I have 5 kids from 2 marriages. Im not a christian and barely a republican. I fail to see how thinking that homosexuality is abnormal makes me a bigot or hateful. I dislike homosexuals no more than I would hate someone diagnosed with clinical depression or OCD.
I have 5 kids from 2 marriages. Im not a christian and barely a republican. I fail to see how thinking that homosexuality is abnormal makes me a bigot or hateful. I dislike homosexuals no more than I would hate someone diagnosed with clinical depression or OCD.
judasmachine
Diamond Member
- Sep 15, 2002
- 8,515
- 3
- 81
i have yet to see any santity of marriage. well my parents have been together for 33 years, but they've never stepped foot in a church. everyone else i know in and out of churches are divorced, or separated, or living with a cheating or abusive spouse.
You're a bigot. Why do you keep denying it?
'
You would deny equal rights under the US Constitution solely based on sexual orientation. That's discrimination.
Most insurance companies, for example, already provide benefits for a partner. All that is being asked is that marriage laws apply to everyone equally and remove the discrimination from them. No one's asking to CHANGE any laws. Just remove the discrimination. It's the bigots, like you, that want laws changed to specifically deny equal rights to a portion of the population.
I'm a potty mouth by calling you for what you are: a bigot?Originally posted by: daniel49
why, yes I do you potty mouthed bigotOriginally posted by: conjur
Wait a second. Who said anything about perversion?Originally posted by: daniel49
And perversion is now a constitutional right?Originally posted by: conjur
Bigotry is now a "conviction" to be admired?
We're not talking about pedophiles (like Catholic priests or Republican Mayors of Spokane) or bigamists or the like)
Oh wait, you're probably one of those Bible-thumpers that thinks the Bible is the actual Word of G-d or some inane sh*t like that.
News Flash!
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/bookse...y.asp?z=y&cds2Pid=5779&isbn=0060526556
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/bookse...nInquiry.asp?z=y&isbn=0060630353&itm=1
Now, take your high-horse, faux morality and stick it where the sun don't shine and keep your damn hypocritical religious beliefs out of MY government.
and its my govt too, so keep your gay horse in its stall.
And by the way, Have a wonderful day.
Interesting.
Well, you are right in that it's your gov't, too. It's my gov't. It's my neighbors' gov't. It's my friends' gov't. Etc.
Everyone should be according equal rights. That's not happening, though, as bigots like yourself are looking to DENY equal rights to a portion of the population.
Oh, the ol' "call them civil unions, not marriages" gambit.
:roll:
No one's asking a church to recognize or perform same-sex marriages. But, all marriages must be performed in accordance with civil laws. Therefore, religious ceremonies are a SUBSET of the institution of marriage.
Are you kidding me!! "we are a secular nation"??? I won't really argue with you because its simply a waste of time, but to say that this nation is a "secular nation"...read a little history pal.. and not the books your 6th grade public school history teacher gave you.
I don't see where I used the words bigot or hateful. I suggested you lack the ability to have a reasonable discussion on the topic because you are misinformed, and possibly stupid. Never assume bigotry when stupidity is just as good of an explanation. I say this because, while many things about homosexuality are open to opinion, the scientific basis is NOT one of those things. While you are free to consider homosexuality in the same catagory as depression or OCD (or pedophilia), you won't find a credible medical organization on earth that will support that view.
Again, it's about being able to have a reasonable discussion. In order to have one, the debate must have some sort of factual structure. You can't just bring in your random, untrue "facts" that run counter to well established medical knowledge and expect to get anywhere.
That depends on what you mean by "nation". We are not secular in the sense that most Americans have some sort of religion or another that they more or less follow. However, the royal We, as in our society and country, are indeed supposed to be secular. We are a nation of men (and women of course
), but also of laws. The people might not be secular, but the laws were very much intended to be.Show me absolute proof that homosexuality is not abnormal and I will change my viewpoint. Until then the only thing anyone can state is an opnion.
