Semi-Political... Semi-not...

[Vance]

You know I know in advance there are a lot of right AND left wingers on this board and in this group who will likely have strong... VERY strong commentary about this post. There are also a lot of people who can be / are very religious just as much as there are that remove religion from these topics.

For all I know there are likely even a number of homophobes out there lurking. For all I know there are a number of gays amongst our numbers that have kept it to themselves.

Equally... I also know this as NOTHING to do with Colorado - at least - not right now...

But I saw this yesterday on Keith Olbermann. I am particularly fond of his Special Comments when he gives them - they have a speech writing eloquence that you don't see very often anymore on television - whether its from the lefties or the righties... they're just very well done and often even better delivered by Mr. Olbermann.

HOWEVER... to the point...
This one last night was VERY VERY well done.

I wanted to share it with you. Maybe to spark comments and debate. Maybe to see where you all stand on the topic...

Maybe... just to get you to pause and think.


Finally tonight as promised, a Special Comment on the passage, last week, of Proposition Eight in California, which rescinded the right of same-sex couples to marry, and tilted the balance on this issue, from coast to coast.

Some parameters, as preface. This isn't about yelling, and this isn't about politics, and this isn't really just about Prop-8. And I don't have a personal investment in this: I'm not gay, I had to strain to think of one member of even my very extended family who is, I have no personal stories of close friends or colleagues fighting the prejudice that still pervades their lives.


And yet to me this vote is horrible. Horrible. Because this isn't about yelling, and this isn't about politics.


This is about the... human heart, and if that sounds corny, so be it.
If you voted for this Proposition or support those who did or the sentiment they expressed, I have some questions, because, truly, I do not... understand. Why does this matter to you? What is it to you? In a time of impermanence and fly-by-night relationships, these people over here want the same chance at permanence and happiness that is your option. They don't want to deny you yours. They don't want to take anything away from you. They want what you want -- a chance to be a little less alone in the world.


Only now you are saying to them -- no. You can't have it on these terms. Maybe something similar. If they behave. If they don't cause too much trouble. You'll even give them all the same legal rights -- even as you're taking away the legal right, which they already had. A world around them, still anchored in love and marriage, and you are saying, no, you can't marry. What if somebody passed a law that said you couldn't marry?


I keep hearing this term "re-defining" marriage.


If this country hadn't re-defined marriage, black people still couldn't marry white people. Sixteen states had laws on the books which made that illegal... in 1967. 1967.


The parents of the President-Elect of the United States couldn't have married in nearly one third of the states of the country their son grew up to lead. But it's worse than that. If this country had not "re-defined" marriage, some black people still couldn't marry...black people. It is one of the most overlooked and cruelest parts of our sad story of slavery. Marriages were not legally recognized, if the people were slaves. Since slaves were property, they could not legally be husband and wife, or mother and child. Their marriage vows were different: not "Until Death, Do You Part," but "Until Death or Distance, Do You Part." Marriages among slaves were not legally recognized.


You know, just like marriages today in California are not legally recognized, if the people are... gay.


And uncountable in our history are the number of men and women, forced by society into marrying the opposite sex, in sham marriages, or marriages of convenience, or just marriages of not knowing -- centuries of men and women who have lived their lives in shame and unhappiness, and who have, through a lie to themselves or others, broken countless other lives, of spouses and children... All because we said a man couldn't marry another man, or a woman couldn't marry another woman. The sanctity of marriage. How many marriages like that have there been and how on earth do they increase the "sanctity" of marriage rather than render the term, meaningless?


What is this, to you? Nobody is asking you to embrace their expression of love. But don't you, as human beings, have to embrace... that love?



The world is barren enough.


It is stacked against love, and against hope, and against those very few and precious emotions that enable us to go forward. Your marriage only stands a 50-50 chance of lasting, no matter how much you feel and how hard you work.


And here are people overjoyed at the prospect of just that chance, and that work, just for the hope of having that feeling. With so much hate in the world, with so much meaningless division, and people pitted against people for no good reason, this is what your religion tells you to do? With your experience of life and this world and all its sadnesses, this is what your conscience tells you to do?


With your knowledge that life, with endless vigor, seems to tilt the playing field on which we all live, in favor of unhappiness and hate... this is what your heart tells you to do? You want to sanctify marriage? You want to honor your God and the universal love you believe he represents? Then Spread happiness -- this tiny, symbolic, semantical grain of happiness -- share it with all those who seek it. Quote me anything from your religious leader or book of choice telling you to stand against this. And then tell me how you can believe both that statement and another statement, another one which reads only "do unto others as you would have them do unto you."


You are asked now, by your country, and perhaps by your creator, to stand on one side or another. You are asked now to stand, not on a question of politics, not on a question of religion, not on a question of gay or straight. You are asked now to stand, on a question of...love. All you need do is stand, and let the tiny ember of love meet its own fate. You don't have to help it, you don't have it applaud it, you don't have to fight for it. Just don't put it out. Just don't extinguish it. Because while it may at first look like that love is between two people you don't know and you don't understand and maybe you don't even want to know...It is, in fact, the ember of your love, for your fellow **person...
Just because this is the only world we have. And the other guy counts, too.


This is the second time in ten days I find myself concluding by turning to, of all things, the closing plea for mercy by Clarence Darrow in a murder trial.


But what he said, fits what is really at the heart of this:
"I was reading last night of the aspiration of the old Persian poet, Omar-Khayyam," he told the judge.
"It appealed to me as the highest that I can vision. I wish it was in my heart, and I wish it was in the hearts of all:
"So I be written in the Book of Love;
"I do not care about that Book above.
"Erase my name, or write it as you will,
"So I be written in the Book of Love."


Good night, and good luck.I would encourage you to watch the video playback of the above...

The level of emotion - as subtle as it was - in this one was also quite powerful IMO.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27650743/


And instead of "Good Night and Good Luck" (something I do not believe Olbermann should tread on) I will leave you with a possible theft from our own board pundit - Scer - with:

Comment on Commentators...

[Sortarican]

Oh great, another short blurb from Vance.

[LambeauXLIV]

good read

[~Barn~]

Great piece. Thanks for posting, Vance.

[Sortarican]

I wanted to share it with you. Maybe to spark comments and debate. Maybe to see where you all stand on the topic...
Comment on Commentators...

To steal the comedians line:
"I'm all for gay marriage. They have every right to be as miserable as the rest of us."

Also,
Vance is gay.:slappers:
(And he's so darn cute.)

[Shea]

As much as I think Olbermann is a complete political hack-douche, I agree with him on this. It's indicative of how concerned we are in this country about what the other person is doing.

It doesn't affect you PERIOD.

[Nick_Ninja]

Olbermann nailed it again. Bill O's ratings just went down another notch.

[Snowman]

Its' better when you can listen to the tone of his voice...

Keith Olbermann 11/10/08 Proposition 8 Special Comment (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChanTFSmqao)

[Captain Obvious]

Interesting read. You want comments? Okay.

Firstly.... Keith Olbermann.... BBBOOOOO..
I dislike most of his politics. To me, journalists should report on stories in an un-biased, politically neutral stance. He does neither, and allows his personal beliefs to drive his stories. So effectively, I also do not like his work since he is unable to separate his personal politics and his work. This is not uncommon, and in fact I think most of the journalists are politically driven. At some point, the fringe has become to norm. I don't like it, but it isn’t going away.

Secondly, this discussion can't be had without a certain percentage of people interjecting religion. Initially, religion was how marriage started, god acknowledged two peoples desire to be bonded for eternity or some crap like that. Then the govt. took over and used marriage as a source of revenue. If you are married under god, then you do not have the govt's approval or acknowledgement of your marriage. If you go ask the govt. for marriage, they don't require religion to be directly involved, but apparently do acknowledge where the concept started. So people must have the churches moral levels met (based on gender of the parties) before they re able to be married.

With annulments, sky-rocketing divorce rates, serial marriages, marriage for fiscal or convenience reasons, I tend to think the "sanctity of marriage" is a thing of the past. I simply don’t care what other people do and two dudes getting married has absolutely no impact on my life. They are going to be in each other’s corn hole anyways.

Being straight, gay marriage is not something that impacts me, and of all the issues we are currently facing, I consider it a non-issue when it comes to politics. I wouldn’t change my voting based on this topic, but I do understand the anger and frustration. And if we could separate the issues, I would support gay marriage.

All jokes and funny comments (except one) have been held back. Begrudgingly.

[Captain Obvious]

Olbermann nailed it again. Bill O's ratings just went down another notch.

Take off the rose colores glasses, Olbermann has nothing on Bill.

[Sortarican]

... To me, journalists should report on stories in an un-biased, politically neutral stance. ....


.... Olbermann has nothing on Bill.

Hypocrisy much there Cap?

[Captain Obvious]

Hypocrisy much there Cap?

Not at all. <grin>

[Captain Obvious]

Don't get me wrong, Bill is def slanted, but the difference of a factor of 3 vs 8, makes Bill more stomachable? to me.

Until he starts to "pontificate", then I change it back to CNN (another horribly political channel). Fact is, we can decide which American news channel and broadcasters we want to watch, but it is tough to find any that aren't political. You want to watch the BBC, but they talk funny.

Example: Hannity and Colmes. Hannity gets old, but Colmes just grates on my last nevre. And even in the rare times Colmes has a point I agree with, I would disagree with him just because he makes my skin crawl the other 99% of the time. :)
It shows which way I generally lean, but at least I am being honest, many can't say that.

[DFab]

I find KO's comments over the top a lot of the time, but this one was very good. To me it's a civil rights issue. I don't care how it's done, but homosexuals deserve partnership rights.


I dislike most of his politics. To me, journalists should report on stories in an un-biased, politically neutral stance. He does neither, and allows his personal beliefs to drive his stories. So effectively, I also do not like his work since he is unable to separate his personal politics and his work. This is not uncommon, and in fact I think most of the journalists are politically driven. At some point, the fringe has become to norm. I don't like it, but it isn’t going away.
KO's not a journalist, he's a commentator. Similar to Bill the clown and Hannity on Faux News.


With annulments, sky-rocketing divorce rates, serial marriages, marriage for fiscal or convenience reasons, I tend to think the "sanctity of marriage" is a thing of the past. I simply don’t care what other people do and two dudes getting married has absolutely no impact on my life.
+1


Take off the rose colores glasses, Olbermann has nothing on Bill.
He's got the key demographic over the last month or so, plus Sunday Night Football. But we'll what happens now the election is over.

[Filo]

Initially, religion was how marriage started, god acknowledged two peoples desire to be bonded for eternity or some crap like that.


Actually, marriage started as a transfer of property (the wife) and rights to property. The whole concept of the dowry is to make the property worth more. Religion came later, but first and foremost it was about property, wealth, consolidating power, political alliances and taking care of your stuff (your daughter, if you are trying to marry her off).

[gummibear]

Actually, marriage started as a transfer of property (the wife) and rights to property. The whole concept of the dowry is to make the property worth more. Religion came later, but first and foremost it was about property, wealth, consolidating power, political alliances and taking care of your stuff (your daughter, if you are trying to marry her off).

Unfortunately Filo I have to disagree,
1. If you are going biblical then reference biblical text
2. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.
Without debating any potential redundancy, contradictions or anything else, take this as the first "marriage" in the bible.
Therefore the first marriage and therefore the "ideal" bible-based marriage would be for strictly relational and spiritual reasons.

It wasn't until man got involved and we get man-made traditions that we get the property angle.

[Snowman]

Clearly, the term Marriage is a changing concept. Its definition has changed over time and will continue to change into the future.

So my take is why should the government have anything whatsoever to do with it?

Obviously, it means different things to different people and cannot be clearly defined. So how do you pass law on a non-defined term?

I do think the government has a place when it comes to rights. They should provide the same for any consenting adults in the way of legal partnerships. And if people really want to get married (whatever that means to them) then they should leave that to their prospective religions or beliefs to handle.

[Filo]

Unfortunately Filo I have to disagree,
1. If you are going biblical then reference biblical text
2. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.
Without debating any potential redundancy, contradictions or anything else, take this as the first "marriage" in the bible.
Therefore the first marriage and therefore the "ideal" bible-based marriage would be for strictly relational and spiritual reasons.

It wasn't until man got involved and we get man-made traditions that we get the property angle.

Sorry you have to disagree. People were around long before the Bible. Marriage was around long before the Bible. The fact that you can quote the word marriage in a book means nothing, other than you are using that book as your reference. The Bible does, in fact, present an idealized form of marriage. By that definition it is a spiritual connection. Buddists, Jews, Navajos, Muslims, Hindus, atheists, Mithraists, Zoroastrians, etc all get married. Many have been getting married since long before the Bible was written. So, yes, "Therefore the first marriage and therefore the "ideal" bible-based marriage would be for strictly relational and spiritual reasons" is true. But it is certainly not the only point of view and definitely not the only marriage.

My take on the issue is this: currently marriage has two meanings; one legal, one religious. I see no reason to restrict the legal definition of who gets default property rights and rights of survivorship based on the gender of the people involved. If I want to have everything I own pass to my adoptive father I should be allowed to designate him as the recipient. If a religion wants to say that to them marriage is between a man and a woman, they should be allowed to. I just don't think they should force it on the legal definition.

[dapper]

Good thread!


Even the bible's take just doesn't feel emotionally whole, imo.

My theory:
Adam and Eve enjoyed hot swamp a$$ jungle style passion with enormous synergy energy x-change through the 1st chakra.:hump:


Some bibles call it the first sin.

My theory:
The bible leads readers this way, since the editors chose to stay virgins. And most religions are fear based, wanting to have their follower conform to the ways of the church.

I could be wrong because I'm not looking to be right. :twisted:

[Sortarican]

.... So, yes, "Therefore the first marriage and therefore the "ideal" bible-based marriage would be for strictly relational and spiritual reasons" is true.....

The quote used is from Ephesians in the New Testament.
The marriages mentioned earlier in Old Testament refer to women as property and often have nothing to do with love/relational/spiritual reasons.

That's right, I just went all Old Testiment on yo asses.

[The Black Knight]

For me marriage is defined by my understanding from the Bible(which most undoubtly will get me flamed). For me marriage is between a man and a woman. It's how we continue to grow mankind, is through male female relationships/marriage.

While I am shocked that Olbermann could have authored and so eloquently put his statement, for me it stops there. He did seem very sincere and genuine in his delievery.

And while most people won't believe it or lack the comphrehension to get it, as a Christian I can't condone gay marriage. I can't back it because it would be for me going against my beliefs and morals.

With that said, I DO NOT hate homosexuals, nor do I wish them harm. I believe that what goes on between two adults is purely their own business and theirs alone. I don't think homosexuals should be treated any differently than any other American in America. I believe the Bill of Rights extends to "gays" just as it does to "straights". They should not be denied any kind of "rights" that are in our Constitution.

Having that said, I can't personally back gay marriage for the simple reason it contradicts everything I believe marriage to be. Marriage for me is of the utmost sacred nature. Something that is of serious importanace and not to be taken lightly and of which the sacredness of marriage was given by God.

Now having said that, I think "gays" should be entitled to get their civil unions if they so choose. A traditional marriage? No. But Unions where they say their vows(or whatever they choose) and commit themselves to each other, I'm fine with that. As far as rights to land, homeownership, insurance policies or next of kin type things I'm kind of leary on(mainly the last two) and when I say leary, I'm undecided on those subjects. As far as kids go(adoption or otherwise) is a totally different can of worms and I'll reserve my opinions on that to myself without risk of offending anyone(I have my own beliefs on this, but don't ask me to express them).

I guess if I could tell Keith to his face the answer to his question as to why a religious type like myself would oppose it, is what I would have told him here today. I have nothing against gays or lesbians living their lives in harmony with the rest of us. And believe me when I say I DO NOT hate them, however I do abhore their lifestyle. I couldn't be honest with myself if I didn't word it that way. I take God/Christ's approach with people of all walks. Love the Sinner and hate the Sin, does that mean I am sinless myself?? Absolutely not, therefore that's why I'm not the judge or the one who is answerable to.

Which is why I practice the "do unto others as you would have done unto you." But for me that means treating a person as I would be treated i.e. not physically harming them, or the live and let live. However, when God destroyed 5 cities because of the very act of homosexuality, calling it an abomination I can't look at it in any other way. Remember though that God would has spared those 5 cities had there been just 5 good people living in them. But he couldn't even find 5, all were wicked. Abraham pleaded with God not to destroy the cities(because his cousin Lot resided there) so God bargined with Abraham from 50 all the way down to 5 good people(and none could be found).

In the end which is why I don't judge those people. It's God's job to do and not mine. I find the homosexual lifestyle perverse, I don't find the people perverse. And it's because of that I can never support Gay Marriage. And even as much as it pains me that another American believes/feels they are not being given their full rights, I cannot support them it's just not in me.....


p.s.
I meant no offense towards anyone, but that's how I would have answered Keith had he asked me that question directly...

[~Barn~]

Adam. Check and mate.

[Sortarican]

...Now having said that, I think "gays" should be entitled to get their civil unions if they so choose...... As far as rights to land, homeownership, insurance policies or next of kin type things I'm kind of leary on(mainly the last two) and when I say leary, I'm undecided on those subjects. As ...

Well stated from your perspective BK. And a surprisingly accepting viewpoint for someone as religious as yourself.

But the bulk of the legal argument is Gay's desire to insure their partners the same rights as hetero couples.
I have actually heard of families who ostracized their gay relatives and then took the property of the that person after their death with the "spouse" of the deceases getting nothing.
Personally I see no reason why the widowed partner of either type should not be entitled to the home the two have built together.

[Captain Obvious]

Well stated from your perspective BK.

+1

Here is my issue. Your view point stems almost exclusively based on religion. Since the current day marriage is endorsed by the govt. and then by the church, why should the religious viewpoint impact what the govt does or does not approve of? If the main point is that gay and homosexuality is forbidden in the bible, how does that impact marriage in the eyes of the govt? The govt, not church, is the controlling power re marriage. It endorses marriage, it licenses marriage, it offers fiscal "rewards" via tax rates, and it taxes marriage. In fact, you never have to be involved with a church and still get married if straight, but the religious influence is what prevents 2 girls from getting married.

For those of us who are not religious, why should antiquated religious beliefs hold up society moving forward? I am not trying to use antiquated derogatorily, but it is the most appropriate word for this. Other examples of antiquated Catholic viewpoints that impacted society as a whole at the time the subject was broached:
The Earth is flat.
The Earth is the center of the solar-system and universe.
People as property.
Using birth control.

These viewpoints have since been "reversed" as the Bible was written in a simpler time, and it don't apply anymore. Why can't the thought of marriage move forward as well? Much of the bible has been interpreted differently over the ages, and versions have been written to change/clarify the word.

These type of subjects are where I make a sharp turn left from my Republican brethren. Religion plays very little part in my life (except my gf leaves me and goes to church every week). I just don't see how religious beliefs should control the lives of everyone.

I think it is safe to say WASP and traditional Catholic views on this are similar?

[Scribbler]

I respect a person's viewpoint religiously. However (and it was mentioned before in this thread) Christianity (in all its myriad of forms...there's a lot of em) is not the only religion in this country performing marriages. So I think quotes/stories/lessons from the Bible should not be used or referenced in any legal/political debate.

A point of contention earlier was "How does same sex marriage affect you personally? None at all." Nobody is pushing same sex marriage on those who oppose it spiritually. And nobody is asking those who oppose it spiritually to back or support it. However I wonder why so many people find themselves obligated to oppose it. After all, you don't have to support or oppose it, you could also abstain to vote on it if you so choose. Abstaining isn't necessarily supporting it.

Anybody who says that while they don't believe in it spiritually, but that the matter doesn't affect them at all and say "Live and let live" (so to speak)... shouldn't then turn out to vote against it.

And nobody is telling churches who's religion is opposed to it that they have to perform such marriages. Churches can choose not to marry any couple they don't wish to marry. Case in point (on a smaller level) my first marriage was to a Catholic woman, however the Catholic church wouldn't perform the ceremony because I wasn't Catholic.

[Captain Obvious]

But to be a legally recognized marriage with all the benefits, you don't go to a church, you go to the govt.

[puckstr]

If I want to marry a ham sandwich and have anal sex with it (if the sandwich is consenting and of proper age of concent)..then so be it.
I can do what ever I want.

The people are too busy imposing there own sense of "morality" and "godliness" on the masses.

Religion is bullshit

[Pandora-11]

If I want to marry a ham sandwich and have anal sex with it (if the sandwich is consenting and of proper age of concent)..then so be it.
I can do what ever I want.

The people are too busy imposing there own sense of "morality" and "godliness" on the masses.

Religion is bullshit



I always cringe when people talk about religious people "imposing their morality on others." We all get a opportunity to vote as we see fit. For those that choose not to have religious faith, I want to explain something to you; at least from my perspective. If you have never had religious faith you might not understand that those viewpoints and beliefs permeate who we are. We would not have those beliefs if we chose not to practice them or at least try. These views help to form our voice and lifestyles and how we desire the world to be. Therefore, we will vote as WE believe just as you vote as YOU believe. Yes? Please explain to me why we should vote opposing our beliefs. What would be the point of having any beliefs at all? I doubt very much that you like for religious people to whine and complain that YOU are imposing your morality on us. I just don't get why you can't let Buddhist vote their beliefs, Christians vote theirs, gays vote theirs, and atheists vote for theirs. I personally don't care about gays marrying and I know that's not toeing the line for those sharing my beliefs, but for crying out loud, let people be people....you say YOU want to do what you want, let us be what we want too and we'll vote our way.

Majority wins! I don't get why ya'll don't get it. Good luck with the ham sandwich!:hump:

[The Black Knight]

Well stated from your perspective BK. And a surprisingly accepting viewpoint for someone as religious as yourself.

But the bulk of the legal argument is Gay's desire to insure their partners the same rights as hetero couples.
I have actually heard of families who ostracized their gay relatives and then took the property of the that person after their death with the "spouse" of the deceases getting nothing.
Personally I see no reason why the widowed partner of either type should not be entitled to the home the two have built together.

Well I agree with you there, I think taking anyone's property regardless of their sexual orientation is wrong. You just don't take another man's/woman's property.

As far as homes go, if both of the people have the home in their respective names, then the families of a deceased partnet shouldn't be able to take the home. Because you have one alive that is still paying for it. So to me it only makes sense that the one alive keeps everything because of the debt owed.

Now should the families of each partner be entitled to some stuff?? I believe so, but I think that's best left up to attorney's or courts. I think it also raises the perfect point of having a WILL. No matter what your sexual preference is, you should have a WILL. Having one insures that certain properties go to the respective people. You can will your home to a church or non-profit organization, why can't you will it to your live in partner?? I think it can be done and it is done all the time. Hell people leave stuff to their dogs for crying out loud.

I think one way for gays to skirt the issue of who gets what and the easy way around it all is a WILL. Everyone should have one from age 18+. You got to make sure that someone/anyone gets your stuff and not the government. You give the government taxes your whole life, you shouldn't have to give them anymore when you die.

[dirkterrell]

I just don't get why you can't let Buddhist vote their beliefs, Christians vote theirs, gays vote theirs, and atheists vote for theirs.

I think the key thing that many people forget when voting on these things is that supporting someone's right to do X does not necessarily imply that the voter supports X. For example, I fully support the right of skinheads to hold and spout their beliefs but I do not in any way support those beliefs. The government sanctions marriage with various rights and I believe it is wrong to deny those rights to people just because they may have a different sexual orientation.

Dirk

[Pandora-11]

I think the key thing that many people forget when voting on these things is that supporting someone's right to do X does not necessarily imply that the voter supports X. For example, I fully support the right of skinheads to hold and spout their beliefs but I do not in any way support those beliefs. The government sanctions marriage with various rights and I believe it is wrong to deny those rights to people just because they may have a different sexual orientation.

Dirk

Yes, you are right. I agree with you on this subject. But you have to remember that those that are opposed to gay rights believe that those rights break down their society and and negatively impact their children. They believe in a traditional household and feel that advocating this lifestyle leads to bizarre things...a la ham sandwich or bestiality or more.
The family has changed throughout the years....from a patriarchal father with multiple wives and concubines to the traditional household.
I'm probably not the person to stand up for this point of view because I agree that those of a different sexual orientation deserve to love and have the protection that offers. I've had gay friends and I couldn't deny their rights here if I tried, but if I were to disagree with it, my vote would reflect that point. Sorry.

[TheStig]

This is one of the most intelligent political/religious discussions I have seen on here! From both sides!

Personally for me its simple, Im straight and Im married. If Bob and Bob want to get married it wont take a single thing away (monetarily or emotionally) from my relationship with my wife.

[puckstr]

This is one of the most intelligent political/religious discussions I have seen on here! From both sides!

Personally for me its simple, Im straight and Im married. If Bob and Bob want to get married it wont take a single thing away (monetarily or emotionally) from my relationship with my wife.

:yay:
That is the correct response.

Let 'em marry and pay the same amount of taxes as the straight married folks do.

[Shea]

This is one of the most intelligent political/religious discussions I have seen on here! From both sides!

Personally for me its simple, Im straight and Im married. If Bob and Bob want to get married it wont take a single thing away (monetarily or emotionally) from my relationship with my wife.

STFU you left wing hamster F**ker!

:) Just needed to get this back to the CSC approved format. Carry on.

[Captain Obvious]

:yay:
That is the correct response.

Let 'em marry and pay the same amount of taxes as the straight married folks do.


We've heard about enough from you ham sandwhich fukker. ;)

[puckstr]

We've heard about enough from you ham sandwhich fukker. ;)


that's not MAYO :hump:

[Captain Obvious]

I think the key thing that many people forget when voting on these things is that supporting someone's right to do X does not necessarily imply that the voter supports X.

Absolutely.

And with a 2 party system, you either get package "A" or package "B". Whichever package you agree MOSTLY with on a hundred different points.

[puckstr]

Absolutely.

And with a 2 party system, you either get package "A" or package "B". Whichever package you agree MOSTLY with on a hundred different points.


I feel that MOST people have problems making decisions, when there is too many choices.

I see the image of the squirrel trying to figure out which side of the road is better....left...right...left...center...right..ce nter....SPLAT
http://www.stoneschool.com/Work/Siggraph/2006/Hammy.jpg

and I hear voices too:shocked:

[Pandora-11]

I feel that MOST people have problems making decisions, when there is too many choices.

I see the image of the squirrel trying to figure out which side of the road is better....left...right...left...center...right..ce nter....SPLAT
http://www.stoneschool.com/Work/Siggraph/2006/Hammy.jpg

and I hear voices too:shocked:

Hilarious!!!

[TheStig]

STFU you left wing hamster F**ker!

:) Just needed to get this back to the CSC approved format. Carry on.

Hehe I knew that was bound to happen!

[The Black Knight]

This is one of the most intelligent political/religious discussions I have seen on here! From both sides!

Personally for me its simple, Im straight and Im married. If Bob and Bob want to get married it wont take a single thing away (monetarily or emotionally) from my relationship with my wife.

I think when people can actually sit down and have a open and honest dicussion about how a specific issue impacts them. You'll always get good intelligent discussions. Putting smack aside, it allows people to get down to the very being that makes us all tick. It's in instances like these that mankind's true ability to grasp all aspects of life shines through.

[Vance]

It's in instances like these that mankind's true ability to grasp all aspects of life shines through.

Glad to have been of service to help mankind for once.
;)

[The Black Knight]

Glad to have been of service to help mankind for once.
;)
:up:

[R1chie]

The people have spoken, and some people don't like it.

It is simple to see, the reason for marriage is biblical. So almost every religion says marriage if for man and woman.

From a governing perspective. Marriage is to encourage people in a newly born and conceived America to get together and have kids, go out and multiply. If you don't believe in religion, believe in nature. Sex between one man and one woman rewards them with a child.

Sex between two men, multiple men and women, animals rewards them with disease.

That is why you encourage no sex before marriage, only one man and wife, no sex with animals. That is what marriage encourages, no disease.

Sure you can argue we have ways of minimizing disease in this day and age through safe sex, medication but the design, or natural evolution which ever you choose promotes marriage by one man and woman through procreation and the elimination of disease.
In America, you can do what you want, but I think people have voted in a way that benefits society. If you want to go against nature and religion, fine, but we should not encourage or recognize it as a happy healthy lifestyle when it is not.

[Snowman]

The people have spoken, and some people don't like it.

It is simple to see, the reason for marriage is biblical. So almost every religion says marriage if for man and woman.

From a governing perspective. Marriage is to encourage people in a newly born and conceived America to get together and have kids, go out and multiply. If you don't believe in religion, believe in nature. Sex between one man and one woman rewards them with a child.

Sex between two men, multiple men and women, animals rewards them with disease.

That is why you encourage no sex before marriage, only one man and wife, no sex with animals. That is what marriage encourages, no disease.

Sure you can argue we have ways of minimizing disease in this day and age through safe sex, medication but the design, or natural evolution which ever you choose promotes marriage by one man and woman through procreation and the elimination of disease.
In America, you can do what you want, but I think people have voted in a way that benefits society. If you want to go against nature and religion, fine, but we should not encourage or recognize it as a happy healthy lifestyle when it is not.I would be interested to hear your thoughts on those christian religions that do perform same-sex marriages. The Presbyterians and Anglicans churches read from the same Bible as you do and have no problem accepting these marriages.

Are they wrong in their belief of the Bible compared to yours?
And if so, how can you prove they are?

[puckstr]

Bible=Fairy tales

But the Bible does need a warning label


http://www.gdargaud.net/Humor/Pics/Bible.jpg

[dirkterrell]

From a governing perspective. Marriage is to encourage people in a newly born and conceived America to get together and have kids, go out and multiply. If you don't believe in religion, believe in nature. Sex between one man and one woman rewards them with a child.


So, married people should only have sex to have children?



Sex between two men, multiple men and women, animals rewards them with disease.


So, sex between two men always results in a disease? It seems to me that you are arguing two things: (1) promiscuity increases the rate of spreading of disease and (2) homosexuality increases the rate of spreading of disease. (1) makes sense. (2) does not.



That is why you encourage no sex before marriage, only one man and wife, no sex with animals. That is what marriage encourages, no disease.


So, if marriage encourages no disease, if there are two healthy people of the same sex who love each other, wouldn't we want to encourage marriage between them to keep them healthy?

Dirk

[zetaetatheta]

I'm all for gay marriage. Why can't gays be miserable too? Seriously I don't understand god (whatever god one believes in--or not) in the equation. The rights of couples should be determined by the constitution, and last time I checked, the constitution was not the christian bible.

[rforsythe]

we should not encourage or recognize it as a happy healthy lifestyle when it is not.

Whether you agree with that or not, what we should do is encourage peoples' freedom to do whatever they want with their own lives.

This is America. Freedom is the name of the game. Not conditional "I"ll let you have this freedom as long as it doesn't offend me or my beliefs". You know how we can be sure we live in a free society? Because some of the things people are allowed to do piss a lot of other people off, or offend them. "You're free to do as you like if you conform" is not freedom. It's a lot of other things, but not freedom.

Fact is it doesn't affect you one way or the other Rich, so why the need to enforce your beliefs on other people? I mean really, other than belittling some need to have others in line with your way of thinking, does it actually make a material difference to your life in any way if a couple dudes decide to knock wieners behind closed doors?

[dirkterrell]

This is America. Freedom is the name of the game. Not conditional "I"ll let you have this freedom as long as it doesn't offend me or my beliefs". You know how we can be sure we live in a free society? Because some of the things people are allowed to do piss a lot of other people off, or offend them. "You're free to do as you like if you conform" is not freedom. It's a lot of other things, but not freedom.


+∞



Fact is it doesn't affect you one way or the other Rich, so why the need to enforce your beliefs on other people? I mean really, other than belittling some need to have others in line with your way of thinking, does it actually make a material difference to your life in any way if a couple dudes decide to knock wieners behind closed doors?

Besides, if it's a matter of disease and procreation, only monogamous, virgins-until-married people will survive and then they'll rule the country. So, I'm not sure what they're worried about in that respect.

Dirk

[t_jolt]

If you want to go against nature and religion, fine, but we should not encourage or recognize it as a happy healthy lifestyle when it is not.


hold your horses there. I know im really going to open the flame now. But staying with one partner is against nature. Everything in your genetics, your primal being. You want to know why you only have one wife? cause way way back, when kings, lords, what ever you want to call them ruled the land. They said you can only have one wife. That allowed them (by them i mean anyone with power) to be able to have a bigger "pool" of woman to have. You rarely hear of a king with only 1 wife right? I mean truly looking at the history books. But seriously, one partner goes against nature. Look at the animal kingdom, must females mate with the strongest male. Cause they want those gene's to be past down to there children, and that male mates with most of the females. Also the females mate with the "bull" (if you will) every year, whether or not its the same male as before

now im not saying go screw as many people as you can, cause yes, selection happens that way too. Also i do believe in marrage. but just opening the box a little more :)

[~Barn~]

Monogamy is not a humanistic trait. Anybody who genuinely thinks that it is, probably struggles with other sexual/relationship/attachment issues.

"Thanks Mom and Dad!!"

[t_jolt]

Monogamy is not a humanistic trait

Monogamy is not a trait in nature :)

[Snowman]

I understand R1chie’s concept (I was a christian for several years growing up).

They say they love all people and that they want the best for everyone and the best, according to them, is what they believe. They have it right and everyone else has it wrong. The idea that someone else might have it right for themselves, and is not in line with what they believe is a concept they refuse to accept, because it might hint at the idea they could be wrong. (The very definition of intolerance.)

Now as far as voting, R1chie has the right to cast his vote any way he deems fit and for any reasoning, he might believe in. He has the freedom to be intolerant to homosexual rights of marriage.

People like him will never see it any other way than how they are told to see it. If tomorrow some scripture were reinterpreted to mean something else, he would blindly follow it in order to save his soul after death.

At one time slavery was an accepted practice in the bible, after the civil war it concept was changed to mean something else. (Ever wonder why they are 10 commandments, because number 11 is about slavery.)

Let’s hope it doesn’t take a war this time to change the minds of people like him.

[~Barn~]

Monogamy is not a trait in nature :)

Oddly enough, some species actually display it though, and have a single sexual partner for life.

Humans are lucky/unlucky in that we have the capability for "desire", and we've spent generations and generations refining that desire from something less associated with procreation, sustenance, and survival, to something far more narcissistic.

But it is what it is. Regardless of what drives it, the trait is the trait.

[dirkterrell]

Monogamy is not a trait in nature :)

It is very rare but not non-existent. Selection pressures work against it.

Dirk

[Snowman]

They just do not want to believe we are apes…
Some days I think we had it better swinging from the trees.

[dirkterrell]

Oddly enough, some species actually display it though, and have a single sexual partner for life.


Prairie voles, for example. The male will actually attack other females that try to mate with him.

Dirk

[~Barn~]

Well hell Dirk.... I'll do that. I like to refer to it as "rough flirting" though.

[Shea]

lol, Barn

[dirkterrell]

Well hell Dirk.... I'll do that. I like to refer to it as "rough flirting" though.

:lol:

Dirk

[puckstr]

Mate for Life? Animals..yep some do.





Q: Which animals mate for life? (Jen, New York, New York)
The gray wolf mates for life. Pups are born in the spring. Through the summer while the pups grow in ability, the adults hunt singly. Each autumn, the pups join the hunting pack and both parents teach them to hunt and kill prey. A family group of about five members (the parents and various offspring) stay together and form a hunting pack. [Gary Kramer, US Fish and Wildlife Service]

A: Gibbon apes, wolves, termites, coyotes, barn owls, beavers, bald eagles, golden eagles, condors, swans, brolga cranes, French angel fish, sandhill cranes, pigeons, prions (a seabird), red-tailed hawks, anglerfish, ospreys, prairie voles (a rodent), and black vultures — are a few that mate for life.

Of course, it depends on what you mean by "mate for life." These creatures do mate for life in the social sense of living together in pairs but they rarely stay strictly faithful. About 90 percent of the 9,700 bird species pair, mate, and raise chicks together — some returning together to the same nest site year after year. Males, however, often raise other males’ offspring unknowingly. DNA testing reveals that the social-pair male did not father 10, 20, and sometimes 40 percent of the chicks.

Black vultures, though, discourage infidelity. All nearby vultures attack any vulture caught philandering.
Only about 3 percent of the 4,000 mammal species are monogamous (and Homo sapiens isn’t one of them). Beavers, otters, bats, wolves, some foxes, a few hoofed animals, and some primates live together in social pairs but dally sexually much as birds do.

Wolves, for example, are generally monogamous but also breed polygamously if the male is unrelated to the female and prey is plentiful. Moreover, they sometimes have more than one mate in a lifetime, says Dan Stahler, (http://www.nps.gov/yell/nature/animals/wolf/wolfup.html) biologist at the Yellowstone Gray Wolf Restoration Program run by the National Park Service. This happens "if one mate dies, gets kicked out of the pack, or is physically unable to breed due to injury, illness, etc."

One species is absolutely monogamous. In the black darkness of the deep sea, the tiny male anglerfish (perhaps one tenth the female’s size) detects and follows the scent trail of a female of his own species. Once found, he bites his chosen one and hangs on. His skin fuses to hers, their bodies grow together (he gets his food through a common blood supply and becomes essentially a sperm producing organ). They mate for life — a short life for the male.

[dapper]

West Wing Clip (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=DSXJzybEeJM)
Title: Bashing Bible bashers

[t_jolt]

Mate for Life? Animals..yep some do.




i also believe some types of peguins do it as well. But y'all got the point :)

[Snowman]

I fully agree with you t_jolt, dirk and even R1chie on this one. We are all animals.

[Nick_Ninja]

West Wing Clip (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=DSXJzybEeJM)
Title: Bashing Bible bashers

Stand and be not counted. Idiots that take scripture literally can be so entertaining. :D

[Filo]

Monogamy is not a humanistic trait. Anybody who genuinely thinks that it is, probably struggles with other sexual/relationship/attachment issues.


I practice monogamy. But that is because my wife has a gun and a hunting knife and isn't afraid to use either of them. And she is smarter than Lorena Bobbitt. She will throw it somewhere the cops can't find it and reattach it. Probably she would just give it to the neighbors dog as a chew toy.

[Ghost]

The rights of couples should be determined by the constitution, and last time I checked, the constitution was not the christian bible.

Well, not yet.

Solid gains were made, but, unfortunately, some rights are still on paper (if not in effect).
We're working on it.

Check back in 2012.


They just do not want to believe we are apes…
Some days I think we had it better swinging from the trees.

Hmm, we should increase our global deforestation efforts before people realize the joy they're missing out on...


I fully agree with you t_jolt, dirk and even R1chie on this one. We are all animals.

Manimal!

[Captain Obvious]

We are all animals.


Makes me think of the Blood Hound song The Bad Touch

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTW8oUV8Aq0

You and me baby aint nothing but mammals, so lets do it like they do on the discovery channel.

LOVE, the kind you clean up with a mop and bucket,

[R1chie]

I would be interested to hear your thoughts on those christian religions that do perform same-sex marriages. The Presbyterians and Anglicans churches read from the same Bible as you do and have no problem accepting these marriages.

Are they wrong in their belief of the Bible compared to yours?
And if so, how can you prove they are?

Read the Bible yourself and draw your own conclusion.

[R1chie]

hold your horses there. I know im really going to open the flame now. But staying with one partner is against nature. Everything in your genetics, your primal being. You want to know why you only have one wife? cause way way back, when kings, lords, what ever you want to call them ruled the land.

I will try to make this short. (but probably not going to happen)

This is my theory and you may or not disagree. Sexual activity releases endorphins into the brain. This is the link that allows for monogamous marriage/relationship. When you have sex with a woman your brain associates the sight smell touch, all other sensations with that woman. You are then aroused by her. You are not exited by anyone else except her. That is why you are not suppose to have sex with multiple women because your brain associates sex with those women as well. The reason you are not to selfsex is that you may look at other women and selfsex. Your brain then associates with just about any looking type of woman. If you are a man, and you are thinking about a man, another mans wife at the time of selfsex, you may associate the pleasure of sex with them..
This is how fetishes are created, you are not born with a sexual fetish. You associate during sex pain, feet, leather, and I don't know all the sexual fetishes but, you associate them while you are having sex or self sex. Then it becomes difficult to be aroused without those things or become more aroused because of those things. Snuff films and self sex could produce someone that gets off in killing someone.

These associations can cause all the problems we see in society. Negative association also works, women raped by men negatively associate sex with men, thus they see sex in the same sex, once they associate a women, then that is what arouses them. (As you probably can tell I do not believe people are born homosexual it is a choice. I may have a genetic predisposition to become an alcohlic, murderer, drug addict or homosexual, I don't have to become one because I have choice.)

Next subject, Kings. In the old testament, if your brother were to die, you were suppose to take his wife and make her your own. This was acceptable. So I was not saying multiple women with one man. I was stating only have sex with your wife only. So it was not a set in stone rule and was allowed. And yes, kings took multiple wives.

Where a single man and wife comes from in the bible is that Adam and Eve are the model. That is the way it was designed. Also the new testament made a rule that deacons, elders, pastors and minister should only have one wife. It does not say you cannot have multiple wives (though it is by design and recommended) this rule only absolutely applies to those in the ministry. In our culture we adopted this because it is the better way, just as many Christian cultures adopted circumcision even though it is not required.

My point is. Whether you believe in the bible or not, we can see by design or by evolution that a man was made for a woman for reproduction. Other types of sex cause problems and diseases. It is not unreasonable for people to vote to promote behavior that works with nature or with the bible.

Homosexuals like those in the video try to force people who believe this way to think that something that is unnatural should be socially acceptable thus spreading disease and to get more people to associate their natural mechanism to cause and promote monogamy and reproduction to then be associate the way of homosexuality.

I believe we as a nation should not have laws against people having homosexual sex, what they do in their bedroom is not the general publics business, but I also believe that we as a nation should not promote this unhealthy lifestyle that goes against nature/bible. And the people of California agree with me, at least on the marriage point.

It is not because people are closed minded, uneducated or just plain stupid, no, in fact they see how the design/nature operates and promotes that.

[R1chie]

I fully agree with you t_jolt, dirk and even R1chie on this one. We are all animals.

Sure, we are all animals, each created with differences. Some have lower intelligence, some higher. Some animals with a single mate, some do not. The difference is you believe it all happened through random chance (even though there is no evidence of this) and I believe that complex creatures cannot come from random chance but from a creator (though there is no evidence of this either) so each puts faith into one explanation or the other.

Also, I must apologize I do not get on the board more often, my life is pretty busy and I don't get on as often as I would like. There may be some posts I stirred the pot on that I never got back to.

.

[Filo]

I will try to make this short. (but probably not going to happen)

This is my theory and you may or not disagree. Sexual activity releases endorphins into the brain. This is the link that allows for monogamous marriage/relationship. When you have sex with a woman your brain associates the sight smell touch, all other sensations with that woman. You are then aroused by her. You are not exited by anyone else except her. That is why you are not suppose to have sex with multiple women because your brain associates sex with those women as well. The reason you are not to selfsex is that you may look at other women and selfsex. Your brain then associates with just about any looking type of woman. If you are a man, and you are thinking about a man, another mans wife at the time of selfsex, you may associate the pleasure of sex with them..
This is how fetishes are created, you are not born with a sexual fetish. You associate during sex pain, feet, leather, and I don't know all the sexual fetishes but, you associate them while you are having sex or self sex. Then it becomes difficult to be aroused without those things or become more aroused because of those things. Snuff films and self sex could produce someone that gets off in killing someone.

These associations can cause all the problems we see in society. Negative association also works, women raped by men negatively associate sex with men, thus they see sex in the same sex, once they associate a women, then that is what arouses them. (As you probably can tell I do not believe people are born homosexual it is a choice. I may have a genetic predisposition to become an alcohlic, murderer, drug addict or homosexual, I don't have to become one because I have choice.)

Next subject, Kings. In the old testament, if your brother were to die, you were suppose to take his wife and make her your own. This was acceptable. So I was not saying multiple women with one man. I was stating only have sex with your wife only. So it was not a set in stone rule and was allowed. And yes, kings took multiple wives.

Where a single man and wife comes from in the bible is that Adam and Eve are the model. That is the way it was designed. Also the new testament made a rule that deacons, elders, pastors and minister should only have one wife. It does not say you cannot have multiple wives (though it is by design and recommended) this rule only absolutely applies to those in the ministry. In our culture we adopted this because it is the better way, just as many Christian cultures adopted circumcision even though it is not required.

My point is. Whether you believe in the bible or not, we can see by design or by evolution that a man was made for a woman for reproduction. Other types of sex cause problems and diseases. It is not unreasonable for people to vote to promote behavior that works with nature or with the bible.

Homosexuals like those in the video try to force people who believe this way to think that something that is unnatural should be socially acceptable thus spreading disease and to get more people to associate their natural mechanism to cause and promote monogamy and reproduction to then be associate the way of homosexuality.

I believe we as a nation should not have laws against people having homosexual sex, what they do in their bedroom is not the general publics business, but I also believe that we as a nation should not promote this unhealthy lifestyle that goes against nature/bible. And the people of California agree with me, at least on the marriage point.

It is not because people are closed minded, uneducated or just plain stupid, no, in fact they see how the design/nature operates and promotes that.

Wow, that is an interesting look into how your mind works. Oh, and about the
"And the people of California agree with me, at least on the marriage point." point, here are the facts on Proposition 8 as of November 13:
Yes 6,068,393 52.3% ; No 5,544,962 47.7%; Blank votes 256,868 N/A Total votes cast and counted 11,870,223[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_%282008%29#cite_note-2) 100.00% Voter turnout 68.6% Uncounted vote-by-mail and provisional ballots 1,832,394[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_%282008%29#cite_note-3) 13%


The population of California is 36,553,215. Thus the correct statement is 16.6% of the people of California agree with you. Just because a law passes doesn't mean it has universal support, so saying the people agree with you is misleading. Not picking on you personally here Rich, just want to point out it isn't the whole state.

[Sortarican]

I like boobies.

http://www.ecuador-travel.net/biodiversity.birds-booby12.jpg

[dirkterrell]

The difference is you believe it all happened through random chance (even though there is no evidence of this) and I believe that complex creatures cannot come from random chance but from a creator (though there is no evidence of this either) so each puts faith into one explanation or the other.


Who is the "you" in the above statement?

Dirk

[Captain Obvious]

Sexual activity releases endorphins into the brain. This is the link that allows for monogamous marriage/relationship.

Endorphins occur for all sexual activity and some activity that is not sex related. Man-man or one man to many women and vice versa. You have to completely separate sentences with no correlation yet you are making a huge leap of faith that has no basis in reality.



When you have sex with a woman your brain associates the sight smell touch, all other sensations with that woman. You are then aroused by her. You are not exited by anyone else except her.Huh? I am too baffled to say much else.


Negative association also works, women raped by men negatively associate sex with men, thus they see sex in the same sex, once they associate a women, then that is what arouses them. I don't know what to say except that is absolutely wrong. Most women work through the emotional trauma and many are able to have a normal sex life once they recover from a rape. They don't negatively associate men with rape and all become gay. Can you even show a study where any much less most have been turned?



Other types of sex cause problems and diseases. Problems and disease? You mean you think gay people created herpes by having gay sex? Herpes is a virus, like the flu. It just happens to be transmitted through sexual contact. Even between men and women, you can still spread herpes. Virusues, like bacteria are a naturally occuring phenomoen. They are simply small organisms that have evolved.


Homosexuals like those in the video try to force people who believe this way to think that something that is unnatural should be socially acceptable Not to be offensive, but this is an absurdly naive view of the world. The church did far worse to thousands upon thousands of people for centuries. While we don't have video, I think it pretty well documented.
I am left handed. The church persecuted people for being left handed. I am glad the science was finally able to prove being left-handed wasn't a sign of the devil, merely a genetic variation. Given enough centuries, perhaps the church will view homosexuality the same.

P.S., there are about 25 references in the bible that being left handed is bad.

May I ask, how old are you Ritchie?

[Captain Obvious]

I am sure I missed a couple things, I was too baffled to pay full attention and I need to get back to work.

[puckstr]

I will try to make this short. (but probably not going to happen)

This is my theory and you may or not disagree. Sexual activity releases endorphins into the brain. This is the link that allows for monogamous marriage/relationship. When you have sex with a woman your brain associates the sight smell touch, all other sensations with that woman. You are then aroused by her. You are not exited by anyone else except her. That is why you are not suppose to have sex with multiple women because your brain associates sex with those women as well. The reason you are not to selfsex is that you may look at other women and selfsex. Your brain then associates with just about any looking type of woman. If you are a man, and you are thinking about a man, another mans wife at the time of selfsex, you may associate the pleasure of sex with them..
This is how fetishes are created, you are not born with a sexual fetish. You associate during sex pain, feet, leather, and I don't know all the sexual fetishes but, you associate them while you are having sex or self sex. Then it becomes difficult to be aroused without those things or become more aroused because of those things. Snuff films and self sex could produce someone that gets off in killing someone.


Who is to determine what is a fetish and what is not? Oh that would be the all-knowing Christains? The same bunch that has Pedophile Priests? Yep that is the bunch.
So if you beat off you are prone to kill someone, or become a serial killer?
INSANE, I guess you will also go blind.

These associations can cause all the problems we see in society. Negative association also works, women raped by men negatively associate sex with men, thus they see sex in the same sex, once they associate a women, then that is what arouses them. (As you probably can tell I do not believe people are born homosexual it is a choice. I may have a genetic predisposition to become an alcohlic, murderer, drug addict or homosexual, I don't have to become one because I have choice.)



Next subject, Kings. In the old testament, if your brother were to die, you were suppose to take his wife and make her your own. This was acceptable. So I was not saying multiple women with one man. I was stating only have sex with your wife only. So it was not a set in stone rule and was allowed. And yes, kings took multiple wives.

Where a single man and wife comes from in the bible is that Adam and Eve are the model. That is the way it was designed. Also the new testament made a rule that deacons, elders, pastors and minister should only have one wife. It does not say you cannot have multiple wives (though it is by design and recommended) this rule only absolutely applies to those in the ministry. In our culture we adopted this because it is the better way, just as many Christian cultures adopted circumcision even though it is not required.

Blaa Blaa Bible Blaa Blaa
I could give a damn about any Christian Bullshit ramblings from a book of complete Fairy Tales.


My point is. Whether you believe in the bible or not, we can see by design or by evolution that a man was made for a woman for reproduction. Other types of sex cause problems and diseases. It is not unreasonable for people to vote to promote behavior that works with nature or with the bible.

Nope, the bible is made up. Your God is MADE UP.

Homosexuals like those in the video try to force people who believe this way to think that something that is unnatural should be socially acceptable thus spreading disease and to get more people to associate their natural mechanism to cause and promote monogamy and reproduction to then be associate the way of homosexuality.

That is right because sex with someone of a different sex dosen't have ANY chance of disease....RRRRRRRRRIGHT

I believe we as a nation should not have laws against people having homosexual sex, what they do in their bedroom is not the general publics business, but I also believe that we as a nation should not promote this unhealthy lifestyle that goes against nature/bible. And the people of California agree with me, at least on the marriage point.

I am not buying the part about you not wanting laws comdeming gays.
I am having a vision of " Gay re-education" camps

It is not because people are closed minded, uneducated or just plain stupid, no, in fact they see how the design/nature operates and promotes that.


You can justify your Homophobic thoughts and actions
with :music:'cause the BIBLE tells me so:music: :scream1::scream1::scream1:

[R1chie]

Wow, that is an interesting look into how your mind works. Oh, and about the
"And the people of California agree with me, at least on the marriage point." point, here are the facts on Proposition 8 as of November 13:
Yes 6,068,393 52.3% ; No 5,544,962 47.7%; Blank votes 256,868 N/A Total votes cast and counted 11,870,223[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_%282008%29#cite_note-2) 100.00% Voter turnout 68.6% Uncounted vote-by-mail and provisional ballots 1,832,394[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_%282008%29#cite_note-3) 13%


The population of California is 36,553,215. Thus the correct statement is 16.6% of the people of California agree with you. Just because a law passes doesn't mean it has universal support, so saying the people agree with you is misleading. Not picking on you personally here Rich, just want to point out it isn't the whole state.

I agree, what I should have done is been a been a little more specific.
A higher number of voters that actually turned out and/or voted with me. But I think you understood what I meant.

[Captain Obvious]

You can justify your Homophobic thoughts and actions
with :music:'cause the BIBLE tells me so:music: :scream1::scream1::scream1:

Easy. I think in my first post I addressed that this is not an easy topic to discuss without religion.

Mainly based on the fact that religion has driven this belief for such a long time the 2 cannot be separated. The "disgust" factor has also been preached and pushed. Some people can't seperate the disgust from the religion and the thought that homosexuality is an abomination from the bible. Meaing the disgust is a bi-product of being told that homosexuality is wrong because the bible says so.

We lefties were in that group one upon a time.

[R1chie]

You can justify your Homophobic thoughts and actions
with :music:'cause the BIBLE tells me so:music: :scream1::scream1::scream1:

Well you didn't read my post well, it points out nature and the way things are or how they evolved.

I don't hate homosexuals. I think their behavior is unatural and against the bible. And as I said, that is my theory and makes sense to me.

You on the other hand are bible/christianphobic. You have shown your hatred and intolerance to them here just as the homosexuals show their hate and intolerance. The world would be a better place without hate, on both sides.

[puckstr]

Well you didn't read my post well, it points out nature and the way things are or how they evolved.

I don't hate homosexuals. I think their behavior is unatural and against the bible. And as I said, that is my theory and makes sense to me.

You on the other hand are bible/christianphobic. You have shown your hatred and intolerance to them here just as the homosexuals show their hate and intolerance. The world would be a better place without hate, on both sides.


I was raised Devout Southern Baptists. I started thinking for MYSELF, and all of the scriptures lost there credibility.

Yeah your are right I HATE Christians. :scream1: Total self-richious, self-serving, pious bunch they are.

So the Christians have a new bunch the beat on...now it is the homos.
I hope the homos get pissed and fight back.

[Snowman]

Read the Bible yourself and draw your own conclusion.I did...

Found out what I was being told had very little to nothing to do with what was actually in the book. The most satisfying feeling that book ever gave me was the sound it made as it hit the back of the dumpster.


Who is the "you" in the above statement?
DirkAll those that do not beleive what he does, of course...

[t_jolt]

I will try to make this short. (but probably not going to happen)


Im not going to try and change your mind, but i do understand what your trying to say. It was a little unclear, but let me see if i understand what your saying.

Your saying that when you do something and it was amazing your body tells you to do it more, and how, what you like it. or if it was something that was bad, it tells you to recongize whatever it was bad. This is what endorphins do. But not only sex releases endorphins. Anything and everything causes your body to react, and change. One thing for me is racing, i love it. also i love beef. maybe to broad. I love it when someone runs their hand through my hair, when i close my eyes i can assocate the feeling with making me happy. This has been proven, and i forget which doctor, or person solidified this. But it can happen with anything not just sex. maybe for you it is the smell of your wife that releases endorphins, which make you feel good. who knows? thats the wonderful thing about all of us, were all different :) When you bring in rape etc, yes you have made your point on it. but realisticly, those people have had other experanices that have made them that way. maybe abuse when they were younger etc. does that excuse them? hell no. But there is a foundation to why these actions take place in someone.

Now you bring up the old testament. Im talking before religion was wide spread. Look at the egyptions, almost everything that predates b.c.
Note my views are now going to be brought in:
I feel that religion was created to help control the masses. People tend to turn to things like this when they are at a loss of any kind, health, family etc... If i help wrote the bible, then why wouldnt i say that people are suppose to only suppose to have one wife? that would allow me to have more. also it allows me to bend people to a certain life style that benefits the most. Lets face it people are greedy, yes every single one of us. we all have are areas. also yes woman and man were designed for each other. Evolution made it that way. (yes i believe in evolution) but that is also why nature has natural selection. lets say we have gay "animal" that mammal only has intercourse with other males. In the end, it never reproduced. That animals "faulty" genes (if you will) are not passed on. Thats how nature works. Nature is always changing a humans body with every birth. With every domaniate and recessive gene. I Have crooked pinkey's cause that the domaniate gene on my moms side, I am also have one funky toe. Cause thats the gene on my dad's side. Nature brought those 2 genes together in me to see if it helps me life a longer, better life. Meaning that maybe the crookied pinky's would allow me to food easier etc... If though we have an advance ability to think things through, nature is still playing with our bodies.

[R1chie]

Problems and disease? You mean you think gay people created herpes by having gay sex? Herpes is a virus, like the flu. It just happens to be transmitted through sexual contact. Even between men and women, you can still spread herpes. Virusues, like bacteria are a naturally occuring phenomoen. They are simply small organisms that have evolved.

I have addressed that in another post. Reasons for no fornication, no cheathing on your wife, etc..

Not to be offensive, but this is an absurdly naive view of the world.

Ok you have your opinion, I have mine.

The church did far worse to thousands upon thousands of people for centuries. While we don't have video, I think it pretty well documented.
I am left handed. The church persecuted people for being left handed.

I could not find anywhere in the Bible where it said people who used their left had were children of the devil. I do agree that many evil people have used the bible to force people into a certain behavior, but if you read it, you would see that the recommendations are for Jews or Christians, not to non believers.

Even today there are people who say the value life, yet blow up people in abortion clinics (or risk doing so) in the name of the bible.

I am glad the science was finally able to prove being left-handed wasn't a sign of the devil, merely a genetic variation. Given enough centuries, perhaps the church will view homosexuality the same.

P.S., there are about 25 references in the bible that being left handed is bad.

Please enlighten me. Show me 25 instances left handed people are evil or bad.

I am glad our nation is based on rights given to us by the creator instead of some liberal that thinks we should spread the wealth.

May I ask, how old are you Ritchie?

You may ask.. LOL

[dirkterrell]

You on the other hand are bible/christianphobic. You have shown your hatred and intolerance to them here just as the homosexuals show their hate and intolerance. The world would be a better place without hate, on both sides.

A start would be for those who would impose their religious morality on others to remember this thought from one of our Founding Fathers:



All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.
--Thomas Jefferson


When you oppress people, you will get anger and violence. The big mistake people are making, as I have pointed out here before, is to equate support for someone's right to do something with support for what they are doing. You think homosexuality is immoral and therefore we shouldn't sanction it by allowing gay marriage and giving homosexuals the same rights heterosexuals have (basically arguing for government action based on your religious beliefs which is clearly counter to the ideas on which the country was founded). I say this country was founded on the very idea of individual rights and that to deny someone rights granted by government (which marriage does) based on sexual orientation is oppression.

Dirk

[Sortarican]

Who is to determine what is a fetish and what is not?

Simple:
If you use the feather, it's sensual.
If you use the chicken, it's kinky.
If you want to watch someone else use the chicken, it's voyuerism.
If you want someone else to use the chicken on you, it fetishism.

[puckstr]

Simple:
If you use the feather, it's sensual.
If you use the chicken, it's kinky.
If you want to watch someone else use the chicken, it's voyuerism.
If you want someone else to use the chicken on you, it fetishism.

Do you have a chicken handy?:hump:
Guess my ham sandwich will have to watch:shocked:


I did...

Found out what I was being told had very little to nothing to do with what was actually in the book. The most satisfying feeling that book ever gave me was the sound it made as it hit the back of the dumpster.

All those that do not beleive what he does, of course...

Every time I travel I use the Holy Bible as toilet paper.
It is Soooooo nice that it is in all hotels.

[Snowman]

Simple:
If you use the feather, it's sensual.
If you use the chicken, it's kinky.
If you want to watch someone else use the chicken, it's voyuerism.
If you want someone else to use the chicken on you, it fetishism.Has anyone ever asked what the chicken wanted? :)

[R1chie]

Im not going to try and change your mind, but i do understand what your trying to say. It was a little unclear, but let me see if i understand what your saying.

Your saying that when you do something and it was amazing your body tells you to do it more, and how, what you like it.

Yes, it was designed to encourage you to procreate by rewarding you with good feelings when you do. You use your brain to figure out whether or not you can support those children.


or if it was something that was bad, it tells you to recongize whatever it was bad. This is what endorphins do. But not only sex releases endorphins. Anything and everything causes your body to react, and change. One thing for me is racing, i love it. also i love beef. maybe to broad.

The design of the body rewards runners for doing physical activities. It also uses pain to tell you when you are over doing it. Your brain was designed so you could choose to stop running when you get pain, or choose to endure the pain.

I love it when someone runs their hand through my hair, when i close my eyes i can assocate the feeling with making me happy. This has been proven, and i forget which doctor, or person solidified this. But it can happen with anything not just sex. maybe for you it is the smell of your wife that releases endorphins, which make you feel good. who knows?

You are right, but I use my brain to draw conclusions to how things work..

thats the wonderful thing about all of us, were all different

Yet we are all the same. We all have children the same way. A great design that allows everyone to be the same yet have small differences to adapt (adaptation, another non randomly generate feature we have)

:) When you bring in rape etc, yes you have made your point on it. but realisticly, those people have had other experanices that have made them that way. maybe abuse when they were younger etc. does that excuse them? hell no. But there is a foundation to why these actions take place in someone.

That is why it is important to make sure your children are brought up correctly, those experiences we have when young, affect us our whole lives. Renforcment and association have the strongest development when we are young.

I feel that religion was created to help control the masses.

I believe the creator gave us rules to help us live better lives.

.
This was not suppose to be a religious debate I broght it up because in the explination of nature/creation there are two views as to why things work the way they do

[R1chie]

A start would be for those who would impose their religious morality on others to remember this thought from one of our Founding Fathers:

When you oppress people, you will get anger and violence. The big mistake people are making, as I have pointed out here before, is to equate support for someone's right to do something with support for what they are doing. You think homosexuality is immoral and therefore we shouldn't sanction it by allowing gay marriage and giving homosexuals the same rights heterosexuals have (basically arguing for government action based on your religious beliefs which is clearly counter to the ideas on which the country was founded). I say this country was founded on the very idea of individual rights and that to deny someone rights granted by government (which marriage does) based on sexual orientation is oppression.

Why don't we allow adults to have consentual sex with children, why don't we allow children to have sex with children, why don't we allow children to drink. I think they are being oppressed.

Why do we force people to wear cloths. We are oppressed, why don't we allow the strong to kill the weak, the strong are oppressed.

From our rights given by our creator to all of our laws are to allow us live better lives.

Dirk

The founding fathers stated our rights were given to us by the creator, not by a peice of paper signed by a bunch of men.

[~Barn~]

This thread is releasing endorphins. I am associating these feelings with Richie. The feelings will never be reproduced by... nope.. wait... Gas.

[R1chie]

OK I have stirred the pot enough. I do not have the time to continue to debate, it will not change anyones mind but I agree with this. It was fun and I harbor no ill will towards anyone who has an different view than I do.

We live in a democracy. If a law is passed that promotes homosexual marraige. I have to live by the law. Sure, I can protest it, try to vote in people who are against it and hope the supreme court overturns it but I have to live with it. So should the people in California.

[R1chie]

This thread is releasing endorphins. I am associating these feelings with Richie. The feelings will never be reproduced by... nope.. wait... Gas.
LOL

I can appreciate your sense of humor even though it is disguised as a personal attack.

[R1chie]

Every time I travel I use the Holy Bible as toilet paper.
It is Soooooo nice that it is in all hotels.

This is true hate, I missed this one. Puck, you can disrespect peoples religion and ideas all you want, but don't expect them to have respect for your opinion. Not that you care but religious people are generally apathetic, but if you try to encite them you will only unite them, and if there is enough of them, they will vote against you and only create laws that you despise.

[~Barn~]

LOL

I can appreciate your sense of humor even though it is disguised as a personal attack.

Nah, not as much as you think. And plus, when have I ever diguised my personal attacks on anybody!? =)

I was just honestly trying to be funny. At-your-expense was purely coincidental.

[Snowman]

This was not suppose to be a religious debate I broght it up because in the explination of nature/creation there are two views as to why things work the way they doThat is exactly the reasoning behind the idea that homosexuals cannot marry. It is a religious tenant verses a personal right. My contention is that in this country personal rights should trump religious tenants. You obviously take the opposite view.

[puckstr]

Quote:
Originally Posted by puckstr http://www.cosportbikeclub.org/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.cosportbikeclub.org/forums/showthread.php?p=380745#post380745)
Every time I travel I use the Holy Bible as toilet paper.
It is Soooooo nice that it is in all hotels.

This is true hate, I missed this one. Puck, you can disrespect peoples religion and ideas all you want, but don't expect them to have respect for your opinion. Not that you care but religious people are generally apathetic, but if you try to encite them you will only unite them, and if there is enough of them, they will vote against you and only create laws that you despise.





:music:oooooooo Smite Me:music: get your magical non-existent God to show up....MMMM guess not

[~Barn~]

Yeah... Like Steve wipes. :roll:

[puckstr]

Yeah... Like Steve wipes. :roll:


more like scraping

[Sortarican]

... It was fun and I harbor no ill will towards anyone who has an different view than I do....

I hope everyone can grasp that from your posts, I know I don't feel like you've ever been intollerent or held any ill will towards anyone.
Like I've always said, you're all right in my book.
(Now those Barn and Puckstr characters...they give me the heebidy-jeebidies.)

[puckstr]

http://www.igeekrev.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/withstupid.jpg

[dirkterrell]

Why don't we allow adults to have consentual sex with children, why don't we allow children to have sex with children, why don't we allow children to drink. I think they are being oppressed.


Because children don't understand the consequences of their consent. Adults do.



Why do we force people to wear cloths. We are oppressed,


Because seeing some people naked would cause irreparable harm to the public. :)



why don't we allow the strong to kill the weak, the strong are oppressed.


That would violate the rights of the weak. One's rights end at the infringement of another's.



From our rights given by our creator to all of our laws are to allow us live better lives.


Who is the "creator"?

Dirk

[Sortarican]

Who is the "creator"? Dirk

HELLO....I'm standing right here!

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

I practice monogamy.
I practice monogamy too......but only because I now have sex only with myself........:)

[Pandora-11]

Bible=Fairy tales

But the Bible does need a warning label


http://www.gdargaud.net/Humor/Pics/Bible.jpg


Oh dear....just oh dear.:(

[Ghost]

So, after all this banter, is it over? Who won? Are we all on the same page yet?


Ooooh, right. "Discussions" never solve anything...Hmm...





...I suppose there's still violence. That always* works!



*where 'always' = 'rarely'



Seriously, I really don't see the point of political/religious discussions on forums (or even in life for that matter); it's not like anyone will ever change their opinion after reading something--no matter how well written.

A recent PEW study has shown that most people form their opinions by age 15, and then just hold onto them in the face of any and all opposition.

Instead of changing minds, these topics just take everyone 10 pages to wear themselves out, and then the thread dies...with the issue as unresolved, and everyone as entrenched in their own view as when the whole thing began--maybe moreso since someone dared differ, so now the defenders are thoroughly assured that the opposing side is even more preposterous than previously assumed.

I'd ask "what's the point?", but I guess I just did.

[Captain Obvious]

So, after all this banter, is it over? Who won? Are we all on the same page yet?



Yep, discussion is over. Problem solved. We have about 7 more crosses to build for the last couple of naysayers and we will be done.


"Come along Brian, or we'll be late for the stoning."

[dirkterrell]

Seriously, I really don't see the point of political/religious discussions on forums


So why are you reading one? :)

Dirk

[~Barn~]

So, after all this banter, is it over? Who won? Are we all on the same page yet? <snip...>

Well you do have to understand that this forum acts as an outlet for us in various forms or another.

I mean.... it's not like most of us can have blowout ho-downs like this one, with people that we work with, or at home with our families, or even amongst close personal friends. It would be too caustic of an environment. Too intimate.

Sure, most of us around her realize that emotionally charged, internet battles like this are unlikely to go anywhere, and certainly are not going to be changing the minds of our opponents anytime soon.

But! the smart ones of us around her, realize that there are other readers out there, who may not be contributing, but are quietly reading what some of us have to write, (or butcher). Whether they're using our banter as a basis of forming their own opinion, or enlightening themselves to how 'the other half' thinks, they're out there, and I think some of us get a certain kick knowing that how we express ourselves in heated arenas like this, is likely to... if nothing else... help them form their opinions about us.

So that combination of pure, cathartic, "venting", about a topic that is potentially emotionally-dear to us, mixed with some elements of simple egotistical pursuits, provides for (again) an outlet that is not easily found in other places.

And even if the emotional and ideological ties are not wholly there when arguing about a topic, some of us probably just get off the basic competitiveness of it all! I know yours-truly sometimes couldn't give a damn less about a particular issue, but maybe I have an opinion, and I just want to lay into somebody who has a different opinion. (?) I mean, there really is a multitude of reasons, if you stop and think about it for a sec.

But I do see where you're coming from though, wondering. Just don't peg us all for being so philosophically vested though. Active readers of this forum KNOW who the mental deep-enders are on this forum, and we also know who's wearing floaties. Sometimes some of us just need a good yell, at their sacrifice.

[Ghost]

So why are you reading one? :)

Dirk

Boredom/Curiousity

And the combination of the two that makes me wonder who falls where with regard to the issue(s) in the thread.

We all make assumptions about people that we don't know in person based largely on what they post, so a thread like this (where people are voicing a strong opinion) serves to provide "evidence" that can either reaffirm or alter our baseline assumptions.

So, in essence, I'm don't read this for the content, but the greater context of who falls where.

Like I said, the PEW study has shown that the vast majority of people have their opinions formed by 15, and never alter them regardless of who they talk to, what classes they take, etc.

In my personal experience teaching philosophy at various universities, I agree with the PEW study's findings. Once formed, people will cling to their opinion against any/all contrary positions--in fact, opposition typically only serves to reinforce their prior beliefs.

Which is why I wondered if anyone was taking the topic seriously, (with the hope/intent to change minds), or if people were just using it as a personality litmus test, or simply as a means to vent (and/or score points with like-minded readers), or for the simple enjoyment of rattling cages...and for most of those reasons, the topic isn't really the focus...


Well you do have to understand that this forum acts as an outlet for us in various forms or another.

So that combination of pure, cathartic, "venting", about a topic that is potentially emotionally-dear to us, mixed with some elements of simple egotistical pursuits, provides for (again) an outlet that is not easily found in other places.

And even if the emotional and ideological ties are not wholly there when arguing about a topic, some of us probably just get off the basic competitiveness of it all! I know yours-truly sometimes couldn't give a damn less about a particular issue, but maybe I have an opinion, and I just want to lay into somebody who has a different opinion. (?) I mean, there really is a multitude of reasons, if you stop and think about it for a sec.

But I do see where you're coming from though, wondering. Just don't peg us all for being so philosophically vested though. Active readers of this forum KNOW who the mental deep-enders are on this forum, and we also know who's wearing floaties. Sometimes some of us just need a good yell, at their sacrifice.

^Pretty much what I thought, and said in my reply to Dirk ;)


Moreover, I'm always curious to see not only the positions people take, but who has the ability to defend or present a cogent argument and who simply lghts the flamethrower. :shocked:

[dirkterrell]

Moreover, I'm always curious to see not only the positions people take, but who has the ability to defend or present a cogent argument and who simply lghts the flamethrower. :shocked:

I am reminded of a Churchill quote "I have had to eat my own words many times, and I have found it a very nourishing diet."

I find it a good test of the strength of my own position on various topics when I can argue it with someone who takes a different position without either of us resorting to the flamethrower. If I feel the need to grab the flamethrower, it makes me take a hard look at what I'm arguing.

Dirk

[Filo]

Like I said, the PEW study has shown that the vast majority of people have their opinions formed by 15, and never alter them regardless of who they talk to, what classes they take, etc.


Well, this just proves what I have always thought about you!!!!!! I knew it from the moment I read your first post. Your kind always make me want to spit.



Now, back to my cave. There are these things on the wall that are reality. You are not reality. You are not even the light.

Oh, and sorry, I can't really light flame throwers. It always feels wrong, like putting (womens) underwear on backwards. :)

[Captain Obvious]

Perhaps we were helping discern who would be burning in hell for eternity and who would be frolicking on clouds with undersized wings.

[Ghost]

Perhaps we were helping discern who would be burning in hell for eternity and who would be frolicking on clouds with undersized wings.

Hmm, perhaps. But, in order for that to be true...ah, nevermind. ;)


I am reminded of a Churchill quote "I have had to eat my own words many times, and I have found it a very nourishing diet."

I find it a good test of the strength of my own position on various topics when I can argue it with someone who takes a different position without either of us resorting to the flamethrower. If I feel the need to grab the flamethrower, it makes me take a hard look at what I'm arguing.

Dirk

Lol, I like that quote.

Yeah, I agree, but every now and then the flamethrower can be amusing, if not overly helpful. ;)

[zetaetatheta]

Boredom/Curiousity


Like I said, the PEW study has shown that the vast majority of people have their opinions formed by 15, and never alter them regardless of who they talk to, what classes they take, etc.



The PEW study stinks:lol:

[Sortarican]

The PEW study stinks:lol:

I came to the same conclusion........when I turned 15.

[Captain Obvious]

The PEW study stinks:lol:

I was thinking the same thing.

Sure, at 15 you may THINK you know everything, but you learn many years later you had no idea what you didn't know.

And I find your olfactory humor in good taste.