Where are my civil rights?

Archived discussion from Toril-2.
Klurg
Sojourner
Posts: 112
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Örebro, Sweden

Postby Klurg » Thu Nov 25, 2004 7:43 am

Multiple wives?!? YUM!
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Thu Nov 25, 2004 7:48 am

The truth is rarely relevent to the ignorant reactionary. Nor was the truth of the history of the Republican party, or the truth of the unethical imposition of gay marriage through the force of law, or the truth of the questions brought up in discussion.

Sarvis, I'm very sorry to say, but in summary, I can only conclude that you are indeed ignorant of history (Republican or otherwise), ignorant of our government (the oaths of enlistment, the nature of volunteerism), ignorant of word meaning and usage (for instance, the word bullshit), and furthermore: ignorant of your own position.

You're very correct in saying that government cannot force people to accept things through the power of law.

Gay marriage included.

Sarvis, not only are you ignorant, overall, you're wrong.

Furthermore, the article would have brought up that question whether or not you were posting in this thread at all. Your fundamental problem is that you do not acknowledge the truth.

Sarvis, you don't need to accept the truth, but at a minimum, you must acknowledge it if you wish to make any sense whatsoever.

Now please don't be like Kifle and bring up the credentials that you don't have yet, or tell me that using a phrase like "can not" is close minded, or tell me that I am not God and do not know everything (about debate) yet tell me that I do not know how to debate (as if he were God).

And please don't be Rer, who's solution is to run from a fight (way to be France) by using ignorance.

Furthermore, please don't be how you have been, attempting to copy me by calling bullshit on the false facts and ignorant misconceptions of my opponents, because you just don't have as much material to work with as I do.

And for the love of God or Government or whatever, if you show it to your ethics professor from a class you don't attend at a school that doesn't believe you need to attend it in order to recieve credit, show something constructive like their comments or ideas or arguments.
Sephraem
Sojourner
Posts: 51
Joined: Thu Nov 18, 2004 4:45 am
Contact:

Postby Sephraem » Thu Nov 25, 2004 9:51 am

Sarvis wrote:Imagine that Mormons became the dominant religion in the land, and held most of the power. Imagine that an extremely Mormon President decided to amend the Constitution. Here is the amendment he wants:

Only plural marriages (polygamy) can be legal.


Oh Sarvis. Think about what you're saying. This isn't an appropriate parallel.

Sarvis wrote:<b>Sephraem</b>

The cross is used all over the place as a non-religious symbol (+), not to mention that the swastika(sp?) is a bastardized version of the cross.


The crucifix, then, as opposed to the cross.
If you love something, let it go; especially if you love fireworks.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Thu Nov 25, 2004 2:59 pm

Sephraem wrote:
Sarvis wrote:Imagine that Mormons became the dominant religion in the land, and held most of the power. Imagine that an extremely Mormon President decided to amend the Constitution. Here is the amendment he wants:

Only plural marriages (polygamy) can be legal.


Oh Sarvis. Think about what you're saying. This isn't an appropriate parallel.


Why? And it's not really supposed to be a parallel either. It's supposed to make you think about how you'd feel if your religion didn't happen to be the majority, and your beliefs ended up becoming illegal.



Sarvis wrote:The crucifix, then, as opposed to the cross.


Yes, that's a much better example for you. Of course, I don't hear you arguing that Deicide's CD Scars of the Crusifix should be made illegal to preserve the sanctimony of the crusifix.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Thu Nov 25, 2004 3:19 pm

I find it quite amusing that you are now reduced to nothing but insults and slander Teflor.

teflor the ranger wrote:Sarvis, I'm very sorry to say, but in summary, I can only conclude that you are indeed ignorant of history (Republican or otherwise),


You know, history isn't honestly my strong suit. Yet, somehow the best you can do to defend against my allegation is to claim I am ignorant of history. Seems like it should be easy to point out some date or historic event to prove me wrong, but instead you resort to insults.

ignorant of our government (the oaths of enlistment, the nature of volunteerism),


Oh really? How's that? More slander... tsk tsk tsk.

ignorant of word meaning and usage (for instance, the word bullshit),


Ah, more slander! I am and was quite aware of what bullshit meant, and we both know my mistake was in not acknowledging the various degrees of homosexuality rather than in misinterpreting bullshit.

By the way, have you figured out how "or" works yet? As in bullshit can mean just deceitful? Bullshit can allso just mean foolish? Got that down yet, becuase it would be damn ironic if you were trying to insult me for failing to understand a word when you couldn't even grasp it's definition...

and furthermore: ignorant of your own position.


You're the one who claims to be moderate but walks with hardline conservatives, who claims gay marriage should be legal but argues against it with all the fervor of a trout chasing a fly.

You're very correct in saying that government cannot force people to accept things through the power of law.

Gay marriage included.


Guess what, legalizing something does not force acceptance. (I'm the one ignorant of how government works?)

There are plenty of things which are legal but not accepted by people. Pornography is a rather big one, there are some people who still do not accept alcohol, you can find plenty of people called neo-nazis and KKK members who refuse to accept that blacks are equivalent to them.

However the government HAS tried to force people not to marry.


Sarvis, not only are you ignorant, overall, you're wrong.


Slander slander slander. Wrong about what? You claim to agree with me in principle... or was that just another of your twisted web of lies and half-truths?

Furthermore, the article would have brought up that question whether or not you were posting in this thread at all. Your fundamental problem is that you do not acknowledge the truth.


Truth... by which you must mean your version of the truth of course. I'll note again how little idea about truth Bush supporters have.

Would that article have come up? Ok... so maybe it would have... two days after you had stopped posting, and when it wasn't immediately following something I had said about genetics. Maybe...


Sarvis, you don't need to accept the truth, but at a minimum, you must acknowledge it if you wish to make any sense whatsoever.


What truth is it exactly? I mean, you haven't actually said anything so far...


Now please don't be like Kifle and bring up the credentials that you don't have yet, or tell me that using a phrase like "can not" is close minded, or tell me that I am not God and do not know everything (about debate) yet tell me that I do not know how to debate (as if he were God).


You mean like how you keep acting towards me? Wouldn't dream of it...


Furthermore, please don't be how you have been, attempting to copy me by calling bullshit on the false facts and ignorant misconceptions of my opponents, because you just don't have as much material to work with as I do.


Where have I done this? Maybe once or twice in response to your posts specifically, but that's it. No, I wouldn't copy your asinine behavior. Don't worry about that.


And for the love of God or Government or whatever, if you show it to your ethics professor from a class you don't attend at a school that doesn't believe you need to attend it in order to recieve credit, show something constructive like their comments or ideas or arguments.


That wasn't me. More slander?






It's funny how in all that post you didn't touch on the debate at all...
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Ambar
Sojourner
Posts: 2872
Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Our House in Va.
Contact:

Postby Ambar » Thu Nov 25, 2004 4:11 pm

will you guys ever accept the fact you disagree

and shut the f up?

Happy Holidays!
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Thu Nov 25, 2004 5:27 pm

Sarvis, all you've had are slander and the hope that Greek men might have not had sex for pleasure with women (which really doesn't have any bearing on the main topic whatsoever) this entire discussion.

You're also an idiot if you think that post was only a swipe at you.
Iaiken Toransier
Sojourner
Posts: 262
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Oakville, ON, CA
Contact:

Postby Iaiken Toransier » Thu Nov 25, 2004 6:05 pm

Ambar wrote:will you guys ever accept the fact you disagree

and shut the f up?

Happy Holidays!


Agreed,

The moral bitchfight between you two was humourous for a very short while, just agree to dissagree, shove some turkey in your mouth and don't talk with your mouth full.

Jeebus Chrysler!
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Thu Nov 25, 2004 6:23 pm

teflor the ranger wrote:Sarvis, all you've had are slander and the hope that Greek men might have not had sex for pleasure with women (which really doesn't have any bearing on the main topic whatsoever) this entire discussion.


You still haven't disproved that Greek men only had sex for pleasure with women. Not to mention that my only point the entire time I have argued with you is simply that you failed to disprove that and that you were being an asshole, so having little more than that is exactly what I was going for.

You have been slandering me far more than I have slandered you.

You're also an idiot if you think that post was only a swipe at you.


Considering the first word in the post was Sarvis, I think it's quite reasonable to assume the post was directed at me. Once again your writing is as lacking an clarity as it is in substance.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Thu Nov 25, 2004 6:25 pm

<b>Iaiken
Ambar</b>



There's a funny little thing I do when there's threads I don't care about going on. I IGNORE them! Try it sometime, rather than just popping in to bitch at people who are enjoying a debate...
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Thu Nov 25, 2004 6:28 pm

Sarvis wrote:
You're also an idiot if you think that post was only a swipe at you.


Considering the first word in the post was Sarvis, I think it's quite reasonable to assume the post was directed at me. Once again your writing is as lacking an clarity as it is in substance.


Seeing as how the first word in my post was "The"

You're an idiot.

teflor the ranger wrote:The truth is rarely relevent to the ignorant reactionary. Nor was the truth of the history of the Republican party, or the truth of the unethical imposition of gay marriage through the force of law, or the truth of the questions brought up in discussion.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Thu Nov 25, 2004 6:37 pm

teflor the ranger wrote:
Sarvis wrote:
You're also an idiot if you think that post was only a swipe at you.


Considering the first word in the post was Sarvis, I think it's quite reasonable to assume the post was directed at me. Once again your writing is as lacking an clarity as it is in substance.


Seeing as how the first word in my post was "The"

You're an idiot.

teflor the ranger wrote:The truth is rarely relevent to the ignorant reactionary. Nor was the truth of the history of the Republican party, or the truth of the unethical imposition of gay marriage through the force of law, or the truth of the questions brought up in discussion.


Oops.

I looked at what I quoted, guess I skipped a paragraph huh?

Well, sorry... but thanks to Bush's complete refusal to encourage the growth of middle class jobs I'm stuck working a shitty shift (2:30am-11am) where I don't even get holidays off and I was tired. Going to try and get back to sleep now so that I have some chance of waking up to have thanksgiving dinner with my family.

You still don't have anything to back up the claims you made though...
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Thu Nov 25, 2004 6:40 pm

Heh. That is a pretty shitty shift.
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Postby Kifle » Fri Nov 26, 2004 2:47 am

Sarvis wrote:You still don't have anything to back up the claims you made though...


He doesn't have to -- he's Teflor. Didn't you know teflor is synonimous with 'always right'? Oh, and he never contradicts himself, nor is he ever insulting. He always does things the right way, never the wrong way. And if he catches somebody doing something he doesn't like, even if he does it himself, they are wrong...and he's still right. He is also allowed to make false accusations, treat assumptions and opinion as fact, and completely disregard what other people write and still be high and mighty.

P.S.

I think this is called megalomania...I'd seek help if I where you, Teflor.
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Postby Kifle » Fri Nov 26, 2004 2:49 am

Sarvis wrote:<b>Iaiken
Ambar</b>



There's a funny little thing I do when there's threads I don't care about going on. I IGNORE them! Try it sometime, rather than just popping in to bitch at people who are enjoying a debate...


Fancy that...you mean you can actually not click on certain threads? I'll have to look into that wonderful option.
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
Sephraem
Sojourner
Posts: 51
Joined: Thu Nov 18, 2004 4:45 am
Contact:

Postby Sephraem » Fri Nov 26, 2004 3:03 pm

Sarvis wrote:Why? And it's not really supposed to be a parallel either. It's supposed to make you think about how you'd feel if your religion didn't happen to be the majority, and your beliefs ended up becoming illegal.


I see. In that case:

Sarvis wrote:Imagine that Mormons became the dominant religion in the land, and held most of the power. Imagine that an extremely Mormon President decided to amend the Constitution. Here is the amendment he wants:

Only plural marriages (polygamy) can be legal.


I have assumed that you mean 'only polygamous marriages would be recognised legally as a status of union', and that you don't mean 'it would be illegal to have any monogamous relationship whatsoever'. I'm also going to assume, in our hypothetical future reality, that the amendment is passed.

In light of that, then Christians who do not condone polygamy can continue to practise monogamy, and the religious implications of the marriage would be unaffected. Only its legal status would change. It would simply no longer confer the civil benefits.

If you mean it would become illegal, then I suspect there might well be a lot of single Christians.

As a point of interest, since the early 20th century, it has been the policy of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to excommunicate any member practising, or in fact, openly advocating, polygamy. The polygamous Mormons we are familiar with, though referred to as 'Mormon fundamentalists', are not affiliated with the mainstream church.

Sarvis wrote:Yes, that's a much better example for you. Of course, I don't hear you arguing that Deicide's CD Scars of the Crusifix should be made illegal to preserve the sanctimony of the crusifix.


Of course not. They are free to express their opinions of what the crucifix means to them. If, on the other hand, they were attempting to legally change that which the crucifix represents because it excludes people who want to benefit from its legal implications and ignore its religious importance, well, then we'd have a problem.
If you love something, let it go; especially if you love fireworks.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Fri Nov 26, 2004 5:31 pm

Sephraem wrote:I have assumed that you mean 'only polygamous marriages would be recognised legally as a status of union', and that you don't mean 'it would be illegal to have any monogamous relationship whatsoever'. I'm also going to assume, in our hypothetical future reality, that the amendment is passed.

In light of that, then Christians who do not condone polygamy can continue to practise monogamy, and the religious implications of the marriage would be unaffected. Only its legal status would change. It would simply no longer confer the civil benefits.

If you mean it would become illegal, then I suspect there might well be a lot of single Christians.


Yes, marriage between one man and one woman would be illegal. After all the Sacrament of marriage which is defined as one man and many women cannot be violated.

So yes, lot's of single Christians. Would you be happy being forced to be single?

Though some small number of them might be willing to let you have a civil union. Would that be ok with you? To be seperated out like that?


As a point of interest, since the early 20th century, it has been the policy of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to excommunicate any member practising, or in fact, openly advocating, polygamy. The polygamous Mormons we are familiar with, though referred to as 'Mormon fundamentalists', are not affiliated with the mainstream church.


Yes, I know. The reason for this is that most people were really uncomfortable with the idea of entering into a polygamous marriage.

Of course not. They are free to express their opinions of what the crucifix means to them. If, on the other hand, they were attempting to legally change that which the crucifix represents because it excludes people who want to benefit from its legal implications and ignore its religious importance, well, then we'd have a problem.


The crucifix is rather specific of course. Not to mention that the crucifix doesn't _legally_ represent anything! It's symbolism is truly and purely religious.

Now bear with me a sec, because I'm not sure I can explain this well:

Marriage _already_ has multiple meanings. In fact, allowing gay marriage doesn't even really require redefinition of it!

Remember one of the definitions already existing for marriage is simply:

"A close union."

The form of marriage espoused by mainstream religion is really just an extension of that definition.

Instead of just being a close union, it is a close union between a man and woman. In exactly the same way as it could be a close union between a rose and it's thorns, or form and function, <i>or man and man</i>, or man and woman.


Another problem with marriage being Sacrament is that it has at least as much legal implication as religious. Unlike the Crucifix or even the Cross you mentioned earlier which have no legal signifigance at all.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Sephraem
Sojourner
Posts: 51
Joined: Thu Nov 18, 2004 4:45 am
Contact:

Postby Sephraem » Fri Nov 26, 2004 8:10 pm

Ugh. I know more about marriage now than I ever cared to. What a dull subject. How on earth could it get so controversial?

Sarvis wrote:The crucifix is rather specific of course. Not to mention that the crucifix doesn't _legally_ represent anything! It's symbolism is truly and purely religious.


Yes. I suspect I shouldn't really have used it is an anology in the first place. Analogies rarely work properly. At least, not when I use them.

Sarvis wrote:Now bear with me a sec, because I'm not sure I can explain this well:

Marriage _already_ has multiple meanings. In fact, allowing gay marriage doesn't even really require redefinition of it!

Remember one of the definitions already existing for marriage is simply:

"A close union."

The form of marriage espoused by mainstream religion is really just an extension of that definition.

Instead of just being a close union, it is a close union between a man and woman. In exactly the same way as it could be a close union between a rose and it's thorns, or form and function, <i>or man and man</i>, or man and woman.

Another problem with marriage being Sacrament is that it has at least as much legal implication as religious. Unlike the Crucifix or even the Cross you mentioned earlier which have no legal signifigance at all.


My point is that you can take away the legal ramifications, and it is still marriage. You still have a wedding. You still have a man and a woman making a commitment to each other before God.

I just wonder; if you take God out, too, is it still the same thing?

If there were no legal benefits to a marriage, would anyone marry for any reason other than religious beliefs?
If you love something, let it go; especially if you love fireworks.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Sat Nov 27, 2004 1:24 am

Sephraem wrote:Ugh. I know more about marriage now than I ever cared to. What a dull subject. How on earth could it get so controversial?