I never said that ocd or depression were grouped with homosexuality. I said I dont hold it against them for being gay any more than I would hold any mental illness against someone. I think if you were less ignorant you would realize that my statement regarding it being a deviancy akin to pedophilia ( its actually clssified as a preference ) is correct. It's been in text forever and maybe if you were more well read you would be able to actually see where my view comes from.
First you insinuate that I've never had sex . You call me stupid when you cannot even read . Personal attack?
As the concept is commonly understood today, the government has never passed a law implementing the "separation of church and state." The First Amendment simply states:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
As one of many efforts to limit the power of the federal government, the Constitution left authority over religious matters to the States.
Our constatution was built to keep the government from limiting the excercise of religion. So many people only call it "religion"... it pisses me off. Here's what somebody a little more famous than myself said:
"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists but by Christians, not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ." - Patrick Henry
As a small illustration of our "secular foundation" I'll quote George Washington's 1789 Thanksgiving Day "proclomation"
"... both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me "to recommend to the people of the United States a DAY OF PUBLIC THANSGIVING and PRAYER, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government... to thank Him for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enable to establish Constitutions of government for our safety and happiness...for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed."
In the 1892 Supreme Court ruling in Church of the Holy Trinity vs. U.S. (citing 87 precedents), "Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of Mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian."
This is my humble but very truthfull argument using EXTREEMLY LIMITED sources to show that ours is not that of a "secular nation" but Christian.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
As one of many efforts to limit the power of the federal government, the Constitution left authority over religious matters to the States.
Our constatution was built to keep the government from limiting the excercise of religion. So many people only call it "religion"... it pisses me off. Here's what somebody a little more famous than myself said:
"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists but by Christians, not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ." - Patrick Henry
As a small illustration of our "secular foundation" I'll quote George Washington's 1789 Thanksgiving Day "proclomation"
"... both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me "to recommend to the people of the United States a DAY OF PUBLIC THANSGIVING and PRAYER, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government... to thank Him for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enable to establish Constitutions of government for our safety and happiness...for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed."
In the 1892 Supreme Court ruling in Church of the Holy Trinity vs. U.S. (citing 87 precedents), "Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of Mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian."
This is my humble but very truthfull argument using EXTREEMLY LIMITED sources to show that ours is not that of a "secular nation" but Christian.
Either I've had too much to drink, or YOU'VE had too much to drink. There is no way we're two perfectly sober people having this discussion. I see nothing suggesting I think you've never had sex. My comment about you "never having it" did not, in fact, refer to sex, but to the ability to have a reasonable discussion. "It" being a proper way to refer to the subject of the last sentence...one of those reading things no doubt.
As for the status of homosexuality, you are technically correct, but you are using an overly broad catagorization. After all, if classification as a "preference" is all it takes to be "a deviancy akin to pedophilia", then HETEROsexuality would fit into that catagory as well. It's all "preferences", right? Absolute proof is rare in behavioral science, of course, so if that's what you are looking for to change your viewpoint, I can't help you. I would only ask how you formed your current viewpoint, certainly not with the aid of any science I'm familiar with. As for my view of things, I am relying quite a bit on studies showing that a rather large number of people (women more so than men) LEAN at least a little bit towards homosexual feelings. This isn't to say that they are gay, or even bisexual, but it does tend to indicate that a lot of people are at least a little bit gay. I don't know of any studies done on the topic of pedophilia, but I suspect very few normal adults have any perceptable level of sexual attraction to children.
But here's the real issue, what seperates a behavior from a "deviancy" or mental illness? We all behave differently, and we all have different preferences. So how do we seperate that from behaviors that need to be treated, but not "held against people"? Personally, I think the measure is personal harm. Having OCD, or ADD, or being mentally ill, or having a sexual attraction to children, all clearly harm the individual in question, as well as people around them. Homosexuality, as far as I can see, does not. Well, that's not strictly true, but the danger to gay people seems to come mostly from the bigots...perhaps they are the ones with the mental illness? But seriously, if homosexuality is an illness, where are the victims? Behavior isn't simply "bad", it's bad because it has negative consequences. OCD isn't bad for its own sake, it's bad because it seriously disrupts the rest of your life. The biggest problem with homosexuality is that gay people are quite often treated as people who's deviant behavior needs to be "fixed".
