Lathain Valtiel Posted December 9, 2003 Share Posted December 9, 2003 Originally posted by SkinWalker I'm with you. Xmas is just a consumer capitalist opportunity for the manufacturers of goods and services. People and religious beliefs are exploited to sell products. On top of that, we lie to our children about Santa Claus, elves, flying reindeer, etc.... I dunno.. There are some poor who really look forward to Christmas... Donations, if you get my drift. Besides, they're children, it's for fun. Sheesh, ban fairy tales while we're at it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elijah Posted December 9, 2003 Share Posted December 9, 2003 Easter to, as its based off of christ comming back to life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted December 9, 2003 Share Posted December 9, 2003 Would I have your OK to ban Valentines day? After all most of these Christian holidays have become commercial because as stated before the majority of America is christian. I say perhaps let's let it start over. Labor day too, it's gotten too commercial. PS: I'm being serious. Marketers are using faith, hope, spiritual thought to market crap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elijah Posted December 10, 2003 Share Posted December 10, 2003 Yes, the market has turned Je$u$ into exactly that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thrackan Solo Posted February 20, 2004 Share Posted February 20, 2004 I'm with you. Xmas is just a consumer capitalist opportunity for the manufacturers of goods and services. People and religious beliefs are exploited to sell products. On top of that, we lie to our children about Santa Claus, elves, flying reindeer, etc.... Your partly true that christmas is a christian holiday its based on the birth of Christ, but actually Christ was born in the spring time, because that would be the only time the shepherds would be in the fields. And America was founded and colonized by Christians in the first place, why does it offend you so much are you threatened by it in any way? Do you have to criticize others beliefs and holiday's? Why not ban Ramadan in Iraq since its just a Muslim holiday? You know why you dont argue about that, becaus ei think you despise all that Christians syand for, you all think of us as scum that is ignorant foolish and believes anything you might not admit it but why else yould you sit here all day talking about this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kylilin Posted February 20, 2004 Share Posted February 20, 2004 I don't care if people of the same sex want to be married. It doesn't bother me in the least. What bothers me is the government trying to get involved in people's lives on such a personal level. If you love someone, that is all that should matter. As for all you religious people who claim same sex marriage, as well as homosexuality in general is a crime and should be punished, I leave you with this. "Blessed are you when people hate you, and when they exclude and insult you, and denounce your name as evil on account of the Son of Man. Rejoice and leap for joy on that day! Behold, your reward will be great in heaven. For their ancestors treated the prophets in the same way. But woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation. Woe to you who are filled now, for you will be hungry. Woe to you who laugh now, for you will grieve and weep. Woe to you when all speak well of you, for their ancestors treated the false prophets in this way." -- Luke 6:17 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rccar328 Posted February 20, 2004 Share Posted February 20, 2004 While I have problems with homosexual marriage (and homosexuality itself) on religious grounds, there is another reason that I disagree with homosexual marriage, and here it is: Originally posted by Kylilin If you love someone, that is all that should matter. Well, gee, what if I love my sister, should we be able to get married? Or what if one man and three women love each other, should they be able to get married? Or what if a 30 year old man and a 5 year old child really love each other? Should they be able to get married? Again and again, the slippery slope of moral degradation due to relativism rears its ugly head and is met with a blind eye from those with no strong moral background. Skin, I see your point in wanting to take religion out of the debate, but let's be relistic here: marriage is a religious institution sanctioned by the state. Marriage started out as a Christian/Jewish practice, and was sanctioned by the government and given certain benefits in order to promote healthy families. Personally I believe that if people want to be homosexuals, that's their choice. But from what I've heard, many of these homosexual couples do not really want the marriage itself, but in fact want the benefits that come along with marriage. I say give them civil unions, but leave marriage to the church. And Kylilin, I'm not sure what your purpose was in quoting the Bible; if it was to say that God will bless homosexuals because they are persecuted, but the passage says: "Blessed are you when people hate you...on account of the Son of Man." It's saying that people who are persecuted because of their belief in Jesus will be blessed, not people who are persecuted because of their sin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted February 20, 2004 Share Posted February 20, 2004 Originally posted by rccar328 Skin, I see your point in wanting to take religion out of the debate, but let's be relistic here: marriage is a religious institution sanctioned by the state. Marriage started out as a Christian/Jewish practice, and was sanctioned by the government and given certain benefits in order to promote healthy families. This is patently untrue. Another example of fundamentalist fallacy. Marriage exists in every human culture and appears to have even existed in early hominid cultures as well. Moreover, marriage exists among several species of animals other than H. sapiens, such as with certain avions and primates. So, one can easily see that the concept of "marriage" is independent of religious belief. I agree with the Humanist perspective that marriage should be state controlled, independent of religious dogma. If a couple wishes to engage in marriage with religious vows in a church, they should be free to do so... if a couple wishes to engage in a marriage independent of religion then they should be free to do so. Morality and ethics belong to the government and the people as a whole. I will agree with you that it is unthinkable to allow every individual to define their idea of morality, as it is the needs of the societies to which they belong that is important. If societal morality and religious morality coincide, that's fine, but the morality must be determined independent of religion. Originally posted by rccar328 I say give them civil unions, but leave marriage to the church. You can call it whatever, as long as the two have all the same rights, protections and benefits as currently afforded to "married" couples, that's fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prime Posted February 21, 2004 Share Posted February 21, 2004 Originally posted by rccar328 Well, gee, what if I love my sister, should we be able to get married? Or what if one man and three women love each other, should they be able to get married? Or what if a 30 year old man and a 5 year old child really love each other? Should they be able to get married? This is an interesting question, at least in the legal sense. Originally posted by rccar328 Again and again, the slippery slope of moral degradation due to relativism rears its ugly head and is met with a blind eye from those with no strong moral background. Yes, considering equal rights for other people and not applying bigited views is so horrible I can barely comprehend it. Originally posted by rccar328 Marriage started out as a Christian/Jewish practice, and was sanctioned by the government... Whether it originated that way doesn't really matter. Now just about every religion (Buddist, Hindu, Muslim, and so on) has marriage. So in todays society, at least in North America, marriage is a part of many religions. These other religions must also be considered. Originally posted by rccar328 Personally I believe that if people want to be homosexuals, that's their choice. I think it has been shown that homosexuality is not a conscious choice. In any event, I have no problem with certain religions not wanting to perform homosexual marriages. That is their right. But if a religious group does want to perform them, that marriage should be recognized by the state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Jones Posted February 21, 2004 Share Posted February 21, 2004 Originally posted by rccar328 Well, gee, what if I love my sister, should we be able to get married? Or what if one man and three women love each other, should they be able to get married? Or what if a 30 year old man and a 5 year old child really love each other? Should they be able to get married? siblings only should not get children for obvious reasons. everything else is another story. also, i see no problem in three women - one man relationships (or vice versa.. or whatever). and i think a 5 year old child is NOT ABLE to love a person in that way of "love" we talk about here. so that would be no good example at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheHobGoblin Posted February 21, 2004 Share Posted February 21, 2004 I'm alright with it as long as they don't publicize it on TV everyday... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rccar328 Posted February 21, 2004 Share Posted February 21, 2004 and i think a 5 year old child is NOT ABLE to love a person in that way of "love" we talk about here. so that would be no good example at all. But what I'm saying is that a moral line must be maintained, and gay marriage is where humanity should make a stand on the side of moral values. If we do not stand our ground here, marriage between a man and a child won't seem like such an extreme thing several years down the road. We're continually moving toward an "anything goes" society, and as a society, we have to draw the line before moral degradation gets any worse. I know that many of you disagree with me - what I call moral degradation you call societal changes...and I agree, society is changing. It's going downhill faster and faster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyrion Posted February 21, 2004 Share Posted February 21, 2004 Originally posted by rccar328 But what I'm saying is that a moral line must be maintained, and gay marriage is where humanity should make a stand on the side of moral values. If we do not stand our ground here, marriage between a man and a child won't seem like such an extreme thing several years down the road. We're continually moving toward an "anything goes" society, and as a society, we have to draw the line before moral degradation gets any worse. Personally, I draw the line at where it doesnt become consent anymore. Gay marriages are fine. Multiply wives, fine. A 5 year old child, no. There's a reason why you cant have sex unless you're 16, you dont think too much of it. Gays DO marry consently, and unless I'm mistaken there's no law in the process of letting them wed 5 year olds too.. I have to ask you though, why do you think gay marriages are bad? You say you have to uphold a moral line against them, but what harm do they do?(And no religious reasons) They dont disrupt society, they dont make you feel unsafe, unlike rapists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kylilin Posted February 21, 2004 Share Posted February 21, 2004 I'm not even to argue the morality of this, it leads nowhere. my one resounding problem on the topic of Gay marriage is the role of the government. It is not their job to interfere with civil rights on such a personal level. It is a violation of the right to privacy, the penumbra of the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendments. The right to privacy is the right to be left alone without unwarranted intrusion by government, media, or other institutions or individuals. It was not until the U.S Supreme Court decision in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), which voided a state statute preventing the use of contraceptives, that the modern doctrine of privacy emerged. In his opinion, Justice William O. Douglas argued that a protection from state intrusion into marital privacy was a constitutional right, one that was a “penumbra” emanating from the specific guarantees of the constitution. The right to sexual privacy as set forth in Griswold was one of the main foundations of the court's decision in Roe v. Wade (1973) to overturn state abortion statutes. Later attempts to extend the right of privacy to consensual homosexual acts in Bowers v. Hardwick (1986) were initially rejected by the court. In 2003, however, the court reversed that decision and rejected all antisodomy laws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Warrior Posted February 21, 2004 Share Posted February 21, 2004 The laws against a brother marrying his sister is set because of reproduction reasons. Personally I think if it weren't for the highly incresed likelihood of birth defects from children between close relations, then there shouldn't be a law against it. I would find it strange and unusual, but if they're happy..... But the fact is that there ARE those reproduction issues and so it isn't allowed. Multiple wives/husbands also doesn't bother me. It should be set up in a way that a man can't have two wives without them knowing about it and vice versa, but if they both agree to it, then I say go for it. We currently have laws preventing marriage between people under the age of 18 without explicit parental consent. I have no idea where your whole, if we allow gay marriage the world will goto hell is coming from, but the argument holds no water. We used to not allow women to vote, black people couldn't own land, but we allowed those things, do you think THAT is where our moral degradation began? Or was it when we allowed women to join the workforce? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Druid_Allanon Posted February 23, 2004 Share Posted February 23, 2004 So, people think two homosexual people getting married is wrong, a sin, an offense. Well, if you want to stop two people in love from getting married, YOU are the one in the wrong. It's not your business if they wanna get married, and how can they harm you? I'm not saying that being homosexual is that great but, they're normal people like us, apart from the fact that they have a different sexual orientation. This is clearly racism, as how black people are treated. Imagine you're one of the homosexuals in love with a guy. You wanna get married with this guy, but people are protesting. How do you feel if someone's stopping you from marrying the one you love? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kylilin Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 Seriously, there are children who are starving in this country, people addicted to drugs, murders, homelessness, racism, a down economy, terrorism, poverty, AIDS, cancer, these are all problems in this country. And all of these things are infinitely more important than same sex marriages. Let's put things into perspective for a second, don't you think we'd all be a lot better off fighting these problems? To even bother to fight same sex marriages on a governmental level is a horrendous waste of our resources, the money put into this could do a lot more good in the hands of a family who has to decide if they are going to pay their rent or eat this week. When I think about it, it's rather disgusting. For the people with the religious/moral point of view. It's funny that the same people who believe in a God who teaches to accept all people, and treat them as if they were our brother or sister, are the very same people who denounce the lifestyles of other people. I am a practicing Catholic, gay marriages do not bother me. Why should it? It effects me in no way shape or form. Who the heck cares if two men or two women want to marry each other? This is America, land of the FREE (yeah, remember that?). Remember "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Hapiness"? Do you believe in the Constitution, which separates church from state? And...wait for it..."We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created EQUAL..." This country was founded on the idea of freedom from tyranny, whether it be economic or social or any other kind for that matter. To compare this to polygamy, or incest, or child molestation is irresponsible and dangerous. It's apples and oranges. Polygamy is a system built to diminish and disempower women and girls. They are indoctrinated to accept as the natural order of things as well as God's will, the complete subjugation of their entire lives to their husbands, fathers and male religious leaders. As for incestuous and child marriages, if you don't think something is wrong with those, have your head examined. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Jones Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 Originally posted by Kylilin To compare this to polygamy, or incest, or child molestation is irresponsible and dangerous. It's apples and oranges. Polygamy is a system built to diminish and disempower women and girls. 1. polygamy isnt just "one man - many women". it would work the other way around, too. polygamy itself is NOT disempowerment of women and girls. polygamy is a "multi person relationship" and a relationship does/ must/ should not include the disempowerment of someone. also "polygamy" has nothing to do with religion. if two men love one women (and she loves them too) or vice versa there is no problem with it. if everybody who is involved is fine with it, there is no problem. 2. incest basicly is having children with one of your family, not loving one of your family or having a relationship with him/her. 3. child molestation is not the kind of "relationship" we are talking about here. They are indoctrinated to accept as the natural order of things as well as God's will, the complete subjugation of their entire lives to their husbands, fathers and male religious leaders. again, this is not a problem of "multi person (3+) relationships" or what ever. issues like those are existing in "standard" man-woman relationhips/marriages as well, and are of course a serious problem. As for incestuous and child marriages, if you don't think something is wrong with those, have your head examined. i have no problem with incesteous marriages (relationships, noone says marriage is a must), the only issue would be to have no (own) children. the adoption of children would be another thing. if brother and sister want to be together this way, why not? as for child marriages (relationships), i have to agree, because a child is not "mature" enough to get the (whole) concept of a (love-)relationship/ marriage or it's consequences. so basicly this could never happen without punishing/ influencing the child towards something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 Originally posted by Kylilin Seriously, there are children who are starving in this country, people addicted to drugs, murders, homelessness, racism, a down economy, terrorism, poverty, AIDS, cancer, these are all problems in this country. And all of these things are infinitely more important than same sex marriages. Ahh. But religious fundamentalists, particularly christian fundamentalists in our case, will have you believe that they are all correlated and that, somehow, this correlation equals a causation. Moreover, they (or, more aptly, one of them) pulls the "moral relativism" card in the assumption that such a concept is present on the individual level in present society. It is not. Morals are the express domain of society. Strictly speaking, one's morals and taboos are culturally "inherited." Originally posted by Kylilin Polygamy is a system built to diminish and disempower women and girls. It can do this, but in the cultural sense, polygamy and it's opposite, polyandry, are social constructs developed over time to maintain inheritances (property, such as land) and prevent poverty within the society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rccar328 Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 Ahh. But religious fundamentalists, particularly christian fundamentalists in our case, will have you believe that they are all correlated and that, somehow, this correlation equals a causation So, are you saying that the Christians on this forum are blaming all of this on homosexuals? Personally, I believe that some of the examples he named are part of the same trend. Morals are the express domain of society. Personally, I don't understand this secular humanist trend to allow anybody to define their own moral code. You say that morals are defined by society - has it ever occured to you that society may be wrong? That the moral degradation that is continually being approved by society may be damaging to our society? You say that I am blinded by Christianity - I say that you are blinded by secular humanism into believing that if society says it's okay, then it's okay. I'd be interested to hear whay you say when society finally crosses whatever uncrossable moral line you have (if any). Now, this moral relativist trend has led people in San Francisco to break the law and push us toward anarchy across America. The city finally filed suit challenging California's marriage law, which is what they should have done in the first place, but this does not excuse the wanton lawbreaking that is still happening in that great bastion of liberalism. The thing that disgusts me the most is when people compare what's going on in San Francisco & the "gay civil rights" movement to the real Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s & '60s. This comparison shows a blatent ignorance of history and the true evil nature of racism. I've never seen "gay" and "straight" bathrooms. Or water-fountains. I've never heard of a gay person being arrested for trying to eat in a restaurant with straight people. It's true that there has been some violence, but I've never heard of authorities turning fire hoses and unleashing dogs on gay pride parades. And with this new trend of lawbreaking, there seems to be an over-confidence that no legal action will result (because of activist judges) and that the authorities will be rendered impotent by political correctness. People during the real Civil Rights era understood that if they were to partake in civil disobedience, they must be ready to deal with the consequences. Rosa Parks defied the law, and she spent time in jail. And she used that case to appeal to the Supreme Court and have an unjust law removed. To compare this current movement to the Civil Rights Movement is degrading to the memories and sacrifices of African-Americans in that horrible time. Just a few minutes ago, President Bush publicly announced his intent to introduce a Constitutuional ammendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. I support him 100%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RenegadeOfPhunk Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 Personally, I don't understand this secular humanist trend to allow anybody to define their own moral code. You say that morals are defined by society - has it ever occured to you that society may be wrong? That the moral degradation that is continually being approved by society may be damaging to our society? Anybody can be wrong - in particular cases. Society can be wrong - of course it can. Individuals can be wrong. ...but also, Christians can be wrong, and the Bible can be wrong. The last part you dont' agree with? *shrug* Oh well - can't tell you what your opinion is. But given that this is MY opinion, this means that society had to TRY and decide what is moral and what is not - with no 'magic' answers. I'd rather have to make tough choices, and even sometimes make bad choices (but hopefully learn from them) than live in a dream world where choices are made for me by dead people who lived 2000 or more years ago - thank you very much. I've never seen "gay" and "straight" bathrooms. Or water-fountains. I've never heard of a gay person being arrested for trying to eat in a restaurant with straight people. I'm almost certain that the only reason their hasn't been such segmentation to the extreme your mentioning (or at least attempts at it) is because you can't tell the difference between a hetrosexual and a homosexual by looks alone. How would you know if these 'rules' were being broken? If a black man drinks from a white water-fountain, it's obvious! ...but a homosexual man drinking from a hetrosexual water fountain?! How would you know? Install 'gay' detectors?! I can assure you that if such a device existed - certainly a few years ago - there would be, at the very least, motions in place to install these devices in places - and most probably there WOULD be something like the kinds of things that you described. But anyway - back to the current reality. Homosexuals are discriminated against on a daily basis. Specific ways I know of that they are discriminated against are in terms of employment and in terms of 'marriage' benefits. (Although I'm sure there are many other ways I'm not aware of, or can't think of at this time) Personally, I dont' give a damn whether you call it 'marriage' or something else. A legally binding 'union' with the same benefits as marriage - I beleive - would be ok. Of course, there are plenty of homosexuals who still hold to a belief in God, and therefore would proabably rather have a marriage which is acknowledged in the religious sense. But my advice to these people would be to abandon the God who has abandoned them for just being who they were born to be. ...should the protests against this kind of injustice lead to violence? Ideally not, but I'd put yourself into the shoes of the one who is discriminated against - and likely will be for the rest of their life - before judging too harshly on that account... You say that I am blinded by Christianity - I say that you are blinded by secular humanism into believing that if society says it's okay, then it's okay. Well - I can't speak for Skin, but I don't think he ever said that anything that society decides is ok is automatically right. I believe he was just pointing out that morality is relative to different cultures - right or wrong. This is fact. ...sounds to me like your taking words, and placing them in people's mouths... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 Originally posted by rccar328 Just a few minutes ago, President Bush publicly announced his intent to introduce a Constitutuional ammendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. I support him 100%. While I can respect you for following what you believe, I just have to say I find this act dispicable. The day we exclude the rights of citizens is the day America is no longer the land it's claimed to be. Where is the freedom in exclusion, due to your lifestyle? If this isn't a tyranical act, I don't know what is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rccar328 Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 The day we exclude the rights of citizens is the day America is no longer the land it's claimed to be. But a homosexual has the same right to marry as anyone...just not to someone of the same sex. Also, this amendment sends a message to liberal activist judges that they will no longer be permitted to trample over the will of the people in order to promote their own agenda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyrion Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 Rccar, you still havent answered my question. Anyway, how about instead of homosexuals being married, just have a civil union and get all of the rights? Marriage is generally just for religious acknowledgement, civil unions would be for civil acknoledgement, and all the benefits that come from that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rccar328 Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 I have to ask you though, why do you think gay marriages are bad? You say you have to uphold a moral line against them, but what harm do they do?(And no religious reasons) They dont disrupt society, they dont make you feel unsafe, unlike rapists. The reason I haven't answered your question is because, at the most fundamental level, my disagreement with gay marriages is religious. And, quite frankly, all I've been doing is outlining the reasons I think gay marriage is bad. The argument for gay marriage is based on "because they love each other." If we change the law based on that argument, it sets a legal precedent that I believe will eventually lead us to allow polygamy, bigamy, incest, and adult-child marriage. At the very least, under that argument, there is little legal basis for not allowing any, if not all of these. I'd rather have to make tough choices, and even sometimes make bad choices (but hopefully learn from them) than live in a dream world where choices are made for me by dead people who lived 2000 or more years ago - thank you very much. If you truly believe that my choices are made for me, you haven't read anything I've said about my religion. It's all about personal choice. I can choose to obey God's law, or I can choose not to. This doesn't mean that God dictates my every action - the choice is always there. I choose God. I can assure you that if such a device existed - certainly a few years ago - there would be, at the very least, motions in place to install these devices in places - and most probably there WOULD be something like the kinds of things that you described. You're naive if you truly believe this. We learned our lesson from the Civil Rights Movement. While there may be a few extremists who would want to implement this, the vast majority of people wouldn't stand for it, no matter their stance on gay marriage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.