gay marriage banned

[Cant_Be_Faded]

I took a glance at the county by county results of the gay marriage proposition....pretty much every county but Travis was overwhelmingly in favor of voting to ban gay marriage.


Are there really that many blind christians here? I learned something today. Call me slow. But I really did learn something about the people around me today.

[Carie]

Really? That surprises me more than I thought it would. Damn.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

I knew it would be banned. What surprised me is how incredibly lopsided the results were.

[Carie]

Yeah, me too. Only ONE country? Go Austin.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

not sure on that officially, i looked at the news 8 austin results, and tried to watch all counties

only one i noticed was travis, and it was about 60-40 in rejecting it.

for the most part, other counties were approx 80-20 in approving ban on gay marriage.

[Carie]

80/20??? Holy crap. I obviously need to get out more. I know my friends are fairly liberal in their thinking, but I didn't think we were in this small of a minority.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Luckily the voting machines are owned by conservative-supporting private companies, so like yonivore always says, "electronic will always be safer than paper"

[Trainwreck2100]

I knew it would be banned. What surprised me is how incredibly lopsided the results were.

Do that many gay people live in this state for it to not be lopsided. Also look at the highest demographic, old people. Of course they would go against it. I bet if every gay person and supporter got out and voted it would have been close.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

I dont think you have to be gay to realize how fascist it is to ban it.
All it requires is human decency.

Plus, wouldnt more marriages = more taxes for the state? Just wondering.

[boutons]

Legislating Christian morals, Texas becomes a theorcracy. Probably over 50% of the 80% voting against gay marriage are fall into one or more of these categories:

1) hetero and cheating on their spouse
2) divorced (many more more than once)
3) unhappy as hell in their marriage
4) beating their spouse
5) abusing their children
6) abusing substances
7) gay but in the closet

Kansas repeats its rejection of evolution, confirming its role as harbinger of the Christian Dark Ages.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

boutons is right

its not just texas either

if the conservatives have their way, RvW will be overturned. They want this nation to become a theocracy so badly. I swear jesus christ would be a demanded figure in all classrooms and people like gtownspur would still have sticks up their asses.

[IcemanCometh]

this is why civil liberties shouldn't be put to a vote. the people simply can't be trusted. How many states do you think would overturn womans suffrage or vote for segreation?

[exstatic]

this is why civil liberties shouldn't be put to a vote. the people simply can't be trusted. How many states do you think would overturn womans suffrage or vote for segreation?

Texas and Kansas come to mind. After all, those black people wouldn't be black if they stayed out of the sun. Activating pigment is a CHOICE, because I've said so. :rolleyes

[Mr. Peabody]

Texas and Kansas come to mind. After all, those black people wouldn't be black if they stayed out of the sun. Activating pigment is a CHOICE, because I've said so. :rolleyes

Black people are descendants of Cain. God marked them so they would be easily identified. As such they shouldn't have the same rights as God's chosen people.
________
Illegally_Sexy (http://camslivesexy.com/cam/Illegally_Sexy)

[Murphy]

yes yes yes!!! no more gay marriage! I'm gonna go celebrate tonight, thank the lord!

[Oh, Gee!!]

The TX family code has always banned gay marriage in TX by statute. The constitutional amendment was basically overkill.

[Mr. Peabody]

yes yes yes!!! no more gay marriage! I'm gonna go celebrate tonight, thank the lord!

I was scared that the amendment wouldn't pass. Now I don't have to worry about being tempted to divorce my wife and run off and marry another man.

My marriage is so much more secure now!!!!

You Christians have done it again!

Kudos, to you, fine sirs. :tu
________
condos Pattaya (http://pattayaluxurycondos.com)

[Mr. Peabody]

The TX family code has always banned gay marriage in TX by statute. The constitutional amendment was basically overkill.

It was necessary to prevent activist judges from legislating from the bench.

Oh and to keep fags from getting married too.
________
Buy E Cigarettes (http://www.ecigarettes123.com/)

[xrayzebra]

I dont think you have to be gay to realize how fascist it is to ban it.
All it requires is human decency.

Plus, wouldnt more marriages = more taxes for the state? Just wondering.

Ah, so you would be in favor of the following then':

Marry Anything Day
By Mike S. Adams

Nov 9, 2005


Almost every time I speak on a college campus, a field representative from The Leadership Institute is listening in the audience. That’s always good because, after the speech, the representative usually shares great ideas for campus conservative activism. Recently, in Athens, Ohio, I heard an especially good idea that will drive liberal administrators – former hippies who stopped supporting campus protest shortly after becoming administrators – absolutely crazy. That idea is called “Marry Anything Day.”

The idea behind “Marry Anything Day” is to bring an ordained minister to campus to perform marriage ceremonies. But the ceremonies are not limited to unions between a man and a woman, or even a man and a man, for that matter. On “Marry Anything Day” you can choose your own definition of marriage based upon the most important of all legal doctrines; your personal feelings. (For further elaboration see the opinions of Justice Anthony Kennedy).

For liberal administrators who never really considered the implications of changing the definition of marriage – because they suffer from a fear of campus gay activists, which they say is outside the normal definition of homophobia – this should be a long overdue wake-up call.

Imagine the reaction of administrators when they see the minister performing a ceremony between a man and several women, or a woman and her cat. Of course, the ceremonies will not be restricted to living entities because that would discriminate against someone who really loves his favorite lamp.

By the end of the day, some administrators will be sorry they ever supported the student protest movement. And some, wondering whether they are having a flashback, will be sorry they dropped acid in graduate school.

The idea is great but, of course, it must be tried in the proper venue. Today, I propose that a “Marry Anything Day” should take place on the campus of Duquesne University in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Duquesne University has a policy prohibiting “Harassment or discrimination based on race, color, religion, gender, sexual orientation, national origin or citizenship status, age, disability, or veteran status.”

Under that policy, Duquesne student Ryan Minor was recently punished by the university - for allegedly referring to homosexuals as “subhuman” - at the insistence of four “offended” students. But Minor insists that he was referring to homosexual acts, not homosexuals themselves, as “subhuman.” He also says that his motivation for writing the remarks was a proposed Gay Straight Alliance at Duquesne, which is, of course, a Catholic school.

Perhaps the most interesting aspect of Minor’s case is that the controversial reference was made on the 0ff-campus website www.facebook.com. Minor’s punishment for this off-campus expression of opinion included removing the offensive material from the site and writing a ten-page essay regarding the Catholic Church’s “official teaching related to the dignity and respect to be shown for all human beings.”

In his defense, Minor has referred to the Catholic Catechism, which, in turn, refers to homosexual acts as “acts of grave depravity,” which are “intrinsically disordered,” and “contrary to natural law.”

Nonetheless, President Dougherty has convened a “special committee” to examine the issue of bringing the Gay Straight Alliance to Duquesne. Father Tim Hickey is leading the committee examining the issue, which the university refers to on its website as “complex” and “sensitive.”

Regardless of what Father Hickey finds, I would urge Catholics to follow the advice of the late Pope John Paul II who urged Catholics not to be afraid to publicly defend traditional family values in modern society.

By holding my proposed gay marriage protest at Duquesne, students, faculty, and staff have a chance to force administrators to make an important choice between two alternatives. Will they 1) bow down and worship the Gods of Diversity, or 2) grant their Catholic students the same freedoms of religious expression they would experience outside the walls of a Catholic university.

If “Marry Anything Day” is a success, officials at Duquesne University should next be forced to write an essay. In no less than ten pages, they should discuss the dignity and respect to be shown to all orthodox Catholics.



-------------------------------------------------------------------------

The point being, why stop at man/man, woman/woman. Why not let everyone marry what they want. Yeah, now that is what I call real freedom!

[Oh, Gee!!]

It was necessary to prevent activist judges from legislating from the bench.

Oh and to keep fags from getting married too.


TX and activist judges are mutually exclusive terms. And the gays prefer to be called butt pirates since pirates are so cool these days

[gameFACE]

I wrote this in the thread in The Club but I thought Prop 2 was going to fail. People can justify being against same sex marriage with their moral beliefs all they want. But let's be honest here. The basic problem is the psychological aversion to the thought of two guys fudgepacking. Even my religiously conservative 77 year old mom has said "two women aren't that bad - but two men? Yuk!" :lol

[Mr. Peabody]

I wrote this in the thread in The Club but I thought Prop 2 was going to fail. People can justify being against same sex marriage with their moral beliefs all they want. But let's be honest here. The basic problem is the psychological aversion to the thought of two guys fudgepacking. Even my religiously conservative 77 year old mom has said "two women aren't that bad - but two men? Yuk!" :lol

When my grandfather immigrated to this great land from Mexico in the 1930's, he didn't have a penny to his name. He had a wife and 11 kids and struggled just to get by. He lived hand to mouth and often didn't know how he would feed his family.

One day Everett Livingston of the E.L. Fudge Factory offered my grandfather a job packing-fudge. It was hard work, with minimal pay, but my grandfather was happy to be a fudgepacker. It was good, honest work and in those days, it paid enough to raise a family on. He packed Everett Livingston's fudge for about 40 years before he retired.

Nowadays, my grandfather is a bitter old man, but when I ask him about his days as a fudgepacker, he can't help but smile.

It's a shame that fudge-packing is so out-of-vogue these days.
________
tiny tits Webcam (http://www.girlcamfriend.com/webcam/small-tits/)

[Vashner]

Gay's need to get there own term for the union....

If they can come up with these crazy parades and stuff you telling me the gay community lacks the ablity to make a new name for there unions??

Marriage is for a man and a woman. It's about compromise. And that applies to all relationships.. including communities.

[Mr. Peabody]

Gay's need to get there own term for the union....

If they can come up with these crazy parades and stuff you telling me the gay community lacks the ablity to make a new name for there unions??

Marriage is for a man and a woman. It's about compromise. And that applies to all relationships.. including communities.

So that's all they need....a new name for their unions. Hell, that's easy enough.

We should have a contest -- Name the Gay Union Contest

I'll go first. Gays should be "En-Gay-ged"

Someone call the legislature and tell them we worked it out. No gay marriages, just en-gay-gements.
________
VAPORIZER REVIEW (http://vaporizers.tv/)

[Extra Stout]

Well, gays already use those "ze" and "hir" pronouns which nobody else will ever use.