One last interesting point. It has long been my opinion that the reason people are so anti-gay is because they view it as threatening to their sexuality. The fact that men have much stronger opposition to it than women do, and the fact that almost any anti-gay discussion will focus on gay MEN, tends to support my view. And isn't it interesting that in the context of this discussion, my post, which really didn't read at all like a dig about your sex life, was interpreted as such. I wonder...if the discussion I was suggesting you can't be reasonable about was, say, AMD vs Intel, would you have jumped to the same conclusion? Maybe it's all in my head, but certainly worth thinking about...
Your calling me names, just because we disagree on an issue? It doesn't help, especially when your trying to convince me of your opinion.
It is quite simple: we distinguish between the two genders in our society - and with in our legal system. The genders are decidely different - and we allow laws based on that differnce.
Part of marriage has been two very definalbe differences coming togather to form a union. Simple as that.
It is the same reason upon which i oppose polygamy.
The question i have for you is if the criteria is "consenting adults" what rules can we have governing marriage? There is a quite the population in Utah that would like law changed allow polygamy, how can we deny them that if they are "consenting?"
And there are many other sources that suggest quite the opposite, including many that use something other than the public words of a politician to indicate that many of our most famous leaders and founding fathers were not Christian at all, but Diests or agnostics.
But let's for a moment say that you are right. We, the United States of America, founded on the principle of equality for all, are officially a Christian nation. Am I the only person who sees a contradiction there? How can a Democracy like ours officially discount the beliefs of so many Americans in favor of the beliefs of others? It hardly seems a step up from calling ourselves a white nation.
aye, there were a few deists and agnostics, but pray tell who the "many of our most famous" might be? I am very familiar with perhaps..5 names... there were fifty-six signers of the Declaration of Independence. In this foundation of a Christian Nation, it was on Christian values, not a government dictating one religion, that?s the very reason the pilgrims left England. The "Christian Values" so ardently argued against are in the best interest of people for their own good. I think there was a very well stated quote earlier in this post... basically asking for someone to point out even one of the Ten Commandments that is not in the best interest of society
judasmachine
Diamond Member
- Sep 15, 2002
- 8,515
- 3
- 81
I'm not exactly sure how this would go over in ERs, restaurants, firehouses, gas stations, movie houses, and nursing homes...
I also fail to see how exactly this one harms society...
The rest are fairly sound, albeit the first one is in violation of the constitution. Basically #5 though #10 are basic rules for any society. It's just the Jewish people felt it important enough to say god said it.
I'm not calling you "names". I'm calling you for what you are. It's not an insult, it's a label. Like Republican, Democrat, Man, Woman. You're a bigot.
We have laws that treat men and women differently? Interesting. That's news to me. Laws treating one person differently from another are patently unconstitutional. Care to point out some? We're talking laws here, btw.
I have no idea wtf that's supposed to mean.
So do I but mostly because the women in the situation are treated less properly. Possibly because most situations of polygamy now involve people of, shall we say, less stable mental conditions? I don't necessarily think it should be specifically made illegal. I don't see polygamy as any real problem facing our society; too many other things worry me.
We can't. That's the point. One day you'll hopefully understand and you can then shed that skin of bigotry with which you're afflicted.
First off,
http://www.theology.edu/journal/volume2/ushistor.htm
A good read for you. Esp. this part:
As for those of the ten commandments (there are actually more when looked at in detail) that wouldn't be good for American society as a whole:
2 I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
Umm...that should be pretty obvious. Don't think Americans were brought "out of the land of Egypt".
3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Well, that would go explicitly against respecting one religion over another. Clearly unconstitutional.
4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth
Don't see how this would benefit American society, do you? Well, it might get rid of some cheesy sculptures and gift shop trinkets.
5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
Oooo...he's a *jealous* God. Again, goes against respecting one religion over another.
6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
Our laws are not to be based upon the writings of some man who lived a few thousand years ago but, rather, from an assembly of persons duly elected by the citizens of the US and in each respective state.
7 Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
Well, goddamn. oops
Did I just destroy our society? Nope? Oh well, continue.
8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Fine and dandy for anyone of religious conviction but hardly something by which all of America need be endearing.
9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
Well, that may not be a bad idea; give people at least a day off of work but we have other laws that restrict hours and ages of employees and assign wage rates for certain types of employees if hours exceed the norm (overtime pay). Don't see why we need a "commandment" to govern our labor system.
10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
Ok, which day is the 7th day? By whose calendar? And, again, this would be respecting one religion's beliefs over all others. How is that constitutional again?
11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
Mmmkay. Good for you, LORD. You go....uh...girl?
12 Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.
Not a bad one but hardly anything that can be legislated. Sounds more like a personal, private matter to a family.
13 Thou shalt not kill.
Considering murdering someone is the ultimate civil rights crime, don't see a problem with this one but the Old Testament is hardly unique in holding laws against murder.
14 Thou shalt not commit adultery.
That's something for parties involved to be concerned with. Cheat on your spouse, g/f, etc. prepare for the consequences such as: being left alone, being divorced, getting slapped in the face, etc. Legislating it? Quite the invasion of privacy.
15 Thou shalt not steal.
See #13
16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
I believe this would be what we call Perjury and isn't specifically related to any religious belief. No problem with this one.
17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.
But my neighbor has a REALLY cute ass. You should see her! wow.
Anyway, how are you going to legislate against desire, jealousy, want?
Red Dawn
Elite Member
- Jun 4, 2001
- 57,529
- 3
- 0
Same could be said of a SoldierOriginally posted by: MSUEngineer
Originally posted by: Pens1566
Originally posted by: dahunan
Being gay is not always a choice.. we could just pull a Hitler and try to remove the gay genes from the gene pool?
BTW, there is nothing they can do to stop people from being Gay.. that battle is lost.. so now you just treat them like second class citizens and deny them normal status
The Federal Govt shouldn't allow anyone without at least a GED to produce babies or get married either..
<sarcasm>
No! Everyone chooses to be gay. Come on, look at the perks. Treated like crap by the govt, living in fear of hate crimes, having most of society look at you as less than human. I wonder why everyone doesn't choose to be a homosexual!
</sarcasm>
But of course people like MSUWhatever still think they choose. :roll:
You choose to engage in the risky behavior.
We only disagree on same sex marriage - i haven't said anything else about gay people, nor have you even asked my views on gay people. and you insist on calling me bigot.
Selective Service, it ONLY applies to men - and it has been upheld in court as being legal.
The courts reconize that there is difference between men and women, that is why they allow things like selective service. That i why i said a definable difference- you can define the difference between a man and a woman. Marriage has always been these two differences coming togather and forming a union. We decided as a country to limit it only two. We have also decide to put other limitations, such as blood relations, and age.
It is quite the contrdiction. One sentence you say you don't support polygamy, but the very next line you agree that we can't restrict polygamy. So which is it? I find it fasicanating you know at least 51% of the mental states of the people who want/practice it. That attitude smacks ignorace and bigotry in itself.
Also according to your statements we would have to allow families to intermarry - brother, brother - cousins - ect - because the are "constenting" adults.
I think that you and a lot of other anti-gay marriage proponents are missing is that those other restrictions apply to ALL citizens. The proposed gay marriage amendment doesn't. It creates a subset of the population and then takes away a basic right under the constitution (Equal protection).
As for the Selective Service argument, the case that you are referring to was dimissed because the DoD has a policy on the books about women on the front line. THAT, and that alone, was the basis. But recently, thanks to Rumsfeld, the policies have redefined what "combat" is and therefore left themselves open to new challanges:
Human Events Online (Conservative News, Views and Books)
As for the Selective Service argument, the case that you are referring to was dimissed because the DoD has a policy on the books about women on the front line. THAT, and that alone, was the basis. But recently, thanks to Rumsfeld, the policies have redefined what "combat" is and therefore left themselves open to new challanges:
Human Events Online (Conservative News, Views and Books)
Both the court and the military acknowledge that there is a significant difference between the two genders to allow them to be treated differently.
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: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter