Page 11 of 12 FirstFirst ... 6789101112 LastLast
Results 201 to 220 of 231
  1. #201  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur
    I'm sure it would. In a theocracy they would not need any further justification at all.
    Yes.

    What I am saying is that we are not so inextricably bound to our founding father's ideology that we must accept biggotry and hatred. Let's not forget that "We the people" did not mean all the people.
  2. #202  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Yes.

    What I am saying is that we are not so inextricably bound to our founding father's ideology that we must accept biggotry and hatred. Let's not forget that "We the people" did not mean all the people.
    Unfortunately the converse is also true, and even if the founding fathers means USA to be secular it does not stop Gonzales et al from turning back time to the middle ages.

    Surur
  3. #203  
    Quote Originally Posted by gaffa
    Is there a non-religious argument for banning gay marriage?
    That's not the right question.

    There are some Christians that are for gay marriage, and some that are against.

    It's ones interpretation of the Bible which counts.
    I've always said, the Bible is a Rorschach Inkblot Test. It has so many

    contradictions and is so open to interpretation... What a person gets out of it is what they put into it.

    The "God hates fags" people and their type are just bullies that hide behind religion to justify their views. At least Pol Pot took responsibility for his own actions.

    So, to answer your question, yes, there are non-religious arguments for banning gay marriage.

    The only valid one I've hear of is the use of the word marriage. So I say, if you want a piece of paper that says "marriage", go to a church, and call the legal piece of paper a civil union.
  4.    #204  
    So, to answer your question, yes, there are non-religious arguments for banning gay marriage.
    Your point is a little hazy. Are you saying that their is no religious connection between those who say "God hates fags" and religion? That they are just hatefull people who hide behind religion? If so, where did they learn the behavior? Keep in mind that I'm not at all trying to bash religion. But I'm looking for a "non-religious" argument that politicians might consider in debate. If there isn't one, then it shouldn't be debated, because the will of a religious organization should never dictate the laws of our country.
  5. #205  
    Quote Originally Posted by ribs
    ... At least Pol Pot took responsibility for his own actions...
    having recently spent time in Cambodia I can say definitively that Pol Pot NEVER took responsibility for his actions. (no one really has -- one of the great horrors in the history of "civilization"...)
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  6. #206  
    Quote Originally Posted by gaffa
    Your point is a little hazy. Are you saying that their is no religious connection between those who say "God hates fags" and religion? That they are just hatefull people who hide behind religion? If so, where did they learn the behavior? Keep in mind that I'm not at all trying to bash religion. But I'm looking for a "non-religious" argument that politicians might consider in debate. If there isn't one, then it shouldn't be debated, because the will of a religious organization should never dictate the laws of our country.
    Re-scan the thread. I offered non-religious opposition.
  7. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #207  
    Quote Originally Posted by ribs
    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.
    Can't let this post get buried. It is one of the better retorts and I will do my bit to keep it visible. I like how noone has responded to it.
  8. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #208  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    Re-scan the thread. I offered non-religious opposition.
    Was that the anatomy argument?
  9.    #209  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    Was that the anatomy argument?
    I couldn't find it. If it was the anatomy thing, that's not an argument?
  10. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #210  
    Quote Originally Posted by gaffa
    I couldn't find it. If it was the anatomy thing, that's not an argument?
    I don't know, this is why I asked Shop.
  11. #211  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    Thank you.Why?Why? that's supposed to be my question. But, I think the answer is that many have biological inclinations towards such. Some others may just interested in pleasure. And, there is something about bucking against the norm that seems to heighten pleasure--for a season (of course the law of diminishing returns kicks in so that greater levels of deviation are required to experience the same pleasure--often until people are so far gone they don't know how to come back if they wanted to--but I digress).

    Now, some of my fellow buh-LEE-vers may have dropped their jaw to see my view that there is likely biological cause for such tendencies (but as clulup likes to remind us, God said He would visit the sins of the fathers on the children. As we understand human reproduction, it seems reasonable to conclude that such "visits" occur genetically).

    Don't be alarmed. While I believe there is genetic inducement in the behavior, I don't make the logical leap that biology is justification for the law.

    See, the frailty in the "it's biological therefore grant me privileges" argument is that as we continue to research, we will discover that all behaviors have chemical roots. Like I said, I do believe that some, even many, people who practice homosexuality likely have a genetic trait that enhances that tendancy...as I believe that people who have a strong tendency to steal have a genetic trait that so inclines them to do so....as I believe that people who are overly generous have a genetic trait that so inclines them....as I believe that people who __________ have a genetic trait that so inclines them.

    But, if you notice, as of now, there is no call to invalidate laws against theft. Those diagnosed as "kleptomaniacs" may get special treatment in legal matters, but the laws against larceny remain. Such people are considered exceptions. And are treated accordingly.

    So, already, we see that biology is not necessarily a basis for abandoning centuries-old practices. In fact, if we extend the logic that the practice of homosexuality is biologically induced and on that basis is worthy of legal status, then we really lose all basis to restrict any behavior which can be linked to chemical reactions (i.e. all behavior).

    So, I agree with daT. The question is exactly as he stated:

    The answer is none.
    {sidenote, Couldn't being "unborn" be classified as a biological condition?}

    See, a moral society does not establish its standards on such basis. A moral society looks to encourage behavior that enhances the well-being of the society and discourage behavior that detracts from its well-being. It may not always make the best judgment as to what enhances or detracts, but that is its aim none the less.

    So, what type of society does make judgments based on biological condition? A Darwinistic one.

    Oh boy. Here he goes again

    Before the emotional response kicks in, consider:

    Darwinistic thought leads us to believe that variations within a species will eventually prove to be advantageous or disadvantageous to the respective carriers of those varied traits. Well, if that be the case, it is totally logical for a given individual to want to act in concert with other individuals who share a significant number of traits. If that be the case, it is reasonable to encourage people with similary levels of melanin, for example, to reproduce only with each other, so as to increase its population, and therefore prove to be the advantaged class.

    Of course, the problem is, you don't know what is advantageous in advance. So it is possible that such self-imposed restrictions may prove to be the cause of that group's disadvantage.

    And that is why a moral society does not act based on biological variation.

    So, what do we do? We look for a standard that transcends biological variation. We look for things that are self-evident. We look for principles upon which we can stand despite the minor variations that may exist from person to person.
    NRG, no one responded to this one either.

    Perhaps the long posts get skipped.
  12. #212  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    I don't know, this is why I asked Shop.
    This was the non-religious case
  13.    #213  
    To make a case one way or the other, one needs to examine "why" marriage and child-rearing has been incentivized (a la tax benefits) in this nation. The reason is simple. The society needs a steady supply of productive citizens to continue its existence. Having a balanced influence of male and female authorities committed to each other and to the well-being of their descendents is the most beneficial model for accomplishing that.

    Of course, fine citizens have emerged from other scenarios, but the ideal remains marriage as it has been known for centuries.
    That feels like a pretty big assumption. I've not seen anything to indicate that there would be less productive people without marriage. I was thinking more along the lines that until recently, a good chunk of households were single income. So with one income, and many mouths to feed, a tax break would certainly go a long way. But I'm just guessing.
  14. #214  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    NRG, no one responded to this one either.
    Perhaps the long posts get skipped.
    I think because it was hard to read. I put quote tags in here.
    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.
  15. #215  
    How to 'cure' your homosexual feelings (video):
    "Ma! Ma! Ma! Ma! Ma!"

    This video is truly scary and hilarious at the same time!

    CNN (you know, the liberal media) Video Link
  16. #216  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    How to 'cure' your homosexual feelings (video):
    "Ma! Ma! Ma! Ma! Ma!"

    This video is truly scary and hilarious at the same time!

    CNN (you know, the liberal media) Video Link
    lol

    how did that work out for you da?

    i've been waiting for a cure for quite some time

    but i wasn't aware that the gayness cure includes snuggling with another man, lmao
  17. #217  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    lol

    how did that work out for you da?
    Well, I first saw this video without sound so of course I ran right out to join but was disappointed when I got there.

    Last edited by daThomas; 05/24/2006 at 07:22 PM.
  18. #218  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Well, I first so this video without sound so of course I ran right out to join but was disappointed when I got there.

    lol, ok, ok, now i just need to find an anti-gayness snuggle partner, maybe chuck lmao
  19. #219  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    lol, ok, ok, now i just need to find an anti-gayness snuggle partner, maybe chuck lmao
    That's a good idea! Chuck, wanna help do your part to stamp out homosexuality!!

  20.    #220  
    Could the gay community start therapy for heterosexuals?
    Perhaps there's a Henry Higgins-type out there to make then next Eliza Dolittle?

    Well the American culture has a history of trying to cure people of their cultures and religions, why not sexual preference?

    And to think, I just wanted a few folks to receive tax, and inheritance benefits. And to be able to make medical decisions for their partners.
Page 11 of 12 FirstFirst ... 6789101112 LastLast

Posting Permissions