This assumption by liberals that 80% of Texans must be knuckle-dragging bigots is just typical leftie self-righteous navel gazing.

To many voters, the homosexual marriage movement makes about as much sense as a movement to affirm that a Honda Accord is a type of bicycle.

There are relationships. There are committed relationship. There are committed lifetime relationships. There are committed lifetime intimate relationships.

And then there are marriages.

[mookie2001]

I voted against it







































no more gay marriage in Texas













a lot of people didnt understand what the prop was about
because people are idiots

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Ah, so you would be in favor of the following then':

Marry Anything Day
By Mike S. Adams

Nov 9, 2005


Almost every time I speak on a college campus, a field representative from The Leadership Institute is listening in the audience. That’s always good because, after the speech, the representative usually shares great ideas for campus conservative activism. Recently, in Athens, Ohio, I heard an especially good idea that will drive liberal administrators – former hippies who stopped supporting campus protest shortly after becoming administrators – absolutely crazy. That idea is called “Marry Anything Day.”

The idea behind “Marry Anything Day” is to bring an ordained minister to campus to perform marriage ceremonies. But the ceremonies are not limited to unions between a man and a woman, or even a man and a man, for that matter. On “Marry Anything Day” you can choose your own definition of marriage based upon the most important of all legal doctrines; your personal feelings. (For further elaboration see the opinions of Justice Anthony Kennedy).

For liberal administrators who never really considered the implications of changing the definition of marriage – because they suffer from a fear of campus gay activists, which they say is outside the normal definition of homophobia – this should be a long overdue wake-up call.

Imagine the reaction of administrators when they see the minister performing a ceremony between a man and several women, or a woman and her cat. Of course, the ceremonies will not be restricted to living entities because that would discriminate against someone who really loves his favorite lamp.

By the end of the day, some administrators will be sorry they ever supported the student protest movement. And some, wondering whether they are having a flashback, will be sorry they dropped acid in graduate school.

The idea is great but, of course, it must be tried in the proper venue. Today, I propose that a “Marry Anything Day” should take place on the campus of Duquesne University in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Duquesne University has a policy prohibiting “Harassment or discrimination based on race, color, religion, gender, sexual orientation, national origin or citizenship status, age, disability, or veteran status.”

Under that policy, Duquesne student Ryan Minor was recently punished by the university - for allegedly referring to homosexuals as “subhuman” - at the insistence of four “offended” students. But Minor insists that he was referring to homosexual acts, not homosexuals themselves, as “subhuman.” He also says that his motivation for writing the remarks was a proposed Gay Straight Alliance at Duquesne, which is, of course, a Catholic school.

Perhaps the most interesting aspect of Minor’s case is that the controversial reference was made on the 0ff-campus website www.facebook.com. Minor’s punishment for this off-campus expression of opinion included removing the offensive material from the site and writing a ten-page essay regarding the Catholic Church’s “official teaching related to the dignity and respect to be shown for all human beings.”

In his defense, Minor has referred to the Catholic Catechism, which, in turn, refers to homosexual acts as “acts of grave depravity,” which are “intrinsically disordered,” and “contrary to natural law.”

Nonetheless, President Dougherty has convened a “special committee” to examine the issue of bringing the Gay Straight Alliance to Duquesne. Father Tim Hickey is leading the committee examining the issue, which the university refers to on its website as “complex” and “sensitive.”

Regardless of what Father Hickey finds, I would urge Catholics to follow the advice of the late Pope John Paul II who urged Catholics not to be afraid to publicly defend traditional family values in modern society.

By holding my proposed gay marriage protest at Duquesne, students, faculty, and staff have a chance to force administrators to make an important choice between two alternatives. Will they 1) bow down and worship the Gods of Diversity, or 2) grant their Catholic students the same freedoms of religious expression they would experience outside the walls of a Catholic university.

If “Marry Anything Day” is a success, officials at Duquesne University should next be forced to write an essay. In no less than ten pages, they should discuss the dignity and respect to be shown to all orthodox Catholics.



-------------------------------------------------------------------------

The point being, why stop at man/man, woman/woman. Why not let everyone marry what they want. Yeah, now that is what I call real freedom!


Yes, almighty veteran and former glorious hero, just because I don't care if a man marries another man, it means I approve of "marry anything day".

[mookie2001]

yeah cbf you'd marry a three toed sloth!

[Cant_Be_Faded]

So the common thread is that everyone in texas did not put down this proposition because they are zealous blind-faith hardcore christians, but because they are so high strung on semantics that they demand gays call their unions by a different name?

Thats why 80% of most counties shot this down? Because of a name?

That makes people even stupider than I originally intended in this thread.

[Mr. Peabody]

Yes, almighty veteran and former glorious hero, just because I don't care if a man marries another man, it means I approve of "marry anything day".

Well, where does it end. First, men want to marry men. Then men that love lamps may want to marry lamps. I mean, what about those people's constitutional rights?

And I'll be damned if I am going to go to a wedding where a man is marrying a lamp.
________
LIVE SEX (http://livesexwebshows.com/)

[Cant_Be_Faded]

This is absolute madness. You fucking blame liberals for being spineless talkers, yet you go all out to make sure gays can't marry.

Congrats, bigots.
where does the line end? Umm, with people, maybe?

[mookie2001]

a "person' isnt defined in the state constitution!

[Oh, Gee!!]

a "person' isnt defined in the state constitution!

the courts fill in the gaps. damn activists!!!

http://http://gratefuldread.net/archives/nohomos.jpg

[Spam]

Don't you all just feel the love coming from compassionate Christian conservatives?

[Mr. Peabody]

Don't you all just feel the love coming from compassionate Christian conservatives?

it had better be straight hetero love. No manlove.
________
VAPORIZER (http://vaporizers.tv/)

[Marcus Bryant]

How about we allow people to enter into marriages based upon how they fuck? That seems to be the bottomline here. Well, other than for the being trendy for the sake of being trendy crowd.

Why stop at 2 people? If 3 or 4 or 5 people love each other, well, there's no point in stopping them.

As someone who is devoutly homoapathetic, that's my observation.

[Oh, Gee!!]

homoapathetic. you have to go to sun harvest for that stuff

[Useruser666]

homoapathetic. you have to go to sun harvest for that stuff

They have it at HEB now too. It goes into a vaporizer.

I understand both sides to this issue. I understand that people who view marriage as a union only between a man and woman want to keep that true to it's more traditional definition. They don't want to associate homosexuality to any practices in their lives.

I also understand the feeling of wanting equal rights as others around you. If marriage is defined legally as only a union between a man and a woman, then homosexuals lose the right to legally marry.

I don't know if it's just wording alone that seperates people, or if calling different relationships by different adjectives will change things. I don't really care if a man marries another man or female/female. I do lean slightly in keep a more traditional meaning of the word "marriage", but don't find it necessary to take it to a vote. I didn't vote on this issue. I will leave it up to those that are more passionate about this issue.

[Mr. Peabody]

homoapathetic. you have to go to sun harvest for that stuff

We don't want no homoapathetic, homogeneous, or any homo shit here in Texas. Hell man, you could git ur ass kicked for drinking homo milk.
________
RihannaFoxxx live (http://camslivesexy.com/cam/RihannaFoxxx)

[Oh, Gee!!]

But's it's only 2%.

[Mr. Peabody]

But's it's only 2%.

That's exactly the problem. The other 98% don't like it. The people have spoken and this time the majority won.
________
porn star Cam (http://www.girlcamfriend.com/webcam/pornstars/)

[MaNuMaNiAc]

Gay's need to get there own term for the union....

If they can come up with these crazy parades and stuff you telling me the gay community lacks the ablity to make a new name for there unions??

Marriage is for a man and a woman. It's about compromise. And that applies to all relationships.. including communities.
are you serious?? what a dick!

[MaNuMaNiAc]

Well, gays already use those "ze" and "hir" pronouns which nobody else will ever use.

This assumption by liberals that 80% of Texans must be knuckle-dragging bigots is just typical leftie self-righteous navel gazing.

To many voters, the homosexual marriage movement makes about as much sense as a movement to affirm that a Honda Accord is a type of bicycle.

There are relationships. There are committed relationship. There are committed lifetime relationships. There are committed lifetime intimate relationships.

And then there are marriages.
another dick!

[MaNuMaNiAc]

Well, where does it end. First, men want to marry men. Then men that love lamps may want to marry lamps. I mean, what about those people's constitutional rights?

And I'll be damned if I am going to go to a wedding where a man is marrying a lamp. Hell a man could marry a motherfucking dog for all you should care!! ITS NOT YOU GODDAMN BUSINESS!! Who the hell are you to tell people what they can or cannot marry??

P.S. I'm sorry if I missunderstood and you were being sarcastic, its just that I find it hard to tell one from the other in this thread http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smiembarassed.gif

[gtownspur]

This is absolute madness. You fucking blame liberals for being spineless talkers, yet you go all out to make sure gays can't marry.

Congrats, bigots.
where does the line end? Umm, with people, maybe?
Call me any fascist moniker you want. Nothing you'd call me would equate to your "Fuck trophy" of Boutons status you have earned by calling everyone in your country idiots.

Here i'll give you ammo to attack me.

If they ever make Gay-ass Fucking an Olympic Sport. We'll have you to thank.

AT least thats the only way you'd ever have a gold medal or any accomplishment.

[Mr. Peabody]

Hell a man could marry a motherfucking dog for all you should care!! ITS NOT YOU GODDAMN BUSINESS!! Who the hell are you to tell people what they can or cannot marry??

I have seen my friends marry dogs before. They kept harping on this "inner beauty" thing. I say, whatever, you're the one that has to wake up next to her.
________
Live Sex (http://livesexwebshows.com/)

[MaNuMaNiAc]

Call me any fascist moniker you want. Nothing you'd call me would equate to your "Fuck trophy" of Boutons status you have earned by calling everyone in your country idiots.

Here i'll give you ammo to attack me.

If they ever make Gay-ass Fucking an Olympic Sport. We'll have you to thank.

AT least thats the only way you'd ever have a gold medal or any accomplishment.
Could you be more fucking ignorant??? You are a fucking idiot like CBF said!

[Oh, Gee!!]

I have seen my friends marry dogs before. They kept harping on this "inner beauty" thing. I say, whatever, you're the one that has to wake up next to her.