Sarvis wrote:The crucifix is rather specific of course. Not to mention that the crucifix doesn't _legally_ represent anything! It's symbolism is truly and purely religious.


Yes. I suspect I shouldn't really have used it is an anology in the first place. Analogies rarely work properly. At least, not when I use them.

Sarvis wrote:Now bear with me a sec, because I'm not sure I can explain this well:

Marriage _already_ has multiple meanings. In fact, allowing gay marriage doesn't even really require redefinition of it!

Remember one of the definitions already existing for marriage is simply:

"A close union."

The form of marriage espoused by mainstream religion is really just an extension of that definition.

Instead of just being a close union, it is a close union between a man and woman. In exactly the same way as it could be a close union between a rose and it's thorns, or form and function, <i>or man and man</i>, or man and woman.

Another problem with marriage being Sacrament is that it has at least as much legal implication as religious. Unlike the Crucifix or even the Cross you mentioned earlier which have no legal signifigance at all.


My point is that you can take away the legal ramifications, and it is still marriage. You still have a wedding. You still have a man and a woman making a commitment to each other before God.

I just wonder; if you take God out, too, is it still the same thing?

If there were no legal benefits to a marriage, would anyone marry for any reason other than religious beliefs?


Yes. Atheists get married. Atheists get married by civil servants in non-religious ceremonies.

Is it the same thing for two atheists to get married in front of a judge as two christians in front of a priest? I dunno... but does it matter?

What's the difference between two gay people getting married by a judge and two atheists getting married by a judge?
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Sat Nov 27, 2004 3:20 am

Kifle wrote:He doesn't have to -- he's Teflor. Didn't you know teflor is synonimous with 'always right'? Oh, and he never contradicts himself, nor is he ever insulting. He always does things the right way, never the wrong way. And if he catches somebody doing something he doesn't like, even if he does it himself, they are wrong...and he's still right. He is also allowed to make false accusations, treat assumptions and opinion as fact, and completely disregard what other people write and still be high and mighty.

P.S.

I think this is called megalomania...I'd seek help if I where you, Teflor.


This type of sarcasm shows what you are all about. When you failed to take the moral high grounds, you attacked the realms of logic. When you failed to take the realms of logic, you attacked the ridge of credibility. Failing to actually have taken credibility to your side, you lashed out on the personal level. I did not wish to take it here, but you have cut below the belt, and I will respond as I have always responded, on the level.

You only support the legalization of gay marriage not because you give a damn in hell about the love of gay couples, but rather for your own sense of moral superiority. You care nothing about the freedom of others, you spit on their religion and declare them all idiotic, all for the sense of righteousness to yourself. You do not even fight, but you lash out from the shadows in the shelter of ambiguous barriers between shades of grey with bitter sarcasm, and no discernable sense of purpose other than to your own.

Kifle, you are a coward of the worst kind. A cowardice that lives in your heart.

There are no real men who would agree with what you have to say, because of the way you say it. You do nothing but damage the cause.
Tasan
Sojourner
Posts: 1710
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Fridley, Mn USA
Contact:

Postby Tasan » Sat Nov 27, 2004 3:39 am

teflor the ranger wrote:Failing to actually have taken credibility to your side, you lashed out on the personal level. I did not wish to take it here, but you have cut below the belt, and I will respond as I have always responded, on the level.


Ahem, pot...kettle...black? C'mon buddy, that's just sad.

teflor the ranger wrote:You only support the legalization of gay marriage not because you give a damn in hell about the love of gay couples, but rather for your own sense of moral superiority. You care nothing about the freedom of others, you spit on their religion and declare them all idiotic, all for the sense of righteousness to yourself. You do not even fight, but you lash out from the shadows in the shelter of ambiguous barriers between shades of grey with bitter sarcasm, and no discernable sense of purpose other than to your own.


For someone that types a hell of a lot, you sure don't have much to say.

teflor the ranger wrote:Kifle, you are a coward of the worst kind. A cowardice that lives in your heart.


Wheras, cowardice of the toes would be forgiveable, I would imagine(?).

teflor the ranger wrote:There are no real men who would agree with what you have to say, because of the way you say it. You do nothing but damage the cause.


Quite the same could be said of your "style" of debate.

With that said, 2 things:

Everyone who wants to find information to support an argument has a good chance of finding some sort of credible evidence for that support. No one is really going to get away w/ the antiquity argument with the greeks or any other civilization that once was.

This ties into #2. All religious texts are subject to the morality of those who wrote said text, as are all historical accounts. Neither really matter in this debate.

The one undeniable fact that exists is that rights are being infringed upon. The fact that you people can't even argue efficiently or stay on topic is really detracting from all sides of said debate. Credibility is usually given to those who can keep emotion and personal feelings outside the argument. In this case it's probably near impossible, but I believe everyone would benefit.

And as for the best post out of all these: It was the referance to "jumping the shark".

!!x
Danahg tells you 'yeah, luckily i kept most of it in my mouth and nasal membranes, ugh'

Dlur group-says 'I have a dead horse that I'm dragging down the shaft with my 4 corpses. Anyone want to help me beat it?'

Calladuran: There are other games to play if you want to play with yourself.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Sat Nov 27, 2004 3:56 am

Tasan wrote:The one undeniable fact that exists is that rights are being infringed upon. The fact that you people can't even argue efficiently or stay on topic is really detracting from all sides of said debate. Credibility is usually given to those who can keep emotion and personal feelings outside the argument. In this case it's probably near impossible, but I believe everyone would benefit.


Yet another sarcastic coward. A different kind but sarcastic and cowardly. For someone who bothered to type out this post, you seem only to have to say that rights are meant to be infringed upon, and that emotion should be kept outside the arguements.

You are the kind of coward that does not acknowledge the truth. Rights do not exist when they are infringed upon, and we would not be arguing if it were not for our emotions. While I will admit that you are correct in that we are inefficient debators, due mostly in the part that my opponents have detracted the main focus of the arguements into pitiful and pathetically off-topic tangents, I admit I have gone there with them.

However, you refuse to admit the truth, and that is that we are NOT here at all to argue the main subject. Kifle is here to project his self-sense of moral superiority, self-sense of credibility, his views, and his light and way. I am here to criticize those who would do such a thing in the mockery of those who are being discussed, at the cost of those that have been ignored.

You, sir, are a coward.
Tasan
Sojourner
Posts: 1710
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Fridley, Mn USA
Contact:

Postby Tasan » Sat Nov 27, 2004 4:40 am

Code: Select all

cow·ard    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (kourd)
n.
One who shows ignoble fear in the face of danger or pain.


Please explain how I or Kifle fit this title you have so dubiously bestowed. I sincerely doubt either of us has anything to fear.

teflor wrote:For someone who bothered to type out this post, you seem only to have to say that rights are meant to be infringed upon, and that emotion should be kept outside the arguements.


Perhaps you'd like to reread my post and pay attention to wording. Never did I state they were meant to be infringed upon. I did say emotion should be kept out of debates. There is a reason for that.

teflor wrote:However, you refuse to admit the truth, and that is that we are NOT here at all to argue the main subject. Kifle is here to project his self-sense of moral superiority, self-sense of credibility, his views, and his light and way.


So you are here to flame Kifle, good show!

teflor wrote:I am here to criticize those who would do such a thing in the mockery of those who are being discussed, at the cost of those that have been ignored.


This is a grammatical nightmare. Someone explain it please? kthxbye~

!!x
Danahg tells you 'yeah, luckily i kept most of it in my mouth and nasal membranes, ugh'



Dlur group-says 'I have a dead horse that I'm dragging down the shaft with my 4 corpses. Anyone want to help me beat it?'



Calladuran: There are other games to play if you want to play with yourself.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Sat Nov 27, 2004 4:51 am

Accepted. I misread "The one undeniable fact that exists is that rights are being infringed upon."
User avatar
Shevarash
FORGER CODER
Posts: 2944
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2000 6:01 am

Postby Shevarash » Sat Nov 27, 2004 6:26 am

Debate civilly all you want, but stop the personal attacks please - this is getting out of hand.

Or take it to email.
Shevarash -- Code Forger of TorilMUD
Sephraem
Sojourner
Posts: 51
Joined: Thu Nov 18, 2004 4:45 am
Contact:

Postby Sephraem » Sat Nov 27, 2004 2:48 pm

Sarvis wrote:
Sephraem wrote:If there were no legal benefits to a marriage, would anyone marry for any reason other than religious beliefs?


