PhilsFan
Blue Crack Addict
That's all I can ask for. Much respect.
Same Sex Marriage Thread-Part 2
- Thread starter MrsSpringsteen
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
- Status
Moonlit_Angel
Blue Crack Addict
Cannot agree with this enough.
The other part of your stance we'll part ways on, but I too appreciate that you don't think it right to force your beliefs on others, and that the Leviticus stuff is as irritating to you as it is to us.
Steved1998
Rock n' Roll Doggie
INDY500 said:
Exactly! I have every right to say whatever I want in this country. That's what our founders intended! I also agree with your earlier posts, we shouldn't punish businesses that have noncomforming values and the only way this liberal wickedness is going to stop is if we elect people with strong Christian values who will use the hand of God to repeal these laws! Liberals have conspired against and repressed Christians long enough in this country, now it's our turn! The only way to save this country is to bring God back into government and to spread our values to every man woman and child in this country, whether they accept them or not!
exactly. all your posts today have been great, i just wanted to be different and quote this one.
i'm a christian as well (though i'm a liberal one i guess, i've never put any thought in it) and i focus far more on the pacifist parts of the scripture such as love thy neighbour and the golden rule. i wouldn't want to be discriminated against or told i couldn't marry the person i love, so i've no issues with two men or two women who wish to marry.
PhilsFan
Blue Crack Addict
Now that I am at a computer, I have a bit more time to fully respond to this.
I have seen you reference this both in posts and in your signature. But I do not feel that this is a valid question in this debate.
The question is a loaded one, implying that, in this particular debate over the merits of legalizing same-sex marriage, we need to either sacrifice equality or liberty. That for same-sex couples to achieve equality under the law, the liberty of some people will be infringed upon. That to maintain the liberty of all, some equality under the law will have to be sacrificed.
But I, and many others, still fail to see how same-sex marriage infringes upon any American's liberty.
I know it has been asked a thousand times of you, but I will ask for the 1,001st time: if same-sex marriage is legalized, what negative impact will there be?
martha
Blue Crack Supplier
Jive Turkey
ONE love, blood, life
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2005
- Messages
- 13,645
Well because there is no way to be sure what form god's wrath will take.
corianderstem
Blue Crack Distributor
Amazing.
financeguy
ONE love, blood, life
How does that work, like spreading manure?
deep
Blue Crack Addict
yes
nourishment for the soul
nourishment for the soul
INDY500
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
What? No theory that I speak out boldly against same-sex marriage in hopes of repressing my latent homosexuality??
Well I have a theory too. Pearl doesn't know what the hell she's talking about because Pearl obviously feels it's impossible to be against redefining marriage to include members of the same sex without hating gays.
INDY500
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
You can look back on the old thread -- way back on July 21st and 22nd -- as well as the question I'm about to ask Martha, to see negative impacts I can see. And a thread on equality vs liberty would make an interesting topic IMO.
As for equality and marriage, let's start with this. Can you name me a society, present or past, that has not places limits or restrictions (made unequal in other words) on the practice of marriage? Limits regarding age, number, bloodline or sex?
Cute, real cute.
Shouldn't you be aware by now that it is rather impossible to say you are not against gays yet insist on denying their rights?
I don't really think you actually hate gay people, but you seem to lack a lot of compassion for them.
INDY500
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
Martha. As it's one against everyone maybe you'll indulge me and answer a question or two for me.
Would you support your mayor if he or she used the power of government to keep Chick-fil-a from opening a franchise in your bankrupt California town (I'm assuming) regardless of the fact that they would bring jobs and tax revenues?
Are the residents of your town that supported Prop 8 to maintain marriage as one man and one woman any less civic-minded or respectable citizens of California because of their position on that issue?
As you have stated previously that opposition to same-sex marriage is analogous to anti-miscegenation laws that barred blacks and whites from marrying; what tolerance should the state of California have (and what do you personally have) for citizens, churches or business owners that have a biblical or traditional view of marriage and continue to express that view publicly or politically?
Thank you for your answers in advance.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
INDY500 said:
Why does the inclusion of same-sex couples involve a "redefining"?
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
INDY500 said:
In your lifetime, Jerry Lew Lewis married his 13 year old cousin and Loretta Lynn married at the same age.
Likely Mary was about the same age when she gave birth to Jesus.
So is God a statuatoru rapist?
I mean, our only guide is history, right?
deep
Blue Crack Addict
if you believe the bible
he is much worst than that
he is much worst than that
HBK-79
War Child
I was thinking that this would be relevant.
cobl04
45:33
^yep.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Except those weren't real concerns, they basically boiled down to discomfort, or your old "status quo" argument.
Can you name me one society, present or past that hasn't at one time in their history evolved or changed their marriage practices?
Moonlit_Angel
Blue Crack Addict
Yes, and as I recall, we came in and gave responses as to why we think (know?) your arguments are wrong.
Sigh. Here we go again...
There are LOGICAL reasons behind the first three reasons. People have to be of legal age lest there be any chance of abuse and unreasonable control over the person of lower age. Number, likely the same reason, though, as we here have pointed out (and as a fellow religious poster, Sean, has noted), the Bible has multiple stories about relationships where there are more than two people involved. And bloodline, there is a fear of disease and deformity. However, apparently closely related people can still run off and get married in this country! I don't see the anti-same sex marriage people making an equally big demand for constitutional amendments banning incestouous relationships.
Though, as I noted in the last thread, I'm fine with polygamy being legal, as long as everyone's of legal age and consenting. And once more, you can CHOOSE to be polygamous, you aren't born polygamous. Which is why the comparison isn't quite the same.
And yeah, plenty of societies frown upon members of the same sex getting married. The problem there is, there's absolutely no logical reason why.
I present you this scenario:
Two men have been in a committed, monogamous relationship for, say, 10 years. They love each other deeply, as much as a straight couple would. They want to live together and be happy together, take care of each other, be able to visit each other in the hospital should one get sick, maybe even adopt children someday. So they wish to have a wedding ceremony, to make their relationship official.
Why do you think they don't deserve the right to do that, even with all the proof of how committed they are to each other right there, plain for anyone to see? Why do you think they should be denied the same opportunities and rights with love that you get? If you truly don't have an issue with gay people, if it's not the fact that it's two men in this scenario that's bothering you, then what exactly is the actual problem you see here?
I really would like you to answer this. Please, please, PLEASE answer this.
Statutory rapist and promoter of adultery, apparently, 'cause Mary was kind of already taken when God got her pregnant.
But hey, it's in the Bible, and the kid grew up to be our savior, so I guess we can look the other way on his sketchy beginnings, then.
Also, JT, nice clip.
y-you mean she wasn't really a virgin when she had jesus?
Galeongirl
Galeonbroad
I was thinking that this would be relevant.
After seeing this picture so many times I can't help but wonder....
What would that Oreo taste like? It looks frickin' delicious!!!!!
Oh and for the guy who claims that giving gay people the right to marriage is opening Pandora's box...
Gay Marriage has been legal here for 10 years, and yet polygamy is still outlawed. As is marrying a child or anything else that sick people CHOOSE to want. The difference? You don't choose to be gay. You just are. It's not a sick urge you CHOOSE to act up on, instead of seeking help. Maybe it'd help you to come over here and see what society is like for tolerant people.
Moonlit_Angel
Blue Crack Addict
After seeing this picture so many times I can't help but wonder....
What would that Oreo taste like? It looks frickin' delicious!!!!!
This.
Also, yeah, same here in my state. Gay marriage has been legal here for, what's it been, three years now? And somehow, my state hasn't imploded or collapsed or whatever. We're doing about as good or bad as we always have. Hm.
y-you mean she wasn't really a virgin when she had jesus?
It's a crazy theory, I know, but I'm willing to put it out there.
It's tough for religious folks to come to terms with anything sexual. It's no surprise that most cannot support SSM, when they find the vagina a thing of disgust. When your gods/prophets all have to come from a virgin mother, and any sort of women that has either shown any form of power sexually or the idea of them sleeping with multiple partners is usually a call for death or in our current situation now, stronger laws against their odies....
It's not surprising they're also this fearful of the feelings two men/women have for each other.
It's not surprising they're also this fearful of the feelings two men/women have for each other.
PhilsFan
Blue Crack Addict
INDY500 said:
So, the slippery slope? You believe that if gay marriage is legalized, the floodgates will open?
Look, I get it. You envision a future where people start making the argument that polygamy should be legal because, scientifically, mammals are not meant to have only one sexual partner.
But there are practical reasons not to have polygamy, reasons that go well beyond anything made in the arguments against same-sex marriage. Marriage is, legally, a lot about combining assets, and polygamy would actually introduce true redefining of the legal action. Same-sex marriage applies to none of that. Frankly, I think you are too smart not to know the difference, so this argument is disappointing.
corianderstem
Blue Crack Distributor
He'd already brought up polygamy before (a few months ago, if I recall correctly), and did not choose to address the rightfully angry comments and questions that came in response (again, unless I'm mis-remembering).
And that's kind of what made me start wondering if he was just trying to rile people up.
As for that Oreo, it would taste like a big mouthful of lard with a little chocolate mixed in. That's too much filling.
And that's kind of what made me start wondering if he was just trying to rile people up.
As for that Oreo, it would taste like a big mouthful of lard with a little chocolate mixed in. That's too much filling.
martha
Blue Crack Supplier
I answer the questions asked of me, when I have time to, anyway.
But I would absolutely NOT support any city official who tried to stop a business from opening in my city simply because he didn't like the business's political views.
No. They can be very responsible citizens. I think they tend to succumb to the fear campaigns launched by their church and party. It's a national trend.
Expressing a view, and acting on that view, are two different things. A business owner can have all the Biblical views he wants. Hell, he can even believe in the Biblical edict that the rape victim must marry the rapist. Acting on those beliefs, trying to legislate the lives of strangers based on those beliefs is a whole different story. So, no, my state is not a theocracy; there is no basis for legislating based on Biblical principles.
Personally, I feel that same way. An individual can believe whatever Biblical principals he wants, and I can choose not to be friends with a person who thinks that his Bible trumps my Constitution.
Same deal with churches; they are protected by the very Constitution they choose to ignore.
A personal question for you, INDY; your aside about the solvency of my town, along with other little remarks you've made, and the manner in which they were made, males me wonder. Do you affect this nastiness as an internet persona, or are you that nasty in person as well? And please don't blame the liberals for this. We have nothing to do with your word choice or sentence structure.
Anytime.
My town has a balanced budget, keeps its parks tidy, fills its potholes, has a police force that doesn't shoot unarmed citizens, and respects the citizens who are still learning English, thanks for asking.
But I would absolutely NOT support any city official who tried to stop a business from opening in my city simply because he didn't like the business's political views.
No. They can be very responsible citizens. I think they tend to succumb to the fear campaigns launched by their church and party. It's a national trend.
Expressing a view, and acting on that view, are two different things. A business owner can have all the Biblical views he wants. Hell, he can even believe in the Biblical edict that the rape victim must marry the rapist. Acting on those beliefs, trying to legislate the lives of strangers based on those beliefs is a whole different story. So, no, my state is not a theocracy; there is no basis for legislating based on Biblical principles.
Personally, I feel that same way. An individual can believe whatever Biblical principals he wants, and I can choose not to be friends with a person who thinks that his Bible trumps my Constitution.
Same deal with churches; they are protected by the very Constitution they choose to ignore.
A personal question for you, INDY; your aside about the solvency of my town, along with other little remarks you've made, and the manner in which they were made, males me wonder. Do you affect this nastiness as an internet persona, or are you that nasty in person as well? And please don't blame the liberals for this. We have nothing to do with your word choice or sentence structure.
corianderstem
Blue Crack Distributor
Yes. Or, as it appears to be the case with Sad Chicken With Pickles, donating money to organizations who are trying to legislate or control the lives of strangers.
I say "appears" because while I saw a chart on Facebook about the scary places the company donated money, I haven't seen a source other than the chart.
trojanchick99
Rock n' Roll Doggie FOB
Martha,
- Status