I'm telling my wife

[mookie2001]

^^no joke mania

[Mr. Peabody]

I'm telling my wife

It was a joke.
________
Molli (http://www.girlcamfriend.com/cam/Molli/)

[MaNuMaNiAc]

It was a joke.
http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif see I told you it was hard to tell hahahaha j/k

[Mr. Peabody]

Could you be more fucking ignorant??? You are a fucking idiot like CBF said!

I don't care what any of you say.

No one can make me go to a wedding to see a man marry a lamp!
________
LIVE SEX WEBSHOWS (http://livesexwebshows.com/)

[gtownspur]

Could you be more fucking ignorant??? You are a fucking idiot like CBF said!

Do you give a fuck what CBF said. I guess so. GO fuckin coddle his hurt feelings. I could give a rats ass if that moron or yourself thought of anything.

[Spurminator]

We're all idiots.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Do you give a fuck what CBF said. I guess so. GO fuckin coddle his hurt feelings. I could give a rats ass if that moron or yourself thought of anything.


The bottom line is this forum has revealed thus:

1) the majority insist this issue is not partisan

2) by the most severe of all coincidences, all well known conservative posters insist gay marriage should not be allowed because of disagreement over semantics

3) liberals are all stupid because they think gays and people who fuck their own sex are to be treated as people

4) if we allow people who fuck their own sex to marry their own sex, then a vast insurgent population will start marrying lamps, cheetahs, mountain lions, goats, sheep, bookmarks, shoehorns, etc.


Basically, any sane minded person can tell you are a bigot asshole, and no matter what you say in this political forum, and no matter how christian you think you are, you, and people like you, are going to burn in a firery, prolonged, terrifying inferno for all of eternity, you despicable disgrace to the true red white and blue.

And just because the majority of people who vote and tend to think like you are fucking idiots does not and will never make you right.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

If they ever make Gay-ass Fucking an Olympic Sport. We'll have you to thank.



Why go there gtownspur??? Why????

you are so fucking destestable, i hope god lets me piss on you from heaven onto your firery haven in hell every time i get buzzed with Tim Leary and Bill Hicks, because you are surely going to hell


how the fuck do you go from CBF advocating gays deserve marriage because they are people to condemming CBF for advocating ass fucking as an olympic sport


you are a fucking disgrace to humanity man, you make me sick

[Cant_Be_Faded]

And just because the majority of people who vote and tend to think like you are fucking idiots does not and will never make you right.


Thats it
this is my last policial post

you fucking disgust me gtownspur, and may see this is a victory

but i swear, when you feel piss flowing onto the painful agonizing festering wounds on your immolated head, know its me, from the promised land, laughing at you, because I lived a life trying to tell people of basic wrongs, and though i failed and gave into certain evils, those evils were never and are never going to be equal to the condemnable evils you and others like you succumb to by saying such fucking stupid shit.

I END WITH THIS

PEOPLE WHO FUCKING THINK LIKE YOU ARE THE DOWNFALL OF WHAT WAS POTENTIALLY THE GREATEST SOCIETY IN HUMAN HISTORY!!!!


THINK OF WHAT PEOPLE LIKE YOU TRUELY WANT IN A SOCIETY!!!

THINK WHAT THE LONGTERM CONSEQUENCES OF SUCH A SOCIETY ARE!!!


november fourth

one step closer to the end of the world. the one-two combo
of corporate greed and organized religion apparently proved to be
too much for reason, sanity and compassion.

it's a sad and shameful day to be an american.

-trent reznor

fuck you

[MaNuMaNiAc]

http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_1_7.gifWoAH! settle down there CBF... he's ignorant, not the devil incarnate

[Trainwreck2100]

They got their right to take it in the ass just last year and they expect marriage to pass so soon. I'm dissapointed in the gay nation.

[TheSuckUp]

I know many very nice, church going gay people.

[Phenomanul]

Black people are descendants of Cain. God marked them so they would be easily identified. As such they shouldn't have the same rights as God's chosen people.

I seriously hope you were being sarcastic....

[Mr. Peabody]

I seriously hope you were being sarcastic....

I am, but there is some sect of Christianity, and I don't remember which one, that actually believes that this is true.

Oh, but I still don't think they should have the right to vote.
________
Dyana cam (http://camslivesexy.com/cam/Dyana)

[Phenomanul]

This is why I stay out of the political forum....

People are passionate about what they believe in.

No matter who says what... the other side will consider that person an idiot or a bigot. It goes back and forth......back and forth...

Anyways.

I won't say what my position is lest I get e-slaughtered. But know this:

Those claiming moral high ground and those denoucing it are no different in their beliefs. Everyone has had unique life experiences that have shaped their entire belief system. So people must realize that a thread such as this one will rarely ever change someone else's opinions. And insults will do nothing but inhibit the genuine exchange of ideas.

I have found that many of the people that believe in absolute Truth haven't done a very good job of embodying the ideals that it represents: "Judge not lest ye be judged." Unfortunately because they call themselves "Christian conservatives" and blindly follow the 'pack' without a real discernment of the underlying principles behind their 'beliefs,' they subject the genuine believers to the same sort of stereotyping the left wing is always denouncing.


Those offended by the belief of absolute Truth however, will always attack the fact that "black and white" positions can exist for moral dilemmas; unfortunately they always see the concept as a personal attack. The other side has the same problem, can they live in a world that is too "liberal" for their beliefs; should they do something about it? This is why the concept of moralistic relativism is flawed: every generation will do what it sees fit and justified, but is that right???


If my beliefs permitted me to kill my children even though I was the overwhelming minority should my rights be protected?? (extreme example I know) The society we live in today has come to an understanding that this is wrong. The people have voted. 200 years down the road will this still be a wrong? Who knows, but more than likely yes. The point I bring out, is that in God's absolute Truth this was wrong 4000 years ago, it is wrong today, and will continue to be wrong in the future (I kind of gave my position away).

Those decrying the travesty against human expression and decrying the lopsidedness of the recent vote... what do you propose? That we ignore what 80% of the population has agreed with in principle. Believe in it or not, that is why democracy is still only governed by the masses. That is why politicians lobby the masses in order to sway the vote towards their own interests. Is that justice? Again in today's world you will ALWAYS get a relativistic answer.

Let's just face it, we live in a screwed up world.

[Spurminator]

You're right about all of those problems, and that's why people and the government need to mind their business.

[Mr. Peabody]

Believe in it or not, that is why democracy is still only governed by the masses.

Screw the masses. The masses are the reason that TV shows like "Joey" are a hit. They are mindless, simpletons who want nothing more than to eat Big Macs while watching reality television. If the masses knew shit from shinola, this country wouldn't be as screwed up as it is today.
________
LIVE SEX (http://livesexwebshows.com/)

[Phenomanul]

You're right about all of those problems, and that's why people and the government need to mind their business.


We know anarchy doesn't work either....

[xrayzebra]

Screw the masses. The masses are the reason that TV shows like "Joey" are a hit. They are mindless, simpletons who want nothing more than to eat Big Macs while watching reality television. If the masses knew shit from shinola, this country wouldn't be as screwed up as it is today.


Ah, so Mr. Peabody you know what is better for us than anyone, is that correct? Sound just like a liberal to me.

[Phenomanul]

Screw the masses. The masses are the reason that TV shows like "Joey" are a hit. They are mindless, simpletons who want nothing more than to eat Big Macs while watching reality television. If the masses knew shit from shinola, this country wouldn't be as screwed up as it is today.


If people would educate themselves more would that solve the problem....???

Yes I agree that the "masses" are ignorant, paranoic, to put it bluntly... stupid.

Unfortunately our society has dug itself into such a large hole with regards to "knowledge, wisdom, and truth" that the above solution cannot be achieved either in my lifetime or during the subsequent generations.

[Mr. Peabody]

Ah, so Mr. Peabody you know what is better for us than anyone

You must be reading all my posts.
________
Paxil Pregnancy (http://www.classactionsettlements.org/lawsuit/paxil/)

[Spurminator]

We know anarchy doesn't work either....

Allowing gay marriage is anarchy?

[Oh, Gee!!]

Allowing gay marriage is anarchy?


the ol' slippery slope, eh?

[xrayzebra]

If people would educate themselves more would that solve the problem....???

Yes I agree that the "masses" are ignorant, paranoic, to put it bluntly... stupid.

Unfortunately our society has dug itself into such a large hole with regards to "knowledge, wisdom, and truth" that the above solution cannot be achieved either in my lifetime or during the subsequent generations.


And so our forefathers where a bunch of idots. Not the bunch of fatheads that have come along in recent years. Maybe, just maybe, some people are trying to go back to what made this nation what it was and what made it great. It sure wasn't a bunch of queers and lesbo's and dope heads who want to legitimize their sex acts and call themselves families.

[Oh, Gee!!]

And so our forefathers where a bunch of idots. Not the bunch of fatheads that have come along in recent years. Maybe, just maybe, some people are trying to go back to what made this nation what it was and what made it great. It sure wasn't a bunch of queers and lesbo's and dope heads who want to legitimize their sex acts and call themselves families.


you sir, are a true american. god bless you

[Spurminator]

Exactly. What made this nation great was giving everyone the Freedom to call themselves and others whatever they want.

Case in point, you are a fucking moron.

[Mr. Peabody]

Maybe, just maybe, some people are trying to go back to what made this nation what it was and what made it great.

Ah, the good ol' days. Back when you could call a Black person "Boy" and no one would say a word. Back when the only Mexicans you saw were mowing your grass. Back when women were real women and didn't have opinions or an education. Trent Lott and I sure do miss those days.
________
The Legend Condominium Pattaya (http://pattayaluxurycondos.com)

[MaNuMaNiAc]

This is why I stay out of the political forum....

People are passionate about what they believe in.

No matter who says what... the other side will consider that person an idiot or a bigot. It goes back and forth......back and forth...

Anyways.

I won't say what my position is lest I get e-slaughtered. But know this:

Those claiming moral high ground and those denoucing it are no different in their beliefs. Everyone has had unique life experiences that have shaped their entire belief system. So people must realize that a thread such as this one will rarely ever change someone else's opinions. And insults will do nothing but inhibit the genuine exchange of ideas.

