice" - - a homosexual man! Anybody man who claims that homosexuality is just a "choice" is either a latent homosexual, or never thought about what they were saying.
C'mon, lay a big juicy one on me!! :D
Message edited by author 2004-11-05 13:26:11. |
|
|
|
11/05/2004 01:39:22 PM · #92 |
|
|
|
11/05/2004 01:46:49 PM · #93 |
Originally posted by jimmythefish:
No, fascism. Both fascism and communism have elements of utilitarianism, but fascism is based in conservatism and communism is based in socialism. You're not saying that the US is socialist are you?
Originally posted by jmritz:
No not Fascism, Communism. |
|
Conservatism - A political philosophy or attitude emphasizing respect for traditional institutions, distrust of government activism, and opposition to sudden change in the established order.
Fascism - A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
There's no correlation between conservatism and fascism, certainly based on the dictionary definitions you prefer to go by. The only relationship is in the minds of the neo-libs. ;) |
|
|
|
11/05/2004 02:01:42 PM · #94 |
Disclaimer: Not opining, just clarifying something...
True gingerbaker...most of that stuff is in the old testament (the 'law' for God's chosen people, the Jews)...but I think there is a connection between Jesus and the thought that sex was 'meant' for girl/guy relationships. Here's how:
* Jesus calls Peter "the rock on which the foundation of the church would be built" so we can assume Peter was commissioned in this sense (and others) by Jesus himself.
* In one of Peter's writings, he mentions that Paul's writings are to be regarded as Scripture even though they may be 'difficult to understand'.
* In Paul's letter to the Romans he has an indictment for those that "exchanged unnatural relations for natural ones" - referring to homosexual behaviour.
Again, I'm not opining or voicing my view of homosexual behaviour...just showing the connections that may help show a more complete view of Jesus' thoughts on the subject...
Edit: I should add that Jesus loved and forgave hookers, liars, thieves, murderers and drunks...so the ridiculous statements of Jimmy Swaggart ("I'll kill a man that looks at me that way") and others are far from Christ-like (regardless of his determination on the morality of homosexuality).
Message edited by author 2004-11-05 14:05:47.
|
|
|
|
11/05/2004 02:13:47 PM · #95 |
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
Originally posted by myqyl:
Originally posted by Anachronite:
Gay marriage definately should be banned....... Why would we extend marriage rights to those perfectly willing to violate the law? |
Ok, I'm as homophobic as the next guy... It creeps me out watching two guys kiss on CNN every other day. ... |
Thank you for saying that in such an honest way.
Because you have just shattered the idiotic proposition that homosexuality is * a choice*.
There is not a truly heterosexual man in this country who doesn't feel uncomfortable when seeing gay men kiss.
Is anyone actually making the argument that they could, for some unknown reason, put aside that natural revulsion and CHOOSE to start kissing men as a new lifestyle?? It is absurd!
I'll tell you who CAN make that "choice" - - a homosexual man! Anybody man who claims that homosexuality is just a "choice" is either a latent homosexual, or never thought about what they were saying.
C'mon, lay a big juicy one on me!! :D |
I was watching TV the other day and saw a family who bought a bag full of live octopus, took them to a resteraunt, had them placed in a bowl with some sort of sauce (still wriggling around), and them proceeded to squish the bodies with their fingers and eat them. That creeped me out.
Are some people born octopus eaters and others are not? Is eating live octupus not a choice?
Before anyone screams about this absurd comparison, the point is simply that your arguement that because seeing a man kissing creeps some people out, that it therefore isn't a choice doesn't stand up. There are many things that creep people out, whether it be because of cultural differences, lack of exposure, or because its just wrong.
And, where would bi-sexuality fit in then? The bi-sexual person certainly seems to have the choice of who they are attracted to.
Message edited by author 2004-11-05 14:18:19. |
|
|
|
11/05/2004 02:34:43 PM · #96 |
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
Originally posted by myqyl:
Originally posted by Anachronite:
Gay marriage definately should be banned....... Why would we extend marriage rights to those perfectly willing to violate the law? |
Ok, I'm as homophobic as the next guy... It creeps me out watching two guys kiss on CNN every other day. ... |
Thank you for saying that in such an honest way.
Because you have just shattered the idiotic proposition that homosexuality is * a choice*.
There is not a truly heterosexual man in this country who doesn't feel uncomfortable when seeing gay men kiss.
Is anyone actually making the argument that they could, for some unknown reason, put aside that natural revulsion and CHOOSE to start kissing men as a new lifestyle?? It is absurd!
I'll tell you who CAN make that "choice" - - a homosexual man! Anybody man who claims that homosexuality is just a "choice" is either a latent homosexual, or never thought about what they were saying.
C'mon, lay a big juicy one on me!! :D |
Let's entertain your premise for just a moment and see where it leads. Before I begin, let me make it clear that my definition of homosexuality is actual participation in homosexual activities, not just having homosexual thoughts or feelings. So, with that in mind. . .
You say that
Anybody man who claims that homosexuality is just a "choice" is either a latent homosexual, or never thought about what they were saying.
I hope that I can safely infer from that statement that you believe that homosexuality is, indeed, NOT just a choice. Further, that you feel that society should accept homosexuality on that basis.
Namely, sexual preference is not just a choice.
A logical extension, therefore, is that pedophilia is also "not just a choice", because, to paraphrase your own statement
"Is anyone actually making the argument that they could, for some unknown reason, put aside that natural revulsion and CHOOSE to start kissing little boys or girls as a new lifestyle?? It is absurd!"
SO...the question then becomes, should society accept pedophilia because pedophilia is also "not just a choice"?
And, how about necrophilia while we're at it. Oh, and beastiality, too.
I think that you would draw the line somewhere - the problem is how to justify where you draw the line.
Message edited by author 2004-11-05 14:36:30. |
|
|
|
11/05/2004 02:37:09 PM · #97 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Let's entertain your premise for just a moment and see where it leads. Before I begin, let me make it clear that my definition of homosexuality is actual participation in homosexual activities, not just having homosexual thoughts or feelings. So, with that in mind. . .
You say that
Anybody man who claims that homosexuality is just a "choice" is either a latent homosexual, or never thought about what they were saying.
I hope that I can safely infer from that statement that you believe that homosexuality is, indeed, NOT a choice. Further, that you feel that society should accept homosexuality on that basis.
Namely, sexual preference is not a choice.
A logical extension, therefore, is that pedophilia is also "not a choice", because, to paraphrase your own statement
"Is anyone actually making the argument that they could, for some unknown reason, put aside that natural revulsion and CHOOSE to start kissing little boys or girls as a new lifestyle?? It is absurd!"
SO...the question then becomes, should society accept pedophilia because pedophilia is also "not a choice"?
And, how about necrophilia while we're at it. Oh, and beastiality, too.
I think that you would draw the line somewhere - the problem is how to justify where you draw the line. |
Homosexuality is the only example you provided in which both parties can be consenting adults. That is how I would draw the line. |
|
|
|
11/05/2004 02:40:38 PM · #98 |
Originally posted by mk:
Originally posted by RonB:
Let's entertain your premise for just a moment and see where it leads. Before I begin, let me make it clear that my definition of homosexuality is actual participation in homosexual activities, not just having homosexual thoughts or feelings. So, with that in mind. . .
You say that
Anybody man who claims that homosexuality is just a "choice" is either a latent homosexual, or never thought about what they were saying.
I hope that I can safely infer from that statement that you believe that homosexuality is, indeed, NOT a choice. Further, that you feel that society should accept homosexuality on that basis.
Namely, sexual preference is not a choice.
A logical extension, therefore, is that pedophilia is also "not a choice", because, to paraphrase your own statement
"Is anyone actually making the argument that they could, for some unknown reason, put aside that natural revulsion and CHOOSE to start kissing little boys or girls as a new lifestyle?? It is absurd!"
SO...the question then becomes, should society accept pedophilia because pedophilia is also "not a choice"?
And, how about necrophilia while we're at it. Oh, and beastiality, too.
I think that you would draw the line somewhere - the problem is how to justify where you draw the line. |
Homosexuality is the only example you provided in which both parties can be consenting adults. That is how I would draw the line. |
Can I infer, therefore, that you support assisted suicide? |
|
|
|
11/05/2004 02:59:51 PM · #99 |
| how can you compare assisted suicide with consenting adults having sex? That's reaching pretty far RonB |
|
|
|
11/05/2004 03:13:21 PM · #100 |
Just for arguments sake I was wondering where the Ceremony of Marriage started. Was it the Church or religions that first started it all or was it the State? Did government invent Marriages? Isn̢۪t there a separation of church and state? I thought that the state gave Civil Unions?
Don̢۪t get me wrong I believe in live and let live. I have no problem except I can see in some people hurt in their faces at the idea of Gay Marriage. These are people that I love and would not want to have hurt or in pain in anyway. They are truly honest and brave wonderful citizens that worked all their lives for their family̢۪s and maybe are old fashioned but it is to soon for them. The change is too soon, it will take time. I don̢۪t think we need to always be divided by divisive overly fast Change.
Just a thought.
jm
|
|
