NESSAholics.com
Other Topics => Completely Off-Topic => Topic started by: loveplasticlove on February 26, 2004, 12:36:06 pm
-
If you disagree with Bush wanting to take away rights from gay people, sign this petition (http://www.kintera.org/site/apps/ka/ct/contactus.asp?c=ctISK8OWG&b=27870&en=aoLDKJNqH6JBIMNoF5KAIKOsFmJVLUPoEdLJKQMtGeKRL7L). Thanks
-
*This has been edited because the original content sounded really stupid. However, I was trying to say, call your congressmen and senators instead of merely signing a petition. The difference starts there.*
-
*note I say the age thing because my parents agree with banning it and so I don't feel comfortable signing it....another note I agree with you, nicole*
-
and if you agree with Bush preserving the moral fabric of the country, ignore the thread and vote for the second term in november.
-
*note I say the age thing because my parents agree with it and so I don't feel comfortable signing it....another note I agree with you, nicole*
Yeah, I'm not so sure my parents would appreciate me getting a phone call or mail about this, since they too agree that gay marriages shouldn't be legal. I agree with you Nicole also though, that everyone should be allowed all the same rights/benefits that married men/women have (and I believe this VERY strongly)
-
and if you agree with Bush preserving the moral fabric of the country, ignore the thread and vote for the second term in november.
wow...
Do you even have any gay family members?
-
Do you even have any gay family members?
none I know of, and if I did, wouldnt make any difference.
-
Do you even have any gay family members?
none I know of, and if I did, wouldnt make any difference.
Somehow I think it would...
Since I was sort of ignorant to all this til I found out someone close to me is gay... you'd really understand.
-
I was pretty sure that America was formed for people to come and be "free"...thanks for clearing that up BV. :roll:
-
I understand that the sacrament of marriage is supposed to be a "sacred" thing... I'm Catholic, don't get me wrong... but I think that atleast they should get the same benefits as married couples, even if you're not going to call it marriage.
-
I understand that the sacrament of marriage is supposed to be a "sacred" thing... I'm Catholic, don't get me wrong... but I think that atleast they should get the same benefits as married couples, even if you're not going to call it marriage.
I agree.
I mean, seriously. Besides, the Bible was written nearly 300 years after Jesus died. Who can say that that's really what God says? I mean, if gay people are born that way, then why should it be so wrong?
Anyways, I think that even if Bush doesn't agree with it, he still shouldn't push his beliefs on others. I mean, not every has to believe what he does. :roll:
-
I am SO against it. It is really violating the right to choose. *sign*
-
Sorry guys, but I'm with the vultureboy. . .
-
What's the big deal? So they have the same genitals...what does that matter? Nothing. And how is it immoral? It's not. If god didn't want them to be gay he wouldn't have made them gay. Explain that to me please.
-
Sorry guys, but I'm with the vultureboy. . .
<3
If god didn't want them to be gay he wouldn't have made them gay. Explain that to me please.
God did not make them gay, he gave man free will, and far too often man chooses sin over righteousness.
-
There is no way you can conserve it... people who should notbe getting married right now are.. people who do not take it seriously... like Britney or to stay in the US. Many marriages do not even last, but gay people who really love eachother and live together well are not allowed? What bullshit ...
And I think it would make a difference if you had a gay realtive or friend... to see that someone you love is denied rights that everyone should have.
-
i know gay people and have nothing against them, but marriage is a vow between a "man and a woman" .... I think they should get their own form of unionship. Anyways i could really care less overall so i signed it for nicole :D
-
Sorry guys, but I'm with the vultureboy. . .
<3
If god didn't want them to be gay he wouldn't have made them gay. Explain that to me please.
God did not make them gay, he gave man free will, and far too often man chooses sin over righteousness.
How is that a sin? When did god say it was wrong for them to get married or even have sexual relations? I think it's stupid how you people get so opposed to something that will probably never affect you. If you don't have family or friends that are gay what does it matter to you? Why don't you want them to be happy? Are you that cruel that you want to see people hurt?
-
There is no way you can conserve it... people who should notbe getting married right now are.. people who do not take it seriously... like Britney or to stay in the US. Many marriages do not even last, but gay people who really love eachother and live together well are not allowed? What bullshit ...
And I think it would make a difference if you had a gay realtive or friend... to see that someone you love is denied rights that everyone should have.
*applause* i'm SO with you Nic
so you fall in love with someone of the same sex... who cares?! people get married because there in LOVE. it doesn't matter who with. and getting married would also help these people get financial benifits that getting married comes with.
as for gay relations being against the Bible... God's the one who INTENDED that person be gay right? that's just my oppinion...
-
And I think it would make a difference if you had a gay realtive or friend... to see that someone you love is denied rights that everyone should have.
Damn right. Don't call it marriage... I don't care, but allow them to form a union and give them the same benefits as married couples.
-
There is no way you can conserve it... people who should notbe getting married right now are.. people who do not take it seriously... like Britney or to stay in the US. Many marriages do not even last, but gay people who really love eachother and live together well are not allowed? What bullshit ...
And I think it would make a difference if you had a gay realtive or friend... to see that someone you love is denied rights that everyone should have.
*golfclap* nicely said, nicely said. I don't think that religious opinion should play a part in a constitutional decision at all. Just because you are religious does not mean that the rest of america has to be. I think that's what President Bush is doing too much of. Goodness, how can you deny someone basic rights just because you don't agree with them? And marriage is a basic right, in my opinion....to me that is extremely unconstitutional, and un Christian for that matter. You're shunning someone just because they don't go along with your beliefs, yet one of the main Christian teachings is to accept everyone and treat everyone the same. Just my opinion though...
-
Damn right. Don't call it marriage... I don't care, but allow them to form a union and give them the same benefits as married couples.
You know what?
We have that in France.
It's called "PACS" (not sure if this means anything) but any couple can have it (gay or not). It's not a marriage thing but you can have the same benefits and stuff (except adopting a kid which is still a big issue).
Maybe Bush should pay a visit to our president and talk about it? ;)
-
How is that a sin? When did god say it was wrong for them to get married or even have sexual relations?
*claps* thats just a winner right there.
Lev 18:22
"Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."
Rom 1:27&32
In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.
-
I just want to know, who died and made Bush God?
-
I just want to know, who died and made Bush God?
Bush.. God... haha. I'd have to shoot myself if that were true
-
I just want to know, who died and made Bush God?
Bush is not God, he is the elected leader of out country.
-
I just want to know, who died and made Bush God?
Bush is not God, he is the elected leader of out country.
I cannot wait til the next election when I can vote...
-
i signed this petition nicole. i am an ally of the lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgendered community. i think that outlawing gay marriage should primarily be dealt with state by state as it is at this point and has nothing to do with the federal government; therefore, bush is allowed his opinions but i believe has no right to set one standard for the whole country declaring gay marriage wrong.
i have gay friends. one of my closest male friends is gay- but nonetheless he is the most beautiful, open, loving people i have ever met in my life. it breaks my heart to think that if he were to fall in love, he would not be allowed to marry his boyfriend. who are we to judge what is love and what is not?
in fact, if gay marriage is outlawed, i think marriage in general should be as well.
i don't mean to offend. you can believe whatever you want to believe. i believe that adding an amendment to the constitution not allowing gay people to marry is ignorance.
kelley
-
I just want to know, who died and made Bush God?
Bush.. God... haha. I'd have to shoot myself if that were true
ditto :-P
-
yep even Vanessa agrees Bush needs to go byebye :)
I wish one of his daughters was a lesbian so he would have a little more compassion!
-
yep even Vanessa agrees Bush needs to go byebye :)
I wish one of his daughters was a lesbian so he would have a little more compassion!
It's true, you never really understand, til you see it first hand... well most people. Some people seriously need a wake up call
-
I just want to know, who died and made Bush God?
Bush is not God, he is the elected leader of out country.
Spoken well from a man who wanted Arnold as president and was bummed out because he couldn't be due to the fact he wasn't born on American soil. :roll:
-
Spoken well from a man who wanted Arnold as president and was bummed out because he couldn't be due to the fact he wasn't born on American soil. :roll:
what can I say?
I'm a fan of Conan, Predator, Teminator, & True Lies :D
-
And I think it would make a difference if you had a gay realtive or friend... to see that someone you love is denied rights that everyone should have.
I have a few gay friends as well as a gay uncle... and even if I didn't I don't think I would care. If two people love each other, than why the hell should they not be able to get married? So the hell what if they are man/woman, man/man or woman/woman? and wtf who cares what the catholic god thinks and if you think its a sin? I thought the church and state were supposed to be separate in this country.
-
yep even Vanessa agrees Bush needs to go byebye :)
I wish one of his daughters was a lesbian so he would have a little more compassion!
yeah i bet he would have more compassion if that were the case.
i wish i could vote so i could try and help get this dude out of office.
-
i wish i could vote so i could try and help get this dude out of office.
I'll be 18... so I can vote! woot woot! :razz: get his ass out!
-
lol go go go Gina!!! lmao
i don't care who wins as long as it's not you-know-who
-
Bush or Kerry? Ha. Either way, it's not good for gay people.
Kerry Backs State Ban On Gay MarriageWHDH-TV
Updated: 9:14 a.m. ET Feb. 26, 2004BOSTON -- Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry said he supports amending the Massachusetts Constitution to ban gay marriage, as long as it provides for civil unions for same-sex couples.
"If the Massachusetts Legislature crafts an appropriate amendment that provides for partnership and civil unions, then I would support it, and it would advance the goal of equal protection," Kerry told The Boston Globe.
He has said he would oppose any amendment that didn't include a provision for civil unions.
"I think that you need to have civil union," he said. "That's my position."
Kerry's remark angered supporters of gay marriage, who said it could help a stalled amendment offered by state legislators that defines marriage as a union of one man and one woman, but creates same-sex unions. Lawmakers are set to reconvene their constitutional convention on March 11.
"It is harmful for us and could well affect the vote," said Arline Isaacson, co-chairwoman of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus, which opposes the amendment.
But state Senator Andrea Nuciforo Jr., a Democrat from Pittsfield who supports the amendment, doubted Kerry's comments would have much affect on the state debate.
"Members are reaching their conclusions based on what they hear from their districts and what they feel in their hearts," said Nuciforo.
Kerry has said he opposes gay marriage but has not previously given his opinion on any specific amendment under discussion in the state Legislature.
In 1996, Kerry voted against the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage as a union of a man and woman. At the time, Kerry said he opposed gay marriage, but the law amounted to gay-bashing.
Kerry also denounced the push by President Bush this week to amend the U.S. Constitution to outlaw gay marriage, arguing the issue of marriage should be left to the states. (AP)
-
i wish i could vote so i could try and help get this dude out of office.
I'll be 18... so I can vote! woot woot! :razz: get his ass out!
Heh, I didn't register to vote when I could have voted for governor... and look what happens, we have an embezzling shit head named john rowland who everyone wants to impeach... ANYWAYS, I probably should register to vote, teehee.
but too bad no howard dean, ARRRRRGGGGHHHHHH!!!!! *makes howard dean super excited grunty scream*
-
yep even Vanessa agrees Bush needs to go byebye :)
I wish one of his daughters was a lesbian so he would have a little more compassion!
Ironically enough, Dick Cheney's daughter is a lesbian.
-
Ironically enough, Dick Cheney's daughter is a lesbian.
really? did he like disown her or something?
-
I won't, I'm sorry. :(
I think what he's doing is right, to me.
Manda
-
yep even Vanessa agrees Bush needs to go byebye :)
I wish one of his daughters was a lesbian so he would have a little more compassion!
Ironically enough, Dick Cheney's daughter is a lesbian.
I was just about to say that Limey- it was mentioned in my Economics class, forget who mentioned it tho.
But sorry Nicole I don't sign petitions (well, unless it's something I really have an urge to sign) but I do agree with you however- I think it is wrong what Bush is doing. I've been all for him through his presidency & 9/11 & everything & I am personally not gay/ a lesbian but if two people love each other, it is not right to break it up in my opinion.
P.S. Go Rosie!!
-
i wish i could vote so i could try and help get this dude out of office.
I'll be 18... so I can vote! woot woot! :razz: get his ass out!
I know! Nik and I were talking about it before, we're both trying to educate ourselves on who's running and such. I'm really excited actually :-P
-
i wish i could vote so i could try and help get this dude out of office.
I'll be 18... so I can vote! woot woot! :razz: get his ass out!
I know! Nik and I were talking about it before, we're both trying to educate ourselves on who's running and such. I'm really excited actually :-P
ya'll suck!
*goes to see if i can appear like i was born in '86....*
-
lol, it'll be ok limey! you'll be able to vote in the next election!
-
lol, it'll be ok limey! you'll be able to vote in the next election!
But if Bush wins this election it will be no phun (phhhhhh phun HAHA).
-
lol, it'll be ok limey! you'll be able to vote in the next election!
But if Bush wins this election it will be no phun (phhhhhh phun HAHA).
By next election he won't be so liberal.
-
But if Bush wins this election it will be no phun (phhhhhh phun HAHA).
lol :lol:
no it sure won't be any phun... no sirrey
-
lol, it'll be ok limey! you'll be able to vote in the next election!
But if Bush wins this election it will be no phun (phhhhhh phun HAHA).
I honestly don't think he will...it's just my opinion though. I mean, after Iraq and all the backlash he got....i just don't see how that's going to happen. But i guess we'll have to wait and see....
-
Well Jess, he still has a lot of loyal supporters who think he can/has done no wrong...there are also those people who will vote for him because they "don't want a democratic president."
Though I really hate the man, it will be an interesting outcome...and if in the year 2008 he is up for re-election you can bet on who I am not voting for. :wink: (damn I have to wait till I am 20....ugh)
-
Well Jess, he still has a lot of loyal supporters who think he can/has done no wrong...there are also those people who will vote for him because they "don't want a democratic president."
Though I really hate the man, it will be an interesting outcome...and if in the year 2008 he is up for re-election you can bet on who I am not voting for. :wink: (damn I have to wait till I am 20....ugh)
jb he won't be up for re-election in 2008 unless he doesn't get re-elected in this election (he will have served his two alloted terms). there's only been one president that has served one term. lost the next, and then served his second (grover cleveland) so HOPEFULLY bush will lose and not re-run for president in 2008. i like kerry.
kelley
-
i know this...read my earlier post kells.
-
i reread the posts but maybe i'm missing something. nevermind then. sorry
kelley
-
well i wasn't all that clear (so it's not your fault).
But I meant it will be no fun, if Bush wins this time, when i get to vote because I won't feel this strongly against the next candidates (or so I think right now).
-
oh.
right on.
kelley
-
I mean, seriously. Besides, the Bible was written nearly 300 years after Jesus died. Who can say that that's really what God says? I mean, if gay people are born that way, then why should it be so wrong?
Don't even go there with me. The Bible is an anthology written in several different periods. The various scholars have debated some of the dates, but the most probable final addition to the books in the NT Canon we have today was made in 95-100 AD with either the Gospel of John or the the Revelation of John. Some have tried to place the Gospel of John in 125 AD, but all the evidence supports the traditional view.
This is ignoring, of course, that the prohibition on homosexuality dates far before Jesus. The only mentions of homosexuality in the NT are by Paul, reinforcing the old OT traditions which date back at least a thousand years before Christ, no matter who you ask.
As for the issue of gay marrage? Marrage has been traditionally a religious institution. Legal status of marrage is a final vestage of a time when the government actually understood the first amendment and knew that it could recognize religious bodies. In today's legal world, the government has no right to muck with a religious rite. The government could give the same rights and duties to gay couples as they do to straight ones, but calling it marrage is crossing the line.
-
I'm with Bush. I know, everyone's shocked . . . But you know I don't believe in that sort of thing.
You can't yell at me or I'll cry. :(
I noticed a couple people mentioned God not having a problem with homosexuality and He made whoever like that . . .
Which is true, because there's no one God doesn't forgive . . .
But it's a challenge, if you're gay, you're not supposed to have sex . . .
There's one reason for us to be on Earth: to procreate. Meaning have sex to create people and keep mankind going.
Having, ahem, sexual relations with one of the same sex isn't helping God. He made sex as pleasurable as it is, in gratitude for keeping mankind going. Therefore, there's no reason to have sex with people of the same sex because you're not keeping our race alive.
:\
-
I'd also like to point out that homosexuality is probably not genetic. Such a trait which is detrimental to reproduction would most likely select itself out of the gene pool. Most estimates as to the percentage of gays in the general population are around 5-10%, far too much for a trait that selects itself out of the gene pool.
More likely, it has something to do with either situations that occur during the course of one's life or some sort of hormonal anonomaly during pregnancy.
-
I think that it is genetic, but even so WHO CARES? There are gay people in this world and they are not going away! So deal with it people and give them their damn rights!
hmmph
-
I do agree on the fact that is going against what marriage was created for...but banning in the constitution should not happen.
I think the laws as they stand now are fine. Call it whatever you want, I don't think it is anyone's job to tell someone else what they can or can not marry if, in fact, it is not harming them. Now I can see if it was like banning prisoners from getting married...Oh wait! A prisoner can get married....hmmm...
-
Ok... Joey... I'm gonna agree on you on this. This is no reason to amend the Constitution over this. It's a civil code for crying out loud, not something to go into the core of this country's legal system! Any actions on the matter should happen at the STATE level, not the FEDERAL one.
-
Im with Cece...*hides*
Manda
-
Ok... Joey... I'm gonna agree on you on this. This is no reason to amend the Constitution over this. It's a civil code for crying out loud, not something to go into the core of this country's legal system! Any actions on the matter should happen at the STATE level, not the FEDERAL one.
but the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution (article IV, section 1) says that if you're married in one state, other states have to respect that...if you're married in one state you're married in all of them, even if it's illegal in the state you're currently in - the actions of one state have affects for the others.
-
Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.
Yep, you are right. So, I guess we invoke Scott v. Sanford and say that any grant of marrage to a gay couple by a state is null and void for the same reason why a state couldn't declare a black man a citizen.
