Page 10 of 12 FirstFirst ... 56789101112 LastLast
Results 181 to 200 of 231
  1. #181  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur
    Agreed, but I feel modern Christians take support for their homophobic views from the old testament, vs the words of Christ itself. They would often quote the very same passages, ignoring Christ's repudiation of Judaic law.

    Surur
    exactly

    just like the justification for killing, witch burning, and slavery
    Last edited by theBlaze74; 05/21/2006 at 04:10 PM.
  2. #182  
    we hardly hear the judge or priests asking people at the altar if they wish to have children and how sexually compatible they are.
    Just so we're clear, sexual compatibility as I described is a function of anatomy.
  3. #183  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    Just so we're clear, sexual compatibility as I described is a function of anatomy.
    right, a peg and a hole, brilliant, case closed, thanks
  4. #184  
    Thats just designed to exclude. The fact is that you would marry two people who do not love each other of opposite gender much more readily than you would two people who love each other but the same gender.

    When it comes down to the nitty gritty its all about anatomy in the end, which is so 19th century.

    Surur
  5.    #185  
    Okay, I started this thread, and it looks like it's taken a life of it's own. Unfortunately I've been out of town and haven't been able to stay on top of this thread. But in browsing the postings, I've noticed a prejudice toward marriage and christianity. Why do people think christians invented marriage? It was around long before christianity.

    Those who are pushing for legislation to ban same-sex marriage are basically saying, it's okay to mix church and state? And if they are okay with that, are they prepared to accept this approach if it isn't their church that we start catering to?
  6. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #186  
    Quote Originally Posted by gaffa

    Those who are pushing for legislation to ban same-sex marriage are basically saying, it's okay to mix church and state? And if they are okay with that, are they prepared to accept this approach if it isn't their church that we start catering to?
    Gaffa, we have covered this topic in previous threads. It is quite interesting to read. I had suggested the angle of it being a muslim religion we mix in and support, what I got mainly was "America is predomiantly Christian". :shrug:

    I think it is in the "Ten Commandments" thread.
  7. #187  
    Quote Originally Posted by gaffa
    ..Those who are pushing for legislation to ban same-sex marriage are basically saying, it's okay to mix church and state?.
    Not everyone.
  8.    #188  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    Gaffa, we have covered this topic in previous threads. It is quite interesting to read. I had suggested the angle of it being a muslim religion we mix in and support, what I got mainly was "America is predomiantly Christian". :shrug:

    I think it is in the "Ten Commandments" thread.
    Yeah, I hear that and, "Our laws are based on christian values."
    We all have tons of laws, rules, etc that we don't personally subscribe to, but we don't really care about because they do not hinder or limit us. But unfortunately, in that great christian tradition, many feel the need to hold back, change, or limit those who don't walk and talk as they do. Now I say this as a christian myself. I guess holding people back based on race, religion, age, etc, has gone out of style.

    I saw a few pages back that there was discussion about why a same-sex marriage among people you don't know would impact you. I think the reasoning had to do with effecting their faith in the word marriage or something like that. I suspect, these folks are also speaking out against the DaVinci Code, Dogma, Last Temptation of Christ, and a host of other movies.

    Hmmm, when people are upset and yell "Jesus Christ!" I wonder if that changes their faith in the name? Maybe we should outlaw the use of "Jesus Christ" except when used in biblical context?
    Last edited by gaffa; 05/22/2006 at 01:15 PM.
  9.    #189  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    Not everyone.
    You are right, there are a number of openly gay congressmen/women, and senators. There are also a number of straight politicians who support same-sex marriage.
  10. #190  
    Quote Originally Posted by gaffa
    You are right, there are a number of openly gay congressmen/women, and senators. There are also a number of straight politicians who support same-sex marriage.


    Are you saying that among the people pushing for a ban are openly gay congressmen/women and senators as well as straight politicians who support same-sex mariage?
  11.    #191  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim


    Are you saying that among the people pushing for a ban are openly gay congressmen/women and senators as well as straight politicians who support same-sex mariage?
    I guess I'm thread happy. I didn't mean that at all. I meant that there are some politicians that are not infavor of any defining legislation or ban.
  12. #192  
    Quote Originally Posted by chckhbrt
    Well using some common sense here.....

    Marriage was created many centuries ago to make legitimate the off spring of a man/woman union.

