LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
An agent of the lord is among us... well.... you use the term "We'll" so I guess that means you and God are like real close... You're an advisor perhaps...
An agent of the lord is among us... well.... you use the term "We'll" so I guess that means you and God are like real close... You're an advisor perhaps...
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
He has seen through the logs and trees in his eyes to look upon your reality... amazing!
Why does gay marriage supporters always equate those disagree with gay marriage to religion? Is it because they have no good arguement for why traditional marriage, oh by the way, which existed way before Christ was born, need to change all of the sudden?
Yeap, those who don't see a need to break thousands of years tradition which build the very fundation of human society must be blindly following religion and cannot possibly form that conclusion by simple logic.
Yeap, those who don't see a need to break thousands of years tradition which build the very fundation of human society must be blindly following religion and cannot possibly form that conclusion by simple logic.
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
I suppose if you consider that right here in the good ole USA religion is not the controlling factor... Human Rights are sorta the issue. Marriage is Marriage... a union twixt two people [usually]. Who cares when Christ was born if they don't believe in God. Who cares what a Religion has to say about issues in a society comprised of folks of diverse beliefs? Gay Marriage is simply a desire tween two folks to unify with the same status as any other two folks wishing to unify under the law.
Let me be the devils advocate for a moment. Does same-sex union provide the same benefit to the society as traditional marriage?
Can they produce the traditional family structure with parents, children, grand children where one generation care for the next and provide a safety net within the family?
Have gay marriage in general prove to be as stable as traditional marriage where partners support each other for the long haul?
If gay marriage hasn't shown that it can provide the same benefit as traditional marriage, why does the society have to give gay marriage the equal benefit.
I want to clarify I am not oppose to things like visitation right and many other rights that has no financial impact and should be given to any human being caring for one another, married or not. But there are also many financial rights given to married couple because marriage provides society benefits that justify those financial incentives. I find it questionable some people want to enjoy the same benefit without carrying out the responsibility along with the benefit.
Bottom line, gay marriage is not the same as traditional marriage from physical and sociological sense. It should be treated as such and sensible rights should be granted but not blanket rights.
Simple common sense, nothing from religion bullshit.
Patranus
Diamond Member
- Apr 15, 2007
- 9,280
- 0
- 0
Under California law, yes.
California Family Code:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fam&group=00001-01000&file=297-297.5
Last edited:
Hell, I hate to go over what I have said so many times before especially given my suspicion as to why you ask. And I will be as honest as I can because it was honesty that got me into the pickle I spoke of.
When I was young I looked at the crushing misery in the world and felt profound remorse, but I was raised, passingly as a Christian. I never had good teachers or got that involved, but I came to believe in God and Jesus. In that faith I could handle the fact that the world is so evil and there is such misery, because, in the long run all the good folk will go to heaven.
But so many folk are evil because they don't believe in the good, so I set out to prove that God exists and life is good. I set out to show that God is love and all who are good will be saved. I was young, you understand, and had no theological training and only some vague notions from the Bible to go on.
So I started to read the philosophy of the world and all the proofs for the good, and because of this horrible need to be honest, could not believe a single thing.
I saw a fallacy in everything. I saw that everybody just happened to believe in whatever teaching they grew up in, at least in the vast preponderance of cases.
In short I realized that God was just a figment of people's imaginations, a convenient thing to believe in in the hope of immortal life. Faith is fear turned on its ear.
I finally realized there is no truth, no meaning, no immortality, no sop for all the children who are murdered. There is only crushing meaningless and infinite misery. My life went black. I knew that I would never ever again be happy, that the black night of the soul would be my lifelong fate.
But I found a Zen text and tried reading it. Here I found outrageous assholes who said what I already know, that there is no meaning, no truth, no way, nothing above or below, but unlike me they were happy. They knew a way that isn't a way.
One Koan in particular, I think saved my life, the story of a man chased off a cliff by a tiger. He hangs over the edge holding on to a root and looking down sees another tiger. That was me, the man at the end of his rope and weakening.
And he saw a Strawberry growing on the cliff and it tasted so good.
My Dear shira, What fucking strawberry was that. WHAT FUCKING STRAWBERRY
Tell me dear shira, WHAT FUCKING STRAWBERRY WAS THAT GROWING THERE?
