11 states vote on gay marriage - Page 7 - 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 11-05-2004, 01:38 PM   #91
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 07:20 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2Traveller


Nope. Ours does NOT conflict. YOURS actually diverges and sometimes is totally devoid of things, and sometimes is totally in conflict. I study the Bible, too, and I know what I have and know.

Really, the point is moot. Your verdict is wrong.

I am Christian.
Covering your ears and screaming "I'm right, you're wrong" is not discussion. I suggested that this go to a different thread when it came up. If you don't want to discuss the issue, that is fine
__________________

__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 11-05-2004, 01:41 PM   #92
New Yorker
 
sharky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 2,637
Local Time: 10:20 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
This is the same thing. People think homosexuality is a sin therefore they shouldn't have this right. Well as soon as that line is crossed the next step will be well your religion is a sin therefore you shouldn't have that right. It's a dangerous dangersous line. Thanks George for putting it up there with everything else.
Indeed. Gays make up an estimated 1% of the population. Jews make up 2%. If you ask a Christian majority which religions are not the proper religions, what do you think would happen? And how would being Jewish in this case be any different than being gay? Both would be looked down as sinful by Christians. So what would be the difference?
__________________

__________________
sharky is offline  
Old 11-05-2004, 01:45 PM   #93
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 07:20 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by sharky


Indeed. Gays make up an estimated 1% of the population.
where?

at a klan meeting?
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 11-05-2004, 01:48 PM   #94
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 07:20 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by sharky
Both would be looked down as sinful by Christians. So what would be the difference?
Your portrayal of Christianity is off base here. Christian doctrine is that we are all sinful. There is no looking down at another.


A Christian is no better or worse than anyone else.



I think we are projecting one doctrine as a superiority complex of the Christian. That is the part of the Bible were Jesus says that He alone is the way to forgiveness of sins.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 11-05-2004, 03:55 PM   #95
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,654
Local Time: 09:20 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


Your portrayal of Christianity is off base here. Christian doctrine is that we are all sinful. There is no looking down at another.

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?
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 11-05-2004, 03:57 PM   #96
Acrobat
 
U2Traveller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Posts: 472
Local Time: 08:20 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


Covering your ears and screaming "I'm right, you're wrong" is not discussion. I suggested that this go to a different thread when it came up. If you don't want to discuss the issue, that is fine
__________________
U2Traveller is offline  
Old 11-05-2004, 03:58 PM   #97
Acrobat
 
U2Traveller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Posts: 472
Local Time: 08:20 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


Covering your ears and screaming "I'm right, you're wrong" is not discussion. I suggested that this go to a different thread when it came up. If you don't want to discuss the issue, that is fine
I AM A CHRISTIAN! THERE IS NOTHING TO DISCUSS...AND AS A CHRISTIAN I THINK IT'S VERY SAD THAT YOU SHOULD TREAT OTHER CHRISTIANS BADLY. That was my original point. At least I think it was think thread.

Ah well.
__________________
U2Traveller is offline  
Old 11-05-2004, 03:59 PM   #98
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 11,961
Local Time: 10:20 PM
i think you need to take a little break traveller. relax already.
__________________
Screaming Flower is offline  
Old 11-05-2004, 04:00 PM   #99
Refugee
 
Anthony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,538
Local Time: 03:20 AM
This thread is going MODERATELY well. nbcrusader has tried and succeeded in keeping his tone cordial, U2Traveller, if you can't do the same I suggest you take a break.

Ant.
__________________
Razors pain you; Rivers are damp;
Acids stain you; And drugs cause cramp.
Guns aren't lawful; Nooses give;
Gas smells awful; You might as well live.

Dorothy Parker, 'Resumé'
Anthony is offline  
Old 11-05-2004, 04:06 PM   #100
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
speedracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: MD
Posts: 7,572
Local Time: 10:20 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by mellyinsf

yes he was, he directly compared incest to gays.
Yes I did.