I have found that many of the people that believe in absolute Truth haven't done a very good job of embodying the ideals that it represents: "Judge not lest ye be judged." Unfortunately because they call themselves "Christian conservatives" and blindly follow the 'pack' without a real discernment of the underlying principles behind their 'beliefs,' they subject the genuine believers to the same sort of stereotyping the left wing is always denouncing.


Those offended by the belief of absolute Truth however, will always attack the fact that "black and white" positions can exist for moral dilemmas; unfortunately they always see the concept as a personal attack. The other side has the same problem, can they live in a world that is too "liberal" for their beliefs; should they do something about it? This is why the concept of moralistic relativism is flawed: every generation will do what it sees fit and justified, but is that right???


If my beliefs permitted me to kill my children even though I was the overwhelming minority should my rights be protected?? (extreme example I know) The society we live in today has come to an understanding that this is wrong. The people have voted. 200 years down the road will this still be a wrong? Who knows, but more than likely yes. The point I bring out, is that in God's absolute Truth this was wrong 4000 years ago, it is wrong today, and will continue to be wrong in the future (I kind of gave my position away).

Those decrying the travesty against human expression and decrying the lopsidedness of the recent vote... what do you propose? That we ignore what 80% of the population has agreed with in principle. Believe in it or not, that is why democracy is still only governed by the masses. That is why politicians lobby the masses in order to sway the vote towards their own interests. Is that justice? Again in today's world you will ALWAYS get a relativistic answer.

Let's just face it, we live in a screwed up world.
I agree with most of your points, except for that analogy you made about the right to kill your kid as opposed to gay marriage, and let me tell you I find ludicrous! For one thing, the most obvious flaw with that comparison is the fact that in your scenario the little kid's right to live is being trampled, what right do you suppose gay's are trampling over when they get married?? I know you said extreme example, but the point is, its the wrong example, they have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

Secondly, just because there is a majority who is ignorant and backwards thinking does not make their decisions the right way to go. From any standpoint, banning gay marriage is WRONG! I really don't see how anyone can argue intelligently for it! and so far, the bigots in this thread have no had a decent argument.

[Spurminator]

Darn tootin we dont want no faggot-ass queers having butt sex in their own homes. That's illegitimate.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

And so our forefathers where a bunch of idots. Not the bunch of fatheads that have come along in recent years. Maybe, just maybe, some people are trying to go back to what made this nation what it was and what made it great. It sure wasn't a bunch of queers and lesbo's and dope heads who want to legitimize their sex acts and call themselves families.
here is a prime example of what ignorance is all about http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smirolleyes.gif Are you so blind you can't see how incredibly intolerant and hating you are??

[MaNuMaNiAc]

Darn tootin we dont want no faggot-ass queers having butt sex in their own homes. That's illegitimate.
please tell me you're joking

[xrayzebra]

you sir, are a true american. god bless you

I will accept that as a compliment. I have done my share and wished I was still young enough to do more. I love being an American and proud of my country. Many have spilled their blood and given their life for others, in other countries. More than I can say for many who want this country to go down in defeat just to regain political power. I welcome all who come here wanting to be Americans. But I don't want those who would make this country into the country they left. Not very PC of me, is it?

Bye the way American is spelled with a capital "A". Remember that!

[Oh, Gee!!]

Ah, the good ol' days. Back when you could call a Black person "Boy" and no one would say a word. Back when the only Mexicans you saw were mowing your grass. Back when women were real women and didn't have opinions or an education. Trent Lott and I sure do miss those days.


back when doctors smoked cigarettes in the delivery room. back when the only way to determine whether someone was a witch was to drown them. back when true american heroes could buy acres of land from injuns for a couple of pretty buttons and a promise to let them maintain their savage ways.

[Oh, Gee!!]

I will accept that as a compliment.

you're even more stupid than I thought. welcome to amerikkka asshole

[Spurminator]

It sure wasn't a bunch of queers and lesbo's and dope heads who want to legitimize their sex acts

http://www.gifs.net/animate/siren.gifhttp://www.gifs.net/animate/siren.gifhttp://www.gifs.net/animate/siren.gif

WE MUST PREVENT WANTON BUTT SEX!!

http://www.gwpda.org/photos/bin07/imag0618.jpg

DEPLOY DEPLOY!!

[Spurminator]

I will accept that as a compliment. I have done my share and wished I was still young enough to do more. I love being an American and proud of my country. Many have spilled their blood and given their life for others, in other countries.

Damn right, our grandpappies died so we wouldn't have to live around no fuckin faggoty ass fudgepackers.

[Mr. Peabody]

you're even more stupid than I thought. welcome to amerikkka asshole

By(e) the way, Amerikkka is spelled with a capital "A," so is "Asshole." Remember that!
________
couple Webcam (http://www.girlcamfriend.com/webcam/straight-couples/)

[Mr. Peabody]

By(e) the way, Amerikkka is spelled with a capital "A," so is "Asshole." Remember that!
________
DianaE cam (http://camslivesexy.com/cam/DianaE)

[Oh, Gee!!]

Double Post, Peabody? Your joke wasn't that funny

[Phenomanul]

I agree with most of your points, except for that analogy you made about the right to kill your kid as opposed to gay marriage, and let me tell you I find ludicrous! For one thing, the most obvious flaw with that comparison is the fact that in your scenario the little kid's right to live is being trampled, what right do you suppose gay's are trampling over when they get married?? I know you said extreme example, but the point is, its the wrong example, they have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

Secondly, just because there is a majority who is ignorant and backwards thinking does not make their decisions the right way to go. From any standpoint, banning gay marriage is WRONG! I really don't see how anyone can argue intelligently for it! and so far, the bigots in this thread have no had a decent argument.

Now that I think about it, and I didn't do it intentionally, doesn't abortion cause the same type of aversion towards the "conservatives" (someone in this thread mentioned Roe vs. Wade...). It goes back to suggesting that humans are complicated beings.

The example then is not as far fetched as I once thought.

[Mr. Peabody]

The point I bring out, is that in God's absolute Truth this was wrong 4000 years ago, it is wrong today, and will continue to be wrong in the future (I kind of gave my position away).



I have read the Bible and I haven't seen the passage where it says that there should be a state amendment banning gay marriage.

My Bible is an abridged version (actually it's on CD, so I didn't actually read it, just listened), so maybe that part got left out in my copy.

Goddam Amazon.com!
________
NaughtyButtercup cam (http://camslivesexy.com/cam/NaughtyButtercup)

[jochhejaam]

[QUOTE=Spurminator][img]
[size=5]WE MUST PREVENT WANTON BUTT SEX!!

It's legal spur so cut the theatrics.
It's also abnormal, should always be defined as such and there's no compelling reason or obligation for others to condone or mainstream it.

Legal and abnormal, anything wrong with that definition?

[Spurminator]

It's also abnormal, should always be defined as such and there's no compelling reason or obligation for others to condone or mainstream it.

Why is it abnormal, why should it be defined as such and why is allowing gay marriage mainstreaming it any more than allowing gay lifestyle?

[Phenomanul]

I have read the Bible and I haven't seen the passage where it says that there should be a state amendment banning gay marriage.

My Bible is an abridged version (actually it's on CD, so I didn't actually read it, just listened), so maybe that part got left out in my copy.

Goddam Amazon.com!


I can read between the sarcasm, so I'll play along....

Read Romans Chapter 1.

It talks about absolute Truth with regards to human actions.

[Spurminator]

No it doesn't. It talks about God punishing the wicked. There's nothing about the government's role in enforcing God's morality.

I want to live in a country where people are free to sin and go to hell for it.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

[QUOTE=Spurminator][img]
[size=5]WE MUST PREVENT WANTON BUTT SEX!!

It's legal spur so cut the theatrics.
It's also abnormal, should always be defined as such and there's no compelling reason or obligation for others to condone or mainstream it.

Legal and abnormal, anything wrong with that definition?
abnormal to whom? abnormal to you maybe, but to them is a way of living. Either way, what you're saying is gays shouldn't be allowed to marry because they have anal sex?? Then what about the men and women who have anal sex? should they be prevented from getting married because they have anal sex? Just because you find it abnormal does not mean you have the right to tell people not to do it.

[Spurminator]

It never ceases to amaze me that people still use the Bible to argue for a legal standard of marriage when some of the most celebrated Biblical figures had multiple wives and sex partners.

[Phenomanul]

No it doesn't. It talks about God punishing the wicked. There's nothing about the government's role in enforcing God's morality. .

You skipped my point entirely... I'm talking about the fact that an absolute Truth does exist. The act of Homosexuality is an abomination before God; it is clear in that passage.

We have brought it upon ourselves to govern ourselves and so we suffer the complexity of trying to define human essence. This is not possible, which is why we struggle. I realize no reference to goverment is made in that passage.



I want to live in a country where people are free to sin and go to hell for it.

You already do.... the gay lifestyle is legal, dishonoring your parents is legal, certain forms of theft are legal, corruption is illegal but nevertheless exists, hate is legal -- no one forces you to love someone else, the list of your freedoms is infinite compared to someone say in.... China.

[SpursWoman]

I want to live in a country where people are free to sin and go to hell for it.


:lmao :lmao

[Spurminator]

I'm talking about the fact that an absolute Truth does exist. The act of Homosexuality is an abomination before God; it is clear in that passage.

What does a Biblical reference to Absolute Truth (which I still cannot find in that chapter - perhaps you could point out the specific verse) have to do with our government today? And if you're not talking about government, what is your point at all?


You already do.... the gay lifestyle is legal, dishonoring your parents is legal, certain forms of theft are legal, corruption is illegal but nevertheless exists, hate is legal -- no one forces you to love someone else, the list of your freedoms is infinite compared to someone say in.... China.

Yet we still make laws and obsess over the sins of others, under the irrational fear that allowing certain things will "legitimize" those sins.

We still censor media, we show preference to certain kinds of relationships, and we still censor education and keep children in bubbles.

[Phenomanul]

It never ceases to amaze me that people still use the Bible to argue for a legal standard of marriage when some of the most celebrated Biblical figures had multiple wives and sex partners.

Those stories are there for a purpose.... to show that multiple wives do not lead to happiness. Most of those examples ended up in disaster and reveal that the search for God's Truth is one of our essential purposes. The search for self gratification, greed, self-indulgence, NEVER led to good.