Hmm... a constitutional amendment affirming the right might not be out of the question. Current case law already prohibits it, so a denial would be kinda pointless.
-
ok, first off, will, i really wasn't trying to spark up some debate with you. I was merely stating the possibility that maybe what's written in the Bible isn't necessarily all of God's word. I'm not saying that's what I believe, or that it's a known fact or anything, but i'm saying that it's a possibility.
Limey - I get what you're saying, there are a lot of Bush supporters. But I know a lot of republicans who were Bush supporters who aren't now. So it's a toss up - personally i don't want him around next term, but i guess we'll have to wait until November to see how the rest of the country feels.
-
and if you agree with Bush preserving the moral fabric of the country, ignore the thread and vote for the second term in november.
Biggot. WWJD, amirite?!?!?
Edit: @ All - Being a biggot is fine, if that's what floats your boat. But even if you don't like "Fags" and you want them to be "punished" for their feelings (which is EXACTLY what this is. Don't kid yourself with rewording. This is a means of punishing a voluntary minority) fine. You're just an asshole, but not neccesarily stupid. IF you support a FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL AMMENDMENT then you are both a biggot AND a moron. Just, FYI.
-
and if you agree with Bush preserving the moral fabric of the country, ignore the thread and vote for the second term in november.
Its people like you that are making other's lives hell for something that is completely out of their control. Its people like you that are denying others' freedom and equality in a country that so relies on it. Its people like you that are generalising your beliefs to a wider population assuming the Bible is inerrant- which is clearly not the case. If you believe something, why do others have to?
'Moral fabric'- what a weak defence. What is 'moral fabric' BV? You could argue that so many things have degraded 'moral fabric' in America: alcohol, plastic surgery, even other religions because they do not uphold your moral beliefs- but do you protest and whine against them? NO.
Gay people deserve exactly the same rights as straight people. Call it something else but marriage if you like.
-
Edit: @ All - Being a biggot is fine, if that's what floats your boat. But even if you don't like "Fags" and you want them to be "punished" for their feelings (which is EXACTLY what this is. Don't kid yourself with rewording. This is a means of punishing a voluntary minority) fine. You're just an asshole, but not neccesarily stupid.
Despite you dictatorial assertion to the contrary, wanting to "punish" "fags" is hardly the only possible motivation people could have for wanting this ammendment. If, for whatever reason, people feel that permitting homosexual marriages will have a negative affect on the society in which they live then their support for this ammendment is not born out of some desire to punish gay people. Just as support for tougher immigration laws are not born out of racism.
The bigot accusation and it's relatives are banded around far too often in every area of debate. Anti-abortion is anti-choice, anti-profanity is prudish, pro-war is warmongering, those in favour stronger immigration laws is racist, supporters of animal testing are cruel, creationists are anti-science, those apposed to cloning and stem cell research are anti-health... the list goes on. I'm not trying to say whether I support the ammendment or not, just that the bigot accusation is a purely emotional argument and has no place in the debate.
-Kev
-
Bible is inerrant- which is clearly not the case. If you believe something, why do others have to?
Equally, why does Kev have to believe what you/others believe (that the bible is not inerrant and that he shouldn't accept it as the absolute standard for morality)?
'Moral fabric'- what a weak defence. What is 'moral fabric' BV? You could argue that so many things have degraded 'moral fabric' in America: alcohol, plastic surgery, even other religions because they do not uphold your moral beliefs- but do you protest and whine against them? NO.
Whether or not he protests those other things is irrelevant. Even if he gets drunk every night and has had plastic surgery every year, it doesn't make his arguments in this area any more or less valid.
-Kev
Edit: In case you're wondering I don't have an opinion on this, except that any homosexual "marriage" should definitely be seperate from marriage as a religious institution. I do agree with you that everybody should have equal treatment and the same rights, but as long as it isn't harmful to society (such as a prisoners right to freedom) and I don't know enough about what being legally married entails to have an informed opinion. I also don't know what good it will do to forcefully impose a belief system onto people. But it at least should be argued properly.
-
What cracks me up is that you're all DOWN WITH BUSH when Shelly posted an article saying John Kerry would SUPPORT THE SAME DAMN THING. They're all against calling it gay marraige...
What REALLY cracks me up is that the most "liberal" state in the union has a law on the books SPECIFICALLY VOTED ON BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE IN A CLEAR MAJORITY that states marraige is between a man and a woman.
I'm all for giving everyone their rights, God did say to love your enemies, treat others as you treat yourself, don't worry about other people's sins because you have your own problems, etc, etc, but the way I have grown up, marraige is sacred. It is a religious institution. And yes, I think Britney Spears made a mockery of that. No, I don't have any gay relatives, but a girl who has been one of my best friends since I was 9 is bisexual. I also have many other friends and acquaintances who are gay...kinda hard to avoid when 5-10% of the population is homosexual...Civil unions, whatever, doesn't bother me. In fact, I think it's completely all right considering we have common-law marraige for heterosexual couples, why not for homosexual? If they're seriously trying to make a go of it, what's the harm? But calling it marraige is just not something I can deal with.
LMAO @ everyone all up in arms about the Constitutional Amendment. Do you all know how hard it is to pass one of those things? hahaha Not going to happen.
OBTW, I am highly offended by the whole eye-rolling thing to electing Arnold for governor. You know what? I voted for Arnold. You know why? When Davis was govenor, my tution went up 30%. 300 dollars a semester. Since Arnold has been govenor (long enough to institute a rate hike), my tution has strangely stayed the same. Oh yeah, and my mom who got a bill for 600 bucks for her car tax, got another letter in the mail saying it was really only 200.
Some of us are capable of making decisions that benefit the people without taking morality or party lines into consideration.
-
What cracks me up is that you're all DOWN WITH BUSH when Shelly posted an article saying John Kerry would SUPPORT THE SAME DAMN THING.
Not exaclty.
-
He said he won't support anything called gay marraige...
*rereads article*
Yep...no support of anything called gay marraige...
-
Yup Tricia, let them have their unionship, just dont call it "marriage"
I wonder what the heck they could call it though
-
I say
Let 2 people who really love eachother marry eachother if they want to.
A man and a woman, a man and a man, a woman and a woman,
who gives a shit??
Some are such narrow minded people
:headshake:
-
I say
Let 2 people who really love eachother marry eachother if they want to.
A man and a woman, a man and a man, a woman and a woman,
who gives a shit??
Some are such narrow minded people
:headshake:
<3 let's get married haha jk
-
Its not that Si, its that the definition of marriage is technically between a man and a woman....Wanting to change the definition is one thing, Wanting a legal unionship is another....Either way if they change the definition or create another type of marriage for gay people im glad
-
Its not that Si, its that the definition of marriage is technically between a man and a woman....Wanting to change the definition is one thing, Wanting a legal unionship is another....Either way if they change the definition or create another type of marriage for gay people im glad
"the definition of marriage is technically"?
lol
you're too funny
I say
Let 2 people who really love eachother marry eachother if they want to.
A man and a woman, a man and a man, a woman and a woman,
who gives a shit??
Some are such narrow minded people
:headshake:
<3 let's get married haha jk
lol
OK!
*gets on a plane to the US
I'll be there tomorrow morning, will you pick me up?
-
Whoah, never mind, i looked it up and now it says a legal bond between a man and a woman first off....then further down it mentions same sex marriage, hehe, well then it looks like you guys win....I signed the petition anyways so dont even look at me sideways Si....plus you know i love ya =)
-
Whoah, never mind, i looked it up and now it says a legal bond between a man and a woman first off....then further down it mentions same sex marriage, hehe, well then it looks like you guys win....I signed the petition anyways so dont even look at me sideways Si....plus you know i love ya =)
I would never look at you sideways, lol
;)
*hug*
-
I am not really against "gay marriages", gay people have the same right to form a couple and be recognised as everyone else. Whether religion agrees with that shouldn't matter, because religious principles are not the law. I don't really like the idea of calling "marriage", but that's a minor issue. However, I am worried about what civil union would bring along. Like Ghis said, in France they have PACS, in Spain we have "parejas de hecho" (in some parts of the country), which are the equivalent to marriages, but easier to break and IMO they demand a lot less commitment. I am afraid some sort of gay union would be applicable to heterosexual couples, who can already celebrate traditional marriages, giving them the opportunity to receive the benefits of a marriage without suffering the consequences. That's my only issue against it, I'm not even sure it'd happen like that in the US, but it's part of my dilemma about making those unions legal.
(does this make any sense to anyone? I'm just not sure I explained myself right lol)
-
I am not really against "gay marriages", gay people have the same right to form a couple and be recognised as everyone else. Whether religion agrees with that shouldn't matter, because religious principles are not the law. I don't really like the idea of calling "marriage", but that's a minor issue. However, I am worried about what civil union would bring along. Like Ghis said, in France they have PACS, in Spain we have "parejas de hecho" (in some parts of the country), which are the equivalent to marriages, but easier to break and IMO they demand a lot less commitment. I am afraid some sort of gay union would be applicable to heterosexual couples, who can already celebrate traditional marriages, giving them the opportunity to receive the benefits of a marriage without suffering the consequences. That's my only issue against it, I'm not even sure it'd happen like that in the US, but it's part of my dilemma about making those unions legal.
(does this make any sense to anyone? I'm just not sure I explained myself right lol)
Im with ya, but if you look up marriage in any online dictionary they list same sex as a definition as well
-
Like Ghis said, in France they have PACS, in Spain we have "parejas de hecho" (in some parts of the country)
I'm glad someone noticed my post!! lol
-
Sorry guys, but I'm with the vultureboy. . .
<3
If god didn't want them to be gay he wouldn't have made them gay. Explain that to me please.
God did not make them gay, he gave man free will, and far too often man chooses sin over righteousness.
So you're saying God entrapped gay people?
btw, i signed the petition nicole
-
Even though I am very catholic, I feel that Church and State should be two COMPLETELY different things. Although it is against God's will, the Constitution (i believe) seperates the church and state. I believe that banning gay marriages is completely against the Constitution.
-
Even though I am very catholic, I feel that Church and State should be two COMPLETELY different things. Although it is against God's will, the Constitution (i believe) seperates the church and state. I believe that banning gay marriages is completely against the Constitution.
What the Constitution means by separation of church and state is that the State shall never set it's own official religion (a la the Church of England) and that it will never prosecute/persectue people for practicing whichever religion they choose.
That's not to say an elected official can not take his own morality into account when making decisions...
-
Si: Of course baby! ;)
And thanks to the people who signed it <3 yay!
-
Even though I am very catholic, I feel that Church and State should be two COMPLETELY different things. Although it is against God's will, the Constitution (i believe) seperates the church and state. I believe that banning gay marriages is completely against the Constitution.
What the Constitution means by separation of church and state is that the State shall never set it's own official religion (a la the Church of England) and that it will never prosecute/persectue people for practicing whichever religion they choose.
That's not to say an elected official can not take his own morality into account when making decisions...
Oooh i get it. I was totally wrong :oops: I thought it was like, literally seperating Church matters and State matters from each other. but now i know...thanks for clearing that up :-) I still think that an elected official, whether it be the president or not, should not let his or hers personal beliefs get in the way of their decisions, imo.
-
LOL...tell that to the framers of the Constitution...
-
LOL...tell that to the framers of the Constitution...
This makes me twitch since Seperation of Church and State is NOT in the Constitution!!!
It was in a completely seperate letter, not the law.
-
LOL...tell that to the framers of the Constitution...
oh i know no amount of bitching about it is going to change anything, but oh well....who knows, maybe so many people will sign the petition someone will listen? i'm taking effective citizenship right now, and we're learning how to be "model citizens" so i'm trying to be positive :razz:
-
there's nothing wrong with gay rights. i'll sign it
Amanda
-
LOL...tell that to the framers of the Constitution...
This makes me twitch since Seperation of Church and State is NOT in the Constitution!!!
It was in a completely seperate letter, not the law.
I know that...I'm just saying that all of them were deeply religious men, and they built this country and it's principles on the beliefs they had.
-
I know that...I'm just saying that all of them were deeply religious men, and they built this country and it's principles on the beliefs they had.
ok :)
-
and that was a long time ago too...
I think you have to adapt to the times.
Though...If they did ban gay marriages, they can always unban (is that a word?) gay marriages too.
-
I also want to ask another question...
How do you know it's what God wants...how do you know there is even a God? How do you know that the bible is 100% correct, or if things about Jesus is absolutly correct.
Like, for instance, (I know this has nothing to do with this topic) but supposedly Jesus was born in April and 6 years before he was believed to be.
I don't want bible quotes, they don't proove much to me.
I am just saying you don't know what is all truth and what is not. You're not God so you don't know if he cares if you're gay or not. He did (if you believe that) make you. I love hearing stuff like "humans did it" well grand...if humans really did this you'd think he'd come down and EVERYONE would here him say "STOP THAT," if he is all powerful you'd think he'd be able to stop it.
-
and that was a long time ago too...
I think you have to adapt to the times.
Absolute truth does not adapt, does not change and is constant for all of time.
-
I am just saying you don't know what is all truth and what is not. You're not God so you don't know if he cares if you're gay or not. He did (if you believe that) make you. I love hearing stuff like "humans did it" well grand...if humans really did this you'd think he'd come down and EVERYONE would here him say "STOP THAT," if he is all powerful you'd think he'd be able to stop it.
Lime... he did come to earth in the person of Christ and say "STOP THAT".
And you choose to ignore it.
Free will's a bitch.
I don't want bible quotes, they don't proove much to me.
so be it.
-
Edit: @ All - Being a biggot is fine, if that's what floats your boat. But even if you don't like "Fags" and you want them to be "punished" for their feelings (which is EXACTLY what this is. Don't kid yourself with rewording. This is a means of punishing a voluntary minority) fine. You're just an asshole, but not neccesarily stupid.
Despite you dictatorial assertion to the contrary, wanting to "punish" "fags" is hardly the only possible motivation people could have for wanting this ammendment. If, for whatever reason, people feel that permitting homosexual marriages will have a negative affect on the society in which they live then their support for this ammendment is not born out of some desire to punish gay people. Just as support for tougher immigration laws are not born out of racism.
The bigot accusation and it's relatives are banded around far too often in every area of debate. Anti-abortion is anti-choice, anti-profanity is prudish, pro-war is warmongering, those in favour stronger immigration laws is racist, supporters of animal testing are cruel, creationists are anti-science, those apposed to cloning and stem cell research are anti-health... the list goes on. I'm not trying to say whether I support the ammendment or not, just that the bigot accusation is a purely emotional argument and has no place in the debate.
-Kev
No. This is defensive rhetoric. And you know it. Say whatever you have to to help you sleep at night.... but it comes down to ONE SIMPLE STATEMENT.
Can a man and a woman who are in love form a LEGALLY BINDING contract in the eyes of the government that is based on PERSONAL freedom for the PURSUIT of happiness?
Yes.
Can a man and a man or a woman and a woman who are in love form a LEGALLY BINDING contract in the eyes of the government, that provides them the SAME rights as a man and a woman in the same situation?
NO.
This is not equity.
Now, I am not all gungho about going out and making it specificially legal in places where it currently is not. BUt I am COMPLETELY against amending the constitution to make it ILLEGAL.
I mean, CHRIST ALL MIGHTY, think for a minute! This is 2004 and we are talking about an amendment to the US COnstitution to TAKE AWAY a freedom from a minority?!? WTF is wrong with this picture?!?
Edit: Yes, seperation of church and state is NOT actually part of the constitution. BUt seperation of the state from a SPECIFIC religion IS. The state must allow people to practice their own personal religions. If my religion wants to call a union between two women marriage then my religion is entitled to. The difference is in what the government calls it.
And frankly, I don't think it matters what the government calls it. Who cares?!? Let them call it a civil union. If it gets the religious right to STFU then it's fine by me.
-
Lime... he did come to earth in the person of Christ and say "STOP THAT".
And you choose to ignore it.
Free will's a bitch.
Guess I have a different relationship with God then most (more than guess). It has been working well so far.
Though I need to be a better person...
-
How do you know it's what God wants...how do you know there is even a God? How do you know that the bible is 100% correct, or if things about Jesus is absolutly correct.
I am just saying you don't know what is all truth and what is not. You're not God so you don't know if he cares if you're gay or not. He did (if you believe that) make you. I love hearing stuff like "humans did it" well grand...if humans really did this you'd think he'd come down and EVERYONE would here him say "STOP THAT," if he is all powerful you'd think he'd be able to stop it.
It's called faith.
I have faith that the Bible is true and divinely inspired. That said, since the Bible says sex outside of marraige is wrong (hetero OR homosexual), I believe God says sex outside of marraige is wrong. I don't care who's doing it with who, my faith in the Bible and it's validity leads me to feel what I feel. I don't care if you think I'm a prude or whatever, I'm proud of who I am and what I believe. I will not, though, force my beliefs on others, and I don't run around screaming "YOU'RE ALL GOING TO HELL", you all have the right to believe whatever you want.
God gave man free will so he could see who would choose him. He didn't create us to be our supreme dictator. If you were familiar with the Bible, you'd know that's the basis of the Christian faith. Saying he'd come down here and be able to stop that is ignorance of the belief. God can do whatever he wants. He choose to let us do whatever we want; follow him or not.
-
That is like having a child, not speaking to the child...have a friend teach the child for awhile...then being mad at the child if the child doesn't believe in you.
It's not the Child's fault you were not there.
But I need to stop with an argument, because I have never read much (basically any) of the bible...Though on the other hand, there were people before there was Jesus, are they in Hell?
-
It's called faith.
I have faith that the Bible is true and divinely inspired. That said, since the Bible says sex outside of marraige is wrong (hetero OR homosexual), I believe God says sex outside of marraige is wrong. I don't care who's doing it with who, my faith in the Bible and it's validity leads me to feel what I feel. I don't care if you think I'm a prude or whatever, I'm proud of who I am and what I believe. I will not, though, force my beliefs on others, and I don't run around screaming "YOU'RE ALL GOING TO HELL", you all have the right to believe whatever you want.