Yes. Atheists get married. Atheists get married by civil servants in non-religious ceremonies.


I understand that Athiests get married. It is to their benefit to do so, legally, as things stand. However, if the legal benefits of marriage were all removed, every one, then who would marry if their religious beliefs did not compel them to?

Sarvis wrote:Is it the same thing for two atheists to get married in front of a judge as two christians in front of a priest? I dunno... but does it matter?


Yes. Of course it matters. It's completely different. A Christian marriage is not the same as an Athiest union. I know one Athiest who refuses to marry his girlfriend because the distinction between the two types of union is not clear enough. He does not want his commitment to her to be associated with any God or religion.

Religion is intrinsically linked with marriage. There is no divorcing the two. To do so, is an insult to the concept of marriage.

Sarvis wrote:What's the difference between two gay people getting married by a judge and two atheists getting married by a judge?


That reads like there should be a punchline. :D

So that the context of what I am about to say is clear:
Leviticus 18:22 wrote:Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

Leviticus 20:13 wrote:If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.


Given that God finds homosexuality 'detestable', is it likely that He will find homosexual 'marriages' anything but 'detestable'?

If He finds them 'detestable', is He likely to bless them?

For the sake of showing that this is not limited to Christianity:
http://www.themodernreligion.com/misc/sex/s_homo.htm wrote:Islam teaches that homosexual acts are sinful and punishable by God. This teaching comes not from human beings, but from the Creator of all humans. God tells us in His own words how He punished the people of Lot for their homosexual behaviour.

http://www.hindulogy.biz/_wsn/page2.html wrote:Homosexuality as such is wrong, because
1. It cannot lead to progeny
2. The basis of homosexual relationships is often physical pleasure whereas the meaning of a Hindu marriage is much deeper. Therefore, homosexual unions debase the institution of marriage.
3. Homosexuals are debarred from performance of rituals
4. Homosexual acts are equivalent to pre-marital sex, and so not desirable.


Even Buddhism does not look favourably upon homosexuality, cautioning the practitioner that it will affect one's karma negatively, and can lead to becoming trapped in a cycle from life to life.

So. No approval from God, means that the religious benefits of 'marriage' are denied to the homosexual couple, whether they are religious themselves, or not. It is insulting to God to expect Him to sanctify these 'marriages', just because we decide 'it isn't fair'. The arrogance!

Again, I state, there is no reason why homosexuals cannot commit to each other, legally, and benefit from all the civil implications. Just don't call it 'marriage'.
If you love something, let it go; especially if you love fireworks.
Klurg
Sojourner
Posts: 112
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Örebro, Sweden

Postby Klurg » Sat Nov 27, 2004 3:14 pm

The question remains if i lie with a woman like i would a man is that also detestable?!? oh my!
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Sat Nov 27, 2004 3:16 pm

Sephraem wrote:I understand that Athiests get married. It is to their benefit to do so, legally, as things stand. However, if the legal benefits of marriage were all removed, every one, then who would marry if their religious beliefs did not compel them to?


Probably. Somehow I doubt the first thing on the minds of most people when getting married is legalities.


Sarvis wrote:
Yes. Of course it matters. It's completely different. A Christian marriage is not the same as an Athiest union. I know one Athiest who refuses to marry his girlfriend because the distinction between the two types of union is not clear enough. He does not want his commitment to her to be associated with any God or religion.


But the atheist "union" is considered marriage by the general public. Thus your friends problem!


Religion is intrinsically linked with marriage. There is no divorcing the two. To do so, is an insult to the concept of marriage.


Except for atheist marriages.


Sarvis wrote:What's the difference between two gay people getting married by a judge and two atheists getting married by a judge?


That reads like there should be a punchline. :D

Given that God finds homosexuality 'detestable', is it likely that He will find homosexual 'marriages' anything but 'detestable'?

If He finds them 'detestable', is He likely to bless them?


Do you think he would bless atheistic unions which remove god from the ceremony? Is that _truly_ a marriage in God's eyes? They are really only legally agreeing to live with each other after all!

For the sake of showing that this is not limited to Christianity:
life.


Should people who don't believe in any of those religions have their societal status decided by those religions?

Should we begin imposing a Caste system in America to match India's religion?

So. No approval from God, means that the religious benefits of 'marriage' are denied to the homosexual couple, whether they are religious themselves, or not. It is insulting to God to expect Him to sanctify these 'marriages', just because we decide 'it isn't fair'. The arrogance!


No one is expecting God to do anything, except maybe mind his own damn business and keep his hand out of our politics! But no atheist cares if, or wants, their marriage is sanctified by God, and many homosexuals probably don't either. If they did they'd be taking the debate up with priests instead of politicians!

Again, I state, there is no reason why homosexuals cannot commit to each other, legally, and benefit from all the civil implications. Just don't call it 'marriage'.


Actually there is, since so many people voted to make that ilegal. As for calling it something different, we just end up going back to seperate but equal.

I suppose that might not be so bad though, since it would likely evolve to be the same thing eventually.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Sephraem
Sojourner
Posts: 51
Joined: Thu Nov 18, 2004 4:45 am
Contact:

Postby Sephraem » Sat Nov 27, 2004 4:13 pm

Sarvis wrote:
Sephraem wrote:I understand that Athiests get married. It is to their benefit to do so, legally, as things stand. However, if the legal benefits of marriage were all removed, every one, then who would marry if their religious beliefs did not compel them to?


Probably. Somehow I doubt the first thing on the minds of most people when getting married is legalities.


Really? How ignorant of them. ;)

Sarvis wrote:But the atheist "union" is considered marriage by the general public. Thus your friends problem!


Yes. That's what I'm saying.

Sarvis wrote:
Sephraem wrote:Religion is intrinsically linked with marriage. There is no divorcing the two. To do so, is an insult to the concept of marriage.


Except for atheist marriages.


Which if one follows my argument through to its logical conclusion, I am not advocating. To call Athiest unions 'marriages' is wrong, in my opinion. Just because that's what they have become known as, for the sake of convenience, doesn't make it right.

Sarvis wrote:Do you think he would bless atheistic unions which remove god from the ceremony? Is that _truly_ a marriage in God's eyes? They are really only legally agreeing to live with each other after all!


No, Sarvis, I don't think He would. I reiterate, just because that's what they have become known as for the sake of convenience, does not make it correct. In my opinion, it is unfortunate that the term 'marriage' has been stretched as such. I would like to see that reversed.

Sarvis wrote:Should people who don't believe in any of those religions have their societal status decided by those religions?

Should we begin imposing a Caste system in America to match India's religion?


Where on earth did you get the idea that my views point to this as a logical step? I obviously haven't made myself clear, because this is nothing close to what I am suggesting.

I only wished to make it clear that the people in America who are Hindus and marry, and the people in America who are Muslims and marry, feel the same sanctity applies to marriage as do the Christians. I have been using the word 'religious', as opposed to 'Christian', and my intention was to make it clear that the wider term was also applicable.

Saarvis wrote:No one is expecting God to do anything, except maybe mind his own damn business and keep his hand out of our politics! But no atheist cares if, or wants, their marriage is sanctified by God, and many homosexuals probably don't either. If they did they'd be taking the debate up with priests instead of politicians!


If they're not interested in their 'marriages' being santified by God, then presumably they're not interested in 'marriage' but in a union which says to the world 'We are joined! We are committed!'. Why can't those people be satisfied with a civil union? It's what you imply they 'probably' want.

Was using the phrase 'mind [H]is own damn business' (emphasis obviously mine) an oversight caused by a lack of proofreading? You didn't mean to cause offence, right? :)

Sarvis wrote:Actually there is, since so many people voted to make that ilegal. As for calling it something different, we just end up going back to seperate but equal.

I suppose that might not be so bad though, since it would likely evolve to be the same thing eventually.


A man is a man. A woman is a woman. Conventions of grammar aside, most people consider them to be separate but equal, and even grammar is evolving to acknowledge the difference. Nevertheless, I suspect you would be most upset if the female stripper you hired for your best friend's birthday turned out to be a man, and the agency who represented him said you couldn't have your money back because, really, men and women have evolved to be the same thing.
If you love something, let it go; especially if you love fireworks.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Sat Nov 27, 2004 11:31 pm

Sephraem wrote:Probably. Somehow I doubt the first thing on the minds of most people when getting married is legalities.


Really? How ignorant of them. ;)
[/quote]

So then you think the legalities of marriage are more important than the feelings or religion?


Which if one follows my argument through to its logical conclusion, I am not advocating. To call Athiest unions 'marriages' is wrong, in my opinion. Just because that's what they have become known as, for the sake of convenience, doesn't make it right.


Well then there is little more that I can say to you. However, can you at least agree that since <i>society</i> accepts atheistic unions as marriage it is hypocritical to not accept homosexual unions since they have already given up the religious part of the marriage?

As an aside, what about ceremonies performed by other religions? Is a Hindu marriage valid for instance? Or a Buddhist marriage?


Sarvis wrote:Should people who don't believe in any of those religions have their societal status decided by those religions?

Should we begin imposing a Caste system in America to match India's religion?


Where on earth did you get the idea that my views point to this as a logical step? I obviously haven't made myself clear, because this is nothing close to what I am suggesting.


I was not saying you suggested that at all, I was posing a hypothetical question for you to think about. India's caste system is rooted in religion, so it was posed more along the lines of my earlier polygamy example... to make you think about why making laws out of religious beliefs is only good if you happen to be in the majority religion.

However, parallels can be drawn between that and the seperation of people by words.


If you live a good life as a cow or some other animal (not sure what) you get promoted to the lowest class of human. As this low human you get a "home" which shares all the same basic functions as the "home" of the highest caste of human, say a ruler.

However could anyone argue that the quality of a single room straw hut is the same as the palace of a ruler? Sure, they are both technically a "home" but there is a world of difference.

This is in much the same way as a civil union and a marriage are both ways of joining people together.


I only wished to make it clear that the people in America who are Hindus and marry, and the people in America who are Muslims and marry, feel the same sanctity applies to marriage as do the Christians. I have been using the word 'religious', as opposed to 'Christian', and my intention was to make it clear that the wider term was also applicable.


But, as I asked earlier, is it applicable in God's eyes?


If they're not interested in their 'marriages' being santified by God, then presumably they're not interested in 'marriage' but in a union which says to the world 'We are joined! We are committed!'. Why can't those people be satisfied with a civil union? It's what you imply they 'probably' want.


Because they want to be equal to everyone else. Not cut off and set apart as lesser or different.

Equality. Equality is at the heart of almost all civil rights struggles, including this one.

Was using the phrase 'mind [H]is own damn business' (emphasis obviously mine) an oversight caused by a lack of proofreading? You didn't mean to cause offence, right? :)


No, I didn't mean to cause offense. I just didn't think that would offend anyone...

Sorry if I did. Is it because I said God should mind his own business or because I swore though?


A man is a man. A woman is a woman. Conventions of grammar aside, most people consider them to be separate but equal, and even grammar is evolving to acknowledge the difference. Nevertheless, I suspect you would be most upset if the female stripper you hired for your best friend's birthday turned out to be a man, and the agency who represented him said you couldn't have your money back because, really, men and women have evolved to be the same thing.


Well, that is a matter of specificity really. In fact one of the things that annoy me about the PC movement is trying to use gender neutral terms too much. There are no longer actresses, there are just actors...

However, man and woman are really just subcategories of People. An appropriate parallel would be to have marriage as the category with "gay marriage" and "straight marriage" as the subcategories!

Not to mention that often, when referring to the race in general, "man" serves as a general purpose word which covers women as well!
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
sok
Sojourner
Posts: 1578
Joined: Mon May 21, 2001 5:01 am
Location: santa ana, ca, usa
Contact:

Postby sok » Sat Nov 27, 2004 11:58 pm

Sephraem wrote:
sok wrote:The idea is people are born with race and nothing in the bible says being a black man is a sin. all man are born with original sin but being a black man or being female, while view negatively by the jewish religions leaders of that time, are not consider a sinful act.

sok


Does one really choose the person with whom one falls in love? And if the person whom you love is of the same gender as you, and they love you too, is that a matter of choice, or circumstance?


I believe in America, we as a soceity has really fallin for what Hollywood portray what love is. Growing up within the Christian faith I came to understand that there are many different type of love. So to be able to answer your question better can you clarify what you mean by "does one really choose the person with whom one falls in love?".

Something i learned from my marriage and family class. You can alway learn to love someone. My professor told of this couple on the verge of divorce. The wife felt neglected and felt like the husband was cheating on her with his work. He did not sleep with another person, but his work was taking up the majority of his time. They did not go out and or spend time together. He got married so he caught her, no longer need to pursuit her, was his thinking. They were separate, when to marriage counseling and he pro-active began pursuiting her again. The wife who no longer loved her husband fell back in love with him.

So I believe there was some choice in the love process. But again I want to reiterate that "love" without being define is a hard concept to defend.

sok
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Sun Nov 28, 2004 12:03 am

Getting back to the heart of the matter, defining what marraige is does not ban gay marriage.

Why are we calling the current proposed legislation attempting to define marriage as a "ban on gay marriage" so to speak?
sok
Sojourner
Posts: 1578
Joined: Mon May 21, 2001 5:01 am
Location: santa ana, ca, usa
Contact:

Postby sok » Tue Nov 30, 2004 3:27 am

Kifle wrote:
sok wrote:
Rytnor wrote:I was hesitant to post to this thread because of my intimate association with the subject matter. Let me start by saying that I’m a 27 year-old, white, homosexual male. I’ll try to keep this succinct since much has already been written.

I don’t purport to change other’s beliefs as testimony sans phenomenological reinforcement lacks the substance required to significantly impact another’s theological or philosophical perspective (I realize that a logical perspective may be discrete from both). Anything is true to an individual only because s/he believes it is true. That’s not to say that all beliefs are equal; beliefs reinforced by logical science or common experiences have more of a penchant for validity than a belief subjectively absolute to the self.

I won’t regurgitate what has already been posted in this thread. Suffice to say I’ve been encouraged, disheartened and infuriated by this thread, as have many others who have taken the time to digest the content. The technical and intimate aspects of my relationship with another male may prove unpalatable to you, but the personal and relational sexuality between consensual adults is not something that should be institutionally regulated based upon palatability. This relationship deserves the privilege of recognition by a government that regulates my personal freedoms. A government, mind you, for which I am financially and legally responsible.

Without legally delineating the historical development of marriage, I think advocates of exclusively heterosexual marriage should keep the following in mind:
1) Marriage was created to benefit a religious institution within a specific historical and cultural context. This context no longer exists. I do not propose the abolition of marriage, but I think it should be noted that the historical and cultural environment has changed significantly. Just as both the Church and government have changed to accommodate societal paradigm shifts, so should the institutions that each engenders (or of which they consist, depending on your perspective). If these do not change, they become closed and subject to entropy.
2) To my knowledge, the institution of marriage has propagated discrimination based upon race, gender and economics within the past 100 years of our history. We have abolished discrimination based upon most aspects of these attributes. I find it interesting and sad that as early as 50 years ago, interracial marriage was a prosecutable offense in some states. Indeed, much of what is being said about the current homosexual involvement in marriage could be taken verbatim from the arguments against interracial marriage back then.

Preferential discrimination can be extremely beneficial for a society. But that’s the key: beneficial. The attempt to discriminate in certain bureaucracies is towards a beneficial end. Gender and racial tick boxes are not included on application forms for the purpose of exclusion. They are included to allow benefit for groups of people who have traditionally been excluded due to similar discrimination. My point is not to debate advocate Affirmative Action, but to make a logical point. The original intent of such discrimination was to benefit the entire population that the bureaucracy was created to facilitate. And if it was not originally created to facilitate the entire population, it has been modified to meet the current needs and avoid entropy for a time.

Well, that was a bit longer than I anticipated and I’m truncating my post here on a final note. I believe it was Imix that asked why there is little or no tolerance for a viewpoint opposing the inclusion of homosexuals in the traditional and legally recognized definition of marriage. The reason that I have no tolerance for this viewpoint is that while an exclusive belief restricts my personal freedoms (which, in turn, have legal ramifications), my belief does no such thing to yours.

Finis



well said. for one leaning towards ban of gay marriage this has given me more to think about and reflect upon than kifle's calling me a bigot and ignoramus.


I don't believe I ever called you anything, sok. Because you ASSUME I said something based upon your own PERCEPTIONS, doesn't mean it was actually said. Regardless, if you feel as though you fall into the category which I label as bigot (only by using the dictionary definition), I'm sorry. The truth hurts sometimes and I'm sure nobody likes to think of themselves in negative terms. I'm an asshole. I don't deny this, but I am man enough to admit it.

The funny thing is is that I've said virtually the same thing as him, only I did it in a different way. This only proves the fact that you have an inability to see the points based on your attitude towards the person giving them. This is called being closed-minded.



My apologies. i got on this forum a little late. i type this post back when you were still "debating" teflor. your post seem to be mean spirited and very anti-christian. that's what i get for mention names.

other comments:

your explanation of the holy book not being able to be use in a debate. this is not the forum to debate the inerrancy of the bible so i wont. but let me say there are many scholars who believe and defend it's inerrancy as there are scholars who debate it being fallable. the reason i mention "reguriating" is that i find most do not actually stop to look at what is being said and just accept as fact.

in reference to your ending questions "And, since this is true, logically you can not use them to dictate the actions of anybody unless they are willing" I guess that leaves with this. Do i allow things to progress the way i believe they are headed or do i take a step based on what i believe is right?

I read in "Loving God" a story of a monk who was in Rome for the first time and went to the Coliseum and saw for the first time gladiors fighting to kill each other. He ran out onto the floor and tried to stop the gladiors from killing each other. In the process he was killed. The poeple became sick and left. The book goes on the talk about the coliseum stopping the battles of gladiors. I assume there are many different factors to what has happen and I have not done my research to validate this claim.

Again i ask myself do i allow things to progress the way i believe they are headed? Is this a moral issue or a human rights issue. Do i believe the homosexual community is asking for more rights than the average human being? Those are all questions that need to be resolved. And if i haven't come to a conclusion, i make every effort to look at both side. If i find that one side is attacking my faith i will defend it. If they makes me a bigot or homophobia or whatever than i'm sorry. That is not my intention. But not everyone has an answer to every question and tough questions need lots of thought and research before you should really be set on an answer.

sok
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Tue Nov 30, 2004 3:40 am

teflor the ranger wrote:Getting back to the heart of the matter, defining what marraige is does not ban gay marriage.

Why are we calling the current proposed legislation attempting to define marriage as a "ban on gay marriage" so to speak?


Because the constsitutional amendment Bush proposed was not an attempt to define marriage, it was an attempt to ban gay people from getting married.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
sok
Sojourner
Posts: 1578
Joined: Mon May 21, 2001 5:01 am
Location: santa ana, ca, usa
Contact:

Postby sok » Tue Nov 30, 2004 4:29 am

[quote="Sarvis4) I don't care if you accept any of the above statements, though you should probably give it some thought, but don't you DARE try to force me to follow your beliefs through the power of Law.[/quote]

But isn't this the same thing. The power of Law forcing use to follow your beliefs of what is right and wrong? There is a claim that allow homosexuals to marry will not effect others but is that really true. Do other peoples action not effect the people they interact with. Do they not change their neighbors in someways? Madona said that the more exposure one get to homosexuals the more "normal" they become. Now Madonna does not have a degree in sociology, but if she know this then can i assume that other might know it too?

The dilemma within the Christian faith is accepting the people without accepting that homosexuality is okay.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Tue Nov 30, 2004 4:35 am

sok wrote:[quote="Sarvis] I don't care if you accept any of the above statements, though you should probably give it some thought, but don't you DARE try to force me to follow your beliefs through the power of Law.


But isn't this the same thing. The power of Law forcing use to follow your beliefs of what is right and wrong? There is a claim that allow homosexuals to marry will not effect others but is that really true. Do other peoples action not effect the people they interact with. Do they not change their neighbors in someways? Madona said that the more exposure one get to homosexuals the more "normal" they become. Now Madonna does not have a degree in sociology, but if she know this then can i assume that other might know it too?

The dilemma within the Christian faith is accepting the people without accepting that homosexuality is okay.[/quote]

But does homosexuality being more "normal" actually affect you? If so, how?

Frankly, I've never heard anyone explain how allowing gay marriage would have any effect on other people at all.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Tue Nov 30, 2004 5:40 am

Sarvis wrote:
teflor the ranger wrote:Getting back to the heart of the matter, defining what marraige is does not ban gay marriage.

Why are we calling the current proposed legislation attempting to define marriage as a "ban on gay marriage" so to speak?


Because the constsitutional amendment Bush proposed was not an attempt to define marriage, it was an attempt to ban gay people from getting married.


Alright, it doesn't look like Sarvis has even seen the proposed amendment (which by, the way, was not proposed by Bush, seeing as how this amendment was proposed by a congressman).

"SECTION 1. Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."

Again, how does this ban gay marriage?
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Tue Nov 30, 2004 5:53 am

teflor the ranger wrote:
Sarvis wrote:
teflor the ranger wrote:Getting back to the heart of the matter, defining what marraige is does not ban gay marriage.

Why are we calling the current proposed legislation attempting to define marriage as a "ban on gay marriage" so to speak?


Because the constsitutional amendment Bush proposed was not an attempt to define marriage, it was an attempt to ban gay people from getting married.


Alright, it doesn't look like Sarvis has even seen the proposed amendment (which by, the way, was not proposed by Bush, seeing as how this amendment was proposed by a congressman).

"SECTION 1. Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."

Again, how does this ban gay marriage?


It says that ONLY marriage between a man and a woman can be legally recognized. All other groupings of people, such as homosexual unions, cannot be considered marriage.

Furthermore, it also says that even if civil unions are allowed they are not allowed to retain any of the benefits of marriage! In other words even if Civil Unions are accepted by states there is no difference between a "civil unioned" couple and an unmarried couple.

Saying "only" something bans everything else. If I say ONLY Conan can be shown on TV, Leno is effectively banned.

And of course it was proposed by a congressman. It HAS to be, since the President isn't technically allowed to propose legislation. He can certainly write something up and say, hey Mr. Congressman can you propose this for me?

(No, I have no proof or backing to show that is how it happened... but we DO know that Bush was a big advocate of that legislation and since he's the Leader he takes the blame. Like a captain going down with his ship even if a deckhand drove it into the iceberg.)
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Tue Nov 30, 2004 6:44 am

Sarvis wrote:
teflor the ranger wrote:
Sarvis wrote:
teflor the ranger wrote:Getting back to the heart of the matter, defining what marraige is does not ban gay marriage.

Why are we calling the current proposed legislation attempting to define marriage as a "ban on gay marriage" so to speak?


Because the constsitutional amendment Bush proposed was not an attempt to define marriage, it was an attempt to ban gay people from getting married.


Alright, it doesn't look like Sarvis has even seen the proposed amendment (which by, the way, was not proposed by Bush, seeing as how this amendment was proposed by a congressman).

"SECTION 1. Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."

Again, how does this ban gay marriage?


It says that ONLY marriage between a man and a woman can be legally recognized. All other groupings of people, such as homosexual unions, cannot be considered marriage.

Furthermore, it also says that even if civil unions are allowed they are not allowed to retain any of the benefits of marriage! In other words even if Civil Unions are accepted by states there is no difference between a "civil unioned" couple and an unmarried couple.

Saying "only" something bans everything else. If I say ONLY Conan can be shown on TV, Leno is effectively banned.

And of course it was proposed by a congressman. It HAS to be, since the President isn't technically allowed to propose legislation. He can certainly write something up and say, hey Mr. Congressman can you propose this for me?

(No, I have no proof or backing to show that is how it happened... but we DO know that Bush was a big advocate of that legislation and since he's the Leader he takes the blame. Like a captain going down with his ship even if a deckhand drove it into the iceberg.)


So basically, you agree that it states that Marriage is an institution between a man and a woman and that the legal benefits of Marriage are unique to marriage?

The only thing it really seems to ban is the label of marriage to be applied onto a union between two of the same gender.

I still have to point out that it says nothing of the concept of Gay Marriage. Certainly this proposed amendment does not ban or halt the definition of a gay union/marriage, and certianly does not mean that similar legal benefits can be created for gay marriages.

(and yes, the pres did seem to have some involvement, i agree)
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Tue Nov 30, 2004 7:32 am

I'm beginning to understand how you are able to believe all of Bush's doublespeak.

You, no doubt, don't think we were supposed to find WMD in Iraq because Bush never actually said Saddam had WMD.

Look, the amendment defines marriage as something that can only happen between man and woman. This means gay _marriage_ is impossible, because you do not have a man and a woman entering the union.

It means other types of groupings are possible, such as civil unions... BUT THOSE ARE NOT MARRIAGE!

It then goes on to say that the status and legal benefits of marriage CANNOT be gained by any other means than marriage. So you can civil union, instead of marry (because marriage is banned) but you don't gain ANY of the rights of privileges we give to married people.