    Since gays and lesbians cannot produce off spring in the normal form of creating children, why should two men or two women who want to enter into a "gay or lesbian" union deserve a marriage.

    This goes against the understanding of what marriage is.

    So why should there be a vote or even acceptance of a gay or lesbian "marriage". This is abnormal behavior for what the meaning of "marriage" is.

    Chuck
    Marriage was created many centuries ago to make legitimate the off spring of a man/woman union.

    Site your source. Here's my opinion:
    Marriage was crated to force "adults" into caring for children they made during one wild and drunken orgy.

    ---

    Since gays and lesbians cannot produce off spring in the normal form of creating children, why should two men or two women who want to enter into a "gay or lesbian" union deserve a marriage.
    A marriage license is the modern day legitamacy of the man/woman union that produces off spring.

    Are you saying that producing offspring is a condition of marriage? If so, then what about infertal hetrosexuals? Do they also not deserve a marriage?

    ---

    This is abnormal behavior for what the meaning of "marriage" is.

    Site your source.
    dictionary.com does not mention offspring in their definitions of marriage.

    ---

    You will have to convince me that gay and lesbian behavior is normal. This will be an impossible task.

    What is normal? Is it normal for a man in Iowa to have hair below his shoulders? If he does, should he be persecuted?

    ---

    Some homosexuals will even push their homosexuality agenda as another race under the civil rights act. Homosexual behavior and race are two very different things.

    I assume you are talking about the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It was about was about prohibiting discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. It was about not about racism, but about prejudicism. What anti-homosexuality, racism, and the Civil Rights act have in common is prejudicism.

    ---

    Our laws are based on religion.

    Jefferson based our laws on this principle: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." Yes, he consulted religious texts for guidance, but he also consulted ancient Greek law. That does not mean our laws are based on heathenism.

    ---

    Is It a gene that makes a person homosexual? It's doubtfull. Is it a chosen life style? Most deffinately.

    Homosexuality is a choice only if you are bisexual. I am hetero and could never choose to do a homosexual act. Therefore, I reason there may be people that are homosexual that could never choose to do a heterosexual act.

    ---

    Devilcrat?

    Thomas Jefferson drafted The Declaration of Independence. Thomas Jefferson was one of the main proponents of the bill of rights. Thomas Jefferson started the Democratic Party. You're calling one of our most influential Founding Fathers the devil?

    ---

    I hate Democrats who are left of center who cling to the social/communist ideology of:
    Everyone is the same.

    You hate Thomas Jefferson? You hate the philosophy on which this country was founded? "...all men are created equal..."

    ---

    You will never convince me to accept something if I disagree with it.

    This is not trying to convince you to accept somthing you disagree with. It's about letting others do their own thing, even if you disagree with. There are may things people do that I think are just plain wrong, but they don't directly effect me, so I have no right to force those people to submit to my will via laws.

    There are parents that teach their children silly superstition. That is something that I can never agree with. But that doesn't give me the right to force them to stop.

    ---

    Two heterosexual people who want to get married in traditionl marriage is not the same as two gays or two lesbians who want to get married in traditional marriage.

    What is the difference in the reasoning between denying gays to marry, and the anti-miscegenation laws? I believe the reasoning for both is tradition and religion. If God didn't want the races to interbreed, he wouldn't have put them on separate continents.

    ---

    Obviously it does not hurt me physically having two gays marry. It does ruin my belief in the institution of traditional marriage. Why should I accept it if I don't accept, well to be polite, the life style.

    If you're married, will you divorce if homosexuals are allowed to marry?
    If homosexual marriage was legal before you marry, would it stop you from marrying?

    ---

    What law(s) are currently on the books in the US that say traditional America has to accept the bastardization of traditional marriage?

    Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

    Traditional America also included slavery, butchering Native Americans, buring witches at the stake,

    ---

    So... what does anti-homosexuality and racism have in common? Forcing people to do what you want them to do.

    ---

    But, all of this isn't what it's really about. It's about religion and control.
    Some people think that if they don't subscribe to a particular religion, then the laws of that religion don't apply to them.
    Some people think that the laws of their religion apply to people that don't believe in their religion.

    So what's the answer? Should people that don't subscribe to a particular religion be forced against their will to submit to those laws?

    What would Thomas Jefferson do?

    ---

    Feel free to quote the Bible to support your position. I will do the same.
  13. #193  
    Wow!!! Blaze may have finally gotten something (although it's a very simple, NATURAL, concept). A peg & a hole. I just realized what da means.
  14.    #194  
    For those who talk about us being a christian nation, and laws influenced by such...
    Are you familiar with the Treaty of Tripoli?

    "Unlike most governments of the past, the American Founding Fathers set up a government divorced from any religion. Their establishment of a secular government did not require a reflection to themselves of its origin; they knew this as a ubiquitous unspoken given. However, as the United States delved into international affairs, few foreign nations knew about the intentions of the U.S. For this reason, an insight from at a little known but legal document written in the late 1700s explicitly reveals the secular nature of the U.S. goverenment to a foreign nation. Officially called the "Treaty of peace and friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli, of Barbary," most refer to it as simply the Treaty of Tripoli. In Article 11, it states:

    "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." "
  15. #195  
    Quote Originally Posted by chckhbrt
    Well using some common sense here.....
    Of course, common sense, the last bastion of the ignorant and the foolish.
    Quote Originally Posted by ribs
    Quote Originally Posted by chckhbrt
    Marriage was created many centuries ago to make legitimate the off spring of a man/woman union.
    Site your source...
    If he means the bible, i think it said a marriage is between one man and at least one woman.
    Quote Originally Posted by ribs
    Quote Originally Posted by chckhbrt
    Since gays and lesbians cannot produce off spring in the normal form of creating children, why should two men or two women who want to enter into a "gay or lesbian" union deserve a marriage. A marriage license is the modern day legitamacy of the man/woman union that produces off spring.
    Are you saying that producing offspring is a condition of marriage? If so, then what about infertal hetrosexuals? Do they also not deserve a marriage?
    lol
    Quote Originally Posted by ribs
    Quote Originally Posted by chckhbrt
    This is abnormal behavior for what the meaning of "marriage" is.
    Site your source. dictionary.com does not mention offspring in their definitions of marriage.
    While you're at it, explain what is meant by abnormal, and how we should legislate it.
    Quote Originally Posted by ribs
    Quote Originally Posted by chckhbrt
    Some homosexuals will even push their homosexuality agenda as another race under the civil rights act. Homosexual behavior and race are two very different things.
    I assume you are talking about the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It was about was about prohibiting discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. It was about not about racism, but about prejudicism. What anti-homosexuality, racism, and the Civil Rights act have in common is prejudicism.
    You made up a word, but yeah we get the idea By the way, what exactly is the homosexual agenda?
    Quote Originally Posted by ribs
    Quote Originally Posted by chckhbrt
    Our laws are based on religion.
    Jefferson based our laws on this principle: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." Yes, he consulted religious texts for guidance, but he also consulted ancient Greek law. That does not mean our laws are based on heathenism.
    Not to mention, which religion exactly? Can you spell it out for us? God hates fags? Or you mean Jesus? Let us know please.
    Quote Originally Posted by ribs
    Quote Originally Posted by chckhbrt
    Is It a gene that makes a person homosexual? It's doubtfull. Is it a chosen life style? Most deffinately.
    Homosexuality is a choice only if you are bisexual. I am hetero and could never choose to do a homosexual act. Therefore, I reason there may be people that are homosexual that could never choose to do a heterosexual act.
    Is there a gene that makes one simple, hatefull, and ignorant? Not likely.
    Quote Originally Posted by ribs
    Quote Originally Posted by chckhbrt
    Devilcrat
    Devilcrat? Thomas Jefferson drafted The Declaration of Independence. Thomas Jefferson was one of the main proponents of the bill of rights. Thomas Jefferson started the Democratic Party. You're calling one of our most influential Founding Fathers the devil?
    Quote Originally Posted by ribs
    Quote Originally Posted by chckhbrt
    I hate Democrats who are left of center who cling to the social/communist ideology of:
    Everyone is the same.
    You hate Thomas Jefferson? You hate the philosophy on which this country was founded? "...all men are created equal..."
    What else and who else do you hate chuck?
    Quote Originally Posted by ribs
    Quote Originally Posted by chckhbrt
    Obviously it does not hurt me physically having two gays marry. It does ruin my belief in the institution of traditional marriage. Why should I accept it if I don't accept, well to be polite, the life style.
    If you're married, will you divorce if homosexuals are allowed to marry?
    If homosexual marriage was legal before you marry, would it stop you from marrying?
    Quote Originally Posted by ribs
    Quote Originally Posted by chckhbrt
    What law(s) are currently on the books in the US that say traditional America has to accept the bastardization of traditional marriage?
    Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

    Traditional America also included slavery, butchering Native Americans, buring witches at the stake,
    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", but actually, i dont think anybody cares if chkbrt accepts it or not
    Quote Originally Posted by ribs
    Quote Originally Posted by chckhbrt
    So... what does anti-homosexuality and racism have in common? Forcing people to do what you want them to do.
    But, all of this isn't what it's really about. It's about religion and control. Some people think that if they don't subscribe to a particular religion, then the laws of that religion don't apply to them.
    Some people think that the laws of their religion apply to people that don't believe in their religion.

    So what's the answer? Should people that don't subscribe to a particular religion be forced against their will to submit to those laws?

    What would Thomas Jefferson do?
    Or since you are a fan of basing our laws on Christianity, what would Jesus do? What would Jesus have to say about your posts?

    Quote Originally Posted by ribs
    Feel free to quote the Bible to support your position. I will do the same.
    Last edited by theBlaze74; 05/23/2006 at 10:21 AM.
  16. #196  
    Quote Originally Posted by gaffa
    For those who talk about us being a christian nation, and laws influenced by such...
    Are you familiar with the Treaty of Tripoli?

    "Unlike most governments of the past, the American Founding Fathers set up a government divorced from any religion. Their establishment of a secular government did not require a reflection to themselves of its origin; they knew this as a ubiquitous unspoken given. However, as the United States delved into international affairs, few foreign nations knew about the intentions of the U.S. For this reason, an insight from at a little known but legal document written in the late 1700s explicitly reveals the secular nature of the U.S. goverenment to a foreign nation. Officially called the "Treaty of peace and friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli, of Barbary," most refer to it as simply the Treaty of Tripoli. In Article 11, it states:

    "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." "
    Excellent cite, Gaffa!

    I think one of the dilemmas we face in public discourse today, is that our political landscape has become so polarized that discussion dissolve to all or nothing type statements.

    For example, most certainly, the founders had no intention of creating a theocracy. Most certainly a significant number of founding citizens were christians. Most certainly, a significant number of laws established at the local, state and regional laws that reflected their the judeo-christian ethic, some even referencing biblical text directly. Most certainly there are other philosophical views that are likewise expressed in our laws.

    Most certainly the USofA is not a "christian nation." However, to deny the strong christian influence is ludicrous. Further, acknowledging the christian influence does not negate nor even the diminish the other influences. It is not all or nothing.

    Another symptom of the polarization is that when certain buzz words like "religion" and "hate" and "liberal" and "talking points" and "[insert snide phrase that mis-uses political party name here]" are thrown into the debate, the debate is thrown off.

    Reasonable people can disagree.
  17. #197  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    Excellent cite, Gaffa!

    I think one of the dilemmas we face in public discourse today, is that our political landscape has become so polarized that discussion dissolve to all or nothing type statements.

    For example, most certainly, the founders had no intention of creating a theocracy. Most certainly a significant number of founding citizens were christians. Most certainly, a significant number of laws established at the local, state and regional laws that reflected their the judeo-christian ethic, some even referencing biblical text directly. Most certainly there are other philosophical views that are likewise expressed in our laws.

    Most certainly the USofA is not a "christian nation." However, to deny the strong christian influence is ludicrous. Further, acknowledging the christian influence does not negate nor even the diminish the other influences. It is not all or nothing.

    Another symptom of the polarization is that when certain buzz words like "religion" and "hate" and "liberal" and "talking points" and "[insert snide phrase that mis-uses political party name here]" are thrown into the debate, the debate is thrown off.

    Reasonable people can disagree.
    Utterly and wholly irrelevant to the issue at hand. A vote on an amendment to our constitution barring gays from marrying.

    Even if our founding fathers had intended a full on theocracy for us (which is silly), it would not constitute justification for this measure.
  18.    #198  
    Is there a non-religious argument for banning gay marriage?
  19. #199  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Even if our founding fathers had intended a full on theocracy for us (which is silly), it would not constitute justification for this measure.
    I'm sure it would. In a theocracy they would not need any further justification at all.

    Surur
  20.    #200  
    At that point, they would have been replicating the environment they ran from!
Page 10 of 12 FirstFirst ... 56789101112 LastLast

Posting Permissions