God gave man free will so he could see who would choose him. He didn't create us to be our supreme dictator. If you were familiar with the Bible, you'd know that's the basis of the Christian faith. Saying he'd come down here and be able to stop that is ignorance of the belief. God can do whatever he wants. He choose to let us do whatever we want; follow him or not.
Well put T. Though I would be curious to see if you could find me the passages where God says that sex outside of marriage is a sin. Because, while the Catholic church has adopted this policy, I am fairly confident that no where in the Bible is it actually stated.
Jesus has a number of passages where he talks marriage and sex and no where do I remember him saying sex outside of marriage was wrong.
-
Though on the other hand, there were people before there was Jesus, are they in Hell?
Dante tried to answer that in The Inferno. He said that they were in a sort of Limbo place, kind of like Purgetory. They weren't punished, but they weren't in Heaven either. Though it's only fiction, so not really any factual information, but still a question that's been bugging me too.
-
That is like having a child, not speaking to the child...have a friend teach the child for awhile...then being mad at the child if the child doesn't believe in you.
It's not the Child's fault you were not there.
But I need to stop with an arguement, because I have never read much (basically any) of the bible...Though on the other hand, there were people before there was Jesus, are they in Hell?
Two things. Jesus was not Gods "friend". Jesus is God. THe trinity explains this nicely.
Second, God cannot come down and tell us directly what we can and cannot do. This would hurt free will.
Third, we are not children. We are adults. And we are capable of making our own informed decisions.
Fourth, the bible states that when jesus ascended he threw open the gates of Hell and allowed all of those who deserved salvation to travel to heaven with him. I'll search out the actual passage.....
-
People before Jesus offered animal sacrifices.
If you believe God doesn't influence every part of your life, that's fine. Your analogy works to a point. It's like having a child, loving him/her unconditionally, and then having him/her turn his back on you and never coming back. Those of us who have stayed feel him in every part of our lives. He's never left me.
-
It's not the Child's fault you were not there.
God is still with us, with the holy spirit.
Though on the other hand, there were people before there was Jesus, are they in Hell?
Before Christ, sins were forgiven with the blood of a lamb by the Covenent of Grace, think of it like a symol or promise of what was to come. Once Christ died, he was the ultimate sacrifice cleansing all the sins of those who believe.
-
and what about Jews and Muslims, they believe in the same God. They devote their life to God, but to Chritians can not get into heaven because they don't believe Jesus is the savior.
(sorry, just asking random questions, and wondering ya'lls opinions on this one)
-
and what about Jews and Muslims, they believe in the same God. They devote their life to God, but to Chritians can not get into heaven because they don't believe Jesus is the savior.
correct, its only with the blood of Christ that we can be saved.
Remove that vital element, and you are left with mankind on his own with sin and no way to cleanse it. We would be a world of the damned. But God loved the world enough that he gave his son, so that whoever believes in him will not perish but have everlasting life.
(not quite quoting scripture but a paraphrase)
-
If I'm not mistaken, all major monotheistic religions say theirs is the only way to God...it's not just a Christian thing.
John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever believeth in him shall not perish but have everlasting life.
That's usually the verse kids first memorize.
-
It's not the Child's fault you were not there.
God is still with us, with the holy spirit.
Though on the other hand, there were people before there was Jesus, are they in Hell?
Before Christ, sins were forgiven with the blood of a lamb by the Covenent of Grace, think of it like a symol or promise of what was to come. Once Christ died, he was the ultimate sacrifice cleansing all the sins of those who believe.
I put this question to a friend of mine who is a divinity student and here is the response....
"The Old Testament has no Hell; it has "sheol", which is simply a "realm of the dead". People were usually thought of as sleeping there; the New Testament frequently refers to those who have "fallen asleep" when it means those who have died. So, it's not so much they "went to hell" as they were just *dead*.
It's also worth noting that it's not entirely clear *when* people go to Heaven; Revelation makes it clear that some of the Saints are already there, but also has people making it in only at the End Of Things when the Book of Life is opened. There's also the apparent conflict between Jesus's statements about "Not all those who say to me, 'Lord, Lord' will enter the Kingdom of Heaven, but only those who do the will of the Father" and his statement on the cross to the thief that "This day you shall be with me in paradise". The most common reconciliation between these two ideas is to point out that, since the End Times happen at the "End of Time", time functions oddly, and so it is possible for those who enter Heaven at the End of Times to *already* be there, despite the fact that the Earth has yet to end. Another possible reconciliation is it seemed like "this day" to the thief, because he didn't experience anything between his death and the Ressurection of the Dead (so that it seemed to him to be the same "day" as when he had died). The fine points of this doctrine have essentially no practical application, so it's not really very important. Suffice to say, though, it's clear that time acts kinda quirky when you're dealing with things that happen after time ends.
The traditional interpretation, though, which has some possible Scriptural support fot it, is that when Jesus descended into hell he released the Old Testament Saints, and this was part of what it meant to "break the chains of death".
Hope this clears things up a little.
Grace & Peace,
Daniel "
-
and what about Jews and Muslims, they believe in the same God. They devote their life to God, but to Chritians can not get into heaven because they don't believe Jesus is the savior.
correct, its only with the blood of Christ that we can be saved.
Remove that vital element, and you are left with mankind on his own with sin and no way to cleanse it. We would be a world of the damned. But God loved the world enough that he gave his son, so that whoever believes in him will not perish but have everlasting life.
(not quite quoting scripture but a paraphrase)
BV, are you not Catholic? Are you a different branch of Christianity?
Because the Catholic church's OFFICIAL stance is that you CAN make it to heaven without believing in Jesus. IN fact, you can make it to heaven without believing in God. As long as you live your life according to the guidelines God places on man.
-
BV, are you not Catholic? Are you a different branch of Christianity?
Because the Catholic church's OFFICIAL stance is that you CAN make it to heaven without believing in Jesus. IN fact, you can make it to heaven without believing in God. As long as you live your life according to the guidelines God places on man.
I'm not Catholic, I'm Protestant (Christian Reformed denomination to be exact (http://www.crcna.org/).)
And a great many things got distorted in the Catholic church throughout the middleages (like what you state above).
The Protestant movement brought the church back to what is in the Word alone.
It's not priests that forgive sins, its not with "acts" like 400 hail mary's that forgive sins, its only through the blood of Christ.
It's what I believe.
-
thanks Andrew and Daniel...that cleared some up a little.
-
BV, are you not Catholic? Are you a different branch of Christianity?
Because the Catholic church's OFFICIAL stance is that you CAN make it to heaven without believing in Jesus. IN fact, you can make it to heaven without believing in God. As long as you live your life according to the guidelines God places on man.
I'm not Catholic, I'm Protestant (Christian Reformed denomination to be exact (http://www.crcna.org/).)
And a great many things got distorted in the Catholic church throughout the middleages (like what you state above).
The Protestant movement brought the church back to what is in the Word alone.
It's not priests that forgive sins, its not with "acts" like 400 hail mary's that forgive sins, its only through the blood of Christ.
It's what I believe.
K. Works for me. I just wanted a clarification so I knew the basis for your religious beliefs.
-
It's not priests that forgive sins, its not with "acts" like 400 hail mary's that forgive sins, its only through the blood of Christ.
wow. as a catholic, i find that comment extremely offensive. i'm not even a "strict" catholic (though, as a sidenote, i once was... i'm exploring and learning right now.. but that's a different story. i attend church weekly). just because catholics do things differently than protestants, it doesn't mean they are wrong. and it's NOT "acts" and the priests that forgive our sins- it's God working THROUGH the priest to absolve us of sins.
again i repeat, believe what you want. but please be a little sensitive in how you phrase a very sacred and important part of other people's religion.
kelley
-
No. This is defensive rhetoric. And you know it. Say whatever you have to to help you sleep at night.... but it comes down to ONE SIMPLE STATEMENT.
Defense of what? Not sleep at night due to what? Go and read my post in response to Rosie, I agree with you that people should have the same legal rights regardless of sexuality. I just think your bigot accusation carries no weight. People can have plenty of other reasons (right or wrong) for supporting the ammendment other than a desire to "punigh" "fags". The issue should be argued properly.
-Kev
-
Bible is inerrant- which is clearly not the case. If you believe something, why do others have to?
Equally, why does Kev have to believe what you/others believe (that the bible is not inerrant and that he shouldn't accept it as the absolute standard for morality)?
I never asked BV to believe what others believed. I simply asked him to consider the notion that what he believes is not accepted by everyone else. If he believes the Bible is inerrant i respect his beliefs- but do not impress your accepted view of morality onto others.
'Moral fabric'- what a weak defence. What is 'moral fabric' BV? You could argue that so many things have degraded 'moral fabric' in America: alcohol, plastic surgery, even other religions because they do not uphold your moral beliefs- but do you protest and whine against them? NO.
Whether or not he protests those other things is irrelevant. Even if he gets drunk every night and has had plastic surgery every year, it doesn't make his arguments in this area any more or less valid.
-Kev
I don't think it is irrelevant. I think if you choose to argue about 'moral fabric' then you need to be clear that one issue does not degrade it alone- and go after the proposal of gay marriages for 'bringing down the tone' of your country. Its relative in my mind.
P.S don't use your silly "two crimes were committed" argument in reply :razz:
-
I don't think it is irrelevant. I think if you choose to argue about 'moral fabric' then you need to be clear that one issue does not degrade it alone- and go after the proposal of gay marriages for 'bringing down the tone' of your country. Its relative in my mind.
Well just imagine for a moment that two crimes were committed...
P.S don't use your silly "two crimes were committed" argument in reply :razz:
Doh.
-Kev
-
Though on the other hand, there were people before there was Jesus, are they in Hell?
Dante tried to answer that in The Inferno. He said that they were in a sort of Limbo place, kind of like Purgetory. They weren't punished, but they weren't in Heaven either. Though it's only fiction, so not really any factual information, but still a question that's been bugging me too.
I read part of The Inferno in class. (just last week...only sections of it though lol because my teacher needs to stuff 1000 essays into our lives before next tuesday :roll: )
He read the 9 stages of Hell...or what not...and in there it mentioned that if you were born before Jesus (or something along those lines) you went to hell and read the punishments..
Some of those punishments were off the wall "run around with a flag in your hand while being stung by insects for eternity."
I don't know if I believe there is a Hell. I think it more of a state of mind that was made up by humans or Earth itself.
Two things. Jesus was not Gods "friend". Jesus is God. THe trinity explains this nicely.
I was trying to place an example, because obviously you can't turn into someone else without the help of like plastic surgery.
**Editing this four years later: Holy crap, I really wish I would not have posted this. It sounds incredibly stupid.**
-
Errr, wasn't this thread about allowing gay people being married at first??
Because it has turned into a religious thread.
I mean, debate all you want but it doesn't have much to do with the initial topic anymore.
:wink:
-
Errr, wasn't this thread about allowing gay people being married at first??
Because it has turned into a religious thread.
I mean, debate all you want but it doesn't have much to do with the initial topic anymore.
:wink:
Yep, religion and politics. An interesting read nonetheless.
-
Errr, wasn't this thread about allowing gay people being married at first??
Because it has turned into a religious thread.
I mean, debate all you want but it doesn't have much to do with the initial topic anymore.
:wink:
actually it has a lot to do with it.
-
and what about Jews and Muslims, they believe in the same God. They devote their life to God, but to Chritians can not get into heaven because they don't believe Jesus is the savior.
correct, its only with the blood of Christ that we can be saved.
Remove that vital element, and you are left with mankind on his own with sin and no way to cleanse it. We would be a world of the damned. But God loved the world enough that he gave his son, so that whoever believes in him will not perish but have everlasting life.
(not quite quoting scripture but a paraphrase)
BV, are you not Catholic? Are you a different branch of Christianity?
Because the Catholic church's OFFICIAL stance is that you CAN make it to heaven without believing in Jesus. IN fact, you can make it to heaven without believing in God. As long as you live your life according to the guidelines God places on man.
This may be the Church's official stance, but i can tell you for a fact that a LOT of Catholics do not feel this way. A lot of old skool Catholics like my mom were brought up to believe that no one who was Christian was making it to Heavan, and even though that sentiment isn't felt by everyone anymore, it has carried over to my generation. For instance, two years ago when I was at Sunday school, this girl started saying that Gandhi (Ghandi? Ganhdi? I never know how to spell his name) wasn't going to Heavan because he wasn't Christian. The entire class agreed, and said that that's what their parents taught them. I can say with confidence that no matter what the Pope says a lot of Catholics are going to believe this. Not trying to start a debate or anything, just wanted to let you know...
-
No. This is defensive rhetoric. And you know it. Say whatever you have to to help you sleep at night.... but it comes down to ONE SIMPLE STATEMENT.
Defense of what? Not sleep at night due to what? Go and read my post in response to Rosie, I agree with you that people should have the same legal rights regardless of sexuality. I just think your bigot accusation carries no weight. People can have plenty of other reasons (right or wrong) for supporting the ammendment other than a desire to "punigh" "fags". The issue should be argued properly.
-Kev
Kev, that comment wasn't neccesarily directed at YOU. I phrased it poorly, but somewhat intentionally to make a point. People who think we should have a constitutional ammendment to remove a right from the gay minority that is currently in the hands of the states to decide is a biggot. Plain and simple. They are doing so because they want a group that they personally dislike because of their beliefs to be denied a right the state provides to others.
I cannot think of a more clearcut example of biggotry, personally. It's JUST as though this hypothetical person is telling me that women shouldn't be allowed to vote because it hurts the american way. It's arbitrary BS that's based purely on tradition and nothing else.
-
Though on the other hand, there were people before there was Jesus, are they in Hell?
Dante tried to answer that in The Inferno. He said that they were in a sort of Limbo place, kind of like Purgetory. They weren't punished, but they weren't in Heaven either. Though it's only fiction, so not really any factual information, but still a question that's been bugging me too.
I read part of The Inferno in class. (just last week...only sections of it though lol because my teacher needs to stuff 1000 essays into our lives before next tuesday :roll: )
He read the 9 stages of Hell...or what not...and in there it mentioned that if you were born before Jesus (or something along those lines) you went to hell and read the punishments..
Some of those punishments were off the wall "run around with a flag in you hand while being stung by insects for eternity."
I don't know if I believe there is a Hell. I think it more of a state of mind that was made up by humans or Earth itself.
Two things. Jesus was not Gods "friend". Jesus is God. THe trinity explains this nicely.
I was trying to place an example, because obviously you can't turn into someone else without the help of like plastic surgery.
Actually, in Dantes La Comedia, the Virtuous Pagans are in Hell, but it is a circle of hell that is identical to heaven EXCEPT God is not there. The place is described as perfection and everyone there lives in eternal happiness, except they are denied the light of God. I don't remember the Virtous Pagans receiving ANY punishments, least of all insects stinging them.
Edit:
This may be the Church's official stance, but i can tell you for a fact that a LOT of Catholics do not feel this way. A lot of old skool Catholics like my mom were brought up to believe that no one who was Christian was making it to Heavan, and even though that sentiment isn't felt by everyone anymore, it has carried over to my generation. For instance, two years ago when I was at Sunday school, this girl started saying that Gandhi (Ghandi? Ganhdi? I never know how to spell his name) wasn't going to Heavan because he wasn't Christian. The entire class agreed, and said that that's what their parents taught them. I can say with confidence that no matter what the Pope says a lot of Catholics are going to believe this. Not trying to start a debate or anything, just wanted to let you know...
Ummm... This is a non-point. Because, frankly, if these Catholic parents don't follow the beliefs as set forth BY the Catholic church, thay are not Catholic. The church is a Papal Monarchy. You cannot disagree with the Pope without commiting a sin in the eyes of Catholicism. It is not a democracy. There is no debate. The opinions of Catholic parents do not matter. All that matters is the official stance as handed down by the Pope and the Catholic catechism. Period.
In fact, in times of old, simply disagreeing with the Pope was enough to get you excommunicated. IE. Martin Luther.
-
It was something my teacher was reading. I don't think the insects went to the pagans (I don't know where he got what he was reading so I can't find what he was reading)...I was just stating some off the wall punishments (though I just looked it up online and it doesn't have that...)
-
It was something my teacher was reading. I don't think the insects went to the pagans (I don't know where he got what he was reading so I can't find what he was reading)...I was just stating some off the wall punishments (though I just looked it up online and it doesn't have that...)
I used the Virtuous Pagans as short hand, but they are actually defined as everyone who lived properly in life but died before Jesus was sent to Earth to begin the new covenant with mankin. The big group Dante talked about was the greek philosophers.
-
Ummm... This is a non-point. Because, frankly, if these Catholic parents don't follow the beliefs as set forth BY the Catholic church, thay are not Catholic. The church is a Papal Monarchy. You cannot disagree with the Pope without commiting a sin in the eyes of Catholicism. It is not a democracy. There is no debate. The opinions of Catholic parents do not matter. All that matters is the official stance as handed down by the Pope and the Catholic catechism. Period.
In fact, in times of old, simply disagreeing with the Pope was enough to get you excommunicated. IE. Martin Luther.
i wasn't trying to argue anything with you, i was just letting you know because I'm Catholic, and i know first hand. If you say that to any Catholic chances are they're going to disagree with you.
-
Though on the other hand, there were people before there was Jesus, are they in Hell?
Dante tried to answer that in The Inferno. He said that they were in a sort of Limbo place, kind of like Purgetory. They weren't punished, but they weren't in Heaven either. Though it's only fiction, so not really any factual information, but still a question that's been bugging me too.
Yeaaaah i've been to Dante's tomb- though i didn't know anything about him when i went. We saw the eternal light and buggered off to have hot choccie cos all the shops were closed.
EDIT: Just because a) i'm bored and b) pictures of mini people are funny. Here is me at dante's tomb. And a pretty picture, lol.
(http://img26.photobucket.com/albums/v78/rosieposy87/dantes_tombe4.jpg)
(http://img26.photobucket.com/albums/v78/rosieposy87/dante_tombe_changed3.jpg)
Ummm... This is a non-point. Because, frankly, if these Catholic parents don't follow the beliefs as set forth BY the Catholic church, thay are not Catholic. The church is a Papal Monarchy. You cannot disagree with the Pope without commiting a sin in the eyes of Catholicism. It is not a democracy. There is no debate. The opinions of Catholic parents do not matter. All that matters is the official stance as handed down by the Pope and the Catholic catechism. Period.
Ahhhh it would be so damn cool to be the Pope. I remember me and my chum Jacinta discussed what we would change our names to if we were the Pope, we decided upon "Pope Dudey Cool".
And Ghis, all of these threads go off topic (though i don't actually call this off topic anyway)- you should've learnt that by now!
-
Technically, catholics have nothing wrong with gay people. It says in Leviticus : if a man lays on another man, they will banish to the eternals of hell or something close to that. Leviticus is a Jewish book, and not a book that the catholics follow.
-
Though on the other hand, there were people before there was Jesus, are they in Hell?
Dante tried to answer that in The Inferno. He said that they were in a sort of Limbo place, kind of like Purgetory. They weren't punished, but they weren't in Heaven either. Though it's only fiction, so not really any factual information, but still a question that's been bugging me too.
Yeaaaah i've been to Dante's tomb- though i didn't know anything about him when i went. We saw the eternal light and buggered off to have hot choccie cos all the shops were closed.
EDIT: Just because a) i'm bored and b) pictures of mini people are funny. Here is me at dante's tomb. And a pretty picture, lol.
(http://img26.photobucket.com/albums/v78/rosieposy87/dantes_tombe4.jpg)
(http://img26.photobucket.com/albums/v78/rosieposy87/dante_tombe_changed3.jpg)
Ummm... This is a non-point. Because, frankly, if these Catholic parents don't follow the beliefs as set forth BY the Catholic church, thay are not Catholic. The church is a Papal Monarchy. You cannot disagree with the Pope without commiting a sin in the eyes of Catholicism. It is not a democracy. There is no debate. The opinions of Catholic parents do not matter. All that matters is the official stance as handed down by the Pope and the Catholic catechism. Period.
Ahhhh it would be so damn cool to be the Pope. I remember me and my chum Jacinta discussed what we would change our names to if we were the Pope, we decided upon "Pope Dudey Cool".
And Ghis, all of these threads go off topic (though i don't actually call this off topic anyway)- you should've learnt that by now!
Lol i'm so jealous Rosie! That's so cool...nice pics!
-
Technically, catholics have nothing wrong with gay people. It says in Leviticus : if a man lays on another man, they will banish to the eternals of hell or something close to that. Leviticus is a Jewish book, and not a book that the catholics follow.
Pst. Actually you are wrong. The old testament is part of the Catholic Catechism. And the old testament says in SEVERAL places that it is wrong to lay with a man the way you would with a women. AND, the official stance of the Catholic church is that gay sex is wrong, but being gay is not.
-
That's what I was thinking too Andrew. Thanks
-
Kev, that comment wasn't neccesarily directed at YOU.
Oops. My bad.
People who think we should have a constitutional ammendment to remove a right from the gay minority that is currently in the hands of the states to decide is a biggot. Plain and simple. They are doing so because they want a group that they personally dislike because of their beliefs to be denied a right the state provides to others.
This is what I have a problem with. It's a straw man argument. You state dictatorially that everybody who supports the ammendment is motivated by a dislike for homosexuals because of their beliefs. With this in mind it follows that everybody who supports the ammendment is a bigot.
I would be in complete agreement with you if your statement above (bolded) was not a mis-representation of the pro-ammendment camp (I'm sure some are motivated by dislike (even hatred), but by no means all). For example, a typical attitude following from Christian beliefs might be that homosexual marriage is a sin, that all sin results in increased suffering and has a degenerative effect on the nation and even the world, which includes consiquences for the sinner in this life and the next which outweigh any loss of merriage rights. If anything, the motivation is love for the homosexual and the population in general. The only dislike is for the action and the consiquences, not the person. It's not about intolerance or hatred or bigotry, it's a position which follows sincerly from a persons beliefs.
Edit: Disclaimer: The ONLY thing this post is intended to say is that support for the ammendment is not necessarily born out of an attitude of homophobia or bigotry. Although I am sure that many are using this as an oppurtunity to punish homsoexuals and that attitude is beneath contempt.
-Kev
-
Oops. My bad.
Yeah. Sorry I didn't make that clearer. I left it intentionally ambigous. Sometimes I use the writers "you" intentionally to get a reaction.
This is what I have a problem with. It's a straw man argument. You state dictatorially that everybody who supports the ammendment is motivated by a dislike for homosexuals because of their beliefs. With this in mind it follows that everybody who supports the ammendment is a bigot.
I would be in complete agreement with you if your statement above (bolded) was not a mis-representation of the pro-ammendment camp (I'm sure some are motivated by dislike (even hatred), but by no means all). For example, a typical attitude following from Christian beliefs might be that homosexual marriage is a sin, that all sin results in increased suffering and has a degenerative effect on the nation and even the world, which includes consiquences for the sinner in this life and the next which outweigh any loss of merriage rights. If anything, the motivation is love for the homosexual and the population in general. The only dislike is for the action and the consiquences, not the person. It's not about intolerance or hatred or bigotry, it's a position which follows sincerly from a persons beliefs.
Edit: Disclaimer: The ONLY thing this post is intended to say is that support for the ammendment is not necessarily born out of an attitude of homophobia or bigotry. Although I am sure that many are using this as an oppurtunity to punish homsoexuals and that attitude is beneath contempt.
-Kev
I would argue that even if your stance is that "gay marriage is a sin and sin creates unhappiness for the world" that this is still a biggotry. Because any position that says "gay marriage is a sin" but "hetrosexual marriage is not" is a biggoted position. Therefore, that fundamentally makes this hypothetical person a biggot. Just because his or her biggotry is born out of his or her religion doesn't excuse it.
-
Oops. My bad.
Oh scum scum sum, not only are you a fool- but you are turning american aswell.
Oh and The Economist's leader this week:
"SO AT last it is official: George Bush is in favour of unequal rights, big-government intrusiveness and federal power rather than devolution to the states. That is the implication of his announcement this week that he will support efforts to pass a constitutional amendment in America banning gay marriage. Some have sought to explain this action away simply as cynical politics, an effort to motivate his core conservative supporters to turn out to vote for him in November or to put his likely “Massachusetts liberal” opponent, John Kerry, in an awkward spot. Yet to call for a constitutional amendment is such a difficult, drastic and draconian move that cynicism is too weak an explanation. No, it must be worse than that: Mr Bush must actually believe in what he is doing."
http://www.economist.co.uk/printedition/displaystory.cfm?Story_ID=2459758
-
Is all this aruging and bitching really neccesary? This thread started out as a plea to sign a petition--a petition that would have ultimately fallen on deaf ears--no matter how much people think they can change the government, they can't. I wish people would just realize that gay marriages ARE NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. At least not now.
And why does everyone jump on Bush? Because they just need someone to blame :roll: Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Congress make laws? People are blaming Bush like he made the law that bans gay marriages, newsflash, he only came into office in 2000, gay marriages were banned long before then.
If any gay people feel they need to get married so bad and they hate the way this country is ran, they can move to Canada where it's legal, otherwise they should just quit their damn bitching.
*gets off the soapbox*
-
Is all this aruging and bitching really neccesary? This thread started out as a plea to sign a petition--a petition that would have ultimately fallen on deaf ears--no matter how much people think they can change the government, they can't. I wish people would just realize that gay marriages ARE NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. At least not now.
This thread was only ever going to end up in a debate- and as a result many more may have signed the petition. As far as i can see Keith you are only contributing to such 'bitching' but at the other end of the spectrum.
And why does everyone jump on Bush? Because they just need someone to blame :roll: Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Congress make laws? People are blaming Bush like he made the law that bans gay marriages, newsflash, he only came into office in 2000, gay marriages were banned long before then.
He's the one who proposed the constitutional ammendment, correct me if i'm wrong. So i would've thought Bush is the perfect person to blame since he's directly responsible.
If any gay people feel they need to get married so bad and they hate the way this country is ran, they can move to Canada where it's legal, otherwise they should just quit their damn bitching.
If someone said to you "get out of this country for being gay" you would be immensely offended and say that was discrimination- YOU demand equal rights. Now if you demand that sort of equality then gay people equally have the right to demand equality of rights with straight couples- so what you're essentially doing is saying the same: "get out of this country for demanding equality"- so you can quit your damn bitching.
-
He's the one who proposed the constitutional ammendment, correct me if i'm wrong.
You are wrong, so I will correct you. As of now, nobody has actually proposed an amendment. There is talk of one, however. Bush only said that if such an amendment was proposed, he would support it.
So i would've thought Bush is the perfect person to blame since he's directly responsible.
Bush is not directly responsible. If you want to see who is directly responsible, try Gavin Newsome or the Mass. Supreme Court.
-
He's the one who proposed the constitutional ammendment, correct me if i'm wrong.
You are wrong, so I will correct you. As of now, nobody has actually proposed an amendment. There is talk of one, however. Bush only said that if such an amendment was proposed, he would support it.
So i would've thought Bush is the perfect person to blame since he's directly responsible.
Bush is not directly responsible. If you want to see who is directly responsible, try Gavin Newsome or the Mass. Supreme Court.
Okay, i was wrong. But when a president of the country supports such a motion (ahhh talking in HofCs speak!) i would say that is a pretty strong statement- and message conveyed to the country. So yup, still blaming bush.
-
This thread was only ever going to end up in a debate- and as a result many more may have signed the petition.
Yeah, but as I was saying in my original post, it's not going to change anything.
If someone said to you "get out of this country for being gay" you would be immensely offended and say that was discrimination- YOU demand equal rights. Now if you demand that sort of equality then gay people equally have the right to demand equality of rights with straight couples- so what you're essentially doing is saying the same: "get out of this country for demanding equality"- so you can quit your damn bitching.
I don't know who pissed in your cornflakes this morning, but whatever. Gays have been getting along just fine without marriage.
-
This thread was only ever going to end up in a debate- and as a result many more may have signed the petition.
Yeah, but as I was saying in my original post, it's not going to change anything.
I'm sorry, but if people like Martin Luther King (sorry for the cliche!) had thought they weren't going to change anything, where would we be now? oh please, if thats the attitude you take-then i pity you.
Gays have been getting along just fine without marriage.
Thats not the point and you know it. Just because people have been 'getting along fine' does not mean they don't have a right to demand greater equality.
-
I'm sorry, but if people like Martin Luther King (sorry for the cliche!) had thought they weren't going to change anything, where would we be now?
I know I'm gonna come off as a cynical bastard for saying this, but King's effects probably wouldn't be as profound if he wasn't murdered.
-
I'm sorry, but if people like Martin Luther King (sorry for the cliche!) had thought they weren't going to change anything, where would we be now?
I know I'm gonna come off as a cynical bastard for saying this, but King's effects probably wouldn't be as profound if he wasn't murdered.
I don't see why that has any relevance here.
-
I'm sorry, but if people like Martin Luther King (sorry for the cliche!) had thought they weren't going to change anything, where would we be now?
I know I'm gonna come off as a cynical bastard for saying this, but King's effects probably wouldn't be as profound if he wasn't murdered.
I don't see why that has any relevance here.
I shall explain myself further.
Think of the three most influental American civil rights figures. I would wager that most Americans would name King, Kennedy, and Lincoln. What do they have in common? They were martyrs for their causes. Sure, their attitudes were important, but it was only one part of the epoxy. A hardening agent was needed, namly their deaths. The attitude alone won't necessarily do much.
I guess you could cite Stanton and Anthony instead as counterexamples, but I digress.....
-
I'm sorry, but if people like Martin Luther King (sorry for the cliche!) had thought they weren't going to change anything, where would we be now?
I know I'm gonna come off as a cynical bastard for saying this, but King's effects probably wouldn't be as profound if he wasn't murdered.
I don't see why that has any relevance here.
I shall explain myself further.
Think of the three most influental American civil rights figures. I would wager that most Americans would name King, Kennedy, and Lincoln. What do they have in common? They were martyrs for their causes. Sure, their attitudes were important, but it was only one part of the epoxy. A hardening agent was needed, namly their deaths. The attitude alone won't necessarily do much.
I guess you could cite Stanton and Anthony instead as counterexamples, but I digress.....
Its a pyschological factor in minority influence Will- its how it works. There are a certain key ingredients to minority influence being accepted by a wider population- showing dedication to the point of death is one of them.
Even if your point is that King's points were accepted and heightened as a result of him being murdered, i see no reason why that lessens my point. He still made some change while he was alive- and my point was that he saw an opportunity for change- something keith clearly does not.
-
Yeah. Sorry I didn't make that clearer. I left it intentionally ambigous. Sometimes I use the writers "you" intentionally to get a reaction.
It should have been obvious to me from the phrasing of your earlier posts. Even so, it matters no longer because during the course of this dicussion I have changed my position to that of the hypothetical person we are using.
I would argue that even if your stance is that "gay marriage is a sin and sin creates unhappiness for the world" that this is still a biggotry. Because any position that says "gay marriage is a sin" but "hetrosexual marriage is not" is a biggoted position. Therefore, that fundamentally makes this hypothetical person a biggot. Just because his or her biggotry is born out of his or her religion doesn't excuse it.
This 'bigotry' is not equivelent to "wanting to punish fags because of a person dislike of them and their beliefs". It's just a label that, at least as far as you're concerned, comes attached to Biblical Christian belief. I can accept this label if all it means is that I believe homosexual marriage is a sin and comes without accusations such as personal dislike, desire to punish or derogatory terms like fag.
-Kev
-
Oops. My bad.
Oh scum scum sum, not only are you a fool- but you are turning american aswell.
I thought about saying "my mistake", but I didn't know if Andrew's polluted US vocabulary would understand correct English, so I tried to translate it ;)
-Kev
-
This thread was only ever going to end up in a debate- and as a result many more may have signed the petition.
Yeah, but as I was saying in my original post, it's not going to change anything.
If someone said to you "get out of this country for being gay" you would be immensely offended and say that was discrimination- YOU demand equal rights. Now if you demand that sort of equality then gay people equally have the right to demand equality of rights with straight couples- so what you're essentially doing is saying the same: "get out of this country for demanding equality"- so you can quit your damn bitching.
I don't know who pissed in your cornflakes this morning, but whatever. Gays have been getting along just fine without marriage.
Weather or not it will "change anything" has absolutly NO point in this conversation. But nice derailment. I mean, shit, is my 1 vote going to "change anything" in the upcoming election? I mean, it's just one vote and we don't even elect our president by a majority popular vote. So why bother voting?!? amirite?!?!?111!1! lolz!!11! D3|\/|0Cr4CY 4 L1F3!!1!! L33T!!!
If the gay community has been getting along so fucking well without gay marriage THEN WHY ARE THEY THE ONES ASKING FOR IT?!?! Yeah. They sure seem satisfied with their current status :roll:
You make it sound like it is the liberal maintstream trying to FORCE gay marriage on the gay community.
It's good to see that some things remain constant. You still have no fucking idea what you are talking about and yet you still feel the need to post your inane opinions willy-nilly about what was predominantly an intelligent discussion.
-
This 'bigotry' is not equivelent to "wanting to punish fags because of a person dislike of them and their beliefs". It's just a label that, at least as far as you're concerned, comes attached to Biblical Christian belief. I can accept this label if all it means is that I believe homosexual marriage is a sin and comes without accusations such as personal dislike, desire to punish or derogatory terms like fag.
-Kev
See, I disagree and I see no rational basis behind what you are saying. That is the equvilent of the statements YOU love so much, where a person opens with "I'm not racist... but....".
"I'm not a biggot, BUT I think gays should be denied the same rights as hetrosexuals."
I don't care if the basis for this belief is religion or morality or whatever. It is wrong. Either hetrosexual marriages needs to lose all their privilage or gay marriages need to receive all the same.
Edit: for those who are confused... the statement in QUOTES is not MY belief. I am making fun a of a hypothetical person who might say that. It's called IRONY.
-
I'm not a biggot, BUT I think gays should be denied the same rights as hetrosexuals
I feel the same way, I know it might be wrong to say this but I don't think homosexuals should be able to get married, and especially adopting children, I really feel that is wrong, and makes it hard for the child growing up.
so they should not be given the same rights.
Manda
-
Oops. My bad.
Oh scum scum sum, not only are you a fool- but you are turning american aswell.
I thought about saying "my mistake", but I didn't know if Andrew's polluted US vocabulary would understand correct English, so I tried to translate it ;)
-Kev
I perfectly underztand the way you Engizh people talk. In fact, I conzider myself an honorary brit. Rozie zaid she would help me find a monacle. I even have bad britizh pop music on my PC! I <3 the Spice Girlzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
Edit. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz!!!!! :dr evil:
-
I don't know who pissed in your cornflakes this morning, but whatever. Gays have been getting along just fine without marriage
Um, what country have you been living in!? Seriously, one of the most ignorant comments i've read. Yeah, things are getting somewhat easier for gays, but not enough to say that they're "Getting along fine." My best friend is gay. You wanna know how many times people in my school have called her a nasty dyke, wrote obscenities on her locker, been reported to the principle for offending people when she hasn't done anything?! Crap like that happens everyday. She had to transfer to another school, and even there the same crap happened. So obviously she's not doing fine in this country. And like Andrew said, if they're doing so well then why are they asking for equal rights?! UGH.
-
Oops. My bad.
Oh scum scum sum, not only are you a fool- but you are turning american aswell.
I thought about saying "my mistake", but I didn't know if Andrew's polluted US vocabulary would understand correct English, so I tried to translate it ;)
-Kev
I perfectly underztand the way you Engizh people talk. In fact, I conzider myself an honorary brit. Rozie zaid she would help me find a monacle. I even have bad britizh pop music on my PC! I <3 the Spice Girlzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
Edit. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz!!!!! :dr evil:
Somebody shoot him- please. :wink:
-
I'm not a biggot, BUT I think gays should be denied the same rights as hetrosexuals
I feel the same way, I know it might be wrong to say this but I don't think homosexuals should be able to get married, and especially adopting children, I really feel that is wrong, and makes it hard for the child growing up.
so they should not be given the same rights.
Manda
you make it sound like Andrew stated that was his opinion.
Maybe it is harder for the child, but the child will not (more than likely) be a closed minded, ignorant child when it comes to equal rights and humanity in general. They will learn what is true about a gay couple...not close their eyes and just say "THAT IS A SIN AND IT SHOULD BE ILLEGAL."
Which brings me to another point, what does it matter if that is a sin... If you're not gay, then you are not taking part in it...You're not sinning SO DON'T WORRY ABOUT IT. If it is sinning then in the end it will be GOD who takes care of it. He is the one that knows how you think and feel...HE is the one that made YOU. Don't give me that free will crap, HE is the one that did it, and if HE thinks it is a sin then HE will take care of it.
OPEN YOUR EYES AND MIND PEOPLE!
-
I think its wrong.
We all have our own opinion's about homosexuals wanting to get married/adopting kids, that is mine.
:roll:
Manda
-
I'm sorry, but if people like Martin Luther King (sorry for the cliche!) had thought they weren't going to change anything, where would we be now? oh please, if thats the attitude you take-then i pity you.
And you brought race into this because? Race and homosexuality are two different things.
But then again, I don't really care. Gay people should just deal with the fact that they will never be accepted everywhere and just be happy with what they have now.
Um, what country have you been living in!? Seriously, one of the most ignorant comments i've read. Yeah, things are getting somewhat easier for gays, but not enough to say that they're "Getting along fine." My best friend is gay.
By getting along fine I meant that gays have their hate crime laws, their pride parades, and everything else, so what if they can't get married? :roll:
They'll live.
You wanna know how many times people in my school have called her a nasty dyke, wrote obscenities on her locker, been reported to the principle for offending people when she hasn't done anything?! Crap like that happens everyday. She had to transfer to another school, and even there the same crap happened.
BIG DEAL. That's what you have to deal with if you chose that kind of lifestyle. If they pass the gay marriage law, do you think that kind of stuff will stop?
-
I'm sorry, but if people like Martin Luther King (sorry for the cliche!) had thought they weren't going to change anything, where would we be now? oh please, if thats the attitude you take-then i pity you.
And you brought race into this because? Race and homosexuality are two different things.
I will never understand how you manage to completely miss the point every single time someone makes a statement. MY statement refering to Martin Luther King was NOTHING to do with race- my point was that people who believe they can make a change often do-and that if everyone thought they couldn't make a change we would get nowhere.
Read it properly or don't bother saying anything.
-
Um, what country have you been living in!? Seriously, one of the most ignorant comments i've read. Yeah, things are getting somewhat easier for gays, but not enough to say that they're "Getting along fine." My best friend is gay.
By getting along fine I meant that gays have their hate crime laws, their pride parades, and everything else, so what if they can't get married? :roll:
They'll live.
You wanna know how many times people in my school have called her a nasty dyke, wrote obscenities on her locker, been reported to the principle for offending people when she hasn't done anything?! Crap like that happens everyday. She had to transfer to another school, and even there the same crap happened.
BIG DEAL. That's what you have to deal with if you chose that kind of lifestyle. If they pass the gay marriage law, do you think that kind of stuff will stop?
Big Deal?!?! She's tormented everyday and you say big deal?! First off, she did not choose to be gay (though that is my opinion). And maybe the hate crimes won't stop because of all the ignorant people in world *cough* but gays are still people, and should still be given the same rights as if they were straight. And who knows, it may help people to just shut up realize there are gay people living in the country, and they're not going to keep quiet and be denied rights.
-
See, I disagree and I see no rational basis behind what you are saying
The bigotry presented in your previous posts was one of wanting to punish gays because of a personal dislike of them. When I suggested an alternative motivation that did not involve these things, it was still deemed bigotry by you on the grounds that the belief that "homosexual marriage is a sin" and that "heterosexual marriage is not a sin" makes a person a bigot. The rational basis for my last post was that this latter example of what you consider bigotry (beliefs concerning marriage) was not equivelent to the previous example (personal dislike, desire to punishing fags, etc.). So whether you still consider it bigotry or not does not change the fact that support for the ammendment is not necessarily a case of wanting to punish homosexuals or motivated by personal dislike of them or what they believe.
This is the ONLY thing I've had a problem with this whole time. I thought I'd made that clear throughout (but obviously not :-\).
That is the equvilent of the statements YOU love so much, where a person opens with "I'm not racist... but....".
"I'm not a biggot, BUT I think gays should be denied the same rights as hetrosexuals."
I didn't claim that I wasn't a bigot. It was clear from your last post that, as far as you're concerned, it is an inescapeable consiquence of my beliefs. The claim I am making is that my position isn't influenced by personal dislike of gay people and their beliefs or a desire to punish them (which is what your first few posts would have people believe).
I don't care if the basis for this belief is religion or morality or whatever. It is wrong. Either hetrosexual marriages needs to lose all their privilage or gay marriages need to receive all the same
That's fine. I can't argue with an opinion. And I have deliberately avoided discussion of the should we/shouldn't we of the actual ammendment itself.
-Kev
-
It's good to see that some things remain constant. You still have no fucking idea what you are talking about and yet you still feel the need to post your inane opinions willy-nilly about what was predominantly an intelligent discussion.
I'm surprised he hasn't made the infamous Grakthis ignore list yet.
I perfectly underztand the way you Engizh people talk. In fact, I conzider myself an honorary brit. Rozie zaid she would help me find a monacle. I even have bad britizh pop music on my PC! I Heart the Spice Girlzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
Great start. Now you just have to stop calling us "Brits" (it's cringewprthy) and you're almost there.
-Kev
-
It's good to see that some things remain constant. You still have no fucking idea what you are talking about and yet you still feel the need to post your inane opinions willy-nilly about what was predominantly an intelligent discussion.
I'm surprised he hasn't made the infamous Grakthis ignore list yet.
I perfectly underztand the way you Engizh people talk. In fact, I conzider myself an honorary brit. Rozie zaid she would help me find a monacle. I even have bad britizh pop music on my PC! I Heart the Spice Girlzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
Great start. Now you just have to stop calling us "Brits" (it's cringewprthy) and you're almost there.
-Kev
Yeah, we're English for goodness sake! So shoot us if we don't want to be included with the Welsh ;) Its a fatal mistake americans make in trying to be PC. "Oh iiii just luuurve the british accent"- errr what british accent?
Oh and soon it will be only Blazin Squad lovers (i.e me and you scum!!We should be so lucky, luuucky, lucky lucky) left on the list of posts Andrew can actually see. Bwhahaha.
-
I'm on his ignore list. :lol:
-
I'm on his ignore list. :lol:
but, but, your so nice and sweet..................................
unless you were joking. *phooey*
Manda
-
Big Deal?!?! She's tormented everyday and you say big deal?! First off, she did not choose to be gay (though that is my opinion). And maybe the hate crimes won't stop because of all the ignorant people in world *cough* but gays are still people, and should still be given the same rights as if they were straight. And who knows, it may help people to just shut up realize there are gay people living in the country, and they're not going to keep quiet and be denied rights.
If said person chooses to flaunt her sexuality in everybody's faces and she gets insulted for it...what the hell should she expect? It would appear that homosexuality isn't too popular in your area. I have no sympathy for your friend.
-
Big Deal?!?! She's tormented everyday and you say big deal?! First off, she did not choose to be gay (though that is my opinion). And maybe the hate crimes won't stop because of all the ignorant people in world *cough* but gays are still people, and should still be given the same rights as if they were straight. And who knows, it may help people to just shut up realize there are gay people living in the country, and they're not going to keep quiet and be denied rights.
If said person chooses to flaunt her sexuality in everybody's faces and she gets insulted for it...what the hell should she expect? It would appear that homosexuality isn't too popular in your area. I have no sympathy for your friend.
You digust me, you really do. You're gay yourself, no? And then you say that someone is flaunting their sexuality when they just choose to be open about it when i could argue you are doing EXACTLY the same thing.
-
Big Deal?!?! She's tormented everyday and you say big deal?! First off, she did not choose to be gay (though that is my opinion). And maybe the hate crimes won't stop because of all the ignorant people in world *cough* but gays are still people, and should still be given the same rights as if they were straight. And who knows, it may help people to just shut up realize there are gay people living in the country, and they're not going to keep quiet and be denied rights.
If said person chooses to flaunt her sexuality in everybody's faces and she gets insulted for it...what the hell should she expect? It would appear that homosexuality isn't too popular in your area. I have no sympathy for your friend.
You digust me, you really do. You're gay yourself, no? And then you say that someone is flaunting their sexuality when they just choose to be open about it when i could argue you are doing EXACTLY the same thing.
Thank you Rosie. I seriously am at a loss for words. ok, so i'm really not. You don't even KNOW my friend!! How could you make such an assumption like that?!?! Where do you get off judging her when you don't even fricken know her?!! All she's doing is living her life!!!!! She doesn't go up to people and say "hey, i'm a lesbian." But she doesn't deny it either....so if you call that flaunting then yeah i guess she does. But I certainly don't think so, not when she's living like any other normal fricken person.
So screw you Keith. And all your ignorance. That's all I have to say to you.
-
You digust me, you really do. You're gay yourself, no? And then you say that someone is flaunting their sexuality when they just choose to be open about it when i could argue you are doing EXACTLY the same thing.
That's lovely darling. Rosie, why do you care so much about this whole gay marriage thing? You've been going on about it like you're gay yourself.
-
You digust me, you really do. You're gay yourself, no? And then you say that someone is flaunting their sexuality when they just choose to be open about it when i could argue you are doing EXACTLY the same thing.
That's lovely darling. Rosie, why do you care so much about this whole gay marriage thing? You've been going on about it like you're gay yourself.
Grow up keith. I am in favour of equal rights as are the majority of people on this board, and i hate Bush- so thats why i care.
-
Grow up keith. I am in favour of equal rights as are the majority of people on this board, and i hate Bush- so thats why i care.
Why do you hate Bush?
-
Yeah, we're English for goodness sake! So shoot us if we don't want to be included with the Welsh :-)
Not to mention the lowly Scots. How would you feel being lumped into the same category as someone like Scott ;-)
Oh and soon it will be only Blazin Squad lovers (i.e me and you scum!!We should be so lucky, luuucky, lucky lucky) left on the list of posts Andrew can actually see. Bwhahaha.
lol. Nice use of kylie lyrics.
-Kev
-
A constitutional amendment on this issue will never pass. It just won't--it's just too hard to do nowadays.
But one needs to be passed. I'm probably going to catch some flack on this issue, but whatever. In my mind, this is not one of the issues where we can have states determining the right way to go about things. To allow this to remain a state's rights issue would tear this country apart. To have marriages between homosexuals performed in some states, and then forcing other states that don't perform these marriages to actually acknowledge them due to Article Four, Section One would tear this country apart. We need a federal stance on the issue. Forget states rights. We don't need California passing gay marriages and forcing their beliefs of the issue on Georgia. We just don't.
What should the federal stance be? Who am I to say? I don't think homosexuals should be able to get married. Just don't--it's a sacred joining between a man and a woman. But I don't see the harm in allowing homosexuals to be given the same rights as married couples now receive (such as power of attourney, medical rights, etc. etc.). Civil unions seems not to be a bad way to go.
But vote for Edwards on Tuesday, and if Kerry gets nominated--and this is coming from a registered Democrat--vote for Bush. There are a LOT of bad things about Kerry that haven't come out yet--he's not a good guy for President. Vote Edwards!!!
-
Yeah, we're English for goodness sake! So shoot us if we don't want to be included with the Welsh :-)
Not to mention the lowly Scots. How would you feel being lumped into the same category as someone like Scott ;-)
-Kev
*travels back in time and smacks Kev on the head* :roll: you have angered me prepare to be hit on the head with some haggis in London BaBaY!!!!!!!!!!! :roflmao:
-
Go Rosie, go Rosie, you are so great in debates hun!! :D
I signed it, thank you for posting this Nicole, because it drives me crazy that so many people think gays have no rights. Two of my best friends I have are gay, and they should be treated no differently xoxox
-
I signed it, thank you for posting this Nicole, because it drives me crazy that so many people think gays have no rights. Two of my best friends I have are gay, and they should be treated no differently xoxox
Stop strawmanning those who do not favor gay "marriages." Gays should have all the rights that straight people do. However, should the legislature have the power to make pi=3? Even if they did pass such a law, it would still not be so. In the same way, marriage is between a man and a woman. Any legislation that is passed will not change that. Marriage has been this way since the beginning of recorded history. Even the Greeks who practiced homosexuality did not have gay marriages. This definition of marriage is not not tied specifically to the Judeo-Christian tradition, but is inherent in nature.
Fine. Go have domestic partnerships with all the legal rights of marriage. But don't call it marriage. It simply isn't. Any law passed to that effect will not make it so. This isn't about rights. It is about refusing to have the government redefine something in a ploy of social engineering.
-
Stop strawmanning those who do not favor gay "marriages." Gays should have all the rights that straight people do. However, should the legislature have the power to make pi=3? Even if they did pass such a law, it would still not be so. In the same way, marriage is between a man and a woman. Any legislation that is passed will not change that. Marriage has been this way since the beginning of recorded history. Even the Greeks who practiced homosexuality did not have gay marriages. This definition of marriage is not not tied specifically to the Judeo-Christian tradition, but is inherent in nature.
Fine. Go have domestic partnerships with all the legal rights of marriage. But don't call it marriage. It simply isn't. Any law passed to that effect will not make it so. This isn't about rights. It is about refusing to have the government redefine something in a ploy of social engineering.
*gives standing ovation*
-
See, I disagree and I see no rational basis behind what you are saying
The bigotry presented in your previous posts was one of wanting to punish gays because of a personal dislike of them. When I suggested an alternative motivation that did not involve these things, it was still deemed bigotry by you on the grounds that the belief that "homosexual marriage is a sin" and that "heterosexual marriage is not a sin" makes a person a bigot. The rational basis for my last post was that this latter example of what you consider bigotry (beliefs concerning marriage) was not equivelent to the previous example (personal dislike, desire to punishing fags, etc.). So whether you still consider it bigotry or not does not change the fact that support for the ammendment is not necessarily a case of wanting to punish homosexuals or motivated by personal dislike of them or what they believe.
This is the ONLY thing I've had a problem with this whole time. I thought I'd made that clear throughout (but obviously not :-\).
That is the equvilent of the statements YOU love so much, where a person opens with "I'm not racist... but....".
"I'm not a biggot, BUT I think gays should be denied the same rights as hetrosexuals."
I didn't claim that I wasn't a bigot. It was clear from your last post that, as far as you're concerned, it is an inescapeable consiquence of my beliefs. The claim I am making is that my position isn't influenced by personal dislike of gay people and their beliefs or a desire to punish them (which is what your first few posts would have people believe).
I don't care if the basis for this belief is religion or morality or whatever. It is wrong. Either hetrosexual marriages needs to lose all their privilage or gay marriages need to receive all the same
That's fine. I can't argue with an opinion. And I have deliberately avoided discussion of the should we/shouldn't we of the actual ammendment itself.
-Kev
Ok. I accept defeat on this point. Technically there is a distinction between the positions of "I hate fags" and "I think gay marriage is a sin". But if I use the "people against this hate fags" argument it gets a lot more attention :)
Really, the difference is arguably semantics. One comes from hatred, the other comes from faith. Both come from a position of supporting inequality.
How about this statement; Everyone who is for this amendment, on the basis of believing that gary marriage is morally wrong, is a bigot.
Does that statement hold up better in your mind?
-
I signed it, thank you for posting this Nicole, because it drives me crazy that so many people think gays have no rights. Two of my best friends I have are gay, and they should be treated no differently xoxox
Stop strawmanning those who do not favor gay "marriages." Gays should have all the rights that straight people do. However, should the legislature have the power to make pi=3? Even if they did pass such a law, it would still not be so. In the same way, marriage is between a man and a woman. Any legislation that is passed will not change that. Marriage has been this way since the beginning of recorded history. Even the Greeks who practiced homosexuality did not have gay marriages. This definition of marriage is not not tied specifically to the Judeo-Christian tradition, but is inherent in nature.
Fine. Go have domestic partnerships with all the legal rights of marriage. But don't call it marriage. It simply isn't. Any law passed to that effect will not make it so. This isn't about rights. It is about refusing to have the government redefine something in a ploy of social engineering.
I have no issue with this position. Thank you, Will, for an intelligent response from the Christian right :)
Even if your personal faith may dictate that Gay relationships are a sin, I appreciate the fact that you are smart enough to know where to draw the line when it comes to politics.
-
It's good to see that some things remain constant. You still have no fucking idea what you are talking about and yet you still feel the need to post your inane opinions willy-nilly about what was predominantly an intelligent discussion.
I'm surprised he hasn't made the infamous Grakthis ignore list yet.
I perfectly underztand the way you Engizh people talk. In fact, I conzider myself an honorary brit. Rozie zaid she would help me find a monacle. I even have bad britizh pop music on my PC! I Heart the Spice Girlzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
Great start. Now you just have to stop calling us "Brits" (it's cringewprthy) and you're almost there.
-Kev
Yeah, we're English for goodness sake! So shoot us if we don't want to be included with the Welsh ;) Its a fatal mistake americans make in trying to be PC. "Oh iiii just luuurve the british accent"- errr what british accent?
Oh and soon it will be only Blazin Squad lovers (i.e me and you scum!!We should be so lucky, luuucky, lucky lucky) left on the list of posts Andrew can actually see. Bwhahaha.
Bah! You are British, no? Besides, I can't call you "engs". And "English chaps" is way too long to type out.
Besides, Rosie refers to me as a Yank! I am not a Yankee! I am southern! Yankees are the NE part of the country!
I'll stop calling you Brits if you stop calling me a Yank. Deal? :)
BLAZINSQUAD 4 LIFE, YOO!!!!!!!!!
Edit @ Rosie - THe BS song I downloaded is called We Just Be Dreamin. It's AWESOME!!!!!!
Edit Edit: In b4 Derailment, yo!
-
BLAZINSQUAD 4 LIFE, YOO!!!!!!!!!
BS has given me a reason to point and laugh at the English. :-P
-
You mean the fact that they're English wasn't reason enough to laugh at them?
-
Grow up keith. I am in favour of equal rights as are the majority of people on this board, and i hate Bush- so thats why i care.
Why do you hate Bush?
Why do you hate Bush?Now you seem to be at a loss of words,dear. Is it because of the war in Iraq? Well if I'm not mistaken Tony Blair also had a large part in the war also. Not just Bush. Sure, it was Bushes idea but YOUR Prime Minister did not have to join on.
If I didn't hit it with the war in Iraq please educate me as to WHY you feel you must feel the need to bash my president!
Thank you.
And no, this isn't for anyone else BUT Rosie. She is a big girl and can defend herself.
-
Grow up keith. I am in favour of equal rights as are the majority of people on this board, and i hate Bush- so thats why i care.
Why do you hate Bush?
Why do you hate Bush?Now you seem to be at a loss of words,dear. Is it because of the war in Iraq? Well if I'm not mistaken Tony Blair also had a large part in the war also. Not just Bush. Sure, it was Bushes idea but YOUR Prime Minister did not have to join on.
If I didn't hit it with the war in Iraq please educate me as to WHY you feel you must feel the need to bash my president!
Thank you.
And no, this isn't for anyone else BUT Rosie. She is a big girl and can defend herself.
how patronizing, dear.
-
Grow up keith. I am in favour of equal rights as are the majority of people on this board, and i hate Bush- so thats why i care.
Why do you hate Bush?
Why do you hate Bush?Now you seem to be at a loss of words,dear. Is it because of the war in Iraq? Well if I'm not mistaken Tony Blair also had a large part in the war also. Not just Bush. Sure, it was Bushes idea but YOUR Prime Minister did not have to join on.
If I didn't hit it with the war in Iraq please educate me as to WHY you feel you must feel the need to bash my president!
Thank you.
And no, this isn't for anyone else BUT Rosie. She is a big girl and can defend herself.
how patronizing, dear.
attacking me now? and no it wasn't patronizing...that's how I talk. But you wouldn't know that....but you can jump down my throat? cool.
-
Grow up keith. I am in favour of equal rights as are the majority of people on this board, and i hate Bush- so thats why i care.
Why do you hate Bush?
Why do you hate Bush?Now you seem to be at a loss of words,dear. Is it because of the war in Iraq? Well if I'm not mistaken Tony Blair also had a large part in the war also. Not just Bush. Sure, it was Bushes idea but YOUR Prime Minister did not have to join on.
If I didn't hit it with the war in Iraq please educate me as to WHY you feel you must feel the need to bash my president!
Thank you.
And no, this isn't for anyone else BUT Rosie. She is a big girl and can defend herself.
how patronizing, dear.
attacking me now? and no it wasn't patronizing...that's how I talk. But you wouldn't know that....but you can jump down my throat? cool.
wow wow wow. i have nothing against you at all. please calm yourself. i am in no way attacking you.
perhaps i interpreted how you said it incorrectly. and so i apologize if that is just how you talk. but honestly- i wasn't intending to attack you. sorry.
jeez.
kelley
-
attacking me now? and no it wasn't patronizing...that's how I talk. But you wouldn't know that....but you can jump down my throat? cool.
*cracks whip*
Down girl :wink:
-
attacking me now? and no it wasn't patronizing...that's how I talk. But you wouldn't know that....but you can jump down my throat? cool.
*cracks whip*
Down girl :wink:
I'm fine...I just hate it when people just assume things. Rosie is a smart girl and can handle her own battles.
This place is so crazy. You say something to one person about something and then you get all their friends trying to fight for them. But, that's life. What can ya do?
-
attacking me now? and no it wasn't patronizing...that's how I talk. But you wouldn't know that....but you can jump down my throat? cool.
*cracks whip*
Down girl :wink:
I'm fine...I just hate it when people just assume things. Rosie is a smart girl and can handle her own battles.
This place is so crazy. You say something to one person about something and then you get all their friends trying to fight for them. But, that's life. What can ya do?
:-(
i wasn't assuming anything, i intrepreted it incorrectly. if anything, you're assuming that people will fight on behalf of rosie, which so far, no one has. i was just pointing out that you sounded as though you were patronizing. which i apologized for, so...
this argument honestly isn't worth having, so if you want to say something to me, you can speak directly to me (not through keith...) but hey, i wouldn't want to assume anything about why you replied like that...
i don't even know you and you don't know me, and i don't think we've ever talked before, so this was probably a bad way to start. but hey, it's just a messageboard. so think what you want about me ;-) it doesn't really matter in the end.
-
you can speak directly to me (not through keith...) but hey, i wouldn't want to assume anything about why you replied like that...
What did I have to do with anything??
-
you can speak directly to me (not through keith...) but hey, i wouldn't want to assume anything about why you replied like that...
What did I have to do with anything??
oh haha it's just that she quoted you instead of replying to my post above yours. other than that, nothing. how's it going keith? long time no see.
kelley
-
attacking me now? and no it wasn't patronizing...that's how I talk. But you wouldn't know that....but you can jump down my throat? cool.
*cracks whip*
Down girl :wink:
I'm fine...I just hate it when people just assume things. Rosie is a smart girl and can handle her own battles.
This place is so crazy. You say something to one person about something and then you get all their friends trying to fight for them. But, that's life. What can ya do?
:-(
i wasn't assuming anything, i intrepreted it incorrectly. if anything, you're assuming that people will fight on behalf of rosie, which so far, no one has. i was just pointing out that you sounded as though you were patronizing. which i apologized for, so...
this argument honestly isn't worth having, so if you want to say something to me, you can speak directly to me (not through keith...) but hey, i wouldn't want to assume anything about why you replied like that...
i don't even know you and you don't know me, and i don't think we've ever talked before, so this was probably a bad way to start. but hey, it's just a messageboard. so think what you want about me ;-) it doesn't really matter in the end.
I don't need to talk through Keith. I just replyed to that. That's all. And I'm not fighting here...this is stupid.
And yes, it was my fault for assuming people were going to stick up for Rosie. The way it is around here that is how it always is. And It's not just again here....it's everywhere in life. But I was right, you did start to stick up for her...by saying it was patronizing...whether you ment to or not. And you don't know me from a hole in the wall...so that's why it bothered me.
-
okay I got that you were just talking to Rosie, but she is not on so I will give you some FYI.
1) Rosie was for the war. Though most Brits were not.
2) WAKE* UP! Bush is not the greatest thing to walk the Earth.
3) You don't know if she likes Tony Blair or not...so you cannot use him as an example unless you know that she likes him...
*Yeah, it's four years later, but I am editing this...the mistake was pointed out later on in this thread.
-
okay i got that you were just talking to Rosie, but she is not on
Well when Rosie does return I'm sure she can handle herself. ;)
And I did ask her if that's not the reason why then to please explain because some of us Americans are very curious why she comes out with such strong feelings about our president.
-
she has explained that in some other threads...
and the reason she didn't answer to it is I told her (and she agreed) it's pointless to keep responding to some people.
Then again we'll let her tell you why, when she comes back, if she wants to tell you...
-
she has explained that in some other threads...
and the reason she didn't answer to it is I told her (and she agreed) it's pointless to keep responding to some people.
Then again we'll let her tell you why, when she comes back, if she wants to tell you...
Should I feel lucky if she tells me? You're making it seem like it's some prize for her to talk to me. That's lame.Fine. If she doesn't want to say why then fine. I won't pester her. I'm not intending to. I just think people should let her fight her own battles... :roll: If other people fight your fights then you look weak. And she should be able to explain what she dishes out about the American government whenever she says it.
-
and I'm sure she will, now.
she is far from weak.
-
and I'm sure she will, now.
she is far from weak.
I never called her weak.I said it would look weak. If you recall I called her smart...but I guess people don't see the GOOD I have to say. geeze
-
Kelly, you would be my best friend in the whole wide world if you would stop quoting sayyouwould. Because it just makes me want to flame her. And then she will cry. And then I have to deal with her constant bitching and moaning on the MB about how mean I am.
And she is annoying enough without all of that.
Edit: In before Sayyouwould responds to this post with a comment directed to me, even though she knows I have her on ignore and won't read it, yo.
Edit Edit @ Will and T - No fair, making fun of the English this late. It's like 4 AM for them right now. And plus, braveheart is on TNT so I think they are hiding from angry scotts having flashbacks :)
-
That's why those suckers lost the Revolution. Sleeping at 4AM.
Pansy asses.
-
That's why those suckers lost the Revolution. Sleeping at 4AM.
Pansy asses.
That, or the French came and rescued our sorry asses. :wink:
-
LOL I love message boards, they remind me of 4th grade where everyday we'd try a new subject but ended up everyday in the same conversation....
*needs sleep...Tricia rub some of that energy off on me*
-
Kelly, you would be my best friend in the whole wide world if you would stop quoting sayyouwould. Because it just makes me want to flame her. And then she will cry. And then I have to deal with her constant bitching and moaning on the MB about how mean I am.
And she is annoying enough without all of that.
Edit: In before Sayyouwould responds to this post with a comment directed to me, even though she knows I have her on ignore and won't read it, yo.
Edit Edit @ Will and T - No fair, making fun of the English this late. It's like 4 AM for them right now. And plus, braveheart is on TNT so I think they are hiding from angry scotts having flashbacks :)
Hey Andrew brings up a good point about the ignore list feature, it's sorta pointless because someone could easily quote what the other person is saying and you wouldn' t have any control over it :?
-
Kelly, you would be my best friend in the whole wide world if you would stop quoting sayyouwould. Because it just makes me want to flame her. And then she will cry. And then I have to deal with her constant bitching and moaning on the MB about how mean I am.
And she is annoying enough without all of that.
Edit: In before Sayyouwould responds to this post with a comment directed to me, even though she knows I have her on ignore and won't read it, yo.
Edit Edit @ Will and T - No fair, making fun of the English this late. It's like 4 AM for them right now. And plus, braveheart is on TNT so I think they are hiding from angry scotts having flashbacks :)
Hey Andrew brings up a good point about the ignore list feature, it's sorta pointless because someone could easily quote what the other person is saying and you wouldn' t have any control over it :?
Damn Keith! I had to read his crap...I don't think he realizes he's on my ignore as well...dumbass. lol cry somemore again Andy.
-
2) WACK UP! Bush is not the greatest thing to walk the Earth.
i love the fact that you said WACK aaaaaaaaaaahahahahaha oh jb i love you so.
and andrew :-) i just learned how to use the quote feature, so i go a little crazy sometimes. i'll be YOUR best friend if you keep arguing like you do. it's funny shit.
kelley
-
That's why those suckers lost the Revolution. Sleeping at 4AM.
Pansy asses.
That, or the French came and rescued our sorry asses. :wink:
And what cracks me up about that is now they're all "WAR!?!?!? WHAT WAR?!?!?! Who knew about zis war?" when the Nazis are marching through Paris...
-
LOL I love message boards, they remind me of 4th grade where everyday we'd try a new subject but ended up everyday in the same conversation....
*needs sleep...Tricia rub some of that energy off on me*
I'm telling. I'm so telling.
I'm also going to bed soon. I have to be at the gym at 6. LOL
-
But if I use the "people against this hate fags" argument it gets a lot more attention :)
That's why I wouldn't let the issue drop. It's a dirty debating tactic. For shame.
How about this statement; Everyone who is for this amendment, on the basis of believing that gary marriage is morally wrong, is a bigot.
Does that statement hold up better in your mind?
No, for reasons along the same lines as the things many have already pointed out in this thread. If a person believes that (just for example say) banks should not be able to refuse gay people a mortgage that an equivelent married couple are entitled to, or that gays should not be denied whatever other important legal stuff comes attached to marriage (like the things Todd mentioned), just that gay people should not be allowed to marry, then this support for a ban on homosexual marriage doesn't involve support for loss of homosexual rights. So in this case there would be no bigotry. Or would that still be bigotry to you because the person would still believe homosexual marriage is a sin and this belief is the basis for their support of a ban? But, let's leave it at that (edit: unless you have anything else to say), I'm tired, so yes the statement stands.
-Kev
-
No, for reasons along the same lines as the things many have already pointed out in this thread. If a person believes that (just for example say) banks should not be able to refuse gay people a mortgage that an equivelent married couple are entitled to, or that gays should not be denied whatever other important legal stuff comes attached to marriage (like the things Todd mentioned), just that gay people should not be allowed to marry, then this support for a ban on homosexual marriage doesn't involve support for loss of homosexual rights. So in this case there would be no bigotry. Or would that still be bigotry to you because the person would still believe homosexual marriage is a sin and this belief is the basis for their support of a ban? But, let's leave it at that (edit: unless you have anything else to say), I'm tired, so yes the statement stands.
-Kev
Truth. I agree with your statements.
If your (or a hypothetical persons) stance is that of Will's, I have no problems with you. It's valid to refuse to let the government redefine a word that has had a set social meaning for hundreds of years.
If your stance is to deny homosexuals the rights that everyone else recieves, because you feel it is somehow wrong, then you are a bigot.
If your stance is that Homosexual marriages should have the same rights but a different name, then in my mind you aren't opposed to homosexual marriages as an institution... you are just against redefineing a word.
-
and andrew :-) i just learned how to use the quote feature, so i go a little crazy sometimes. i'll be YOUR best friend if you keep arguing like you do. it's funny shit.
kelley
hehehehe. I will be more than happy to continue my aguing :)
I <3 Your Sig. If I were Gay, I'd so jump Chris. He's so tiny!!!
-
Grow up keith. I am in favour of equal rights as are the majority of people on this board, and i hate Bush- so thats why i care.
Why do you hate Bush?
Why do you hate Bush?Now you seem to be at a loss of words,dear. Is it because of the war in Iraq? Well if I'm not mistaken Tony Blair also had a large part in the war also. Not just Bush. Sure, it was Bushes idea but YOUR Prime Minister did not have to join on.
If I didn't hit it with the war in Iraq please educate me as to WHY you feel you must feel the need to bash my president!
Thank you.
And no, this isn't for anyone else BUT Rosie. She is a big girl and can defend herself.
I was not at a 'loss for words' as you so kindly put it, i am NEVER at a loss for words. I did not reply for the simple fact that i do not want to argue with Keith anymore- he makes stupid points and i get exceedingly angry.
I hate Bush for a number of reasons:
1. His mishandling of the war. Despite the fact that i supported it, it was primarily to oust saddam as my grandpa was persecuted by the Ba'ath party for speaking out against him. Oh and also pacifists piss me off. It is a pathetic point to make that 'my prime minister joined in too' because you have no idea of whether i support Blair or not. 2 million people marched here against the war- our country was very much against it.
2. His use of strong religious views to sway policy making. I don't believe that religion and politics should be combined.
3. And mainly his strong right wing stance- i don't like right wingers.
So those are just a few to start you off. And Shelly, i know you're patriotic but scrutiny and criticism is the way democracy works and betters itself. So please, don't come back kicking and screaming as if i've insulted your country.
-
I was not at a 'loss for words' as you so kindly put it, i am NEVER at a loss for words.
I <3 Rosie
-
I was not at a 'loss for words' as you so kindly put it, i am NEVER at a loss for words.
I <3 Rosie
Rosie "at a loss for words" would be like Brian at a loss for Bling, Nicole at a loss for Marily Manson, Kev at a loss for Kelis, BV at a loss for religion or Pete at a loss for crazy.
These things just don't happen! :)
-
Rosie "at a loss for words" would be like Brian at a loss for Bling, Nicole at a loss for Marily Manson, Kev at a loss for Kelis, BV at a loss for religion or Pete at a loss for crazy.
best quote ever!!!
-
I was not at a 'loss for words' as you so kindly put it, i am NEVER at a loss for words.
I <3 Rosie
Rosie "at a loss for words" would be like Brian at a loss for Bling, Nicole at a loss for Marily Manson, Kev at a loss for Kelis, BV at a loss for religion or Pete at a loss for crazy.
These things just don't happen! :)
Pete just told me that i was definitely not crazy
-
Truth. I agree with your statements.
If your (or a hypothetical persons) stance is that of Will's...
*cut*
...you are just against redefineing a word.
Also truth. As of this point, we are in agreement.
Purely as an exercise of thought (and only that), but at the considerable risk of stretching this dicussion beyond the bounds of tedium. A stance taken by almost everybody (including myself) is that murderers should be denied rights that everybody else recieves (most noteably freedom), because they feel that murder is somehow wrong. That makes almost everybody a bigot (in the same sense of bigotry as stance number 2 above) towards murderers. Clearly this is bigotry in an acceptable form. A small few take the opposite stance that such bigotry of murder is not justified for various reasons (they deserved it, they're dead so they don't actually suffer anything as a result their own murder, it's a natural part of evolution, etc.)
Slightly fewer people take a similar bigoted stance on personal drug use. Some do not take this stance and argue that drug users should not be denied any rights usually either because their actions have no harmful effect on anybody other than themselves, or that the drugs actually have no significant harmful effects.
Fewer (probably, but this is a guess) people still, take the bigoted stance on homosexuality that you mentioned above. Many do not take this stance and claim that homosexuals should not be denied rights because again, their actions have no significant harmful effects.
Even fewer (another guess) people take the bigoted stance that black people should be denied equal rights with white people. Many do not take this stance for many, many reasons.
Surely any sane person would agree that they could draw a line between two of those examples and seperate them into acceptable and unacceptable forms of bigotry. You (Andrew) would clearly draw the line between drug use and homosexuality (or perhaps murder and drug use). Adolf hitler would probably have grouped them all as acceptable and the hypothetical person we were discussing would draw it between homosexuality and being black. My question is who should decide where to draw that line and how do/should they decide it?
-Kev
P.S. Sorry this is so long.
-
I was not at a 'loss for words' as you so kindly put it, i am NEVER at a loss for words.
I <3 Rosie
Rosie "at a loss for words" would be like Brian at a loss for Bling, Nicole at a loss for Marily Manson, Kev at a loss for Kelis, BV at a loss for religion or Pete at a loss for crazy.
These things just don't happen! :)
Exactamon my Z-loving chum.
-
Rosie "at a loss for words" would be like Brian at a loss for Bling, Nicole at a loss for Marily Manson, Kev at a loss for Kelis, BV at a loss for religion or Pete at a loss for crazy.
Or Andrew at a loss for :dr evil:
-
I was not at a 'loss for words' as you so kindly put it, i am NEVER at a loss for words.
I <3 Rosie
Rosie "at a loss for words" would be like Brian at a loss for Bling, Nicole at a loss for Marily Manson, Kev at a loss for Kelis, BV at a loss for religion or Pete at a loss for crazy.
These things just don't happen! :)
I don't get an "at loss for"???
-
I was not at a 'loss for words' as you so kindly put it, i am NEVER at a loss for words.
I <3 Rosie
Rosie "at a loss for words" would be like Brian at a loss for Bling, Nicole at a loss for Marily Manson, Kev at a loss for Kelis, BV at a loss for religion or Pete at a loss for crazy.
These things just don't happen! :)
i love it!
-
and andrew :-) i just learned how to use the quote feature, so i go a little crazy sometimes. i'll be YOUR best friend if you keep arguing like you do. it's funny shit.
kelley
hehehehe. I will be more than happy to continue my aguing :)
I <3 Your Sig. If I were Gay, I'd so jump Chris. He's so tiny!!!
why don't you marry him ;)
-
I don't get an "at loss for"???
I'll happily trade.
-Kev
-
I was not at a 'loss for words' as you so kindly put it, i am NEVER at a loss for words.
I <3 Rosie
Rosie "at a loss for words" would be like Brian at a loss for Bling, Nicole at a loss for Marily Manson, Kev at a loss for Kelis, BV at a loss for religion or Pete at a loss for crazy.
These things just don't happen! :)
I don't get an "at loss for"???
Todd at a loss for GSU
-
At a loss for hot girls trying to rape him?
We must come up with something that will answer this question!
-
At a loss for hot girls trying to rape him?
We must come up with something that will answer this question!
I was thinking more 'todd at a loss for molesting women'.
Oh and Kevin, Andrew clearly is at a loss without Blazin' Squad! Pfft, thought that was obvious!
-
Oh and Kevin, Andrew clearly is at a loss without Blazin' Squad! Pfft, thought that was obvious!
Hehe. Klear-lee. In fact, it's was so strongly self evident that I didn't even need to say it.
-Kev
-
Oh and Kevin, Andrew clearly is at a loss without Blazin' Squad! Pfft, thought that was obvious!
Hehe. Klear-lee. In fact, it's was so strongly self evident that I didn't even need to say it.
-Kev
Kra-zee tru!
-
2) WACK UP! Bush is not the greatest thing to walk the Earth.
i love the fact that you said WACK aaaaaaaaaaahahahahaha oh jb i love you so.
don't you like my new expression??
*pretends to not be the worse speller in the world...though I so am*
-
Truth. I agree with your statements.
If your (or a hypothetical persons) stance is that of Will's...
*cut*
...you are just against redefineing a word.
Also truth. As of this point, we are in agreement.
Purely as an exercise of thought (and only that), but at the considerable risk of stretching this dicussion beyond the bounds of tedium. A stance taken by almost everybody (including myself) is that murderers should be denied rights that everybody else recieves (most noteably freedom), because they feel that murder is somehow wrong. That makes almost everybody a bigot (in the same sense of bigotry as stance number 2 above) towards murderers. Clearly this is bigotry in an acceptable form. A small few take the opposite stance that such bigotry of murder is not justified for various reasons (they deserved it, they're dead so they don't actually suffer anything as a result their own murder, it's a natural part of evolution, etc.)
Slightly fewer people take a similar bigoted stance on personal drug use. Some do not take this stance and argue that drug users should not be denied any rights usually either because their actions have no harmful effect on anybody other than themselves, or that the drugs actually have no significant harmful effects.
Fewer (probably, but this is a guess) people still, take the bigoted stance on homosexuality that you mentioned above. Many do not take this stance and claim that homosexuals should not be denied rights because again, their actions have no significant harmful effects.
Even fewer (another guess) people take the bigoted stance that black people should be denied equal rights with white people. Many do not take this stance for many, many reasons.
Surely any sane person would agree that they could draw a line between two of those examples and seperate them into acceptable and unacceptable forms of bigotry. You (Andrew) would clearly draw the line between drug use and homosexuality (or perhaps murder and drug use). Adolf hitler would probably have grouped them all as acceptable and the hypothetical person we were discussing would draw it between homosexuality and being black. My question is who should decide where to draw that line and how do/should they decide it?
-Kev
P.S. Sorry this is so long.
Ah ha!
Excellent points.
Everyone is bigoted towards something. Just like EVERYONE is prejudiced. People often get lost in the connotation of these words and forget the denotation.
This is a question at the ROOT of philosophy and morality. How do you define "right" and "wrong". This could run into another 25 page thread if we let it.
There are actually a TON of great works on this ranging from Plato, to Augustine to Kant.
The american public is STILL reaching for an answer to this question. And right now we have laws that are clearly based in 3 or 4 DIFFERENT views of morality. However, seemingly, we are moving towards a stance of "if it doesn't hurt me, you can do it."
More of a UTILITY theory of morality. Which is very much so a part of the libertarian stance of politics. Which is, in MANY ways, the exact stance I agree with. You should be allowed to do anything you want to yourself or with/to another consenting adult AS LONG as it does not hurt anyone outside of the consenting group.
The argument, in my mind, is DOES GAY MARRIAGE hurt anyone else. (BTW, I think you have to draw the line for "anyone else" somewhere too. You have to draw it at "normal rational human beings". In other words, if a weirdo gets offended by the color green, I can't be expected to stop wearing it).
Clearly, murder hurts other people. But does doing drugs? That's up for debate. Does being gay? I see no evidence for this, but it is possible. If it were shown that a majority of the US population is very distinctly offended and hurt by homosexual couples then clearly it should be illegal. But I don't think that is the case because there is not "utility theory" reason for it to hurt people.
-
Oh and Kevin, Andrew clearly is at a loss without Blazin' Squad! Pfft, thought that was obvious!
Hehe. Klear-lee. In fact, it's was so strongly self evident that I didn't even need to say it.
-Kev
I swear... if you are really listening to that song right now... we are gonna have a fight :)
-
Oh and Kevin, Andrew clearly is at a loss without Blazin' Squad! Pfft, thought that was obvious!
Hehe. Klear-lee. In fact, it's was so strongly self evident that I didn't even need to say it.
-Kev
I swear... if you are really listening to that song right now... we are gonna have a fight :)
Why, because no one two people can listen to such an intense, love filled song at the same time? This would clearly be damaging- the spreading of such FANTASTIC music might be dangerous.
-
Oh and Kevin, Andrew clearly is at a loss without Blazin' Squad! Pfft, thought that was obvious!
Hehe. Klear-lee. In fact, it's was so strongly self evident that I didn't even need to say it.
-Kev
I swear... if you are really listening to that song right now... we are gonna have a fight :)
Why, because no one two people can listen to such an intense, love filled song at the same time? This would clearly be damaging- the spreading of such FANTASTIC music might be dangerous.
It's my song dammit!
Fine... you can both listen to my group. But I got dibs on the cute one!!111!1!!!11
-
I swear... if you are really listening to that song right now... we are gonna have a fight :)
*Cracks knuckles*. Okay, let's get this over with. I'm not letting go of Dreamin without a fight.
-
I swear... if you are really listening to that song right now... we are gonna have a fight :)
*Cracks knuckles*. Okay, let's get this over with. I'm not letting go of Dreamin without a fight.
Bitch, I know you aint lookin at my band.
-
But I got dibs on the cute one!!111!1!!!11
And ermmm, which one would that be? :?
(http://www.bbc.co.uk/totp/features/wallpaper/800x600/blazin_squad.jpg)
P.S you can also use this as a wallpaper andrew and kev- bet you're pleased with me!
-
I did not reply for the simple fact that i do not want to argue with Keith anymore- he makes stupid points and i get exceedingly angry.
Pfft, I wouldn't argue with you Rosie, the fact is, I can have more intelligent spats with a light switch. :roll: And I sure as hell wouldn't get all upset over something as lame as the topic of gay rights/marriage. I make stupid points? Rosie, get over yourself, you feel that you can go off on someone who doesn't agree with you. I never jumped on you, you are the one who got "disgusted" with me because I didn't care about that whole gay marriage thing and I still don't care. You seriously need to step back and take a chill pill.
It's good that you don't live in this country, and like I said in a prior post, if you hate this country so much, you can hop on a plane and get the hell out.
-
But I got dibs on the cute one!!111!1!!!11
And ermmm, which one would that be? :?
(http://www.bbc.co.uk/totp/features/wallpaper/800x600/blazin_squad.jpg)
P.S you can also use this as a wallpaper andrew and kev- bet you're pleased with me!
Umm.... that one. :lol:
Edit: not sure which one is "that" one yet... but not the one with the eyebrow ring. He looks like he's down.... like the syndrome.
Edit Edit: That might not be an eyebrow ring.... he might just have f'd up eyebrows... whatever. The stupid one in the middle right. Not him.
Edit @ Keith - STFU, n00b. Rozie PWnZ j00000!!11
-
(http://www.gangstagear.co.uk/images/products/tshirt1.gif)
LOOK! Its that t-shirt you have Scum! Fancy that!
-
P.S you can also use this as a wallpaper andrew and kev- bet you're pleased with me!
Fittays ;-)
That's it! I can't keep up this ridiculous charade any more. Just look how seriously they take themselves! They MUST know that they are the laughing stock of a nation (+ Andrew).
-Kev
-
(http://www.childrenfirst.nhs.uk/images/celeb/kenzie_lrg.jpg)
OMG i actually, honestly CANT stop laughing. I am just sitting here in fits of giggles at Kenzie. (Maybe those are girly 'in love' giggles?)
-
(http://www.gangstagear.co.uk/images/products/tshirt1.gif)
LOOK! Its that t-shirt you have Scum! Fancy that!
I would so wear that. Every American would look at me like I'm nuts.... but I'd know how funny it is.
@ Kev - You gotta figure, right? I mean, atleast N'Sync and BsB had some musical integrity.
-
"At least there's the lyric sheet to make you smile. It's mostly generic nonsense from the Ali G dictionary but there are a few gems, not least the contribution of crew member Freek to 'All About The Music'. Consider: "I'll thrive on your blood, hungry for your skin/chop up your bones, and put you in my tin/I'm the brother of the devil, and the master of Satan/I'm the feeling in your body, and I'm gonna make you cringe." Excellent. "
A very complementary review:
http://uk.launch.yahoo.com/l_reviews_a/27408.html
-
thread snatchersssssssssssss.
-
thread snatchersssssssssssss.
All your thread are belong to us.
-
Well, damn.
The 'All your base are belong to us.' and the game it is from now sucks.
-
and andrew :-) i just learned how to use the quote feature, so i go a little crazy sometimes. i'll be YOUR best friend if you keep arguing like you do. it's funny shit.
kelley
hehehehe. I will be more than happy to continue my aguing :)
I <3 Your Sig. If I were Gay, I'd so jump Chris. He's so tiny!!!
if i weren't gay i'd jump chris! oh. wait. yes. haha
ooooooh andrew you are a card :-)! and i <3 THAT!
kelley
-
This is a question at the ROOT of philosophy and morality. How do you define "right" and "wrong". This could run into another 25 page thread if we let it.
There are actually a TON of great works on this ranging from Plato, to Augustine to Kant.
The american public is STILL reaching for an answer to this question. And right now we have laws that are clearly based in 3 or 4 DIFFERENT views of morality. However, seemingly, we are moving towards a stance of "if it doesn't hurt me, you can do it."
More of a UTILITY theory of morality. Which is very much so a part of the libertarian stance of politics. Which is, in MANY ways, the exact stance I agree with. You should be allowed to do anything you want to yourself or with/to another consenting adult AS LONG as it does not hurt anyone outside of the consenting group.
The argument, in my mind, is DOES GAY MARRIAGE hurt anyone else. (BTW, I think you have to draw the line for "anyone else" somewhere too. You have to draw it at "normal rational human beings". In other words, if a weirdo gets offended by the color green, I can't be expected to stop wearing it).
Clearly, murder hurts other people. But does doing drugs? That's up for debate. Does being gay? I see no evidence for this, but it is possible. If it were shown that a majority of the US population is very distinctly offended and hurt by homosexual couples then clearly it should be illegal. But I don't think that is the case because there is not "utility theory" reason for it to hurt people.
Clearly a person's preferred political stance is a product of their stance on morality. So any argument for/against homosexual marriage is only as strong as the case for the system of morality on which it's based. It doesn't appear that anybody has a definitive answer to the question of defining "right" and "wrong", so it follows that nobody can claim (with a straight face) to have a definitive answer to the political issue of homosexual marriage. They can only claim to have the final answer within their own moral frame of reference.
However after saying that, I do see that there is a reason beyond just personal preference to favour one morality over another. A person's ideas of morality are a result of their worldview. A Christian believes in God and that God makes the rules for his creation, which gives rise to biblical morality. Muslims believe in a different god and that he makes different rules, which gives rise to another morality. Most atheists, agnostics and those with belief in a personal god, probably believe that humans make up their own rules. Utility theory falls out of these latter worldviews because it represents the maximum amount of freedom people can have without the fear of going to the shops and getting their legs broken or wallet stolen, all quite legally. To me it seems that any position on morality and it's attached political positions can indeed be attacked on the strength (or lack thereof) of the underlying worldview.
So my point after all this is that if somebody (*cough Rosie *cough* ;-)) wishes to suggest (credibly) that Blackvulture's position on this amendment is unacceptable because "Its people like you that are generalising your beliefs to a wider population assuming the Bible is inerrant- which is clearly not the case," then they had better be bringing some evidence to the table and be prepared to back it up. It should also be noted that anybody supporting this amendment isn't necessarily trying to impose their beliefs onto a wider population just their morality, which is exactly what everybody who has signed the petition is also trying to do. Similarly (*cough* Andrew *cough*) labeling blackvulture a bigot, while it may well be true, does not achieve anything for your cause or against his, everyone's a bigot and the question is only which bigotry is the best bigotry.
Of course, nobody lets go of their worldview without a fight, and so debate in that area will never end. But neither side of the debate gets a free ride. Am I right or what?
-Kev
-
This is a question at the ROOT of philosophy and morality. How do you define "right" and "wrong". This could run into another 25 page thread if we let it.
There are actually a TON of great works on this ranging from Plato, to Augustine to Kant.
The american public is STILL reaching for an answer to this question. And right now we have laws that are clearly based in 3 or 4 DIFFERENT views of morality. However, seemingly, we are moving towards a stance of "if it doesn't hurt me, you can do it."
More of a UTILITY theory of morality. Which is very much so a part of the libertarian stance of politics. Which is, in MANY ways, the exact stance I agree with. You should be allowed to do anything you want to yourself or with/to another consenting adult AS LONG as it does not hurt anyone outside of the consenting group.
The argument, in my mind, is DOES GAY MARRIAGE hurt anyone else. (BTW, I think you have to draw the line for "anyone else" somewhere too. You have to draw it at "normal rational human beings". In other words, if a weirdo gets offended by the color green, I can't be expected to stop wearing it).
Clearly, murder hurts other people. But does doing drugs? That's up for debate. Does being gay? I see no evidence for this, but it is possible. If it were shown that a majority of the US population is very distinctly offended and hurt by homosexual couples then clearly it should be illegal. But I don't think that is the case because there is not "utility theory" reason for it to hurt people.
Clearly a person's preferred political stance is a product of their stance on morality. So any argument for/against homosexual marriage is only as strong as the case for the system of morality on which it's based. It doesn't appear that anybody has a definitive answer to the question of defining "right" and "wrong", so it follows that nobody can claim (with a straight face) to have a definitive answer to the political issue of homosexual marriage. They can only claim to have the final answer within their own moral frame of reference.
However after saying that, I do see that there is a reason beyond just personal preference to favour one morality over another. A person's ideas of morality are a result of their worldview. A Christian believes in God and that God makes the rules for his creation, which gives rise to biblical morality. Muslims believe in a different god and that he makes different rules, which gives rise to another morality. Most atheists, agnostics and those with belief in a personal god, probably believe that humans make up their own rules. Utility theory falls out of these latter worldviews because it represents the maximum amount of freedom people can have without the fear of going to the shops and getting their legs broken or wallet stolen, all quite legally. To me it seems that any position on morality and it's attached political positions can indeed be attacked on the strength (or lack thereof) of the underlying worldview.
So my point after all this is that if somebody (*cough Rosie *cough* ;-)) wishes to suggest (credibly) that Blackvulture's position on this amendment is unacceptable because "Its people like you that are generalising your beliefs to a wider population assuming the Bible is inerrant- which is clearly not the case," then they had better be bringing some evidence to the table and be prepared to back it up. It should also be noted that anybody supporting this amendment isn't necessarily trying to impose their beliefs onto a wider population just their morality, which is exactly what everybody who has signed the petition is also trying to do. Similarly (*cough* Andrew *cough*) labeling blackvulture a bigot, while it may well be true, does not achieve anything for your cause or against his, everyone's a bigot and the question is only which bigotry is the best bigotry.