Read what the richest and wisest man wrote in his old age (I would also include the fact he had over 1000 wives), that his search for knowledge, wisdom, riches or pleasure was all vanity when compared to the search of understanding God's heart.

[gtownspur]

Thats it
this is my last policial post

you fucking disgust me gtownspur, and may see this is a victory

but i swear, when you feel piss flowing onto the painful agonizing festering wounds on your immolated head, know its me, from the promised land, laughing at you, because I lived a life trying to tell people of basic wrongs, and though i failed and gave into certain evils, those evils were never and are never going to be equal to the condemnable evils you and others like you succumb to by saying such fucking stupid shit.

I END WITH THIS

PEOPLE WHO FUCKING THINK LIKE YOU ARE THE DOWNFALL OF WHAT WAS POTENTIALLY THE GREATEST SOCIETY IN HUMAN HISTORY!!!!


THINK OF WHAT PEOPLE LIKE YOU TRUELY WANT IN A SOCIETY!!!

THINK WHAT THE LONGTERM CONSEQUENCES OF SUCH A SOCIETY ARE!!!



fuck you


Did i mean what i say about butt fucking? NO. I stated in that same post that i was just giving you ammo to act hysterical. Do i care. No. I dont want gays to suffer or be tortured, that's only what you think of me and 80% of the people in this forum. You are the douchebag. You truly believe your incendiary words when you post. If you ever go to heaven hopefuly you'll be more mature. As for you wishing i rot in hell. :lol whatever. You're just a little bitch.

[Spurminator]

Those stories are there for a purpose.... to show that multiple wives do not lead to happiness. Most of those examples ended up in disaster and reveal that the search for God's Truth is one of our essential purposes. The search for self gratification, greed, self-indulgence, NEVER led to good.

Read what the richest and wisest man wrote in his old age (I would also include the fact he had over 1000 wives), that his search for knowledge, wisdom, riches or pleasure was all vanity when compared to the search of understanding God's heart.

But those men were not punished for having multiple spouses. God did not frown upon them for it... It simply did not fulfill them spiritually. You can say that about a lot of things.

Acceptance of certain relationships changed between Genesis and Revelation... Why are some so willing to believe that it has changed since then as well? The common theme is not the number or gender of spouses... it's that lust and sexual immorality displease God. That goes for heterosexuals, adulterers, polygamists, homosexuals and impulsive masturbators alike.

[2centsworth]

No it doesn't. It talks about God punishing the wicked. There's nothing about the government's role in enforcing God's morality.

I want to live in a country where people are free to sin and go to hell for it.
being homosexual isn't illegal.

[Spurminator]

Gay marriage is.

And if some had their way and we had a government based on Absolute Truth as defined by the Bible, a lot of other things would be too.

[Phenomanul]

What does a Biblical reference to Absolute Truth (which I still cannot find in that chapter - perhaps you could point out the specific verse) have to do with our government today? And if you're not talking about government, what is your point at all?

It's not about semantics....there is a point... People just choose to ignore it thinking that God is some fable or the like. Mocking people that believe in God is just as bad as your complaint that they stop judging [you].

The point is simple, if I kill someone and no one finds out about it (No government interference); I'm still accountable to God. This is the "Absolute Truth" I refer to. He has the measuring stick of what is "right" and what is "wrong" and under this belief my relativistic interpretation of what I consider "right" and "wrong" is irrelevant.




Yet we still make laws and obsess over the sins of others, under the irrational fear that allowing certain things will "legitimize" those sins.
Human nature is predictable. If everything were legal, too many things (even some you might find offensive) would seep into our culture.... call it a fear, or whatever... Again humans are too complicated to be governed by themselves.



We still censor media, we show preference to certain kinds of relationships, and we still censor education and keep children in bubbles.

Would you rather pedophiles teach them the way... (I actually believe that people opposed to sex education are actually doing a diservice to their children... the fact is you can't teach someone the virtues and evils of sex by avoiding the topic.... again another instance of misguided "conservative" thinking)

And yes we have censored education to teach the Darwinistic theory as a fact. Evolution is severely flawed.

[2centsworth]

Gay marriage is.

And if some had their way and we had a government based on Absolute Truth as defined by the Bible, a lot of other things would be too.
The operative word is some. MOST would not want the government based on the bible.


Some wanted Gay Marriage banned for religious reasons, but most had other very legitimate reasons.

[jochhejaam]

Just because you find it abnormal does not mean you have the right to tell people not to do it.

Can you show me where I've submitted a post telling people not to do it?

You can't so cut the crap!

[Phenomanul]

But those men were not punished for having multiple spouses. God did not frown upon them for it... It simply did not fulfill them spiritually. You can say that about a lot of things.
If spiritual fulfillment is a gift. We only burden ourselves when we lose out on it. I actually consider that a form of punishment.



Acceptance of certain relationships changed between Genesis and Revelation... Why are some so willing to believe that it has changed since then as well? The common theme is not the number or gender of spouses... it's that lust and sexual immorality displeases God. That goes for heterosexuals, adulterers, polygamists, homosexuals and impulsive masturbators alike.

Yes that is true. God searches the heart. ONE cannot lie to God, even if they deceive everyone else. Fact of the matter is every sin is the same to God (and not all Christians believe this). But why is homosexuality targeted?? It shows a deviance which has strayed far from God's intent for sex. It's psychologically embedded in the the person's being. I for one don't believe a homosexual can be a Christian at the same time. And don't misuderstand me (IMO). The lifestyle itself is conducive toward a rejection of God's precepts. The sin itself is not unforgivable, but that is dependent on the person.

[Spurminator]

It's not about semantics....there is a point... People just choose to ignore it thinking that God is some fable or the like. Mocking people that believe in God is just as bad as your complaint that they stop judging [you].

Judge all you want. Just stop trying to get the government to protect you from certain acts of others that do not harm you.


Human nature is predictable. If everything were legal, too many things (even some you might find offensive) would seep into our culture

You continue to equate my stance for less government intervention to anarchy. It is no closer to that than your anti-gay marrage stance is to fascism.


Again humans are too complicated to be governed by themselves.

So I take it you ARE in favor of a Theocracy then?

[Spurminator]

Some wanted Gay Marriage banned for religious reasons, but most had other very legitimate reasons.

Yes but the people I'm talking to right now would seem to fall in the former group.

[jochhejaam]

It never ceases to amaze me that people still use the Bible to argue for a legal standard of marriage when some of the most celebrated Biblical figures had multiple wives and sex partners.

The Bible is the standard for morality so your amazement at it being mentioned in their arguements is foolish and unfounded.

One of the 10 Commandments is "Don't commit adultery" so go reference some secular writing for support.

[jochhejaam]

I want to live in a country where people are free to sin and go to hell for it.

You do ya heterophobic.

[2centsworth]

Judge all you want. Just stop trying to get the government to protect you from certain acts of others that do not harm you.

The desecration of Marriage harms everyone. Society benefits from strong traditional families. Most problems can be traced to broken families.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

Can you show me where I've submitted a post telling people not to do it?

You can't so cut the crap!
I wasn't refering to you you, I meant it as a generalization. I suppose I should have used "one" instead of "you". Sorry for the missundertanding.

[Spurminator]

The desecration of Marriage harms everyone. Society benefits from strong traditional families. Most problems can be traced to broken families.

Yes, and most of those broken families are heterosexual.

There are other ways to strengthen families with children. But it starts with the children, not the point where the relationship starts.

[jochhejaam]

I wasn't refering to you you, I meant it as a generalization. I suppose I should have used "one" instead of "you". Sorry for the missundertanding.
No problem MaNu, misunderstandings happen. :)

[Spurminator]

One of the 10 Commandments is "Don't commit adultery" so go reference some secular writing for support.

And adultry as defined by the Bible in that time period is a man sleeping with another man's wife. Concubines were perfectly acceptable because they were not married.

Woo hoo!!

[Spurminator]

The desecration of Marriage harms everyone. Society benefits from strong traditional families. Most problems can be traced to broken families.

And I'd like to see more detail on this claim anyway. I believe these problems are traced more directly to poverty, which often leads to broken families.

[2centsworth]

Yes, and most of those broken families are heterosexual.

There are other ways to strengthen families with children. But it starts with the children, not the point where the relationship starts.
There's a concentrated effort in this country to minimize the importance of strong two parent households. Accepting gay marriage will further weaken an already weak instituion, Marriage.

[MannyIsGod]

I don't feel like reading several pages of bs, so lets start with this.

Why shouldn't gay marriage be legalized when heterosexual marriage is?

[2centsworth]

And I'd like to see more detail on this claim anyway. I believe these problems are traced more directly to poverty, which often leads to broken families.
My man most poor people are single parent households. Broken families lead to poverty not the other way around.

[MannyIsGod]

There's a concentrated effort in this country to minimize the importance of strong two parent households. Accepting gay marriage will further weaken an already weak instituion, Marriage.
Governmental marriage has absolutely nothing to do with family values.

[2centsworth]

I don't feel like reading several pages of bs, so lets start with this.

Why shouldn't gay marriage be legalized when heterosexual marriage is?
there's a ton of bs on this thread but read up about 10 post and you'll be caught up enough.

[MannyIsGod]

My man most poor people are single parent households. Broken families lead to poverty not the other way around.
Um, I call complete bullshit on this assertion and would love to see a study that backs up.

Newflash, droughts do not lead to long periods of no rain!

[Phenomanul]

Judge all you want. Just stop trying to get the government to protect you from certain acts of others that do not harm you.


Look I'm not going to go all night on the topic... I got places to go... people to see. Soccer games to play...

Anyways, I consider children (within the reasonable mind-moldeable age range) to fall under the responsibility of their parents, and I don't just mean economically. If acts of others can harm them, you better believe I will step in, I for one can handle the issue; their minds can't. Why do you believe sex with underage teens/children is illegal, they can't consent to something they don't understand particularly because 99.99999% of the time the older partner is only using the minor for self-gratification without regard for their well-being. The act is considered a deviance. Homosexuality is also considered a deviance by God's standards. Beastiality is considered the same. Look, I'm not trying to convince you about anything.... YOU are who you are and life will give you what you seek. I seek something else.



You continue to equate my stance for less government intervention to anarchy. It is no closer to that than your anti-gay marrage stance is to fascism.
??????? You got me here. You fail to realize that law and cultural movements take place a step at a time. This one just needed a road block to show that not everyone was willing to take the next step. Don't worry eventually the ban will be repealed. It's only a matter a time.



