11 states vote on gay marriage - Page 11 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 11-06-2004, 08:14 PM   #151
Halloweenhead
Forum Moderator
 
Bonochick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cherry Lane
Posts: 40,816
Local Time: 01:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Rebirth_of_Slic
If they don't believe in the Bible, then no amount of logic will work with them, for they have already been lost.

Luckily, those non-believers are the minority, and they sit in the back of the bus.
Posts like that are unnecessary and can be considered very offensive. Please refrain from making such comments.

This thread is deteriorating FAST...actually, it has been for quite awhile, it seems. Either get this thread back on track to a civil discussion, or this thread will have to be closed.
__________________

__________________
"Knight in shining Zubaz."

Bonochick [at] interference.com
Bonochick is offline  
Old 11-06-2004, 08:15 PM   #152
Halloweenhead
Forum Moderator
 
Bonochick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cherry Lane
Posts: 40,816
Local Time: 01:23 PM

Dammit, Sicy, you beat me!
__________________

__________________
"Knight in shining Zubaz."

Bonochick [at] interference.com
Bonochick is offline  
Old 11-06-2004, 08:18 PM   #153
Sizzlin' Sicilian
Forum Administrator
 
Sicy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 69,297
Local Time: 09:23 AM
__________________
Sicy is offline  
Old 11-06-2004, 08:19 PM   #154
ONE
love, blood, life
 
indra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,689
Local Time: 01:23 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Renne




Sorry, it's just people who accuse me of being second-class because I'm secular and not religious get my back up.

It probably didn't help that I've already had someone have a go at me today saying that I can't appreciate U2's music as much as they do because I'm secular
You have to be kidding! That just sucks!
__________________
indra is offline  
Old 11-06-2004, 08:22 PM   #155
The Fly
 
mellyinsf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: one tree hill
Posts: 224
Local Time: 09:23 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Renne




It probably didn't help that I've already had someone have a go at me today saying that I can't appreciate U2's music as much as they do because I'm secular
Renne please that is rediculous, some people here are bored and trying to make others feel bad.
__________________
mellyinsf is offline  
Old 11-07-2004, 04:08 AM   #156
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 05:23 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Rebirth_of_Slic
If they don't believe in the Bible, then no amount of logic will work with them, for they have already been lost.

Luckily, those non-believers are the minority, and they sit in the back of the bus.
Actually, non-Christians (which would include both people of other religions and people of no religion) are a majority in the world. If you must be a troll, please at least attempt to be factually accurate in your trolling.
__________________
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 11-07-2004, 05:00 AM   #157
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 12:23 PM
I believe in the Bible.

I do not believe it to be a literal book all of the time.

I believe you cannot pick and choose what parts of the bible are meant to be literal and which are not. It is a dangerous practice to do, since there are many passages which could be used to institute many things.

We could start with the old testament and institute a law that you should not eat any animal that has blood.

We could start with the old testament and institute a law that says capital punishment is illegal, ie Cain and Abel.

And yes, there are parts of the Bible that contradict these two examples I give. Picking and choosing is a dangerous thing to do.

The Bible, which may be the book that some believe is a literal truth, does not have the same meaning for others, making the religious argument a weak one.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 11-07-2004, 07:33 AM   #158
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 05:23 PM
I'm sorry these initiatives passed. They are a triumph for intolerance and hatred of gays. Yes, folks, you can be a liberal and a practicing Catholic. I just came back from a Catholic pilgrimage, in fact. I have yet to be told I should be excommunicated for my views.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 11-07-2004, 10:36 AM   #159
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,645
Local Time: 11:23 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


I agree with this 100%, so then why would one sin now make the law books and not others. Even if homosexuality is a sin, which I do not believe, why does it all of a sudden need to be a political issue. No one has shown me where two men or two women getting married hurts anyone.

Murder - obvious
Traffic laws - save lives
Robbery - obvious
Fraud - makes sense
Gays not being able to marry -

Religion does not nor should it determine our laws. So can anyone give me a reason for this?
I'll ask again for no one has even attempted to answer my question. Is there a reason beyond that of your religion as to why gays can't marry?

If not it shouldn't be on the ballot, constitution, etc.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 11-07-2004, 10:38 AM   #160
New Yorker
 
Sherry Darling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Virginia
Posts: 2,857
Local Time: 01:23 PM
Well said, Dread and Verte!

The thing I don't get about Christians insisting that the Bible condemns homosexuality is that most folks who feel this way are perfectly reasonable and willing to interpret other Scriptures. I doubt most of 'em would say I need to cover my head or keep quiet in Church (out loud, anyway )). And I hear very few folks saying we need to cure and prepare our meat a certain way or take certain precautions to (avert your eyes if you blush easy....) protect semen. It's understood that these texts of Scripture are a part of the historical and cultural time in which they were written. Someone, then, who insists that homosexuality is a sin based on God's Word needs to explain why they interpret these verses literally, without sociohistorical context, and not the others.

A minister I knew in college once, who taught me Christian theology, once gave me some great advice: never trust someone who tells you they're not interpreting Scripture. There is no "neutral" setting.

Peace,
SD
__________________
Sherry Darling is offline  
Old 11-08-2004, 02:38 PM   #161
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
speedracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: MD
Posts: 7,572
Local Time: 12:23 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


I'll ask again for no one has even attempted to answer my question. Is there a reason beyond that of your religion as to why gays can't marry?

Go back and read my posts in this thread.
__________________
speedracer is offline  
Old 11-08-2004, 03:03 PM   #162
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 12:23 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by GOP_Catholic
Marriage is the institution which to create and foster children. Since those of the same sex cannot have children together, they do not need a marriage. They can rent a condo together somewhere down on the shore, preferably well away from me and out of view of our children, but we the majority will not be granting them any marriage licenses.
yes, marraige is only about children.

except for straight couples who choose not to have children.

and couples who marry later in life and choose not to have any children. you can say a lot of things about John Kerry and THK's marriage, it wasn't about children.

and infertile people. we allow them to marry too.

and people who get married in their 70s.

GOP_Catholic: i'm glad you post here. it's good to know that people like you exist. and good to know that your kids are probably taught by homosexuals in schools, on the soccer field, wherever. and their lives are immeasurably enriched by all the homosexuals who are woven into the fabrice of all aspects of american life, and the reason you can't see them is because they defy all the stereotypes you propagate in order to keep your world as rigid and black-and-white as your insecurities demand.

love is love is love. one love one blood one life.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 11-08-2004, 03:17 PM   #163
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,974
Local Time: 12:23 PM
I don't think that person is allowed here anymore Irvine, but that doesn't make what you said in your reply any less valid or important
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 11-08-2004, 03:23 PM   #164
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,645
Local Time: 11:23 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by speedracer


Go back and read my posts in this thread.
Yes I've heard this argument and I don't find it to be one that holds water, for several of the reasons given in here already.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 11-08-2004, 04:04 PM   #165
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
speedracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: MD
Posts: 7,572
Local Time: 12:23 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


Yes I've heard this argument and I don't find it to be one that holds water, for several of the reasons given in here already.
There are two components to a logical argument: axioms (base assumptions) and deductions. Which axioms do you disagree with, and which deductions do you find faulty?

The main axiom in my argument is that many people intend for marriage to uphold the nuclear family -- one man, one woman, and some number of kids. (Yeah, I know, many marriages don't lead to children, but we really don't feel like making couples sign an affidavit declaring an intention to conceive or adopt children when they apply for a marriage license.)

Irvine disagrees with this axiom and declares that marriage should just celebrate the union of two individuals. Hence the different conclusion.

Now if you find a logical flaw in one of the deductions I make, I'd genuinely like to see it.
__________________

__________________
speedracer is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:23 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com