Gay marriage and you (religious zealots)

[BriGy86]

Audiophile1980 made a DAMN good point

from what i know gays don't want marrage because of the religious things, they want it because of the legal reasons (like what was stated) tax breaks, the lawyer issue, inheriting things and so on which i completely understand.

if bible thumpers don't like gay marrage look away, and don't marry a gay person

if you think that some one is going to hell because there gay shut the hell up and leave them be, i don't see why people make other peoples business there problems

 

[Ilmater]

Can I just ask why all of a sudden EVERYONE wants to talk about gay marriage? What happened that made it such an important issue all of a sudden? There are about 5 threads on this in P&N right now, and there was another one like this in OT yesterday. WTF? Nothing changed in the past few days. I know the election came and went, but Bush being around for 4 more years has FAR more important ramifications to other areas of our lives (sorry out there to the gays that think I'm wrong). Yeah, I know there are new amendments in a bunch of states banning it, but you're a fool if you didn't know THOSE were getting passed.

 

[spunkz]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: spunkz

oh im sorry, i guess i just avoided public school where they drill into your heads that there is a wall, and that the church and state should have absolutely nothing to do with each other. instead, i researched it myself and saw that there are only two sections of the constitution that mention religion, specifically those you have listed. this "wall" is mentioned solely in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to a friend. the left have twisted this to mean we can't pray in schools, we can't bring a bible to class, judges can't hold their own religious beliefs, and all mention of God should be removed from historic documents. i'm surprised that revisionists have not removed the words God and Creator from the Declaration of Independence yet.

in any case, the separation simply maintains that the government can not require anyone to do anything with respect to religion. it does not mean that politicians can not make decisions based on biblical principles(what a travesty!), or bring a bible to a congressional prayer breakfast, or lead based on their beliefs. i don't need someone to google me a tripod member's page that interprets the constitution.
thanks anyway

you know what jefferson had to say about the bible? that it was written by "ignorant unlettered men", franklin/washington etc were also diests. thomas payne etc would be disgusted at the fundamentalists of today. as for the prayer in school. you can pray any time you want. its still legal. you just can't lead the class in prayer in government funded school. its pretty simple, the government does not endorse religion. and the judges? the judges are hired and payed to carry out the law. not judge people through their religious views. its pretty straight forward, we dont have priests and mullahs handing down punishments in a nation the values freedom fairness and reason.

and yes it is a travesty when a politician uses government power to impose his religious views upon all. its sad that people like you wish we'd become more like iran.

yes i do know what jefferson had to say about the bible, and that was that the morality of jesus was clearly superior to all other ancient philosophers. my whole point was that people take this "wall of separation" way too far. notice i didn't say politicians can impose their religion on you, just that they should be allowed to hold whatever beliefs they want. you can do whatever the hell you want in private. but regardless of what you think, there are some things that are right and wrong. i think you would agree that the conservatives are not the ones pushing for adding homosexuality to the list of hate crimes and discrimination types, although they should be. so now those on the left are the ones pushing their beliefs on others? no! discrimination is wrong, and that's the truth, so we make a law about it.

you can still be a bigot in your own home, though. nobody stops you there, that's where the line is drawn. there are no thought police, there are no cameras in your home, but if you are hurting yourself or someone else (abuse, abortion, libel, drugs), then the government has the power to come to your home and put you in jail. you MUST be intolerant of certain things. this is what our country is about. our founding fathers acknowledged that morality is necessary for the happiness of all and the continuing prosperity of this country. beyond issues that deal with hurting others, i don't think the federal government should have any hand in it. i believe further issues such as display of pornography and sale of drugs and alcohol should be dealt with on the local level, so that when your city goes to sh!t you can see the truth of biblical morality.

the only reason our country is not like iran is because a group of patriots figured out that some things are right and wrong and that things like religious persecution and taxation without representation are wrong.

 

[Audiophile1980]

Originally posted by: Ilmater
Can I just ask why all of a sudden EVERYONE wants to talk about gay marriage? What happened that made it such an important issue all of a sudden? There are about 5 threads on this in P&N right now, and there was another one like this in OT yesterday. WTF? Nothing changed in the past few days. I know the election came and went, but Bush being around for 4 more years has FAR more important ramifications to other areas of our lives (sorry out there to the gays that think I'm wrong). Yeah, I know there are new amendments in a bunch of states banning it, but you're a fool if you didn't know THOSE were getting passed.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2...11/05/jesus_blog_dems/

 

[Ilmater]

Originally posted by: Audiophile1980

Originally posted by: Ilmater
Can I just ask why all of a sudden EVERYONE wants to talk about gay marriage? What happened that made it such an important issue all of a sudden? There are about 5 threads on this in P&N right now, and there was another one like this in OT yesterday. WTF? Nothing changed in the past few days. I know the election came and went, but Bush being around for 4 more years has FAR more important ramifications to other areas of our lives (sorry out there to the gays that think I'm wrong). Yeah, I know there are new amendments in a bunch of states banning it, but you're a fool if you didn't know THOSE were getting passed.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2...11/05/jesus_blog_dems/

WTF does that have to do with gay marriage?

 

[Audiophile1980]

Originally posted by: Ilmater

Originally posted by: Audiophile1980

Originally posted by: Ilmater
Can I just ask why all of a sudden EVERYONE wants to talk about gay marriage? What happened that made it such an important issue all of a sudden? There are about 5 threads on this in P&N right now, and there was another one like this in OT yesterday. WTF? Nothing changed in the past few days. I know the election came and went, but Bush being around for 4 more years has FAR more important ramifications to other areas of our lives (sorry out there to the gays that think I'm wrong). Yeah, I know there are new amendments in a bunch of states banning it, but you're a fool if you didn't know THOSE were getting passed.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2...11/05/jesus_blog_dems/

WTF does that have to do with gay marriage?

"Even if Jesus set up a blogging cafe in the center of Rockport, Texas and extolled the virtues of a woman's right to choose while snapping pictures of gay weddings with his Nokia, it would have made no difference to this election. All of the bloggers would have told themselves about the miracle, while Bobby and Bobby Sue went right along with their business."

Read that. It's discussing the corrolation for very low internet penetration to high bush voting and very high internet penetration to high Kerry voting. It's also talking about online opinions not reaching that certain stereotype. (and a lot of other information) It's talking about isolation and ignorance and BLIND faith leading their voting choices:

"Most of the evangelicals in Alabama certainly weren't reading georgeisthebest.typepad.com to summon up their inspiration to vote. No, they had a fearless leader screaming at them about fear and impending doom"

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Audiophile1980

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: phantom309
In the 3,284 threads about this subject I haven't heard a single valid rational argument against gay marriage.

obviously you haven't read carefully. i've posted a rational argument against gay marriage.

Oh yeah? I guess we all must have missed it. What was it again?

increased fraud

 

[Audiophile1980]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Audiophile1980

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: phantom309
In the 3,284 threads about this subject I haven't heard a single valid rational argument against gay marriage.

obviously you haven't read carefully. i've posted a rational argument against gay marriage.

Oh yeah? I guess we all must have missed it. What was it again?

increased fraud

Okay...maybe it didn't have enough information to be viewed as a point...and still doesn't.
Care to elaborate?

 

[Toastedlightly]

ALright. This is retarded. Lock, please. And keep P&N in P&N.

 

[agentjfong]

Originally posted by: Fausto

Originally posted by: Brutuskend
Because when would it end.


"Me and my sheep wanna git hiched"

Wrong.

Separate issue. Sheep not sentient. Slippery slope.

Heck, forget sheep, why don't we allow marriage between three people at once? If they all "love" each other....

What's your definition of marriage? What standards are there? When would it end?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: agentjfong

Originally posted by: Fausto

Originally posted by: Brutuskend
Because when would it end.


"Me and my sheep wanna git hiched"

Wrong.

Separate issue. Sheep not sentient. Slippery slope.

Heck, forget sheep, why don't we allow marriage between three people at once? If they all "love" each other....

What's your definition of marriage? What standards are there? When would it end?

Typical sexually repressed dork, always worrying about others sexuality.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: FoBoT
so many straight people live together without getting married these days, what difference does it make?

why do any non-religious people get married? is there a reason to get married if you don't think it is a sin to live together without marriage?

My wife pressured me into it.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: stnicralisk
Scientists agree that a homosexual has some differences in the way their brain works. They are born that way.

Think of it this way - most homosexuals try to hide their difference for many years. This is because of the great amount of persecution they face by being openly homosexual. Is it not reasonable to assume that this many people wouldnt enjoy being rejected by society and therefor be turned away from this "choice." How can you say that it is a choice if you are not gay...

ask yourself this - have you ever found an individual of the same sex attractive.. if it is a "choice" it would be reasonable to say that you had but chose not to persue that relationship. I think you will find it difficult to say that you have found a member of the same sex attractive because you were born straight. You have made choices not to persue relationships with women who you found attractive but I doubt you can say the same for a man.

My arguement is this:

If sexuality is a choice then straight people have to make a choice to be straight
I am straight
I never had a choice
therefor it follows that it is reasonable to assume that being homosexual is not a choice either.

Lets ask someone who is homosexual if it was a choice.. I dont think youre going to find a single one that will say it was a choice they made. I dont think it is reasonable to say they are all liars do you?

Let's be truthful here. Scientists don't really know this for sure. It is a theory that some scientists agree with.

It may very well be that social conditioning is what makes us straight or homosexual.

 

[Riceball]

Originally posted by: Ilmater
Can I just ask why all of a sudden EVERYONE wants to talk about gay marriage? What happened that made it such an important issue all of a sudden? There are about 5 threads on this in P&N right now, and there was another one like this in OT yesterday. WTF? Nothing changed in the past few days. I know the election came and went, but Bush being around for 4 more years has FAR more important ramifications to other areas of our lives (sorry out there to the gays that think I'm wrong). Yeah, I know there are new amendments in a bunch of states banning it, but you're a fool if you didn't know THOSE were getting passed.

When voters were polled during the election the #2 issue after security/terriosts were morals, I interpret that to mean civil unions make people feel "icky" hence the incumbent won. Now people are asking whats the big deal about gay marriage/unions.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Audiophile1980

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Audiophile1980

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: phantom309
In the 3,284 threads about this subject I haven't heard a single valid rational argument against gay marriage.

obviously you haven't read carefully. i've posted a rational argument against gay marriage.

Oh yeah? I guess we all must have missed it. What was it again?

increased fraud

Okay...maybe it didn't have enough information to be viewed as a point...and still doesn't.
Care to elaborate?

i'm not here to think for you.

 

[Audiophile1980]

Right....so you have no point then because that makes no sense.
Female+female marriage is no more suseptable to fraud than female+male marriage.
You can lie your way into either just as easily.

While it's true that allowing gays to marry would present that population with the opportunity for fraud, it could have also been argued that allowing women to vote would increase the probably for voter fraud by 50%. It doesn't matter.

 

[Brutuskend]

BTW: I don't think you ever answered my question. Have you ever hit on a straight male KNOWING he was straight?

Do you think that's OK to do?

 

[Audiophile1980]

No, no.

 

[Brutuskend]

Good for you!

Here's another.

Firstly, how old are you? And what age limit would you put on a potential lover? Or I should say. what's the youngest? Or biggest age difference?

 

[Audiophile1980]

You're probably going to get a wide variety of responses to that question just as you would if you asked a few straight people. My one data point wouldn't be relevant to anything. It's certainly not relevant to gay marriage anyway.

The Youngest would be 19. It would have to be someone I could go out with and drink with. The oldest, I have no idea. I've never been with anyone older than myself. I'd have to meet someone older to tell you.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Audiophile1980

While it's true that allowing gays to marry would present that population with the opportunity for fraud, it could have also been argued that allowing women to vote would increase the probably for voter fraud by 50%. It doesn't matter.

great strawman, for you.

 

[Brutuskend]

Originally posted by: Audiophile1980
You're probably going to get a wide variety of responses to that question just as you would if you asked a few straight people. My one data point wouldn't be relevant to anything. It's certainly not relevant to gay marriage anyway.

The Youngest would be 19. It would have to be someone I could go out with and drink with. The oldest, I have no idea. I've never been with anyone older than myself. I'd have to meet someone older to tell you.

I think it is, or can be at any rate.
I think there are two main causes of homosexuality. Biological and psychological. Some people are born that way. And some people are MADE that way. This can happen for any number of reasons, an excessively over bearing mother perhaps, being molested by a older homosexual at a early age before they have a chance to really KNOW their own sexuality which lends a air of "normalcy" to the whole thing, having a BAD initial experience with a member of the opposite sex and this list goes on. But what I'd like to focus on is the "air of normalcy" aspect.

People tend to do what is normal for them. This is how dysfunctional families propagate. If you were raised a certain way, you will tend to raise YOUR kids that way. It doesn't mean it's the right way, it just means it's the only way you know how! And as we all know, the world is FULL of dysfunctional families. Now suppose your uncle or neighbor or cousin or gym teacher or ANYONE molesters you at a young age. In many cases this kind of treatment will seem normal to you because you don't know any better at that age. Then when you grow up, you do to others what was done to you! NAMBA is a good example of this at work IMO. There is a reason they put age limits on certain behaviors in this society. You have to be 21 to drink, you have to be 18 to have consensual sex (in a lot of places) you have to be 16 to drive etc. They do this because they figure in most cases a person is not mature enough to make appropriate choices about some things until they reach a certain age.

I think people are aware that homosexuality is never going to go away. But that doesn't mean they want to legitimize by making same sex marriages legal and thereby making it normal or acceptable behavior. For the people that were born that way and really don't have any choice in their sexual preference, this is too bad. But for the others, NAMBA members and the other sexual predators out there, I for one do NOT want their behavior to seem NORMAL to anyone, and I think the majority of the voters felt that same way.

 

[Audiophile1980]

I for one do NOT want their behavior to seem NORMAL to anyone, and I think the majority of the voters felt that same way.

Yet you don't seem to grasp that what YOU want or even what the majority of voters (in those 11 bible belt states) want can manifest itself in the restriction or right/unequal rights for another group of people. No biggotry in law.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Audiophile1980

I for one do NOT want their behavior to seem NORMAL to anyone, and I think the majority of the voters felt that same way.

Yet you don't seem to grasp that what YOU want or even what the majority of voters (in those 11 bible belt states) want can manifest itself in the restriction or right/unequal rights for another group of people. No biggotry in law.

We'll have to let the courts (and NOT your opinon) decide that.

Here's what will happen - state supreme courts say "no, the law is uncontituional" by some sort of vote.

Next election year guess what? The people that voted to over turn the ammendment won't get re-elected and we'll elect judges who WILL uphold it. Heck, I'm sure that would be part of their campaign.

Either way, it really is the peoples decision.

 

[Brutuskend]

Originally posted by: Audiophile1980

I for one do NOT want their behavior to seem NORMAL to anyone, and I think the majority of the voters felt that same way.

Yet you don't seem to grasp that what YOU want or even what the majority of voters (in those 11 bible belt states) want can manifest itself in the restriction or right/unequal rights for another group of people. No biggotry in law.

Like you pointed out earlier, laws are made to protect people. If banning same sex marriages protects even one victim of one sexual predator out there it's a DAMN good law as far as I'm concerned.