So I take it you ARE in favor of a Theocracy then?

In the true essence of the word God governs his people. I already live under this spiritual 'kingdom'. As far as people governing themselves... and passing the laws under God's name.. well, we all know that this is quite a daunting task. On a personal level everyone must chose his own path and reap their own handywork. Does what they do fall into agreement with the laws of our time... Jesus once said, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and give to God what is God's" with reference to obeying the laws of the land.

[2centsworth]

Governmental marriage has absolutely nothing to do with family values.
Government has the right to promote things that benefit society. They also have a right to penalize things the feel hurt society.

[2centsworth]

Newflash, droughts do not lead to long periods of no rain!
please explain what this means to the argument and I'll respond.

[MannyIsGod]

Government has the right to promote things that benefit society. They also have a right to penalize things the feel hurt society.
Ah ha! Oh, I'm going to respond to this in grand fashion, let me run out my blinds and close a few windows.

[MannyIsGod]

Government has the right to promote things that benefit society. They also have a right to penalize things the feel hurt society.
2cents, I don't know what ideology you align yourself with but I'm going to assume that you are conservative based upon your stance on gay marriage. If I am wrong feel free to correct me.

I agree, government has a right to promote things that are beneficial to society up to a point. They do not have a right to give segments of society special treatment based upon religion. The Republican party is notorious for using this when it suits them. The theory that government should promote beneficial aspects of life is soundly socialist, and is often used by Republicans to tear down proposals by Democrats that have merit. But then they want to turn around use that very principle to promote their value system.

The government has an obligation to provide benfits to all of society through systems such as the public education system, the public health system, and other aspects of government that everyone takes advandtadge of. However, they are most definetly not allowed to take negative action torward alternate lifestyles which are not the mainstream in this country.

Banning gay marrige while simultanously allowing and even promoting heterosexual marriage is absolutely not allowable and it is the very reason every court ruling on the subject has gone in favor of allowing homosexual marriage!

Now, I take great issue with what many of you say about gay marriage to begin with, but the fact is that banning it is on very flimsy legal ground to begin with. Not only that, but Prop 2 was redundant and will simply go down as a large boondoggle that does nothing but waste Texas money. The defense of marriage act is already on the books, and Prop 2 accomplishes absolutely nothing that wasn't already written law. In a time where Texas can't find money to fund schools properly I find it absolutely disgusting that we are throwing money away to do stupid shit in this manner. It's flat out revolting.

[MannyIsGod]

please explain what this means to the argument and I'll respond.
It as a statement made to point out that your assertion that poverty is the result of broken homes was backwards. Poverty is the cause of broken homes, not the result.

[2centsworth]

It as a statement made to point out that your assertion that poverty is the result of broken homes was backwards. Poverty is the cause of broken homes, not the result.I'm sorry my man but you're totally backwards. Here are things resposible for broken families. Drug and Alcohol Abuse, Violence, Infidelity etc.. Poverty is a byproduct of those events otherwise you're suggesting people who are poor have no choice but to be poor. Not in this country.

[MannyIsGod]

I'm sorry my man but you're totally backwards. Here are things resposible for broken families. Drug and Alcohol Abuse, Violence, Infidelity etc.. Poverty is a byproduct of those events otherwise you're suggesting people who are poor have no choice but to be poor. Not in this country.
How is saying that poverty leads to broken homes saying people have no choie but to be poor? This is totally off the topic of the thread, but if you have any academic studies to prove your point of view on this subject I would love to see them.

[LittleGeneral]

They got their right to take it in the ass just last year and they expect marriage to pass so soon. I'm dissapointed in the gay nation.

:lol



Nice avatar, Spurm.

[2centsworth]

2cents, I don't know what ideology you align yourself with but I'm going to assume that you are conservative based upon your stance on gay marriage. The bill passed overwhelmingly which includes a large portion of democrats. Same bill passed in Oregon which is a very liberal state. Point is even democrats are voting to protect marriage.[/quote]If I am wrong feel free to correct me.


I agree, government has a right to promote things that are beneficial to society up to a point Who determines that point? You, Me? No, the voters.


They do not have a right to give segments of society special treatment based upon religion. What does this have to do with gay marriage? Also, I'm not making a religious argument.


The Republican party is notorious for using this when it suits them. Using Blanket statements gets us nowhere and prevents people from having productive conversations.


The theory that government should promote beneficial aspects of life is soundly socialist, and is often used by Republicans to tear down proposals by Democrats that have merit. Vice Versa, are you in favor of special taxes for tobacco companies?


But then they want to turn around use that very principle to promote their value system. You should be all for this concept, so why the argument? Let's leave the partisianship out of it and try to focus on Gay Marriage.


The government has an obligation to provide benfits to all of society through systems such as the public education system, the public health system, and other aspects of government that everyone takes advandtadge of. However, they are most definetly not allowed to take negative action torward alternate lifestyles which are not the mainstream in this country. No one is being alienated. Homosexuals have all the above rights.


Banning gay marrige while simultanously allowing and even promoting heterosexual marriage is absolutely not allowable and it is the very reason every court ruling on the subject has gone in favor of allowing homosexual marriage! That's your opinion and it's in the minority. That's why there's a large push against judicial activism.


Now, I take great issue with what many of you say about gay marriage to begin with, but the fact is that banning it is on very flimsy legal ground to begin with. Not only that, but Prop 2 was redundant and will simply go down as a large boondoggle that does nothing but waste Texas money. The defense of marriage act is already on the books, and Prop 2 accomplishes absolutely nothing that wasn't already written law. In a time where Texas can't find money to fund schools properly I find it absolutely disgusting that we are throwing money away to do stupid shit in this manner. It's flat out revolting. It's a fight against judicial activism and for traditional family values. It's worth it!

[2centsworth]

How is saying that poverty leads to broken homes saying people have no choie but to be poor? This is totally off the topic of the thread, but if you have any academic studies to prove your point of view on this subject I would love to see them.You should lead by example with your academic studies. People are all basically the same, I'm no better than anyone else and I'm not poor.

[MannyIsGod]

The bill passed overwhelmingly which includes a large portion of democrats. Same bill passed in Oregon which is a very liberal state. Point is even democrats are voting to protect marriage.If I am wrong feel free to correct me.

Who determines that point? You, Me? No, the voters.
[/quote] The voters have power up to a certain point and that is what the propnents of these measurse don't seem to grasp. They can not vote to allow a law that violates the constitution, which is the exact reason these measures keep getting shot down.



What does this have to do with gay marriage? Also, I'm not making a religious argument.
The primary backing for a ban on homosexual marriage rights is a religous one. The inability to distinguish governmental marriage from marriage by a church is the reason these measures pass by the margins they do.



Using Blanket statements gets us nowhere and prevents people from having productive conversations.

It isn't a blanket statement. It is an observation to what Republicans are doing. And it is spot on.



Vice Versa, are you in favor of special taxes for tobacco companies?

Of course not. Taxes that seek to curb behavior are ridiculous.



No one is being alienated. Homosexuals have all the above rights.

Do they have the rights that come along with governt acknowledged marriage? No



That's your opinion and it's in the minority. That's why there's a large push against judicial activism.

It's a fight against judicial activism and for traditional family values. It's worth it!
It doesn't matter who is in the majority and who is in the minority when the law violates the constitution. How is a judge doing exactly what they are supposed to do judicial activisim? They are there to interpret the law and to see if it fits and is admissible based upon higher laws of the land. When they do that and it somehow doesn't fit the voice of the people, it isn't judicial activism.

[MannyIsGod]

You should lead by example with your academic studies. People are all basically the same, I'm no better than anyone else and I'm not poor.
http://ideas.repec.org/p/fip/fedfap/2000-06.html

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8013238&dopt=Citation

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2002.00384.x/abs/

[Spurminator]

Poverty is a byproduct of those events otherwise you're suggesting people who are poor have no choice but to be poor. Not in this country.

People born into poverty are more likely to be poor throughout their lives than people born into wealth. Choice comes into it, but situation often influences choice.

There is no data suggesting that people raised in middle-to-upper class nontraditional homes are any less likely to succeed than those who are raised in upper-to-middle class traditional homes.

[Spurminator]

Double post

[2centsworth]

If I am wrong feel free to correct me.

Who determines that point? You, Me? No, the voters.


The voters have power up to a certain point and that is what the propnents of these measurse don't seem to grasp. They can not vote to allow a law that violates the constitution, which is the exact reason these measures keep getting shot down. They don't violate the constitution and only get shot down in very liberal insignificant courts.


The primary backing for a ban on homosexual marriage rights is a religous one. Nope. Religious people support the ban, but again the measure also passed in Oregon.




It isn't a blanket statement. It is an observation to what Republicans are doing. And it is spot on. Then I'll generalize that the Democratic party wants to turn us into a communist nation. It's stupid and it's a barrier to productive dialogue. It's what 99% of the other threads look like in this forum.



Of course not. Taxes that seek to curb behavior are ridiculous. we agree on something. The marriage act doesn't try to curb homosexuality.


[/quote]Do they have the rights that come along with government acknowledged marriage? No[/quote] Of course they do. The only question would be health care at work, but that's a private issue not a public one.



It doesn't matter who is in the majority and who is in the minority when the law violates the constitution. How is a judge doing exactly what they are supposed to do judicial activisim? They are there to interpret the law and to see if it fits and is admissible based upon higher laws of the land. When they do that and it somehow doesn't fit the voice of the people, it isn't judicial activism. I fully support the consitution and would like a constructionist court to decide the matter.

[FromWayDowntown]

I fully support the consitution and would like a constructionist court to decide the matter.

I still think the term "judicial activism" is bogus code for "a court that ruled in a way that I didn't like," while "strict constructionist" is likewise code for "a court that ruled in a way that I like." But I digress.

Would it be your position that the guarantee of equal protection under the laws (14th Amendment, United States Constitution) does not apply to homosexuals and that government can create a fundamental right but deny it to someone just because he or she is a homosexual?

It seems to me that if you say yes, you aren't "strictly construing" the Equal Protection Clause at all; instead, you're saying that it applies selectively and makes virtually no guarantee except to those who happen to be in the good graces of the political majority. That, it seems to me, is a textbook example of how "judicial activism" and "strict constructionism" are utterly useless terms.

[cherylsteele]

The act of Homosexuality is an abomination before God;
So is divorce and it is legal.

If you are so worried about a gay marriage then you have other personal problems. If a gay marriage influences you hetro marriage that much then perhaps you have issues in your own marriage and need to look in the mirror.

Judge not lest ye be judged.

The is a LEGAL issue, and people want to make it a religious issue. You can get maaired in front of a judge and religion has nothing to do with it.

[Phenomanul]

So is divorce and it is legal.
I never implied that homosexuality should be illegal... again, in the end people will follow their hearts.... Having said that, I would add that I don't believe all paths are righteous ones (and yes I'm entitled to that belief).


If you are so worried about a gay marriage then you have other personal problems. If a gay marriage influences you hetro marriage that much then perhaps you have issues in your own marriage and need to look in the mirror.
Read my other posts; I'm fine with the issue and know where I stand. I was making the point that children would be more affected by this mainstream shift and would have difficulty understanding it. In a satirical way you could explain the typical "birds and the bees" concept at the appropriate age but then you would also have to explain the adendum clause that included why little Billy had two daddys and no mommy.



Judge not lest ye be judged.
Yeah I know, I don't believe I directed an inflamatory statement to anyone here. Besides, that ideal is something I mentioned in an earlier post.


The is a LEGAL issue, and people want to make it a religious issue. You can get maaired in front of a judge and religion has nothing to do with it. True, I'm not denying that either. The same freedoms that allow homosexuals to pursue their lifestyle allow me to believe in my relationship with God; those are the sacred freedoms this country provides and yet people still have the audicity to mock "Christians". Some of us have actually thought about the issues at hand and don't ignorantly accept everything people tell us.

For example, I was laughing inside when Bill Maher (from his 'I'm Swiss' Standup gig) was poking fun of Bush because Bush had made a statement saying that the theories of Darwinistic Evolution and Divine Creation should both be taught in schools. Bill then proceded to make blanket statements that were way out of his league... passing them off as facts with the intent of making Bush look like an ignorant fool. Now, I don't honestly believe that Bush knows all of the particulars surrounding the theory of evolution (especially when you consider he was only a 'C' student throughout school). But if Bill Maher only knew what I do on the subject then he would realize how fundamentally flawed the theory of evolution was (I wouldn't necesarily push for him to accept divine creation as fact either but his malicious contempt towards Christians would be beyond evident at that point).

[FromWayDowntown]

I never implied that homosexuality should be illegal... again, in the end people will follow their hearts.... Having said that, I would add that I don't believe all paths are righteous ones (and yes I'm entitled to that belief).

I don't think anyone would question your belief or your right to believe that way. I think the question, though, is whether the principles of righteousness espoused in the Bible should be the guidelines by which the government in a religiously-pluralist society makes law. I think those are two entirely different questions and point to the difference between public law and private morality. At what point does it make sense for government to say that certain issues should be left to individual determinations, based on personal morals and faith?

[gtownspur]

^^ THere is no guidlines to be assesed. Secular society did not invent marriage. Religious society did. Ask any loony liberal professor, and he'll tell you that "marriage is a tool of religion used for sexual oppression".

Marriage i repeat marriage is a sacrament. A Holy sacrament, Just like Baptism.

Government shouldn't try to change the definition of marriage as well as baptism, the holy supper, the resurrection, etc.



It is not a union drafted by the enlightenment.

Secular govt and society chose to follow it's guidelines. Every thing from monogamy to it's egalitarian obligations, secularism has adopted.

Since we are a Judeo Christian value based country, Having a govt who chose to follow the secular path, try to change the meaning of a sacrament, is simply ludicrous.

[Phenomanul]

I don't think anyone would question your belief or your right to believe that way. I think the question, though, is whether the principles of righteousness espoused in the Bible should be the guidelines by which the government in a religiously-pluralist society makes law. I think those are two entirely different questions and point to the difference between public law and private morality. At what point does it make sense for government to say that certain issues should be left to individual determinations, based on personal morals and faith?

That right there is the neverending dilemma that this nation always faces whenever a controversial topic arises. For me the answer is simple (I recently discovered my purpose in life after reading a "Purpose Driven Life" by Rick Warren - as silly as that may sound).

But to answer the question in short, Roe vs. Wade allows the states, in particular the people, to make the choice for themselves. Why wouldn't it apply to this issue? Having read some of Manny's posts he made some good points concerning the incongruences of the actual proposition. Nevertheless the people voted.

[FromWayDowntown]

Marriage i repeat marriage is a sacrament. A Holy sacrament, Just like Baptism.

Government shouldn't try to change the definition of marriage as well as baptism, the holy supper, the resurrection, etc.

If marriage is a religious sacrament, then why do we need government to sanction it at all? I mean, we don't ask government to license baptisms or any other religious sacraments.

Aren't we confusing the religious notion of marriage (which a church can define however it wishes, regardless of the law) and the civil institution that government recognizes? And if those two things are distinct, why can't government define the civil institution however it wishes?

I don't think anyone is trying to change the religious sacrament of marriage; I think the point is that if government is going to offer benefits to those who are in that sort of relationship, should it deny the right to enter into that relationship to particular groups (who are doing completely legal things) simply because some find their relationships distasteful?

[gtownspur]

^^The reason that govt uses marriage to sanction is beyond the point. IF that's the case, just give the benefits to gay unions or what not. Dont change its meaning, or meddle with a term that is theological.

[FromWayDowntown]

But to answer the question in short, Roe vs. Wade allows the states, in particular the people, to make the choice for themselves. Why wouldn't it apply to this issue? Having read some of Manny's posts he made some good points concerning the incongruences of the actual proposition. Nevertheless the people voted.

I would disagree about a vote being determinative here -- if the people voted overwhelmingly to deny specific rights to blacks or to women or to Muslims, would that be okay? I doubt you'd support that. If you wouldn't support that, I don't see how you can think that a vote (standing alone) should be enough to deny rights to homosexuals.

I also don't think that Roe has much, if anything, to do with this issue. Roe, in a basic sense, deals with the structure of the Constitution and the nature of Due Process, and not with how a particular law applies to particular groups of people. Roe doesn't say it's up to the states to decide on matters of privacy -- it says that the Constitution structurally protects a woman's right to determine what she will do with her own body, at least until the time that the fetus she's carrying becomes viable. Cases dealing with the rights of particular groups to rely on Roe -- say, for example, married women (as in Planned Parenthood of Pennsylvania v. Casey) -- would be much closer to the issue at hand. Those are two very different things, in my opinion.

In this context, the legal equivalent of Roe is a decision assessing the nature and extent of a marriage right (off the top of my head, cases like Zablocki v. Redhail and Loving v. Virginia do so, IIRC). If marriage is a right protected by the Due Process Clause, then the question is whether that right can be limited to particular groups without violating the Equal Protection Clause.

That still, though, doesn't resolve the tension between personal morality and the extent to which government can or should attempt to legislate pursuant to principles of personal morality.

[FromWayDowntown]

^^The reason that govt uses marriage to sanction is beyond the point. IF that's the case, just give the benefits to gay unions or what not. Dont change its meaning, or meddle with a term that is theological.

That's precisely the point, I think.

Assuming that you're not addressing this as some abstract issue, accepting that view would mean that you have no problem with government recognizing a union between two men or two women, just so long as government doesn't call it a "marriage."

But at that point, you're just talking semantics -- semantics that make a difference to you, but semantics nonetheless.

[Phenomanul]

I would disagree about a vote being determinative here -- if the people voted overwhelmingly to deny specific rights to blacks or to women or to Muslims, would that be okay? I doubt you'd support that. If you wouldn't support that, I don't see how you can think that a vote (standing alone) should be enough to deny rights to homosexuals.

I also don't think that Roe has much, if anything, to do with this issue. Roe, in a basic sense, deals with the structure of the Constitution and the nature of Due Process, and not with how a particular law applies to particular groups of people. Roe doesn't say it's up to the states to decide on matters of privacy -- it says that the Constitution structurally protects a woman's right to determine what she will do with her own body, at least until the time that the fetus she's carrying becomes viable. Cases dealing with the rights of particular groups to rely on Roe -- say, for example, married women (as in Planned Parenthood of Pennsylvania v. Casey) -- would be much closer to the issue at hand. Those are two very different things, in my opinion.

In this context, the legal equivalent of Roe is a decision assessing the nature and extent of a marriage right (off the top of my head, cases like Zablocki v. Redhail and Loving v. Virginia do so, IIRC). If marriage is a right protected by the Due Process Clause, then the question is whether that right can be limited to particular groups without violating the Equal Protection Clause.

That still, though, doesn't resolve the tension between personal morality and the extent to which government can or should attempt to legislate pursuant to principles of personal morality.

Again this is why I believe that people are too complicated to govern themselves... And in "my little bubble" I know that I'm accountable to a higher power. That is what governs the decisions I make on a daily basis, big decisions, small decisions... It doesnt matter, I'm accountable before God for all my actions even before I'm accountable before men (wow that is too many uses of the word before). Anyways I will always agree with the fact that judging ourselves is asking for trouble, simply because none of us are perfect, or just or without fault... so we'd all be inherently hypocritical.

Law and its diverse and many times dichotic interpretations compound the issue and make it all the more confusing.

[gtownspur]

That's precisely the point, I think.

Assuming that you're not addressing this as some abstract issue, accepting that view would mean that you have no problem with government recognizing a union between two men or two women, just so long as government doesn't call it a "marriage."

But at that point, you're just talking semantics -- semantics that make a difference to you, but semantics nonetheless.


The govt doesnt have to recognize anything. Just give them visitation rights and other rights.

[efrem1]

Legislating Christian morals, Texas becomes a theorcracy. Probably over 50% of the 80% voting against gay marriage are fall into one or more of these categories:

1) hetero and cheating on their spouse
2) divorced (many more more than once)
3) unhappy as hell in their marriage
4) beating their spouse
5) abusing their children
6) abusing substances
7) gay but in the closet

Kansas repeats its rejection of evolution, confirming its role as harbinger of the Christian Dark Ages.

Yea Boutons how I pine for those "dark ages." If you were living in the Soviet Union or Red China, you would have seen the apex of the humanist dark ages.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulag

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_revolution

[cherylsteele]

I never implied that homosexuality should be illegal... again, in the end people will follow their hearts.... Having said that, I would add that I don't believe all paths are righteous ones (and yes I'm entitled to that belief).


Read my other posts; I'm fine with the issue and know where I stand. I was making the point that children would be more affected by this mainstream shift and would have difficulty understanding it. In a satirical way you could explain the typical "birds and the bees" concept at the appropriate age but then you would also have to explain the adendum clause that included why little Billy had two daddys and no mommy.



Yeah I know, I don't believe I directed an inflamatory statement to anyone here. Besides, that ideal is something I mentioned in an earlier post.

True, I'm not denying that either. The same freedoms that allow homosexuals to pursue their lifestyle allow me to believe in my relationship with God; those are the sacred freedoms this country provides and yet people still have the audicity to mock "Christians". Some of us have actually thought about the issues at hand and don't ignorantly accept everything people tell us.

For example, I was laughing inside when Bill Maher (from his 'I'm Swiss' Standup gig) was poking fun of Bush because Bush had made a statement saying that the theories of Darwinistic Evolution and Divine Creation should both be taught in schools. Bill then proceded to make blanket statements that were way out of his league... passing them off as facts with the intent of making Bush look like an ignorant fool. Now, I don't honestly believe that Bush knows all of the particulars surrounding the theory of evolution (especially when you consider he was only a 'C' student throughout school). But if Bill Maher only knew what I do on the subject then he would realize how fundamentally flawed the theory of evolution was (I wouldn't necesarily push for him to accept divine creation as fact either but his malicious contempt towards Christians would be beyond evident at that point).

I saw your other posts and understood your position....I just hear those reasons all the time and think they are stupid....wasn't directing it at you in that way...sorry for the misunderstanding.

[gtownspur]

^^are you a porn star?

[cherylsteele]

^^are you a porn star?
What in the world do mean by that?


Are you directing a porn movie?

[boutons]

The European Dark Ages was the period where the Church dominated culture.
The Enlightenment was not named so accidentally.

In the US, we currently have a childish, magicial Biblical "ideology", as anti-human and darkening as any listed above, denying and negating rationality and science.

[efrem1]

In the US, we currently have a childish, magicial Biblical "ideology", as anti-human and darkening as any listed above, denying and negating rationality and science.

Yes Boutons and now your ideology has metasesized (sic) into postmodernism. You maybe wrong, but you maybe right. You could be right today, but not at noon tomorrow.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodernism

[jochhejaam]

In the US, we currently have a childish, magicial Biblical "ideology", as anti-human and darkening as any listed above, denying and negating rationality and science.

Could you possibly more clearly define whay you mean by "childish, magical biblical ideology and be more specific about it denies and negates rationality?
While your at it explain how and why your mature anti-biblical ideology is superior? Please cite examples.

[boutons]

You want to tar me as a postmodernist because I'm against the American Dark Ages based on evangelicals' magical interpretation of Genesis, the Bible as scientifically accurate and literally true?

That's a silly strectch. Try a different label of tar.

[efrem1]

If there is no Genesis, then there are no miracles, no resurrection, no God. Postmodernism "represent [s] the culmination of the process of modernity towards an accelerating pace of cultural change, to a point where constant change has in fact become the status quo, leaving the notion of progress, obsolete." That is what I mean when your definitions of right and wrong change almost hourly. Culturaly, incest might be acceptable to you in 20 years. how about mass murder? Maybe those people "had it coming" in your opinion. After all, right and wrong are just subjective. I find that frightening.

[jochhejaam]

Originally Posted by jochhejaam: Could you possibly more clearly define whay you mean by "childish, magical biblical ideology and be more specific about it denies and negates rationality?
While your at it explain how and why your mature anti-biblical ideology is superior? Please cite examples

You want to tar me as a postmodernist because I'm against the American Dark Ages based on evangelicals' magical interpretation of Genesis, the Bible as scientifically accurate and literally true?

That's a silly strectch. Try a different label of tar.
What I asked for was clear, I assumed you would either ignore or sidestep the questions which you did.

[gtownspur]

What in the world do mean by that?


Are you directing a porn movie?


Your name sounds like a porn star. Not that it's a bad thing.

[cherylsteele]

Your name sounds like a porn star. Not that it's a bad thing.

So is Danielle Steel a possible porn star too?

One on the weathercasters on the Weather chanel is named Steele.

I as discussing the topic and you make a comment that has nothing to do with the discussion.

[gtownspur]

So is Danielle Steel a possible porn star too?

One on the weathercasters on the Weather chanel is named Steele.

I as discussing the topic and you make a comment that has nothing to do with the discussion.

Who gives a rats ass about Danielle steel. I was just wondering that's all. I know it was off topic. But if somebodies name was Harry Hoodsleeve or Jade Sky, Katie Leggs, you'd wonder the same thing too. :lol, just wanted to know. Now that i have an idea, i could care less and i have nothing against you. THis is a forum, dumb questions are the norm.

[jochhejaam]

The Vatican officially weighs in on the issue of homosexuality;

Homosexuality destabilizes society: Vatican paper
Tue Nov 29, 2005 10:38 AM ET



VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - The Vatican newspaper said on Tuesday that homosexuality risked "destabilizing people and society", had no social or moral value and could never match the importance of the relationship between a man and a woman.

The remarks were contained in a long commentary published to accompany the official release of a long-awaited document that restricted the access of homosexual men to the Roman Catholic priesthood.

The article by Monsignor Tony Anatrella, a French Jesuit and psychologist, said homosexuality could not be considered an acceptable moral alternative to heterosexuality.

"During these past years, homosexuality has become a phenomenon that is always increasingly worrying and in many countries is considered a quality that is normal," the article in L'Osservatore Romano said.

The article was specifically approved by the Vatican's secretariat of state.

"It (homosexuality) does not represent a social value and even less so a moral virtue that could add to the civilization of sexuality," Anatrella said. "It could even be seen as a destabilizing reality for people and for society."

The Catholic Church, the article said, had a duty to reaffirm its position that homosexuality is "against conjugal life, the life of the family, and priestly life".

"In no case is this form of sexuality a sexual alternative, or even less, a reality that is equivalent to that which is shared by a man and a woman engaged in matrimonial life," the Italian-language article said.

"It (homosexuality) cannot be encouraged or even less so, supported with pastoral initiatives," it said in an apparent reference to Catholic priests who administer to homosexuals without reminding them of the Church's position against gay sex.

It said homosexuality was "a sexual tendency and not an identity" and repeated the Church's stand against allowing gays to marry or to adopt children. It also called homosexuality "an incomplete and immature part of human sexuality".

It repeated some themes in the Vatican document, and added a list of ways seminary directors could determine if a candidate for the priesthood had overcome homosexual tendencies or risked not being able to respect the Church rule of priestly celibacy.

[Spurminator]

The church can marry and reject/condemn whoever it wants.

What does this have to do with my government?

[jochhejaam]

The church can marry and reject/condemn whoever it wants.

What does this have to do with my government?

Many of the people that make up our government are Catholic and are swayed by the Church's position on issues of morality. Like it or not are duly influenced by the position of the Church.

[jochhejaam]

Keep in mind our Government can make no laws respecting the establishment of religion but the Laws of the Church cannot be prevented from establishing themselves in the hearts and minds of many of those who govern.

[Guru of Nothing]

Keep in mind our Government can make no laws respecting the establishment of religion but the Laws of the Church cannot be prevented from establishing themselves in the hearts and minds of many of those who govern.

Which church?

[jochhejaam]

The church can marry and reject/condemn whoever it wants.

What does this have to do with my government?
It's incorrect to think that the laws governing our Country and society are to be free of virtue or without moral connotation.

[Guru of Nothing]

Keep in mind our Government can make no laws respecting the establishment of religion but the Laws of the Church cannot be prevented from establishing themselves in the hearts and minds of many of those who govern.

Which Church?

[Spurminator]

Many of the people that make up our government are Catholic and are swayed by the Church's position on issues of morality. Like it or not are duly influenced by the position of the Church.

And?

Might makes right?

Many of the people that make up our government are buffoons, that doesn't mean I support government buffoonery.

[gtownspur]

Which Church?

By church he means "The ecunemical christian moral community". wow that was long. But he means christian ethics and morals.

[jochhejaam]

And?

Might makes right?

Many of the people that make up our government are buffoons, that doesn't mean I support government buffoonery.
What makes it right is if the morality and laws of Christianity are being affirmed, defined and meted out on issues in their purest form and I see no innacuracies in their presentation of it.

I understand your angst towards PRobertson because of some of the tangents he may go off on but what's the problem with the position of the Vatican?

[Winehole23]

Bexar County Clerk Gerard "Gerry" Rickhoff signed a letter today, urging the state to remove the words man and woman from a marriage license application, if necessary. The Travis and Dallas County clerks also signed the letter. Rickhoff said his office is ready to start issuing licenses to same sex couples within minutes of the Supreme Court's decision.http://www.foxsanantonio.com/news/features/top-stories/stories/bexar-county-ready-supreme-court-same-sex-ruling-13804.shtml#.VYu4ZEYdt8E

[boutons_deux]

Some REALLY SCARY "Christian" sickos who have really, really lost a grip on reality.

A Spiritual Battle For America's Future: Five Takeaways From The Religious Right's Awakening Conference

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/spiritual-battle-americas-future-five-takeaways-religious-rights-awakening-conference

I wouldn't be surprised to see some "Christians" committing violence and "murder for Christ" over Federally legalized same-sex marriage.

[boutons_deux]

And it's All About The Benjamins

Christian America is an invention: Big business, right-wing politics and the religious lie that still divides us

Excerpted from "One Nation Under God: How Corporate America Invented Christian America" (http://www.amazon.com/dp/0465049494/?tag=saloncom08-20)

http://www.salon.com/2015/04/19/christian_america_is_an_invention_big_business_rig ht_wing_politics_and_the_religious_lie_that_still_ divides_us/

[boutons_deux]

Christian fundamentalism is a capitalist construct: The secret history of American religion

The origins of modern evangelicalism can all be traced back to the founder of Quaker Oats. A historian explains

http://www.salon.com/2015/05/13/christian_fundamentalism_is_a_capitalism_invention _the_secret_history_of_american_religion_partner/