PDA

View Full Version : Proposition 8: Good or Bad?


JediMaster12
10-21-2008, 04:36 PM
I have been listening to the radio discussions and the television adverts about the now infamous/famous Proposition 8.

For those that don't know, Proposition 8 deals with the banning of gay marriage. From my own recall, it sprang up shortly after the courts here in California declared same sex marriage legal.

I have heard arguments from both sides of the issue. The one on the no side that I recall very well was the television add of the woman being prevented from marrying the man she loved. Radio and television announcements from the yes side paint a different picture...

So the well-financed and savvy backers of Proposition 8 have produced waves of advertising aimed instead at making voters believe that supporters of same-sex marriage are intent on stripping away everyone else's rights, and that this ballot measure is the only way for traditionally religious people to retain them.

With the defeat of this proposed ban on gay marriage, they say, schools would begin indoctrinating children as young as kindergartners to be wholehearted supporters of such marriages. The ads point to the case of a Massachusetts teacher reading the picture book "King and King," about a gay royal wedding.
I have seen this fear about schools being forced to teach same sex marriage, etc. I have seen statements that it is a moral decline, etc. Frankly this issue is a hotbed, at least in my family.

What I am curious about is whether or not members here agree with the proposition or not. Just a reminder that this is not topic to insult people with. I for one have the privilege of two gay friends who recently got married and are enjoying a happy life together.

Also, here is the link (http://http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-prop8-21-2008oct21,0,7164183.story) for the passage I quoted. Opinions?

El Sitherino
10-21-2008, 04:53 PM
It is neither right nor privilege for any government to persecute it's citizens based on personal morals and ideology. It is the right of every (wo)man to pursue life without impeding on another. If they are doing no personal harm there can be no crime, therefore nothing to prohibit.

There was a time and place in the US where people understood and accepted this ideal.

jawathehutt
10-21-2008, 04:59 PM
I cant think of a single good reason for this law, it would be like banning special education because people who need it decide to be mentally disabled when they enter school.

Yar-El
10-21-2008, 05:03 PM
I have seen this fear about schools being forced to teach same sex marriage, etc. I have seen statements that it is a moral decline, etc. Frankly this issue is a hotbed, at least in my family.

What I am curious about is whether or not members here agree with the proposition or not. Just a reminder that this is not topic to insult people with. I for one have the privilege of two gay friends who recently got married and are enjoying a happy life together.

Also, here is the link (http://http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-prop8-21-2008oct21,0,7164183.story) for the passage I quoted. Opinions? Do we have a right to limit someone's freewill? No. Who created the concept of marriage? Religion or government? I don't know this answer. Religious types of marriages should be maintained through religious laws. Government types of marriages should be maintained through government laws. Religion is about a god's judgement on how a person acts under freewill. Goverment is about a society's judgement on how a person acts under freewill. I can live with the idea of gay marriages; however, I will not support the act as something moral. I do want people to have choices; thus, they can be judged by how they act through their religous means. Supressing the freedom of choice is a horrible idea. Let them have the choice to turn right or left. I don't have the authority to judge people. Let people be judged by their god, and let everyone else stay out of the process.

I don't want my future children to learn about gay marriages through schooling. We need to keep this responsibility in the hands of parents.

jonathan7
10-21-2008, 05:23 PM
This is a pre-emptive warning - this thread is being monitored very closely, it is better to err on the side of caution and if you are unsure of the nature of a post, please PM one of the mods to check - You are allowed to express your opinions, but do so in a tactful, and respectful manner, homophobia will not, however, be tolerated. You may argue against gay marriage, but do not insult people who are gay.

For those of a religious persuasion who I presume will argue against this, I would like to refer you both to my signature, and if you are a Christian consider that Jesus took the Gospel to all people, and told us not to judge...

JediMaster12
10-21-2008, 06:08 PM
Thanks for the added warning jonathan7- JM12

For those who don't know, my politics are based upon the Constitution and the Declartion of Independence. Of course I have to obey the statutes imposed by my beloved state otherwise I get the jail cell.

I have a strong belief that we are free to choose to be how we want to be and how to live our lives. I always hear the phrases that it was the person's choice and they have to live with it. Heck even in our beloved KOTOR game is the word choice(s) mentioned. Choice is obviously a law of nature unto which people have a right to.

I am not going to sugar coat this but the subject of gay marriage is one that has me pitted in a silent war against my family. The reason I say silent is because I never voice my opinion for the reason that I will get the Are you pagan lecture which I have had on other occassions. I do believe that people who love each other should be together. To deny them that is very much like slavery, to put it in a crude form.

As I stated before I have two friends from the GLBT community that recently got married when same sex marriage was legalized. I was happy for them. They are the nicest people I know of and I can think why two people like them should be denied the right to be legal. I have others from the GLBT community that have gotten married and I am happy for them. Call me a coward for not standing up to my family but I know what they are like and the ball is really not in my court.

As to the whole thing about teaching same sex marriage in our schools, let me point out another part of the same article that I was reading. It made a very interesting point about what is required by law for public education.

Under SB 71, which passed in 2003, the Legislature set out the framework for comprehensive sex education, which includes the brief reference to marriage from which these dire Proposition 8 warnings are drawn: "Instruction and materials shall teach respect for marriage and committed relationships." Schools aren't required to teach comprehensive sex education, but if they do, this is one of many rules they must follow. The law also gives schools the option of discussing gender, sexual orientation and family life, though that's not required as part of the more comprehensive program. -- LATimes
The law specifically says respect for marriage and committed relationships. There really is no line that says what the conditions are. Also it is optional for the sexual orientation, etc and parents do have the option of viewing the material.

Quite frankly I saw the fear factor the pros for prop 8 were using a mile away. The fear factor I admit is a good tactic but I personally don't like how it is being used. It reminds me of the immigration debate.

True_Avery
10-21-2008, 06:11 PM
I don't exactly see why it needs to be taught in schools. Seems like an odd thing to do, personally. I guess for education purposes, having them less ignorant of it is a good thing but still... odd. I guess it fits into the same category as sex education, as in needing to be age appropriate for the situation. If it was just to get kids to realize that we exist, I can appreciate that.

But, people are still afraid of acceptance of those different from themselves so I can see why people would want their kids to be terrified and hateful towards us. Gotta have someone to beat up during recess, right? *sighs*

Anyway, on Prop 8...

Its been getting sizable contributions from Utah and various churches, so we're outclassed as far as money goes... People have been locking themselves in churches on shifts for 24/7 praying that it passes, so the faith vote probably isn't in favor of us... And Cali has already passed "bans" before, so we have history against us as well...

I dunno... I give it 90% chance of passing, even if only by a 49/51% margin.

And, frankly, I've come to terms with that. I have no hope that Prop 8 will be turned down. None at all. We're the cool minority to suppress right now, and people don't like giving up their play thing.

When it passes I'm not sure how good the chances are of it going to supreme court are. If it could have gone to supreme, then it would have already. If it could have gone, then prop 8 would never been on the ballet. The fact it had enough support to go to the ballet says enough right there in my opinion.

And when it does, our family friend's marriage will become void. Even though we held it last weekend.

That's just how it works I guess.

People need something to hate and suppress to feel better about their situation. I'm below you, so you must be on top. Basic human psychology.

No real point in debating this anyway. If you've made up your mind, then there is no changing it. I wont waste my time or your time, and leave it to the country to decide. Its been made quite obvious that we're currently welcome almost nowhere, as most parts of the world only give us the same privileges out of pity or some loophole in the system.

Don't take this as me lashing out at anyone. I'm just a little tired and posting this has left me disenchanted with life right now.

mimartin
10-21-2008, 06:34 PM
If it could have gone to supreme, then it would have already. I’m no legal expert, but I believe to take something to the Supreme Court, someone first has to have their right violated by the measure. I don’t believe you can preemptive sue someone, at least yet. People need something to hate and suppress to feel better about their situation. I'm below you, so you must be on top. Basic human psychology. Not all people. Some people need to build up others so that they feel better about their self that too is basic human psychology.

I’m against Proposition 8, I believe everyone is entitled to equal rights under the law.

Web Rider
10-21-2008, 06:45 PM
I think the religious aspects of marriage and the legal aspects of marriage out to be seperate. The former just a ceremony with no more legal value than you put in it, and the latter the actual contract that gives you all the grea married benefits.

I don't support Prop 8, and that's about all there is to it.

Q
10-21-2008, 06:50 PM
People need something to hate and suppress to feel better about their situation. I'm below you, so you must be on top. Basic human psychology.
While I agree with you that that's how it is, it's always sounded like basic animal psychology to me. Or basic parasite psychology. ;)

Arcesious
10-21-2008, 07:27 PM
I find it saddening that the rights of human beings are still being decided by votes. The appeal to majority and appeal to authority fallacies are destroying us economically, militarily, environmentally, and constitutionally.

Q
10-21-2008, 07:42 PM
Yes, because determining our own fate is sooo overrated. :roleyess:

JediMaster12
10-21-2008, 07:49 PM
I find it saddening that the rights of human beings are still being decided by votes. The appeal to majority and appeal to authority fallacies are destroying us economically, militarily, environmentally, and constitutionally.
But that is the form of government that we operate by. A government, of the people, by the people, for the people. Nowhere do I see us but not them. Unfortunately there are those who like to split hairs over terminology and it gives everyone a headache.

Litofsky
10-21-2008, 08:00 PM
But that is the form of government that we operate by. A government, of the people, by the people, for the people. Nowhere do I see us but not them. Unfortunately there are those who like to split hairs over terminology and it gives everyone a headache.

I'm not debating this fact, JM, but I'd like to point out that the majority isn't always right (in fact, the majority has a tendency to act stupidly, i.e. 'mob mentality'). Sure, the government acts for the people, but since when has it truly acted in the best interest of the people (I mean the federal government, in this case)?

As for Proposition 8, I really don't care what people do with their bodies, so long as they don't start to infringe upon others. I don't see what the problem, really (other than people are homophobic, or some other reason).

Arcesious
10-21-2008, 08:13 PM
Yes, because determining our own fate is sooo overrated.

That is your right as an individual. There are problems, and letting the vote decide doesn't work too well.

I'll make an analogy.

Let's say a celestial object the size of the moon is on a near collision course with Earth. Building the technology to effectively nudge it off course ends up costing say... 10 trillion dollars.
There is a 50/50 chance it will hit. The technology to nudge it off couse could bankrupt the entire economy.

So, do we vote and hope it passes or do we take the rational approach and make 100% sure that it doesn't hit us? Either we let it maybe/maybe not hit us, or we spend a lot to nudge it away, because what's better? Being dead or having the chance to rebuild something fixable, like an economy?

BTW, the compromisational approach would just as risky as not doing anything at all. (IE, spending 2-5 trillion to build minimal technology to nudge it away.)

Now compare that to the Global Destabilization problem and you'll see my point.

(I'm not attacking you with this post, that is not my intention.)

jonathan7
10-21-2008, 08:18 PM
So, do we vote and hope it passes or do we take the rational approach and make 100% sure that it doesn't hit us? Either we let it maybe/maybe not hit us, or we spend a lot to nudge it away, because what's better? Being dead or having the chance to rebuild something fixable, like an economy?

How is this rational? Why have you decided this is rational, why is life so important? If we are nothing but glorified animals best adapted, why shouldn't we go the way of dinosaur and let super-intelligent cock roaches inherit the earth? Besides lets presume you bankrupt the worlds economies, putting the asteroid off course, and a nuclear WW3 descends on us, wiping out billions what have you really achieved?

I merely wanted to post a response for you to question your position, you are free to start a new topic, on this subject if you wish - though we don't want to hijack this thread ;)

Q
10-21-2008, 08:19 PM
(I'm not attacking you with this post, that is not my intention.)
Oh, I know you're not. :)

So who determines our fate, then? Fewer people? An intellectual elite? A politburo? A monarch? A dictator?

NO THANKS.*

Congress comes close enough as it is.




*Unless, of course, that dictator happens to be me. Then I'd be all for it. :xp:

Corinthian
10-21-2008, 08:34 PM
Human nature is to survive at any cost. That is why it is rational. And what does World War 3 have to do with averting an asteroid impact?

Q
10-21-2008, 08:39 PM
Back on track, yeah. ;)

Anywho, as it is a personal freedom issue, of course I'm against the ban on gay marriage. Whether one approves of the lifestyle or not is irrelevant. To ban gay marriage is to impose one's will upon another and that is the definition of oppression.

Web Rider
10-21-2008, 09:39 PM
Letting people decide allows us to grow at our own pace, that's IMO, the best argument for giving people the power. If you don't, you end up with growth ala China's "Great Leap Forward", and that was great in the long-run, but pretty nasty to everyone alive at the time. Saying government or nature should dictate what's best for us is just as bad as the appeal to authority that says "God says no!"

Anyway, I don't have a problem letting the people decide on Prop 8, it'll do a lot more to shoot down the religious nuts who promote this stuff than having the government do it. Otherwise next election, and the one after that, and after that for 20 years we'll be dealing with this same bill being brought up until the "old guard" finally die off.

Hey, it may get passed, but it can still be taken down by Supreme Court ruling if somebody's rights are determined to be violated by it, which IMO, I think we mostly agree that they would.

JediMaster12
10-21-2008, 10:27 PM
So WebRider you are virtually saying that history takes too long and is never kind to those trying to hurry it?

I'm not saying you are wrong, just trying to grasp your picture here. Somehow though I have the feeling that this issue may be like the age old hatred called racism and we may have to wait until the "old guard" finally die off.

mimartin
10-21-2008, 10:49 PM
Somehow though I have the feeling that this issue may be like the age old hatred called racism and we may have to wait until the "old guard" finally die off.The problem is that some within society constantly create a “new guard” with same old tired hatreds. Unfortunately we pass on our prejudices and our bias to our young. Be it intentional or not. :(

Web Rider
10-21-2008, 11:12 PM
So WebRider you are virtually saying that history takes too long and is never kind to those trying to hurry it?
I dunno, it's the internet, everything is virtual.

Seriously though, yeah, I am saying that it's better to let it go slowly, but more to the point, what I'm saying is that it's best to let a society progress at the rate it's people feel comfortable with. Mao did some great stuff for China, just as Stalin did by bringing an essentially farming nation into world power status very quickly. But it certainly wasn't a kind transition on the people.

I'm not saying you are wrong, just trying to grasp your picture here. Somehow though I have the feeling that this issue may be like the age old hatred called racism and we may have to wait until the "old guard" finally die off.
Yup, that's been one of the biggest setbacks to the gay-rights movements, is that they have often pushed too hard and wanted too quickly, and they are getting quite the backlash for it.

EDIT: and seriously, this KOTOR MMO stuff has to be the fault behind why half forum doesn't load sometimes.

Jae Onasi
10-22-2008, 02:10 AM
Topic is proposition 8. I have deleted several posts entirely unrelated to proposition 8, including, but not limited to, the Kotor MMO, which as far as I know, has absolutely nothing to do with Californians voting on gay marriage. The Kotor MMO forum is here (http://www.lucasforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=730) if you need to discuss the game further. Please stay on topic. Thanks.

True_Avery
10-22-2008, 05:08 AM
Yup, that's been one of the biggest setbacks to the gay-rights movements, is that they have often pushed too hard and wanted too quickly, and they are getting quite the backlash for it.
Agreed.

I'm with you on letting society take it pace. I'm content that it'll happen eventually, but rushing it would be unwise. Not that it wouldn't be great to see it happen, but as you've pointed out rushing a society into something never seems to turn out as planned.

Actually, rushing it into court is what most likely got Prop 8 on the ballet in the first place. So, we may have stabbed ourselves in the boot there to be perfectly honest.

JediMaster12
10-22-2008, 05:43 PM
I dunno, it's the internet, everything is virtual.

Seriously though, yeah, I am saying that it's better to let it go slowly, but more to the point, what I'm saying is that it's best to let a society progress at the rate it's people feel comfortable with. Mao did some great stuff for China, just as Stalin did by bringing an essentially farming nation into world power status very quickly. But it certainly wasn't a kind transition on the people.
But to which people are you referring to? I would thing the proletariat would be pleased as punch for change.


Yup, that's been one of the biggest setbacks to the gay-rights movements, is that they have often pushed too hard and wanted too quickly, and they are getting quite the backlash for it.

Funny thing is though if people didn't push too hard, it would never have gotten people on board anyway. Look at women's right to vote. They pushed hard and history wasn't knid to them but in the end they prevailed.

I would think that it works both ways. You have to push but then not push. Sort of like picking your battles to fight. I would think either or on the extremes would not be good.

mimartin: You are absolutely right in the passing of hatreds to the young. I've seen it myself how much kids mimic theirparents and think it's ok.

El Sitherino
10-22-2008, 06:21 PM
Which is why they're attempting to teach things in classes.

Funny how the discussion answered that question.
http://www.lucasforums.com/picture.php?albumid=194&pictureid=2163

You see the reason they teach these things in school is not because they want to remove the responsibility from the parents, rather they wish to compensate for the irresponsibility. I can understand the feeling of threat to one's measure as a parent however, I feel comfortable in the knowledge that my children will not have to worry about the kind of hate I and others have had to tolerate or endure.

Jae Onasi
10-22-2008, 06:24 PM
I think that can be covered in the standard 'hating people is wrong' socialization that happens in school, however. I don't want the school to be getting in the business of discussing morality of different kinds of sex when we can't even do a good job teaching basic reading and math.

El Sitherino
10-22-2008, 06:34 PM
I think that can be covered in the standard 'hating people is wrong' socialization that happens in school, however. I don't want the school to be getting in the business of discussing morality of different kinds of sex when we can't even do a good job teaching basic reading and math.

I don't really think any initiative will be taken until the school system as a whole has gotten worked out. By which time improvements of base subjects will be made.

Web Rider
10-22-2008, 06:45 PM
Funny thing is though if people didn't push too hard, it would never have gotten people on board anyway. Look at women's right to vote. They pushed hard and history wasn't knid to them but in the end they prevailed.

I would think that it works both ways. You have to push but then not push. Sort of like picking your battles to fight. I would think either or on the extremes would not be good.

I'm not entirely familiar with the roots of the gay rights movements, but it at the very most, a post-WWII movement. Black(and other races) civil rights and women's civil rights have been issues since the dawn of the nation.

They were slow and presistant, and when given the chance, they pushed hard. From from it's very dawning, the gay rights movements have come on strong with messages of "we're queer, we're here, get used to it!" This is not a message of cooperation, this is not a message that they seek equal rights.

It is a message saying that we will give them rights, regardless of our feelings on the subject, because they told us to do so. Not exactly a strong way to build cooperation between two groups of people. I'm a supporter of homosexual rights but there are time when I'm even put off by the divisivness of their message, it really often comes off to me no different than Bush's "You're either with me or against me."

Tommycat
10-23-2008, 03:50 AM
In AZ we have the same thing, only it's called prop 102. I intend on voting it down.

I kind of agree with Web Rider on this one. in that the GLBT community has been more or less in everyone's face about the issue rather than attempting a more agreeable approach. Trust me I fully support people marrying who they love. That is their choice, but lets face it, we're talking thousands of years of morality being put to task. It's also people's subconsious prejudices. They may not even have a problems with homosexuality, but just crossing that line of making it more "normal" is tough for most.

JediMaster12
10-23-2008, 05:36 PM
Web Rider: Actually I disagree with the GLBT community coming in hard etc. from the beginning. Before it became the issue it is now, most lived in secret or in the closet so to speak. If it got out there usually was retaliation and not in the nice way. That was my take on it unless you mean when the gay rights issue became a full fledged cause.

On a different note, I voted yesterday. My campus has an early voting poll location in our student union so I went in and vote. A good thing I did because I voted no on Prop 8 and I would have had the Inquisition after me aka my family. Nice thing is they didn't ask me who or what I voted for so in some cases voting is private. Anyway I voted no on the proposition because I do see it as a trampling on rights. I like fair play yes and I don't see this prop as one.

EnderWiggin
10-25-2008, 02:13 PM
It is neither right nor privilege for any government to persecute it's citizens based on personal morals and ideology. It is the right of every (wo)man to pursue life without impeding on another. If they are doing no personal harm there can be no crime, therefore nothing to prohibit.

There was a time and place in the US where people understood and accepted this ideal.

Amen.

_EW_

GarfieldJL
10-25-2008, 09:14 PM
I actually wouldn't have a problem with proposition 9, as long as there was the following included in it.


That the legal term of legal partnership (or whatever you call it) was added to the bill and that the rights and priviledges of marriage would also apply to legal partnership.

In all honesty, this is a sticky issue and neither side should be going on and on about it being "Their way or the highway."

JediMaster12
10-27-2008, 05:09 PM
I agree on that Garfield. Prop 8 really is becoming a hotbed and in fact today at my university, there is an evangelical preaching and condemning everyone. If I remember correctly and jonathan has mentioned it before, somewhere in the Bible we have no right to judge our fellow man. Of course the main rule I try to follow is Love thy neighbor as thyself. Jonathan's siggie also is great truth about love. Heck all you need is love.

Web Rider
10-27-2008, 05:29 PM
I actually wouldn't have a problem with proposition 9, as long as there was the following included in it.

That the legal term of legal partnership (or whatever you call it) was added to the bill and that the rights and priviledges of marriage would also apply to legal partnership.

In all honesty, this is a sticky issue and neither side should be going on and on about it being "Their way or the highway."

It's prop 8. And what exactly is a "legal partnership"? Is it a socially lee important but legally equivalent marriage for "they gays"?

Allowing homosexuals to marry isn't just for the legal benefits. It's also for the social things that come with it. When you look at a (ideal) married couple, there's all kinds of "dawwww" stuff you feel. When you look at a partnership, these same things do not come to mind. Otherwise AOL's partnership with Time Warner would give you all sorts of fuzzy feelings.

Edit: doublepost, whatever, Prop 8 did not pass, 500k vote margin unless the abentee and provisional vote change that.

Please click in the lower right corner the you may: edit.... link to edit your posts instead of double posting. --Jae

Litofsky
11-05-2008, 08:13 PM
Wikipedia disagrees (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)), Web. Fools. Who are (they) to say who a person can or cannot marry? However, as you said, quite a few absentee ballots remain to be counted, and they could turn the tide.

Nedak
11-05-2008, 08:52 PM
No no no no no no no

Web Rider
11-05-2008, 08:54 PM
Wikipedia disagrees (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)), Web. Fools. Who are (they) to say who a person can or cannot marry? However, as you said, quite a few absentee ballots remain to be counted, and they could turn the tide.

Sorry, Prop 8's language always made my head spin, yes=no marriage, no=yes marriage.

Corinthian
11-05-2008, 08:59 PM
Good to see it.

Arcesious
11-05-2008, 10:46 PM
My parents told me Proposition 8 passed... Why are civil rights even held to a vote anyways?

My dad said: "Now the gays want to bring it to court! The people voted. They don't want gay marriage, and that's it!"
My mother said: "Yes, the people voted. Those spoiled brats... When will they ever just give up?!" /exact words

It's sad to hear people I should look up to and think of as wise saying these offensive and stupid things.
I just nodded my head and went to my room to play games and forget about it so as not to let it ruin my day.

Rev7
11-05-2008, 10:50 PM
I am pretty happy to see that it passed.

EnderWiggin
11-05-2008, 10:50 PM
Good to see it.

:disaprove

I am pretty happy to see that it passed.


Do you have a reason why? Or are you just regurgitating your parents' points of view?

@Everyone else
Don't give up hope just yet. According to wikipedia:
the vote was 52.5% in favor of Proposition 8 and 47.5% against, with a difference of about 504,000 votes;[7] as many as 3 million absentee and provisional ballots remain to be counted.

It hasn't been called yet.

_EW_

zelda 41
11-05-2008, 11:00 PM
God, it just makes me so mad to see that we cannot be equal to everyone. What is the problem if two men or two women, who are in love, want to marry? Honestly, does it effect you? Does it honestly offend you enough to have to go out and ban it, after gays and lesbians have fought so long and hard to gain such rights?

We claim "Every man is created equal"; unless you're gay. :l

EnderWiggin
11-05-2008, 11:03 PM
We claim "Every man is created equal"; unless you're gay. :l

Damn straight, Zelda.

_EW_

Rev7
11-05-2008, 11:08 PM
Do you have a reason why? Or are you just regurgitating your parents' points of view?

Wow there buddy. I think that it is really funny that people here seem to think that I go off of what my parents think. Amazing...I have my own mind and I have my own view.

Civil Rights. Yes everybody deserves them. I can so tell that you are gonna bash me on this because if I believe that everybody deserves them then why am I happy to see it pass?

One, I am a Conservative Christian--obviously. We all know that explaination. I agree with what the Bible says, call me close minded but that is what I stick to/will stick to.

This is a big moral issue--most are. I don't agree with it because I don't see homosexual relationships 'natural', and ethical.

I am entitled to my opinion, am I not?

EnderWiggin
11-05-2008, 11:28 PM
One, I am a Conservative Christian--obviously. We all know that explaination. I agree with what the Bible says, call me close minded but that is what I stick to/will stick to.

The bible also says:
Don't cut your hair nor shave.
Kill anyone with a different religion.
Don't wear clothes made of more than one fabric.

and lets not forget:
and the pig, which does indeed have hoofs and is cloven-footed, but does not chew the cud and is therefore unclean for you.


I'm a Christian too - that's why I don't want this to pass.


This is a big moral issue--most are. I don't agree with it because I don't see homosexual relationships 'natural', and ethical.


Here we go, this is something I'm good at.

Naturalistic Fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy) (aka appeal to nature) - things that are natural are not necessarily ethical. Ethics are not determined by what's natural and even if they were, you're still wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior

_EW_

Rogue Nine
11-05-2008, 11:29 PM
Civil Rights. Yes everybody deserves them.
Ha.

I agree with what the Bible says, call me close minded but that is what I stick to/will stick to.
Yeah dude, I follow the Bible too. My favorite passages are Leviticus 25:44 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2025:44;&version=31;) and Deuteronomy 22:22 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2022:22;&version=31;). I follow them everyday. I just got a new shipment from Asia yesterday, lookin' forward to breaking them in.

This is a big moral issue--most are. I don't agree with it because I don't see homosexual relationships 'natural', and ethical.
What is so 'unethical' about homosexual people? Are they lesser beings because they're gay? Are they less than you or me?

I am entitled to my opinion, am I not?
You are, but we're also entitled to disagree with your rather bigoted opinion.

Det. Bart Lasiter
11-05-2008, 11:35 PM
This is a big moral issueNo it isn't, it's just none of your ****ing business.

I am entitled to my opinion, am I not?Sure, as long as you don't start imposing it on other people, which is exactly what prop 8 did.

Corinthian
11-05-2008, 11:38 PM
We're not saying they can't boink, but given that Christianity is a religious institution, it seems to me to be rather unconstitutional for the Feds to be telling us that we have to let them taint it.

Also, nice way to quote the Bible with no context. Incidentally, what's wrong with either of those passages, Rogue?

Samuel Dravis
11-05-2008, 11:39 PM
It doesn't seem to me that a civil marriage is a christian institution.

EnderWiggin
11-05-2008, 11:41 PM
Also, nice way to quote the Bible with no context. Incidentally, what's wrong with either of those passages, Rogue?
Isn't that exactly what those who try to argue against homosexuality do?


Oh, and what Samuel said.

_EW_

Det. Bart Lasiter
11-05-2008, 11:42 PM
We're not saying they can't boink, but given that Christianity is a religious institution, it seems to me to be rather unconstitutional for the Feds to be telling us that we have to let them taint it.

Also, nice way to quote the Bible with no context. Incidentally, what's wrong with either of those passages, Rogue?the slavery bit

e: and the murder part

Rogue Nine
11-05-2008, 11:42 PM
We're not saying they can't boink, but given that Christianity is a religious institution, it seems to me to be rather unconstitutional for the Feds to be telling us that we have to let them taint it.
What Sam said. You Christians don't get marriage all to yourselves.

Also, nice way to quote the Bible with no context. Incidentally, what's wrong with either of those passages, Rogue?
I dunno man, they seem pretty straightforward to me, tellin' me I can own slaves and shoot my wife if she cheats on me. Straight Bible-livin', yo.

Nedak
11-05-2008, 11:44 PM
One, I am a Conservative Christian--obviously. We all know that explaination. I agree with what the Bible says, call me close minded but that is what I stick to/will stick to.

This is a big moral issue--most are. I don't agree with it because I don't see homosexual relationships 'natural', and ethical.

I am entitled to my opinion, am I not?
Cut the swearing. --Jae

The bible also says to own slaves.

Where is your slave Rev?

EnderWiggin
11-05-2008, 11:45 PM
I dunno man, they seem pretty straightforward to me, tellin' me I can own slaves and shoot my wife if she cheats on me. Straight Bible-livin', yo.

QFE.

_EW_

Arcesious
11-05-2008, 11:49 PM
I find it sad when people misinterpret what the Bible is meant to mean. Taking it out of context is ignorant, put simply. The original greek/hebrew syntax of the Biblical text is far more complex, specific, and meaningful than what the English translation conveys.

A studied theologian (RB Theime perhaps) can explain it quite well.

Darth InSidious
11-05-2008, 11:50 PM
Well I'm going hold back on my further things to say about this unless if someone wishes to have yet another religion debate... *shrugs*

I, Darth InSidious, Supreme Overlord of What is and What is Not, Lord of the Limits, Supreme Being, King of Kings, Ruling over Rulers, Ruler of Time, Great Khan, Ard Ri Eirinn and Holy Roman Emperor, declare to all and singular that I am so important that my every action will be announced to you at all times.

Right now, I am eating a cookie. You should all take note and comment how awesome I am.


The orginal greek/hebrew syntax of the Biblical text is far more complex, specific, and meaningful than what the English translation conveys.
Perhaps, O Praised One Whom The Praised Ones Praise, you'd like to give us your expert analysis? I await with interest your thoughts upon the Sahidic manuscript of John's Gospel and its implications, particularly the possible qualitative interpretation, and its relationship with the koine.

EnderWiggin
11-05-2008, 11:51 PM
I find it sad when people misinterpret what the Bible is meant to mean. Taking it out of context is ignorant, put simply. The orginal greek/hebrew syntax of the Biblical text is far more complex, specific, and meaningful than what the English translation conveys.

Was that directed at me and Niner? or at Rev?

Because I'm quite aware of what the context was of what I wrote, and I didn't misinterpret it.

Interesting that you could make a normative claim on my understanding, though.

_EW_

Rogue Nine
11-05-2008, 11:52 PM
I find it sad when people misinterpret what the Bible is meant to mean. Taking it out of context is ignorant, put simply. The orginal greek/hebrew syntax of the Biblical text is far more complex, specific, and meaningful than what the English translation conveys.
Dude, there are only so many ways to say 'kill your wife if she cheats on you'.

Corinthian
11-05-2008, 11:53 PM
No, not really. Most of the Bible passages against Homosexuality mean the same thing when you put them in context. Paul is pretty dang clear, especially in Romans 1:26.

“For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.”

If that could possibly refer to anything other than homosexuality, I can't figure out what it is. But please, if you can tell me how that does not refer to homosexuality or it's only the context that's condemning it, do so. Here's all the material you should need.

18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents;

Also, what's wrong with killing your wife for cheating on you? They actually took a solemn vow seriously back then. A pity we've left that in the dust.

Det. Bart Lasiter
11-05-2008, 11:53 PM
I find it sad when people misinterpret what the Bible is meant to mean. Taking it out of context is ignorant, put simply. The original greek/hebrew syntax of the Biblical text is far more complex, specific, and meaningful than what the English translation conveys.

A studied theologian (RB Theime perhaps) can explain it quite well.stop cluttering the thread i'm trying to break in and sort my slaves into their cages (i color code them) i can't be sifting through relevant posts

If that could possibly refer to anything other than homosexuality, I can't figure out what it is. But please, if you can tell me how that does not refer to homosexuality or it's only the context that's condemning it, do so. Here's all the material you should need.yes yes jolly good http://lucasforums.com/showpost.php?p=2487425&postcount=183

Q
11-05-2008, 11:57 PM
This is nuts. I lean towards the right more often than not and I see absolutely no justification in imposing your religious/social beliefs on another.

Same-sex marriage should be banned simply because it offends a certain group of people? Please. :roleyess:

At the same time I think that I should be allowed to kill my spouse (and her lover) if she cheats on me. :devsmoke:

Rogue Nine
11-05-2008, 11:58 PM
Corinthian, still waiting on you to explain how I should read my favorite verses.

Oh and Paul was pretty good about saying how slaves should act (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%206:%201-2;&version=31;):
All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God's name and our teaching may not be slandered. Those who have believing masters are not to show less respect for them because they are brothers. Instead, they are to serve them even better, because those who benefit from their service are believers, and dear to them. These are the things you are to teach and urge on them.
Now if you'll excuse me, I've got to go make some unruly slaves respect me. Wanna give me a hand? I've got a lot of them.

Also, what's wrong with killing your wife for cheating on you?
Aside from the fact that it's MURDER, nothing at all.

Corinthian
11-05-2008, 11:59 PM
I don't see why I need to explain any of these. They're pretty clear.

Darth InSidious
11-05-2008, 11:59 PM
If that could possibly refer to anything other than homosexuality, I can't figure out what it is. But please, if you can tell me how that does not refer to homosexuality or it's only the context that's condemning it, do so. Here's all the material you should need.
I'd be fascinated to see your analysis of the Greek. Please, don't hold back; I'm sure your knowledge of euphemism in the ancient world will dazzle us all. :)


Also, what's wrong with killing your wife for cheating on you? They actually took a solemn vow seriously back then. A pity we've left that in the dust.
1. Murder is bad;
2. No, we haven't.

Nedak
11-05-2008, 11:59 PM
If that could possibly refer to anything other than homosexuality, I can't figure out what it is. But please, if you can tell me how that does not refer to homosexuality or it's only the context that's condemning it, do so. Here's all the material you should need.

First of all there are many re-workings of the Bible, it's virtually impossible to know which one is the RIGHT one. But I do know this, that was written by PAUL. If homosexuality was that important, it probably would have been in the 10 commandments.



Also, what's wrong with killing your wife for cheating on you? They actually took a solemn vow seriously back then. A pity we've left that in the dust.

Yet the wife can't kill a cheating husband. Boy, that's a loving and fair religious view.

EnderWiggin
11-06-2008, 12:02 AM
I don't see why I need to explain any of these. They're pretty clear.

Oh good. That's how I respond during a logical discourse as well.

Arguments are only worthwhile if there is a back and forth; once someone stops trying to further the discussion their usefulness has ceased.

_EW_

Rev7
11-06-2008, 12:02 AM
The Bible also says this:
"You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."
"If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them."
"Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals1, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."
"For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."
Homosexuality is like any other sin. Ask God for repentance, and you shall recieve it. That is an entirely different discussion though, and I don't think that we should really get into that because it is off topic.
What is so 'unethical' about homosexual people? Are they lesser beings because they're gay? Are they less than you or me?
You misunderstand what I am saying. I do not agree with homosexuality. I respect homosexual people just as much as heterosexual people. Homosexuals are not any different than you or I.
You are, but we're also entitled to disagree with your rather bigoted opinion.
Yes you are entitled to disagree. I am not intolerant of those that are homosexuals, nor do I condemn them. I simply do not agree with it. Normally when someone votes they agree or disagree with/who they happen to be voting for.
Where is your slave Rev?
I do not have one.
I find it sad when people misinterpret what the Bible is meant to mean. Taking it out of context is ignorant, put simply. The original greek/hebrew syntax of the Biblical text is far more complex, specific, and meaningful than what the English translation conveys.

A studied theologian (RB Theime perhaps) can explain it quite well.
I do not believe that I am misinterpreting the Bible.

**

I am not trying to impose my religion on someone else. The thread title is pretty clear--"Proposition 8: Good or Bad?" I have answered that. I have given you the reasons why I agree with Prop 8.

Corinthian
11-06-2008, 12:03 AM
No, I imagine the husband getting cheated on by his wife is the administrator of justice there. It's quite elegant. Instead of putting an extra line about it working vice versa, they just let the men do all the head chopping. And it wouldn't be murder, it'd be a just execution.

Sin is Sin. God doesn't make fine distinctions there. Besides, just because it might allegedly be a 'lesser sin' doesn't mean we should embrace it with open arms.

El Sitherino
11-06-2008, 12:03 AM
We're not saying they can't boink, but given that Christianity is a religious institution, it seems to me to be rather unconstitutional for the Feds to be telling us that we have to let them taint it.


Unless you're telling me Barney Frank is going to teabag the bible with this bill, I don't think anything is going to be tainted by gay people getting married.

Corinthian
11-06-2008, 12:06 AM
Well, Marriage happens to be a rather religious institution in general. The Feds telling us, any of us, Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, whatever, what we can or can't do with our ceremonies is bloody ridiculous. You're the ones who keep whining about the separation of Church and State. Does that go out the window when it isn't convenient?

Det. Bart Lasiter
11-06-2008, 12:08 AM
Well, Marriage happens to be a rather religious institution in general. The Feds telling us, any of us, Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, whatever, what we can or can't do with our ceremonies is bloody ridiculous. You're the ones who keep whining about the separation of Church and State. Does that go out the window when it isn't convenient?marriage is also a legal institution

Darth InSidious
11-06-2008, 12:08 AM
I do not believe that I am misinterpreting the Bible.

Perhaps you would like to explain, then how τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ σῶμά μου is not an emphatic and absolute declaration of fact? You may want to cross-reference with John 6:25-70.

Rev7
11-06-2008, 12:08 AM
you have a funny way of showing it by rejoicing in them not being able to marry

I said that I was happy to see that it passed. Just as you are not happy that it passed.

Arcesious
11-06-2008, 12:09 AM
Darth Insidious: My post was not directed at you, not to mention that your posts here show that you understand what the Bible is meant to mean quite well. I was saying that I would debate about religion in another thread if anyone wanted to, because if I do in this thread, I would be taking about metaphysics and whatnot, which is off topic in this thread.

El Sitherino
11-06-2008, 12:09 AM
Well, Marriage happens to be a rather religious institution in general. The Feds telling us, any of us, Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, whatever, what we can or can't do with our ceremonies is bloody ridiculous. You're the ones who keep whining about the separation of Church and State. Does that go out the window when it isn't convenient?

You can have this thing, I think they call it a marriage that doesn't involve religion. I hear they've been doing that since before the Hittites.

Also churches are, have, and will always be allowed to say "NO fags" when they come asking for a minister to marry them.

EnderWiggin
11-06-2008, 12:09 AM
The Bible also says this:


Hello? That was my point. The bible says some pretty odd things that we certainly don't agree with nowadays, what's to say that homosexuality isn't another?



Homosexuality is like any other sin. Ask God for repentance, and you shall recieve it. That is an entirely different discussion though, and I don't think that we should really get into that because it is off topic.
Except for the part that it's a sin, sure.
Here's some bible for you, buddy:
Do not judge, lest you be judged; for so as you judge, so shall you be judged.
Take that.

You misunderstand what I am saying. I do not agree with homosexuality. I respect homosexual people just as much as heterosexual people. Homosexuals are not any different than you or I.


Ok, so you don't agree with them. That doesn't entitle you to take away their rights. You said yourself that you think homosexuals are not any different from any of us; yet we should be allowed to marry and they should not?
Normally when someone votes they agree or disagree with/who they happen to be voting for.

Except when the law is unjust, as I've tried to explain. Ergo, the law should have been voted against by everyone (except bigots) because even if you disagree with their choice you should still be able to recognize their humanity, respect them for it, and afford them the same rights as we have.

I do not believe that I am misinterpreting the Bible.

_EW_

Det. Bart Lasiter
11-06-2008, 12:10 AM
I said that I was happy to see that it passed. Just as you are not happy that it passed.so how is that being respectful?

Corinthian
11-06-2008, 12:11 AM
So, basically, Ender, what you're saying is that we should pick and choose among the Bible for parts that we agree with? Just ignore anything that doesn't suit your worldview?

Classy.

EnderWiggin
11-06-2008, 12:12 AM
You can have this thing, I think they call it a marriage that doesn't involve religion. I hear they've been doing that since before the Hittites.

Also churches are, have, and will always be allowed to say "NO fags" when they come asking for a minister to marry them.

Oh snap!

Darth Insidious: My post was not directed at you, not to mention that your posts here show that you understand what the Bible is meant to mean quite well. I was saying that I would debate about religion in another thread if anyone wanted to, because if I do in this thread, I would be taking about metaphysics and whatnot, which is off topic in this thread.

You didn't seem to answer my question as to whether or not you're directing it at me. snipped flamebait --Jae
_EW_


EDIT::So, basically, Ender, what you're saying is that we should pick and choose among the Bible for parts that we agree with? Just ignore anything that doesn't suit your worldview?

Classy.


No, I'm saying we shouldn't rely on the diction in the bible in order to prove our bigoted points. ;)
The Bible's a book. Written by humans. With a human bias.

Obviously we no longer believe slavery is morally acceptable, but it is in the bible. Perhaps we shouldn't let the bible dictate morality?

Samuel Dravis
11-06-2008, 12:12 AM
marriage is also a legal institutionExactly. If you don't want marriage available to everyone, then rename your state's legal institution of marriage to something else. Saying that the government can grant a certain contract to some and not others by mere fact of their gender is absolutely unacceptable.

Rogue Nine
11-06-2008, 12:13 AM
The Bible also says this:
:words:
Yeah, and do you agree with what the Bible says in the verses I quoted? I demand an answer on this.

Homosexuality is like any other sin.
Fine, homosexuals are sinners, yadda yadda whatever. Does that mean you get to take away their rights?

I respect homosexual people just as much as heterosexual people. Homosexuals are not any different than you or I.
Then why do you agree with taking their rights away?

Snipped flame --Jae

Sin is Sin. God doesn't make fine distinctions there.
Fine, by that logic, no one should have the right to marry because we're all sinners and not deserving of that right.

Well, Marriage happens to be a rather religious institution in general. The Feds telling us, any of us, Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, whatever, what we can or can't do with our ceremonies is bloody ridiculous. You're the ones who keep whining about the separation of Church and State. Does that go out the window when it isn't convenient?
Excuse me, but marriage is also a legal term. It is completely possible to have a marriage in a town hall completely devoid of any religious affiliation. Again, you religious people don't get to keep marriage to yourselves.

So, basically, Ender, what you're saying is that we should pick and choose among the Bible for parts that we agree with? Just ignore anything that doesn't suit your worldview?

Classy.
That's what most Christians do today, FYI.

Corinthian
11-06-2008, 12:14 AM
They're there for a reason.

And God doesn't say 'Get you a slave' he says 'Take slaves from the others'. Implying 'not from your brethren. Our modern sensibilities get offended by any mention of slavery, but this moral indignation coming from the liberals who are big on moral relativity and such is rather rich.

Arcesious
11-06-2008, 12:16 AM
I do not believe that I am misinterpreting the Bible.

I didn't say you did. I said that EW and R9 did.

Also, Jmac, that argument of ridicule towards Rev7 about slaves seemed rather tasteless...

Edit: Jeesh the debate going too fast to keep up with all of the posts.

EW, this is what seemd out of context:

The bible also says:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leviticus 19:27
Don't cut your hair nor shave.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Deuteronomy 17:2-7
Kill anyone with a different religion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leviticus 19:19
Don't wear clothes made of more than one fabric.

EnderWiggin
11-06-2008, 12:17 AM
They're there for a reason.

Sorry, could you elucidate to us commonfolk what that reason is? I'm not to clear on it.

_EW_

Emperor Devon
11-06-2008, 12:18 AM
I do not believe

yeah that really counts for a lot

Corinthian
11-06-2008, 12:19 AM
The Old Testament is basically a codex of laws. As well as a history and a religious text. Everything written in it serves one or more of those purposes. I can't exactly tell you what the parts about murder, war, and slavery are about without a little bit of context - the Bible is a pretty big book and not exactly pulp.

Snipped--if the post is offensive, just report it instead. --Jae

Darth InSidious
11-06-2008, 12:21 AM
snipped

And I'm still waiting for this masterful dissertation of yours.

EnderWiggin
11-06-2008, 12:22 AM
I didn't say you did. I said that EW and R9 did.


Wow, even though you agree with us, you still feel like arguing bible meanings with us.

I'll repeat:
I'm quite aware of what the context was of what I wrote, and I didn't misinterpret it. Interesting that you could make a normative claim on my understanding, though.

I'm a Christian - and a better one than you, to be honest. Not really an insult, just an understanding that God isn't fond of atheists.

As for what I comprehend about the bible, the verses I wrote were to make a point. The fact that you went ahead and insulted me for no apparent reason, and called me ignorant even though you actually have no real clue as to what I know about Bible verses is kind of disappointing. And then, to top it off by insinuating that you do understand the native greek and hebrew is so arrogant that I wish they had a stronger word for it.


Also, Jmac, that argument of ridicule towards Rev7 about slaves seemed rather tasteless...

And yet it was directly relevant.

_EW_

Rev7
11-06-2008, 12:23 AM
Hello? That was my point. The bible says some pretty odd things that we certainly don't agree with nowadays, what's to say that homosexuality isn't another?
You put out there that the Bible says not to shave, kill anyone with a different religion, not wear clothes with more than one fabric. And the thing about pork. None of that is relevent to the topic. ;)
Do not judge, lest you be judged; for so as you judge, so shall you be judged.
Have you not judged me for what I think is right and wrong Ender? I am not judging, I am stating what the Bible says, and what I think. I don't think that this constitutes as judging someone.
Ok, so you don't agree with them. That doesn't entitle you to take away their rights. You said yourself that you think homosexuals are not any different from any of us; yet we should be allowed to marry and they should not?
I have not taken away their rights. I do not live in California, and even if I did, I would not be allowed to vote.

Except when the law is unjust, as I've tried to explain. Ergo, the law should have been voted against by everyone (except bigots) because even if you disagree with their choice you should still be able to recognize their humanity, respect them for it, and afford them the same rights as we have.
Am I being a bigot (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bigot)? I am not being intolerant of homosexuals. According to my religion, homosexuality is a sin, and I do not want people to sin, so I do not agree with homosexuality.

Arcesious
11-06-2008, 12:25 AM
yes we're all horrible people for thinking slavery is wrong

Funny thing how Christians helped quite a bit with the civil rights movement back when brown skin color was considered to make a person unequal to a white person.

El Sitherino
11-06-2008, 12:26 AM
Everyone is missing the point. You can't ban gay marriage, you can however oppose supporting it.


So don't marry the gays.

Corinthian
11-06-2008, 12:27 AM
Funny, I think they just DID ban Gay Marriage.

Nedak
11-06-2008, 12:29 AM
Funny thing how Christians helped quite a bit with the civil rights movement back when brown skin color was considered to make a person unequal to a white person.

Aren't you forgetting something important?

I'll give you a hint.

THE KKK

El Sitherino
11-06-2008, 12:30 AM
Funny, I think they just DID ban Gay Marriage.

Pffft, and that'll last 6 months. Then they'll get it back, people will have another hissy fit. Something with Ellen will happen and we'll all do the same thing over and over again.

Q
11-06-2008, 12:30 AM
Everyone is missing the point. You can't ban gay marriage, you can however oppose supporting it.


So don't marry the gays.
/thread.

Rogue Nine
11-06-2008, 12:35 AM
You put out there that the Bible says not to shave, kill anyone with a different religion, not wear clothes with more than one fabric. And the thing about pork. None of that is relevent to the topic. ;)
You were the one who said he does what the Bible tells him. It doesn't make sense that you disapprove of gays because the Bible tells you they're unnatural but doesn't do a variety of other things the Bible tells you to. Which means you're just using the Bible to cover your cherry-picking You're a mod--if you're going to enforce flaming rules, then don't flame --Jae.

I have not taken away their rights. I do not live in California, and even if I did, I would not be allowed to vote.
But you agreed with California voters taking away their rights.

Jae Onasi
11-06-2008, 12:40 AM
Take a break tonight, folks. I've dealt with no less than 12 reported messages/posts and 15 PMs on mod stuff today, and I'd like to actually go do something fun besides moderate a bunch of people yelling at each other. I'll look this over and re-open tomorrow after the caca has been dealt with.

Jae Onasi
11-06-2008, 01:36 PM
I have spent the last hour and a half cleaning up this thread, deleting stupid irrelevant posts and handing out warning cards for blatant flaming and spamming.

I am utterly appalled by the atrocious behavior here from people on both sides of this very controversial subject.

If I see any more flaming, including calling each other names (and calling someone a 'bigot' is a flame, and just as judgmental as the action you think is judgmental) or telling people to shut up, you WILL receive the 5 point flaming infraction. People are entitled to agree or disagree with homosexuality as long as it's done respectfully.

If I see any more posts about slavery or idiotic off-topic posts (including my favorite "I'm making a post to tell you I'm not making a post"), you WILL receive the 5 point infraction for blatant spam.

If I need to moderate this thread further because people can't act like adults and discuss the topic without swearing at each other, flaming, or spamming, I'm not going to waste my time anymore, I'm going to lock it permanently. I have zero patience for more crap in this thread, and despite my instincts to keep it locked, I'm going to re-open it. Don't abuse my trust in you all, please.

Rogue Nine
11-06-2008, 04:27 PM
Three lawsuits filed against Prop 8 (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-11-05-gay-marriage-ban_N.htm)

Good to know that they'll be taking it back to the courts and away from the people to decide what rights homosexuals should have. This proposition was a disgusting abuse of democracy.

Arcesious
11-06-2008, 04:44 PM
Wow, even though you agree with us, you still feel like arguing bible meanings with us.

I'll repeat:
I'm quite aware of what the context was of what I wrote, and I didn't misinterpret it. Interesting that you could make a normative claim on my understanding, though.

I'm a Christian - and a better one than you, to be honest. Not really an insult, just an understanding that God isn't fond of atheists.

As for what I comprehend about the bible, the verses I wrote were to make a point. The fact that you went ahead and insulted me for no apparent reason, and called me ignorant even though you actually have no real clue as to what I know about Bible verses is kind of disappointing. And then, to top it off by insinuating that you do understand the native greek and hebrew is so arrogant that I wish they had a stronger word for it.

I concede then, you are correct, I am incorrect. ;)

zelda 41
11-06-2008, 06:23 PM
Three lawsuits filed against Prop 8 (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-11-05-gay-marriage-ban_N.htm)

Good to know that they'll be taking it back to the courts and away from the people to decide what rights homosexuals should have. This proposition was a disgusting abuse of democracy.


Very nice :)

I must say, I was extremely disappointed when I got to school today and everyone was cheering about Prop 8. Even my teachers, the people who have told me my whole life that it is wrong to hate or discriminate, were happy with the passing. I was a tad put off by this.

I honestly can't understand why we find it morally acceptable to hate someone for being homosexual, lesbian, or anything in between, yet we find it unacceptable to hate a person of different ethnicity or anything else of that matter. I see hardly a difference between two, in my opinion.

JediMaster12
11-06-2008, 07:16 PM
I agree zelda that there is no difference between ethnicity or sexual orientation as far as discrimination goes. I admit I can be a coward when it comes to discussing politics of a sensitive nature with my family but I made a promise to myself and I kept it. This election I voted no on Prop 8.

I believe jonathan said it best in his siggie bout love from Corinthians. However there are the two greatest rules within the Bible that Jesus tells the people. The first was to love the Lord your God. The second was to love your neighbor as you love yourself. Then it goes on to say that those are the greatest of commandments or something like that. I take those to heart and try to live my life by them.

I have had time to think about homosexuality. I believe that everythign exists for a reason. If God says that homosexulaity is so bad then why does it exist. Believe it or not it did exist in biblical times. Sodom ring a bell? So if it exists there must be a reason for it. We may not know all the whys but it is there so why should it be treated differently than others?

I think part of the problem with the issue of Prop 8 is the fact that there were a lot of misnomers used to promote for it. That busines with education in schools, totally irrelevant since the proposition mentions nothing about it and California law guarantees parents have a right to hear what they want them to hear regarding sex ed etc. Frankly I am all for a re-open of prop 8 or shooting it down from a Constitutional standpoint.

Corinthian
11-06-2008, 07:31 PM
Murder also exists. So does Rape, Pedophilia, and a host of other stuff. Stuff can't be okay just because it exists.

Also, Sodom got nuked.

Astor
11-06-2008, 07:35 PM
I don't know the whole deal regarding this, but I have a question - is it going to hurt anyone by allowing homosexuals to 'marry/partner/bond'?

Det. Bart Lasiter
11-06-2008, 07:49 PM
I don't know the whole deal regarding thisit amended the california constitution to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

Jae Onasi
11-06-2008, 08:02 PM
Something True_Avery pointed out to me awhile back was that civil unions apparently don't have the same rights as marriage in CA. I thought they were pretty much the same. I think if they're going to amend the constitution to define marriage but also have civil unions, then I think civil unions should have the same rights as marriage.

Corinthian
11-06-2008, 08:05 PM
Sounds fair enough to me.

The Doctor
11-06-2008, 09:08 PM
According to my religion, homosexuality is a sin, and I do not want people to sin, so I do not agree with homosexuality.
According to your religion, you also can't eat pork, cut your hair, shave your face, nor let a Jew walk past you without murdering him for not accepting Jesus as his Messiah. Much less an agnostic, or heaven forbid an atheist. I look forward to seeing you come to my door with a hatchet sometime this weekend. :dozey:

You put out there that the Bible says not to shave, kill anyone with a different religion, not wear clothes with more than one fabric. And the thing about pork. None of that is relevent to the topic.
It establishes the fact that you yourself are doing exactly what Corinthian accused EW of (which, ironically enough, he also appears to be guilty of): cherry-picking the bits of the Bible you agree with, and ignoring the bits that you don't want to face, such as, let's say, the rest of the book of Leviticus.

I'll grant you one point: I don't agree with homosexuality either. I don't understand how one man can fall in love with another man, nor a woman with another woman. I just simply don't get it, and I seriously doubt I ever really will. However, I also don't get how people can eat brocolli, or find Jerry Sinfeld even remotely funny. That doesn't give me the right to tell you you're not allowed to ruin perfectly good cheese by coating it over a plate of brocolli, or buy the 4th season of Seinfeld on DVD. I don't get it, and I'd never do it myself, but I can't stop you from doing it.

The passage in the Bible proclaiming that no man shall lie with another man, nor a woman with another woman, is in the Old Testament (specifically Leviticus). The Old Testament is full of teachings that are not supported today by a single Christian. That's an indisputable fact. Face it: the Old Testament was a book written for a much older time when the world was a vastly different place than it is now. It simply doesn't apply to life in the 21st Century, much less the future.

So, basically, Ender, what you're saying is that we should pick and choose among the Bible for parts that we agree with? Just ignore anything that doesn't suit your worldview?
In my mind, the teachings of Christ should take precedence in the Christian faith over the teachings of the Old Testament, and Christ is not recorded saying anything on the matter. If you're going to preach the out-dated teachings of the Old Testament, preach them all, please. Doing otherwise is simply hypocritical.

Besides, it is the mark of an intelligent Christian when one does not simply take everything the book says at face value, but questions it, and form their own beliefs and interpretations of the words. It's called Interperative Christianity, and it's a beautiful thing. Some people call it "reasoning", or even "intelligence".

But no, I'm sure that Matthew got it wrong. He must have forgotten to write down Jesus' entire sermon that day. After reading your posts, I'm now positive that Jesus said "Judge not, lest ye be judged - except for those damned gays, of course." :rolleyes:

Corinthian
11-06-2008, 09:14 PM
Corinthians and Romans are not in the Old Testament.

Also, I don't see how being opposed to sin is somehow being Anti-Christian.

EnderWiggin
11-06-2008, 10:15 PM
It establishes the fact that you yourself are doing exactly what Corinthian accused EW of (which, ironically enough, he also appears to be guilty of): cherry-picking the bits of the Bible you agree with, and ignoring the bits that you don't want to face, such as, let's say, the rest of the book of Leviticus.

Sorry, let me clarify. In case anyone is referring to my passages on Leviticus, they were to make a point.

If you are referring to my passage in Matthew, I invite you to take a broader view. I didn't say: "Hey, guys, judging is in the bible, let's make a law forbidding it!"

Even if you don't believe in "Judge, lest you be judged," which is fine, it still doesn't address my points about removing others' rights when they cause you no harm.

From now on, I'll just say 'don't judge people,' since it's something I personally live by. That way I don't have to be called a cherry-picker for putting Jesus-quotations around it.

FWIW, I tend to take everything in the bible as interpretive.

_EW_

Tommycat
11-06-2008, 10:53 PM
I've always felt that the government should not be dealing with Marriage. Marriage is a religious institution. Civil unions should have the same rights as marriage currently does. Whether someone is married or not should be up to the church performing the ceremony. All marriages should be just another form of civil union.

Rev7
11-06-2008, 11:04 PM
According to your religion, you also can't eat pork, cut your hair, shave your face, nor let a Jew walk past you without murdering him for not accepting Jesus as his Messiah. Much less an agnostic, or heaven forbid an atheist. I look forward to seeing you come to my door with a hatchet sometime this weekend. :dozey:
I am not perfect. I am sure that you were being sarcastic with that statement as well. I do not murder people for not agreeing with my religion. I am not gonna be killing anyone. ;)

I'll grant you one point: I don't agree with homosexuality either. I don't understand how one man can fall in love with another man, nor a woman with another woman.
That is also one of the reasons that I don't agree with homosexuality. ;)

In my mind, the teachings of Christ should take precedence in the Christian faith over the teachings of the Old Testament, and Christ is not recorded saying anything on the matter. If you're going to preach the out-dated teachings of the Old Testament, preach them all, please. Doing otherwise is simply hypocritical.
As Corinthian pointed out Corinthians and Romans are in the New Testament.
Besides, it is the mark of an intelligent Christian when one does not simply take everything the book says at face value, but questions it, and form their own beliefs and interpretations of the words. It's called Interperative Christianity, and it's a beautiful thing. Some people call it "reasoning", or even "intelligence".
Many Christians are like that.

EnderWiggin
11-06-2008, 11:17 PM
That is also one of the reasons that I don't agree with homosexuality. ;)

I don't understand how Quantum Field Theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory) works either but I don't disagree with it just based on my lack of comprehension, doubting Thomas. (yes, the Thomas part was a joke.)

_EW_

Achilles
11-06-2008, 11:26 PM
I have to admit that I'm a little blown away by the fact that all the same-sex marriage bans did so resoundingly well.

Apparently we're only capable of certain amount of acceptance at any one time and we used it all to elect a black man President this go-round. The good news is that I think these will all be ruled unconstitutional via judicial review.

mimartin
11-06-2008, 11:44 PM
Apparently we're only capable of certain amount of acceptance at any one time and we used it all to elect a black man President this go-round. I found it depressing that 70% of African-Americans supported Proposition 8.

CommanderQ
11-07-2008, 12:00 AM
Let me be frank, I'm REALLY glad that Prop 8 passed. Not only is it against my religion and its wrong, but think, if everyone was a homosexual, then in maybe, oh, one generation, everyone would be dead. There would be no offspring of a same -sex generation. Humans are not meant to be like that, it isn't right at all anatomically and in every other way.

I side with Rev7 and the others on many of their beliefs.

And to say something on earlier posts, God will always love everyone, God does not HATE anyone on Earth{unless you say the devil} he hates sin, not the sinners.

Q
11-07-2008, 12:10 AM
Whether people think it's right or wrong is not the point.

The point is whether it's right or wrong to impose your belief system on another.

CommanderQ
11-07-2008, 12:16 AM
True, IMPOSING a belief is probably a very evil cause{ that goes way back before Nazi Germany} but as Christians we don't impose on others beliefs, imposing is forcing. In history, imposing a belief would be like the Spanish Inquisition of the 1600s saying "do this or we chop something off," that isn't what Christians or other religous groups do, at least not anymore{I hope}. But there are certain things that are just, wrong, not meant to be. Not that that will stop anyone from doing them, which brings action from forms of Government.

Tommycat
11-07-2008, 12:27 AM
Whether people think it's right or wrong is not the point.

The point is whether it's right or wrong to impose your belief system on another.

Welllll that is kind of the point. People in the minority are trying to impose ther beliefs onto a society that does not agree with it. Either way it goes, you end up forcing beliefs on a group that does not want it.

While I tend to be in favor of same sex couples having all the rights and privelages of male-female couples, the reality is that the majority find it to be a negative thing. It's going against biology and against the majority of religious views. Many are afraid of normalizing the abnormal.

The Doctor
11-07-2008, 12:27 AM
True, IMPOSING a belief is probably a very evil cause{ that goes way back before Nazi Germany} but as Christians we don't impose on others beliefs, imposing is forcing. In history, imposing a belief would be like the Spanish Inquisition of the 1600s saying "do this or we chop something off," that isn't what Christians or other religous groups do, at least not anymore{I hope}. But there are certain things that are just, wrong, not meant to be. Not that that will stop anyone from doing them, which brings action from forms of Government.

And where do you draw the line between what is imposing your own will on others and "things that are not meant to be"?

CommanderQ
11-07-2008, 12:37 AM
That's a very good question, everyones own opinion would bring up a different line of no crossing. That's just the problem about pretty much everything, the lines between the "Right" and the "Wrong" are often blurred by people's own opinions and beliefs, the idea, I guess is to keep your faith in your own belief. Now, "The Things that are not meant to be," those things are things that can be dangerous to your own self {example:it isn't healthy to jump off a cliff}. But I guess the line would probably be somewhere between "not allowing it" and "being brutal about not allowing it." There must be some line in between good and bad in the world's society {I'm very sure in my belief and choice but that is only for me and others who share it}. There's always going to be a disagreement when a choice is made, that's gaurunteed.

Achilles
11-07-2008, 12:40 AM
I found it depressing that 70% of African-Americans supported Proposition 8. Apparently you need to listen to more hip-hop.

Being a b***h-a** n***a is a no-no.

Let me be frank, I'm REALLY glad that Prop 8 passed. Not only is it against my religion and its wrong, but think, if everyone was a homosexual, then in maybe, oh, one generation, everyone would be dead. How do we go from "gay marriage ok: yes, no, maybe" to "everyone would die if everyone was a homosexual"?

There would be no offspring of a same -sex generation. Humans are not meant to be like that, it isn't right at all anatomically and in every other way. Except we find homosexuality lots of other places in the animal world. Nevermind the fact that homosexuality can be healthy, as fewer males competing for females can actually help propagate a species (females mating with multiple males = increased genetic diversity, etc).

And to say something on earlier posts, God will always love everyone, God does not HATE anyone on Earth{unless you say the devil} he hates sin, not the sinners.Yet god created us, sin, and the ability for us to sin. If you believe that in predestination, then you also believe that god intentionally made some of us to be more sinful than others. Kinda hurts the whole "god loves you" thing.

ET Warrior
11-07-2008, 12:48 AM
Welllll that is kind of the point. People in the minority are trying to impose ther beliefs onto a society that does not agree with it. Nnnnot really. Allowing gay marriage does not force heterosexuals to be gay, or partake in gay marriage. In fact, allowing gay marriage has absolutely no impact on the lives of heterosexuals. None. Zero. Which is why it should be such a non-issue, but heterosexuals feel like it is necessary to impose their beliefs onto others.

CommanderQ
11-07-2008, 12:51 AM
Achilles, I was simply voicing my belief. I'm standing by it, but as I said earlier there will always be someone who disagrees.

Achilles
11-07-2008, 12:54 AM
Indeed you were, but some people aren't being permitted to have equal rights due to the beliefs that you and others like you hold. That isn't something that should be treated casually. There are either good reasons behind your beliefs or there are not.

CommanderQ
11-07-2008, 12:58 AM
I believe that my reasons are good, but then again, you think the same of yours. It's probably just all a matter of thinking and votes. That's certainly been the case for awhile.

mimartin
11-07-2008, 01:04 AM
Indeed you were, but some people aren't being permitted to have equal rights due to the beliefs that you and others like you hold. That isn't something that should be treated casually. There are either good reasons behind your beliefs or there are not. Reminds me of my favorite line from Dogma: I think it's better to have ideas. You can change an idea. Changing a belief is trickier. Life should malleable and progressive; working from idea to idea permits that. Beliefs anchor you to certain points and limit growth; new ideas can't generate. Life becomes stagnant.

No, I don’t listen to much any hip-hop. :)

Achilles
11-07-2008, 01:09 AM
I believe that my reasons are good, but then again, you think the same of yours. It's probably just all a matter of thinking and votes. That's certainly been the case for awhile.This would seem to assume that all reasons are equally valid.

If that's the case, then the people that think that they have good reasons for abusing children are on equal footing with those that think they have good reasons for opposing it. Therefore, since both sets of reason are equal, passing laws that prevent child abuse would be unfairly oppressive, no?

I arbitrarily used "child abuse" here. Feel free to replace it with any other topic of your choosing.

Shall we abandon the "all reasons are equal" premise now or would you like to attempt to argue it some more?

Either we have good reasons for preventing others from having equal rights or we do not. Frankly, I find the casualness with which you dismiss the rights of others more than a little offensive.

CommanderQ
11-07-2008, 01:18 AM
You know, I don't really like arguing but the point of what I said was not that all beliefs are valid in their reasons. But that would fall under your opinion onto which reasons are more or less valid. And I am not tossing away the "rights" of others. I meant no offense on that {of course, though, you took offence}. I believe that these things we argue about are wrong, you have a different opinion and we're both trying to make the other see our reasons that both are right. I believe that same-sex marriage is wrong, I stated my reasons earlier. I side with many others on their choices {as you've probably already read}.

Edit:
Reminds me of my favorite line from Dogma:

No, I don’t listen to much any hip-hop. :)

There's good Hip-Hop and the not-so-good Hip-Hop. Same here. Cool Saying, though.

If you need to add to a previous post, please use the you may: edit,... link in the lower right hand side of your post. Please don't double post. --Jae

Arcesious
11-07-2008, 01:27 AM
Sometimes doing what you think is best for someone is the worst thing you could do for them, as is the case of Prop 8, IMHO.

Achilles
11-07-2008, 01:28 AM
I believe that same-sex marriage is wrong, I stated my reasons earlier.No, you shared your beliefs. I pointed out that we either have good reasons for our beliefs or we do not.

Some people are permitted the right to marry. Some people are not. Do we have a good reason for this distinction?

Forget for a moment that the distinction is homosexual vs. heterosexual. Imagine that it is blond vs brunette, right-handed vs left-handed, near-sighted vs far-sighted or whatever. Are you still able to maintain the argument that some people should not be allowed to marry while others can (i.e. blond people can get married but people with brown hair cannot)?

Do you have a good reason for maintaining the argument? Is there a moral (not religious) basis for your argument?

If the answer is no, then you really should reconsider your stance on the issue.

Tommycat
11-07-2008, 01:46 AM
Nnnnot really. Allowing gay marriage does not force heterosexuals to be gay, or partake in gay marriage. In fact, allowing gay marriage has absolutely no impact on the lives of heterosexuals. None. Zero. Which is why it should be such a non-issue, but heterosexuals feel like it is necessary to impose their beliefs onto others.

Yes really. It forces those with beliefs that it is wrong to accept something as normal that they find reprehensible. It forces them to have to explain to their families about how a man and another man can be married. You don't see it as a problem because you already accept it. I don't have a problem with it personally because I feel that all persons should be treated equally under the law, which is not happening under the system. You can deny the effects it has on the heterosexual community all you want, but there are effects. Even if you feel those effects are trivial, they are effects.

EnderWiggin
11-07-2008, 04:30 AM
I believe that my reasons are good, but then again, you think the same of yours. It's probably just all a matter of thinking and votes. That's certainly been the case for awhile.

Let me point something out to you then:


True, IMPOSING a belief is probably a very evil cause{ that goes way back before Nazi Germany} but as Christians we don't impose on others beliefs, imposing is forcing.

So are you trying to maintain the argument that Prop 8 is not an imposition on the homosexuality population? It's not an imposition to keep them from having the same protections and rights granted to them as a married couple?

Under your defintion, now, "imposing is forcing." Aren't you trying to force them to not marry, using this law? (Let me make sure you get this one - the answer is that's exactly what you're doing.)

In history, imposing a belief would be like the Spanish Inquisition of the 1600s saying "do this or we chop something off," that isn't what Christians or other religous groups do, at least not anymore{I hope}. But there are certain things that are just, wrong, not meant to be. Not that that will stop anyone from doing them, which brings action from forms of Government.

Why is the marrying of homosexuals not meant to be? Who says you get to make that call?
Yes really. It forces those with beliefs that it is wrong to accept something as normal that they find reprehensible. It forces them to have to explain to their families about how a man and another man can be married. You don't see it as a problem because you already accept it. I don't have a problem with it personally because I feel that all persons should be treated equally under the law, which is not happening under the system. You can deny the effects it has on the heterosexual community all you want, but there are effects. Even if you feel those effects are trivial, they are effects.

No, what it really does is not concern them. Whether or not they find it reprehensible, for them to block it because they feel uncomfortable is unjust and immoral.

I don't care if you sweat a little more because you have to think about two women marrying. The rights of a minority group should not be reduced because you don't feel safe with it. Under your logic, we should take away the rights of blacks because we're making the racists uncomfortable. We shouldn't let those pesky women hold jobs either - makes the sexists mad. And while we're at it, we shouldn't give the gays any rights, because it makes prejudiced people - who are obstinately or intolerantly devoted to their own opinions and prejudices; especially: those who regard or treat the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance - uncomfortable.

_EW_


tags for this thread:
bigotry, civil rights, drama, flaming, gay marriage, gay marriage rights, idiotic spam, moderator frustration, proposition 8, slaves

Corinthian
11-07-2008, 04:32 AM
The Bible does. We've been over that, Wiggin.

RedHawke
11-07-2008, 04:49 AM
My state passed what is in essence a discriminatory bill... very depressing indeed. :( Way to go California!!! :golfclap:

Also there is something people are missing here, marriage is not merely a religious ceremony bonding people together by vows... it is also a legal status that carries with it certain rights to your chosen spouse. That is what Homosexuals want here, and why do they have to even ask for it anyway?

Why can't a Homosexual you don't know, and who cares not for the bible or its 'teachings', have to do things "the Bible way or the highway" here, that is what confuses me when people bring their religion in on what is in essence not their religions concern.

It is about attaining the 'legal' status of marriage nothing more. Why is that so scary to people?

Why should two people in love (regardless of gender) and having been together for decades not all have the same rights? Can anyone answer this simple question without using the bible or their religious beliefs to back their statements up?

I honestly don't believe so, people are so entrenched in their own beliefs that they no longer see beyond them at all... and that frightens me to no end.

Anyway that is my :twocents: I'm out.

EnderWiggin
11-07-2008, 04:53 AM
The Bible does. We've been over that, Wiggin.

The bible does what? Does not dictate morality?

_EW_

Tommycat
11-07-2008, 05:25 AM
No, what it really does is not concern them. Whether or not they find it reprehensible, for them to block it because they feel uncomfortable is unjust and immoral.

I don't care if you sweat a little more because you have to think about two women marrying. The rights of a minority group should not be reduced because you don't feel safe with it. Under your logic, we should take away the rights of blacks because we're making the racists uncomfortable. We shouldn't let those pesky women hold jobs either - makes the sexists mad. And while we're at it, we shouldn't give the gays any rights, because it makes prejudiced people - who are obstinately or intolerantly devoted to their own opinions and prejudices; especially: those who regard or treat the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance - uncomfortable.
They also have to as business owners give more respect to that union. Even if they personally feel that such a union is immoral. So by your own words you want to impose a new set of morals on them. Look, I'm not arguing for the "Sanctity of Marriage" folks. In fact I find the whole thing pretty well disturbing that our society hasn't progressed enough to be tolerant of others' sexuality. It is rather interesting that you automatically jump on ME as being opposed to gay marriage. I am not in the least. You can read through my posts in this very thread to see that I am not. We had prop 102 that I voted against here in AZ. It passed. I'm explaining that either way it is imposing beliefs on another group. You just feel that your beliefs are not immoral. They believe that allowing gay marriage is immoral. Either way you are stepping on someone's morals. WE(as in you and I, just so you understand I am not against your position) just happen to believe that it is immoral to treat one group differently than another group.

Corinthian
11-07-2008, 05:27 AM
Actually, Wiggin, the Bible DOES dictate morality. Maybe you should read it again?

Rogue Nine
11-07-2008, 05:35 AM
It dictates morality that is inconsistently followed today by Christians. They cherry-pick what to follow and what not to follow as is convenient for them.

EnderWiggin
11-07-2008, 05:37 AM
They also have to as business owners give more respect to that union. Even if they personally feel that such a union is immoral. So by your own words you want to impose a new set of morals on them.

See: blacks and the civil rights movement.

Actually, Wiggin, the Bible DOES dictate morality. Maybe you should read it again?
First of all, I like it how you didn't answer my question. It leads me to wonder if you ever answer questions when they're directly asked of you, since I recall you doing it last night as well.

As per your comment: I'd appreciate it if you didn't treat me like an illiterate child. I'm quite aware of what the bible says, thank you very much. I don't enjoy insults at 430 am.

_EW_

Corinthian
11-07-2008, 05:37 AM
Such as? The old laws got set aside after the Coming of Christ. People like to point that out in these debates, although usually, it's not the 'Hey, Homosexuality isn't A-OK with the Bible' crowd, it's the opposition. People like to ignore Corinthians and Romans for some reason.

Also, maybe you shouldn't claim to be a Christian if you blatantly ignore sections of even the New Testament?

Rogue Nine
11-07-2008, 05:39 AM
Such as? The old laws got set aside after the Coming of Christ.
Says who? Hell, if we ain't followin' the OT laws, why bother putting them there.

Corinthian
11-07-2008, 05:41 AM
Says the Bible. Romans 10:44 Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.

Galatians 3:2223 Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. 24 So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christb that we might be justified by faith. 25 Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.

Ephesians 2:15 15 by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace,

You may want to sit down.

EnderWiggin
11-07-2008, 05:42 AM
Such as? The old laws got set aside after the Coming of Christ. People like to point that out in these debates, although usually, it's not the 'Hey, Homosexuality isn't A-OK with the Bible' crowd, it's the opposition. People like to ignore Corinthians and Romans for some reason.

Also, maybe you shouldn't claim to be a Christian if you blatantly ignore sections of even the New Testament?

Have you noticed the author of Romans and Corinthians?

It was the apostle Paul. I hope you're not implying that Paul was the end-all-be-all authority on homosexuality?

I'm pretty sure he was human.

_EW_

Corinthian
11-07-2008, 05:45 AM
Oh, good. Now it's the "Paul was a False Apostle" argument.

I take it you do not believe the Bible is actually Divinely Inspired?

Rogue Nine
11-07-2008, 05:47 AM
Says the Bible.
The New Testament also says it's a-ok to have slaves, yet modern society has thankfully come to its senses over that pile of crap.

Corinthian
11-07-2008, 05:49 AM
No, it doesn't. Why is it a problem that the Bible does not condemn slavery?

Rogue Nine
11-07-2008, 05:53 AM
Because then you can't use it as justification for your prejudice against homosexuality. Having slaves is inhumane and immoral. The Bible says it's okay to have slaves. Therefore, the Bible is wrong.

Corinthian
11-07-2008, 05:54 AM
Who says it's inhumane and immoral?

EnderWiggin
11-07-2008, 05:54 AM
Oh, good. Now it's the "Paul was a False Apostle" argument.

Um, that's not what I said at all. Please stop trying to put words in my mouth - especially stupid ones.

Paul was a good apostle. He wasn't perfect. He didn't know everything.


I take it you do not believe the Bible is actually Divinely Inspired?

I believe that the apostle Paul was trying to spread the faith in his own way.

I believe that the passages that have quotation marks attributed to Jesus Christ are divine words.

But divine inspiration? No.

No, it doesn't. Why is it a problem that the Bible does not condemn slavery?

Because it's immoral, maybe? Perhaps you should take an ethics 101 class.

_EW_

Rogue Nine
11-07-2008, 05:55 AM
Who says it's inhumane and immoral?
Uh, the entire world. And specifically the United States of America, for this discussion's purposes.

Corinthian
11-07-2008, 05:55 AM
Right. I should let another...human teach me my ethics.

Riiight.

Yeah, tell me how that makes sense?

Also, I wouldn't say the Entire World condemns slavery. We didn't exactly have it for the better part of six thousand years because it was universally condemned.

Rogue Nine
11-07-2008, 06:00 AM
Right. I should let another...human teach me my ethics.
FYI, the Bible was written by humans. So you're getting your ethics from humans no matter what.

Also, I wouldn't say the Entire World condemns slavery. We didn't exactly have it for the better part of six thousand years because it was universally condemned.
The entire world today has come a very long way with regards to how people treat each other. The fact of the matter is, slavery is immoral and completely and utterly wrong. Yet the Bible says it's okay.

Corinthian
11-07-2008, 06:06 AM
I believe the Bible was Divinely Inspired. Sort of the hallmark of a believer, that the Bible is more than just a book.

You say it's wrong. The populace says it's horrific. So, basically...what the mob says, gos.

From my perspective, the fact that the Bible doesn't condemn it doesn't surprise me in the slightest degree, given that it states that we're either the slaves of Satan or God, or, to quote Matthew,

"Come to me, all of you who are weary and loaded down with burdens, and I will give you rest. Place my yoke on you and learn from me, because I am gentle and humble, and you will find rest for your souls, because my yoke is pleasant, and my burden is light." (International Standard Version. The other translations are pretty much the same.)

We bear a yoke no matter what.

Rogue Nine
11-07-2008, 06:08 AM
Hang on. So if the Bible says it's a-ok to have slaves, would you have them yourself? Do you think slavery is fine?

Corinthian
11-07-2008, 06:14 AM
Probably, yeah, if I could afford them. My problem with slavery is that slaves tended to be treated inhumanely. As long as you treated your slaves like human beings, I don't think there's anything especially wrong with it.

Rogue Nine
11-07-2008, 06:22 AM
I'm sorry, you've just lost at life, the internet, and everything. Goodbye.

Some hope for a dark time (http://www.reuters.com/article/reutersEdge/idUSTRE4A599C20081106).
Supporters of gay rights are optimistic that they can eventually change DOMA with enough time and effort. I hope for the sake of our nation that it happens.

Jae Onasi
11-07-2008, 10:53 AM
What part of "don't bring up slavery again" was unclear? Thread fails, permanently closed. Good job abusing my trust, and by staff no less.
Edit: trolling posts were deleted outright.