You, however, replaced "incest" with "a relationship between a father and his young daughter", when I intended it to refer to a consensual relationship between two biologically related adults.

I refer you to the thread "Religious Fanatics..." in this forum if you want to see me and The_Sweetest_Thing debate gay marriage.

If you want to see a far wittier defense of federalism and gay marriage laws, I refer you to

http://www.nationalreview.com/goldbe...berg070103.asp

Good day.
__________________
speedracer is offline  
Old 11-05-2004, 06:50 PM   #101
The Fly
 
mellyinsf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: one tree hill
Posts: 224
Local Time: 07:20 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by speedracer


Yes I did.

You, however, replaced "incest" with "a relationship between a father and his young daughter", when I intended it to refer to a consensual relationship between two biologically related adults.

I refer you to the thread "Religious Fanatics..." in this forum if you want to see me and The_Sweetest_Thing debate gay marriage.

If you want to see a far wittier defense of federalism and gay marriage laws, I refer you to

http://www.nationalreview.com/goldbe...berg070103.asp

Good day.
ok two consensual adults. I do not see this as a problem in our society, I do not know of any relationships of this sort happening. There are however millions of gay people and thousands of children that have been abused by an adult in this country. Taking this arguement to obsure does not make a great argument.
__________________
mellyinsf is offline  
Old 11-05-2004, 06:56 PM   #102
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
speedracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: MD
Posts: 7,572
Local Time: 10:20 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by mellyinsf

ok two consensual adults. I do not see this as a problem in our society, I do not know of any relationships of this sort happening. There are however millions of gay people and thousands of children that have been abused by an adult in this country. Taking this arguement to obsure does not make a great argument.
You are addressing the wrong point.

The point is that there are probably incestuous adult couples out there who desire a union. They might even be menopausal or gay, precluding the possibility of giving birth to deformed children.

Will you deny their union? If so, what is your principle for doing so? And how is it different from denying gays marriage?
__________________
speedracer is offline  
Old 11-05-2004, 07:19 PM   #103
The Fly
 
mellyinsf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: one tree hill
Posts: 224
Local Time: 07:20 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by speedracer


You are addressing the wrong point.

The point is that there are probably incestuous adult couples out there who desire a union. They might even be menopausal or gay, precluding the possibility of giving birth to deformed children.

Will you deny their union? If so, what is your principle for doing so? And how is it different from denying gays marriage?
I guess if there were millions of incestuous adult couples that wanted to get married I would have no right to deny them of what they wanted to do, HOWEVER this is such a ridiculous comparison because there are not millions. I doubt there are really very many at all. And I know no laws that ban a MAN and a WOMEN who are second cousins to marry. Am I wrong? Do you think 3rd cousins can marry, 4th, 5th?
__________________
mellyinsf is offline  
Old 11-05-2004, 07:39 PM   #104
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 07:20 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by mellyinsf

I guess if there were millions of incestuous adult couples that wanted to get married I would have no right to deny them of what they wanted to do, HOWEVER this is such a ridiculous comparison because there are not millions. I doubt there are really very many at all.
I thought rights were not based on numbers. Therefor, in Speedracer's example, if only one incestuous adult couple sought to marry, they should be forwarded the right as well.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 11-05-2004, 08:24 PM   #105
The Fly
 
mellyinsf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: one tree hill
Posts: 224
Local Time: 07:20 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


I thought rights were not based on numbers. Therefor, in Speedracer's example, if only one incestuous adult couple sought to marry, they should be forwarded the right as well.
You're correct, rights are not based on numbers. They are based on freedom and equality--things that are enshrined in our Constitution. The Bible is completely irrelevant to any dicussion about the rights of US citizens. This is a secular country. There are very good reasons why close relatives should not marry. There are no good reasons--under our Constitution, not under any religious document--why consenting gay adults should not marry. To bring up incest is begging the question--it's a specious argument.
__________________

__________________
mellyinsf 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 10:20 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