Kain Posted February 29, 2004 Share Posted February 29, 2004 I just wanna say that SkinWalker is so cool... And did rccar delete a post because I got confused..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hgwall44 Posted February 29, 2004 Share Posted February 29, 2004 allright i would have to say that i am very much again'st same sex marriages. One of the main reasons for this is my religion. I am a christian, i go to a christian church. I do think that marriage is supposed to be between a man and woman only. See I would like to point out one thing. God made Adam & Eve, NOT adam and steve. Thx you for your time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted February 29, 2004 Share Posted February 29, 2004 Originally posted by Kain And did rccar delete a post because I got confused..? [/b] I was quoting his last post at the top of this page... I don't think he deleted any. But this thread is long enough that I should capture the thread in Acrobat... I once debated a pseudoscience issue on a science board and, after 5 or 6 pages, the main opposer deleted all but his very first post. All that was left was the quoted material and it effectively wasted two months or so of debate. Not that rcarr328 is someone I think would even consider that, but I learned to archive large or "hot" threads after that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted February 29, 2004 Share Posted February 29, 2004 Originally posted by hgwall44 See I would like to point out one thing. God made Adam & Eve, NOT adam and steve. But I'd like to point out that science has demonstrated a very likely evolution of hominids that doesn't appear to include the sudden appearance of Homo sapiens from a supernatural source. Moreover, the various mythologies present in the Pentateuch set a pattern of literary license used by the "priestly authors" to adapt Near Eastern myths and stories... so, in all likelihood, the Adam & Eve story is concocted or adapted. Originally posted by hgwall44 Thx you for your time Thx for posting! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Warrior Posted February 29, 2004 Share Posted February 29, 2004 Originally posted by hgwall44 See I would like to point out one thing. God made Adam & Eve, NOT adam and steve. And I would like to point out that this country was created because people wanted the freedom to practice their own religion free from government. So the laws of our country cannot be based on the rules of one religion, even if it is the dominant one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeskywalker1 Posted February 29, 2004 Share Posted February 29, 2004 So you don't take medicines, or believe in surgery? How about buildings? They are altered nature. Scyscrapers sure aren't natural structures. No, I take medicines. Medicines and structers can benifit, and help people. Women impregnating other women, cannot help people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Warrior Posted February 29, 2004 Share Posted February 29, 2004 Originally posted by lukeskywalker1 No, I take medicines. Medicines and structers can benifit, and help people. Women impregnating other women, cannot help people. Why not? Two lesbian women who want a child of their own, from their own genes, who is truly THEIR child would certainly benefit from this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Jones Posted March 1, 2004 Share Posted March 1, 2004 Originally posted by Kylilin This is all true in theory, but its not the reality of polygamy. And the practice of polygamy is almost exclusively tied to religion. Women and girls are forced to marry men in many cases. How is that not disempowerment? of course this is disempowernment in any case, but there are also women forced to marry in bigamist marriages. also i think sometimes there are both sides, man and woman, forced to marry, for familar reasons or whatever. i dont consider these problems "polygamous" or "bigamous". i'd consider it depending to how the together of man/ men and woman/ women and the "tradition" of family is tought. and that again may be dependend to the religion or society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShockV1.89 Posted March 1, 2004 Share Posted March 1, 2004 I had the pleasure of attending the first gay marriages of New York State, in the small town of New Paltz, where I go to school. It was a lot of fun, and it was wonderful to see so many happy people. The crowd gave a very heartening cheer when the mayor announced the first marriage complete and one of the couples raised the certificate in his hand. Woo woo, I was there for history! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kain Posted March 1, 2004 Share Posted March 1, 2004 Maybe if we didn't have a president blinded by his faith and had a far more open minded one (y'know, not an idiot), then none of this getting angry at gays in San Fran and New York would be going on. I say less southern presidents (okay, so I'm stereotyping that southerners are overly religious, sue me) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rccar328 Posted March 2, 2004 Share Posted March 2, 2004 First off, I'd like to address the comparison of the current gay marriage situation and Rosa Parks. There is one fundamental difference - when Rosa Parks violated the law, the law was enforced. I'm not saying that the law was right, but it was the law. The difference in San Francisco is that there has been no enforcement of the law. The mayor of San Francisco swore an oath to uphold the law. So did the Attorney General of California. They have not upheld their oaths. That is why this is anarchical while what Rosa Parks did was not. She violated the law. She was arrested. Then, she appealed her case to the Supreme Court and got the law changed. ____________________________________________________ Finally, I'd like to address the President's speech about the Constitutional amendment. Despite whatever Rosie O'Donnell may think, the President's speech was anything but hateful. He spoke very calmly and said what he wanted to say. He didn't say it in a hateful way, he just said it. But all that aside, there is a reason for the amendment that goes beyond (and is much more important than) gay marriage, and the President addressed it in his speech. He was talking about judicial tyranny. We've seen more and more judges legislating a liberal agenda from the bench. If these judges are going to continue to legislate from the bench, then a Constitutional amendment is the only recourse left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted March 2, 2004 Share Posted March 2, 2004 If I say "I hate gay people" in a calm way, then the "hate" word dissapears? (Of course he didn't say that, I'm just trying to make a point). If Hitler said "Kill the jews" in a peaceful way, it isn't hate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rccar328 Posted March 2, 2004 Share Posted March 2, 2004 Of course he didn't say that, I'm just trying to make a point No, he didn't. Despite what you may think, it is possible to disagree with homosexuality without hating homosexuals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted March 3, 2004 Share Posted March 3, 2004 and how can that be possible? If you don't hate them, there'S no reason to stop them... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rccar328 Posted March 3, 2004 Share Posted March 3, 2004 For me (I can't speak for the President), it's because I believe that homosexuality is sin, and I care about people enough to encourage them to turn away from sin. (I know, you probably don't buy it, but there it is.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted March 3, 2004 Share Posted March 3, 2004 First, the SF episode of the Mayor marrying same-sex couples was definately not anarchy in the common sense of the word. The mayor broke the law in a routine fashion, but this does not make it anarchy. Perhaps the act was leaning towards anarchy, but in the common sense of the word, one expects the majority of a population to disregard the majority of the laws in routine fashion. The mayor's actions were less "anarchical" than the 5:00 o'clock drive in the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex, where traffic laws are considered to be "traffic guidelines." In addition, the mayor is being held accountable by an attorny general who has cited him for multiple counts of performing marriages without license. The criminal justice system in action is not symptomatic of anarchy... so can we agree to get past that point? Second, I agree that the President did not sound hateful in his speech, rather just repeating the rhetoric expected of the "religious right" that the Republican Party panders to. The introduction of the same-sex marriage issue is very obviously a campaign tactic (albeit one with some risk) and I can't blame the President for using it. I probably would. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted March 3, 2004 Share Posted March 3, 2004 WhiteHouse.gov The union of a man and woman is the most enduring human institution, honoring -- honored and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith. Ages of experience have taught humanity that the commitment of a husband and wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society. Lies. Not all religions and cultures are restrictive of gays. Also, many cultures dont' have monogamy, some have a man marry two or more woman, or vice versa. Whitehouse.gov After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence, and millennia of human experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization. Their actions have created confusion on an issue that requires clarity. I see no confusion over marriage of same sex couples, It's hardly a unclear thing. two guys, or two girls, get married, can't be more "confusing" than a man and woman getting married. whitehouse.gov Marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society Marriage is held in different regards, in different societies, therefore you cannot restrict it to one standard, as I have stated before. And allowing gay marriages will not doom society, if anything, as skinwalker has said many times, it will help it. whitehouse.gov America is a free society, which limits the role of government in the lives of our citizens. werd. whitehouse.gov This commitment of freedom, however, does not require the redefinition of one of our most basic social institutions. Our government should respect every person, and protect the institution of marriage. There is no contradiction between these responsibilities. wrong, there is a contradiction, you either allow all freedoms given in the constitution itself or you don't have all the freedoms. This institution of marriage is nothing but religious right rhetoric. whitehouse.gov We should also conduct this difficult debate in a manner worthy of our country, without bitterness or anger. I am inclined to agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kain Posted March 3, 2004 Share Posted March 3, 2004 Originally posted by rccar328 For me, it's because I believe that homosexuality is sin, and I care about people enough to encourage them to turn away from sin. Being born is a sin. Having sex is a sin. Living your life is full of sin. I don't care how righteous you are, you're doing something bad in someone's eyes no matter WHAT you do. Eating meat on a Friday is a sin. Saying God is a sin. Having a large crucifix in the front of a church is a MAJOR SIN, and don't say it isn't because the 10 Commandments say NO IDOLIC WORSHIP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hiroki Posted March 3, 2004 Share Posted March 3, 2004 I was just somewhat curios Kain, if you do not mind me asking, but why do you defend gays so strongly? In general, the best straight guys simply don't care one way or another. Why do you defend them so strongly if you arn't even gay? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted March 3, 2004 Share Posted March 3, 2004 Originally posted by Hiroki I was just somewhat curios Kain, if you do not mind me asking, but why do you defend gays so strongly? In general, the best straight guys simply don't care one way or another. Why do you defend them so strongly if you arn't even gay? Why do you "dislike" them so much? Same principle, we (me and kain, and others like us) see others as equals and not as horrible "hated by god" mutations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted March 3, 2004 Share Posted March 3, 2004 I don't have red hair, but I will speak out against anyone who ridicules my red-headed friends, or, for that matter, the red-haired people I don't even know. I don't particularly like hockey or NASCAR, but I will respect the desire of another to watch or participate and not judge them for their "sports." Perhaps Kain is like-minded in these respects and sees an injustice in the vile attacks against those who are homosexual by the so-called "religious right." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kain Posted March 3, 2004 Share Posted March 3, 2004 Maybe its not that I'm defending gays as much as I'm pointing out that Christianity is so stupid for saying care for all but hate gays. Or maybe its that I have a few gay friends who might get ridiculed alot for their preferences by people like you, Hiroki. Maybe its because at one point or another in my life I may have had homosexual feelings. Perhaps its because all my life I grew up around homophobes and, being the black sheep I am, didn't feel the same as everyone else. It could be that I had faith in God and believed whatever the pastor told me, but when I realized that there couldn't be a single God, I figured everything that 'He' said was false. Maybe I considered the fact that over the past 2000 years, that book you put so much stock into has been altered by all kinds of different people, all with their own prejudices and hatreds. But the simple truth, Hiroki, of why I defend homosexuals so strongly, is because I'm sick of the bashing. I'm tired of the hatred. I hate that admitting you're gay can get you beaten to death. I've heard too many stories of gays being beaten, stabbed, shot, and flat out murdered because of their sexual preferences to just sit idlely by and let people like YOU AND THAT IDIOT BUSH tell them that they can't have the same happiness that you can have with your lover! I can't stand it that its politically correct among high school students to bash the hell out of gays just because they're different. So Christianity is the biggest religion in the U.S.A.? That doesn't make it right. If majority meant correct, then blacks would still be killed on hearsay. If this was 40 years ago, Hiroki, and this was a debate on the Civil Rights movement, which side would you be on? These people are still human. As such, they are endowed with certain unalienable Rights, among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Or maybe you missed that lesson? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Warrior Posted March 3, 2004 Share Posted March 3, 2004 Originally posted by Hiroki In general, the best straight guys simply don't care one way or another. Why do you defend them so strongly if you arn't even gay? Why do you care if I go around murdering Chinese people if you aren't even chinese? Would it bother you if I told your black friends (assuming you have some) that they need to get back in the cotton fields? I care because they're HUMANS just like us, and as humans they should be treated the same as everyone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hiroki Posted March 3, 2004 Share Posted March 3, 2004 Maybe its not that I'm defending gays as much as I'm pointing out that Christianity is so stupid for saying care for all but hate gays. Its not Christianity thats stupid, its some of the people who represent it today. Or maybe its that I have a few gay friends who might get ridiculed alot for their preferences by people like you, Hiroki. I figured you had a few gay friends. And I don't go around ridiculeing gays. If they hit on me, I'll 'hit on them' if you get my point. But otherwise, I don't bother them, and I would never, ever, beat one with a bat, or murder one. Maybe its because at one point or another in my life I may have had homosexual feelings. Umm...TMI Perhaps its because all my life I grew up around homophobes and, being the black sheep I am, didn't feel the same as everyone else. Fair enough. Compared to my family I'm quite nice to gay people. It could be that I had faith in God and believed whatever the pastor told me, but when I realized that there couldn't be a single God, I figured everything that 'He' said was false. Um, why can't there be a single God? You didn't actually give a reason for that. Maybe I considered the fact that over the past 2000 years, that book you put so much stock into has been altered by all kinds of different people, all with their own prejudices and hatreds. Yup. Can't deny that. Its been altered alot over the many years by men, not God. Well, the Bible actually states that if you alter it, you're damned, so I hope it brings relief that they're in hell right now...unless that was an altered part too. o.O But the simple truth, Hiroki, of why I defend homosexuals so strongly, is because I'm sick of the bashing. I'm tired of the hatred. I hate that admitting you're gay can get you beaten to death. I've heard too many stories of gays being beaten, stabbed, shot, and flat out murdered because of their sexual preferences to just sit idlely by and let people like YOU AND THAT IDIOT BUSH Ouch! Hey, I'm gonna have to kill you for pairing me with Bush...I defenatly consider that a flame. tell them that they can't have the same happiness that you can have with your lover! I can't stand it that its politically correct among high school students to bash the hell out of gays just because they're different. Yes, its wrong for highschool kids to beat them, and maybe they should be allowed to be with each other, infact, I like that idea, the more they are with each other, the less they are with me... So Christianity is the biggest religion in the U.S.A.? That doesn't make it right. If majority meant correct, then blacks would still be killed on hearsay. If this was 40 years ago, Hiroki, and this was a debate on the Civil Rights movement, which side would you be on? If it was 40 years ago, I would be with the Blacks, becouse the treatment of them then was inhuman and cruel, and just flat out wrong. These people are still human. As such, they are endowed with certain unalienable Rights, among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Yes, they're human, and they have thoughs rights, so there, we agree. Or maybe you missed that lesson? No, I didn't miss the 'lesson' And I didn't miss the flames eather. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hiroki Posted March 3, 2004 Share Posted March 3, 2004 One thing that REALLY makes me dislike gays is how touchy they are if you say even the slightest homophobic thing. Even in jest! If you mutter one little almost hardly noticable word, every gay, and gay-supporter on this forum runs and tries to bite your head off for it. Why do you guys over react so much?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.