Wait a sec. When you say, 'Not at all.", do you mean he is not judged? I thought you were saying judgment is incumbent on the answer in your opinion, an opinion, I should add, i thought you took as absolute fact.
Or are you saying he judged himself by his answer? That can't be right either because the only place where the truth he's been judged that I can see exists only in your head. So it is indeed you who judges him because it is you who believes he judges himself. I, for example, just thought he said no. I know nothing so naturally I could not judge.
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
Perhaps I appear to be playing because you are running a game.
But isn't it usual at a trial that the defendant know the charges?
What am I guilty of and what is sin. It strikes me as rather odd you don't seem to know. Your certainty appears to be infinite.
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
Moonbeam asks:
"My Dear shira, What fucking strawberry was that. WHAT FUCKING STRAWBERRY
Tell me dear shira, WHAT FUCKING STRAWBERRY WAS THAT GROWING THERE? "
The freedom from the tiger, of course. There is no tiger above nor below! Grasp the strawberry, it is not there either... There is no fear! So there is no need for relief! There is only truth! Truth is found in the now. Realized in the now and reflected apon in the now. It is always the now. One cannot concern themselves with the tomorrow for it will take care of itself... the now, however, depends on you.
"My Dear shira, What fucking strawberry was that. WHAT FUCKING STRAWBERRY
Tell me dear shira, WHAT FUCKING STRAWBERRY WAS THAT GROWING THERE? "
The freedom from the tiger, of course. There is no tiger above nor below! Grasp the strawberry, it is not there either... There is no fear! So there is no need for relief! There is only truth! Truth is found in the now. Realized in the now and reflected apon in the now. It is always the now. One cannot concern themselves with the tomorrow for it will take care of itself... the now, however, depends on you.
To not be able, due to the presence of law, to marry the person you love is an evil. Anybody can feel that about themselves and their own loved one, but bigotry blinds folk to this simple truth where bigotry exists. If you oppose gay marriage you are a bigot. You won't know it if you are a bigot but all non bigots will.
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
In June of 1776 this was Virginia's opening comment in their 'Bill of Rights'...
"That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety."
It seems quite close to what Jefferson presented again in our Declaration of Independence...
It also seems obvious that the issue is freedom to do as one pleases so long as it don't keep anyother from enjoying their rights... The question then becomes; how does Gay marriage cause others to not enjoy their own marriage?
"That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety."
It seems quite close to what Jefferson presented again in our Declaration of Independence...
It also seems obvious that the issue is freedom to do as one pleases so long as it don't keep anyother from enjoying their rights... The question then becomes; how does Gay marriage cause others to not enjoy their own marriage?
Like I said, there are many rights covered by traditional marriage. Some rights relates to financial incentives and some right are some basic human rights.
for financial incentives given to traditional marriage, why should gay marriage take advantage of those right if they cannot provide the same benefit to the society? Of course we'd like to give everyone free money but that's not very fair or feasible is it? Take social security for example, would you support someone who never contributed to the social security fund benefitting from it?
Like it or not, traditional marriage creates family structure that helps stabalizing a society so the government don't need to care for the young and the old. And traditional family keeps producing new generation of people to keep the society running. those are clear benefits to a society and that's why society in return creates those financial incentive to encourage traditional marriage. It is clear that gay marriage don't give the same benefit so why do they deserve the same financial incentive?
In the US, you have to pay tax and be a citizen to enjoy some of the right. Right is not universal and given free to every single person. Again, simple logic and nothing religious about it.
rchiu: Like I said, there are many rights covered by traditional marriage. Some rights relates to financial incentives and some right are some basic human rights.
for financial incentives given to traditional marriage, why should gay marriage take advantage of those right if they cannot provide the same benefit to the society?
M: Again, where is the evidence that every traditional marriage provides benefits to society. Many end in divorce and homeless criminal kids whereas many gay families adopt. And many many people in society resent the fact they have to pay taxes that married people don't. Why should the folk who have all the benefits of family also get financial support? This only creates an incentive for the vast majority of folk who are straight to marry to game the system. Because you are actually a bigot, you blind yourself to the obvious fact that percentage wise it is straight people who are marrying for the tax benefits. And what about the marriage penalty?
r: Of course we'd like to give everyone free money but that's not very fair or feasible is it? Take social security for example, would you support someone who never contributed to the social security fund benefitting from it?
M: But that is exactly how social security was set up. Folk who never paid in got it at retirement age if they happened to be that old at the time it passed.
And if a new person on the rolls dies their kids get benefits that were never paid for except by me and other Americans. A bigot, however, will see only the unfairness his bigotry will emphasize.
r: Like it or not, traditional marriage creates family structure that helps stabalizing a society so the government don't need to care for the young and the old. And traditional family keeps producing new generation of people to keep the society running. those are clear benefits to a society and that's why society in return creates those financial incentive to encourage traditional marriage. It is clear that gay marriage don't give the same benefit so why do they deserve the same financial incentive?
M: A bigots truth is always clear to him because of his bigotry. Were you not a bigot you would note that gay people do adopt children and do get old and care for each other saving society money. And we created those benefits to win the votes of families, not to help them, right? They were passed by liberals to buy votes. Surely you know that when you switch bigot hats.
r: In the US, you have to pay tax and be a citizen to enjoy some of the right. Right is not universal and given free to every single person. Again, simple logic and nothing religious about it.
M: Of course you confuse simple logic with simplistic bigoted thinking. We do not prevent gays from becoming citizens nor give them a pass on taxes so their rights are identical to every other tax paying citizen. As LR mentioned, rights are rights. And of course you don't have to pay income tax unless you earn sufficient income, but you still have all the rights.
for financial incentives given to traditional marriage, why should gay marriage take advantage of those right if they cannot provide the same benefit to the society?
M: Again, where is the evidence that every traditional marriage provides benefits to society. Many end in divorce and homeless criminal kids whereas many gay families adopt. And many many people in society resent the fact they have to pay taxes that married people don't. Why should the folk who have all the benefits of family also get financial support? This only creates an incentive for the vast majority of folk who are straight to marry to game the system. Because you are actually a bigot, you blind yourself to the obvious fact that percentage wise it is straight people who are marrying for the tax benefits. And what about the marriage penalty?
r: Of course we'd like to give everyone free money but that's not very fair or feasible is it? Take social security for example, would you support someone who never contributed to the social security fund benefitting from it?
M: But that is exactly how social security was set up. Folk who never paid in got it at retirement age if they happened to be that old at the time it passed.
And if a new person on the rolls dies their kids get benefits that were never paid for except by me and other Americans. A bigot, however, will see only the unfairness his bigotry will emphasize.
r: Like it or not, traditional marriage creates family structure that helps stabalizing a society so the government don't need to care for the young and the old. And traditional family keeps producing new generation of people to keep the society running. those are clear benefits to a society and that's why society in return creates those financial incentive to encourage traditional marriage. It is clear that gay marriage don't give the same benefit so why do they deserve the same financial incentive?
M: A bigots truth is always clear to him because of his bigotry. Were you not a bigot you would note that gay people do adopt children and do get old and care for each other saving society money. And we created those benefits to win the votes of families, not to help them, right? They were passed by liberals to buy votes. Surely you know that when you switch bigot hats.
r: In the US, you have to pay tax and be a citizen to enjoy some of the right. Right is not universal and given free to every single person. Again, simple logic and nothing religious about it.
M: Of course you confuse simple logic with simplistic bigoted thinking. We do not prevent gays from becoming citizens nor give them a pass on taxes so their rights are identical to every other tax paying citizen. As LR mentioned, rights are rights. And of course you don't have to pay income tax unless you earn sufficient income, but you still have all the rights.
cubeless
Diamond Member
- Sep 17, 2001
- 4,295
- 1
- 81
the goofy thing is that they fight for 'marriage'... it's a word... it would seem that a more reasonable strategy would be to create a new paradigm, not try to usurp the old one... get equal legal treatment under the law for the new ritual of 'agglutination' and end run the old world crowd...
if half the goal wasn't to poke a finger in the eye of those evil traditionalists, this probably wouldn't even be an issue...
if half the goal wasn't to poke a finger in the eye of those evil traditionalists, this probably wouldn't even be an issue...
It is goofy, of course, because it isn't real. Every bigot and small minded person feels that if somebody else gets something, especially somebody they don't like, it means they are somehow diminished. That is because a bigot is a bigot for the special privilege of being better than somebody else. It is why worthless self haters look for folk to put down. They self actualize their worthlessness because they feel it and the hate they feel for themselves is turned on others. Such people stick their eye in other people's fingers whenever these others attempt to exercise their rights.
It is the same delusional phenomena as uppity blacks, those nasty black people who insist on being equal. The bigot feels weak and lives in constant resentment of anybody who wishes to be strong.
Everybody deserves the same right to proclaim their love for each other before God as anybody else. But assholes will take it as a poke in the eye, a poke delivered by nothing but their own bigotry.
Patranus
Diamond Member
- Apr 15, 2007
- 9,280
- 0
- 0
Quite ironic and quite true in my opinion. To me religion is a real bridge to another, and for the most part, hidden reality over which many more cross than do who have to ford the divide on their own.
Religion, is therefore sacred, but many a fool falls in love with the bridge. Also each bridge was for a time and a place and a people created by somebody who had crossed the divide. It is that living guide that is most valuable, somebody alive who can see you for where you are and advise you as to where you are blind. When the guide dies the bridge looses its light and starts to become a mechanical dead thing. The wisdom is still there but things change and so does applicability.
JEDIYoda
Lifer
- Jul 13, 2005
- 33,986
- 3,321
- 126
Are you presuming that since way before jesus was born there was "traditional" marriage that there perhaps was no "gay" marriage.....
A little know fact is that during early Rome 27(BCE), the first recorded same sex marriage occurred. Gay marriage was prevalent and fully legal up until year 342 when a bunch of people known as Christians came along and redefined marriage and made same sex marriage illegal. Add 50 more years and homosexuality altogether became illegal and was then punishable by death.
JEDIYoda
Lifer
- Jul 13, 2005
- 33,986
- 3,321
- 126
No they are not bigoted towards all religions!
They are just bigoted towards your form or brand of what you call "Christianity".
Why might that be pray tell.....
Lets take a look at your brand of Christianity....
Why are there so many different denominations??
Assembly of God....Baptists...Methodists.....Episcopal...Catholic.....
Then interwoven in lets take Baptists...you have over 300 different Baptists denominations within the word baptist itself.......
If God is Love and God sent his son for the WHOLE world why can`t you all agree on anything?
Instead when you get in an argument you all iether split the church or you start a new denomination.......
Very interesting in fact you all can`t even agree on whether gay marriage is right or wrong...hmmmm
Actually, it is a apt comparison. Anti-smoking and anti-trans fat Nanny Staters are forcing their own morality on others. If I own a restaurant or bar, I'm not going to force anyone to come in and endure the atmosphere or trans fat saturated food. People can come in under their own free will. The same goes with any employees. They don't have to accept employment in my establishment.
The same goes for cannabis. As long as children are not exposed it, then I have no problem with it.
Really? How is any law different. Aren't you forcing your morality on me whey you make theft illegal. Why shouldn't I have the right to take what I am strong enough to hold. Why should weak moralists like you form a sniveling pack and hire police to protect you? What gives you any right to what I can take? Your whole capitalist system is based on a capitalist view of morality. You want to bring pig fat to my table and kill my people, fuck you, I will just kill you before you can do any harm. You're just luck if smarter people than you make the law.
Oh that's nice, putting down those with different view from you with name calling eh? Why, afraid that you cannot win a civil debate if you were on an even playground?
I won't stoop to your level and instead I will give you some factual number. In the US, 3 per 100 children born were adopted, I would venture to guess those adopted by gay couple is much less than that figure. And I don't care how you criticize the traditional marriage, I would bet that more than 90% of people posting on this board was born from a traditional marriage. So before you attack traditional marriage to justify your view, think about where you would have been if traditional marraige didn't exist.
I am more than willing to accept your view if you can give me factual figures on how gay marriage contribute to society the same way traditional marriages do. Let's say show me equal or higher percent of gay couples adopt children compare to traditional couples given birth. Show me equal or higher percent gay couples stay together for the long haul compare to traditional traditional couples do and I will agree they deserve the same privilage society gives to traditional couples for taking the responsibility to care for the next generation and the spouse.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 392
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter