lfnetwork.com mark read register faq members calendar

Thread: Should Same Sex Marriage Be Allowed?
Thread Tools Display Modes
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Old 12-09-2003, 03:39 AM   #121
ShockV1.89
Gen Mo'Kai
 
ShockV1.89's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: U S of A, baby!
Posts: 1,391
What he said.


"Not all one pleads can be granted. But a good hearing soothes the heart." -The Instruction of Ptah-hotep.

"So here I go, it's my shot. Feet fail me not. This may be the only opportunity that I got..." -Eminem
ShockV1.89 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 12-09-2003, 04:36 AM   #122
Elijah
"ZDawg"
 
Elijah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Behind you...
Posts: 1,770
I say we ban Christmas, as the holiday is based off the birth of Jesus Christ himself.

Quote:
Have you not seen the news clips where people were infront of it praying and bowing?
If they where bowing, they where in the wrong... as God commanded never to bow to anything, and have no idols before him. Praying? what’s so wrong with praying? They where praying that the monument wouldn’t be removed, they wernt praying TO it.

And what’s this about, we shouldn’t base the law off of the Ten Commandments? You do realize that just about every major religion to date bases its morals and laws off of those Ten Commandments?
Elijah is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 12-09-2003, 05:20 AM   #123
SkinWalker
Anthropologist
 
SkinWalker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Give critical thought a chance
Posts: 2,709
LFN Staff Member 
Quote:
Originally posted by lukeskywalker1
Strange.. Idol? Im not sure, ... Why did you use the word idol?
I was using most of these definitions.

Still, this looks like a worshiper of an idol to me. She looks like a worshiper as well. You might argue that God is being worshiped, but how can you tell? Why have an effigy? Why care if it stays or goes?

Quote:
Originally posted by lukeskywalker1New feature? Or just something you made up to say "its my opinion"? Either way, nice idea.
Made up? Me? Rumour has it that the personal opinion tag is a mouseover that creates a holographic image on computers with high-end video cards. If you're using a cheap graphics card, you should only see open/close tags: [personal opinion]...[/personal opinion].

On the subject of Founding Fathers:

John Adams, the country's second president, was drawn to the study of law but faced pressure from his father to become a clergyman. He wrote that he found among the lawyers 'noble and gallant achievments" but among the clergy, the "pretended sanctity of some absolute dunces". Late in life he wrote: "Twenty times in the course of my late reading, have I been upon the point of breaking out, "This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!"

It was during Adam's administration that the Senate ratified the Treaty of Peace and Friendship, which states in Article XI that "the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion."
  1. Shaw, Peter (1976). The Character of John Adams, p. 17. North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC.
  2. Peabody, James (1973).John Adams, A Biography in his Own Words, p. 403. Newsweek

James Madison, fourth president and father of the Constitution, "Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise;" and: "During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."
  1. Moore,Virginia (1979). The Madisons, p. 43. McGraw-Hill Co. New York, NY.
  2. Gardner, Joseph (1974).James Madison, A Biography in his Own Words, p. 93. Newsweek


Quote:
Originally posted by NileQueen
It is a curious thing, then, that our money reads, In God We Trust.
A slogan that was started by Dwight D. Eisenhower in the 1950's. I've always suspected that it was a re-election strategy, but a professor recently told me that he thought Eisenhower was being sincere. This professor was a young man during that period and remembered the new addition to the coinage as well as the addition to the Pledge of Alliegance that Eisenhower created. Genuine or not, it's ironic that such slogans were purposely avoided during the Founding Era only to be added later.

BTW, lukeskywalker1, beware the information you receive in "emails." They're often spurious at best. I've cited actual publications that you might find in your school library if interested.


A Hot Cup of Joe - My Blog

Not finding an intellectual challenge in the Swamp? Try the Senate Chambers!

Evolution and How We Know It's Right - Post your thoughts!
Debate Strategies & Tactics - Polish your online debate skills and offer your own advice
SkinWalker is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 12-09-2003, 05:20 AM   #124
Lathain Valtiel
Ex-Angel
 
Lathain Valtiel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 929
LFN Staff Member 
Quote:
Originally posted by InsaneSith
Have you not seen the news clips where people were infront of it praying and bowing?

If they have any religious symbols it is against the law.

uhmm... how is a candy cane related to christianity? It was originally made just as a normal candy but eventually people used them to put on the Tree to count down the days until christmas.

These tired traditions are what make me despise the holiday hub-bub. -_-
People then end up associating freeish things with certain religions, I remember in the 80's when they made the Christmas marshmallows, and for a while (up until about 93') alot of people associated marshmallows with Christmas because it was frequently used in hot cocoa but then they kind of gave up that thought.

Oh, and Christmas is more commercial than religious now anyways. [/B]
I have no idea, but giving out candy canes in public schools is banned due to it's equation with Christmas.


Kurgan's Meatgrinder (JA Server: 72.5.248.212:29070)

Player tested, Valtiel approved.

Valtiel approved downloads for Meatgrinder: http://strategy.jediknight.net/jka/downloads.shtml
Lathain Valtiel is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 12-09-2003, 05:29 AM   #125
SkinWalker
Anthropologist
 
SkinWalker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Give critical thought a chance
Posts: 2,709
LFN Staff Member 
Quote:
Originally posted by ZDawg
I say we ban Christmas, as the holiday is based off the birth of Jesus Christ himself.
I'm with you. Xmas is just a consumer capitalist opportunity for the manufacturers of goods and services. People and religious beliefs are exploited to sell products. On top of that, we lie to our children about Santa Claus, elves, flying reindeer, etc....

But the holiday itself isn't just the "birth of J.C." It also has it's roots in the pagan solistace celebrations and Christians merely appropriated these ceremonies and celebrations and offered a substitute to increase membership in the church. Many "christian holidays" have similar origins.

Quote:
Originally posted by ZDawg
And what’s this about, we shouldn’t base the law off of the Ten Commandments? You do realize that just about every major religion to date bases its morals and laws off of those Ten Commandments?
Actually, there's a strong argument that the 10 commandments are simply a reflection of basic human values. There are many common values and ethics represented in these "commandments" that found in religions and faiths that developed in ignorance of christianity and it's "Law." For instance, in most societies of the world and throughout history, it is considered taboo to kill indescriminately.


A Hot Cup of Joe - My Blog

Not finding an intellectual challenge in the Swamp? Try the Senate Chambers!

Evolution and How We Know It's Right - Post your thoughts!
Debate Strategies & Tactics - Polish your online debate skills and offer your own advice
SkinWalker is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 12-09-2003, 05:33 AM   #126
Lathain Valtiel
Ex-Angel
 
Lathain Valtiel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 929
LFN Staff Member 
Quote:
Originally posted by SkinWalker
I'm with you. Xmas is just a consumer capitalist opportunity for the manufacturers of goods and services. People and religious beliefs are exploited to sell products. On top of that, we lie to our children about Santa Claus, elves, flying reindeer, etc....
I dunno.. There are some poor who really look forward to Christmas... Donations, if you get my drift. Besides, they're children, it's for fun. Sheesh, ban fairy tales while we're at it.


Kurgan's Meatgrinder (JA Server: 72.5.248.212:29070)

Player tested, Valtiel approved.

Valtiel approved downloads for Meatgrinder: http://strategy.jediknight.net/jka/downloads.shtml
Lathain Valtiel is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 12-09-2003, 07:03 AM   #127
Elijah
"ZDawg"
 
Elijah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Behind you...
Posts: 1,770
Easter to, as its based off of christ comming back to life.
Elijah is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 12-09-2003, 12:27 PM   #128
El Sitherino
The Original.
 
El Sitherino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Planet Funkālnite.
Posts: 14,509
Hot Topic Starter LFN Staff Member Forum Veteran LF Jester 
Would I have your OK to ban Valentines day? After all most of these Christian holidays have become commercial because as stated before the majority of America is christian. I say perhaps let's let it start over. Labor day too, it's gotten too commercial.


PS: I'm being serious. Marketers are using faith, hope, spiritual thought to market crap.


“This body is not me. I am not caught in this body.
I am life without limit.”
El Sitherino is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 12-09-2003, 10:32 PM   #129
Elijah
"ZDawg"
 
Elijah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Behind you...
Posts: 1,770
Yes, the market has turned Je$u$ into exactly that.
Elijah is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-19-2004, 09:12 PM   #130
Thrackan Solo
 
Thrackan Solo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho, or does it exist?
Posts: 904
Quote:
I'm with you. Xmas is just a consumer capitalist opportunity for the manufacturers of goods and services. People and religious beliefs are exploited to sell products. On top of that, we lie to our children about Santa Claus, elves, flying reindeer, etc....
Your partly true that christmas is a christian holiday its based on the birth of Christ, but actually Christ was born in the spring time, because that would be the only time the shepherds would be in the fields. And America was founded and colonized by Christians in the first place, why does it offend you so much are you threatened by it in any way? Do you have to criticize others beliefs and holiday's? Why not ban Ramadan in Iraq since its just a Muslim holiday? You know why you dont argue about that, becaus ei think you despise all that Christians syand for, you all think of us as scum that is ignorant foolish and believes anything you might not admit it but why else yould you sit here all day talking about this?


I bow before the spoon.
Thrackan Solo is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-20-2004, 04:28 AM   #131
Kylilin
Wiseass
 
Kylilin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Fairfield, CT
Posts: 2,306
Current Game: Skyrim
Forum Veteran 
I don't care if people of the same sex want to be married. It doesn't bother me in the least. What bothers me is the government trying to get involved in people's lives on such a personal level. If you love someone, that is all that should matter.

As for all you religious people who claim same sex marriage, as well as homosexuality in general is a crime and should be punished, I leave you with this.

"Blessed are you when people hate you,
and when they exclude and insult you,
and denounce your name as evil
on account of the Son of Man.
Rejoice and leap for joy on that day!
Behold, your reward will be great in heaven.
For their ancestors treated the prophets in the same way.
But woe to you who are rich,
for you have received your consolation.
Woe to you who are filled now,
for you will be hungry.
Woe to you who laugh now,
for you will grieve and weep.
Woe to you when all speak well of you,
for their ancestors treated the false prophets in this way."

-- Luke 6:17


"Who is splendid among men, who is glorious among heroes?"
--excerpt from Gilgamesh
Kylilin is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-20-2004, 03:34 PM   #132
rccar328
Forumite
 
rccar328's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Right where I should be.
Posts: 567
While I have problems with homosexual marriage (and homosexuality itself) on religious grounds, there is another reason that I disagree with homosexual marriage, and here it is:

Quote:
Originally posted by Kylilin
If you love someone, that is all that should matter.
Well, gee, what if I love my sister, should we be able to get married? Or what if one man and three women love each other, should they be able to get married? Or what if a 30 year old man and a 5 year old child really love each other? Should they be able to get married?

Again and again, the slippery slope of moral degradation due to relativism rears its ugly head and is met with a blind eye from those with no strong moral background.

Skin, I see your point in wanting to take religion out of the debate, but let's be relistic here: marriage is a religious institution sanctioned by the state. Marriage started out as a Christian/Jewish practice, and was sanctioned by the government and given certain benefits in order to promote healthy families.

Personally I believe that if people want to be homosexuals, that's their choice. But from what I've heard, many of these homosexual couples do not really want the marriage itself, but in fact want the benefits that come along with marriage. I say give them civil unions, but leave marriage to the church.

And Kylilin, I'm not sure what your purpose was in quoting the Bible; if it was to say that God will bless homosexuals because they are persecuted, but the passage says: "Blessed are you when people hate you...on account of the Son of Man." It's saying that people who are persecuted because of their belief in Jesus will be blessed, not people who are persecuted because of their sin.


Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.
~John F. Kennedy

True Conservatism

rccar328 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-20-2004, 05:26 PM   #133
SkinWalker
Anthropologist
 
SkinWalker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Give critical thought a chance
Posts: 2,709
LFN Staff Member 
Quote:
Originally posted by rccar328
Skin, I see your point in wanting to take religion out of the debate, but let's be relistic here: marriage is a religious institution sanctioned by the state. Marriage started out as a Christian/Jewish practice, and was sanctioned by the government and given certain benefits in order to promote healthy families.
This is patently untrue. Another example of fundamentalist fallacy.

Marriage exists in every human culture and appears to have even existed in early hominid cultures as well. Moreover, marriage exists among several species of animals other than H. sapiens, such as with certain avions and primates.

So, one can easily see that the concept of "marriage" is independent of religious belief. I agree with the Humanist perspective that marriage should be state controlled, independent of religious dogma. If a couple wishes to engage in marriage with religious vows in a church, they should be free to do so... if a couple wishes to engage in a marriage independent of religion then they should be free to do so.

Morality and ethics belong to the government and the people as a whole. I will agree with you that it is unthinkable to allow every individual to define their idea of morality, as it is the needs of the societies to which they belong that is important. If societal morality and religious morality coincide, that's fine, but the morality must be determined independent of religion.

Quote:
Originally posted by rccar328
I say give them civil unions, but leave marriage to the church.
You can call it whatever, as long as the two have all the same rights, protections and benefits as currently afforded to "married" couples, that's fine.


A Hot Cup of Joe - My Blog

Not finding an intellectual challenge in the Swamp? Try the Senate Chambers!

Evolution and How We Know It's Right - Post your thoughts!
Debate Strategies & Tactics - Polish your online debate skills and offer your own advice
SkinWalker is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-20-2004, 07:49 PM   #134
Prime
Am I a truck or robot?
 
Prime's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Cybertron
Posts: 12,349
Current Game: Skyrim, Macross PS2
10 year veteran! LF Jester Veteran Modder Helpful! 
Quote:
Originally posted by rccar328
Well, gee, what if I love my sister, should we be able to get married? Or what if one man and three women love each other, should they be able to get married? Or what if a 30 year old man and a 5 year old child really love each other? Should they be able to get married?
This is an interesting question, at least in the legal sense.

Quote:
Originally posted by rccar328
Again and again, the slippery slope of moral degradation due to relativism rears its ugly head and is met with a blind eye from those with no strong moral background.
Yes, considering equal rights for other people and not applying bigited views is so horrible I can barely comprehend it.

Quote:
Originally posted by rccar328
Marriage started out as a Christian/Jewish practice, and was sanctioned by the government...
Whether it originated that way doesn't really matter. Now just about every religion (Buddist, Hindu, Muslim, and so on) has marriage. So in todays society, at least in North America, marriage is a part of many religions. These other religions must also be considered.

Quote:
Originally posted by rccar328
Personally I believe that if people want to be homosexuals, that's their choice.
I think it has been shown that homosexuality is not a conscious choice.

In any event, I have no problem with certain religions not wanting to perform homosexual marriages. That is their right. But if a religious group does want to perform them, that marriage should be recognized by the state.
Prime is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-20-2004, 08:56 PM   #135
Ray Jones
[armleglegarmhead]
 
Ray Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: digital
Posts: 8,255
10 year veteran! LF Jester Helpful! Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally posted by rccar328
Well, gee, what if I love my sister, should we be able to get married? Or what if one man and three women love each other, should they be able to get married? Or what if a 30 year old man and a 5 year old child really love each other? Should they be able to get married?
siblings only should not get children for obvious reasons. everything else is another story. also, i see no problem in three women - one man relationships (or vice versa.. or whatever).
and i think a 5 year old child is NOT ABLE to love a person in that way of "love" we talk about here. so that would be no good example at all.


Ray Jones is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-20-2004, 09:13 PM   #136
TheHobGoblin
Banned
 
TheHobGoblin's Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: My home NY
Posts: 1,231
I'm alright with it as long as they don't publicize it on TV everyday...
TheHobGoblin is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-20-2004, 10:16 PM   #137
rccar328
Forumite
 
rccar328's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Right where I should be.
Posts: 567
Quote:
and i think a 5 year old child is NOT ABLE to love a person in that way of "love" we talk about here. so that would be no good example at all.
But what I'm saying is that a moral line must be maintained, and gay marriage is where humanity should make a stand on the side of moral values. If we do not stand our ground here, marriage between a man and a child won't seem like such an extreme thing several years down the road. We're continually moving toward an "anything goes" society, and as a society, we have to draw the line before moral degradation gets any worse.

I know that many of you disagree with me - what I call moral degradation you call societal changes...and I agree, society is changing. It's going downhill faster and faster.


Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.
~John F. Kennedy

True Conservatism

rccar328 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-20-2004, 10:31 PM   #138
Tyrion
nothing is real
 
Tyrion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: no one I think is in my tree, I mean it must be high or low
Posts: 6,917
LF Jester Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally posted by rccar328
But what I'm saying is that a moral line must be maintained, and gay marriage is where humanity should make a stand on the side of moral values. If we do not stand our ground here, marriage between a man and a child won't seem like such an extreme thing several years down the road. We're continually moving toward an "anything goes" society, and as a society, we have to draw the line before moral degradation gets any worse.
Personally, I draw the line at where it doesnt become consent anymore. Gay marriages are fine. Multiply wives, fine. A 5 year old child, no. There's a reason why you cant have sex unless you're 16, you dont think too much of it. Gays DO marry consently, and unless I'm mistaken there's no law in the process of letting them wed 5 year olds too..

I have to ask you though, why do you think gay marriages are bad? You say you have to uphold a moral line against them, but what harm do they do?(And no religious reasons) They dont disrupt society, they dont make you feel unsafe, unlike rapists.



Tyrion is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-21-2004, 04:43 AM   #139
Kylilin
Wiseass
 
Kylilin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Fairfield, CT
Posts: 2,306
Current Game: Skyrim
Forum Veteran 
I'm not even to argue the morality of this, it leads nowhere. my one resounding problem on the topic of Gay marriage is the role of the government. It is not their job to interfere with civil rights on such a personal level. It is a violation of the right to privacy, the penumbra of the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendments.

The right to privacy is the right to be left alone without unwarranted intrusion by government, media, or other institutions or individuals. It was not until the U.S Supreme Court decision in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), which voided a state statute preventing the use of contraceptives, that the modern doctrine of privacy emerged. In his opinion, Justice William O. Douglas argued that a protection from state intrusion into marital privacy was a constitutional right, one that was a “penumbra” emanating from the specific guarantees of the constitution. The right to sexual privacy as set forth in Griswold was one of the main foundations of the court's decision in Roe v. Wade (1973) to overturn state abortion statutes. Later attempts to extend the right of privacy to consensual homosexual acts in Bowers v. Hardwick (1986) were initially rejected by the court. In 2003, however, the court reversed that decision and rejected all antisodomy laws.


"Who is splendid among men, who is glorious among heroes?"
--excerpt from Gilgamesh
Kylilin is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-21-2004, 05:23 PM   #140
ET Warrior
PhD in horribleness
 
ET Warrior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Evil League of Evil
Posts: 9,405
LFN Staff Member Forum Veteran 
The laws against a brother marrying his sister is set because of reproduction reasons. Personally I think if it weren't for the highly incresed likelihood of birth defects from children between close relations, then there shouldn't be a law against it. I would find it strange and unusual, but if they're happy..... But the fact is that there ARE those reproduction issues and so it isn't allowed.

Multiple wives/husbands also doesn't bother me. It should be set up in a way that a man can't have two wives without them knowing about it and vice versa, but if they both agree to it, then I say go for it.

We currently have laws preventing marriage between people under the age of 18 without explicit parental consent.

I have no idea where your whole, if we allow gay marriage the world will goto hell is coming from, but the argument holds no water. We used to not allow women to vote, black people couldn't own land, but we allowed those things, do you think THAT is where our moral degradation began? Or was it when we allowed women to join the workforce?



ET Warrior is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-23-2004, 08:57 AM   #141
Druid Allanon
Rookie
 
Druid Allanon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Druid's Keep at Paranor
Posts: 234
So, people think two homosexual people getting married is wrong, a sin, an offense. Well, if you want to stop two people in love from getting married, YOU are the one in the wrong. It's not your business if they wanna get married, and how can they harm you? I'm not saying that being homosexual is that great but, they're normal people like us, apart from the fact that they have a different sexual orientation. This is clearly racism, as how black people are treated. Imagine you're one of the homosexuals in love with a guy. You wanna get married with this guy, but people are protesting. How do you feel if someone's stopping you from marrying the one you love?
Druid Allanon is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-24-2004, 07:36 AM   #142
Kylilin
Wiseass
 
Kylilin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Fairfield, CT
Posts: 2,306
Current Game: Skyrim
Forum Veteran 
Seriously, there are children who are starving in this country, people addicted to drugs, murders, homelessness, racism, a down economy, terrorism, poverty, AIDS, cancer, these are all problems in this country. And all of these things are infinitely more important than same sex marriages. Let's put things into perspective for a second, don't you think we'd all be a lot better off fighting these problems? To even bother to fight same sex marriages on a governmental level is a horrendous waste of our resources, the money put into this could do a lot more good in the hands of a family who has to decide if they are going to pay their rent or eat this week. When I think about it, it's rather disgusting.

For the people with the religious/moral point of view. It's funny that the same people who believe in a God who teaches to accept all people, and treat them as if they were our brother or sister, are the very same people who denounce the lifestyles of other people. I am a practicing Catholic, gay marriages do not bother me. Why should it? It effects me in no way shape or form. Who the heck cares if two men or two women want to marry each other? This is America, land of the FREE (yeah, remember that?). Remember "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Hapiness"? Do you believe in the Constitution, which separates church from state? And...wait for it..."We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created EQUAL..." This country was founded on the idea of freedom from tyranny, whether it be economic or social or any other kind for that matter.

To compare this to polygamy, or incest, or child molestation is irresponsible and dangerous. It's apples and oranges. Polygamy is a system built to diminish and disempower women and girls. They are indoctrinated to accept as the natural order of things as well as God's will, the complete subjugation of their entire lives to their husbands, fathers and male religious leaders.

As for incestuous and child marriages, if you don't think something is wrong with those, have your head examined.


"Who is splendid among men, who is glorious among heroes?"
--excerpt from Gilgamesh
Kylilin is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-24-2004, 09:33 AM   #143
Ray Jones
[armleglegarmhead]
 
Ray Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: digital
Posts: 8,255
10 year veteran! LF Jester Helpful! Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally posted by Kylilin
To compare this to polygamy, or incest, or child molestation is irresponsible and dangerous. It's apples and oranges. Polygamy is a system built to diminish and disempower women and girls.
1. polygamy isnt just "one man - many women". it would work the other way around, too. polygamy itself is NOT disempowerment of women and girls. polygamy is a "multi person relationship" and a relationship does/ must/ should not include the disempowerment of someone.
also "polygamy" has nothing to do with religion.
if two men love one women (and she loves them too) or vice versa there is no problem with it. if everybody who is involved is fine with it, there is no problem.

2. incest basicly is having children with one of your family, not loving one of your family or having a relationship with him/her.

3. child molestation is not the kind of "relationship" we are talking about here.

Quote:
They are indoctrinated to accept as the natural order of things as well as God's will, the complete subjugation of their entire lives to their husbands, fathers and male religious leaders.
again, this is not a problem of "multi person (3+) relationships" or what ever. issues like those are existing in "standard" man-woman relationhips/marriages as well, and are of course a serious problem.

Quote:
As for incestuous and child marriages, if you don't think something is wrong with those, have your head examined.
i have no problem with incesteous marriages (relationships, noone says marriage is a must), the only issue would be to have no (own) children. the adoption of children would be another thing.
if brother and sister want to be together this way, why not?

as for child marriages (relationships), i have to agree, because a child is not "mature" enough to get the (whole) concept of a (love-)relationship/ marriage or it's consequences. so basicly this could never happen without punishing/ influencing the child towards something.



Last edited by RayJones; 02-24-2004 at 09:52 AM.
Ray Jones is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-24-2004, 12:42 PM   #144
SkinWalker
Anthropologist
 
SkinWalker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Give critical thought a chance
Posts: 2,709
LFN Staff Member 
Quote:
Originally posted by Kylilin
Seriously, there are children who are starving in this country, people addicted to drugs, murders, homelessness, racism, a down economy, terrorism, poverty, AIDS, cancer, these are all problems in this country. And all of these things are infinitely more important than same sex marriages.
Ahh. But religious fundamentalists, particularly christian fundamentalists in our case, will have you believe that they are all correlated and that, somehow, this correlation equals a causation.

Moreover, they (or, more aptly, one of them) pulls the "moral relativism" card in the assumption that such a concept is present on the individual level in present society. It is not. Morals are the express domain of society. Strictly speaking, one's morals and taboos are culturally "inherited."

Quote:
Originally posted by Kylilin
Polygamy is a system built to diminish and disempower women and girls.
It can do this, but in the cultural sense, polygamy and it's opposite, polyandry, are social constructs developed over time to maintain inheritances (property, such as land) and prevent poverty within the society.


A Hot Cup of Joe - My Blog

Not finding an intellectual challenge in the Swamp? Try the Senate Chambers!

Evolution and How We Know It's Right - Post your thoughts!
Debate Strategies & Tactics - Polish your online debate skills and offer your own advice
SkinWalker is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-24-2004, 02:43 PM   #145
rccar328
Forumite
 
rccar328's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Right where I should be.
Posts: 567
Quote:
Ahh. But religious fundamentalists, particularly christian fundamentalists in our case, will have you believe that they are all correlated and that, somehow, this correlation equals a causation
So, are you saying that the Christians on this forum are blaming all of this on homosexuals? Personally, I believe that some of the examples he named are part of the same trend.

Quote:
Morals are the express domain of society.
Personally, I don't understand this secular humanist trend to allow anybody to define their own moral code. You say that morals are defined by society - has it ever occured to you that society may be wrong? That the moral degradation that is continually being approved by society may be damaging to our society?

You say that I am blinded by Christianity - I say that you are blinded by secular humanism into believing that if society says it's okay, then it's okay. I'd be interested to hear whay you say when society finally crosses whatever uncrossable moral line you have (if any).

Now, this moral relativist trend has led people in San Francisco to break the law and push us toward anarchy across America. The city finally filed suit challenging California's marriage law, which is what they should have done in the first place, but this does not excuse the wanton lawbreaking that is still happening in that great bastion of liberalism.

The thing that disgusts me the most is when people compare what's going on in San Francisco & the "gay civil rights" movement to the real Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s & '60s. This comparison shows a blatent ignorance of history and the true evil nature of racism. I've never seen "gay" and "straight" bathrooms. Or water-fountains. I've never heard of a gay person being arrested for trying to eat in a restaurant with straight people. It's true that there has been some violence, but I've never heard of authorities turning fire hoses and unleashing dogs on gay pride parades. And with this new trend of lawbreaking, there seems to be an over-confidence that no legal action will result (because of activist judges) and that the authorities will be rendered impotent by political correctness. People during the real Civil Rights era understood that if they were to partake in civil disobedience, they must be ready to deal with the consequences. Rosa Parks defied the law, and she spent time in jail. And she used that case to appeal to the Supreme Court and have an unjust law removed.
To compare this current movement to the Civil Rights Movement is degrading to the memories and sacrifices of African-Americans in that horrible time.

Just a few minutes ago, President Bush publicly announced his intent to introduce a Constitutuional ammendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. I support him 100%.


Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.
~John F. Kennedy

True Conservatism

rccar328 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-24-2004, 03:26 PM   #146
RenegadeOfPhunk
 
RenegadeOfPhunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 731
Quote:
Personally, I don't understand this secular humanist trend to allow anybody to define their own moral code. You say that morals are defined by society - has it ever occured to you that society may be wrong? That the moral degradation that is continually being approved by society may be damaging to our society?
Anybody can be wrong - in particular cases. Society can be wrong - of course it can. Individuals can be wrong.

...but also, Christians can be wrong, and the Bible can be wrong.
The last part you dont' agree with? *shrug* Oh well - can't tell you what your opinion is. But given that this is MY opinion, this means that society had to TRY and decide what is moral and what is not - with no 'magic' answers.

I'd rather have to make tough choices, and even sometimes make bad choices (but hopefully learn from them) than live in a dream world where choices are made for me by dead people who lived 2000 or more years ago - thank you very much.

Quote:
I've never seen "gay" and "straight" bathrooms. Or water-fountains. I've never heard of a gay person being arrested for trying to eat in a restaurant with straight people.
I'm almost certain that the only reason their hasn't been such segmentation to the extreme your mentioning (or at least attempts at it) is because you can't tell the difference between a hetrosexual and a homosexual by looks alone. How would you know if these 'rules' were being broken? If a black man drinks from a white water-fountain, it's obvious!

...but a homosexual man drinking from a hetrosexual water fountain?! How would you know? Install 'gay' detectors?!

I can assure you that if such a device existed - certainly a few years ago - there would be, at the very least, motions in place to install these devices in places - and most probably there WOULD be something like the kinds of things that you described.

But anyway - back to the current reality. Homosexuals are discriminated against on a daily basis. Specific ways I know of that they are discriminated against are in terms of employment and in terms of 'marriage' benefits. (Although I'm sure there are many other ways I'm not aware of, or can't think of at this time)

Personally, I dont' give a damn whether you call it 'marriage' or something else. A legally binding 'union' with the same benefits as marriage - I beleive - would be ok.
Of course, there are plenty of homosexuals who still hold to a belief in God, and therefore would proabably rather have a marriage which is acknowledged in the religious sense. But my advice to these people would be to abandon the God who has abandoned them for just being who they were born to be.

...should the protests against this kind of injustice lead to violence? Ideally not, but I'd put yourself into the shoes of the one who is discriminated against - and likely will be for the rest of their life - before judging too harshly on that account...

Quote:
You say that I am blinded by Christianity - I say that you are blinded by secular humanism into believing that if society says it's okay, then it's okay.
Well - I can't speak for Skin, but I don't think he ever said that anything that society decides is ok is automatically right.
I believe he was just pointing out that morality is relative to different cultures - right or wrong. This is fact.

...sounds to me like your taking words, and placing them in people's mouths...


/* RenegadeOfPhunk */

OJP forums
OJP website - WIP

Movie Battles!

Last edited by RenegadeOfPhunk; 02-24-2004 at 03:37 PM.
RenegadeOfPhunk is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-24-2004, 07:31 PM   #147
El Sitherino
The Original.
 
El Sitherino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Planet Funkālnite.
Posts: 14,509
Hot Topic Starter LFN Staff Member Forum Veteran LF Jester 
Quote:
Originally posted by rccar328
Just a few minutes ago, President Bush publicly announced his intent to introduce a Constitutuional ammendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. I support him 100%.
While I can respect you for following what you believe, I just have to say I find this act dispicable.

The day we exclude the rights of citizens is the day America is no longer the land it's claimed to be. Where is the freedom in exclusion, due to your lifestyle?

If this isn't a tyranical act, I don't know what is.


“This body is not me. I am not caught in this body.
I am life without limit.”
El Sitherino is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-24-2004, 08:15 PM   #148
rccar328
Forumite
 
rccar328's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Right where I should be.
Posts: 567
Quote:
The day we exclude the rights of citizens is the day America is no longer the land it's claimed to be.
But a homosexual has the same right to marry as anyone...just not to someone of the same sex.

Also, this amendment sends a message to liberal activist judges that they will no longer be permitted to trample over the will of the people in order to promote their own agenda.


Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.
~John F. Kennedy

True Conservatism

rccar328 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-24-2004, 09:35 PM   #149
Tyrion
nothing is real
 
Tyrion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: no one I think is in my tree, I mean it must be high or low
Posts: 6,917
LF Jester Forum Veteran 
Rccar, you still havent answered my question.

Anyway, how about instead of homosexuals being married, just have a civil union and get all of the rights? Marriage is generally just for religious acknowledgement, civil unions would be for civil acknoledgement, and all the benefits that come from that.



Tyrion is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-24-2004, 10:04 PM   #150
rccar328
Forumite
 
rccar328's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Right where I should be.
Posts: 567
Quote:
I have to ask you though, why do you think gay marriages are bad? You say you have to uphold a moral line against them, but what harm do they do?(And no religious reasons) They dont disrupt society, they dont make you feel unsafe, unlike rapists.
The reason I haven't answered your question is because, at the most fundamental level, my disagreement with gay marriages is religious.

And, quite frankly, all I've been doing is outlining the reasons I think gay marriage is bad.

The argument for gay marriage is based on "because they love each other." If we change the law based on that argument, it sets a legal precedent that I believe will eventually lead us to allow polygamy, bigamy, incest, and adult-child marriage. At the very least, under that argument, there is little legal basis for not allowing any, if not all of these.


Quote:
I'd rather have to make tough choices, and even sometimes make bad choices (but hopefully learn from them) than live in a dream world where choices are made for me by dead people who lived 2000 or more years ago - thank you very much.
If you truly believe that my choices are made for me, you haven't read anything I've said about my religion. It's all about personal choice. I can choose to obey God's law, or I can choose not to. This doesn't mean that God dictates my every action - the choice is always there. I choose God.

Quote:
I can assure you that if such a device existed - certainly a few years ago - there would be, at the very least, motions in place to install these devices in places - and most probably there WOULD be something like the kinds of things that you described.
You're naive if you truly believe this. We learned our lesson from the Civil Rights Movement. While there may be a few extremists who would want to implement this, the vast majority of people wouldn't stand for it, no matter their stance on gay marriage.


Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.
~John F. Kennedy

True Conservatism

rccar328 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-24-2004, 11:09 PM   #151
Kain
I'm a ghost
 
Kain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 4,269
Current Game: Not so much.
Forum Veteran 10 year veteran! 
rccar, you think that San Fran's liberalness on marriges is going to cause anarchy across the states? That is THE SINGLE MOST [edited] THING I'VE EVER READ IN MY 18 AND A HALF YEARS ON THIS SPECK OF DIRT CALLED EARTH. You have no idea what anarchy is. 'Oh no, gays are getting married all across the nation. Its the end of the civilized world!' is probably what runs through your head. I think the ONLY thing that would cause ANY form of anarchy in this nation would be that idiot Bush making it a federal offense to have a gay relationship. Actually, there are 2 things I can think of. Fundamentalists getting all [edited] and psycho when that law flops worse than Gigli and deciding that if they can't be right, than gays be alive, which sadly I could see happening especially with Dr Demento psycho pastor who blames everything on gays, Jews, and other races that AIN'T white.

I'm seriously leaning toward dragging every radical fundamentalist into the street and beating them mercifulessly.
Kain is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-24-2004, 11:22 PM   #152
SkinWalker
Anthropologist
 
SkinWalker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Give critical thought a chance
Posts: 2,709
LFN Staff Member 
Quote:
Originally posted by Kain
I'm seriously leaning toward dragging every radical fundamentalist into the street and beating them mercifulessly.
All that does is create knew problems and ethical concerns (actually following through with it that is).

But the problem of christian fundamentalism (as well as that of judaism and islam) is one that needs to be addressed and dealt with by secular society. Historically speaking, religious fundamentalism has been bad for societies.


A Hot Cup of Joe - My Blog

Not finding an intellectual challenge in the Swamp? Try the Senate Chambers!

Evolution and How We Know It's Right - Post your thoughts!
Debate Strategies & Tactics - Polish your online debate skills and offer your own advice
SkinWalker is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-25-2004, 03:17 AM   #153
El Sitherino
The Original.
 
El Sitherino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Planet Funkālnite.
Posts: 14,509
Hot Topic Starter LFN Staff Member Forum Veteran LF Jester 
Quote:
Originally posted by rccar328
But a homosexual has the same right to marry as anyone...just not to someone of the same sex.

Also, this amendment sends a message to liberal activist judges that they will no longer be permitted to trample over the will of the people in order to promote their own agenda.
How is that freedom though, you can do what you want as long as you aren't gay or liberal?

Judges don't do these things because of their opinion they do it because they are obligated to hold up the freedoms of the people, ALL people including gays.

Also, civil unions between same sex couples is legal, but some want to marry because like you they are religious people and they have this crazy need to think that a deity is watching over their commitment.


“This body is not me. I am not caught in this body.
I am life without limit.”
El Sitherino is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-25-2004, 04:04 AM   #154
ET Warrior
PhD in horribleness
 
ET Warrior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Evil League of Evil
Posts: 9,405
LFN Staff Member Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally by the Declaration of Independance
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
There it is. The very foundation on which our country was formed. Seems to me that the government is standing in the way of Homosexuals pursuit of happiness, doesn't it?



ET Warrior is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-25-2004, 04:07 AM   #155
rccar328
Forumite
 
rccar328's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Right where I should be.
Posts: 567
Quote:
Judges don't do these things because of their opinion they do it because they are obligated to hold up the freedoms of the people, ALL people including gays.
They're not obligated to uphold the freedoms of the people, they're obligated to interpret the law. This misconception of the role of the judiciary is a contributing factor in the trend of judicial tyranny we see today. Under California state law, the judge in San Francisco had no right to allow marriage licences to be issued simply because he disagreed with the law. If someone had filed a law suit over the constitutionality of the law and the judge overturned it, then it's okay to issue marriage licences. But what happened in San Francisco is that a judge decided to issue marriage licences because he disagreed with the law - the suit contesting the law was filed after the law was broken.

Quote:
deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed
California marriage law, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman, was passed by a 60% majority.

Personally (as you well know), I am against gay marriage. If gay rights activists want to change the law so that they can get married, and they succeed, though, I won't stand in their way. I may not agree with the law in that case, but it is the law.
My main problem is when cases come up like the one in San Francisco, when people (maily the judiciary) show a blatent disregard for the law and decide to do what they want, and to hell with the law.

What if someone decided to wantonly hand out automatic weapons licences because they disagreed with our nation's (or their particular state or city's) gun laws? People would be up in arms trying to get them to stop. Why? Because it's against the law!!!

One of the great things about America is that if you disagree with a law, there are ways to change that law without breaking the law. If they had worked within the system to change the law, that's fine. But there is no excuse for this kind of lawbreaking.

Compare this with the case of Judge Roy Moore - I was with him up to a certain point. I have no problem with having a Ten Commandments display in a courthouse. Once he refused a court order to remove the monument, though, I felt that I could no longer support him, because no matter how much I agreed with his views, the law must be upheld.


Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.
~John F. Kennedy

True Conservatism


Last edited by rccar328; 02-25-2004 at 04:30 AM.
rccar328 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-25-2004, 05:41 AM   #156
SkinWalker
Anthropologist
 
SkinWalker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Give critical thought a chance
Posts: 2,709
LFN Staff Member 
Quote:
Originally posted by SkinWalker:
Ahh. But religious fundamentalists, particularly christian fundamentalists in our case, will have you believe that they are all correlated and that, somehow, this correlation equals a causation

rccar328's response:

So, are you saying that the Christians on this forum are blaming all of this on homosexuals? Personally, I believe that some of the examples he named are part of the same trend.
I think you confirmed exactly what I was trying to say in that last sentence.


Quote:
Originally posted by SkinWalker:
Morals are the express domain of society.

rccar328's response:

Personally, I don't understand this secular humanist trend to allow anybody to define their own moral code.
I'm sorry, but that's not part of any "secular humanist trend" that I'm aware of. In fact, I expressly pointed out that individuals do not develop their morals, but rather their morals are ingrained upon them from childhood in their social interactions with others. It is the responsibility of society to impress upon families the accepted moral values and the responsibility of families to impress upon their children what are accepted moral values of the society and of their family. Any religion that lays claim to the only correct set of morality is one to be skeptical of since Homo sapiens have thrived well and developed morality long before even the oldest of our religions.

Quote:
rccar328's response:
Quote:

You say that morals are defined by society - has it ever occured to you that society may be wrong?
Of course societies can be wrong. This has been demonstrated a time or two throughout history. The careless depletion of environmental resources on Rapa Nui in the name of status, power and one-upsmanship was an accepted norm that proved to be nearly fatal to the entire society. The belief that Europeans had rights to land in North America and that the aboriginal residents were less than human, uncivilized or otherwise unworthy to lay claim to the land also proved fatal to hundreds of sovereign nations and resulted in a genocide of immense proportions.

Quote:
rccar328's response:
Quote:

That the moral degradation that is continually being approved by society may be damaging to our society?
The "moral degradation" that you cite is your perspective. While I won't disagree that there are social problems that must be addressed (juvenile crime/truancy, substance abuses, etc.), I also see the trend that christianity has set over the course of the last 2k years. I see a history of religion blaming the degradation of society and modernity as the cause of the world's problems. I see overreaction to the point of stupidity in history. I see a definite trend.

Religion has failed society! It preaches the evils of society and the sanctity of family and that the "family that prays together stays together," blah, blah, blah…. Religion finds inroads to the prisons, half-way houses, homeless shelters, substance abuse centers, … everywhere there are the destitute, helpless, down-trodden, or hurt people. Religion promises these people "salvation" and "hope," but you know what? It fails. Sure, it works for some, but by and large… it fails. Utterly.

Prisoners get Christ and claim to be saved…. get paroled and commit more crimes. The addicted find others like them and try to fool themselves… but turn back to the drug or the alcohol. The "wicked" stay "wicked" unless they educate themselves.

Families that "pray together" don't "stay together." The incidence of divorce is the same among the "born again" as it is among the heathens. Pastors of churches steal. Priests rape little boys and run over the homeless.

So don't try to feed me the crap about how religion is the answer to our society and try to tell me it’s a Honeybun (tm). It just doesn't taste like one. In societies where true separations have been made between church and state issues, crime is much lower; incidents of hate are fewer; a sense of community is present; education is at a premium; social programs like health care are the norm not the exclusion; etc. I'm thinking of countries like Norway and Denmark.

Secularism not only works, but the benefits to society are tremendous!

Quote:
rccar328's response:
Quote:

You say that I am blinded by Christianity - I say that you are blinded by secular humanism into believing that if society says it's okay, then it's okay.
No. I say you are blinded by fear. Fear is what drives the fundamentalist most. Fear of change; fear of progress; fear of rejection; fear of ….whatever.

Quote:
rccar328's response:
Quote:

I'd be interested to hear whay you say when society finally crosses whatever uncrossable moral line you have (if any).
If my post seems a bit terse today, that might be why. Because whatever is truly blinding you has preventing you from even acknowledging what I've said in several posts already: society can effectively manage appropriate morals independent of religion. History and archaeology bears this out. Moreover, the application of "moral relativism," particularly in the definition you provide regarding "each individual deciding what's right/wrong," isn't applicable. "Individuals" aren't deciding thousands of different expectations to gay marriage. A consolidation of a large segment of society is expressing it's opinion on an established taboo. One that is born of prehistoric thinking. One that is not relevant in today's society.

There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that homosexuality in anyway has a negative effect on society beyond the controversy between modern opinion and out-dated belief systems. There is every indication that society will benefit from same-sex marriage.

Quote:
rccar328's response:
Quote:

Now, this moral relativist trend has led people in San Francisco to break the law and push us toward anarchy across America.
Wrong and right at the same time. It isn't a "moral relativist trend" by your definition of moral relativism ("I'm talking about morality that is relative to the individual"), these are a consolidated population of people with common agreement on what is morally correct. Contrasted with a thousand or so individual views of what is morally correct. I do, however, agree that they are wrong in that they have violated the law. I'm a bit dismayed that the municipal government of SF is complicit in the violation.

I think that there is more likelihood of Christian fundamentalism creating "anarchy across America" long before a few homosexuals can by engaging in matrimony. It's just me, but Queer Eye for the Straight Guy has yet to issue a manifesto or drop a federal building with a Ryder truck full of fertilizer.

Quote:
rccar328's response:
Quote:

The thing that disgusts me the most is when people compare what's going on in San Francisco & the "gay civil rights" movement to the real Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s & '60s. This comparison shows a blatent ignorance of history and the true evil nature of racism. I've never seen "gay" and "straight" bathrooms. Or water-fountains. [….] To compare this current movement to the Civil Rights Movement is degrading to the memories and sacrifices of African-Americans in that horrible time.
It's a bit hard to segregate those whom you cannot readily identify. But the subtle discriminations are enough to warrant a look at civil rights involved in the issue.

Quote:
rccar328's response:
Quote:

Just a few minutes ago, President Bush publicly announced his intent to introduce a Constitutuional ammendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. I support him 100%.
No surprise there.


A Hot Cup of Joe - My Blog

Not finding an intellectual challenge in the Swamp? Try the Senate Chambers!

Evolution and How We Know It's Right - Post your thoughts!
Debate Strategies & Tactics - Polish your online debate skills and offer your own advice
SkinWalker is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-25-2004, 06:26 AM   #157
Tyrion
nothing is real
 
Tyrion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: no one I think is in my tree, I mean it must be high or low
Posts: 6,917
LF Jester Forum Veteran 
[Skinwalker, I just finished watching Equilibriem and I envisioned your post as one of the Father's preaches. ]

Quote:
The argument for gay marriage is based on "because they love each other." If we change the law based on that argument, it sets a legal precedent that I believe will eventually lead us to allow polygamy, bigamy, incest, and adult-child marriage. At the very least, under that argument, there is little legal basis for not allowing any, if not all of these.
Can't we address these issues one at a time? Just because A is allowed, doesnt mean B and C will. Or else, why allow marriage between a man and a women, because clearly it's setting a legal precedent for gay marriages!

Quote:
Personally (as you well know), I am against gay marriage. If gay rights activists want to change the law so that they can get married, and they succeed, though, I won't stand in their way. I may not agree with the law in that case, but it is the law.My main problem is when cases come up like the one in San Francisco, when people (maily the judiciary) show a blatent disregard for the law and decide to do what they want, and to hell with the law.
I agree, it certainly doesn't help the gay rights activists by breaking laws for thier own cause. However, it has been shown in the past that breaking the law has helped activists, take Rosa Parks for example. She broke the law, and it helped blacks gain freedom. The government sent a precedent, wether good or bad, showing that you can get your point heard and even legalized by breaking the law.

Quote:
What if someone decided to wantonly hand out automatic weapons licences because they disagreed with our nation's (or their particular state or city's) gun laws? People would be up in arms trying to get them to stop. Why? Because it's against the law!!!
Well, the person in question should be partially responsible for any murders because of his actions, right?

Quote:
One of the great things about America is that if you disagree with a law, there are ways to change that law without breaking the law. If they had worked within the system to change the law, that's fine. But there is no excuse for this kind of lawbreaking.
But the government have been lenient and changed laws when an activist has broken the law. Infact, we broke British law when we separated from thier country, our country was formed from lawbreaking.



Tyrion is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-25-2004, 07:03 AM   #158
Ray Jones
[armleglegarmhead]
 
Ray Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: digital
Posts: 8,255
10 year veteran! LF Jester Helpful! Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally posted by rccar328
What if someone decided to wantonly hand out automatic weapons licences because they disagreed with our nation's (or their particular state or city's) gun laws? People would be up in arms trying to get them to stop. Why? Because it's against the law!!!
although breaking a law is breaking a law, i clearly draw a line between "gay-marriage-crime" and "weapon-license-crime".
there is a huge difference between the "sin" of being gay and the "sin" of being responsible for murder or the promotion of it.
i have to wonder if, from the christian aspect, both would just get "hell-punishment" for it.


Ray Jones is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-27-2004, 03:53 PM   #159
rccar328
Forumite
 
rccar328's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Right where I should be.
Posts: 567
"The gay lobby, in its tireless determination, has succeeded in framing the same-sex marriage issue as one of equal rights instead of the right of a society to preserve its foundational institutions. They have painted those who nobly want to preserve these institutions as hateful, homophobic bigots.

But opposition to same-sex marriage not about "rights," and it's not about hate or bigotry. No one is preventing homosexuals from living with one another. All homosexuals have a "right" to get married and to have that marriage sanctioned by the state. But in order to do that they must marry someone of the opposite sex – that's what marriage means and has always meant. When they insist that society be forced to redefine marriage to sanction same-sex unions, they are attempting to establish new and special rights.

What's worse is that if we view this from the narrow perspective of "gay rights," we are overlooking that these "rights" will not be created in a vacuum, without consequences to our society. It's not as simple as saying that homosexuals will have the right to live together and receive the "legal incidents" of marriage.

If they coerce society into placing its imprimatur on same-sex marriage, they will have eroded one of the fundamental supports of our society. But in our postmodern licentious, amoral culture, we are so hung up on radical individualism, we no longer seem to comprehend that society has a vital interest in establishing rules grounded in morality and enforced by law.

This is the larger issue underlying the marriage turf battle. Does our society even have a mandate anymore to base its laws on moral absolutes? Or does our myopic zeal for pluralism, "tolerance," "multiculturalism," "secularism" and moral relativism require that we abandon the moral pillars upon which our system is built?

I know it is chic to subscribe to the mindless notion that we can't legislate morality or that we can't even base our laws on our moral and religious beliefs, but that thinking is as destructive as it is nonsensical. We have always based our laws on our moral beliefs and must continue to for them to have any legitimacy.

It is completely possible to base a nation's constitutional system on specific religious beliefs and simultaneously guarantee the rights of its citizens to exercise other religious beliefs. That's precisely what our predominantly Christian Framers did. They built a system on Judeo-Christian roots, which they believed would guarantee, not threaten, political and religious freedom. America's history conclusively vindicates them.

They designed a governmental system grounded in the laws of nature established by the God they believe created them in His image and Who was therefore the source of their inalienable rights. A society so founded has an interest in preserving the moral foundation established by this God and observing His laws of nature. And the protection of this interest is wholly consistent with, indeed essential to, guaranteeing an ordered society with maximum political and religious liberties.

We are so spoiled with our freedoms that we never stop to think that they are based on a moral foundation, which, if uprooted, will uproot our liberties as well. You don't have to be an ardent churchgoer to grasp that we cannot continue in our rebellious and narcissistic quest for unrestrained liberty with impunity. If we persist in demanding freedom without responsibility; if we recklessly reject self-control and moral parameters; if we defy the laws of nature established by an omniscient God, we can expect chaos and the eventual erosion of liberty.

It is chilling that those who want to preserve our unique system and the unparalleled freedom it guarantees are viewed as a threat to that freedom, when, in fact, they are its sacred guardians."
Full text of WND commentary

This is from a WND commentary written by David Limbaugh - I agree with his views, and he says it so much better than I could.

Quote:
It is the responsibility of society to impress upon families the accepted moral values and the responsibility of families to impress upon their children what are accepted moral values of the society and of their family.
But what you don't seem to realize is that morals in America are being hijacked by a vocal minority.

Quote:
Prisoners get Christ and claim to be saved…. get paroled and commit more crimes. The addicted find others like them and try to fool themselves… but turn back to the drug or the alcohol. The "wicked" stay "wicked" unless they educate themselves.

Families that "pray together" don't "stay together." The incidence of divorce is the same among the "born again" as it is among the heathens. Pastors of churches steal. Priests rape little boys and run over the homeless.
Religion hasn't failed these people - if anything, it's the other way around!
First, the family that prays together is definitely more likely to stay together - I've seen many more healthy families who are united in their faith than those who have nothing to bring them together.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, Christianity is about personal choice. People are free to choose to accept Christianity, but the idea that it's a once-for-all-time choice is false...even after a person has accepted Christ, they can choose to turn away from that choice.

And besides that, the scenarios you named are not the rule, they're the exception.

Quote:
No. I say you are blinded by fear. Fear is what drives the fundamentalist most. Fear of change; fear of progress; fear of rejection; fear of ….whatever.
Well, let's see...fear of change? fear of progress? That depends on what kind of change or "progress" you're talking about. There's good change and bad change. There's good progress, but there are times when progressing too far can be dangerous. So am I afraid of change and progress? Yeah...the kind of change and "progress" that would bankrupt our society of the moral values that it was founded on and bring our society into ruin.

And if I was afraid of rejection, I wouldn't hang out here

Quote:
society can effectively manage appropriate morals independent of religion.
I disagree - there is too much push in our society by the minority to market immorality to our children, and children are so inundated by this, along with the pushing of a moral relativist agenda in our elementary schools1 that parents are rendered impotent in any moral teachings that they try to impart to their children. If anything, moral relativism is destroying society's ability to teach appropriate morals to our children.

Quote:
I think that there is more likelihood of Christian fundamentalism creating "anarchy across America" long before a few homosexuals can by engaging in matrimony. It's just me, but Queer Eye for the Straight Guy has yet to issue a manifesto or drop a federal building with a Ryder truck full of fertilizer.
Well...first off, you can't seem to be able to distinguish between "anarchy" and "terrorism." The Oklahoma City bombing was a terrorist act. What's happening in San Francisco (and spreading across America) is a blatent disregard for our laws, which is, by definition, anarchy .
New York
New Mexico
Chicago

That is anarchy spreading across America.

(and by the way, Queer Eye for the Straight Guy is part of the marketing of immorality that I was referring to earlier).


1 Bruce, Tammy: The Death of Right and Wrong


Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.
~John F. Kennedy

True Conservatism


Last edited by rccar328; 02-27-2004 at 04:07 PM.
rccar328 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-27-2004, 04:59 PM   #160
SkinWalker
Anthropologist
 
SkinWalker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Give critical thought a chance
Posts: 2,709
LFN Staff Member 
Quote:
Originally posted by rccar328
Religion hasn't failed these people - if anything, it's the other way around!
As a Treatment Director for a youth services organization in major U.S. city, I can tell you first hand that faith based programs have the highest recidivism rates. Faith-based organizations like to brag about "80% success rates, etc.," but this is based on the kids that don't drop out, get kicked out, or are otherwise discharged from their programs. On average, about 18% of the kids that begin Teen Challenge (a faith-based program for substance abuse) complete it. I base these statistics on the Results For Proposals issued by the Dallas County Juvenile Department each year when we submit our annual contract. "80%" is a way overblown figure that the Juvenile Department doesn't accept.

My program, secular in it's programming, has the lowest recidivism rate in the county, far lower than the faith-based organizations.

The bottom line is that the faith-based programs outright lie about their effectiveness. They either need to submit evidence to support their claims or stop making them.

If you have some evidence that supports their claims, you should send it to them... because they can't seem to find it.

Quote:
Originally posted by rccar328
First, the family that prays together is definitely more likely to stay together
Not according to the Barna Research Group (1999), which found that "Overall, 33% of all born again individuals who have been married have gone through a divorce, which is statistically identical to the 34% incidence among non-born again adults."

Quote:
Originally posted by rccar328
- I've seen many more healthy families who are united in their faith than those who have nothing to bring them together.
Just because one lacks acceptance of christian ideology, doesn't meant that they have nothing to bring or keep them together.

Quote:
Originally posted by rccar328
Well...first off, you can't seem to be able to distinguish between "anarchy" and "terrorism."
I don't know... It seems to me that the two can occupy the same space & time.

Quote:
Originally posted by rccar328
The Oklahoma City bombing was a terrorist act. What's happening in San Francisco (and spreading across America) is a blatent disregard for our laws, which is, by definition, anarchy.
But such blatant displays of disregard for law such as bombing federal buildings and abortion clinics has a better chance of creating anarchy since the ability for law enforcement to operate to peak efficiency is more impeded by emergency responses related to these disasters than by issuing citations to those that throw rice in the wrong place at a gay wedding.

Quote:
Originally posted by rccar328
That is anarchy spreading across America.
No... that, sir, is peaceful activism.

This is anarchy spreading across America:

Resist.com
Aryan-Nations
Clayton Waagner
Army of God (I especially liked their instructions for how to manufacture a propane bomb a little less than halfway down the page).


A Hot Cup of Joe - My Blog

Not finding an intellectual challenge in the Swamp? Try the Senate Chambers!

Evolution and How We Know It's Right - Post your thoughts!
Debate Strategies & Tactics - Polish your online debate skills and offer your own advice
SkinWalker is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Go Back   LucasForums > Network > JediKnight Series > Community > Senate Chambers > Should Same Sex Marriage Be Allowed?

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:57 PM.

LFNetwork, LLC ©2002-2011 - All rights reserved.
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.