Of course, nobody lets go of their worldview without a fight, and so debate in that area will never end. But neither side of the debate gets a free ride. Am I right or what?
-Kev
Yes. You are right on 99% of your points.
BUT you leave out some other key points and implications.
The largest being that Utility theory is inherantly a part of every other system of morality. Most "divinely inspired" systems of morality declare that God reveals some rights and wrongs through observation and experience and others are revealed only through faith and an internal feeling of "right" and "wrong" that western philosophy often calls a conscience.
Therefore, Utility theory should directly be a part of EVERY morality, just different moralities justify it in different ways. Ujustified murder is readily and apparently wrong, therefore it is a part of all rational morality. Now, the point of debate for us is, once again, if allowing gay marriage really is empyrically OK. Obviously, I feel the answer is "yes" because it don't see any evidence that it does harm to the rest of the people in the world. Someone may be able to argue for a "no", but I have yet to see a good argument there.
I think EVERYONE in this thread would agree that people should be allowed to BELIEVE whatever they want. This is a basic premise of the United States and western civilization as we know it.
So if we assume that everyone should be entitled to their own system of morality, then the question becomes, "What system of morality can we base LAW'S on that will not infringe on the rights of of the people to have their own personal morality?"
When that becomes the question, the answer must be "Utility Theory". The only morality that is defineable and explainable using empyrical evidence and debate. The only morality that is based in facts and reality and not simply in beliefs or intuition or "forms" that exist outside of the material realm.
THEREFORE, while I fully support Rosie and Kev's right to believe in their own system of morality (even when I diverges from my own) I disagree with their right to convert their personal morality to LAW.
Law's should be objective, not subjective.
Which is largely why most American's feel that Abortion is wrong, but it is still legal in the US. Empyrically, there is nothing wrong with abortion. You cannot prove to me that abortion harms anyone and often times it saves the mother from a lot of pain and unhappiness.
But morally, I still feel it is wrong. But I have no desire to impose my personal morality on the rest of the world.
-
Andrew, I believe that there is no such thing as objective law. Law is just morality forced upon others by either force or by consent of those who are being governed. The closest thing we have to objective law is a law in which the majority agrees with the majority of the law.
You state that "Unjustified murder is readily and apparently wrong, therefore it is a part of all rational morality." That is not entirely accurate. I was reading something by a Satanist of some variety and he stated that the most moral thing is to act in your own interests, regardless of the effects that such an action would have on others. This includes murdering for one's gain. I would classify his moral system as a rational one as it is internally consistent based on the postulates inherent in that form of morality. His position is inconsistent with our entire concept of law.
That is but one example. Objective law is a myth, albeit a beautiful and compelling one.
-
Andrew, I believe that there is no such thing as objective law. Law is just morality forced upon others by either force or by consent of those who are being governed. The closest thing we have to objective law is a law in which the majority agrees with the majority of the law.
You state that "Unjustified murder is readily and apparently wrong, therefore it is a part of all rational morality." That is not entirely accurate. I was reading something by a Satanist of some variety and he stated that the most moral thing is to act in your own interests, regardless of the effects that such an action would have on others. This includes murdering for one's gain. I would classify his moral system as a rational one as it is internally consistent based on the postulates inherent in that form of morality. His position is inconsistent with our entire concept of law.
That is but one example. Objective law is a myth, albeit a beautiful and compelling one.
Any satanist who argued this, did so poorly. He was too busy looking at the short term.
if it were ALLOWED for you to murder someone else for your own gain, then it would also be allowed for someone else to murder you for their own gain. Thereby, greatly endangering your own life.
Only via the Hobbesian Social Contract can we enable the greatest safety and happiness for all.
Hence, your argument is wrong. And your satanist author's argument is wrong.
This is well tread philisophical ground. Google up Hobbes and that should be enough to get you started.
-
[Insert lots of stuff about utility theory and the law here]
Okay *penny drops* I concede the point.
This is all starting to sound very familiar. I had a similar discussion on the evboard with a guy named EternalJester about the current basis for law. We spoke in terms of pragmatism, which I am guessing is the philosophical core of utility theory (?)
As much as I think both of our crumbling nations would benefit from a biblical sytem of law rather than a law based on utility theory. And as much as I think law makers are in for a rude awakening when they discover a whole bunch of non-material things they didn't factor into the law when they gambled on pure material consideration. Under the current system, there is no grounds for a forced ban on gay "marriage".
As a (potentially) final question. EJ made the following argument for legal murder under a totally pragmatic system of law. What's your position on it. Not do you think it's moral, but should it be legal?
If I murdered a homeless man whom I'd never met, in a painless way and this man had no family or friends to suffer grief from his loss of life, then is that justified (i.e. should be legal) murder in the context of utility theory? There is no empirically demonstratable harm caused to anybody (including the victim, who suffers nothing for being dead according to everything purely empirical study can tell us).
-Kev
P.S. Utility theory <--- Worst theory name evar!!1!`
-
You people are way too stupid.
-
[Insert lots of stuff about utility theory and the law here]
Okay *penny drops* I concede the point.
This is all starting to sound very familiar. I had a similar discussion on the evboard with a guy named EternalJester about the current basis for law. We spoke in terms of pragmatism, which I am guessing is the philosophical core of utility theory (?)
As much as I think both of our crumbling nations would benefit from a biblical sytem of law rather than a law based on utility theory. And as much as I think law makers are in for a rude awakening when they discover a whole bunch of non-material things they didn't factor into the law when they gambled on pure material consideration. Under the current system, there is no grounds for a forced ban on gay "marriage".
As a (potentially) final question. EJ made the following argument for legal murder under a totally pragmatic system of law. What's your position on it. Not do you think it's moral, but should it be legal?
If I murdered a homeless man whom I'd never met, in a painless way and this man had no family or friends to suffer grief from his loss of life, then is that justified (i.e. should be legal) murder in the context of utility theory? There is no empirically demonstratable harm caused to anybody (including the victim, who suffers nothing for being dead according to everything purely empirical study can tell us).
-Kev
P.S. Utility theory <--- Worst theory name evar!!1!`
You believed Machiavelli?!? Punk'd! lol.
Thomas Hobbes pwns j000000!!!! (well, not entirely... as Hobbes did support concepts of abstract morality... but lets focus on his Natural Law and Social Contract for a minute).
There are actually 2 answers. The first one I wil gloss over because it is not what you are looking for, BUT because we live in a society with a Social Contract it is ILLEGAL to kill the bum, therefore the cost is being put in jail or worse (Very Hobbes.. enforced morality due to fear of punishment). But this is tautology at it's best because we are using the end result to justify its own existance.
Here is the reason you cannot kill the bum sans an existing social contract (this is more John Locke in nature because it relies on human compasion and empathy). If you kill the bum and get away with it then society prospers in the short term because there is one less bum to support. BUT then even in utility theory, that means that if you were ever to become a bum with no family, someone else could kill you. Now, assuming you are not insane, then you wouldn't want to be killed were you in that situation. Therefore, killing the bum has specific costs with it (it is now ok to kill you in the same situation) and those costs eliminate it as a viable choice (no one wants to be killed).
-
You people are way too stupid.
hey guyz, whts goin on in this thread thats way abve my intellect lvl?!? OMGBBQWTFLOLZ!!!111!!
-
You people are way too stupid.
hey guyz, whts goin on in this thread thats way abve my intellect lvl?!? OMGBBQWTFLOLZ!!!111!!
Not really. I've actually enjoyed your way-below-my-level conversation. 8O
-
You people are way too stupid.
hey guyz, whts goin on in this thread thats way abve my intellect lvl?!? OMGBBQWTFLOLZ!!!111!!
Not really. I've actually enjoyed your way-below-my-level conversation. 8O
your comments are way pointless
-
You people are way too stupid.
hey guyz, whts goin on in this thread thats way abve my intellect lvl?!? OMGBBQWTFLOLZ!!!111!!
Not really. I've actually enjoyed your way-below-my-level conversation. 8O
Your mother is involved in a way-below-my-navel conversation.
Todds Mom -> :o
Me -> \m_ :twisted: _m/
-
way cool dude!
-
You believed Machiavelli?!? Punk'd! lol.
Perhaps I still do. How could anybody with such impeccable fashion sense be wrong?
(http://www.philosophypages.com/vy/macv1.jpg)
I only concede that, under a utility theory based system of law, you are right. I still think that this system of law sux0rz (although it could be much worse, the results are largely compatible with what I believe). I just don't know enough about the philiosophy behind it to put forward a decent case (if one could be made).
Thomas Hobbes pwns j000000!!!!
But I could totally Pwnz0r his 17th century azz at nintendo.
-Kev
-
You believed Machiavelli?!? Punk'd! lol.
Perhaps I still do. How could anybody with such impeccable fashion sense be wrong?
(http://www.philosophypages.com/vy/macv1.jpg)
I only concede that, under a utility theory based system of law, you are right. I still think that this system of law sux0rz (although it could be much worse, the results are largely compatible with what I believe). I just don't know enough about the philiosophy behind it to put forward a decent case (if one could be made).
Thomas Hobbes pwns j000000!!!!
But I could totally Pwnz0r his 17th century azz at nintendo.
-Kev
Lolin down rodeo with a shotgun! Hobbes couldn't play Double Dribble to save his ass.
As a system of law, "Natural Law" or "Utility Theory" or any of the 1 million names people have used for "Rational Morality", provides the most flexibility to the masses to maintain their own personal beliefs without being opressed. And unless you can convince an entire nation to support a single morality then any other basis for law becomes a Theocracy.
While you may support a Theorcracy, I do not. I like my oligarchy, thank you very much. :electoralcollegejam:
-
Yeah, we did Utilitarianism (which i think is that actual name, so kev- that doesn't suck as much, you just can't spell it thats all :wink: ) in ethics- like most of those theories "Good idea, CRAP in practice". Would say more but i am too tiiiiired after dancing like a fish for 2 hours.
-
Yeah, we did Utilitarianism (which i think is that actual name, so kev- that doesn't suck as much, you just can't spell it thats all :wink: ) in ethics- like most of those theories "Good idea, CRAP in practice". Would say more but i am too tiiiiired after dancing like a fish for 2 hours.
....
How exactly does a fish dance?
-
Yeah, we did Utilitarianism (which i think is that actual name, so kev- that doesn't suck as much, you just can't spell it thats all :wink: ) in ethics- like most of those theories "Good idea, CRAP in practice". Would say more but i am too tiiiiired after dancing like a fish for 2 hours.
....
How exactly does a fish dance?
Goodness knows! We have to study dance, but not conventional dance- basically just spazzing out in a routine. And i had to kinda flail my legs around and make swimming actions- closest to a fish i think! Cor blimey, that is going to hurt tommorrow!
-
Yeah, we did Utilitarianism (which i think is that actual name, so kev- that doesn't suck as much, you just can't spell it thats all :wink: ) in ethics- like most of those theories "Good idea, CRAP in practice". Would say more but i am too tiiiiired after dancing like a fish for 2 hours.
....
How exactly does a fish dance?
Goodness knows! We have to study dance, but not conventional dance- basically just spazzing out in a routine. And i had to kinda flail my legs around and make swimming actions- closest to a fish i think! Cor blimey, that is going to hurt tommorrow!
You said "blimey". hehehehehehehehehehehe.
"Aw, crums chief!"
"Blimey, Penfold!"
-
'cor blimey' is my phrase of the moment- because it is probably something i am most unlikely to say.
-
Lolin down rodeo with a shotgun! Hobbes couldn't play Double Dribble to save his ass.
Ahhh Double Dribble :) *remembers fondly a time when games were games*
And just when you though it was safe to log onto the board without having two read/write another essay like reply...
If I murdered a homeless man whom I'd never met, in a painless way and this man had no family or friends to suffer grief from his loss of life, then is that justified (i.e. should be legal) murder in the context of utility theory? There is no empirically demonstratable harm caused to anybody (including the victim, who suffers nothing for being dead according to everything purely empirical study can tell us).
Here is the reason you cannot kill the bum sans an existing social contract (this is more John Locke in nature because it relies on human compasion and empathy). If you kill the bum and get away with it then society prospers in the short term because there is one less bum to support. BUT then even in utility theory, that means that if you were ever to become a bum with no family, someone else could kill you. Now, assuming you are not insane, then you wouldn't want to be killed were you in that situation. Therefore, killing the bum has specific costs with it (it is now ok to kill you in the same situation) and those costs eliminate it as a viable choice (no one wants to be killed).
If we replace the homeless man with a child suffering from down syndrome. Orphaned, abandoned, or simply unwanted by his/her family. There is no chance that the killer could enter into a situation that would permit them to be killed, because down syndrome is something you have from birth or you don't have for your entire life. Society also prospers slightly in terms of natural selection and in that it no longer needs to support the "victim".
Should it be legal under a system of "Natural Law" for consenting families to murder a child because the child suffers from an undesireable genetic disorder like down syndrome? (Note: not under the existing mishmash system of law, but an "ideal" system of law based entirely on utilitarianism).
I'm going to assume that the answer to the above question is yes (if you can convince me that it's no, then the remainder of this post can be rejected). The current law does not permit this killing of people after birth. Why is this the case? It must be based on something non-empirical. What grounds are there for current law to accept these non-empirical considerations to support loss of rights for those who wish to kill their child and reject those proposed by the hypothetical person to support loss of rights for homosexual couples? Majority belief? Then surely Will is correct when he says.
I believe that there is no such thing as objective law. Law is just morality forced upon others by either force or by consent of those who are being governed. The closest thing we have to objective law is a law in which the majority agrees with the majority of the law
-Kev
-
If we replace the homeless man with a child suffering from down syndrome. Orphaned, abandoned, or simply unwanted by his/her family. There is no chance that the killer could enter into a situation that would permit them to be killed, because down syndrome is something you have from birth or you don't have for your entire life. Society also prospers slightly in terms of natural selection and in that it no longer needs to support the "victim".
Should it be legal under a system of "Natural Law" for consenting families to murder a child because the child suffers from an undesireable genetic disorder like down syndrome? (Note: not under the existing mishmash system of law, but an "ideal" system of law based entirely on utilitarianism).
I'm going to assume that the answer to the above question is yes (if you can convince me that it's no, then the remainder of this post can be rejected). The current law does not permit this killing of people after birth. Why is this the case? It must be based on something non-empirical. What grounds are there for current law to accept these non-empirical considerations to support loss of rights for those who wish to kill their child and reject those proposed by the hypothetical person to support loss of rights for homosexual couples? Majority belief? Then surely Will is correct when he says.
I believe that there is no such thing as objective law. Law is just morality forced upon others by either force or by consent of those who are being governed. The closest thing we have to objective law is a law in which the majority agrees with the majority of the law
-Kev
And here is where I flip it on you and turn your assumed "yes" into a "no".
You make several assumptions that I can break in your little CRT, or Current reality tree for those who aren't in the know :)
For your question to come out with a "yes" you must assume ALL the following;
1) There is ever a condition underwhich a human child can be alive and not contribute something to the world
2) Human emotion can turn on the child and emotionally permit the killing of the child with no emotional or physical harm to the killer
3) The childs condition can be PERFECTLY diagnosed and can be PERFECTLY demonstrated
OR
1) Survival resources are scarce
Without any of those three assumptions, then killing that child becomes immediatly immoral under natural law OR utility theory.
If the child provides happiness to you, then you cannot kill it. If killing the child is morally reprehensible to you, then you cannot kill it. If the child provides value to the rest of the world, if you fear that the child is misdiagnosed and have hope that it may recover, then you cannot kill it ... and even if killing it is ok to you, if it may not be to the rest of the world.. therefore the rest of the world may kill (or punish) you in response.
If you kill that child and it is accepted that all children with this condition should be killed then you may have the fear that your next child may be misdiagnosed with this same condition and would be unjustly killed.
In other words, IF mankind as a whole saw no intrinsic value in a human life AND we have perfect information concerning the child then yes, utility theory and natural law would both say that the child should die.
Look at the animal world. Isn't that how things happen there?
HOWEVER, this is where the social contract comes into play. Because the social contract says that all human life has an intrinsic value (which is innately felt, in one degree or another, by all humans as part of our survival instinct anyways) and therefore should be preserved. In fact, it is one of the primary principles of the social contract.... all human life provides SOMETHING to society, be it labor, happiness, peace of mind, etc etc.
Therefore, even if that child has no intrinsic value to the parents the child DOES have value to society as a whole. The social contract forces that heartless family to consider the good of all of society and, therefore, not kill the child.
Now, the one big BUT that gets thrown into this, is if we assume there are not enough resources in the 'market' to provide survival for all life. In this case, the bottom must be trimmed off and if this hypothetical child is consuming resources that could be used to keep someone more valuable alive then the child should be killed under natural law.
Also, keep in mind, my point isn't that the government IS governed by natural law or utility theory. It's that the government SHOULD be governed by it and LARGELY is. There are a lot of exceptions you could dig up in law if you wanted to spend the time. But I think most of them are slowly getting changed over from a religious morality to a rational morality...
-
Lev 18:22
"Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."
I don't lie to anyone. erm........ I know men who lie to woman all the time though. Just this past friday at a bar this guy I know, told this woman........
:wink:
tylor
-
And here is where I flip it on you and turn your assumed "yes" into a "no".
I see that you have learnt much from The Squad.
(http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P/B0000DIYNT.02.LZZZZZZZ.jpg)
You make several assumptions that I can break in your little CRT
Huh? Sorry, but I fail to see the relevance of my cathode ray tube.
-Kev
P.S. As for the point of debate, I have been pzwned. But you better pray we never meet on the double dribble court.
-
(http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P/B0000DIYNT.02.LZZZZZZZ.jpg)
What i wanna know is, if they are British, shouldn't it be Blasin' squad?!?
:wink: