# Gay Marriage Amendment



## ZECH (Nov 3, 2004)

Since no one mentioned it today...............

In Tuesday's balloting, Ohio, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Michigan, North Dakota, Arkansas, Montana, Utah and Oklahoma solidly backed state constitutional amendments to define marriage as a union between man and a woman. 

Most of those were 80-90% against!


----------



## busyLivin (Nov 3, 2004)

not a suprise.  the religious were out in droves this year.  Bush owes his election to them. 

Even so, a 90% vote against it is substantial.  I would have been suprised with anything less.


----------



## NickB (Nov 3, 2004)

While we're blindly removing the rights of american citizens, why stop with only one group? let's go back to the pre-1960s stance on African Americans, Latinos, Asians and women.


----------



## busyLivin (Nov 3, 2004)

it will eventually change.  the country just isn't ready yet.


----------



## redspy (Nov 3, 2004)

dg806 said:
			
		

> Since no one mentioned it today...............
> 
> In Tuesday's balloting, Ohio, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Michigan, North Dakota, Arkansas, Montana, Utah and Oklahoma solidly backed state constitutional amendments to define marriage as a union between man and a woman.
> 
> Most of those were 80-90% against!


Question: if you were gay why would you live in these boonie states anyway?


----------



## maniclion (Nov 3, 2004)

NickB said:
			
		

> While we're the rights of american citizens, why stop with only one group? let's go back to the pre-1960s stance on African Americans, Latinos, Asians and women.


Why pre-1960's we should go all the way back to 1776 since that's when our fore-fathers sketched up the original plan for America where three-fifths of colored folk or "slaves" counted for representation in the House.


----------



## I Are Baboon (Nov 3, 2004)

Well that's one issue I really don't care about either way.


----------



## Crono1000 (Nov 3, 2004)

busyLivin said:
			
		

> it will eventually change.  the country just isn't ready yet.


agreed


			
				NickB said:
			
		

> let's go back to the pre-1960s stance on African Americans, Latinos, Asians and women.


agreed


----------



## NickB (Nov 3, 2004)

Pre-1960s simply because, while the groups I listed were technically citizens they did not recieve full benefits of being such. Reflects today and the way history has a way of repeating itself. 

But hey, we can go back there. Nothing wrong with a little extremism!


----------



## cappo5150 (Nov 3, 2004)

I cant believe california didnt make that list.


----------



## Crono1000 (Nov 3, 2004)

my time machine was broken, can I borrow someone elses?


----------



## redspy (Nov 3, 2004)

You can, but it will take you back in time to where there's only one black representative in the senate....wait a minute.


----------



## busyLivin (Nov 3, 2004)

redspy said:
			
		

> You can, but it will take you back in time to where there's only one black representative in the senate....wait a minute.



man, you got a lot of built up anger, eh? 

I can understand.. i was crushed when i saw the exit polls


----------



## maniclion (Nov 3, 2004)

Heres a little mentioned note of good intent from the Elections:

In a major victory for renewable energy advocates in Colorado, voters in the state approved Amendment 37 on Tuesday's election day. This is the first time in the Nation's history that a renewable energy portfolio standard was put directly before voters rather than processed through a state's legislature. 

Amendment 37, which affects the pocketbook of Colorado's largest utilities, also passed with 91 percent of the precincts reporting. The winning margin was 52 percent in favor and 48 percent opposed. That measure requires the state's utilities to generate or purchase a portion of their electric power from renewable energy resources such as wind and sun beginning in 2007, rising to 10 percent of the total by 2015.


----------



## redspy (Nov 3, 2004)

busyLivin said:
			
		

> man, you got a lot of built up anger, eh?
> 
> I can understand.. i was crushed when i saw the exit polls


There's a lot of work to be done to bring this country into the modern age, so yes, I'm passionate (not angry).


----------



## OceanDude (Nov 3, 2004)

As I mentioned in another thread this election proves the single thing that is completely absent in the Democratic political platform. That is what really matters at the end of the day to most Americans is VALUES MATTER to people. The old cliche' of the Democratic party - appeal to class hatred and demagoguery, promise to be all things to all people (and then forget about it if elected) and push for every fringe issue that they think will buy another vote is doomed. Blacks, Hispanics, and others area  voting Republican over and over again simply because they are tired of being used as a race card and because values really really mean something to them. Until the Democrats figure out this simple little fact they will go continue to disintegrate and go down in flames at every election.

OD


----------



## busyLivin (Nov 3, 2004)

That's what the 'Fair & Balanced' Fox News said.. the democrats discounted the moral issues, which cost him the election.

I was pleasantly suprised at the polls about morality.  I didn't have much faith in the morals of the country, and was very happy to be wrong.


----------



## BoneCrusher (Nov 3, 2004)

OceanDude said:
			
		

> As I mentioned in another thread this election proves the single thing that is completely absent in the Democratic political platform. That is what really matters at the end of the day to most Americans is VALUES MATTER to people. The old cliche' of the Democratic party - appeal to class hatred and demagoguery, promise to be all things to all people (and then forget about it if elected) and push for every fringe issue that they think will buy another vote is doomed. Blacks, Hispanics, and others area voting Republican over and over again simply because they are tired of being used as a race card and because values really really mean something to them. Until the Democrats figure out this simple little fact they will go continue to disintegrate and go down in flames at every election.
> 
> OD


Knock this shit off OD.  I hate agreeing with you.  

Please continue to wax on with the egomaniacal stuff you normally throw out.  All that "USA is going to run the world to our own benefit" stuff is much more fun to read.

When you post things I agree with it disturbes me a great deal ...


----------



## CowPimp (Nov 3, 2004)

OceanDude said:
			
		

> As I mentioned in another thread this election proves the single thing that is completely absent in the Democratic political platform. That is what really matters at the end of the day to most Americans is VALUES MATTER to people. The old cliche' of the Democratic party - appeal to class hatred and demagoguery, promise to be all things to all people (and then forget about it if elected) and push for every fringe issue that they think will buy another vote is doomed. Blacks, Hispanics, and others area  voting Republican over and over again simply because they are tired of being used as a race card and because values really really mean something to them. Until the Democrats figure out this simple little fact they will go continue to disintegrate and go down in flames at every election.
> 
> OD



Just curious, what values are these that the Republicans have?


----------



## tomas101 (Nov 3, 2004)

why do people really fucking care if someone of the same sex gets married.....it doesnt affect anybody but the two getting married!! its like people think that if 2 gays marry the human race will end...moral fucking values??? what values is it that repubs have??? most angelical(sp) christians came out to vote just b/c of gay marriage...thats pathetic....and lets not forget that Roe v. Wade will be overturned and abortion will become illegal. Basically this country's progress over the past 40 years will be dismantled under only 8 years of this administration. And it will be that way for the rest of our lifetimes.. .these moral values you speak of are bullshit


----------



## tomas101 (Nov 3, 2004)

Half the country actually believes that gay people getting married is more immoral than killing thousands of people. great values!!!


----------



## busyLivin (Nov 3, 2004)

tomas101 said:
			
		

> why do people really fucking care if someone of the same sex gets married.....it doesnt affect anybody but the two getting married!! its like people think that if 2 gays marry the human race will end...moral fucking values??? what values is it that repubs have??? most angelical(sp) christians came out to vote just b/c of gay marriage...thats pathetic....and lets not forget that Roe v. Wade will be overturned and abortion will become illegal. Basically this country's progress over the past 40 years will be dismantled under only 8 years of this administration. And it will be that way for the rest of our lifetimes.. .these moral values you speak of are bullshit



speak for yourself.  and you call the other guy ignorant? Just because you lack the same moral values doesn't make them bullshit.

Sorry to report, but a majority of the country are church-going people with conservative view points.  That is why they are against gay marriage. It will change eventually, but I don't see it happening anytime soon.


think about it ... just a little bit.


----------



## busyLivin (Nov 3, 2004)

tomas101 said:
			
		

> Half the country actually believes that gay people getting married is more immoral than killing thousands of people. great values!!!


If you lack religious beliefs, then you probably won't understand why they think this way.


----------



## Crono1000 (Nov 3, 2004)

hey oceondude, looking great beautiful


----------



## tomas101 (Nov 3, 2004)

busy u are missing the point...people need to stop putting religion in the fuking white house... Religious and Moral stances are masks for racism and you cant deny that b/c its the blatant truth...and you also didnt answer my question...u just brought up the same ol you arent religious so you dont understand bullshit...tell me how any of this affects YOU personally please


----------



## NickB (Nov 3, 2004)

We need to protect our sacred institution from being condemned by gays. Marriage is an insitition which carries a 60% divorce rate and is commercialised and degraded voluntarily by the population with such shows as, "Who wants to marry a millionare", "Won't you please marry my dad" and "Who wants to marry a fucking midget?". How dare those homosexuals try to bring down such a sacred right? How dare they, indeed.


----------



## tomas101 (Nov 3, 2004)

Gotta love a country who has its priorities in order. My cousin can die overseas in peace knowing that the sanctity of marriage has been preserved.


----------



## Crono1000 (Nov 3, 2004)




----------



## busyLivin (Nov 3, 2004)

tomas101 said:
			
		

> busy u are missing the point...people need to stop putting religion in the fuking white house... Religious and Moral stances are masks for racism and you cant deny that b/c its the blatant truth...and you also didnt answer my question...u just brought up the same ol you arent religious so you dont understand bullshit...tell me how any of this affects YOU personally please



how are people putting it in the white house? it was voted on, and it was rejected.

I agree it should be a state issue.  but the states thus far are unanimous. that's all i'm saying.


----------



## tomas101 (Nov 3, 2004)

still dodged my question!!


----------



## busyLivin (Nov 3, 2004)

tomas101 said:
			
		

> still dodged my question!!



is your question how does it bother Christians?

Not to start a debate, but Christians see homosexuality as wrong.  Why would they endorse their marriage?


before i get bombarded with accusations, I'm just answering the question he asked. I did not give my personal thoughts.


----------



## tomas101 (Nov 3, 2004)

> tell me how any of this affects YOU personally please


 ^this is what i asked...what i asked is not what u just answered....how about a straight forward answer...and in case for some reason you dont know what "any" means, i meant gays being married...so read it like this "tell me how does gay marriage affect YOU personally please, from living your regular life"


----------



## busyLivin (Nov 3, 2004)

i never spoke for myself in this thread.. from top to bottom. I was talking about what the country voted. 

Answer your question? Liek you said, it's a personal question. Why the hell would I answer that? I'm not here to piss anyone off or judge anyone.  I'll keep my opinions that some may find personally offensive to myself.

I think marriage is b/n a man & a woman. That's the best answer you're getting


----------



## tomas101 (Nov 3, 2004)

i rest my case...it doesnt affect you, but u still are agaisnt something that will never affect your life in any way...why do people hide behind a fuking bush, just answer the question!! 

and where did i say its a personal question?


----------



## busyLivin (Nov 3, 2004)

Congratulations on your "victory" 

"how does it affect you personally" meaning, give me your PERSONAL reasons for how it affects you


----------



## busyLivin (Nov 3, 2004)

& I'm not hiding. I don't judge homosexuals.  Morally do I think it's right? I have no idea.  That's not for me to say. I'm nobody's judge.  

I just think marriage is between a man & a woman. I'm sorry I can't give you anything else.

This is a pointless debate. We are not going to convince each other of anything.


----------



## tomas101 (Nov 3, 2004)

and they wonder why this country is so fucked....

you cant even give a damn answer..i give up..if people would just think for a moment on issues and see how this has any impact on their life, it would be so much easier...and since gays getting married doesnt have an impact on anyones life i find this quite sad..


----------



## tomas101 (Nov 3, 2004)

busyLivin said:
			
		

> & I'm not hiding. I don't judge homosexuals.  Morally do I think it's right? I have no idea.  That's not for me to say. I'm nobody's judge.
> 
> I just think marriage is between a man & a woman. I'm sorry I can't give you anything else.
> 
> This is a pointless debate. We are not going to convince each other of anything.


fair enough and thank you for showing that PERSONALLY it has no affect on your life


----------



## busyLivin (Nov 3, 2004)

listen dumbass, you made this personal. I was talking about what the vote said & you jumped on me demanding i explain my viewpoint.

Fuck You.

I choose not to give my reasons. I don't owe you shit. This country is fucked because of people like you with the signature you have.


----------



## tomas101 (Nov 3, 2004)

busyLivin said:
			
		

> listen dumbass, you made this personal. I was talking about what the vote said & you jumped on me demanding i explain myself.
> 
> Fuck You.
> 
> I choose not to give my reasons. I don't owe you shit. This country is fucked because of people like you with the signature you have.


ayo hot shot, this is your buddy who gave the finger to someone while on camera...and thank you religious fanatics for your help in the end of the moderate conservative


----------



## busyLivin (Nov 3, 2004)

tomas101 said:
			
		

> ayo hot shot, this is your buddy who gave the finger to someone while on camera...



yeah, that has a lot of bearing. I assume that means you've never given anyone the finger?  

Watch the video in real-time. he is obviously joking around. Is that not allowed?  

Go ahead & spin it.


----------



## tomas101 (Nov 3, 2004)

busyLivin said:
			
		

> yeah, that has a lot of bearing. I assume that means you've never given anyone the finger?
> 
> Watch the video in real-time. he is obviously joking around. Is that not allowed?


i actually like what he did...but for you to say he was joking around is stupid b/c he wasnt


----------



## busyLivin (Nov 3, 2004)

tomas101 said:
			
		

> i actually like what he did...but for you to say he was joking around is stupid b/c he wasnt


i saw it a while ago.. if im not mistaken he was laughing before & after it.

You sound pretty sure, so you must be right. I'll check it out.


----------



## tomas101 (Nov 3, 2004)

i'm done for the nite,Religious and Moral stances are masks for racism....and i dare you to say otherwise...u better hope you dont have kids who turn out to be homos or lesbians...i would hate to see you ruin their lives, but karma always finds a way...and for you to start saying fuck you is uncalled for


----------



## busyLivin (Nov 3, 2004)

tomas101 said:
			
		

> i'm done for the nite,Religious and Moral stances are masks for racism....and i dare you to say otherwise...u better hope you dont have kids who turn out to be fags or lesbians...i would hate to see you ruin their lives, but karma always finds a way...and for you to start saying fuck you is uncalled for



when did i say anything bad about "fags" or lesbians?

You put all the words in my mouth that you want. I have no problem with homosexuals. Spin it anyway you want to. I was talking about the institution of marriage. The moral issues I was talking about was in reference to what the vote said.

I NEVER said I had anything against homosexuals. I do not. You have totally spun EVERYTHING i said here tonight. I'm through ever debating with you.  You make your point by putting words in my mouth.  It's pointless to try.


AND FOR THE RECORD... you called them FAGS. you edited your post a little late.  Who's the racist?


----------



## busyLivin (Nov 3, 2004)

uncalled for? I have never said that on here before. you jumping down my throat for no reason is uncalled for.


----------



## busyLivin (Nov 3, 2004)

ya know what, you're right. I shouldn't have said f--- you. I am sorry.

You have got me so pissed off.  

Go back to the beginning. I simply said I was suprised at the vote.  You immediately insist I explain why.  At this point, I had said nothing about how I felt about homosexual marriage. Eventually you got me to admit I do not agee with it.  You then proceeded to consistently claim i was a bigot & anti-gay & how I would ruin my children's lives if they turned out to be gay.  

Again, I shouldn't have said f--- you, but if it was ever deserved, it was here.  You have painted a very ugly picture of me, and it simply is not true.

*I do not judge anyone. *


----------



## CowPimp (Nov 3, 2004)

busyLivin said:
			
		

> is your question how does it bother Christians?
> 
> Not to start a debate, but Christians see homosexuality as wrong.  Why would they endorse their marriage?
> 
> ...



Excuse me, but I am Christian, and I don't see it as wrong.  Fundamentalist Christians see it as wrong.


----------



## OceanDude (Nov 4, 2004)

CowPimp said:
			
		

> Just curious, what values are these that the Republicans have?



I can't speak for everyone that voted but I'd wager it's the simple things like "family", morality, descency, religious values, and common sense.

OD


----------



## OceanDude (Nov 4, 2004)

tomas101 said:
			
		

> why do people really fucking care if someone of the same sex gets married.....it doesnt affect anybody but the two getting married!! its like people think that if 2 gays marry the human race will end...moral fucking values??? what values is it that repubs have??? most angelical(sp) christians came out to vote just b/c of gay marriage...thats pathetic....and lets not forget that Roe v. Wade will be overturned and abortion will become illegal. Basically this country's progress over the past 40 years will be dismantled under only 8 years of this administration. And it will be that way for the rest of our lifetimes.. .these moral values you speak of are bullshit



Well you could go commission an opinion poll to find out why but I suspect the core reason is "because". People really are just into common sense and don't take the time to debate these issues. They go with their visceral responses and I suspect that most see it as completely alien to Nature's intent. I suspect most see that ever since society turned their backs in apathy the homosexual lifestyle started spreading like a cancer as just another alternative lifestyle and then AIDS took the nation by storm and cost everyone billions of dollars. I suspect traditional families do not like to have to explain to their children why two men are kissing in the public parks or touching each other at the beach or wearing feminine clothing etc. I suspect that people do not respect individuals that cave into these kind of vices and do not feel comfortable letting their children be around them. I suspect that most people see this bahevior as a reduction in social quality of life. You or I can argue the validity of these perceptions or attitudes until we are blue in the face but at the end of the day people vote for what they are comfortable with and against that which they are not. It's really that simple. Our values were instilled thousands of years ago and passed on through our families in a chain of  generational family hand offs. The homosexuals lost the vote of humanity way back in the ancient times because society has never been comfortable with them. There have been periods in history where certain geographical regions tolerated it or encouraged it but most of those nations and peoples no longer exist.  No doubt they will continue to rise and fall in ebbs of influence and obscurity. No doubt the tide is going out again for them on this issue and "progress" depends on your point of view. The majority of Americans apparently do not favor your interpretation of progress.

OD


----------



## kbm8795 (Nov 4, 2004)

Actually, it's rather obvious that most of us "marry" inside ourselves and with a partner long before the decision is recognized by the State or by a church. Passing constitutional amendments will neither change that reality or prevent it in the future - it only perpetuates a mythical image and assigns special rights. At the same time, it acknowledges the existence of other relationships for the first time simply by defining marriage. 

I would expect that from their point of view, the votes for these amendments weren't so lopsided - the only state that voted 6-1 for an amendment was Mississippi - go figure. Balloting was considerably closer in other states. And considering the number of couples who wanted to marry, the votes against those amendments were much higher.
In Massachusetts, the only state which recognizes same-sex marriage, proponents of a constitutional amendment lost seats in the State House. 

What could be more interesting is how putting marriage into a constitution could create issues for the larger population. For example, defining it as simply between "one man and one woman" could open statutes preventing incestual relationships up to constitutional challenges. It could also call into question whether the government has a moral obligation to help someone who wants to change their assigned "gender" in order to marry and receive all the benefits. It also recognizes marriage as a constitutional right, thus strengthening arguments that relationships are beyond the reach of governmental control that have long been established by the courts. 

States can only assign benefits and responsibilities in recognized relationships. While some in the Right hope that these amendments can be used to increase the State's role in contractual arrangements with any couple and the public's interest in intervening in the validity of both individual choices of marriage and divorce, it is probably unlikely that the greater population will allow greater state policing of their own marriage choices. Otherwise, proponents of those amendments would have made sure they added the words "for a lifetime" to those proposals. 

For gays, all the publicity could end up becoming a windfall for other battles. Since religious zealots panicked by going after constitutional amendments, it increased recognition of the hardships associated with denial of statutory benefits like inheritance, funeral arrangements, etc. It also decreased opposition to equal employment protections and hate crimes legislation among the general population. 

Their passage had little to do with common sense or a sense of morality. People will hold hands whether the government recognizes their existence or not.


----------



## busyLivin (Nov 4, 2004)

CowPimp said:
			
		

> Excuse me, but I am Christian, and I don't see it as wrong.  Fundamentalist Christians see it as wrong.



so am i. i never said i did either.

what a suprise.. misunderstood again


----------



## Woody_London (Nov 4, 2004)

The only part of the bible that mentions homosexuality is Livitucus which also says that you should be stoned to death for eating shelfish and for wearing "clothes of mixed fibres"

As an outsider, why does middle America hate gays so much?  You are supposed to be "The land of the free" and all that.


----------



## SlimShady (Nov 4, 2004)

It strikes me as odd that anyone could criticize the "religious voters" for these new laws. Why? .. The entire institution of marriage IS religious! You get married in a church, by a religious official (minister, priest, etc) and you swear before God!! 

  (Sure I know about justice of the Peace weddings, but those are much rarer than a wedding in a church or with a minister). 

  Why would you NOT expect religious people and churches to get involved in an issue concerning a religious ritual? 

 The whole idea of gay marriage is nothing but a cheap shot at the heart of the church's core values. The fact that a few judges have basically tried to ram it down people's throats is the cause of these new bills. 

 Personally, I don't care one way or the other. I am not a church goer. But I respect the rights of those who do attend churches and I also think gays should have equal rights to anyone else.  Marriage should be left to the churches and not the gov't. 

 Perhaps the government should get out of the business of marriage, death and divorce, then we would not have these problems? ... I for one, think that a person should be allowed to declare for themselves who will recieve death benefits. .. If someone is single, it has no bearing on the amount of money paid into social security, the single person paid the same amount as a married person, yet upon death the gov't pays benefits to the spouse of the married and nothing to the single person. That's bullshit. It's really none of the gov'ts business if I am married or if I am not, or if a person is gay or not. If the government would stay out of marriage and stop making laws preferring married people, then these problems would not exist.


----------



## kbm8795 (Nov 4, 2004)

Well, for one thing, there are gay churches that perform ceremonies. There are also several other denominations that perform them, also. 

And religious rituals do not provide access to statutory benefits without a marriage license issued by the state. One reason for that policy is that there is too much diversity in denominational policy about who can be allowed to be married within their church. The other reason is that churches, which used to have more power over marriage, abused their authority by refusing to record weddings, births, or deaths of people who weren't members of their faith. Governments stepped in order to keep accurate records of population and ensure some form of familial distribution of property.

Actually, I agree - the state should get out of the marriage business. It would save taxpayers a lot of money, deal with an overabundance of divorce attorneys, and streamline our tax and inheritance system to allow individuals to make their own decisions about family and property rights.


----------



## busyLivin (Nov 4, 2004)

someone just sent me this.


----------



## tucker01 (Nov 4, 2004)

If people are so concerned with Moral Values, based on Religion,  Why not focus on the Positive Values,  Like Helping the Homeless, and the Sick instead of trying to segregate parts of society.


----------



## OceanDude (Nov 4, 2004)

SlimShady said:
			
		

> It strikes me as odd that anyone could criticize the "religious voters" for these new laws. Why? .. The entire institution of marriage IS religious! You get married in a church, by a religious official (minister, priest, etc) and you swear before God!!
> 
> (Sure I know about justice of the Peace weddings, but those are much rarer than a wedding in a church or with a minister).
> 
> ...



OMG someone that sees it precisely as I do!!! *Marriage should be left to the churches and not the gov't. * BINGO!!! I have always stated that the gov has no business legislating marriage or licensing it as if we were some kind of animals or business requiring regulation. It's like the mayor acting as high priest saying - "Come get your marriage dog tags and the blessing of the city/state". This is a religious concept that was stolen by gov and woven into society. It is fine there only if the gov and the people remains a religious society. It all becomes irrational when we try to have a plurality of belief systems within a framework of religious and moral values and then try to later remove the religious framework as if it was a cancer. Tis is what is currently being attempted by the speial interest groups. The homosexuals are just trying to make themselves feel "normal" by emulating and forceing acceptance of what most religions will not tolerate (albeit some are caving into the political pressure and falling apart like a civil war). The only thing gov should be recognizing is "civil unions" for tax, property rights and survivorship/benefits reasons. What people do behind that in the religious domain is personal. The homosexuals can go invent their own religion if they are uncomfortable with what the others are telling them (that's how a lot of the current religious sects started). But like the other invented religions that are out there they will have to deal with the same thing that all the other deal with if there is a day of judgment and they are on the wrong side of the issue there will be severe consequences. There is also the fundamental issue of respect and that no one can ever be forced to respect a behavior they find personally repugnant no mater what the laws are.

But I caution that there are pragmatic issues here as well. If the middle class finds that they are being alienated they will stop working and stop paying taxes if their majority lifestyle is forced to be socially changed to accommodate new special interest and secular lifestyles (minority interests) and then we would be in major chaos in this country and the house of cards would tumble down.

OD


----------



## Woody_London (Nov 4, 2004)

OceanDude said:
			
		

> The homosexuals can go invent their own religion if they are uncomfortable with what the others are telling them (that's how a lot of the current religious sects started). But like the other invented religions that are out there they will have to deal with the same thing that all the other deal with if there is a day of judgment and they are on the wrong side of the issue.
> 
> 
> 
> OD


What makes you so sure your religon is the right one? Do you have any proof or evidence or is it just blind faith? How do you know god even exists?

We are lucky here in the UK that religon and politics don't mix.


----------



## CowPimp (Nov 4, 2004)

OceanDude said:
			
		

> I can't speak for everyone that voted but I'd wager it's the simple things like "family", morality, descency, religious values, and common sense.
> 
> OD



Give me a fucking break, please.  That is just a vague list of values that most people feel they believe in.  I don't agree with your assessment of morality, decency, and religious values anyway.  Preemptive war is not a religious value, and it isn't a decent or moral practice.  The death penalty, which Bush is a huge supporter of by virtue of the fact that he signed off on the death of every single person in Texas except for one, is not a religious value, moral, or decent.  Not giving a rat's ass about mother Earth is not a moral, decent, or religious value.  I could go on, but I shall not.


----------



## CowPimp (Nov 4, 2004)

Hrm, so the government shouldn't have anything to do with marriage, yet they should ban gay marriages at the same time?  Just a little contradictory, now isn't it?


----------



## CowPimp (Nov 4, 2004)

busyLivin said:
			
		

> so am i. i never said i did either.
> 
> what a suprise.. misunderstood again



I never said you did either.  I said Fundamentalist Christians do, not you.


----------



## OceanDude (Nov 4, 2004)

IainDaniel said:
			
		

> If people are so concerned with Moral Values, based on Religion,  Why not focus on the Positive Values,  Like Helping the Homeless, and the Sick instead of trying to segregate parts of society.



Good point -   but what was it? 

Behavior choices and deviations from the mainstream are what segregate society. Diversity of behavior is fine up to the point of encroaching on legal boundaries or creating a burden that the majority does not want to tolerate. If the mainstream finds a certain behavior disruptive or undesirable to society then they reject it by passing new laws or making it clear through social alienation. I have said it many times - no laws passed by liberal justices will ever be effective in making the majority respect that to them is a violation of natural law or a behavior that they find repugnant. 

Although yesterday's election makes me very positive about this country's future let's talk about one other such "positive" thing you mention - homeless. Being a bum is one such behavior that the majority despise. No one likes a free loader that we work our ass off to support. The positive desire of most to want to help those is often overcome by the reality that many humans are just takers and do not want to work or do better in life. Humans are imperfect in helping as well as in accepting help. That is reality and Gov. has proved to be one of the most inept and incompetent organizations in this department. The most successful programs are by volunteers who come from pure moral motives and commit themselves to helping such from a humanitarian gesture rather than from a "paid job" perspective. It comes down to motivation, effectiveness and commitment. The lesson that was learned from Johnson's Grand Society where pretty profound. He declared war on poverty (focusing on the positive as you say) and it was an abysmal failure. Everyone on the dole became incentivized to take, take, and take. Billions of dollars spent at reducing poverty produced a double and tripling of poverty through a mechanism of co-dependency. Gov got bigger to serve more and more people who had their hands out and new gov employees like those in the feudal system had a job for life to take care of the impoverished and no desire to work themselves out of  it. Finally the majority of tax payers said enough and elected those that advocated welfare reform. Guess what - we had wild wild success with record employment rates and pride of ownership as people bought their own homes and felt good about being self sufficient etc. and Gov. got much smaller and taxes declined.  Self respect and feelings of making a positive contribution through earning something is what makes people respect themselves and get respect from others. Could not agree with you more about helping the sick - the problem is a lot of people like being "sick" and want to spread it to others or recruit more to sick life style choices. Some get better some don't. Don't make the mistake of thinking the morally based people in this country are any less sympathetic than any others. Get out and look around and see who are the people volunteering to help such as these. It's more often the case that they are church groups and civic organizations.

OD


----------



## CowPimp (Nov 4, 2004)

Yeah, you're right OceanDude.  Fuck the poor.  They can all just die.  That's Republican morality for you.


----------



## kbm8795 (Nov 4, 2004)

Scapegoating is a popular method of attempting to influence cultural laws. Historically, those "moral values" were used to ostracize members of different cultures (they immigrated from less intelligent nations), categorize races and genders and hide behind religious ideals as a smokescreen to justify cultural isolation. 

In the case of marriage, which originated as more of a pagan rite, the government intervened when religious bodies in countries with even an "official" religion imposed restrictions on recognition based on standards that did not serve the government's interest. Obviously, as nations became more centralized, governments wanted information about population, property ownership for taxation, records of births and deaths and number of children. In exchange, that information allowed for more universal inheritance rights that were not linked to official church membership or recognition of relationships. Government didn't "steal" anything - churches were supposed to keep those records as part of their mission in each community, but would vary in interpretations to such a degree that people were left off basic records because of apparent violations of any number of decreed church doctrines. It became more in the government's interest to not base population and wealth counts exclusively on church records that eliminated growing numbers of citizens who had been excommunicated. 

If you look at the wording of many state constitutions, it's quite easy to identify that religion and morality are not identical terms. The reason for this is simple - the diversity in religious beliefs can be so profound that morality differences tend to vary. The attempt in our constitutional system to provide rights and privileges of citizenship without regard to religious beliefs is very clearly spelled out in those state constitutions. Early in our own country's history, marriages between the church and State resulted in widespread discontent, most notably in Virginia, where people who weren't members of the official Anglican Church were prevented from owning property or being allowed to vote. Those whose lifestyle choices involved membership in different denominations were denied rights because of their deviation from "morality". . .or non-Anglican beliefs. 

Gay Americans not only have their own churches (much like the churches of racial groups) but are very much a part of quite a few other denominations in this country. While there is plenty of evidence that religious affiliation is a lifestyle choice and rather scanty evidence that a gay identity is created exclusively by choice, the viewpoint of persecution based on choice is hardly protected by any constitution, but based on lack of knowledge, a third elemental part of how civil laws are created. Curiously, church membership, which is not an innate characteristic but a lifestyle choice, is one of the first things protected by both federal and state constitutions, and in fact they are given wide berth to discriminate in matters of marriage and other aspects of life within their membership. 

Actually, (although exit polls can be somewhat inaccurate) polls indicated that more than a quarter of voters supported marriage rights, another 35% some form of civil unions, and only another quarter said no rights at all. That would indicate that the hot button for most Americans is related to the image of marriage itself rather than recognition of some civil protections. In Oregon, the only state in which a few thousand civil same-sex marriage ceremonies were performed, the vote for an amendment was much closer than in other states. The question now is how government will address those statutory issues and still ensure the validity of equal protection and due process clauses in the Constitution. It also forces government to question whether unreasonable restrictions could affect the validity of the religious establishment clause.


----------



## SlimShady (Nov 4, 2004)

CowPimp said:
			
		

> Hrm, so the government shouldn't have anything to do with marriage, yet they should ban gay marriages at the same time? Just a little contradictory, now isn't it?


  No, the government should not 'ban' gay marriage. The government shouldn't have anything to with marriage - period.  

 The backlash against gay marriage comes when the government says "You must accept gay marriage!", and all the while, marriage is not a govermental concept... it is a religious one. No one should be forced to accept any type of religious dogma because of the government. Remember - this all came to a head because of some judge in San Francisco who decided that everyone must accept gay marriage. 

 It is hard to explain, but basically, the government should have never gotten involved in this to begin with. There is no need for them to regulate marriage in any way. The excuse they used (50 years ago) was social security and military benefits, plus public records.. If you want to name an heir to recieve your benefits, then you should be able to name anyone you like - afterall, you earned those benefits... the government has no right to say, "well, we will pay your wife or child, but not your best friend." Fuck that, the choice should be up to the individual who actually earned those funds. 

 If homosexuals want to marry and some Christian church opposes it, then no government has a right to force that church to accept as legit, or perform those marriages... BUT, if homosexuals wish to marry and can start a church, or find a church that approves, the government has NO business telling them they cannot marry. 

 I really think that the government should be sued over this. Religious freedom is a constitutional right in this country and marriage is a religious institution. 

 There are churches in the country where a person can go praise Satan, worship the Druids, or roll on the floor with rattlesnakes. The government cannot regulate that, but they can delcare themselves ruler over who can marry and who cannot?? ... It's insane.

 Edited to add - Yes, I voted to ban gay marriage. I also feel very sick about being presented with this choice. This issue should have never been on the ballot. Period. The issue itself forced people to say 'yes' or 'no' when it is actually no one's business.  It is very much like being asked "Should we kill all the dogs or all the cats?" ... The real answer is neither, but that choice is not presented. I don't want gay marriage forced upon anyone, nor do I want to deny gays the right to marry in a church that approves it.


----------



## kbm8795 (Nov 4, 2004)

Yep...I pretty much agree with you here, Slim. When you put constitutional amendments on the ballot, you are potentially opening up the whole institution to a wide variety of challenges from people with more shady agendas than a few thousand same-sex couples. 
It suddenly becomes an institution in which the State can declare an even deeper interest in regulating for anyone. 

The only thing I disagree with is that the issue came to the forefront because of challenges involving the Massachusetts constitution. That state's Supreme Judicial Court's decision sparked an even greater overreaction than Vermont's civil union decision a couple of years earlier. Now civil unions seem almost reasonable to many people. 

Seems to me that many state rights restricted to marriage should be individual rights to begin with - no citizen should be told who they can visit in a hospital or leave their property to. Worse, no one should have to forfeit their property to the state because the state doesn't want to recognize their partner in life.  That just ends up being legalized theft. 

One of the few things that I support President Bush on is elimination of the inheritance tax. That should put every family on a level playing field as long as they have all of the legal arrangements available to designate a rightful heir.


----------



## OceanDude (Nov 4, 2004)

CowPimp said:
			
		

> Yeah, you're right OceanDude.  Fuck the poor.  They can all just die.  That's Republican morality for you.


Don't have a clue where you came up with this self righteous judgment about me? That's a typical case of ignorant blue collar confusion hiding behind the illusion of extorted compasion and forced taxation for you.

OD


----------



## I Are Baboon (Nov 4, 2004)

OceanDude said:
			
		

> That's a typical case of ignorant blue collar confusion hiding behind the illusion of extorted compasion and forced taxation for you.
> 
> OD



 

I need an "OceanDude to English" dictionary for Christmas.


----------



## CowPimp (Nov 4, 2004)

OceanDude said:
			
		

> Don't have a clue where you came up with this self righteous judgment about me? That's a typical case of ignorant blue collar confusion hiding behind the illusion of extorted compasion and forced taxation for you.
> 
> OD



Basically, you were saying that the government shouldn't help the poor because they aren't good at it.  It should be left up to volunteers.  That is complete nonsense.  You talk about values and morality, yet you disregard one of the most important ones: help those less fortunate than yourself.

I agree with your bit about welfare reform.  Reform is always a good thing.  The government, and all it's sponsored programs, should be in a constant state of reform.  If it's not, then we're just repeating the mistakes of the past.


----------



## HARD_Right (Nov 4, 2004)

Child molestation, homosexuality, and bestiality are choices. I select a lifestyle for myself that excludes these immoral acts. It is now obvious for all to whom these acts are considered a lifestyle choice that we as a nation wish a higher morality as a basis of conduct from which to raise our children. There are countries with a much lower standard of acceptable of behavior such as France where you may reside should you choose to be a homosexual.

Expect more freedom from morally bankrupt liberal politicians and the un-American manor in which they operated as their power wanes. In the coming paradigm shift their weak government, devoid of a moral component, will be replaced by one of a more conservative Republican government.


----------



## OceanDude (Nov 4, 2004)

kbm8795 said:
			
		

> Scapegoating is a popular method of attempting to influence cultural laws. Historically, those "moral values" were used to ostracize members of different cultures (they immigrated from less intelligent nations), categorize races and genders and hide behind religious ideals as a smokescreen to justify cultural isolation.
> 
> In the case of marriage, which originated as more of a pagan rite, the government intervened when religious bodies in countries with even an "official" religion imposed restrictions on recognition based on standards that did not serve the government's interest. Obviously, as nations became more centralized, governments wanted information about population, property ownership for taxation, records of births and deaths and number of children. In exchange, that information allowed for more universal inheritance rights that were not linked to official church membership or recognition of relationships. Government didn't "steal" anything - churches were supposed to keep those records as part of their mission in each community, but would vary in interpretations to such a degree that people were left off basic records because of apparent violations of any number of decreed church doctrines. It became more in the government's interest to not base population and wealth counts exclusively on church records that eliminated growing numbers of citizens who had been excommunicated.
> 
> ...



KBM where do you come up with your dissertations? Is this right off the top of your head, or do you just make it up as you type or do you have an anthology quick reference to "history and philosophy as I think it ought to be" ? Just curious...

Funny you should use the Jewish term "scapegoat" since it it rooted in good vs evil concepts and ancient religious laws. A lot of people never make the theological connection that is precisely what Jesus was but in the form of the sacrificial lamb and not the goat (because goats were notorious for not having a moral code and would copulate with anything they could). You insinuate that only the morally based people did this and that it was wrong. Would you equally object to the behaviors of cutthroats slaying those that did not see fit to adhere to the morality/code of rogues? Everyone has to have some standard and its not clear to me what you are advocating personally.

I challenge your assertion that marriage originated as a pagan rite. Depending on how far back you go in history the only recorded history I am aware of come again from the Jews and it was definitely a religious concept. Unless of course you are talking about personal property rights or something other that what most of us think of as marriage. If that is the case then yes, pagan rites permitted a person to take by force what he wanted. Marriage in this country is generally taken to mean by mutual free choice and consent among people of the opposite sex. 

I still assert that government "took" religiously recognized concepts such as marriage and institutionalized them purely to be able to control through taxation and conscription and not for any lofty ideal or value added consideration. It turns out that in more civilized societies (UK/USA) the government evolved by adapting the social values and customs of the people and did attempt to provide a value added with record keeping, inheritance etc. as time went on. Although you cite cases where certain repressive religions abused powers it was more generally the case that religious institutions defended individual rights and insisted on legislation and law that protected individuals and families.

The assertion you make *the viewpoint of persecution based on choice is hardly protected by any constitution, but based on lack of knowledge, a third elemental part of how civil laws are created* is circular, presumptuous of infallibility, misdirected, erroneously constructed and arrogant. Say what? Who's viewpoint are you talking about here? Civil laws are fundamentally created by people with all their inherent intelligence, faults, sense of fairness, self interests and human limitations. You are trying to on one hand assert from the perspective of infallibility and absolute wisdom that laws are flawed while on the other hand holding up the constitution, a paper drafted by fallible humans, as infallible. Are you by chance a member of the ACLU? I see this irrational argument all the time with them.

As for:
*The question now is how government will address those statutory issues and still ensure the validity of equal protection and due process clauses in the Constitution. It also forces government to question whether unreasonable restrictions could affect the validity of the religious establishment clause.*
You make it sound almost like you work for some secret sect of government (not elected by anyone) and if the religious institutions threaten to meddle in the affairs of government social engineering programs that you will lobby for punishing them and take away their "privileged" status. That's a pretty bold attempt at extortion for a government that in theory is "for the people by the people". You act as thought the religious institutions are not permitted to have membership or voice in the government simply because they can't be permitted to co-mingle church and state. What are we going to do fire anyone who goes to church and donates a portion of their government paycheck to their individual religious organizations? Maybe I misunderstood you here? On the first question I am a pragmatist. Equal protection is a myth just as much as equality of the sexes or equality of citizens is. In God's eyes, yes, we are all equal. In Government's eyes we are a member of whatever protected class we are (Ever get rejected from a job or college because they needed to hire a minority and didn't have an open slot? I have - but that's life.). There has never been nor will there ever be purity in the constitution or the law since its all a competing system of interests and case histories interpreted by wildly different judicial judges. Frankly I am in favor of re-writing the whole thing (constitution, federal law and state law) under a consistent philosophical framework and not let wacky case interpretations or legislative voyeurism and special interests drive it away from core fundamental philosophical values.

The bottom line is: If you get too far outside the box of "normal" societal behavior that is generally accepted as mainstream you are going to be socially isolated or smacked down. That is human. At the other extreme, those cultures that abandon any kind of moral code and do not rein in anarchy or deviant behavior rapidly perish. That's Nature (note capital "N").

OD


----------



## HARD_Right (Nov 4, 2004)

CowPimp said:
			
		

> I agree with your bit about welfare reform. Reform is always a good thing. The government, and all it's sponsored programs, should be in a constant state of reform. If it's not, then we're just repeating the mistakes of the past.


This is the pillar of the Republican from of governing. Examine, improve, reform, rinse and repeat. The Democrats, on the other hand, squander the time needed for this task in pork barrel projects and sub committees while pandering to their deluded constituents on just how fine of a job they are doing. The end result is the illusion of solvency while guys like Clinton leave us to suffer the ongoing recession. Only by reforming their weak economic policies can we install a better economic dynamic.


----------



## OceanDude (Nov 4, 2004)

CowPimp said:
			
		

> Basically, you were saying that the government shouldn't help the poor because they aren't good at it.  It should be left up to volunteers.  That is complete nonsense.  You talk about values and morality, yet you disregard one of the most important ones: help those less fortunate than yourself.
> 
> I agree with your bit about welfare reform.  Reform is always a good thing.  The government, and all it's sponsored programs, should be in a constant state of reform.  If it's not, then we're just repeating the mistakes of the past.



You are so illogical I can not even respond to this. I am NOT saying any such thing about not helping the unfortunate you jackass. I am saying that there are those that are more competent than government at doing these things. Listen, apply some common sense for a moment. Let's be really flippant and silly to get a point across. "Compassion" is not seen in nature it is a moral and religious concept. If you advocate separation of Church and State (as if the Church was "evil" to the health and function of government - also very ironic when you think about it eh?) then you SHOULD NOT want compassion in government. It's TOO RELIGIOUS and we can't have that can we? Think of all the problems compassion causes. How much compassion is enough? Who pays? How do we know who is really needing it? When do we stop being compassion and saying enough is enough? etc. etc. Now, think about the lunacy of holding an IRS gun to "Joe taxpayers head" and saying: "Thou will be compassionate to our brethren and thou will give the government $3,000/year so that your brethren may sit idle at home, and pay for him to have someone administer daily injections of morphine because he hates himself. He also has an illegal alien brother who picks fruit seasonally and he has a bastard child who needs schooling in his native tongue". Sounds like a thug hijacked a religious concept for his own self interest does it not? How much do you think that the government takes from you actually gets to the end person? You really do not want to know this answer - about 20 cents for every dollar. The notion of forced compassion suddenly sounds insane does it not? I'd much rather give according to my means to my family and my friends first and as *I* SEE FIT PERIOD. That is not lacking compassion that is exercising my free right to help who the hell I want to help and who I think is deserving of my help and also at a time that I can afford to help. 

I say let people exercise their freedom of choice to be compassionate to who they want to and not let the government take 80 cents of every dollar they extort from me to pay themselves. Can you see the difference? I happen to be extremely generous to my family and friends. Don't deny me the fundamental right to associate with who I want and to be generous with who I want to be. It's MY MONEY and I EARNED IT! Get it?

OD


----------



## OceanDude (Nov 4, 2004)

I Are Baboon said:
			
		

> I need an "OceanDude to English" dictionary for Christmas.


Yeah, this was a fast shot from the hip and I could have expressed it better. Basically I am saying that forced compassion (taxation) is not true compassion and its a religious and moral philosophy that should not belong in government at all if we are not permitted to have a morally based government. It's just a debating point and my true position is that government should reflect the valeus of it's people and that right now means a vast majorty of religiosly and morally based people.

OD


----------



## HARD_Right (Nov 4, 2004)

I agree with OD's point and submit an additional comment. Why should we pay an administrative fee of 80 cents on the dollar when we can reduce that to 20 or 30 cents on the dollar by privatizing the control? We keep the rest. Why should I support someone from Mexico who's only claim to America is that their clothes are still wet by providing them with free health care, free groceries, and free college tuition? I can instead help a more deserving young American earn his or her way through college. I can help a working American _*B O R N*_ mother of three meet her financial needs. I can keep greedy Democrats from pork barreling my SSI investment and maybe actually get my money back with the growth an invest portfolio would show ... if those monies were put in privatized control.


----------



## kbm8795 (Nov 4, 2004)

HARD_Right said:
			
		

> Child molestation, homosexuality, and bestiality are choices. I select a lifestyle for myself that excludes these immoral acts. It is now obvious for all to whom these acts are considered a lifestyle choice that we as a nation wish a higher morality as a basis of conduct from which to raise our children. There are countries with a much lower standard of acceptable of behavior such as France where you may reside should you choose to be a homosexual.
> 
> Expect more freedom from morally bankrupt liberal politicians and the un-American manor in which they operated as their power wanes. In the coming paradigm shift their weak government, devoid of a moral component, will be replaced by one of a more conservative Republican government.




Wow. . .thanks for sharing. I had no idea that you struggled against so many different kinds of desires. 

It's a nice narrative, but not likely a universal truth.


----------



## BoneCrusher (Nov 4, 2004)

Bottem line here my fellow Americans.  Minotaur is gay.  He should ba legally allowed to share his life with whomever he chooses.  This is America and his right to choose his partner should not be removed because he is gay.  He should be allowed have the same transfer of assets as anyone else.


----------



## OceanDude (Nov 4, 2004)

BoneCrusher said:
			
		

> Bottem line here my fellow Americans.  Minotaur is gay.  He should ba legally allowed to share his life with whomever he chooses.  This is America and his right to choose his partner should not be removed because he is gay.  He should be allowed have the same transfer of assets as anyone else.


A different spin:
Bottom line Minotaur is unable to conventionally resolve his physical sexuality with his emotional and mental needs and chooses to associate his core identity with a small group of men who science labels "homosexuals". He should be allowed to share his life with anyone he wants but depending on how he publicly chooses to share it or express it he may suffer alienation from a majority of society, suffer reduced quality of life or suffer other consequences if such behavior is expressed in ways unacceptable to the majority. This is America and his right to choose who his friends are should not be taken away unless he hurts or abuses someone or his choices present a mortal danger to himself or to society. He can at any time in his life, without any special new laws, draft a will or contract expressing any terms that define how he may desire to legally dispose of his personal property upon his death or share it while he is alive unless such contract or instrument violates any other provisions of the constitution or law. His friend or friends may elect to sue him for breach of contract and take any of his property in a predeclared ratio (whose default shall be 50%) even if they are insincere in their affections for him and make other contracts with other people or become alienated in their common interests. 

OD


----------



## SlimShady (Nov 4, 2004)

HARD_Right said:
			
		

> Child molestation, homosexuality, and bestiality are choices. I select a lifestyle for myself that excludes these immoral acts. It is now obvious for all to whom these acts are considered a lifestyle choice that we as a nation wish a higher morality as a basis of conduct from which to raise our children. There are countries with a much lower standard of acceptable of behavior such as France where you may reside should you choose to be a homosexual.
> 
> Expect more freedom from morally bankrupt liberal politicians and the un-American manor in which they operated as their power wanes. In the coming paradigm shift their weak government, devoid of a moral component, will be replaced by one of a more conservative Republican government.


 Correction - Child molestation and beastiality are crimes. Homosexuality is not.  For the first time in it's history, the government of the USA has declared a common religious ceremony to be illegal and unavailable to certain individuals. I hope that scares you as much as it does me.


----------



## OceanDude (Nov 4, 2004)

OceanDude said:
			
		

> A different spin:
> Bottom line Minotaur is unable to conventionally resolve his physical sexuality with his emotional and mental needs and chooses to associate his core identity with a small group of men who science labels "homosexuals". He should be allowed to share his life with anyone he wants but depending on how he publicly chooses to share it or express it he may suffer alienation from a majority of society, suffer reduced quality of life or suffer other consequences if such behavior is expressed in ways unacceptable to the majority. This is America and his right to choose who his friends are should not be taken away unless he hurts or abuses someone or his choices present a mortal danger to himself or to society. He can at any time in his life, without any special new laws, draft a will or contract expressing any terms that define how he may desire to legally dispose of his personal property upon his death or share it while he is alive unless such contract or instrument violates any other provisions of the constitution or law. His friend or friends may elect to sue him for breach of contract and take any of his property in a predeclared ratio (whose default shall be 50%) even if they are insincere in their affections for him and make other contracts with other people or become alienated in their common interests.
> 
> OD


Note to self: *His friend or friends may elect to sue him for breach of contract and take any of his property in a predeclared ratio (whose default shall be 50%) even if they are insincere in their affections for him and make other contracts with other people or become alienated in their common interests. *

I just proved in the sentence above the worst fears of the majority in permitting homosexual unions. The logical progression of permitting and sanctioning homosexual unions is to permit legal unions for multiple-partners and that my friends means "bigomy". By accommodating the homosexual agenda the social structure of all of our society will resolve to a basket of choices and society as we know it will devolve into social anarchy and I predict result in a complete lack of any form of publicly recorded commitments. The net result is a dichotomy of choices but a complete erosion of quality of social life since the assumption of conventional monogamous unions is knit into most every single service in our economy and daily life. Basically we are talking major social revolution that will not be very pretty to witness or be around.

OD


----------



## SlimShady (Nov 4, 2004)

OceanDude said:
			
		

> I just proved in the sentence above the worst fears of the majority in permitting homosexual unions. The logical progression of permitting and sanctioning homosexual unions is to permit legal unions for multiple-partners and that my friends means "bigomy". By accommodating the homosexual agenda the social structure of all of our society will resolve to a basket of choices and society as we know it will devolve into social anarchy and I predict result in a complete lack of any form of publicly recorded commitments. The net result is a dichotomy of choices but a complete erosion of quality of social life since the assumption of conventional monogamous unions is knit into most every single service in our economy and daily life. Basically we are talking major social revolution that will not be very pretty to witness or be around.


 This is only true if you believe that government and laws are the only determining factor in human behavior. Societies exist under all kinds of governments and have done so for millions of years, yet the family unit is very similar no matter where you look.  My own personal beliefs are that survival and quality of life are much more important to the development of a society than are laws. 

 In order for your theory to be true, then bigamy must pose a legitimate threat to society and ALSO be a viable option that might be considered on a large scale. Ok, let's look at that - 

 Hugh Hefner lives in a mansion with hundreds of young women. Does this pose a threat to our society? It doesn't appear to. If he were to marry all of those young women and they were all entitled to an equal portion of his property, would it then be a threat to our society? 

 I don't think it would be. It might be if every man in the USA suddenly took on ten wives and started his own personal harem, but you won't see that happen. And it's got nothing to with laws or government - 99% of men cannot afford more than one wife and cannot attract more than one wife.  The laws of survival prevent it from occuring.  Even if it were legal, you wouldn't see bigamy on a grand scale.  And those who would do it, already are - they just aren't sanctioned by the government. 

 Homosexuals already live together. Outlawing marriage will not change that.  The threat is not a threat to society, but a government threat to freedom of religion.


----------



## OceanDude (Nov 4, 2004)

SlimShady said:
			
		

> This is only true if you believe that government and laws are the only determining factor in human behavior. Societies exist under all kinds of governments and have done so for millions of years, yet the family unit is very similar no matter where you look.  My own personal beliefs are that survival and quality of life are much more important to the development of a society than are laws.
> 
> In order for your theory to be true, then bigamy must pose a legitimate threat to society and ALSO be a viable option that might be considered on a large scale. Ok, let's look at that -
> 
> ...


Gawl dern, I just love a women who can work with logic. That gets my attention. Married? Happily? Interested in a relationship on a time-share basis? Have own finances? I have some but willing to co-mingle some - think I might be able to talk my wife into it if you can cook or do house chores too?  Sorry being flippant but what man would not want to have multiple wifes if he could get them all to get along (of course a lot of us would not want that reciprocated in the other direction).

The truth is many people are avoiding getting married now in the eyes of the government and opt for personal commitments that are not recorded. I won't express an opinion on this for now since there are portions of this that have definite advantages but they are in conflict with my core personal values; albeit in retrospect it might have been interesting to try.

Just one minor correction. In your last point you mention that homosexuals already live together and outlawing marriage will not change that. I don't think that anyone is trying to change that but rather protect what they consider the "sanctity" of the conventional union. You and I both agree that this is a religious concept that is inappropriately proxied through government recognition. I do not want a state representative acting as a high priest and blessing my union. I personally find it repugnant and insulting that government has to mirror or be involved at all with what I do in my own religion. At any rate, with respect to marriage of homosexuals there is nothing to outlaw since there is currently no legitimately recognized state practice - its simply not recognized and thus can not be prosecuted if it does not exist in the eyes of the state (semantic issue). I say let homosexuals do whatever they do with each other in the privacy of their own closets (homes) and let them take behavior up with God when they die. But why do they insist on having government recognize their personal commitments at all when they can get all the advantages (except tax benefits) by writing up their own personal legal contracts? As for tax benefits - let them incorporate or join with heterosexuals to lobby for a flat 10% tax rate for everyone. That would be fair and positive.

OD


----------



## SlimShady (Nov 4, 2004)

OceanDude said:
			
		

> I say let homosexuals do whatever they do with each other in the privacy of their own closets (homes) and let them take behavior up with God when they die. But why do they insist on having government recognize their personal commitments at all when they can get all the advantages (except tax benefits) by writing up their own personal legal contracts? As for tax benefits - let them incorporate or join with heterosexuals to lobby for a flat 10% tax rate for everyone. That would be fair and positive.


 I agree with you. The only problem is that homosexuals can't just draw up a contract to get same rights as a married couple.  Social Security and Military benefits cannot be allotted by personal contract. Neither can the right to make death bed choices concerning medical treatment ... basically anything considered 'next of kin' is off limits to them.  Plus, as you said, tax benefits. 

 It would be nice if the goverment got out of the marriage business and allowed each of us to determine our own 'next of kin', even if it meant adding a line to the tax returns - "Please list your next of kin here" ... There are heterosexuals affected by these stupid marriage laws too. Plenty of unmarried heterosexuals would like to be able to determine a friend or live-in boyfriend or girlfriend as a beneficiary or next of kin.  The fact that they choose not to partake in a religious ceremony shouldn't prevent them from doing so.


----------



## Du (Nov 4, 2004)

Oh shit, looks like OD found a match. SlimShady has a page long rebuttal for each of OD's pagelong rebuttals! 

I love it. 

Keep preachin conservative OD, we're behind ya.


----------



## kbm8795 (Nov 4, 2004)

OceanDude said:
			
		

> KBM where do you come up with your dissertations? Is this right off the top of your head, or do you just make it up as you type or do you have an anthology quick reference to "history and philosophy as I think it ought to be" ? Just curious...  *Uh. . .no you're not.*
> 
> Funny you should use the Jewish term "scapegoat" since it it rooted in good vs evil concepts and ancient religious laws. A lot of people never make the theological connection that is precisely what Jesus was but in the form of the sacrificial lamb and not the goat (because goats were notorious for not having a moral code and would copulate with anything they could). You insinuate that only the morally based people did this and that it was wrong. Would you equally object to the behaviors of cutthroats slaying those that did not see fit to adhere to the morality/code of rogues? Everyone has to have some standard and its not clear to me what you are advocating personally.
> *That's okay - it doesn't have to be clear to you. *
> ...



Now I'm back to work.


----------



## kbm8795 (Nov 4, 2004)

OceanDude said:
			
		

> Note to self: *His friend or friends may elect to sue him for breach of contract and take any of his property in a predeclared ratio (whose default shall be 50%) even if they are insincere in their affections for him and make other contracts with other people or become alienated in their common interests. *
> 
> I just proved in the sentence above the worst fears of the majority in permitting homosexual unions. The logical progression of permitting and sanctioning homosexual unions is to permit legal unions for multiple-partners and that my friends means "bigomy". By accommodating the homosexual agenda the social structure of all of our society will resolve to a basket of choices and society as we know it will devolve into social anarchy and I predict result in a complete lack of any form of publicly recorded commitments. The net result is a dichotomy of choices but a complete erosion of quality of social life since the assumption of conventional monogamous unions is knit into most every single service in our economy and daily life. Basically we are talking major social revolution that will not be very pretty to witness or be around.
> 
> OD




*The State has proven that it has a vested interest in preventing bigamy and polygamy. In relationships with multiple wives or multiple husbands, the gender inequity within the relationship makes the contract nearly impossible to administer. States view marriage as an equal partnership between two people; in multiple relationships the partnership creates inequalities - and confuses next-of-kin laws. Not surprisingly, Utah's passage of their "marriage" amendment is widely appreciated among polygamists there - in their haste to ban gays from access to statutory benefits, they may have given polygamists a stronger argument for their own recognition. Ironically, if the cultural cards start to fall, it will be because those amendments to "protect" marriage actually created a timebomb to destroy it.  

It's also entirely possible that a brother and sister may use one of those new amendments to challenge the constitutionality of incest statutes. Because of the hysteria in pushing these without much thought, it's possible that an incestuous relationship, especially one that cannot produce children, can successfully challenge existing laws and view that amendment as constitutional protection. *


----------



## OceanDude (Nov 5, 2004)

du510 said:
			
		

> Oh shit, looks like OD found a match. SlimShady has a page long rebuttal for each of OD's pagelong rebuttals!
> 
> I love it.
> 
> Keep preachin conservative OD, we're behind ya.


It could very well be love...
OD


----------



## OceanDude (Nov 5, 2004)

kbm8795 said:
			
		

> Now I'm back to work.


Well thank you for your well stated comments. I find it refreshing that you did not jump to personal insults. I will give consideration to what you have said. I seem to discern the subtle scent of Jesuit training or religous discipline in your thinking and logic. I respect that. Is this true? If so, have you abandoned your original teachings?

OD


----------



## Big Smoothy (Nov 5, 2004)

dg806 said:
			
		

> Since no one mentioned it today...............
> 
> In Tuesday's balloting, Ohio, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Michigan, North Dakota, Arkansas, Montana, Utah and Oklahoma solidly backed state constitutional amendments to define marriage as a union between man and a woman.
> 
> Most of those were 80-90% against!



Because the referendum was specifically designed to bring out the Evangelical Christians, which it did.

This is one of Karl Rove's strategies.  And....it worked. 

(P.S....Bush doesn't even really care.  You'll see that in the next 4 years.  It's all about politics.)


----------



## BoneCrusher (Nov 5, 2004)

OceanDude said:
			
		

> A different spin:
> Bottom line Minotaur is unable to conventionally resolve his physical sexuality with his emotional and mental needs and chooses to associate his core identity with a small group of men who science labels "homosexuals". He should be allowed to share his life with anyone he wants but depending on how he publicly chooses to share it or express it he may suffer alienation from a majority of society, suffer reduced quality of life or suffer other consequences if such behavior is expressed in ways unacceptable to the majority. This is America and his right to choose who his friends are should not be taken away unless he hurts or abuses someone or his choices present a mortal danger to himself or to society. He can at any time in his life, without any special new laws, draft a will or contract expressing any terms that define how he may desire to legally dispose of his personal property upon his death or share it while he is alive unless such contract or instrument violates any other provisions of the constitution or law. His friend or friends may elect to sue him for breach of contract and take any of his property in a predeclared ratio (whose default shall be 50%) even if they are insincere in their affections for him and make other contracts with other people or become alienated in their common interests.
> 
> OD


Preposterous and you knew it as you typed OD.  Contractual wills do not share the same protections from contestment as transitional wills do, nor are they allowed the same tax advantages.  Add to the mix the pre-emption of shared health care, retirement, and the huge host of other legal rights he is now denied all because you and people like you feel your psychobabble rationalities are to be held in higher regard than his rights as an American.  Of course his choices are unacceptable to the majority of Amercicans, so are atheism and and pagenism.


----------



## Minotaur (Nov 5, 2004)

redspy said:
			
		

> Question: if you were gay why would you live in these boonie states anyway?



F**k no!  But Atlanta is a pretty gay friendly city with a decent sized gay population.


----------



## Minotaur (Nov 5, 2004)

busyLivin said:
			
		

> I just think marriage is between a man & a woman. I'm sorry I can't give you anything else.



What do you think of a legal union that provides all the protections and rights of traditional marriage?  Is it the idea of using the term 'marriage' for a gay couple?

I'd just like to get into peoples' heads to find out what bothers them about gay marriage, and why marriage should only be between a man and a woman, leaving out any religious or biblical connections, of course.


----------



## Pepper (Nov 5, 2004)

Minotaur said:
			
		

> leaving out any religious or biblical connections, of course.


Both impossible and unreasonable.


----------



## Minotaur (Nov 5, 2004)

HARD_Right said:
			
		

> Child molestation, homosexuality, and bestiality are choices.



Another one starting this bullshit.  Comparing homosexuality to child molestation and bestiality is offensive.  Homosexuality is not a choice any more than heterosexuality or your ignorance is.  All three are in-born.

I find being compared to a child molestor offensive and I'll expect an apology momentarily.


----------



## Minotaur (Nov 5, 2004)

Pepper said:
			
		

> Both impossible and unreasonable.



Why?  The bible has no place in making US civil law.


----------



## Pepper (Nov 5, 2004)

I actually support some kind of legal relationship - civil unions, for example. I believe that gays SHOULD be allowed visitation in the hospital, for example. Basically all of what I consider to be the contractual parts of marriage. It only makes sense.

However, I don't think this should even be mentioned in the same sentence as marriage and employers should NOT be required to offer benefits to whatever we call this "spouse."


----------



## Pepper (Nov 5, 2004)

Minotaur said:
			
		

> Why? The bible has no place in making US civil law.


The Law and Constitution were based on it.


----------



## OceanDude (Nov 5, 2004)

BoneCrusher said:
			
		

> Preposterous and you knew it as you typed OD.  Contractual wills do not share the same protections from contestment as transitional wills do, nor are they allowed the same tax advantages.  Add to the mix the pre-emption of shared health care, retirement, and the huge host of other legal rights he is now denied all because you and people like you feel your psychobabble rationalities are to be held in higher regard than his rights as an American.  Of course his choices are unacceptable to the majority of Amercicans, so are atheism and and pagenism.


aarrrrrrrrrrggh - you used that "preposterous" word. You stole that from us Conservatives and it's a hard charge to duck. Hate it when you use our tactics...

OK, lets say for a moment that you are correct. Then, the path of least resistance would be for homosexuals to restratagize and operate in the undefended domain of civil law where there is no threat of emotional or religious objection. They should first seek to alter tax laws to provide a uniform tax for all people (rich, poor, homos, heteros) so that the tax advantage is not an issue. I am really projecting out what I think is the best answer to the "homosexual problem" that infests society with a plague of moral dilemma's that are disproportionately a burden to the rest of "normal" society to solve. The truth is its easier to discriminate and humans have always taken the path of least resistance. Seek the higher ideals if you believe in religion otherwise slap the irritants like you might a pestering fly. either you believe in morality or you do not - society can not have it both ways. I have said it before - compassion is not seen in nature so its an invented ideal. I personally believe in compassion but think it best that the religious administer it and have no problem admitting that our society and government has religion all interwoven into its fabric. It's the homosexuals who see it as a cancer (since it wants to hold them accountable for their behavior) but at the same time they want to feed off its fruits to suit themselves. Anyway, the answer is simple. Do away with government licensing of marriages and only have one generic form of relationship called "civil unions" (maybe of various classes A, B, C etc.[parent-child, friend-friend and adult-adult]). I am going to use this as a way to find new advocacy for my desire to get to a flat 10% tax on all Americans so bear with me. But guess what, it will not happen via the Democratic party because they derive all their power from financial-class hatred and unequal tax burden (e.g. rich verses non-rich - whatever that really is). It all comes down to what class gets to be hated the most and maybe we should just randomize it every year to make it fair. So homosexuals need to step out of the political process (via the ineffective Democratic party - which I think they would find great relief in after losing elections because of them) and go get legal assistance to sneek in some new legislation that invents new forms of contracts that are completely independent of sexual identity. As an aside, ever notice that the English language has big gaping holes in its lexicons for the "neuter" form? I always wondered if this was an accident or a fact in nature? Apart from the word "it" and the artificial construct "he/she" and a few unsuccessfully coined words (I recall an old expression something like "tshe" or something like that) and generic "people" our verbally congnized psychology lacks a way to effectively articulate the concept of "sexlessness" (inventing a new word myself). This implies to me an national identity that is wrapped up and preoccupied with sexual differentiation. Our entire language lexicon suggests to me the possibility that while we express laws and thoughts in the English Language there is little hope of ever getting to a set of laws or ideas that are gender neutral. But I digress... 

By the way, what innate American right guarantees anyone "health care", "retirement" and other things you mention. These are simply artifacts that came out of corporate America as an incentive to get people to get off the farms and come work for asshole bosses and repressive and boring work. Government replicated the concept to compete for manpower when it had to get manpower (peoplepower?) to fight wars and offer similar benefits. Incentives are what they are - but they are not inalienable rights.  Don't pin what you wrongly assume to be an unalienable right on me since I object to the notion of corporate America or government being responsible for anything other than killing our countries enemies and administering the post office. Well teasing a little here but I think you get my point...

OD


----------



## Minotaur (Nov 5, 2004)

BoneCrusher said:
			
		

> Preposterous and you knew it as you typed OD.  Contractual wills do not share the same protections from contestment as transitional wills do, nor are they allowed the same tax advantages.  Add to the mix the pre-emption of shared health care, retirement, and the huge host of other legal rights he is now denied all because you and people like you feel your psychobabble rationalities are to be held in higher regard than his rights as an American.  Of course his choices are unacceptable to the majority of Amercicans, so are atheism and and pagenism.



True.

Wills and financial and medical powers-of-attorney by homosexual partners have been contested and overturned.  There is no ironclad protection my partner and I can have that covers the same issues as a marriage license does.

I cannot bequeath him my Social Security benefits as a surviving spouse, as I could if we were married.  That's just one example.


----------



## redspy (Nov 5, 2004)

I have a question that hopefully one of you anti gay marriage folks will be able to address:-

_If gay people marry one another how does it affect sanctity of heterosexual marriages?_

Please answer this in logical terms, not with bible quotations. 
Here are the things I think debase heterosexual marriage:-

Rising divorce rates and people's inability to solve marital problems with patience and counseling. 
Reality TV shows with money/fame motivated whores marrying morons on screen
High levels of infidelity among men and women.
People marrying to gain immigration rights to their desired country.
People who marry others for their wealth and influence.


----------



## Minotaur (Nov 5, 2004)

Pepper said:
			
		

> The Law and Constitution were based on it.



No they most certainly were not.  That you believe that, much less say it is laughable.

Thomas Jefferson was wholly against any form of organized religion.  His contempt for Christianity was bottomless.  

"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law"
"Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man" 
"I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature." 
"Religions are all alike -- founded upon fables and mythologies"
"It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God."  

http://www.google.com/search?as_q=t...s_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&safe=images
http://www.nobeliefs.com/jefferson.htm
http://en.thinkexist.com/quotation/christianity_neither_is-nor_ever_was_a_part_of/170482.html


----------



## Pepper (Nov 5, 2004)

I was trying to avoid the name calling.

Jefferson's views I will not argue with you on. However, saying that Biblical principles were not at the core of our laws and constitution is simply incorrect.


----------



## busyLivin (Nov 5, 2004)

Minotaur said:
			
		

> What do you think of a legal union that provides all the protections and rights of traditional marriage?  Is it the idea of using the term 'marriage' for a gay couple?
> 
> I'd just like to get into peoples' heads to find out what bothers them about gay marriage, and why marriage should only be between a man and a woman, leaving out any religious or biblical connections, of course.



I'm fine with civil unions.

Yes, I believe marriage is for a man & woman. You can't remove the religious connection from marriage, for me anyway.

Not to get all religious & preach here, but if you believe the Christian faith then you believe that Jesus was killed for completely going against the church said. IMO, the church is a guide, not the end-all. Even though they condemn gays, my faith tells me that the church was completely wrong before Him.. and could easily be again after. I'll leave the judging to the The Judge. 

But in terms of marriage, I think it's the traditionalistic nature of myself to believe it is for a man & a woman. I would think for gay men & woman would understand that & be happy with civil unions, even though I don't think I  know any to speak of.


----------



## Minotaur (Nov 5, 2004)

Pepper said:
			
		

> I actually support some kind of legal relationship - civil unions, for example. I believe that gays SHOULD be allowed visitation in the hospital, for example. Basically all of what I consider to be the contractual parts of marriage. It only makes sense.
> 
> However, I don't think this should even be mentioned in the same sentence as marriage and employers should NOT be required to offer benefits to whatever we call this "spouse."



I don't believe that employers are required to offer benefits to spouses anyway.  Employers are not required to offer benefits at all.  It's optional, as far as I know, an incentive for people to work there.

Many companies are already offering domestic partner benefits, to both hetero and homosexual couples.  My company does.  So this is a non-issue.

And if you have all the contractual and legal protections and obligations, what is the difference between a gay marriage and a straight marriage?  Again, is it the word?


----------



## Pepper (Nov 5, 2004)

redspy said:
			
		

> I have a question that hopefully one of you anti gay marriage folks will be able to address:-
> 
> _If gay people marry one another how does it affect sanctity of heterosexual marriages?_
> 
> ...


I certainly would not argue that marriage is not being abused plenty by heterosexuals. What has happened to marriage in this country is a shame. So, are you suggesting that we just give up on it? I still the santity of marriage is worth fighting for.

Allowing gays to marry would simply be adding another to your list of abuses IMO.


----------



## Minotaur (Nov 5, 2004)

busyLivin said:
			
		

> I'm fine with civil unions.
> 
> Yes, I believe marriage is for a man & woman. You can't remove the religious connection from marriage, for me anyway.



So a civil (hetero) marriage done by a mayor or justice of the peace, without a religious ceremony is not a marriage?

I'm not busting your balls, just trying to understand what the hoopla is about.


----------



## Pepper (Nov 5, 2004)

Minotaur said:
			
		

> I don't believe that employers are required to offer benefits to spouses anyway. Employers are not required to offer benefits at all. It's optional, as far as I know, an incentive for people to work there.
> 
> Many companies are already offering domestic partner benefits, to both hetero and homosexual couples. My company does. So this is a non-issue.
> 
> And if you have all the contractual and legal protections and obligations, what is the difference between a gay marriage and a straight marriage? Again, is it the word?


The word is one BIG difference. I think I was not clear. If I offer benefits to spouses here at my office, I have to for all. I can't pick and choose. So, if domestic partners get marriage benefits, I would have to cover all "spouses" or no "spouses." I am not paying health insurance for an employee's homosexual partner. Period.


----------



## redspy (Nov 5, 2004)

busyLivin said:
			
		

> Yes, I believe marriage is for a man & woman. You can't remove the religious connection from marriage, for me anyway.


I disagree Busy, I'm married and I'm an atheist.  The ceremony had no religous meaning to me whatsoever.


----------



## Rocco32 (Nov 5, 2004)

busyLivin said:
			
		

> I'm fine with civil unions.
> 
> Yes, I believe marriage is for a man & woman. You can't remove the religious connection from marriage, for me anyway.
> 
> Not to get all religious & preach here, but if you believe the Christian faith then you believe that Jesus was killed for completely going against the church said.


First of all, I don't think the "religious" factor matters to a majority of people who get married. And second, Jesus was killed for political reasons not for going against the Church.


----------



## Rocco32 (Nov 5, 2004)

redspy said:
			
		

> I disagree Busy, I'm married and I'm an atheist.  The ceremony had no religous meaning to me whatsoever.


My point exactly.


----------



## OceanDude (Nov 5, 2004)

redspy said:
			
		

> I disagree Busy, I'm married and I'm an atheist.  The ceremony had no religous meaning to me whatsoever.


Why waste your time then in a ceremony that has no significant to you. Pardon me, but does that not sound slightly insane or did you just play along for the convenience of your wife to make her feel good?
OD


----------



## Rocco32 (Nov 5, 2004)

OceanDude said:
			
		

> Why waste your time then in a ceremony that has no significant to you. Pardon me, but does that not sound slightly insane or did you just play along for the convenience of your wife to make her feel good?
> OD


I think the ceremony means something to people. Just not in a religious way.


----------



## Minotaur (Nov 5, 2004)

Pepper said:
			
		

> The word is one BIG difference. I think I was not clear. If I offer benefits to spouses here at my office, I have to for all. I can't pick and choose. So, if domestic partners get marriage benefits, I would have to cover all "spouses" or no "spouses." I am not paying health insurance for an employee's homosexual partner. Period.



That's pretty prejudicial.  A nice way of not employing homosexuals.  I for one would not take a job in your company knowing that you discriminate.  This is why we need the Fourteenth Amendment enforced.


----------



## busyLivin (Nov 5, 2004)

rock4832 said:
			
		

> First of all, I don't think the "religious" factor matters to a majority of people who get married. And second, Jesus was killed for political reasons not for going against the Church.


what political reasons? Isn't going against the church political?  

I shouldn't have said it's religious.  People are having a field day with that. Forget I said that. I was thinking of it in terms of Catholic marriage, not encompassing all marriages.


----------



## busyLivin (Nov 5, 2004)

with that, I'm bowing out of the argument


----------



## redspy (Nov 5, 2004)

OceanDude said:
			
		

> Why waste your time then in a ceremony that has no significant to you. Pardon me, but does that not sound slightly insane or did you just play along for the convenience of your wife to make her feel good?
> OD


There you go again jumping to conclusions. Read my post again and show me where I said it had no significance. I said it didn't have *religous* meaning. It did, however, have meaning to express the fact that I love my wife and want to be with her forever. It is a clear demonstration of my commitment to her and vice versa. Let's not forget that marriage is a legally binding contract, not just an emotional and religous whim.

My wife is a Christian and it was very important for her to marry in a church. I respect her viewpoint, even though we disagree on religion faith.


----------



## Rocco32 (Nov 5, 2004)

busyLivin said:
			
		

> what political reasons? Isn't going against the church political?
> 
> I shouldn't have said it's religious.  People are having a field day with that. Forget I said that. I was thinking of it in terms of Catholic marriage, not encompassing all marriages.


Jesus was killed because they were afraid of the crowds following him. The pharisees were pressured by the Romans to keep order. Jews had special priviledge to practice their religion within the Roman empire as long as peace was met. What Jesus was doing was coming close to starting a revolution. To quell that Jesus was killed.


----------



## busyLivin (Nov 5, 2004)

rock4832 said:
			
		

> What Jesus was doing was coming close to starting a revolution. To quell that Jesus was killed.



so, Jesus was starting a possible revolution which was AGAINST THE CHURCH.   

We're both arguing for the same thing. 

Really what I was getting at with that is that He spent time with the lepers, prostitutes, tax collectors, yada yada yada... everyone of the "outcasts" of His time.


----------



## Pepper (Nov 5, 2004)

redspy said:
			
		

> I disagree Busy, I'm married and I'm an atheist. The ceremony had no religous meaning to me whatsoever.


It did, you just didn't know it


----------



## Rocco32 (Nov 5, 2004)

busyLivin said:
			
		

> so, Jesus was starting a possible revolution which was AGAINST THE CHURCH.
> 
> We're both arguing for the same thing.
> 
> Really what I was getting at with that is that He spent time with the lepers, prostitutes, tax collectors, yada yada yada... everyone of the "outcasts" of His time.


I agree with the last part of what you just said. But his revolution was not against the Church, it was against Rome. (And I'm not saying he was trying to start a revolution, that's just what the people were afraid of.)


----------



## OceanDude (Nov 5, 2004)

redspy said:
			
		

> I have a question that hopefully one of you anti gay marriage folks will be able to address:-
> 
> Answers Embedded:
> 
> ...


OD


----------



## OceanDude (Nov 5, 2004)

Pepper said:
			
		

> It did, you just didn't know it


I always find it ironic that the non-religious are so blind to the gifts God gives when they are given in such circumstances where one is a believer and one is not. How little he realizes that everyting in his life is about to change in dramatic and good ways...

 
OD


----------



## redspy (Nov 5, 2004)

OceanDude said:
			
		

> I always find it ironic that the non-religious are so blind to the gifts God gives when they are given in such circumstances where one is a believer and one is not....
> 
> 
> OD


Ah, the irresistible and overwhelming urge to call non-believers 'blind'. What next? Will I be cast into hell's fires for the sin of logical thinking? Where you see gifts I see scientific laws, logic and rationality. We live in different worlds.


----------



## kbm8795 (Nov 5, 2004)

Pepper said:
			
		

> I actually support some kind of legal relationship - civil unions, for example. I believe that gays SHOULD be allowed visitation in the hospital, for example. Basically all of what I consider to be the contractual parts of marriage. It only makes sense.
> 
> However, I don't think this should even be mentioned in the same sentence as marriage and employers should NOT be required to offer benefits to whatever we call this "spouse."




Then it would have made some sense for states to engage their statutes about contractual arrangements instead of rushing into a paranoid plethora of constitutional amendments preventing any kind of protection at all. The original complaints that gays had was over the restrictions placed by those statutes, and it was the government who would neither bend the rules or consider expanding their definition. The only answer they would ever provide is "you have to be married." After two decades of that, it looks like gay Americans didn't have much choice. And it appears that, once again, governments ignored the real issue and went into persecution mode.


----------



## kbm8795 (Nov 5, 2004)

OceanDude said:
			
		

> I always find it ironic that the non-religious are so blind to the gifts God gives when they are given in such circumstances where one is a believer and one is not. How little he realizes that everyting in his life is about to change in dramatic and good ways...
> 
> 
> OD



No offense here, but frankly I've seen a lot more of the dramatic and not very much of the good during this past year.


----------



## kbm8795 (Nov 5, 2004)

Pepper said:
			
		

> I actually support some kind of legal relationship - civil unions, for example. I believe that gays SHOULD be allowed visitation in the hospital, for example. Basically all of what I consider to be the contractual parts of marriage. It only makes sense.
> 
> However, I don't think this should even be mentioned in the same sentence as marriage and employers should NOT be required to offer benefits to whatever we call this "spouse."



This reasoning should also include that employers not be required to provide spousal benefits to anyone whose spouse is gainfully employed. Dependent children should be covered no matter who is involved.


----------



## Pepper (Nov 5, 2004)

redspy said:
			
		

> We live in different worlds.


Truer words have never be spoken.


----------



## kbm8795 (Nov 5, 2004)

Pepper said:
			
		

> I was trying to avoid the name calling.
> 
> Jefferson's views I will not argue with you on. However, saying that Biblical principles were not at the core of our laws and constitution is simply incorrect.



Perhaps I'm mistaken here, but is there some book of the bible that doesn't refer to kingdoms and hierarchy? There must be some large section that, for some historical reason, caused religion to be unable to create a republic or democratic system of government for hundreds of years. 

Ignoring the contribution of English common law and asserting that our laws our based solely on religious text makes absolutely no sense.


----------



## Pepper (Nov 5, 2004)

kbm8795 said:
			
		

> ... based solely on religious text .


That's a RedSpy tactic...who said soley?


----------



## Pepper (Nov 5, 2004)

kbm8795 said:
			
		

> Ignoring the contribution of English common law


And this was influenced by what?


----------



## redspy (Nov 5, 2004)

That's right.  Don't forget that Pepper has ownership of the truth.


----------



## redspy (Nov 5, 2004)

Like this truth



> *I, Pepper, hereby solemnly swear....*
> ...not to *post* or even *enter* any political or religious thread on IronMagazine.
> 
> I enjoy this site, I enjoy nearly all of you e-friends. The only thing I don't enjoy is discussing politics and God, so seems logical to just quit it cold turkey.
> ...


----------



## kbm8795 (Nov 5, 2004)

None of these amendments were ever about religious marriage. Civil ceremonies do not invoke the name of God, engage in any religious ritual, or embrace a religious viewpoint. It is the State who uses the word "marriage" to describe a 15 minute ceremony in the judge's chambers. Civil marriage IS nothing more than a civil union. No one ever asked for anything more than that...a contract with the state to participate in all the benefits and responsibilities assigned by statute. 

It appears that those constitutional amendments should have changed the state's right to use the term "marriage" and attach it to so many documents.


----------



## OceanDude (Nov 5, 2004)

redspy said:
			
		

> Ah, the irresistible and overwhelming urge to call non-believers 'blind'. What next? Will I be cast into hell's fires for the sin of logical thinking? Where you see gifts I see scientific laws, logic and rationality. We live in different worlds.



Not really Red. I live in both worlds and see science and natural phenomenon as a natural instrument of what many call "God's Will"  that were set in motion through a mechanism and formation of Natural laws that are perfectly consistent (even when science's models are perplexed at finding the unifying theory). So I am fairly ambidextrous and agile with respect to interacting in both contexts. I am certain you, being a "man of science" and logic are familiar with the concept of "blindness" or "blind-spots" (and strengths) that are attributed to certain personality alignments (e.g. Briggs-Myers: judgmental, introspective, extraspective, intuitive etc.). I accept this harshness on a personal basis for this reason since you really have no choice in this kind of behavior (unlike some other elective behaviors). Due to your particular personality type you are blind to the fact that you are as or more judgmental as anyone else but can not "see" it. That's not  a bad thing because you have strengths and specialty in other areas and a focus that serves other purposes. Coming from the perspective of someone who has spiritual insight, training or awareness it can be even more profound to others who have the strengths to see things that you think are simple illusion or claim do not exist. Try to tolerate the spontaneous giddiness when such others react for no outwardly apparent reason to you.  We laugh not at you we just laugh at the notion and certainty as in "oh boy here we go again". We others, with strength in other domains know, or strongly suspect that there is an entire domain of perception that lies beyond the simple electro-magnetic spectrum of physical sensory perception. Such fathom it's presence and influence by means of "experiencing" impressions (for lack of a better term) of recurring and beautifully consistent patterns of cause and effect behavior (and consistent denials ). We have our weaknesses too since we grow weary of the petty stuff and long for the grander things that await us out there. Welcome to the club - you don't know it yet but you are one of us.

OD


----------



## OceanDude (Nov 5, 2004)

kbm8795 said:
			
		

> No offense here, but frankly I've seen a lot more of the dramatic and not very much of the good during this past year.


Through projection of one's own inadquacies they often see what they are familiar with in themselves in others. Perhaps this explains it with or without the drama?
OD


----------



## Pepper (Nov 5, 2004)

redspy said:
			
		

> That's right. Don't forget that Pepper has ownership of the truth.


Can you not discuss anything without being a dick?


----------



## redspy (Nov 5, 2004)

OD.  While you are no doubt a good person we did not share any kind of club membership, our only similarity being we are both carbon-based life forms who frequent IM.  I am more than willing to acknowledge the existence of things I cannot see, e.g. quarks or gluons and other sub atomic particles and to some extent that is a leap of faith.  I don't consider myself blind to religious and spiritual power, I???m not looking for it and think that it's essentially a weakness of the human mind.  It's a crutch and something to absolve yourself from decision making and confronting brutal facts.  It's hope that you'll forever live some kind of existence, physical or otherwise.  IMO there's no hell or heaven, you just cease to be.



You can debate me all day with your elegant prose but I'd advise you to spend you time more productivity.  I respect the views of those who embrace religion, assuming they don't look down on me and attempt to convert my beliefs.  We'll just agree to disagree.


----------



## redspy (Nov 5, 2004)

Pepper said:
			
		

> Can you not discuss anything without being a dick?


Not with you, no.


----------



## OceanDude (Nov 5, 2004)

Uhm Pepper I need to point out a problem with that statement bro..
People are gonnna think you are "funny" if you start arguing with what you think are dicks my friend. If he spits in your face like one in reply its gonna be really bad for all of us to have to watch...

OD


----------



## maniclion (Nov 5, 2004)

OD, if you were the intellectual you say you are you would see that with our exponentially expanding population homosexuality is a survival tactic that could keep us from overloading our planet and sucking it's resources dry like a plague.


----------



## ZECH (Nov 5, 2004)

redspy said:
			
		

> IMO there's no hell or heaven, you just cease to be.



If this is your real belief, I would love to hear your ideas on how we are created


----------



## Pepper (Nov 5, 2004)

Hey, if redspy will permit me one more question..and this is a real question, not a smart ass remark...

If homosexuality is something you are born with and not a choice AND we are all a product of evolution..how are these two "facts" both true? Would not evolution kill the trait that makes one gay?

Even though redspy thinks that I think I know everything, I actually realize there is much I don't know. So if someone could answer this w/o being a dick, I'd appreciate it.


----------



## OceanDude (Nov 5, 2004)

maniclion said:
			
		

> OD, if you were the intellectual you say you are you would see that with our exponentially expanding population homosexuality is a survival tactic that could keep us from overloading our planet and sucking it's resources dry like a plague.


Hmm, how do I respond to this one? Firstly, I do not think I never claimed to be an intellectual. I consider myself to be pretty average actually. On the other point of exponential growth. Are you intimating that homosexuals are natures disease which automatically correct the time constant of the exponent's radical when some triggering threshold is reached? That is an interesting notion that I had previously only considered to be built into nature's weather patterns. It would be extremely clever of Nature to use a subset of the human species as a control mechanism since it would be highly selective on the species and not harm the lower lifeforms. The notions of simultaneously balancing justice, hierarchy of life forms and selective checks and balances is pretty intriguing. I wonder what the behaviorally sterile human "germs" think about this concept?

OD


----------



## Minotaur (Nov 5, 2004)

Pepper said:
			
		

> If homosexuality is something you are born with and not a choice AND we are all a product of evolution..how are these two "facts" both true? Would not evolution kill the trait that makes one gay?



No.  Why should evolution kill a trait that is neither harmful nor beneficial, but just is?  Besides, as someone pointed out, it's more likely that the sequence or combination of genes that make one gay are only expressed under certain circumstances.  

Traits get passed on that have no function; why do whales and snakes still have vestigial leg bones?  Neither of those species has walked in millions of years (whales, approx 35 million; snakes, 100s of millions).  

Why do genetic conditions like Down's Syndrome or cyctic fibrosis still exist when victims of those conditions do not reproduce?  Why hasn't evolution weeded those genes out?

It's not all cut and dried or black and white.  Evolution doesn't have a master plan.


----------



## Du (Nov 5, 2004)

Minotaur said:
			
		

> Traits get passed on that have no function; why do whales and snakes still have vestigial leg bones? Neither of those species has walked in millions of years (whales, approx 35 million; snakes, 100s of millions). .


Imagine seeing a whale walking around...


----------



## kbm8795 (Nov 5, 2004)

OceanDude said:
			
		

> Through projection of one's own inadquacies they often see what they are familiar with in themselves in others. Perhaps this explains it with or without the drama?
> OD




Nope. . .just a few doses of the "Coral Ridge Hour," the "700 Club" and a rather un-christian video of Jimmy Swaggart saying he would kill a "homosexual" if one looked at him "that way." to a loudly applauding congregation.


----------



## Pepper (Nov 5, 2004)

du510 said:
			
		

> Imagine seeing a whale walking around...


My wife did for years. Now, not so much, but I was pretty much a whale before.


----------



## Pepper (Nov 5, 2004)

kbm8795 said:
			
		

> Nope. . .just a few doses of the "Coral Ridge Hour," the "700 Club" and a rather un-christian video of Jimmy Swaggart saying he would kill a "homosexual" if one looked at him "that way." to a loudly applauding congregation.


What is interesting to me is that you guys constantly pick the WORST examples of Christians to condemn the entire group. If we characterized all homosexuals as pedophiles because SOME are members of NAMBLA, you wouldn't stand for it. Yet I have to be beat up b/c some televanglists are crooks.


----------



## Minotaur (Nov 5, 2004)

du510 said:
			
		

> Imagine seeing a whale walking around...



http://www.bbc.co.uk/beasts/evidence/prog1/page7.shtml


----------



## Minotaur (Nov 5, 2004)

Pepper said:
			
		

> What is interesting to me is that you guys constantly pick the WORST examples of Christians to condemn the entire group. If we characterized all homosexuals as pedophiles because SOME are members of NAMBLA, you wouldn't stand for it. Yet I have to be beat up b/c some televanglists are crooks.



Maybe it's not fair, but these are the ones making the most noise.  They are unfortunately representing themselves as the voice of Christianity.  Fair-minded Christians are doing nothing to counter this noise.  

This no different than the stereotypical image people have of feather-boaed, leather-harnessed-and-jockstrapped gay men prancing in parades as being representative of all gay men.    

The squeaky wheel gets the grease.


----------



## OceanDude (Nov 5, 2004)

kbm8795 said:
			
		

> Nope. . .just a few doses of the "Coral Ridge Hour," the "700 Club" and a rather un-christian video of Jimmy Swaggart saying he would kill a "homosexual" if one looked at him "that way." to a loudly applauding congregation.


For the record - I have never advocated harming any homosexual. I think Jimmy Swaggart is evil and a con man. I know nothing of the Coral Ridge Hour. 

The 700 club I use to find interesting about 15 years ago but have not watched it in about that long. I do generally respect Pat Robinson and like some of his insight. I think he is a man of conscience and believes everything he says. But I also think he is confusing some religious ideals with class ideals and suspect he would have been a loyalist to England back in the colonial days and longs for the old genteel southern lifestyle (which was frankly a major cultural loss for this country when the Union scorched the South in a very inhumane and brutal way). Pat is largely responsible for getting the religious to come to the Republican Party and was very instrumental in defeating much of the nonsence that the liberal Democrats tried to shove down the throats of America 20 years ago.

None of these people or organizatons you mention speak for Christians or other religous people as a whole and all vote their own concscience as do I.

OD


----------



## OceanDude (Nov 5, 2004)

Minotaur said:
			
		

> ...The squeaky wheel gets the grease.


Or the K-Y Jelly...

OD


----------



## kbm8795 (Nov 5, 2004)

Pepper said:
			
		

> What is interesting to me is that you guys constantly pick the WORST examples of Christians to condemn the entire group. If we characterized all homosexuals as pedophiles because SOME are members of NAMBLA, you wouldn't stand for it. Yet I have to be beat up b/c some televanglists are crooks.



Actually, if you look at the television schedules, you'll see that these three "ministries" produce a large bulk of "christian" news and political views and describe themselves as self-representative of christianity itself. They reach an audience of millions on a daily basis. I've heard of no movement among other christians to tone down their messages nor any complaints to local broadcasting stations that play their programming.

Unfortunately, it has been a tactic of both the Focus on the Family organization and the Family Research Council to focus on NAMBLA, which I'm not even sure is in existence today. Curiously, NAMBLA members correctly were prosecuted as pedophiles, but the hierarchy that orchestrated the pedophilia coverup in the Catholic Church for fifty years was spared.


----------



## Minotaur (Nov 5, 2004)

OceanDude said:
			
		

> Or the K-Y Jelly...
> 
> OD



No, that's for 'sticktion'.


----------



## kbm8795 (Nov 5, 2004)

OceanDude said:
			
		

> For the record - I have never advocated harming any homosexual. I think Jimmy Swaggart is evil and a con man. I know nothing of the Coral Ridge Hour.
> 
> The 700 club I use to find interesting about 15 years ago but have not watched it in about that long. I do generally respect Pat Robinson and like some of his insight. I think he is a man of conscience and believes everything he says. But I also think he is confusing some religious ideals with class ideals and suspect he would have been a loyalist to England back in the colonial days and longs for the old genteel southern lifestyle (which was frankly a major cultural loss for this country when the Union scorched the South in a very inhumane and brutal way). Pat is largely responsible for getting the religious to come to the Republican Party and was very instrumental in defeating much of the nonsence that the liberal Democrats tried to shove down the throats of America 20 years ago.
> 
> ...



I'm happy to read that. Shortly after the Swaggart broadcast, a gay organization in Baton Rouge filed a complaint asking that his tax-exempt status be removed. It would have been a good gesture for some christian groups to have done the same. I think what happens here is that all the gay side sees is silence when the hate spews out, and they have reason to be fearful. 

Already, the Canadian immigration service has announced requirements for admission into that country, including guidelines for seeking refugee status. Apparently this public announcement was made because they have experienced a large number of requests by American gay couples in the last two days. A spokesperson for their government said the couples were "expressing a lot of anxiety" after the election. If that represents  a tremendous gap in understanding the real messages between the purposes of better-minded christians and these Americans, no public official of any political party should be standing by silently while our own citizens, no matter who they are, feel so persecuted that they become refugees from their own nation. These aren't disaffected liberals or opposition party hardliners.


----------



## Duncans Donuts (Nov 5, 2004)

> i'm done for the nite,Religious and Moral stances are masks for racism....and i dare you to say otherwise...u better hope you dont have kids who turn out to be homos or lesbians...i would hate to see you ruin their lives, but karma always finds a way...and for you to start saying fuck you is uncalled for




It is best to remain silent, and thought a fool, than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt..

Do you honestly believe Christians are racists and hate mongers?  I don't hate homosexuals but I am entitled to form an opinion on the behavior itself...if we have a functional belief that the sanctity of marriage, being ordained by god, should be between a man and a woman we have a right to support that belief...just as you have a right to oppose it.  But to say something like this would be like me calling you a "faggot lover" ... it generalizes inappropriately and takes the foundation of our beliefs out of context (IE a christian is opposed to gay marriage, therefore he must hate homosexuals, so all christians are hate mongers).  I'm not sure but this logical fallacy would seem to fall under hasty generalizations...


----------



## MaxMirkin (Nov 5, 2004)

Minotaur said:
			
		

> This no different than the stereotypical image people have of feather-boaed, leather-harnessed-and-jockstrapped gay men prancing in parades as being representative of all gay men.


That's way off!   
(Some of you merely frolic in the parades, not prance!  )


----------



## camarosuper6 (Nov 5, 2004)

> Religious and Moral stances are masks for racism





This has to be the stupidest remark thus far (even surpassing Johnnny) I have read on this site.


----------



## Minotaur (Nov 5, 2004)

MaxMirkin said:
			
		

> That's way off!
> (Some of you merely frolic in the parades, not prance!  )



I have NEVER frolicked!


----------



## kbm8795 (Nov 5, 2004)

Duncans Donuts said:
			
		

> It is best to remain silent, and thought a fool, than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt..
> 
> Do you honestly believe Christians are racists and hate mongers?  I don't hate homosexuals but I am entitled to form an opinion on the behavior itself...if we have a functional belief that the sanctity of marriage, being ordained by god, should be between a man and a woman we have a right to support that belief...just as you have a right to oppose it.  But to say something like this would be like me calling you a "faggot lover" ... it generalizes inappropriately and takes the foundation of our beliefs out of context (IE a christian is opposed to gay marriage, therefore he must hate homosexuals, so all christians are hate mongers).  I'm not sure but this logical fallacy would seem to fall under hasty generalizations...




opposing same-sex marriage is not a requirement for being a christian. Not every christian nor every denomination opposes marriage. 

Unless you have witnessed the behavior, you have no idea other than your own imagination what they do or whether that is universal among every gay person. You are certainly entitled to have your opinion about marriage, but since their complaint is about civil statutes that have no mention of religious designation of benefits, it doesn't really matter. I don't think they are asking to get "married" in your church. A justice of the peace is not a minister, nor does he/she invoke God in contracting with a couple.


----------



## redspy (Nov 5, 2004)

Pepper said:
			
		

> Hey, if redspy will permit me one more question..and this is a real question, not a smart ass remark...
> 
> If homosexuality is something you are born with and not a choice AND we are all a product of evolution..how are these two "facts" both true? Would not evolution kill the trait that makes one gay?
> 
> Even though redspy thinks that I think I know everything, I actually realize there is much I don't know. So if someone could answer this w/o being a dick, I'd appreciate it.


My belief is that homosexuality is primarily determined by genetic factors, however, the conditions in which you were raised may also play a part. I don't pretend this is the absolute truth, but most of the data I've gathered leads me in this direction. The gay Darwinian paradox is very puzzling I agree, but some scientists believe they have arrived at a credible explanation. See the article below as an example:-

*Survival of genetic homosexual traits explained*
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996519

Science aside I find it hard to believe that people are gay by choice. In large sections of the US population gays are widely despised and hated. Gay people routinely face verbal and physical abuse, and discrimination. Why would somebody willingly adopt this lifestyle?


----------



## Duncans Donuts (Nov 5, 2004)

I never opposed a so called civil union.  I think this entire thing is nothing more than a semantic argument anyway, isn't it?  Unless people go so far as to oppose civil unions.

I agree, though, Christians are not required (read Genesis) to be opposed to anything - gay marriage included.  It was my dear friend Tomas who made this generalization - that morals were an excuse to hate - my point was that it is inappropriate to do so.  The conclusions he drew were wrong.



> Unless you have witnessed the behavior, you have no idea other than your own imagination what they do or whether that is universal among every gay person



I don't understand what this is in reference too?


----------



## camarosuper6 (Nov 5, 2004)

> opposing same-sex marriage is not a requirement for being a christian



Its all or nothing. I do not believe you can randomly select areas of the Bible to "agree or disagree". If the Bible says something is a sin, then it is a sin. It is not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing.

However, I REALLY do not want to take this further. It will end up going nowhere and probably causing animosity.


----------



## kbm8795 (Nov 5, 2004)

Sorry, Duncan - I think I might have read too much into your statement "I am entitled to form an opinion on the behavior itself." I think I read that too much as a sexual remark rather than witnessing two guys..like holding hands or something. If you see something like the latter, you are naturally going to form an opinion. My bad. . .


----------



## OceanDude (Nov 5, 2004)

Minotaur said:
			
		

> I have NEVER frolicked!


that black humor? it sucks   (fro-licked)
OD


----------



## kbm8795 (Nov 5, 2004)

camarosuper6 said:
			
		

> Its all or nothing. I do not believe you can randomly select areas of the Bible to "agree or disagree". If the Bible says something is a sin, then it is a sin. It is not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing.
> 
> However, I REALLY do not want to take this further. It will end up going nowhere and probably causing animosity.



hehehe...you little thread bombin' hit and run terrorist...I have difficulty believing in the all or nothing philosophy because I can't see any manner in which any culture agrees or follows every scriptural reference to sin. Interpretation changes over time too much. That doesn't mean there isn't value in the messages. But if I'm not Catholic and a Catholic tells me I'm a sinner because I don't...well, let's use a lame example...refrain from eating meat on Fridays, do I automatically go to hell?


----------



## OceanDude (Nov 5, 2004)

redspy said:
			
		

> ... Why would somebody willingly adopt this lifestyle?


Maybe some are so starved for attention and relevance that they thrive on any kind of attention they can get?

OD


----------



## OceanDude (Nov 5, 2004)

kbm8795 said:
			
		

> hehehe...you little thread bombin' hit and run terrorist...I have difficulty believing in the all or nothing philosophy because I can't see any manner in which any culture agrees or follows every scriptural reference to sin. Interpretation changes over time too much. That doesn't mean there isn't value in the messages. But if I'm not Catholic and a Catholic tells me I'm a sinner because I don't...well, let's use a lame example...refrain from eating meat on Fridays, do I automatically go to hell?


We use to and it was a bummer when you made an honest mistake and had to go run up to church and confess (before you got killed in a car acident or something) that the stupid waitress gave you beans with pork in it and you did not catch it till it was to late. 

OD


----------



## camarosuper6 (Nov 5, 2004)

lol


----------



## redspy (Nov 5, 2004)

OceanDude said:
			
		

> Maybe some are so starved for attention and relevance that they thrive on any kind of attention they can get?
> 
> OD


Very classy OD.  I assume that's deliberately incendiary so I shall let it ride.  Happy Friday


----------



## OceanDude (Nov 5, 2004)

kbm8795 said:
			
		

> opposing same-sex marriage is not a requirement for being a christian.



Being married is not a requirement for being a Christian or a priest.
OD


----------



## Rich46yo (Nov 5, 2004)

I'd like to thank those Democrats who insisted on making the Gay Marriage issue so important to your agenda. Your insistance helped assure another 4 years of a Republican administration. In the long term it set you back even farther.

           Was it worth it?..............Rich


----------



## redspy (Nov 5, 2004)

Personally I believe that constitutional amendments should be used to increase the freedoms of citizens, not take them away.  So yes, I'm proud some Democrats took a stand.


----------



## Du (Nov 5, 2004)

redspy said:
			
		

> Personally I believe that constitutional amendments should be used to increase the freedoms of citizens, not take them away.


Well said.


----------



## OceanDude (Nov 5, 2004)

redspy said:
			
		

> Personally I believe that constitutional amendments should be used to increase the freedoms of citizens, not take them away.  So yes, I'm proud some Democrats took a stand.



Let's just make one more amendment "anything goes" and see where "it goes".
OD


----------



## redspy (Nov 5, 2004)

OceanDude said:
			
		

> Let's just make one more amendment "anything goes" and see where "it goes".
> OD


I couldn't agree more.  It's worth a test.


----------



## OceanDude (Nov 5, 2004)

redspy said:
			
		

> Very classy OD.  I assume that's deliberately incendiary so I shall let it ride.  Happy Friday


 
# kill -9 -1

OD


----------



## OceanDude (Nov 5, 2004)

redspy said:
			
		

> I couldn't agree more.  It's worth a test.


Cool... is it open season on liberals yet?
OD


----------



## redspy (Nov 5, 2004)

I'm an armed liberal so 'Bring it on'!


----------



## Du (Nov 5, 2004)

redspy said:
			
		

> I'm an armed liberal so 'Bring it on'!


But your Glock shoots to the left. So your aim is off.....


----------



## redspy (Nov 5, 2004)

I'll lean to the right (for once).


----------



## OceanDude (Nov 5, 2004)

heck, my scatter gun and claymore shoots in all directions - forward, sideways, backward, over, under etc. The only problem is I can only pull the trigger one time...

OD


----------



## Du (Nov 5, 2004)

redspy said:
			
		

> I'll lean to the right (for once).


 
  I had a comment for that before you edited it.


----------



## redspy (Nov 5, 2004)

du510 said:
			
		

> I had a comment for that before you edited it.


Well, I knew some smartass would come along.  Not naming any names...


----------



## Du (Nov 5, 2004)

redspy said:
			
		

> Not naming any names...


No need, no need. We know youre talking about OD.


----------



## redspy (Nov 5, 2004)




----------



## OceanDude (Nov 5, 2004)

Did I miss an opportunity here? damn it I must be slipping...
OD


----------



## Rich46yo (Nov 5, 2004)

In the future your never going to have a Democrat , thats actually electable to the White House, thats Pro-Gay marriage. Any Democrat that wants to sit in the west wing is going to have to do well in the South and they aren't going to do it while defending this issue. I suspect the Dem party is going to have to reign in its "vocal" "fringe" elements in order to appeal again to Americas "mainstream". If this issue was that divisive to ensure the election of Bush WITH  a mandate imagine what will happen when the Republicans have a strong candidate?

                      Clearly most Americans consider marriage to be a religious sacrament and NOT a freedom. The Democratic party continues to drive away its base due to the noise level of its NorthEast and WestCoast fringe elements.

                     The next Dem candidate will have a drawl, will love NASCAR,will be in church every Sunday, wont be named Klinton, and will avoid the issue of Gay Marriage like its the bubonic plauge...............And thats for sure................Rich


----------



## Minotaur (Nov 5, 2004)

Rich46yo said:
			
		

> In the long term it set you back even farther.
> 
> Was it worth it?..............Rich



No it hasn't.

Yes it was.


----------



## Minotaur (Nov 5, 2004)

Rich46yo said:
			
		

> Clearly most Americans consider marriage to be a religious sacrament and NOT a freedom.



Eleven states is not 'most Americans'.  And try your line again when the divorce rate drops below 60%.


----------



## redspy (Nov 5, 2004)

Rich, here's a few things for you to consider:-

Bush's victory was the narrowest win for a sitting president since
Woodrow Wilson in 1916.
Over 55 million Americans voted for the candidate dubbed "The #1 Liberal in the Senate." That's more than the total number of voters who voted for either Reagan, Bush I, Clinton or Gore. Again, more people voted for Kerry than Reagan.
88% of Bush's support came from white voters. In 50 years, America will
no longer have a white majority. 
The Republicans will not have a filibuster-proof 60-seat majority in the
Senate. If the Democrats do their job, Bush won't be able to pack the
Supreme Court with right-wing ideologues.
There are nearly 300 million Americans -- 200 million of them of voting
age. The Dems only lost by three and a half million. That's not a landslide.


----------



## BoneCrusher (Nov 5, 2004)

LOL ... OD I just read some more of this thread and I gotta say I find you to be lacking a real morality. You???re faking it OD. You cling to a now socially popular quasi-moral identity that includes the belief that gays are below your level. Even Rush does not look down *OPENLY* on people with different tastes or lifestyle choices while you do. Rush does allow that a legal gay/lesbian union could exist. You do not. You have no actual non-religious based ??? in other words homogonously evolved society based ??? form of moral conduct thought out at all. For you whatever _your religious perspective_ sees as ???right??? is moral regardless of the rights of others who do not share your religious foundation.

Lets go back to our man about town Minotaur again. Minotaur works, pays his portion to the country, and is a moral and honest person (at least from reading some of your posts I believe you do Minotaur). But you adamantly declare that his morality is not as correct as yours is. You psychoanalyze Minotaur???s homosexuality away as a dysfunction based on his inabilities to form natural relationship with women and then you go on to place his rights on a lower plane of acceptability than yours and flat out state that he is not entitled to the same protections and rights as you. You refuse to separate your morals from your religious beliefs and believe that ALL America should not do so either.

In America ALL people of every race, age, and gender are equal. No American is to be considered less equal just because they do not share your religious perspective on morality.

Simply said ??? two women in a healthy relationship are as equally entitled to their slice of America, and ALL the spiffs and privilege that goes with that honor, that you are. Your morals are not any less important than theirs are. You morals are not of superior quality just because they are gay and you are straight. ALL Americans are entitled to the same rights. It really is that simple OD.


----------



## sweatshopchamp (Nov 5, 2004)

Marriage is between a man and a women.  Thats how God intended it.  The gays just cant seem to see the pieces of the puzzle.  They are either trying to put two outies together or two inies! How could anyone be gay I dont get it and if you are you need to get some phsycological help and fix that prob.  Im sorry if I offended any homos here I love you but I sure as heaven dont understand you.  Please telll me was it a choice for you to be gay or were you always a homo?  I just cant understand why anyone would be gay.  I love my guy friends to death but there is NO WAY that i would want to stick it in their @$$!  I love women and find most very sexually attractive.


----------



## redspy (Nov 5, 2004)

sweatshopchamp said:
			
		

> Marriage is between a man and a women. Thats how God intended it. The gays just cant seem to see the pieces of the puzzle. They are either trying to put two outies together or two inies! How could anyone be gay I dont get it and if you are you need to get some phsycological help and fix that prob. Im sorry if I offended any homos here I love you but I sure as heaven dont understand you. Please telll me was it a choice for you to be gay or were you always a homo? I just cant understand why anyone would be gay. I love my guy friends to death but there is NO WAY that i would want to stick it in their @$$! I love women and find most very sexually attractive.


Your profile details are interesting:-

*Occupation*:
Glorify God 

*Biography*:
Jesus Freak!


----------



## BoneCrusher (Nov 5, 2004)

LOL ... an even perspective would be expected from him every time.


----------



## Pepper (Nov 5, 2004)

redspy said:
			
		

> Your profile details are interesting:-
> 
> *Occupation*:
> Glorify God
> ...


This really is unnecessary.


----------



## Du (Nov 5, 2004)

redspy said:
			
		

> Your profile details are interesting:-
> 
> *Occupation*:
> Glorify God
> ...


 
  Good call Red.


----------



## Minotaur (Nov 5, 2004)

sweatshopchamp said:
			
		

> Marriage is between a man and a women.  Thats how God intended it.  The gays just cant seem to see the pieces of the puzzle.  They are either trying to put two outies together or two inies! How could anyone be gay I dont get it and if you are you need to get some phsycological help and fix that prob.  Im sorry if I offended any homos here I love you but I sure as heaven dont understand you.  Please telll me was it a choice for you to be gay or were you always a homo?  I just cant understand why anyone would be gay.  I love my guy friends to death but there is NO WAY that i would want to stick it in their @$$!  I love women and find most very sexually attractive.



This is not worth responding to.


----------



## redspy (Nov 5, 2004)

Pepper said:
			
		

> This really is unnecessary.


How exactly? I made no comment and it's taken from what's called a public profile. His profile synchronizes with his comment. If you insist on being so touchy about your faith I suggest you uphold your original pledge and remove yourself from these types of discussion. The post wasn't directed at you so why attempt to argue with me once again? Everything I say you jump on with great zeal.  If you want to pick a fight just say so.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Nov 6, 2004)

This entire gay marriage referendum is the biggest waste of time ever.

Who gives a sh*t!

How about Jobs?

What about the deficit?

How about people getting maimed and killed by suicide bombers, snipers, and road-side bombs everyday?

Who are you arrogant, judgemental, ignorant azzholes to judge?

Is gay marriage costing YOU any money?!

Hell no, but almost every other tax issue is.

And I am straight 100%.

The fact this was even an issue in a f*cking coffee-shop reveals how screwed-up our country is today.


----------



## OceanDude (Nov 6, 2004)

BoneCrusher, when are you going to learn to reel in your hyperbola, your suspicious mind, the amateurish psychoanalytical extrapolations of your own hollow thoughts that bounce around in that cavity you call home and your pompous judgmental proclivities? After this round of ridiculous bombast I have finally come to realize you really are nothing more than a perverse closet critic with an unstable mind who likes to conjure up whatever fantasy you can extrapolate from the sounds of your own silly musings just so you can hear yourself and think you are not alone. My advise is to just shut up and let the moths keep you company in the closet of your own fantasy since they are bound to eventually flutter by and tickle your fantasy in a way that might give you more self pleasure. Do you masturbate to your own stuff? The only thing I am faking here is amusement. Comments embedded:
OD



			
				BoneCrusher said:
			
		

> LOL ... OD I just read some more of this thread and I gotta say I find you to be lacking a real morality. You???re faking it OD. You cling to a now socially popular quasi-moral identity that includes the belief that gays are below your level. * Any deviant behavior is within the capacity of humans but it is the most severely degrading or harmful behaviors that are below the level of human potential. Learn the difference and seek the higher standards or join those that want to take the evolution of species to the gutter as the rest of us leave you behind.* Even Rush does not look down *OPENLY* on people with different tastes or lifestyle choices while you do. Rush does allow that a legal gay/lesbian union could exist. You do not. You have no actual non-religious based ??? in other words homogonously evolved society based ??? form of moral conduct thought out at all. For you whatever _your religious perspective_ sees as ???right??? is moral regardless of the rights of others who do not share your religious foundation.* What utter drivel. Rush is an entertainer and I have never so much as mentioned his name in this forum. You again pompously presume that somehow he is an icon of inspiration to me. I think for myself and Rush has nothing to do with how I form my opinions in life. I find your illogic as entertaining as I find Rush???s political humor but take him more seriously since he admits he is an entertainer while you take your self seriously. Insanity can be humorous but at the same time someone is a victim ??? I am sad for you in this regard but in a funny sort of way. For the record I have compassion for all sick humans ??? including Homosexuals. You are correct on one point though. I have not thought out a complete comprehensive plan for moral conduct since this is a task that was done thousands of years ago by many others and rejected by the perverts, the murderers, the child abusers, the criminals and the other deviants in society. My task is to compel those predisposed to deviant behavior to consider alternatives before they and society suffer the consequences of their choices. I call that compassion. Your other conjectures presented as assertions in fact could not be further from the truth and are shameful, slanderous and intended as such. Shame on you.*
> 
> Lets go back to our man about town Minotaur again. Minotaur works, pays his portion to the country, and is a moral and honest person (at least from reading some of your posts I believe you do Minotaur). But you adamantly declare that his morality is not as correct as yours is. You psychoanalyze Minotaur???s homosexuality away as a dysfunction based on his inabilities to form natural relationship with women and then you go on to place his rights on a lower plane of acceptability than yours and flat out state that he is not entitled to the same protections and rights as you. You refuse to separate your morals from your religious beliefs and believe that ALL America should not do so either.*BoneCrusher you are living on the rim of hypocrisy again. I seem to recall in another thread that you ignored John H. because you were sick of all his gay-boy talk. If you feel the need to champion someone at least be consistent in your own views and reactions to homosexuals. Again your hyperbola is oozing out your ass like puss filled hemorrhoids. If you are going to offer your ass to those that you personally hate as a twisted gesture of compassion I might suggest that you bend over instead to the notion that the relationship is fundamentally abusive, unhealthy and everyone is laughing at you. I have no idea how you can legitimately assert that the person you reference is moral and honest without knowing a single thing about the person other than the fact that he admits to being a homosexual. In fact the majority of people would assert that promiscuous abandonment to his proclivities in this are what make him immoral. But I personally am not making a moral argument so much as I am expressing discomfort with their presumption of a legitimate protected class. By the way admission of anything deviant should never be seen as an act of honesty. Even the criminally minded like to boast bout their conquests and the deviant often use it as a mechanism for presenting numbers suggesting a false majority and an inducement for recruitment. Why not extend the same presumption of morality and honesty to those that are not homosexuals? This is the fallacy of liberalism ??? it???s always the non-majority who are the victims and the most deserving of their attention. I suppose when the social flip-flop occurs you will be out there championing that the children and families of the poor downtrodden minority hetero???s are people too and should be given special protections. You need to step back and see why you are a Liberal BC. It will help you cope much better. The answer is ??? it???s the same irrational disease that causes much of the other deviant behavior on the planet. It extends from poor self image, feelings of powerlessness, and the need to feel relevant. My advise, if you want to play the knight in shiny armor ??? first take off the cardboard and get some real armor, then go polish it, then go find someone who really needs and wants protection and does not mind your high horse crapping all over the soil as you run about in circles lancing self-phantoms that look like a mirror of yourself.*
> 
> ...


OD


----------



## busyLivin (Nov 6, 2004)

redspy said:
			
		

> Rich, here's a few things for you to consider:-
> 
> Bush's victory was the narrowest win for a sitting president since
> Woodrow Wilson in 1916.
> ...



you got that from michael moore's website!   Don't encourage the fat bastard.

And in response to that, a lot of republican friends I have to do not like Bush, so they voted for Kerry or didn't vote.  As I'm sure was quite common around the rest of the country... so in 08, we may see an even BIGGER republican win margin. 

MANY of Kerry's votes were against Bush.


----------



## Little Wing (Nov 6, 2004)

I think that it is stupid that gay couples can adopt and raise children, be foster parents and so on but still be denied the ability to obtain insurance coverage etc that married heteros can get. It's BS.


----------



## Minotaur (Nov 6, 2004)

BoneCrusher said:
			
		

> Lets go back to our man about town Minotaur again. Minotaur works, pays his portion to the country, and is a moral and honest person (at least from reading some of your posts I believe you do Minotaur).



Yep, that's me.  All around honest, decent, and moral (occasionally hardworking too, if it suits me   ).


----------



## Rich46yo (Nov 6, 2004)

Bush was the first President to be elected with over 50% of the vote since his Father was in 1988. Which is surprising because he really was a weak candidate and a strong Democratic challenger could have taken him. Minotaur its true only 11 states had the thing on the ballot but it allowed the Republicans to raise the noise on the National level. It allowed them to get much of the church vote, particularly among minoroties, that they never would have gotton without such a devisive moral issue in the limelight.

                      Im just making political observations. Im not making any personal comments at all. Then again you know how I feel about the issue. While being understanding and thoughtful toward gay issues Im against gay marriage. In the end its up tp the courts and the voters to decide and if they decide "yes" I'll have no problem living with it.

                     But I dont think they will! Furthermore it will continue to be decisive and will continue to allow Republicans to siphon off much of the vote the Dem party has always taken for granted. Imagine if Colin Powell finds God and decides to run as a Republican in 2008? Who could you possibly field to beat him?

                     So when I ask "is it worth it" Im actually asking is it that important an issue, to keep on page 1, even tho it will probably help ensure a continued Republican presence in the WhiteHouse for the fore-seeable future.

                     In my opinion its hurt you more then its helped you. In the future a Democrat candidtate for President is going to distance him/her-self from Gay issues due to the results of this election..............Rich


----------



## King Silverback (Nov 6, 2004)

Why can't people just respect others views. I'm a firm believer in my views just as everyone here is also. That doesn't make you right or me wrong. We are all children of GOD, it's up to him to do the judging, not us!!!


----------



## maniclion (Nov 6, 2004)

Archangel said:
			
		

> Why can't people just respect others views. I'm a firm believer in my views just as everyone here is also. That doesn't make you right or me wrong. We are all children of GOD, it's up to him to do the judging, not us!!!


Exactly, for all of you "believers" it is Gods job to pass judgement not yours so stop trying to to do your Fathers work and just be the lambs that your supposed to be.


----------



## bandaidwoman (Nov 6, 2004)

Marriage to me is not just an institution ordained by religion, it is also recognized by civil authorities in this country. (Which is why two athiests can be married.) While no church could ever be ordered to recognize or preform same sex marriages, we should not block a courthouse marriage between two consenting adults.

I actually find the issue refreshing (although not the most important issue on my politcal agenda) as we are in a time when marriage is rapidly losing its allure for many hetrosexuals, this deep desire of so many gays to commit themselves to marriage, with all its rewards and sacrafices, is quite promising. (In fact, Denmark which has sanctioned gay marriages for over 10 years show that gay marriages have 1/5 the divorce rate of heterosexual marriages) and this, in my opinion, contributes to some societal stability.

But that's just my two cents.


But let's face it, much of the history of  marriage involves marriage as a strictly utilitarian tool, a social and economic contract between individuals. It was a means to ally political bases or dole out and distribute wealth and land etc. etc. It wasn't until recently that we interjected love and sancitity into it. Thus, this issue of gay marriage is just trying to get back to the roots of marriage!   It is a means by which a gay couple can recieve all the legal and economic benefits that a heterosexual couple enjoys as its contract with society.


----------



## OceanDude (Nov 6, 2004)

maniclion said:
			
		

> Exactly, for all of you "believers" it is Gods job to pass judgement not yours so stop trying to to do your Fathers work and just be the lambs that your supposed to be.



Try not to confuse the current crying of the abused sheep as a judgment. It's simply a cry of violation and alarm. The judgment of the wicked comes soon enough and the punishment there after. Such judgment may be the only shot the abusers have at immortality; but that could prove to be long lived hell for some.

Bad ideas and bad humor forced on virgin minds are as corrupt and venomous as the deeds themselves. I quite imagine the following verse being taunted from hell to heaven and earth as a blasphemous and mocking prayer every time one of us tries to speak out here against what we consider vile:

'Even now, now, very now, an old black ram
Is tupping your white ewe. Arise, arise;
Awake the snorting citizens with the bell,
Or else the devil will make a grandsire of you: 
Arise, I say.'

That day comes soon enough. Just make sure you stand with the lambs and not the goats when the sun sets on the party. 
OD


----------



## Pepper (Nov 6, 2004)

rockgazer69 said:
			
		

> I think that it is stupid that gay couples can adopt and raise children, be foster parents and so on but still be denied the ability to obtain insurance coverage etc that married heteros can get. It's BS.


So you are going to force me as an employer to pay health insurance for a gay employee's "spouse?"


----------



## Du (Nov 6, 2004)

Pepper said:
			
		

> So you are going to force me as an employer to pay health insurance for a gay employee's "spouse?"


Since when are employers forced to provide coverage??


----------



## Pepper (Nov 6, 2004)

redspy said:
			
		

> How exactly? I made no comment and it's taken from what's called a public profile. His profile synchronizes with his comment. If you insist on being so touchy about your faith I suggest you uphold your original pledge and remove yourself from these types of discussion. The post wasn't directed at you so why attempt to argue with me once again? Everything I say you jump on with great zeal. If you want to pick a fight just say so.


and you have the nerve to call *me *touchy. All I said that was that it was unnecessary. Geez. You were making fun of his religion.

Also, I respond to very few of your posts. I don't really see much point in debating you, you and manic are just very liberal and there is just no common ground to be found.

WFT do you mean by me picking a fight?


----------



## Pepper (Nov 6, 2004)

du510 said:
			
		

> Since when are employers forced to provide coverage??


So, the law is going to let me cover my heterosexual employee's spouses and exclude gay spouses? I seriously doubt it..and if somehow the law allows it, it will be the next issue the gay movement is on and on about.


----------



## Little Wing (Nov 6, 2004)

Pepper said:
			
		

> So you are going to force me as an employer to pay health insurance for a gay employee's "spouse?"


 Not me personally I would say you should have the right to be true to your beliefs and values but like it or not there are gay couples who are every bit as in love and committed and hard working as the married guy standing next to them and they are excluded on the basis of what? I don't like the amount of health care dollars fat people and smokers suck up. People _choose_ to be fat lazy asses or stick butts in thier mouths all day and night, kids don't choose to be part of a family that has to suffer far more when a parent becomes ill, dies or loses a job.


----------



## OceanDude (Nov 6, 2004)

Pepper said:
			
		

> So, the law is going to let me cover my heterosexual employee's spouses and exclude gay spouses? I seriously doubt it..and if somehow the law allows it, it will be the next issue the gay movement is on and on about.


Pepper, people do not get it. It's the same thing with minimum wage. As soon as you put government in the mix the business people "just say no". They are not stupid. In the case of minimum wage - they fire one and make the others work harder or more efficiently to compensate. In the case of soaring insurance rates and forced spousal benefits they force a high co-pay on the spouse so its not competitive with other options they can buy themselves. Or, they just say "OK, no more employees. from now on everyone works as an independent consulting employee on a 1099 DIV basis and we pay you a little more but you pay all your own taxes, social security and health care. you get paid for hours on the clock and if you call in sick or decide on taking a holiday or vacation - guess what - thats not on the clock". Frankly I personally prefer to work on this latter basis since you can write off every single expense at home - like PC, cars etc. Government is really not too smart nor are the special interest groups trying to force this crap on business. Malicious obedience is the best defense to idiots and government meddling.

OD


----------



## kbm8795 (Nov 6, 2004)

If the issue was merely money, Pepper's reasoning would be that he should only hire "non-marriageable" gay employees, since he would save the expense of having to provide health insurance for any spouses. And since South Carolina law likely has no provision for "marital status" in their employment laws, it would certainly allow him to use that criteria as an intelligent business decision.


----------



## Pepper (Nov 6, 2004)

kbm8795 said:
			
		

> If the issue was merely money, Pepper's reasoning would be that he should only hire "non-marriageable" gay employees, since he would save the expense of having to provide health insurance for any spouses. And since South Carolina law likely has no provision for "marital status" in their employment laws, it would certainly allow him to use that criteria as an intelligent business decision.


That makes no freaking sense.

I don't know how to respond since I don't understand your point. All I was saying is that I don't want to have to pay for health insurance for the homosexual spouse. I'll cover the employee.


----------



## Pepper (Nov 6, 2004)

btw, I have a gay employee (one of eight)


----------



## kbm8795 (Nov 6, 2004)

These state amendments had nothing to do with morality or with "defending marriage." 
As I mentioned before, they could have certainly been worded to include provisions to actually support the institution as it already exists, but proponents naturally chose to not accept responsibility for their own behavior. Thus, as the sanctimonious tradition continues, repeat rapists can continue to be married at will, sexual predators cannot be required to be divorced, heterosexual pedophiles may continue their immoral activities without fear that the state can dissolve their marriages and adulterers face no sanction for their violation of personal commitment before both God and the State. As vile and as wicked as these behaviors may be, as long as they are based on heterosexual activity, neither the Church or the State may intervene in their marriages now or in the future.  The divorce rate has shown no sign of significant lowering, so obviously there was no moral intention to protect or defend marriage in these actions. 

Instead, the message was intended as direct persecution. "Marriage" may be an individual human relationship right that exists above Church and State, but only if residents are heterosexuals. If people pretend to be heterosexual, they can access both the institution and the blessing of both church and state. So those amendments were about promoting an image of the institution rather than the reality that would address issues in commitment and behavior which have tarnished marriage. 

Since a few of these amendments made certain they included denial of basic contracting rights, it appears they were designed to continue the moral endorsement of property theft, body exhumation, hospital visitation and denial of funeral attendance for gay citizens as a material sacrifice to protect that image. A society can't be too much more wicked than that. . .though I'm sure such moral organizations have much more in mind.


----------



## kbm8795 (Nov 6, 2004)

Pepper said:
			
		

> That makes no freaking sense.
> 
> I don't know how to respond since I don't understand your point. All I was saying is that I don't want to have to pay for health insurance for the homosexual spouse. I'll cover the employee.



It makes perfect business sense, Pepper. Since insurance is part of an employee's compensatory package, what you are trying to say is that you essentially believe you should pay a gay employee with a spouse a lower salary for the work they perform, even if it is the same work as heterosexual employees. Now if the gay employee is legally married to...say, a lesbian, you have no issue with that, meaning that extra compensation for a marriage of conveinance is perfectly moral. So your argument isn't based on morality, but on the image of morality.

The least expensive way to ensure your employees all receive the same compensatory package is to simply hire only those people who are unmarriageable. If you only have employees who are openly gay and cannot marry, then you never have any spousal health insurance to pay. Sounds like good business sense to me. And that action is likely protected by South Carolina employment law.


----------



## sweatshopchamp (Nov 7, 2004)

Why not take a firm stand for what you know is true?


----------



## redspy (Nov 7, 2004)

Pepper said:
			
		

> and you have the nerve to call *me *touchy. All I said that was that it was unnecessary. Geez. You were making fun of his religion.
> 
> Also, I respond to very few of your posts. I don't really see much point in debating you, you and manic are just very liberal and there is just no common ground to be found.
> 
> WFT do you mean by me picking a fight?


Here's what I mean, higher up in this thread you make this comment out of the blue in an attempt to provoke me:-



> That's a RedSpy tactic...who said soley?


As somebody appointed as a Moderator I'd expect more to be honest.  Personsally I'd prefer not to engage in any kind discussion with you as we both know the eventual outcome.


----------



## OceanDude (Nov 7, 2004)

ps -AF |grep -AF "redspy"| kill -9 -1 <
lol
OD


----------



## redspy (Nov 7, 2004)

# Killall  -q -g CIM


----------



## OceanDude (Nov 7, 2004)

redspy said:
			
		

> # Killall  -q -g CIM


Oh crapola, they will give anyone admin/God rights these days...

I'll fix your wagon:
dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/hda 
now see if can do that again
OD


----------



## redspy (Nov 7, 2004)

Bro, if you processed Unix commands my first and final input would be:-



> shutdown -h now


----------



## Du (Nov 7, 2004)

<--- Thats me, so fucking confused.


----------



## OceanDude (Nov 7, 2004)

du510 said:
			
		

> <--- Thats me, so fucking confused.


Don't worry it's a Geek thing...
OD


----------



## Pepper (Nov 7, 2004)

redspy said:
			
		

> Here's what I mean, higher up in this thread you make this comment out of the blue in an attempt to provoke me:-
> 
> 
> As somebody appointed as a Moderator I'd expect more to be honest. Personsally I'd prefer not to engage in any kind discussion with you as we both know the eventual outcome.


Is the sky blue in your world?


----------



## Pepper (Nov 7, 2004)

OceanDude said:
			
		

> Don't worry it's a Geek thing...
> OD


Must be. I consider myself to be fairly technical but I have no freaking clue what that means.


----------



## redspy (Nov 7, 2004)

It depends what time of day.


----------



## Pepper (Nov 7, 2004)

redspy said:
			
		

> It depends what time of day.


Honestly, I didn't realize you were getting pissed at me. I thought that is just how we "got along." I'll stop.


----------



## redspy (Nov 7, 2004)

Don't.  I'd hate the thought you were being fake.


----------



## Minotaur (Nov 7, 2004)

Pepper said:
			
		

> That makes no freaking sense.
> 
> I don't know how to respond since I don't understand your point. All I was saying is that I don't want to have to pay for health insurance for the homosexual spouse. I'll cover the employee.



If you are willing to pay for a heterosexual spouse's benefits, but not a homosexual spouse's benefits, and can cite no reason other than your personal beliefs, that is discrimination and you should be taken to law.  Your personal beliefs are your own, and have no business in an area that's regulated by civil law.

You're prejudiced and homphobic, and that's that.


----------



## OceanDude (Nov 7, 2004)

Pepper said:
			
		

> Must be. I consider myself to be fairly technical but I have no freaking clue what that means.


It don't matter now anyway. I as trying to run interference for Pepper to diffuse some developing tension here... I failed 
OD


----------



## Pepper (Nov 7, 2004)

Minotaur said:
			
		

> If you are willing to pay for a heterosexual spouse's benefits, but not a homosexual spouse's benefits, and can cite no reason other than your personal beliefs, that is discrimination and you should be taken to law. Your personal beliefs are your own, and have no business in an area that's regulated by civil law.
> 
> You're prejudiced and homphobic, and that's that.


That is fucking offensive. I am certainly not and I don't appreciate you trying to characterize me as such. 

Typical tactic, really, anyone who does not completly support the gay agenda is always called a homophobe. Careful, people will become numb to it and it will be meaningless.

One of my best friends is a lesbian. One of my groomsmen is gay. I have one, maybe two, gay employees. I guess none of that matters if I don't fall 100% in line with what you think I should believe.


----------



## Pepper (Nov 7, 2004)

Oh, and I have several gay clients. Actually, this is where I learned that there does in fact need to be some kind of legal relationship for homosexual couples. For example, one client gave her lover a half-interest in her house. She had to file a gift tax return. That is non-sense.

However, since I don't go all the way to "marriage" and I don't think I should have to pay for homosexual partner's benefits, I am a homophobe. Yeah, you nailed that one. You have gone a long way in moving me FURTHER from the gay agenda b/c you are unreasonable and offensive. Congrats.


----------



## OceanDude (Nov 7, 2004)

Pepper said:
			
		

> Oh, and I have several gay clients. Actually, this is where I learned that there does in fact need to be some kind of legal relationship for homosexual couples. For example, one client gave her lover a half-interest in her house. She had to file a gift tax return. That is non-sense.
> 
> However, since I don't go all the way to "marriage" and I don't think I should have to pay for homosexual partner's benefits, I am a homophobe. Yeah, you nailed that one. You have gone a long way in moving me FURTHER from the gay agenda b/c you are unreasonable and offensive. Congrats.



Makes one wonder if they really have a monopoly on the term. Let's turn it around and say that the real reason there are homosexuals is because they are hetero-phobic and are really suffering from a simple case of being afraid to have a real relationship with real honest to goodness living and breathing women. Is it to real and intense for them to handle (actually it is pretty intense)? What happened to the notion of having an open mind? 

Of course there are some real bitches out there that could really leave a bad impression on a man if one ran into them at an early age mind you. That could account for some of the hetero-phobias... 

OD


----------



## Minotaur (Nov 7, 2004)

Pepper said:
			
		

> Oh, and I have several gay clients. Actually, this is where I learned that there does in fact need to be some kind of legal relationship for homosexual couples. For example, one client gave her lover a half-interest in her house. She had to file a gift tax return. That is non-sense.
> 
> However, since I don't go all the way to "marriage" and I don't think I should have to pay for homosexual partner's benefits, I am a homophobe. Yeah, you nailed that one. You have gone a long way in moving me FURTHER from the gay agenda b/c you are unreasonable and offensive. Congrats.



Don't pretend to be all offended and injured... when you refuse to give equal benefits and rights to people based on your personal beliefs, you are guilty of discrimination.  Homophobia is just another form of discrimination.  The word is no more hackneyed than 'activist judges' and 'legislating from the bench'.  Come up with a different term for your type of discrimination and I will be happy to use it.

We are the ones who should be offended for being thought less than deserving of benefits than our heterosexual counterparts, all because of your personal religious beliefs.  Suppose one were to deny benefits to a partner because of that person's religious affiliation (a true choice).  There would be such an outcry.  But it's all right to resist giving partner/spousal benefits to a homosexual?  How repugnant.


----------



## camarosuper6 (Nov 7, 2004)

> If you are willing to pay for a heterosexual spouse's benefits, but not a homosexual spouse's benefits, and can cite no reason other than your personal beliefs, that is discrimination



I do not agree. If I am an employer, and I have a substatial religious or moral belief that something is wrong, I should not have to be forced to pay for it. Whether it be homosexual benefits, or anything else that is against my personal beliefs. 

I am not saying what Government should do, but if I personally am against something, I should not and would not pay my own money into it (unless I am forced to like welfare from my taxes etc., but that is a whole different debate)

This is not a personal dig Minotaur, just my OP.


----------



## camarosuper6 (Nov 7, 2004)

Less government is better government.


----------



## Du (Nov 7, 2004)

camarosuper6 said:
			
		

> Less government is better government.


Well said. 

You must be popular, politically, in North California.


----------



## Pepper (Nov 7, 2004)

Minotaur said:
			
		

> Suppose one were to deny benefits to a partner because of that person's religious affiliation (a true choice).


Constitution says you can't do that.
Constitution says nothing of sexual preference.

All discrimination is not illegal.  Harvard however discriminates based on grades and SAT scores.


----------



## Rocky_Road (Nov 7, 2004)

Good lord. I cannot believe how friggin' uptight people can be about homosexuality. Why is it anyone else's business? Call me liberal, but, what's the big deal? Are there more important things to worry about than other people's sexual preferences? I could care less if gay people were allowed to marry. Given the current divorce stats, we straight people aren't exactly doing it right either....


----------



## Du (Nov 7, 2004)

Rocky_Road said:
			
		

> Call me liberal.


Liberal.




 

I agree with ya RR, 100%.


----------



## Rocky_Road (Nov 7, 2004)

du510 said:
			
		

> Liberal.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## kbm8795 (Nov 7, 2004)

It isn't a question of personal religious beliefs - unless you are operating a religious-oriented business, then it is essentially discrimination, whether it is written into the law or not. It is true - if you had moral misgivings about hiring someone of another religious belief, you aren't allowed to deny benefits because of that personal prejudice, even if that religious belief is a lifestyle choice and not an immutable characteristic. 

However, since the benefit packages for employees are attached to "legally" recognized relationships, the point is still that Pepper prefers to compensate a gay employee with a spouse at a lower rate than a heterosexual employee with a spouse. 
Whether it is intentional or not, it appears to be an employer "reward" for sexual orientation, something which clearly has nothing to do with the requirements for performing the job. Not only does the gay employee with a spouse has to hope that spouse is covered (and their children) but if they aren't, likely has to pay out for private insurance coverage, thus increasing the cost layout for the employee. 

In the end, what makes sense is either to provide the same compensation for all employees, or remove the packages from everyone. He could possibly offer to pay the gay employee a higher salary in order to compensate for the costs of providing spousal benefits privately, or, like many places, offer to reimburse a part of the cost for private coverage.  Or, as I mentioned before, it would make sense for Pepper to only employ "unmarriageable" openly gay employees and not have to pay for any spousal benefits at all. 

While Pepper believes there should be some legal protections for same-sex relationships, I'm unsure where he thinks the line should be drawn. Clearly, there is nothing honest in calling an employee "single" when it is common knowledge that it is indeed not the case, especially when it is the state that is preventing the legal recognition of the couple, not the couple themselves. Considering the high cost in trying to obtain some of the legal benefits through a variety of legal documents (compared to the marriage license cost of...as little as $15) it seems like a nice way for the government to gather lots of money for the privilege of persecuting someone. 

For the record, I don't believe South Carolina law prohibits providing domestic partner benefits by private employers. While you are certainly free to not provide those, it should be clearly written in employee materials so that prospective gay applicants can clearly make decisions about their prospects in that work environment. 

In a larger company, that policy can also be an indicator of denial of promotion and/or mentoring for advancement. While hundreds of companies now offer packages that recognize their relationships, there are still some which would rather reward a lie than honesty. These employers don't care if a marriage is phony or a lie - only that the image is there. That's one reason why so many gay employees "passed" as straight for many years, working their way up the corporate ladder with opposite sex "partners" to stand in at social occasions - and then coming out when they reached the top.


----------



## camarosuper6 (Nov 7, 2004)

In all actuality, I would simply hire the best workers. 
Gay, straight or multi


----------



## OceanDude (Nov 8, 2004)

The fact of the matter is a less than 3% "problem" (the number of homosexuals in the country who elect to marry) is causing an overwhelmingly disproportionate burden on society. The homosexuals can offer no compelling case for any advantage to society in facilitating their life style choice to justify that societal burden. Taxpayers will at some point ask where is the value added? What is happening now appears to be an accelerating reduction in quality of life for the rest of the country as we all suffer the consequences of their minority lifestyle choice. We have the homosexuals to thank for the infusion of AIDS into the mainstream population. We have homosexuals to thank in large part for the erosion and mockery of traditional marriage ideals and questioning of family structures (that lead to much of the instability in our traditional social systems which this country were founded on). We have homosexuals to thank for making their minority agenda a national distraction from other more important domestic issues and disproportionately consuming national assets to deal with their demands. We have homosexuals to thank for exposing children to unnatural concepts at an early age in schools that must now teach alternative sexuality and a loss of innocence at a time that children should not have to deal with such nonsense. We have an acceleration in the numbers of young children being recruited into exploring the homosexual alternative lifestyle choice since it is now taught and marketed as a choice. The only thing the homosexuals can offer this country as a group (not as individuals) is a politically active and "in your face" assault on our country's common moral ideals that will continue to cause division and strife disproportionate to their numbers. They collectively represent what many deem a societal plague that due to rabid political pressure must now be dealt with decisively.

In my opinion the only good thing that will come out of their political activism is a continued erosion of the political party that elects to support them (liberal democrats) since the overwhelming majority of Americans wish they would just go back to the closets and toilet stalls and get out of our faces. They have chosen to try and force acceptance and to force respect and have unleashed a political war. This will make it impossible for the country to ignore them now. Where they use to adapt a war of slow moral attrition their current in your face force multiplier "ranger tactic" was  a bad move. The current administration is now aligned by world events to go on the offense and to shove it right back down their throats. Bad timing boys - the warfare tactic has changed and society is pushing back now with overwhelming force.

All that the homosexuals can do is further alienate themselves from mainstream society by trying to force legislate their opinion that they are normal on the rest of society. I will say it a thousand times *You can not legislate respect.* At some point in the political process this country is going to have to resolve the conflicting philosophical tension and constitutional flaw between the fundamental right of free association and the freedom to pursue happiness and the freedom of expression. This will be what resolves the homosexual issue one way or the other and I am betting on "the other", majority view, outcome. History has not shown majorities to be willing to self impose a reduction in quality of their life for some ambiguous ideal or oddball minority struggle. Fundamentally individuals can not be forced to associate against their will with groups of people we do not respect or chose not to associate with. All are entitled to make our own friends. Some would argue that all Americans have a fundamental right to associate with any other American by fundamental class right. To which I say - then go sit in jail where society segregates the American murders, the child abusers and the deviants and preach that opinion to them. The minority right to pursue personal happiness through alternative lifestyle choices does not supersede the right of the majority to pursue their own happiness through traditional mechanisms. It is doubtful that the two can resolve a common good from a thing that the majority fundamentally sees as evil or disgraceful.

Bottom line: The majority will continue to freely associate with whom they desire and will continue to turn their back on those they do not respect. The homosexuals will exercise their right to associate with their own class (but not as a protected class) in the large cities that have relatively large homosexual numbers. In smaller places where they are conspicuously as unwelcome as a cockroaches they will continue to act as such and seek each other in closets and toilet stalls.

OD


----------



## Minotaur (Nov 8, 2004)

camarosuper6 said:
			
		

> I do not agree. If I am an employer, and I have a substatial religious or moral belief that something is wrong, I should not have to be forced to pay for it. Whether it be homosexual benefits, or anything else that is against my personal beliefs.
> 
> I am not saying what Government should do, but if I personally am against something, I should not and would not pay my own money into it (unless I am forced to like welfare from my taxes etc., but that is a whole different debate)
> 
> This is not a personal dig Minotaur, just my OP.



See you in court.  Be prepared to pony up lawyers' fees too.


----------



## Minotaur (Nov 8, 2004)

Pepper said:
			
		

> Constitution says you can't do that.
> Constitution says nothing of sexual preference.
> 
> All discrimination is not illegal.  Harvard however discriminates based on grades and SAT scores.



*Constitution says you can't do that.*
*Constitution says nothing of sexual preference.*

But it does say _All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws._ 

That is Section One of Amendment 14, which will be the basis for overturning the 11 states' gay marriage bans.  Those state constitutional amendments are unconstitutional, and will be found to be so.  Mark my words.



*Harvard however discriminates based on grades and SAT scores.*

Not the same.  Setting minimum requirements, whether for curriculum or job performance is not discrimination.  Good try.


----------



## kbm8795 (Nov 8, 2004)

I have to get moving to school - I'll respond to O.D.'s "everything bad in society is caused by the Je...er. . .I mean, homosexual"....rant later...


----------



## Minotaur (Nov 8, 2004)

OceanDude said:
			
		

> The fact of the matter is a less than 3% "problem" (the number of homosexuals in the country who elect to marry) is causing an overwhelmingly disproportionate burden on society. The homosexuals can offer no compelling case for any advantage to society in facilitating their life style choice to justify that societal burden. Taxpayers will at some point ask where is the value added? What is happening now appears to be an accelerating reduction in quality of life for the rest of the country as we all suffer the consequences of their minority lifestyle choice. We have the homosexuals to thank for the infusion of AIDS into the mainstream population. We have homosexuals to thank in large part for the erosion and mockery of traditional marriage ideals and questioning of family structures (that lead to much of the instability in our traditional social systems which this country were founded on). We have homosexuals to thank for making their minority agenda a national distraction from other more important domestic issues and disproportionately consuming national assets to deal with their demands. We have homosexuals to thank for exposing children to unnatural concepts at an early age in schools that must now teach alternative sexuality and a loss of innocence at a time that children should not have to deal with such nonsense. We have an acceleration in the numbers of young children being recruited into exploring the homosexual alternative lifestyle choice since it is now taught and marketed as a choice. The only thing the homosexuals can offer this country as a group (not as individuals) is a politically active and "in your face" assault on our country's common moral ideals that will continue to cause division and strife disproportionate to their numbers. They collectively represent what many deem a societal plague that due to rabid political pressure must now be dealt with decisively.
> 
> In my opinion the only good thing that will come out of their political activism is a continued erosion of the political party that elects to support them (liberal democrats) since the overwhelming majority of Americans wish they would just go back to the closets and toilet stalls and get out of our faces. They have chosen to try and force acceptance and to force respect and have unleashed a political war. This will make it impossible for the country to ignore them now. Where they use to adapt a war of slow moral attrition their current in your face force multiplier "ranger tactic" was  a bad move. The current administration is now aligned by world events to go on the offense and to shove it right back down their throats. Bad timing boys - the warfare tactic has changed and society is pushing back now with overwhelming force.
> 
> ...





You're too much.  You also believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny?    

Omg, and there was a point I though I could take you seriously.  

   

What is it they say? "Talk to the hand".


----------



## RexStunnahH (Nov 8, 2004)

tomas101 said:
			
		

> busy u are missing the point...people need to stop putting religion in the fuking white house... Religious and Moral stances are masks for racism and you cant deny that b/c its the blatant truth...and you also didnt answer my question...u just brought up the same ol you arent religious so you dont understand bullshit...tell me how any of this affects YOU personally please


"....one Nation under GOD..."

This country was founded on god.Of course it should hold some weight in the decisions of laws.Everybody knows that homosexuals have a higher risk of HIV and AIDS.That effects us.I aint saying that only gays have HIV.I am sayingthat in the report I did,it was stated that they have a higher risk.So of course that effects us.Not to mention that the taxpayers pay for alot of the treatment of aids patients.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Nov 8, 2004)

I don't know.


----------



## Minotaur (Nov 8, 2004)

RexStunnahH said:
			
		

> "....one Nation under GOD..."
> 
> This country was founded on god.Of course it should hold some weight in the decisions of laws.Everybody knows that homosexuals have a higher risk of HIV and AIDS.That effects us.I aint saying that only gays have HIV.I am sayingthat in the report I did,it was stated that they have a higher risk.So of course that effects us.Not to mention that the taxpayers pay for alot of the treatment of aids patients.



That's all bullshit and propaganda.  The amount of ignorance and misinformation about the whole subject is saddening.

This country was not founded on God.  Thomas Jefferson was rabidly anti-religion and anti-Christianity (http://www.google.com/search?as_q=t...s_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&safe=images).  

The phrase "one nation under God" was added to the Pledge of Allegiance in the 1950s as a response to the perceived threat of the officially atheistic Soviet Union.

And AIDS is not costing the taxpayers alot, because every president from Ronald Reagan to George W. Bush has turned a blind eye and deaf ear to any AIDS research or assistance.


----------



## OceanDude (Nov 8, 2004)

Minotaur said:
			
		

> You're too much.  You also believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny?
> 
> Omg, and there was a point I though I could take you seriously.
> 
> ...



Hey everyone, I think I found the secret missing link to the question of why homosexuals exist. They have a G-spot in their anal cavity and every time they take a crap or someone shoves an enema of truth up their ass to get their attention they have a sexual response.   

I am surprised however that you did not claim the greater fantasy that the easter bunny and santa clause are homosexuals and "normal" like you.  

OD


----------



## OceanDude (Nov 8, 2004)

Minotaur said:
			
		

> That's all bullshit and propaganda.  The amount of ignorance and misinformation about the whole subject is saddening.
> ...AIDS is not costing the taxpayers alot, because every president from Ronald Reagan to George W. Bush has turned a blind eye and deaf ear to any AIDS research or assistance.


You are sadly misinformed. Look at the national budget and check out the number of Billions of dollars being spent in domestic health care as well as international relief and humanitarian aid for AIDS. It's *orders of magnitude* larger than the amount of money the government spends on the single disease that is killing the overwhelming majority of Americans - Obesity and Obesity related diseases. You just made my argument for the disproportionate burden that 3% of the population is imposing on the normal majority.

OD


----------



## Pepper (Nov 8, 2004)

Like my avatar? Since I was outed, I thought it appropriate.


----------



## Minotaur (Nov 8, 2004)

OceanDude said:
			
		

> Hey everyone, I think I found the secret missing link to the question of why homosexuals exist. They have a G-spot in their anal cavity and every time they take a crap or someone shoves an enema of truth up their ass to get their attention they have a sexual response.
> 
> I am surprised however that you did not claim the greater fantasy that the easter bunny and santa clause are homosexuals and "normal" like you.
> 
> OD



Your comments are becoming more and more uncalled for.  However, they do say a lot about you.  Bye   Ignoresville (or is that Ignorantsville?) for you.


----------



## Pepper (Nov 8, 2004)

Well, this homophobe's opinion is that this is what happens all the time when this topic comes up. The homosexual movement is determined that they must be 100% accepted and respected or you are a homophobe. Eventually, people get frustrated and lash out.

It is almost like you want everyone to hate you. I don't understand that. 

OD comments were over-the-top, but so was you calling me a homophobe for not falling 100% in line with your views.


----------



## MaxMirkin (Nov 8, 2004)

Why are you a homoprobe?


----------



## Pepper (Nov 8, 2004)

MaxMirkin said:
			
		

> Why are you a homoprobe?


I'm not actually.

I was called one earlier in this thread though.


----------



## Vieope (Nov 8, 2004)

MaxMirkin said:
			
		

> Why are you a homoprobe?


_Homep*r*obe are not the ones that test them to see if they are good homosexuals? _


----------



## Pepper (Nov 8, 2004)

I just noticed that...Not sure i want to know what a homop*r*obe is!


----------



## Minotaur (Nov 8, 2004)

Pepper said:
			
		

> OD comments were over-the-top, but so was you calling me a homophobe for not falling 100% in line with your views.



I called you a homophobe for being OK with discriminating against homosexual partners wrt to benefits.  I said come up with another term to describe your prejudice and discrimination and I'll be happy to use it.  Until someone coins a term to describe prejudice and discrimination against homosexuals, the word homophobia is the best we have.

Main Entry: ho·mo·pho·bia 
Pronunciation: "hO-m&-'fO-bE-&
Function: noun
: *irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination  against homosexuality or homosexuals*
- ho·mo·pho·bic  /-'fO-bik/ adjective


----------



## Vieope (Nov 8, 2004)

_Why is so wrong to be homophobic? _


----------



## kbm8795 (Nov 8, 2004)

RexStunnahH said:
			
		

> "....one Nation under GOD..."
> 
> *You are reciting a phrase added to a Pledge of Allegiance that was adopted and added during the last paranoid period of our nation's history.*
> 
> ...



I'm sorry - it is the type of sexual activity and the rate of participation that establishes risk - not sexual orientation. I hope you included that lesbians were at the lowest risk for exposure to HIV, thus making them, by this reasoning, the moral superiors to heterosexuals.


----------



## Minotaur (Nov 8, 2004)

Vieope said:
			
		

> _Why is so wrong to be homophobic? _



 

For the same reason it's wrong to discriminate against any other group of people.  Homophobia is discrimination.


----------



## Vieope (Nov 8, 2004)

Minotaur said:
			
		

> For the same reason it's wrong to discriminate against any other group of people.  Homophobia is discrimination.



_What is the difference between discrimination and freedom of speech? Everybody is allowed to think what they want. Isn´t that how it works?  _


----------



## MaxMirkin (Nov 8, 2004)

Vieope said:
			
		

> _Homep*r*obe are not the ones that test them to see if they are good homosexuals? _


Good eye, jedi.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Nov 8, 2004)

WRT Pepper.  

By the definition of the term, you are definitely a homophobe.  I don't really see the problem with a person being a homophobe.  If he doesn't understand the lifestyle, why should he blindly accept it?  I accept it because I don't care what other people do, but some other people may be firmer in their beliefs.


----------



## Vieope (Nov 8, 2004)

MaxMirkin said:
			
		

> Good eye, jedi.


_Yes, I am the illiterate.  _


----------



## MaxMirkin (Nov 8, 2004)

Vieope said:
			
		

> _Yes, I am the illiterate.  _


You're the exception that proves the rule.


----------



## redspy (Nov 8, 2004)

I think we should let gays marry so they have to put up with the same shit we hetro married men have to put up with.  The nagging, high maintenance....


----------



## Vieope (Nov 8, 2004)

redspy said:
			
		

> I think we should let gays marry so they have to put up with the same shit we hetro married men have to put up with.  The nagging, high maintenance....


_Haha.. let them marry.  _


----------



## Minotaur (Nov 8, 2004)

Vieope said:
			
		

> _What is the difference between discrimination and freedom of speech? Everybody is allowed to think what they want. Isn´t that how it works?  _



You can think whatever you want, but you cannot treat people differently, not in an official capacity anyway, not as an employer giving different benefits to different people based on your beliefs. 

We've been through all this already above.

And as for free speech, there are limitations on that.  For one thing, you cannot yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater when there is no fire.  That's been the example given through the years.  Nor can you say anything that would provoke a 'reasonable person' to violence.


----------



## Vieope (Nov 8, 2004)

Minotaur said:
			
		

> You can think whatever you want, but you cannot treat people differently, not in an official capacity anyway, not as an employer giving different benefits to different people based on your beliefs.
> 
> We've been through all this already above.
> 
> And as for free speech, there are limitations on that.  For one thing, you cannot yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater when there is no fire.  That's been the example given through the years.  Nor can you say anything that would provoke a 'reasonable person' to violence.



_
I just like freedom. 
I have nothing against gays, I can´t understand it though. 

I do like the screaming "fire" idea though.  _


----------



## Pepper (Nov 8, 2004)

Minotaur said:
			
		

> .. but you cannot treat people differently, not in an official capacity anyway, not as an employer giving different benefits to different people based on your beliefs.


Yes you can! You can't treat them differently because of their race, sex, etc, but you can for other issues.

I would not hire someone in my business who had no social skills. That is discrimination. I would not hire someone without a college degree. That is discrimination. We interviewed a person who was a tax protestor and did not want us to withhold taxes...we discriminated him right out the door.

Your comment is completly incorrect.


----------



## Pepper (Nov 8, 2004)

Minotaur said:
			
		

> Main Entry: ho·mo·pho·bia
> Pronunciation: "hO-m&-'fO-bE-&
> Function: noun
> : *irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals*
> - ho·mo·pho·bic /-'fO-bik/ adjective


If this definiation is accurate, I know of some homosexuals who are homophobes.


----------



## Minotaur (Nov 8, 2004)

Pepper said:
			
		

> Yes you can! You can't treat them differently because of their race, sex, etc, but you can for other issues.
> 
> I would not hire someone in my business who had no social skills. That is discrimination. I would not hire someone without a college degree. That is discrimination. We interviewed a person who was a tax protestor and did not want us to withhold taxes...we discriminated him right out the door.
> 
> Your comment is completly incorrect.



Wrong again... those are minimum job skills and are not discrimination.  You are not eliminating the person based on some personal trait that has nothing to do with the job.  You are setting standards for performance of a job. 

It is not discrimination to refuse to hire a blind person as a seamstress or as a truck driver.  If the job required a person to have certain communication skills and the person did not, and could not perform the job, it's not discrimination to not hire or to fire the person.

If you can't perform the job, you can't perform the job.


----------



## Pepper (Nov 8, 2004)

Minotaur said:
			
		

> Wrong again... those are minimum job skills and are not discrimination. You are not eliminating the person based on some personal trait that has nothing to do with the job. You are setting standards for performance of a job.
> 
> It is not discrimination to refuse to hire a blind person as a seamstress or as a truck driver. If the job required a person to have certain communication skills and the person did not, and could not perform the job, it's not discrimination to not hire or to fire the person.
> 
> If you can't perform the job, you can't perform the job.


Show me in the law where it says I can't discriminate based on sexual preference? I choose not to, but I can. I cannot have a moral standard for my employees?


----------



## Minotaur (Nov 8, 2004)

Pepper said:
			
		

> If this definiation is accurate, I know of some homosexuals who are homophobes.



Yes, there are a lot of homosexuals who discriminate against other homosexuals.  The personals are full of them... Straight Acting Only or No Fems or Fats (personally I like chunky, husky guys) or Masculine Guys Only are common requirements for dating.

What is your point?


----------



## Pepper (Nov 8, 2004)

Minotaur said:
			
		

> Yes, there are a lot of homosexuals who discriminate against other homosexuals. The personals are full of them... Straight Acting Only or No Fems or Fats (personally I like chunky, husky guys) or Masculine Guys Only are common requirements for dating.
> 
> What is your point?


OK..since you agree with me, I guess there is no point here. Carry on.


----------



## Pepper (Nov 8, 2004)

Minotaur said:
			
		

> ... (personally I like chunky, husky guys)


In that case....*how you doing?*


----------



## Minotaur (Nov 8, 2004)

Pepper said:
			
		

> Show me in the law where it says I can't discriminate based on sexual preference? I choose not to, but I can. I cannot have a moral standard for my employees?



Oh Lord!   You are living in a vacuum, my friend.

Gays and lesbians are not specifically protected from discrimination by federal law, but rather by a patchwork of state and local initiatives. Currently, 11 states have laws banning discrimination based on sexual orientation and seven have executive orders barring discrimination in public employment based on sexual orientation. 

It is legal for any private employer to fire or not hire people because they are gay or believed to be gay, in 39 states.

California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont and Wisconsin prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation. 

Colorado, Maryland, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Washington bar discrimination in public employment based on sexual orientation.

As far as housing...

Federal law does not protect gays, lesbians or transgendered people from discrimination by landlords. Several states and many cities, however, have passed laws that do. California, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont and Wisconsin have laws prohibiting discrimination against gays or lesbians; Connecticut, Minnesota and Rhode Island also protect transgendered folks. 

In addition, many cities have passed laws that make discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation illegal, including Atlanta, Chicago, Detroit, Miami, New York, Pittsburgh, St. Louis and Seattle.


----------



## Minotaur (Nov 8, 2004)

Pepper said:
			
		

> In that case....*how you doing?*



Just fine, thank you.  Adding muscle day by day and some fat too, to tide me over for the cold winter months.  I see that chunky musclebear in a store mirror, jump back and say "woof! (a high compliment by a gay man) who's that!?"  Then I realize I got all excited over me!


----------



## Pepper (Nov 8, 2004)

Minotaur said:
			
		

> Oh Lord!


Interesting choice of words. 



			
				Minotaur said:
			
		

> It is legal for any private employer to fire or not hire people because they are gay or believed to be gay, in 39 states.


I assume you mean *illegal *and I don't think SC is one of those states. And if it is, I seem to recall we are too small for such laws to apply to us. Doesn't really matter, we would not base a hiring decision on that.


----------



## BoneCrusher (Nov 8, 2004)

I am surprised this thread is still active. I am only reading back some 15 posts out of the 290 so far but the over all image is not hard to see here. People are responding to gay issues from their moral perspective ... as well we all should. Those who have little religious involvement seem to feel it is a human rights issue while people with a stronger religious component in their lives appear to state that it this not an issue of rights at all. As I read through some of these posts a more alarming question is posing itself. Who will a democracy with a hidden theocratic component whose elected political officials base decisions in their religious beliefs first ... and their responsibilities to all American citizens second ... serve? When the prevailing religion is Christianity who will protect the rights of atheists or Buddhists?

This situation takes the direction of our nation on as a whole into question as we move from a nation of democracy free of religious constraints to a nation guided by a morality evolved from a religious perspective ??? one openly claimed by a moral majority. The topic of this conversation has now produced a much bigger issue than those involving the gay community. Being a "fag" or a "lesbo" is not something us hetro parents prefer for our children to become. Unfortunately the bigger question now looms in the close future of our country ... do we want a government that bases its moral code on one single religious perspective? Do we as a nation want to allow ourselves to legislate that theocracy ... regardless of how it is obscured or denied ... should be a part of our democracy?[/size]


----------



## Minotaur (Nov 8, 2004)

Pepper said:
			
		

> Interesting choice of words.



I'm not an atheist. 



			
				Pepper said:
			
		

> I assume you mean *illegal *and I don't think SC is one of those states. And if it is, I seem to recall we are too small for such laws to apply to us. Doesn't really matter, we would not base a hiring decision on that.



Yes, *illegal*.  Thank you.


----------



## Rocky_Road (Nov 8, 2004)

That's basically what this whole thread is... Good lord, what ever happened to "live and let live"? Isn't this America? Home of the *free?* So some people don't like homosexuality, mmm'kay, well, no one is forcing you to be gay or be around gay people, or even to accept gay people. And that can go vice versa as well. If you're gay and don't like homophoibe's, then don't go around them or talk to them. You'll never make them accept you or change their minds. Just like they'll never make you straight. Damn people. Everyone needs to just do their own thing and not worry about what anyone else is doing.


----------



## BoneCrusher (Nov 8, 2004)

Yeah but Rocky some people are not happy that way ...


----------



## MaxMirkin (Nov 8, 2004)

Down with homoprobes!


----------



## maniclion (Nov 8, 2004)

Fags and Dikes are Americas New Niggers.


----------



## BoneCrusher (Nov 8, 2004)

MaxMirkin said:
			
		

> I love to get down with homoprobes!


----------



## MaxMirkin (Nov 8, 2004)

BoneCrusher said:
			
		

>


That's cool, did you put the smilie thing together using that gif-animating software you were taling about the other day?

Oh, and...


----------



## BoneCrusher (Nov 8, 2004)

No I'm not that good yet Max ... but the site is at http://www.smilies-world.de/.  This site and you will = much mischief


----------



## Rocky_Road (Nov 8, 2004)

Oh yeah? Well, I even have gay smileys. Neener, neener, neener... 

 

 

 or sex ones..... 

 

 

 heeheehee


----------



## RexStunnahH (Nov 9, 2004)

kbm8795 said:
			
		

> I'm sorry - it is the type of sexual activity and the rate of participation that establishes risk - not sexual orientation. I hope you included that lesbians were at the lowest risk for exposure to HIV, thus making them, by this reasoning, the moral superiors to heterosexuals.


True...Sorry for not including lesbians in my posts.By "type of sexual activity" being more responsible for aids..you mean like ANAL sex?Unprotected right?I think homosexuals engage in more unprotected anal sex then hetero sexuals.I used to work in a pharmacy in San Francisco,and the majority of the people coming to get their meds for HIV/AIDS treatment were Homosexuals.True San francisco is not the whole entire world,but from what I saw.I can say that there seems to be a more higher rate of Homosexuals with HIV/AIDS.


----------



## Rich46yo (Nov 9, 2004)

maniclion said:
			
		

> Fags and Dikes are Americas New Niggers.




                           No I disagree. I think the gay community has made great strides in the last 20 years. Just because a straight guy doesnt want to see Billy & Bobby walking hand in hand down the aisle together, with rose petals being strewn before their feet, doesnt mean we want to cruise the downtown streets looking for fruits to beat up.

                          Most of us dont even think homosexuality is a perversion or a sin. You can no more pick the sexuality your born with then you can the color of your hair. BUT NO MARRIAGE!!!!!!..............  .............Rich


----------



## kbm8795 (Nov 9, 2004)

OceanDude said:
			
		

> The fact of the matter is a less than 3% "problem" (the number of homosexuals in the country who elect to marry) is causing an overwhelmingly disproportionate burden on society.
> 
> *Speculation. Even if that percentage was true, no constitution states that 97% of Americans receive protection. Understanding the meaning of "ALL" would have created no burden on society. *
> 
> ...



embedded


----------



## OceanDude (Nov 9, 2004)

Minotaur said:
			
		

> Your comments are becoming more and more uncalled for.  However, they do say a lot about you.  Bye   Ignoresville (or is that Ignorantsville?) for you.



Bummer, I thought he had a sense of humor...
OD


----------



## OceanDude (Nov 9, 2004)

maniclion said:
			
		

> Fags and Dikes are Americas New Niggers.


How true. Now expect the government to toss out a huge amount of money and special class privileges. That's gonna upset the NAACP and Jessie Jackson when they get budget cut and they carve out a huge chunk of change for the homosexuals.

OD


----------



## Rocky_Road (Nov 9, 2004)

OceanDude said:
			
		

> How true. Now expect the government to toss out a huge amount of money and special class privileges. That's gonna upset the NAACP and Jessie Jackson when they get budget cut and they carve out a huge chunk of change for the homosexuals.
> 
> OD


 

 



http://www.smileycentral.com/?partner=ZSzeb001_ZNxdm817XXUS


----------



## Rocky_Road (Nov 9, 2004)

maniclion said:
			
		

> Fags and Dikes are Americas New Niggers.


----------



## maniclion (Nov 9, 2004)

RexStunnahH said:
			
		

> True...Sorry for not including lesbians in my posts.By "type of sexual activity" being more responsible for aids..you mean like ANAL sex?Unprotected right?I think homosexuals engage in more unprotected anal sex then hetero sexuals.I used to work in a pharmacy in San Francisco,and the majority of the people coming to get their meds for HIV/AIDS treatment were Homosexuals.True San francisco is not the whole entire world,but from what I saw.I can say that there seems to be a more higher rate of Homosexuals with HIV/AIDS.









 President George W. Bush kisses HIV- positive Princess Zulu, from Zambia, during an HIV/AIDS event in the East Room of the White House, April 29, 2003. Bush was highlighting his $15 billion global AIDS initiative. One in five people in Zambia are HIV positive.







 We aren't gay and it's obvious that we aren't the products of homosexual interaction.


----------



## OceanDude (Nov 9, 2004)

kbm8795 said:
			
		

> _ KBM: Speculation. Even if that percentage was true, no constitution states that 97% of Americans receive protection. Understanding the meaning of "ALL" would have created no burden on society. _
> *OD: Precedence has been set that there are pragmatic limitations on what represents achievable justice for ALL. Two sigmas standard (98%) is about all that can be expected of uniformity with any human undertaking. The gap being about what are the homosexual population. Ask yourself ???how much justice can society afford??? (forgetting for the moment what you or I would call justice and examine the process only)? Humanity has precedence for making errors ??? certainly in judgment. Given this precedent and propensity to error, why not chose to manage the error and place it where it hurts the least? Should society as a whole suffer the division caused by 2-3% simply to put forth a facade of fairness if doing so can destroy or seriously disrupt all of society? I am not personally certain that is the case here but clearly a lot of people thing it so.*
> 
> _KBM: Speculation. There is no evidence to suggest that sexual orientation is a lifestyle choice in the same manner as, say, religious belief. Even if that was a possibility, religious protections have already established precedence for protections based on lifestyle choices. It's more surprising that these are the very people who resisted protections for any other group, including those with immutable characteristics. _
> ...


_
Embedded in situ.
OD_


----------



## OceanDude (Nov 9, 2004)

Rocky_Road said:
			
		

> http://www.smileycentral.com/?partner=ZSzeb001_ZNxdm817XXUS







OD


----------



## Rocky_Road (Nov 9, 2004)

OceanDude said:
			
		

> OD


Actually OD, I quite enjoy laughing. Mostly at your pathetic attempts to sound intelligent. 

I do have a touch of  Gerontophobia. Maybe that's why we just don't "click."


----------



## kbm8795 (Nov 9, 2004)

_You missed the initial point. Your estimated figure is based on nothing but speculation. Other estimates range from about 4% to 10%. At any rate, simply attempting to apply conjectured human errors of judgement as an excuse to arbitrarily exclude otherwise responsible citizens belies the meaning and application of justice. I'm sure we could easily find that two-three percent figure among repeated sex offenders, adulterers, convicted rapists and. . .even raise it up to near 60% if we throw in those who have broken their vows and shown they don't have the character to honor marriage. Strengthening the institution means strengthening the meaning of the commitment, not pretending that relationship orientation alone indicates that inability. _

Ah...on the subject of public opinion, several indicators are in place beyond the use of polling on the topic. Even though exit polls in several states during the election indicated widespread support for legal protections, in those locations where same-sex marriage exists and/or civil union protections, there was apparently no election backlash. In Massachusetts, where rightwing opponents vowed to seek revenge by wielding anti-marriage candidates, they failed. In fact, the Republican party lost two seats in the legislature and the number of both gay representatives and pro-gay marriage representatives increased in the State House. In Vermont, which briefly returned the Republicans to the State House following the enactment of civil union legislation, Democrats regained control. And in Oregon, where the constitutional amendment passed by a fairly close margin (compared to many other states), it was noted that this was the only state with an amendment proposal that had actually married same-sex couples. 

_Since we've seen no evidence that indicates that adherence to a particular religion is an innate characteristic, it is obviously a matter of choice. No one is born Methodist. And no one cares if one is raised in the Methodist church and changes their religious beliefs as they mature. Our own establishment clause of the constitution points that out, and it is even more clearly indicated in state constitutional provisions. While some denominations would like to claim more exclusivity for themselves by hoping they've been called by God, it wouldn't really matter if you thought the Devil had called homosexuals. They aren't bound by their citizenship to embrace that religious belief or abrogate their civil rights or own religious beliefs to placate others. 

It's rather common for humans to promote fear and hostility when they have little or no knowledge. One of the biggest worries of pseudo-religious groups against gay rights is that more people might actually know them. The myths could be destroyed, and that's big money for the religious industry. 

On the other hand, we don't know that sexual orientation is any kind of matter of choice - although most research indicates the possibility of several different factors. A conscious choice is not among them. 

You are a little late being concerned about the wording of these laws - in this case, haste most certainly could end up laying waste. _

 OD: KBM, Are you hateful or phobic of conservatives? Do they choose to be conservative or are they born that way? Was there a conscious decision to wake up one day and say ???I am a conservative???. You are just picking and choosing what class you want to advocate or hate just like the homosexuals are choosing to be as they are. You are no different than anyone else. Please don???t project that self flagellating liberal self loathing on the rest of us. 

*I see you are appointing yourself spokesmodel for the universe. And the use of the term "liberal" as a catch-all for anyone who doesn't embrace some universal Party line, has been passe for about a decade now*

I am responsible for my own transgressions and do not need a homosexual scapegoat to sneak up to from behind to plug my sins into. Baaah baahh. 


*Ah...I see you latched right onto the idea of personal responsibility. . .without wanting state interference.  Blame is much easier for conservatives to legislate on others than to reference their own behavior.*

 OD: Celibacy is an excellent and honorable way for someone confused about their sexuality to deal with their condition and would garner enormous respect from heterosexuals and lots of friends and sympathy. 

*I don't believe gays are confused.* 

If this was presented as an endorsed objective by the homosexual community every person in the country would stand up and salute and lobby to give them everything they wanted with respect to legal property and inheritance since all could be assured their??? partners??? would also be celibate too.   I support the notion of free assignation of property rights etc. to a neutered or nonspecific form called ???committed friend???.

*After 50 years of coverup and $500 million dollars and counting, I think the Catholic Church is exploring the feasibility of continuing their celibacy stance. Since marriage is about much more than sexual activity, and in fact much of that activity was never illegal, it serves little purpose as a matter of social policy based on no inherent harm. It would be much more logical to suggest that those who abrogate their vows or commit crimes of sexual violence be restricted in future activity. 
*

OD: Well then I suspect that the prospect of recourse becomes less an issue for people if the laws are not enforced. It again comes down to economics and paying attorneys and then prevailing. That may be pragmatically the best approach that ???the majority??? can take in all of this ??? just force the homosexuals into bankruptcy by turning their backs on those institutions that financially are supportive to them. 

*This has been attempted most recently by "family" groups with a boycott of Proctor and Gamble. So far, it has been ineffective. However, by nature of their social standing, gays can rather easily infiltrate even the most staunchly religious conservative organization. *

OD: I am very convinced now that you are a defrocked homosexual priest ??? perhaps caught in the act with a young and naïve schoolboy. Good guess?

*It's probably not a very good idea for you to speculate on someone else's religious standing - and even a worse idea to insinuate or "guess" an obviously imagined criminal act of pedophilia, especially publishing on a publicly accessed and viewed web site. But your remarks send a lot of messages about where your faithful mind wanders. *

 You seem to have great familiarity with the homosexual struggle and all the trite intellectual arguments against anything that is based on religion.

*You perhaps mistaken your personal faith as universally representative of religion.*

 But since you brought up Anita let???s have some fun with a little vignette centered around that same theme. So no matter what you are personally (homo or hetero) ask yourself if you would feel comfortable drinking a glass of free hand squeezed OJ from a OJ stand that proudly flies the homosexual rainbow flag and all the men in the booth are clearly homosexuals?

*Well, obviously any argument that could contradict Anita Bryant, who is a world-renowned authority on everything sexual, must certainly be trite indeed. The rest of your remark is simply irrelevant. I would likely run just as much a risk with the orange juice from the hand of any random heterosexual man.*

OD: That is not how the 11 key sates on this issue recently voted so I counter with a double dose of ???wishful thinking??? to you too.  

*"Key" states? Hmm...Mississippi...Montana...Louisiana...Arkansas. . Kentucky. . .yep, those are real bastions of gay culture, well known for their religious and racial tolerance.  Same goes with Ohio, Michigan and Oregon. Though it can be noted that in the latter states, the vote was significantly closer and their gay residents more visible than in southern states. *

OD: The homosexuals are entitled to their closets and the evangelicals are entitled to their tents. One mans closet and one mans tent is his castle it just seems that each has a different idea about who should be king. If you happen to find yourself by accident in either kingdom??? to withhold support turn your back to the wall in the first case or pass the hat in the case of the other. It might offend some but that is the risk of being misplaced or outside your community. Christians of all kinds are accustomed to persecution and will be the first to show compassion to any class of people who are abused. 

*Sure. . .that's just what Rev. Phelps says. 
*
But as your complaint suggests they are committed to changing the things in their environment that they find unacceptable just as the homosexuals are. If history is any indication I am betting that the homosexuals will convert (one way or the other) in large numbers or go down in flames. The law is meaningless if it is not respected or if we devolve our society to condone or encourage things that are on a direct path to behavioral anarchy. People will opt-out of this society and form a new one or develop enclaves where they can live in relative peace (like the homosexuals did). That???s not my idea of a thriving and beautiful society in which to live. When the law looses the respect of the majority the law will be as useless as rhetorical words (what will the lawyers do?) and we will have a recipe for anarchy and major civil unrest. The current majority could bring this country to its knees, if not for the purpose of prayer, then for the purpose of forcing the gov and the Supreme Court to cry uncle (if it decides to extort the government for social change more conducive to traditional values). This was the same tactic the homosexuals threatened to do when they were infecting the country with AIDS and not receiving what they thought was enough government money to save them. Some mortally infected deliberately infected the ???hetero??? population to make it a common problem for all and not just a homosexual problem to extort government funding. It worked. People tend to forget this little fact but the evidence is real and the threats were spoken by a number of homosexuals who were dieing and had no other options. 

*An interesting conspiracy theory. Now if they had only gone from church to church, where there are plenty of stories of married men straying and celibate priests cavorting,  they would have managed to direct their anger more effectively. I doubt that incidents of misdirected anger are limited to people of that sexual orientation. Obviously, heterosexuals have had no problem passing it along as well.* 

The point is we were extremely close to anarchy when AIDS hit this country and I am extremely surprised that a scared society did not actively seek out and kill homosexuals on sight.

*They did. And a few "religious" groups, led by Rev. Fred Phelps, still love to tour the country holding signs outside AIDS victims funerals. . .just to remind the grieving families that their beloved is "entering hell." They are still trying to erect a statue of Matthew Shepard on public parkland depicting him entering hell.* 

 And still you maintain that we should not only accommodate them but we should protect them? The only thing I like about that notion is that the government is so incompetent that it would tie them down in red tape and bureaucracy and mismanagement to the point where they would be safely filing out forms and not in action with their partners. Ask the American Indians and the Negroes how they faired with protected class status.

*Sure. . .christians are constantly being denied housing, employment, marriage, bank loans, voting rights or the freedom to assemble. They are constantly targeted in this country for verbal and physical abuse and they fear for their safety every time they wear a crucifix around their neck in public. There are police raids of churches nearly every Sunday. The rest of that diatribe was good fiction.*

OD: Clearly our founding fathers thought it wise to protect and extend special freedoms to the religious institutions.

*How amazing that special rights be afforded to an obvious system of lifestyle choice so that they wouldn't replicate the violent feeding frenzy on each other that characterized much of European history. *

Why should we now try and extend special status to any group that presents a direct assault on the values of those same protected institutions. 

*Civil marriage is not "your" institution. It is an institution of all the people, devoid of overt religious references and not designed to establish, endorse or legislate the values of anyone's particular religious beliefs. No one suggested your institutional religious denomination marry anyone, so the values of your church and its members are certainly protected. At various times in our history, every protected class was challenged as a violation of the "values" of the original class. Many religious organizations were against women owning property or having suffrage rights, until they discovered it would be a good way for a church to gain more leverage in the ballot box.*

Clearly we are in a social war and as soon as people understand that the current rhetoric resolves to clever ways for each side to say ???I hate you ??? but in a legally acceptable sort of way??? the sooner we can just slug it out and get it over with. You and the homosexuals are just using another form of queer bashing to make a point but now it???s self directed for the purpose of getting attention and to claim abuse. There is no equal protection under the law for those that elect to kill themselves.

*Simply because a group of religious zealots declares a "culture war" doesn't make it so.  But war, fear and conflict are quite useful terms to stimulate hate and anger without material cause and they are good moneymakers. This country is, according to our President, AT war. It's not a good idea to create one within the nation as we engage an "enemy" outside. 

There's nothing to slug out, legally or otherwise. One side has real, practical material damages, and the other claims their "moral" beliefs demand they inflict these damages on them.
You don't have to be an "activist" judge to figure that out. *

*Why would a small -town evangelical church conduct a "homosexual' funeral?*


----------



## redspy (Nov 9, 2004)

Nice post KBM.


----------



## maniclion (Nov 9, 2004)

OD,

You can't turn gay by getting cooties from Homo-OJ.


----------



## King Silverback (Nov 9, 2004)

Rocky_Road said:
			
		

> That's basically what this whole thread is... Good lord, what ever happened to "live and let live"? Isn't this America? Home of the *free?* So some people don't like homosexuality, mmm'kay, well, no one is forcing you to be gay or be around gay people, or even to accept gay people. And that can go vice versa as well. If you're gay and don't like homophoibe's, then don't go around them or talk to them. You'll never make them accept you or change their minds. Just like they'll never make you straight. Damn people. Everyone needs to just do their own thing and not worry about what anyone else is doing.


Ditto, Those of us who go by the Bible believe one way, while others believe it to be a choice. I am a very religious person, avid reader of the bible so I do not agree with homosexuality of any kind, I however do not judge those who are. The Bible even says not to judge, that is the LORDS job. We are all children of GOD, as I have stated previously in post. Why can't we just see each other as fellow human beings, I'm not perfect, nor is anyone else on this forum. Live how you like/want, I'll do the same, that doesn't make anyone right or wrong. If you believe in the Bible, no-one but yourself will go before GOD on the day of reckoning to recieve judgement. So we should not judge anyone, less we be judged ourselves!!! Sorry for the rant and ramble


----------



## OceanDude (Nov 9, 2004)

Rocky_Road said:
			
		

> Actually OD, I quite enjoy laughing. Mostly at your pathetic attempts to sound intelligent.
> 
> I do have a touch of  Gerontophobia. Maybe that's why we just don't "click."







OD


----------



## OceanDude (Nov 9, 2004)

maniclion said:
			
		

> OD,
> 
> You can't turn gay by getting cooties from Homo-OJ.


Maybe not, but there is some powerfully bad juice rumored to be circulating out there that can kill a man dead with one swallow...    
OD


----------



## RexStunnahH (Nov 9, 2004)

maniclion said:
			
		

> President George W. Bush kisses HIV- positive Princess Zulu, from Zambia, during an HIV/AIDS event in the East Room of the White House, April 29, 2003. Bush was highlighting his $15 billion global AIDS initiative. One in five people in Zambia are HIV positive.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 I know children are being born with AIDS,and staright people can get it.What I said earlier was that gays have a higher risk,I never said all or only gays and anal sex can get AIDS/HIV.Sad though,seeing that pic..


----------



## maniclion (Nov 12, 2004)




----------



## Minotaur (Nov 12, 2004)

maniclion said:
			
		

>



Too f**king true.


----------



## Rocky_Road (Nov 12, 2004)

OceanDude said:
			
		

> OD


Hmmmm... I'm lost.  Maybe that's my "flakiness" showing.....


----------



## adrien_j9 (Nov 12, 2004)

OceanDude said:
			
		

> OD



    

Too far.  Resorting to name calling, didn't think you'd stoop to that level!


----------



## OceanDude (Nov 12, 2004)

adrien_j9 said:
			
		

> Too far.  Resorting to name calling, didn't think you'd stoop to that level!


funny you did not mention that when she called me a moron completely unprovoked...
 
OD


----------



## adrien_j9 (Nov 12, 2004)

Didn't see it.


----------



## Rocky_Road (Nov 12, 2004)

Hmmm... I don't remember actually using the word "moron", but now that you mention it.........

Surely you don't take this seriously OD? All in good fun.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Nov 12, 2004)

Are gays really that oppressed?  They don't seem to be here, but I guess that is why they call it the city of Brotherly Love.


----------



## Rocky_Road (Nov 12, 2004)

Rocky_Road said:
			
		

>


 

Whoopsie!!! My bad!!!


----------



## Rocky_Road (Nov 12, 2004)

OceanDude said:
			
		

> OD


BTW, I'm happily married, thanks much.


----------



## OceanDude (Nov 12, 2004)

Rocky_Road said:
			
		

> BTW, I'm happily married, thanks much.


I only was slightly annoyed at Adrian for butting in - you already know I never take you seriusly except for when we get in private on chat and cam and let it all hang out. So dear, just PM me when you want to resume again. 
OD


----------



## adrien_j9 (Nov 12, 2004)

Who are you talking to?  I'm confused!!!!


----------



## adrien_j9 (Nov 12, 2004)

Jim's ignoring me!!!


----------



## OceanDude (Nov 12, 2004)

adrien_j9 said:
			
		

> Jim's ignoring me!!!


Will you just relax and go have a good trip and not worry about things?
OK?
OD


----------



## adrien_j9 (Nov 12, 2004)

I'm totally relaxed, thanks!!  Soon to be leaving for Heaven.  See you all on Sunday!


----------



## Rocky_Road (Nov 12, 2004)

OceanDude said:
			
		

> I only was slightly annoyed at Adrian for butting in - you already know I never take you seriusly except for when we get in private on chat and cam and let it all hang out. So dear, just PM me when you want to resume again.
> OD


Yeah, about that, we'll have to wait until the spouse's are away..... 

 



Here I thought you were just trying to avoid me. I'm so glad you're not....


----------



## John H. (Nov 22, 2004)

dg806 said:
			
		

> Since no one mentioned it today...............
> 
> In Tuesday's balloting, Ohio, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Michigan, North Dakota, Arkansas, Montana, Utah and Oklahoma solidly backed state constitutional amendments to define marriage as a union between man and a woman.
> 
> Most of those were 80-90% against!



Hi Dg,

EVERYONE has BASIC RIGHTS - or SHOULD NEVER have them denied  - no matter their Sexual Orientation. And NO ONE should ever prevent anyone from having those rights. EVER! To do otherwise makes ALL subject to having THEIR RIGHTS taken away by someone else. 

"Marriage" is a CREATED "institution" by MAN. If someone wants to "get married" they should be able to - as long as each is of age and ability of consent and gives that consent freely.

"ORGANIZED RELIGION" is behind the "fear" of this topic - they are ramming down the throats of others the "belief" that "somehow" if you are not Heterosexual you can not marry somone you truly care about because "somehow" that will "destroy the institution of marriage" - I say BULL - "marriage" IS between THOSE INDIVIDUALS INVOLVED and they are the ONLY PEOPLE WHO CAN "DESTROY THAT" -  THOSE INVOLVED and NO ONE ELSE. 

I am FOR ANYONE that joins together in a Union BECAUSE THEY CARE ABOUT EACH OTHER HONESTLY - I do not care what you "call" it, what "term" you apply. And that joining together is a very private matter between those individuals NOT the business of the government, religion or anyone else for that matter.

"Religion" has NO PLACE AND NO BUSINESS  interfering with the government and its operation. This subject is a personal thing between those individuals involved AND NO ONE ELSE. 

There are thousands of "religions" each with their own "beliefs" and "feelings" - how would a government ever be successful if each of those "religions" interfered with the operation of the government - that IS why Our Founding Fathers WANTED freedom of religion - for EACH person to "believe" as they wish - or not - WITHOUT ANY INTERFERENCE from the government or any religion. They KNEW the abuses of "religion" and "religious beliefs" and in order for the government to be successful EVERYONE should be allowed to "believe" as they wish or not WITHOUT ANY INTERFERENCE and "religion" HAS NO PLACE interfering with government. THEY MUST BE TOTALLY SEPARATE - the result would be what we HAVE in Iraq - in fact the entire Middle East - TOTAL CHAOS, killing, murder, unrest, misery, unhappiness, etc.

People SHOULD BE ALLOWED to join in a "union" - as long as each is of age and ability of consent and give that consent freely WITHOUT ANY INTERFERENCE FROM ANYONE, RELIGION, OR GOVERNMENT. PERIOD! IT IS A PRIVATE MATTER!

Take Care, John H.


----------



## John H. (Nov 22, 2004)

OceanDude said:
			
		

> As I mentioned in another thread this election proves the single thing that is completely absent in the Democratic political platform. That is what really matters at the end of the day to most Americans is VALUES MATTER to people. The old cliche' of the Democratic party - appeal to class hatred and demagoguery, promise to be all things to all people (and then forget about it if elected) and push for every fringe issue that they think will buy another vote is doomed. Blacks, Hispanics, and others area  voting Republican over and over again simply because they are tired of being used as a race card and because values really really mean something to them. Until the Democrats figure out this simple little fact they will go continue to disintegrate and go down in flames at every election.
> 
> OD




Hi OD,

The religious right and the republicans ARE NOW JOINED COMPLETELY at the hips and the lips. (Probably because they can make it big financially which is what "religion" and "republicans" are all about - screw anyone who "believes otherwise")  And they now control this country just as the communists wanted to do. 

NO RELIGION should ever have that much "power" over others because the end result will be TOTAL CHAOS and WAR. Something religon IS TOTALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THROUGHOUT HISTORY AND EVEN TODAY. 

Take Care, John H.


----------

