Page 8 of 12 FirstFirst ... 3456789101112 LastLast
Results 141 to 160 of 231
  1. #141  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur
    a) You did not answer how letting gays marry hurt you.

    b) No one said they are the same. The question is, why do they deserve being treated differently? As you rightly said, no-one is the same, yet we all expect to be treated equally in the face of the law.

    Surur
    Well Surur.....

    I must have missed answering your question about how it hurts me because your question was never there until now.

    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.

    I have already answered why they deserve to be treated differently.

    A question for you....

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

    Just for you, da, blaze and anyone else who wants a gay marriage, I move .00000001 of an inch to the left and say fine, get married.

    But call it something else. Union or? I'll try to be fine with it as long as I don't know about it.

    Chuck
  2. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #142  
    Quote Originally Posted by chckhbrt
    Well Surur.....

    I must have missed answering your question about how it hurts me because your question was never there until now.

    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.

    I have already answered why they deserve to be treated differently.

    A question for you....

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

    Just for you, da, blaze and anyone else who wants a gay marriage, I move .00000001 of an inch to the left and say fine, get married.

    But call it something else. Union or? I'll try to be fine with it as long as I don't know about it.

    Chuck
  3. #143  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    Hey NRG

    Try not to get overly excited.

    This is something I don't think I will ever change my posisition on.

    Chuck
  4. #144  
    Quote Originally Posted by chckhbrt
    Well Surur.....

    I must have missed answering your question about how it hurts me because your question was never there until now.

    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.

    I have already answered why they deserve to be treated differently.

    A question for you....

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

    Just for you, da, blaze and anyone else who wants a gay marriage, I move .00000001 of an inch to the left and say fine, get married.

    But call it something else. Union or? I'll try to be fine with it as long as I don't know about it.

    Chuck
    I am sure 90% of the gays who want to get married would be happy with a civil union, which conferred all the same rights as a married couple (e.g. power of attorney, custody of children, inheritance, tax breaks, co-habitation etc etc). If you could move all of your conservative friends just that 0.000001 of an inch I think you would have satisfied most people.

    Regarding your specific question, I dont think any law can make you accept anything, it can only force you to treat some-one the way the law says e.g. you may not be able to accept that pregnant woman should get 12 months maternity leave, but if the law says you have to give it, what are you going to do? Similarly, if the law says a gay partner can consent to emergency treatment for their better half, you would have to follow this directive, no matter how you feel about it.

    Surur
  5. #145  
    Quote Originally Posted by chckhbrt
    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.

    It is different. Do you not see the difference?

    Chuck
    It's not different. It's the same legal arrangment. The same legal rights. I'm sorry you're unable or unwilling to see this.

    However, it certainly looks like this issue is affective in getting the far-right to the polls.
  6. #146  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    Are you religous? Cause when I said I could only find 3 laws based on religion, you were quick to point out many others that you thought fell within' that catergory. Here are some examples that I thought have no place:

    1) divorce, justified by adultery
    Would you really want to be with someone who is not being faithful to you?

    2) role and obligation of parents
    Hmmm. I am not too sure, I think this is instinctual.

    3) custody of children
    I think it is decided by who best can take car of the children, not by who is more religous. Again, I think this falls into the instictual catergory.

    4) inheritance
    Could you explain this please. The way I am looking at this statement is families would give all their money to someone else not in the family?

    5) respect for authority
    Geeez. How would society work? Hmm, that kid that doesn't listen to his father at age 1, won't until he reads a bible? Insane.

    6) Charging interest on loans?
    LOL. How do you expect banks to make money from loans?

    7) respect for dead
    Those American Indians had NO respect for their dead till the White man came with his bible and showed them the way?

    I am just saying.
    My original statement was, "I think most western countries base their laws on 4000 year old mores, just to varying degrees."

    Yes these examples are instinctual. You and I probably have the same instincts on these issues. But people from certain other societies may have different instincts from us. The test of whether these are "universal" isn't whether someone from Florida or France has the same values; it's whether people outside the influence of the Church over the past couple millennia have the same values. Muslims in the Middle East. Aborgines in Australia. Pygmies in Africa. Buddhists in India. Confucians in China. Native Americans in Peru. And the thousands of other cultures that have been wiped out across the globe.

    Do (or did) these societies have the same laws that we do? Do they think the same way we do?

    1. Divorce, justified by adultery
    In our culture, adultery is a "sin" for both men and women. So if a man does it, it's still considered a bad thing, and courts recognize that. In some cultures, the sin isn't adultery itself, it's a woman committing adultery. In those same cultures, other laws would apply to both men and women.

    2. Role and obligation of parents
    Parents are responsible for clothing and feeding their children until they reach a certain age. They are responsible for their children's acts. They are not permitted to mistreat their children. In some cultures, parents are "sovereign" in that they can do whatever they want to their children - including beat or kill them.

    3. Custody of children
    don't remember what I was thinking with this one...

    4. Inheritance
    If a husband dies, his wife who already co-owns everything automatically gets full control of all assets. In some cultures, the first son gets everything, and the widow is subject to the mercy of the first son.

    I gave examples for 5, 6, and 7 already in my original post. Again, other cultures have dealt with these in different ways. It's not a matter of whether Native Americans respected their dead or not, the issue is what their laws were and why.

    And no, I'm not very religious.
  7. #147  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim
    My original statement was, "I think most western countries base their laws on 4000 year old mores, just to varying degrees."

    Yes these examples are instinctual. You and I probably have the same instincts on these issues. But people from certain other societies may have different instincts from us. The test of whether these are "universal" isn't whether someone from Florida or France has the same values; it's whether people outside the influence of the Church over the past couple millennia have the same values. Muslims in the Middle East. Aborgines in Australia. Pygmies in Africa. Buddhists in India. Confucians in China. Native Americans in Peru. And the thousands of other cultures that have been wiped out across the globe.

    Do (or did) these societies have the same laws that we do? Do they think the same way we do?

    1. Divorce, justified by adultery
    In our culture, adultery is a "sin" for both men and women. So if a man does it, it's still considered a bad thing, and courts recognize that. In some cultures, the sin isn't adultery itself, it's a woman committing adultery. In those same cultures, other laws would apply to both men and women.

    2. Role and obligation of parents
    Parents are responsible for clothing and feeding their children until they reach a certain age. They are responsible for their children's acts. They are not permitted to mistreat their children. In some cultures, parents are "sovereign" in that they can do whatever they want to their children - including beat or kill them.

    3. Custody of children
    don't remember what I was thinking with this one...

    4. Inheritance
    If a husband dies, his wife who already co-owns everything automatically gets full control of all assets. In some cultures, the first son gets everything, and the widow is subject to the mercy of the first son.

    I gave examples for 5, 6, and 7 already in my original post. Again, other cultures have dealt with these in different ways. It's not a matter of whether Native Americans respected their dead or not, the issue is what their laws were and why.

    And no, I'm not very religious.
    It occurs to me that laws are very old, but that out current laws may have more to do with Hammurabi, Emperor Justinian and Boadicea than Jaw-eh or Jesus. Even Napoleon crafted laws which are used in USA. One should not make mistakes of attribution. Western culture owes more to Rome and Greece than Israel.

    Surur
  8. #148  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur
    It occurs to me that laws are very old, but that out current laws may have more to do with Hammurabi, Emperor Justinian and Boadicea than Jaw-eh or Jesus. Even Napoleon crafted laws which are used in USA. One should not make mistakes of attribution. Western culture owes more to Rome and Greece than Israel.

    Surur
    Well, Rome was a Christian empire which at times covered most of Europe. Your broader point about proper attribution is correct. There were other influences. I don't know enough to discuss how much of our values are derived from the Sumerians or Greeks...
  9. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #149  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim
    Well, Rome was a Christian empire which at times covered most of Europe. Your broader point about proper attribution is correct. There were other influences. I don't know enough to discuss how much of our values are derived from the Sumerians or Greeks...
    Really? I was under the understanding the romans killed jesus because of his teachings of one god? Am I mistaken?
  10. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #150  
    I think I figured this out!!!! The GOP wants single gays! There will be more gays availible to them if they pass the ban.
  11. #151  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    Really? I was under the understanding the romans killed jesus because of his teachings of one god? Am I mistaken?
    Oops, sorry.
    I think this is a good time for me to stop talking about ancient history...
  12. #152  
    anyone know what that flashing asterisk in the upper left corner of my Treo is?
  13. #153  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    Really? I was under the understanding the romans killed jesus because of his teachings of one god? Am I mistaken?
    I think the romans were fairly tolerant in general of the religions and customs of their subjected people.

    he was killed more because he was a source of dissent and uphieval than any belief in a single diety (presuming that he existed of course)
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  14. #154  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    Really? I was under the understanding the romans killed jesus because of his teachings of one god? Am I mistaken?
    Yes, you are mistaken.
  15. #155  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur
    If you could move all of your conservative friends just that 0.000001 of an inch I think you would have satisfied most people.

    Surur
    Are you nuts?

    With the knowledge you have of my positition on the issue, you expect me to go out and sway a conservative over to your side?

    There is no way I would ever move my conservative family, friends or any other conservative I may meet in my daily travels around the US into accepting this issue.

    .00000001 of an inch of movement is pretty much no movement at all.

    As far as making other people satisfied, that is not my job. I am a traditional conservative. I am not part of the left wing liberal, anything goes immorallity collective.

    Assymillating me will be futile!

    Chuck
  16. #156  
    Firstly there are people in this thread who do not believe the romans killed jesus because they do not believe jesus even existed, but if one accepts the premise that there was a cult-leader called jesus, obviously the polythiestic romans who crucified him are not the same people as the holy roman empire of 300 odd years later.

    Its rather one of the more amazing historic twists in the tail really.
    Surur
  17. #157  
    Contrary to contemporary belief, marriage is not merely a contractual agreement. It is a covenant ratified on every level of human existence. Spiritually, It represents the merging of two lives such that neither maintains a notion of self as me but we. They understand that the agreement is terminated only at death. Intellectually, the two affirm a commitment to fulfill each others' needs AND to seek fulfillment only in one another. Physically, the two consumate the act of becoming one in a manner enabled via the uniquely compatible male and female anatomy, i.e. coitus. It is also in this sexual
    act that normal reproduction is initiated, as the male releases ***** in the female.

    Of course, today we have methods of counterfeiting the in-*****-ation process, but the natural order is obvious.

    This merging of lives is complimentary in every way only when implemented with one male and one female. It is the conversion of two opposites that are both independent and interdependent--i.e. each can exist without the other, however their real potential is realized when they are co-mingled.

    This is the "oneness" of marriage. It can be imitated, but it can not be replicated.
  18. #158  
    The "oneness" you discribe so elequently certainly sounds unique and attractive, but I would counter that this is what you WISH marraige would be, but that reality falls far short of that expectation in many many ways.

    On a prosaic level, we hardly hear the judge or priests asking people at the altar if they wish to have children and how sexually compatible they are.

    Surur
  19. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #159  
    Quote Originally Posted by trundle
    anyone know what that flashing asterisk in the upper left corner of my Treo is?
    Yes, put your Treo far far away from you. That asterisk is notification of a self destruct sequence.
  20. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #160  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    I think the romans were fairly tolerant in general of the religions and customs of their subjected people.

    he was killed more because he was a source of dissent and uphieval than any belief in a single diety (presuming that he existed of course)
    And what was he doing to cause this dissent and upheavel? I am curious.
Page 8 of 12 FirstFirst ... 3456789101112 LastLast

Posting Permissions