So essentially the only thing allowed by that amendment is dating. There is nothing with any legal force allowed, at all. No, it does not specifically say "We will ban gay marriage." It just says that only the kind of marriage which is not gay marriage is allowed in any form.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
sok
Sojourner
Posts: 1578
Joined: Mon May 21, 2001 5:01 am
Location: santa ana, ca, usa
Contact:

Postby sok » Tue Nov 30, 2004 11:15 am

Sarvis wrote:Ok, this has to be quick 'cause I've got to work. :(

I'm not sure many of you realize what it is to have a majority force their beliefs on something like marriage upon you. So I want you to imagine something, and really try at this... don't just give me your knee jerk reaction like teflor undoubtedly will.

Here it is:

Imagine that Mormons became the dominant religion in the land, and held most of the power. Imagine that an extremely Mormon President decided to amend the Constitution. Here is the amendment he wants:

Only plural marriages (polygamy) can be legal.




Try to think about that. The marriage right is sacrament to them too, only for them it involves multiple wives. So they want to force that upon you. Sound good?

Give it some thought.



<b>Sephraem</b>

The cross is used all over the place as a non-religious symbol (+), not to mention that the swastika(sp?) is a bastardized version of the cross.


i think i know where you are trying to go but its not going to work for a number of reasons:

1) the christian community at the present does not accept the mormon church as being under the christian umbella.
2) i have dont done extensive study of the mormon church, but i believe the mormon church is trying to change their doctrine about polygamy. if theres a mormon out there maybe you can clarify.
3) this example actually infuriates christians more than helps them empathize with "the oppression" the homosexual communities is going through because it lump christianity with mormonism

i understand you didn't have time but i dont believe this is a good example.
sok
Sojourner
Posts: 1578
Joined: Mon May 21, 2001 5:01 am
Location: santa ana, ca, usa
Contact:

Postby sok » Tue Nov 30, 2004 11:58 am

Sarvis wrote:
sok wrote:[quote="Sarvis] I don't care if you accept any of the above statements, though you should probably give it some thought, but don't you DARE try to force me to follow your beliefs through the power of Law.


But isn't this the same thing. The power of Law forcing use to follow your beliefs of what is right and wrong? There is a claim that allow homosexuals to marry will not effect others but is that really true. Do other peoples action not effect the people they interact with. Do they not change their neighbors in someways? Madona said that the more exposure one get to homosexuals the more "normal" they become. Now Madonna does not have a degree in sociology, but if she know this then can i assume that other might know it too?

The dilemma within the Christian faith is accepting the people without accepting that homosexuality is okay.


But does homosexuality being more "normal" actually affect you? If so, how?

Frankly, I've never heard anyone explain how allowing gay marriage would have any effect on other people at all.[/quote]

the idea is that making it acceptable, normal, alright will lead to my children believing its acceptable, normal, alright. maybe it doesn't stop there maybe it's encouraged because television shows the most well adjusted people are the gay people. this is why the debate about nature vs nurture is so big within the topic of homosexuality. if it was choice why are people being afforded more rights just because they chose a different lifestyle.

even if they were born with a tendency towards people of the same sex do we make laws to accept that? i heard that children of alcoholics are born with a higher tendency to be alcoholis. so if they become drunk and gets a dui should we change the law to excuse them because they were born with a tendency towards alcohol?
oteb
Sojourner
Posts: 432
Joined: Mon May 27, 2002 5:01 am
Location: poland

Postby oteb » Tue Nov 30, 2004 5:12 pm

sok wrote:the idea is that making it acceptable, normal, alright will lead to my children believing its acceptable, normal, alright.


Who knows maybe your own child will be homosexual. Maybe he/she will be hurt by having a father who thinks she/he is unacceptable, abnormal, wrong. It would be pretty damn painful for them I assume.
Of course assuming that not only democrats give birth to homosexuals.
You group-say 'who is da red shape?'
A red shape group-says 'I'm a shape'
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Tue Nov 30, 2004 5:43 pm

sok wrote:
Sarvis wrote:Ok, this has to be quick 'cause I've got to work. :(

I'm not sure many of you realize what it is to have a majority force their beliefs on something like marriage upon you. So I want you to imagine something, and really try at this... don't just give me your knee jerk reaction like teflor undoubtedly will.

Here it is:

Imagine that Mormons became the dominant religion in the land, and held most of the power. Imagine that an extremely Mormon President decided to amend the Constitution. Here is the amendment he wants:

Only plural marriages (polygamy) can be legal.




Try to think about that. The marriage right is sacrament to them too, only for them it involves multiple wives. So they want to force that upon you. Sound good?

Give it some thought.



<b>Sephraem</b>

The cross is used all over the place as a non-religious symbol (+), not to mention that the swastika(sp?) is a bastardized version of the cross.


i think i know where you are trying to go but its not going to work for a number of reasons:

1) the christian community at the present does not accept the mormon church as being under the christian umbella.
2) i have dont done extensive study of the mormon church, but i believe the mormon church is trying to change their doctrine about polygamy. if theres a mormon out there maybe you can clarify.
3) this example actually infuriates christians more than helps them empathize with "the oppression" the homosexual communities is going through because it lump christianity with mormonism

i understand you didn't have time but i dont believe this is a good example.


What should Christians acceptance of Mormonism have to do with anything? The whole POINT is to imagine that a religion that Christians DON'T accept is wielding power over them!

the idea is that making it acceptable, normal, alright will lead to my children believing its acceptable, normal, alright. maybe it doesn't stop there maybe it's encouraged because television shows the most well adjusted people are the gay people. this is why the debate about nature vs nurture is so big within the topic of homosexuality. if it was choice why are people being afforded more rights just because they chose a different lifestyle.


More rights? MORE rights?

We're talking about EQUAL rights here pal.

Right now if it is a choice then people who choose the "normal" lifestyle ARE getting more rights. So your question is quite apt. Why ARE the people who chose one lifestyle getting more rights?

I really don't think it is a choice though. I mean, why would anyone ever _choose_ to be gay in a society where it means constant revulsion and discrimination? Could you imagine anyone _choosing_ to be black in the late 1800s in the south? It's the same basic choice!


even if they were born with a tendency towards people of the same sex do we make laws to accept that? i heard that children of alcoholics are born with a higher tendency to be alcoholis. so if they become drunk and gets a dui should we change the law to excuse them because they were born with a tendency towards alcohol?


Driving gay has never killed anyone! In fact, doing ANYTHING gay has pretty much completely failed to kill anyone...

Except for having unprotected sex, but that happens to straight people too.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
sok
Sojourner
Posts: 1578
Joined: Mon May 21, 2001 5:01 am
Location: santa ana, ca, usa
Contact:

Postby sok » Tue Nov 30, 2004 8:40 pm

Sarvis wrote:
sok wrote:
Sarvis wrote:Ok, this has to be quick 'cause I've got to work. :(

I'm not sure many of you realize what it is to have a majority force their beliefs on something like marriage upon you. So I want you to imagine something, and really try at this... don't just give me your knee jerk reaction like teflor undoubtedly will.

Here it is:

Imagine that Mormons became the dominant religion in the land, and held most of the power. Imagine that an extremely Mormon President decided to amend the Constitution. Here is the amendment he wants:

Only plural marriages (polygamy) can be legal.




Try to think about that. The marriage right is sacrament to them too, only for them it involves multiple wives. So they want to force that upon you. Sound good?

Give it some thought.



<b>Sephraem</b>

The cross is used all over the place as a non-religious symbol (+), not to mention that the swastika(sp?) is a bastardized version of the cross.


i think i know where you are trying to go but its not going to work for a number of reasons:

1) the christian community at the present does not accept the mormon church as being under the christian umbella.
2) i have dont done extensive study of the mormon church, but i believe the mormon church is trying to change their doctrine about polygamy. if theres a mormon out there maybe you can clarify.
3) this example actually infuriates christians more than helps them empathize with "the oppression" the homosexual communities is going through because it lump christianity with mormonism

i understand you didn't have time but i dont believe this is a good example.


What should Christians acceptance of Mormonism have to do with anything? The whole POINT is to imagine that a religion that Christians DON'T accept is wielding power over them!

the idea is that making it acceptable, normal, alright will lead to my children believing its acceptable, normal, alright. maybe it doesn't stop there maybe it's encouraged because television shows the most well adjusted people are the gay people. this is why the debate about nature vs nurture is so big within the topic of homosexuality. if it was choice why are people being afforded more rights just because they chose a different lifestyle.


More rights? MORE rights?

We're talking about EQUAL rights here pal.

Right now if it is a choice then people who choose the "normal" lifestyle ARE getting more rights. So your question is quite apt. Why ARE the people who chose one lifestyle getting more rights?

I really don't think it is a choice though. I mean, why would anyone ever _choose_ to be gay in a society where it means constant revulsion and discrimination? Could you imagine anyone _choosing_ to be black in the late 1800s in the south? It's the same basic choice!


even if they were born with a tendency towards people of the same sex do we make laws to accept that? i heard that children of alcoholics are born with a higher tendency to be alcoholis. so if they become drunk and gets a dui should we change the law to excuse them because they were born with a tendency towards alcohol?


Driving gay has never killed anyone! In fact, doing ANYTHING gay has pretty much completely failed to kill anyone...

Except for having unprotected sex, but that happens to straight people too.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Tue Nov 30, 2004 10:44 pm

Sarvis wrote:I'm beginning to understand how you are able to believe all of Bush's doublespeak.

You, no doubt, don't think we were supposed to find WMD in Iraq because Bush never actually said Saddam had WMD.

Look, the amendment defines marriage as something that can only happen between man and woman. This means gay _marriage_ is impossible, because you do not have a man and a woman entering the union.

It means other types of groupings are possible, such as civil unions... BUT THOSE ARE NOT MARRIAGE!

It then goes on to say that the status and legal benefits of marriage CANNOT be gained by any other means than marriage. So you can civil union, instead of marry (because marriage is banned) but you don't gain ANY of the rights of privileges we give to married people.

So essentially the only thing allowed by that amendment is dating. There is nothing with any legal force allowed, at all. No, it does not specifically say "We will ban gay marriage." It just says that only the kind of marriage which is not gay marriage is allowed in any form.


Sarvis, I already understood how you could believe all ignorant reactionist hogwash without even giving it a second thought.

Here's an example where something is defined with unique rights:

In the United States, racial origins and geo-socio family heritage are defined seperately with unique racial protections.

* Native Americans need only be 1/16th Native American in order to have Native American racial status, where as for other minorities a minimum of 1/8th is required.

* Hispanics/Latinos and African Decendance qualifiers may recieve aid that Asians and Caucasians may not recieve.

Yet, we still check the boxes when it comes to

African Decendance
Asian/Pacific Islanders
Caucasian
Hispanic/Latino
Native American

While they are seperate, and Native Americans MAY NOT recieve the same benefits as African Decendance,

While there is a clear definition of what each is, and each with a unique set of legal protections, there is certainly not a ban on any particular race.

BTW, you know, you could just call it "gay marriage," you know, like we already do.

You see, Sarvis, it has nothing to do with doublespeak. Sometimes you just have to sit down and think about it.
Last edited by teflor the ranger on Tue Nov 30, 2004 10:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Tue Nov 30, 2004 10:53 pm

Sarvis wrote:It says that ONLY marriage between a man and a woman can be legally recognized. All other groupings of people, such as homosexual unions, cannot be considered marriage.

Furthermore, it also says that even if civil unions are allowed they are not allowed to retain any of the benefits of marriage! In other words even if Civil Unions are accepted by states there is no difference between a "civil unioned" couple and an unmarried couple.

Saying "only" something bans everything else. If I say ONLY Conan can be shown on TV, Leno is effectively banned.)


This is a terrible, novice example. The comparison is more that only Conan can be on Channel 6. For those of us who wish to see Leno, turn to channel 7 (but only in this area. In other areas the channel numbers are different).

The freedom to chose who you wish to spend your life, or declare your affections to, is preserved.

And if you want to call it marriage, when it's between a guy and a guy, that's fine, but the rest of us don't have to.

Unless you want to attempt to make the argument that government should ignore the differences between marriage and gay marriage.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Tue Nov 30, 2004 10:59 pm

Sarvis wrote:Frankly, I've never heard anyone explain how allowing gay marriage would have any effect on other people at all.


Well, if there's no effect, then there is no reason for government to take into consideration (thereby spending millions and fighting with itself) the concept of gay marriage.

Frankly, I've never heard anyone explaining how there was any benefit from encouraging gay marriage in this country.
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Postby Kifle » Wed Dec 01, 2004 12:29 am

teflor the ranger wrote:
Sarvis wrote:Frankly, I've never heard anyone explain how allowing gay marriage would have any effect on other people at all.


Well, if there's no effect, then there is no reason for government to take into consideration (thereby spending millions and fighting with itself) the concept of gay marriage.

Frankly, I've never heard anyone explaining how there was any benefit from encouraging gay marriage in this country.


Times like this I wish you were gay and trying to get married...you'd see all the benefits you'd lose and all the reasons why you'd want equal rights.
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Wed Dec 01, 2004 1:48 am

teflor the ranger wrote:
Sarvis wrote:I'm beginning to understand how you are able to believe all of Bush's doublespeak.

You, no doubt, don't think we were supposed to find WMD in Iraq because Bush never actually said Saddam had WMD.

Look, the amendment defines marriage as something that can only happen between man and woman. This means gay _marriage_ is impossible, because you do not have a man and a woman entering the union.

It means other types of groupings are possible, such as civil unions... BUT THOSE ARE NOT MARRIAGE!

It then goes on to say that the status and legal benefits of marriage CANNOT be gained by any other means than marriage. So you can civil union, instead of marry (because marriage is banned) but you don't gain ANY of the rights of privileges we give to married people.

So essentially the only thing allowed by that amendment is dating. There is nothing with any legal force allowed, at all. No, it does not specifically say "We will ban gay marriage." It just says that only the kind of marriage which is not gay marriage is allowed in any form.


Sarvis, I already understood how you could believe all ignorant reactionist hogwash without even giving it a second thought.

Here's an example where something is defined with unique rights:

In the United States, racial origins and geo-socio family heritage are defined seperately with unique racial protections.

* Native Americans need only be 1/16th Native American in order to have Native American racial status, where as for other minorities a minimum of 1/8th is required.

* Hispanics/Latinos and African Decendance qualifiers may recieve aid that Asians and Caucasians may not recieve.

Yet, we still check the boxes when it comes to

African Decendance
Asian/Pacific Islanders
Caucasian
Hispanic/Latino
Native American

While they are seperate, and Native Americans MAY NOT recieve the same benefits as African Decendance,

While there is a clear definition of what each is, and each with a unique set of legal protections, there is certainly not a ban on any particular race.

BTW, you know, you could just call it "gay marriage," you know, like we already do.

You see, Sarvis, it has nothing to do with doublespeak. Sometimes you just have to sit down and think about it.


Gee now, your new examples don't really make any sense do they?

I mean, nothing anywhere says only native americans can get married does it? THAT would be an appropriate example.

Look, if ONLY one thing is allowed then the other things are NOT allowed. How simple does it need to be stated before you are capable of comprehending?

People may still _call_ it marriage to themselves, but they would have no legal standing whatsoever... which is the entire point really! Not to mention that in states where people _do_ think it's ok, they wouldn't be able to allow it!

All you've shown here is that we don't treat everyone equally. GREAT! Good show on proving that we're bigotted assholes in general!

This is a terrible, novice example. The comparison is more that only Conan can be on Channel 6. For those of us who wish to see Leno, turn to channel 7 (but only in this area. In other areas the channel numbers are different).
The freedom to chose who you wish to spend your life, or declare your affections to, is preserved.
And if you want to call it marriage, when it's between a guy and a guy, that's fine, but the rest of us don't have to.
Unless you want to attempt to make the argument that government should ignore the differences between marriage and gay marriage.


There is no "other channel" here though. Especially with that amendment banning ANY other grouping from having the same rights and privileges as marriage.

There are no differences by the way. At least no hard and fast ones. The best one, and I'm sure you're about to bring it up, is that gay couples can't produce offspring. Guess what, some straight couples can't either so that's not actually a difference!

Not to mention that the marriage benefits related to children actually require the presence of children...,

Well, if there's no effect, then there is no reason for government to take into consideration (thereby spending millions and fighting with itself) the concept of gay marriage.

Frankly, I've never heard anyone explaining how there was any benefit from encouraging gay marriage in this country.




1) If there's no effect then the government should allow it.
2) No one's encouraging gay marriage, just allowing it for those who want to take part.

There was no benefit to ending slavery in this country either by the way. Go ask a black person if he wishes slavery had never ended.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire

Return to “General Discussion Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests