I support discriminating against homosexualsex

[PlatinumGold]

how is an amendment making communal-property contracts a matter of states-rights not a compromise that tries not to force my 'religious belief' on others.

WTF are you talking about?? "How is an amendment making communal-property contracts a matter of states-rights" i got this part "not a compromise that tries to force my 'religious belief' on others" i will confess to not understanding what your point is here.

the only amendment that i know of is the one where bush proposes to ban Homosexual marriages. are we talking about a ficticious amendment here?

President Bush endorsed a constitutional amendment Tuesday that would restrict marriage to two people of the opposite sex but leave open the possibility that states could allow civil unions.

from cnn.

 

[Moonbeam]

LMK: marriage in the eyes of the law isn't a right;

M: That's why marriage laws must be Constitutional and why Bush seeks a Constitutional amendment because he knows that anti gay marriage laws will be ruled unconstitutional because they are objectively unconstitutional. It is this attempt to create bigoted law that is at issue.

LMK: i don't blame homosexuals for STDs, i blame humanity for being morally-bankrupt

M: Blame whomever and whatever you like. But your definition of morally bankrupt is bigoted and that itself is moral bankruptcy. Bigots are dangerous because they are willing to act out their delusional beliefs. You cannot argue morality without being able to define it rationally and without preconceived emotional bias. You allow your prejudice to color what you see. I am relying only on the hope and belief that laws against gay marriage will be judged unconstitutional by the Court because they are clearly discriminatory in the context of the Constitution.

LMK responding to, "STD's are rampent in the teenage hetrosexual population":
sounds like more of a reason to discourage disregard for sexual morality; instead of giving it a governmental stamp-of-approval.
M: The government does not issue stamps of approval, it was instituted among men to secure our inalienable rights, the ones gays have to marry. The Constitution secures our freedoms against the tyranny of the majority since they are so often seized with irrational passion. You have this insane notion that because you hold a popular bigoted opinion you can force it down the throats of others. Your understanding of American government is completely up side down. Government is designed to protect us from fools like you. But it also protects you from others taking care of you personally or en mass.

LMK: I'm against a government stamp-of-approval on smoking as well.

M: Again, the government doesn't approve it protects. That way you remain free from laws passed by smokers that mandate you must smoke. If an amendment is passed to the Constitution that says you must smoke then your inclinations will land you in jail. Remember, you will have had a choice to smoke, but you refused.

LMK: and encouraging disregard for the traditional sexual morality that says that cheating is also not to be condoned will help this situation how?

M: What you call encouraging disregard is actually protecting freedoms. What you fear is being disregarded is your bigotry. You see a world slipping out of the grasp of bigots. Morality does not come from law. There will be the same presumed opprobrium of gays who cheat in marriage, no? It's part of a vow not to do that. The vow is only worth the quality of soul it's printed on. The moral belief in faithfulness has nothing to go with gender or orientation. It has to do with the sincerity of love.

LMK: Further decay, and hopefully fix existing laws that allow for no-fault divorce.

M: The decay has nothing to do with gays. You wish to impose a traditional morality full of bigotry on a changing population. Progress is forward not back. There is nothing moral about bigotry toward gays. In this you are on the side of moral decay. The problems our society faces and the decline of civil and ethical standards have nothing to do with gender orientation. They are socially systemic and relate to the mass accumulation of self hate more than to sex.

LMK: it's respectfully to have the government, of by and for the people, say to the people they are mistaken when it comes to what is and isn't good for society? When the law is made by the vast minority it's not called respect, it's called tyranny.

M: The tyranny the constitution imposes over the tyranny of the majority, yes. Your Tyranny is the Constitution.

LMK: your definition 'average intelligent person' impossible to fill. But here are what some progressive views are:
Adultery: monogomy is an out-dated institution, it's better not to be so 'restrictive' twards eachother in marriage- 20-20
sodomy: it's better we not over-populate the earth anyway-GLAD
pedophiliap: man-boy love is no more wrong than man man love-Harry Hay *founding member of ILAG, the group baney frank is a member of*
bestiality: aslong as no animal is harmed it seems that it's good to allow love between man and animal-PETA presedent

(And so on and on)

M: Why not include tax fraud, theft, speeding and all the other completely irrelevant vices, social ill, and evils to your list. They equally have nothing to do with the issue.

The issue is whether or not gay people who are in love have the same right as straight people who are in love to marry. It's only bigotry that prevents people from seeing that all people should be equal under the law. The problem is that the law will say so too. It has to if people are really free and equal.

Truth will out as it outs the bigot.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

if you believe it is important for people to be accountable, then you would allow for MORE freedom not less, only someone that believes people CAN'T be held accountable desires to restrict freedom.

Savor this one. It's an example of the kind of deep truth too many people just completely pass over and if appreciated would change the world.

in my opinion, this was the message of Jesus.

however, i'm not sure that most christians understand it. christianity like most religions has gotten so caught up in its traditions, sacraments, holy text etc, that it has forgotten the living message that was jesus christ.

It's an imposition on freedom to force the majority to recognize as a right what the vast minority says to.

To add wo what has been said. I don't want to impose anything. It's you, I think, who want to impose a constitutional ammendment. I give a fig what you recognize or don't recognize as long as gay marriage is recognized by the law. Bigots like you usually don't change, they just die off as the culture evolves. What you call loss is other people finally comming into their own as happened with women and blacks, etc. The bigots thought it was the end of the world. But things are now much better. Still lots of problems, but much better. The good thing about bigotry is that when it dies it leaves the world a better place.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

if you believe it is important for people to be accountable, then you would allow for MORE freedom not less, only someone that believes people CAN'T be held accountable desires to restrict freedom.

Savor this one. It's an example of the kind of deep truth too many people just completely pass over and if appreciated would change the world.

in my opinion, this was the message of Jesus.

however, i'm not sure that most christians understand it. christianity like most religions has gotten so caught up in its traditions, sacraments, holy text etc, that it has forgotten the living message that was jesus christ.

It's an imposition on freedom to force the majority to recognize as a right what the vast minority says to.

To add wo what has been said. I don't want to impose anything. It's you, I think, who want to impose a constitutional ammendment. I give a fig what you recognize or don't recognize as long as gay marriage is recognized by the law. Bigots like you usually don't change, they just die off as the culture evolves. What you call loss is other people finally comming into their own as happened with women and blacks, etc. The bigots thought it was the end of the world. But things are now much better. Still lots of problems, but much better. The good thing about bigotry is that when it dies it leaves the world a better place.

so i was right, we WERE discussing bush's desire to amend the constitution to ban gay marriages.

WTF was he talking about with state rights and all the bs. is he just trying to confuse the issue because he has no valid arguments?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

if you believe it is important for people to be accountable, then you would allow for MORE freedom not less, only someone that believes people CAN'T be held accountable desires to restrict freedom.

Savor this one. It's an example of the kind of deep truth too many people just completely pass over and if appreciated would change the world.

in my opinion, this was the message of Jesus.

however, i'm not sure that most christians understand it. christianity like most religions has gotten so caught up in its traditions, sacraments, holy text etc, that it has forgotten the living message that was jesus christ.

It's an imposition on freedom to force the majority to recognize as a right what the vast minority says to.

To add wo what has been said. I don't want to impose anything. It's you, I think, who want to impose a constitutional ammendment. I give a fig what you recognize or don't recognize as long as gay marriage is recognized by the law. Bigots like you usually don't change, they just die off as the culture evolves. What you call loss is other people finally comming into their own as happened with women and blacks, etc. The bigots thought it was the end of the world. But things are now much better. Still lots of problems, but much better. The good thing about bigotry is that when it dies it leaves the world a better place.

so i was right, we WERE discussing bush's desire to amend the constitution to ban gay marriages.

WTF was he talking about with state rights and all the bs. is he just trying to confuse the issue because he has no valid arguments?

I don't know what he is talking about other than to try to sell bigotry under a pretty dress, but that's what I've been talking about. It's the topical issue we face.

 

[YellowRose]

Marriage is a RIGHT. Its been declaredso by our own Supreme Court and even the UN just to name 2 government org's.

This debat is really not worh the effort as some peole are so closed minded they refuse to entertain any position different then theirs.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: YellowRose
Marriage is a RIGHT. Its been declaredso by our own Supreme Court and even the UN just to name 2 government org's.

This debat is really not worh the effort as some peole are so closed minded they refuse to entertain any position different then theirs.

Ayup...just look at Loving v. Virginia:

The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

if you believe it is important for people to be accountable, then you would allow for MORE freedom not less, only someone that believes people CAN'T be held accountable desires to restrict freedom.

Savor this one. It's an example of the kind of deep truth too many people just completely pass over and if appreciated would change the world.

in my opinion, this was the message of Jesus.

however, i'm not sure that most christians understand it. christianity like most religions has gotten so caught up in its traditions, sacraments, holy text etc, that it has forgotten the living message that was jesus christ.

Glad some realize it. :beer:

 

[happyhelper]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: BugsBunny1078
Romans 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

Is there a translator that can make some sense of this insane drivel?

Hi,

I can explain this to you. Since time began, the number of men who are physically, sexually attracted to women has outnumbered the number of men who are physically, sexually attracted to men. Thus, there were a majority of men attracted to women, and using typical "mob rule" mentality, instead of allowing every man to be himself and think for himself, human society has done what it has done in every case where there is a majority with one view attempting to make everyone who didn't hold that view conform and adopt that view. The homophobia seen today is nothing new, it's existed for entire duration of humankind til the present day.

The bible is written by men, and is written in the tone of the majority view regarding homosexuality. Imagine a homophobe today, like LMK, writing what he believes is God's word... he will remark about homosexuality using words like "vile" and "unnatural" and "unseemly" and "inconvenient" although to a minority of men it is not vile, or unnatural, or any other negative words a homophobe might use to describe homosexual acts. The Apostle Paul, who wrote the letters to the Romans, believed himself to be conveying the will and word of God, but he was as deluded as all Christians today, and was only projecting his own, biased, and obviously hurtful (that is a nice way of saying evil) views. I hope that explains it.

 

[happyhelper]

Hi you hypocrite lying scum

Is it not a sin against your pretend God to lie? Is it not hypocritical to advocate your religion's hateful and outdated teachings and not practice them yourself?

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

you wouldn't have problems with STDs or out-of-marriage children if extra-marital sex wasn't a problem.

your welcome to propose more libertine 'solutions' to the problem, but even condoms are properly used 5% couples will have children within a year; When used as normally by humans 15%;

This shows that the only 'safe' sex is monogamous sex.

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/bc/condom.htm

OK, scumbag bigot who lies to support his argument:

You made a dishonest claim that 5% of women who use rubbers will get pregnant within a year even if they do it properly and you even cited a reference for this false claim, but I guess you thought no one was going to check your reference? From that page you listed:
"[rubber] Effectiveness:
Of 100 women whose partners use condoms, about 15 will become pregnant during the first year of typical use.* Only two women will become pregnant with perfect use."

Since when is 2 out of 100 equal to 5%? You claim that 250% more women become pregnant while using rubbers correctly than your reference claims. That's a huge exaggeration and falsehood (lie). Are you as mathematically inept as you are logically inept or are you lying? You suck.

 

[happyhelper]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

if you believe it is important for people to be accountable, then you would allow for MORE freedom not less, only someone that believes people CAN'T be held accountable desires to restrict freedom.

Savor this one. It's an example of the kind of deep truth too many people just completely pass over and if appreciated would change the world.

in my opinion, this was the message of Jesus.

however, i'm not sure that most christians understand it. christianity like most religions has gotten so caught up in its traditions, sacraments, holy text etc, that it has forgotten the living message that was jesus christ.

Funny I thought it was the message of the Grateful Dead. Regardless, Jesus had no original message, and the Grateful Dead probably didn't either. He only did what any philosopher or artist does, study the philosophies (or ideas) that exist, and run them through that mysterious organic thing in his head called his brain, and then express himself in his own unique way. Some people's self-expression appeals to no one, some people's self-expression appeals to a few people they know, and some people's self-expression appeals to a lot of people. I'm not alone liking the way Johnny Cash, Rush, the Grateful Dead, John Lennon, Martin Luther King or Albert Einstein expressed themselves, whereas I am, at this point, not nearly as effective at expressing what I know and love and care about to large amounts of people.

Music companies today know that there is money to be made by using tried and true business/marketing principles to make huge sums of cash off of musicians that they can create an appeal for - to sell music to the kids. Similar people 2,000 years ago knew how to make huge sums of cash off of magicians and mystics and story-tellers of all types... and that's what they did with Jesus. He was a 'sell-out" in the same fashion as Britney Spears or the majority of pop-rock bands. He didn't have a new message, he just had a new way of telling people what they wanted to "hear", and was aided by those who were well-learned in knowing what the people wanted to "hear". After his death, those well-learned people inherited his unique self-expression and tweaked it and honed it down for 2,000+ years to keep pumping money from it. It's really all so simple, if you think about it.

 

[happyhelper]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

It's an imposition on freedom to force the majority to recognize as a right what the vast minority says to.

OXYMORON ALERT

 

[Nitemare]

Do you really want the federal government dictating what you can and can't do in the privacy of your own home?

You might be on the other side of the fence now, but what happens the next time.

 

[imported_Papi]

well i for one am down with the whole chick on chick thing...

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: yayo
well i for one am down with the whole chick on chick thing...

:beer:

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

It's an imposition on freedom to force the majority to recognize as a right what the vast minority says to.

So there are gay men are going down the street forcing straight men to marry them?

 

[happyhelper]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

I don't even know my religious beliefs would be against such a thing, but i do know that i don't want the government to put it's stamp-of-approval on what is UN-ethical.

i have not, and will not make a religious argument on this, and ware you get that idea is beyond me, because it' didn't come from me.

Hi,
LMAO at that statement. How could you make it any more of a religious argument?

You keep squirming around. You claim that "homosexual sex" is "UN-ethical" and thus fair game for "discriminating against."

I asked you soon after this thread by what standard you base your claim of "homosexual sex is unethical'. Your irrational basis for that claim was "tradition." I proved to you that "traditional" does not necessarily equal "ethical" by giving endless examples of UN-ethical traditions that have come and gone (and some that still remain). It's not ethical to be racist, although it is very traditional to be racist. You twisted my words and put words in my mouth to the effect that "traditional equals unethical" which I showed you to be incorrect (lying) about. Now, you have continued to use incorrect data and in some cases purposeful lies to "argue" with lots of other people, but you have never explained what you base your opinions of ethics on. I have shown that to base your ethics on tradition is logically flawed. You must find something else to base your ethical pronouncements on, and if you can't do that then your ethical pronouncements are completely arbitrary and meaningless (to anyone but you). The fact is quite simple, you base your ethics on your religion - but now you try to say you will not make this into a religious argument. He got the idea from you, because you said all these sexual variations are unethical, completely inline with Classic Christian morality, without giving any reason besides Christian tradition for saying those sexual variations are unethical. So why don't you tell us exactly what makes them unethical.

 

[IndieSnob]

After reading this, and many other threads about gay rights/marriages/rights to sex etc, I think I'd like to just add my two cents.

EVERYONE has a right to their opinion, right or wrong, but to legislate based on one religions views because their 'god' says it's wrong is absoulutely unacceptable. Now before you get into the whole 'well then you'll allow murder, adultery, pedophilia' etc without god's laws, people don't need to beleive in a good to know those things are wrong, and to think without the ten commandents or any of god's other 'words' that we wouldn't have a civil society is wrong, imo, because anyone with half a brain knows true right and wrongs, and there will always be the people that break those morales.

I consider myself a christian, but I don't beleive in this vengeful god that I see alot of other christians beleive in. I'm not trying to 'pick and choose' things to go by and not go by according to the bible, mostly because I don't really consider the bible an absolute way of being a good person, christian, etc. It seems throughout time certian sects of christianity (or any other religion for that matter) change their views on something, and now this is 'ok, but this isn't 'ok'. I don't understand the whole we go buy the bible on this, but don't go by the bible on the other. Most of my friends are atheist or agnostic, and are absolutely great people. They have true morales, go out of their way to help people, etc. They also respect my views, and let me talk about them because I don't try to push my morales on them, because that isn't right my right as a human. I respect them for who they are, and if they make mistakes, I am not there to judge them, but instead to lend a helping hand. In my family I've seen too much of the hardline christian thinking, so much that I was having a discussion with a family member after the death of my father, wondering if my beleifs were real, was he in heaven, and this person said 'well I don't think your (insert relatives name here) mother didn't get into heaven, she never really talked about christ nor went to church'. Now this person whom she was talking about (my great grandmother) was one of the most caring persons ever. During the depression she fed about 75% of the native american tribes in their area, helped people with house payments and many other things, and she was also a christian, but knew that her ACTIONS would speak louder than her WORDS. To me, that is the truth to how one chooses to do the right thing, not sitting and pushing your views to the world at large on the internet, but instead being out there and doing things, whether it's for christians or non christians.

I know I've ventured quite abit off the exact topic, but I could no longer keep my mouth shut.

 

[Genesys]

Originally posted by: rbloedow


"some don't think so, but it's my view that pre-marital sex is why we have such high levels of STDs and teen pregnancy."

Lack of evidence for this statement, more of a groundless opinion.

you need a study to prove that this is true?! how fvcking naiive are you?

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

OK Jesus Boy, please explain how those of use who don't feel the government has the right to oversee peoples sexual practices are Morally bankrupt?

while im not 'Jesus Boy', i thought i'd go ahead and respond. Those of us who oppose homosexual marriage dont want to regulate their sexual practices, we feel that they can live their lived in any manner they choose to. I dont care if 2 guys are pushing stoole in the privacy of their own house, its their right. What I do care about is the government changing the traditional definition of marriage to reward deviant behavior. You must keep in mind that marriage is a privilege, not a right.

 

[alocurto]

Oh boy

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: Genesys

Originally posted by: rbloedow


"some don't think so, but it's my view that pre-marital sex is why we have such high levels of STDs and teen pregnancy."

Lack of evidence for this statement, more of a groundless opinion.

you need a study to prove that this is true?! how fvcking naiive are you?

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

OK Jesus Boy, please explain how those of use who don't feel the government has the right to oversee peoples sexual practices are Morally bankrupt?

while im not 'Jesus Boy', i thought i'd go ahead and respond. Those of us who oppose homosexual marriage dont want to regulate their sexual practices, we feel that they can live their lived in any manner they choose to. I dont care if 2 guys are pushing stoole in the privacy of their own house, its their right. What I do care about is the government changing the traditional definition of marriage to reward deviant behavior. You must keep in mind that marriage is a privilege, not a right.

who says marriage is a privilege? You??

marriage is a right, part of the "in pursuit of happiness".

go back thru the thread, i believe there were even some links.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Originally posted by: happy helper
Hi you hypocrite lying scum

Is it not a sin against your pretend God to lie? Is it not hypocritical to advocate your religion's hateful and outdated teachings and not practice them yourself?

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

you wouldn't have problems with STDs or out-of-marriage children if extra-marital sex wasn't a problem.

your welcome to propose more libertine 'solutions' to the problem, but even condoms are properly used 5% couples will have children within a year; When used as normally by humans 15%;

This shows that the only 'safe' sex is monogamous sex.

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/bc/condom.htm

OK, scumbag bigot who lies to support his argument:

You made a dishonest claim that 5% of women who use rubbers will get pregnant within a year even if they do it properly and you even cited a reference for this false claim, but I guess you thought no one was going to check your reference? From that page you listed:
"[rubber] Effectiveness:
Of 100 women whose partners use condoms, about 15 will become pregnant during the first year of typical use.* Only two women will become pregnant with perfect use."

Since when is 2 out of 100 equal to 5%? You claim that 250% more women become pregnant while using rubbers correctly than your reference claims. That's a huge exaggeration and falsehood (lie). Are you as mathematically inept as you are logically inept or are you lying? You suck.

wow you get UPSET when someone informs you of the truth.

1 in 50 will get pregnant if they use a condom 100% properly every time; but 1 in 6& 2/3 will get pregnant with typical use.

the typical use is MUCH MUCH higher than the 'proper' use; and you know this and know why as I'm sure you have knowledge of such things;

1 in 20 is actually a very very low percentage in comparison to the truth of use of condoms.

probably for the median woman 1 out of every ~ 7 will get pregnant after a year's worth of condoms.


your personal attacks show the spirit from which you receive the data that disturbs how you want to view the world. Look for truth brother, don't deceive yourself.

This is out off of planed-parenthoods own data, hardly a conservatively bias source.

EVERYONE has a right to their opinion, right or wrong, but to legislate based on one religions views because their 'god' says it's wrong is absolutely unacceptable.

And if opinion is formed based on said view of God?

Now before you get into the whole 'well then you'll allow murder, adultery, pedophilia' etc without god's laws, people don't need to believe in a good to know those things are wrong, and to think without the ten commandants or any of god's other 'words' that we wouldn't have a civil society is wrong, imo, because anyone with half a brain knows true right and wrongs, and there will always be the people that break those morales.

Some, some not. Look at this thread, a good number don't even think age should be a factor in marriage.

I consider myself a Christian, but I don't believe in this vengeful god that I see alot of other Christians believe in.

i agree, people just do it to each other.

I'm not trying to 'pick and choose' things to go by and not go by according to the bible, mostly because I don't really consider the bible an absolute way of being a good person, Christian, etc.

then what's your basis?

It seems throughout time certain sects of Christianity (or any other religion for that matter) change their views on something, and now this is 'OK, but this isn't 'OK'. I don't understand the whole we go buy the bible on this, but don't go by the bible on the other.

usually someone makes an argument that's not-credible but consumable to support Prue-existing bias. A personal relationship with Jesus is most important here

Most of my friends are atheist or agnostic, and are absolutely great people. They have true morales, go out of their way to help people, etc. They also respect my views, and let me talk about them because I don't try to push my morales on them, because that isn't right my right as a human.

i agree, as personal judgment only alienates you from those you want to help.

I respect them for who they are, and if they make mistakes, I am not there to judge them, but instead to lend a helping hand. In my family I've seen too much of the hardliner Christian thinking, so much that I was having a discussion with a family member after the death of my father, wondering if my beliefs were real, was he in heaven, and this person said 'well I don't think your (insert relatives name here) mother didn't get into heaven, she never really talked about Christ nor went to church'.

how sad they would say such a thing, the effects of Christ's life in a person are apparent, no church or high-talking about the Lord makes a difference on that count.

Now this person whom she was talking about (my great grandmother) was one of the most caring persons ever. During the depression she fed about 75% of the native American tribes in their area, helped people with house payments and many other things, and she was also a Christian, but knew that her ACTIONS would speak louder than her WORDS.

exactly, but i guess judging others for being judgmental is the hardest judgment of all not to cast

To me, that is the truth to how one chooses to do the right thing, not sitting and pushing your views to the world at large on the internet, but instead being out there and doing things, whether it's for Christians or non Christians.

The life of Christ is apparent in all who accept it, and missing in all who oppose it; i think of it paraphrased from what Jesus said: Is the atheist my brother in Christ? if their is a beggar on the street and 3 Christians walk past him, ignoring him, but the atheist stops, brings him to a shelter, buys him clothing, and helps him get cleaned up... who is the one who is the brother in Christ? the Christian hypocrites, or the agnostic that loved his fellow man?

I take the bible quite literally: when it says no man comes to God except through Jesus, I belive it. When it says that good work on this earth is impossible without it being to the Glory of God, i belive it.

so when we, all being evil people, do something good it's never because we are doing something good, but because God is doing something good through us. I suppose Christianity is just accepting that and allowing Christ to use you fully.

 

[Genesys]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Genesys

Originally posted by: rbloedow


"some don't think so, but it's my view that pre-marital sex is why we have such high levels of STDs and teen pregnancy."

Lack of evidence for this statement, more of a groundless opinion.

you need a study to prove that this is true?! how fvcking naiive are you?

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

OK Jesus Boy, please explain how those of use who don't feel the government has the right to oversee peoples sexual practices are Morally bankrupt?

while im not 'Jesus Boy', i thought i'd go ahead and respond. Those of us who oppose homosexual marriage dont want to regulate their sexual practices, we feel that they can live their lived in any manner they choose to. I dont care if 2 guys are pushing stoole in the privacy of their own house, its their right. What I do care about is the government changing the traditional definition of marriage to reward deviant behavior. You must keep in mind that marriage is a privilege, not a right.

who says marriage is a privilege? You??

marriage is a right, part of the "in pursuit of happiness".

go back thru the thread, i believe there were even some links.

no, if you'll remember correctly, the Constitution says nothing about the pursuit of happiness, thats the Declaration of Independance. And, also, if you'll remember correctly, its the Constitution thats the supreme law of the land, not the Declaration.
and if you wanted to make that argument, killing without fear of consequences or retribution would make me happy. so would stealing copious ammounts of money without fear of consequences or retribution.
not to mention the 'in violation of pursuit of happiness' argument would never hold up legally because its not supported constitutionally. but ya never know, get on of those leftist activist judges to hear your case and you might win.

and no, more than just me say marriage is a privilege and not a right. but lets hear your side of the story, what makes marriage a right, and not a privilege.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

Originally posted by: happyhelper
Hi you hypocrite lying scum

Is it not a sin against your pretend God to lie? Is it not hypocritical to advocate your religion's hateful and outdated teachings and not practice them yourself?

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

you wouldn't have problems with STDs or out-of-marriage children if extra-marital sex wasn't a problem.

your welcome to propose more libertine 'solutions' to the problem, but even condoms are properly used 5% couples will have children within a year; When used as normally by humans 15%;

This shows that the only 'safe' sex is monogamous sex.

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/bc/condom.htm

OK, scumbag bigot who lies to support his argument:

You made a dishonest claim that 5% of women who use rubbers will get pregnant within a year even if they do it properly and you even cited a reference for this false claim, but I guess you thought no one was going to check your reference? From that page you listed:
"[rubber] Effectiveness:
Of 100 women whose partners use condoms, about 15 will become pregnant during the first year of typical use.* Only two women will become pregnant with perfect use."

Since when is 2 out of 100 equal to 5%? You claim that 250% more women become pregnant while using rubbers correctly than your reference claims. That's a huge exaggeration and falsehood (lie). Are you as mathematically inept as you are logically inept or are you lying? You suck.

wow you get UPSET when someone informs you of the truth.

1 in 50 will get pregnant if they use a condom 100% properly every time; but 1 in 6& 2/3 will get pregnant with typical use.

the typical use is MUCH MUCH higher than the 'proper' use; and you know this and know why as I'm sure you have knowledge of such things;

1 in 20 is actually a very very low percentage in comparison to the truth of use of condoms.

probably for the median woman 1 out of every ~ 7 will get pregnant after a year of sex with a condom.


your personal attacks show the spirit from which you receive the data that disturbs how you want to view the world. Look for truth brother, don't deceive yourself.

This is out off of planed-parenthoods own data, hardly a conservatively bias source.

To hate bigots is a form of bigotry. Being hated by a bigot for your bigotry doesn't change the fact of your bigotry, however, or the facts of other charges that a bigoted, bigot hater may have brought. The fact remains that your statistics are still irrelevant to the issue. Remember, women die in childbirth so no women should be allowed to marry. That is the gist of your point. The data on that is on the Internet so I win. Please! I can, however, understand your desire to change the topic and attempt to retrieve what victory you can. It will help you save face and not have to confront your bigotry. So we see who it is that attempts to deceive himself.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Genesys

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Genesys

Originally posted by: rbloedow


"some don't think so, but it's my view that pre-marital sex is why we have such high levels of STDs and teen pregnancy."

Lack of evidence for this statement, more of a groundless opinion.

you need a study to prove that this is true?! how fvcking naiive are you?

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

OK Jesus Boy, please explain how those of use who don't feel the government has the right to oversee peoples sexual practices are Morally bankrupt?

while im not 'Jesus Boy', i thought i'd go ahead and respond. Those of us who oppose homosexual marriage dont want to regulate their sexual practices, we feel that they can live their lived in any manner they choose to. I dont care if 2 guys are pushing stoole in the privacy of their own house, its their right. What I do care about is the government changing the traditional definition of marriage to reward deviant behavior. You must keep in mind that marriage is a privilege, not a right.

who says marriage is a privilege? You??

marriage is a right, part of the "in pursuit of happiness".

go back thru the thread, i believe there were even some links.

no, if you'll remember correctly, the Constitution says nothing about the pursuit of happiness, thats the Declaration of Independance. And, also, if you'll remember correctly, its the Constitution thats the supreme law of the land, not the Declaration.
and if you wanted to make that argument, killing without fear of consequences or retribution would make me happy. so would stealing copious ammounts of money without fear of consequences or retribution.
not to mention the 'in violation of pursuit of happiness' argument would never hold up legally because its not supported constitutionally. but ya never know, get on of those leftist activist judges to hear your case and you might win.

and no, more than just me say marriage is a privilege and not a right. but lets hear your side of the story, what makes marriage a right, and not a privilege.

Then you won't mind if laws are passed to prevent Christians from marrying so we don't get any more Bible thumping, bigot-brats, or the privilage to marry is revoked for all. It's only a privilage for you when it applies to somebody else.

Get over the fact the Constitution doesn't define every right, it contains language not limiting rights to only those expressed.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

I wasn't distracting, i was just replying to an ignorant flame of the facts i posted; please read the forum rules, he was in definite violation of them.

for the median woman 1 out of every ~ 7 will get pregnant after a year's worth of condoms.

The fact remains that your statistics are still irrelevant to the issue.

such is our reasonable disagreement on the issue.

women die in childbirth so no women should be allowed to marry. That is the gist of your point.

actually, that's not my point, nor does it follow the same logic about STDs et al. Though social ills do come from child-baring, society overall isn't adversely affected by the pains and dangers from this.

It's ease when it's not you, but in these sorts of things you've got to have empathy.

pursuit of happiness,

that, in the colloquial terms, meant the ability to accumulate personal wealth without having it taken by the state.

1 more time: Government stamp-of-approval for what the vast majority views as unethical behavior = tyranny by the state. and != civil rights issue that should by-pass the will of the vast majority.


as for an amendment to make it a states-rights issue: This is the backup plan for the republicans if the define marriage in the constitution push falls through;

it's one i agree with much more strongly than bush's proposal.