• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Train Wreck: Continued

libertarian_knight

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
997
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I haven't read the whole thread kind of long, but I have a sense (unless it changed later).

We are Human Beings, not computer programs or simple machines. There is no "wrong way" to live. What the Enlightenement should have taught us is there is a right way to treat and interact with people to promote cultural advancement and civilization. Generally, that government and law should protect life liberty and property, and that people should be generous to one another.

Volitional homosexual acts and lifestyles are not violations of those principles.

Furthermore, it is my belief, that homosexuality is indicitive of a prosporous society, not a benefit, but a side effect. There is less social and environmental pressure to survive and breed in prosporus cultures; there is less pressure on the virile and fertile to breed and carry on.

A society will not crumble because volitional interpersonal relationship arraingments and the laws governing them change, a society will crumble, when it forgets the things that made it propser. For the United States these are were generally, Consitutionalism, Capitalism, Rule of Law, Respect for Life Liberty and Property Rights, Hardwork, Invention and Innovation.

Who's ****ing who, does not matter.

Corruption of Power, Secrecy in Government, Abuse of Privledge, Incompentancy in Leadership: these are the things that will Kill the USA, not Gays marrying and having associated legal protections and social status.
 

Busta

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 18, 2005
Messages
1,135
Reaction score
0
Location
From somewhere, deep below the Earth...
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
sissy-boy said:

The truth of the matter is that you fail to answer the question because you simply don't have the FOGGIEST notion what you would do. You've never been in a position where you've ever had to fight for anything that people rally against so the idea of it is so foreign to you that you lack the ability to empathize.

I pity the man who is unable to feel such a basic emotion such as empathy. I hope you can learn to live with it.
You asked me if I thought that legislation banning opposite-sex marriage, and only permitting same-sex 'marriage, would be "punishment".

One can not comment on legislation that does not exist, even if only in theory. Without an example of such legislation, I can not answer your question.

If you want an answer, then just tell me which, or both, pieces of draft legislation you would like me to base my observation on.
 

Busta

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 18, 2005
Messages
1,135
Reaction score
0
Location
From somewhere, deep below the Earth...
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Duke said:
About the church thing, I was not referring to you.
I respect your beliefs on this subject, but I don't think that they constitute making a law. Well, each to his own.

Did I say that I like your new avatar? It is funny!:2razz:

Duke
I think that you and I sher the opinion that 'church-goers' are annoying. I mien, for the most part, it doesn't even matter if one is a fellow Christian. Any evangelical Christian who disagrees with another Christian will tell that person that their flavor is not the "true" flavor (Baptists, Lutherens and Catholics come to mind...) and that you are going to hell.....EVEN THOUGH THE OTHER PERSON IS A "BELIEVER"!!!

As for avatars, I found a really cool digital photo website...I'll see if I can find it again....that's where I got this avatar and the previous 'speedboat-swan'.
I'll post it when I find it.
 

Duke

Royal Pain
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 30, 2005
Messages
2,595
Reaction score
108
Location
Minnesota
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Busta said:
I think that you and I sher the opinion that 'church-goers' are annoying. I mien, for the most part, it doesn't even matter if one is a fellow Christian. Any evangelical Christian who disagrees with another Christian will tell that person that their flavor is not the "true" flavor (Baptists, Lutherens and Catholics come to mind...) and that you are going to hell.....EVEN THOUGH THE OTHER PERSON IS A "BELIEVER"!!!

As for avatars, I found a really cool digital photo website...I'll see if I can find it again....that's where I got this avatar and the previous 'speedboat-swan'.
I'll post it when I find it.


Yeah, the "Going To Hell" dogma gets on my nerves, for I have people that I have to work with that can't help themselves but talk about it to me.........
I.E.:
"I am amazed that you do not believe in [my] God! If you are not enlightend soon, you might be headed for hell........."


Duke
 

Busta

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 18, 2005
Messages
1,135
Reaction score
0
Location
From somewhere, deep below the Earth...
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Duke said:
Yeah, the "Going To Hell" dogma gets on my nerves, for I have people that I have to work with that can't help themselves but talk about it to me.........
I.E.:
"I am amazed that you do not believe in [my] God! If you are not enlightend soon, you might be headed for hell........."
Duke
Take comfort in this....
Like a man boasting about his sexual expeditions, a person who constantly speaks about a given issue, unless asked, is insecure with them selves in that respect.

These Christians constantly speak about their religious views because they are insecure in their beliefs. They want you to join them because that would further validate their view.

When you refuse them, they become irritated, yes?

It's called Projection.
 

Duke

Royal Pain
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 30, 2005
Messages
2,595
Reaction score
108
Location
Minnesota
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Busta said:
Take comfort in this....
Like a man boasting about his sexual expeditions, a person who constantly speaks about a given issue, unless asked, is insecure with them selves in that respect.

These Christians constantly speak about their religious views because they are insecure in their beliefs. They want you to join them because that would further validate their view.

When you refuse them, they become irritated, yes?

It's called Projection.

Irritated? To say the very least.

You must understand, I have a very large amount of Roman Catholic relatives, the kind that are just through the roof about it. Some examples:
1)My grandmother had 12 children, for she viewed each as a gift to God. This put the family into poverty. Not very sensical, huh?
2) Many of my (9) aunts did not come to my father's wedding with my mother, for it was not being held in a church (my father is no longer religious).
3)Many of my relatives did not come to my uncle's (their brother, or nepehew, ect.) funeral, for the religious rites were not done, or something of the like.

In every waking hour held with them, I am pestered an account of my lack of religion, and they sometimes get steaming mad, or the conversation just gets all-around ridiculous.


Duke
 

jallman

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
36,913
Reaction score
11,283
Location
Los Angeles, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
libertarian_knight said:
I haven't read the whole thread kind of long, but I have a sense (unless it changed later).

We are Human Beings, not computer programs or simple machines. There is no "wrong way" to live. What the Enlightenement should have taught us is there is a right way to treat and interact with people to promote cultural advancement and civilization. Generally, that government and law should protect life liberty and property, and that people should be generous to one another.

Volitional homosexual acts and lifestyles are not violations of those principles.

Furthermore, it is my belief, that homosexuality is indicitive of a prosporous society, not a benefit, but a side effect. There is less social and environmental pressure to survive and breed in prosporus cultures; there is less pressure on the virile and fertile to breed and carry on.

A society will not crumble because volitional interpersonal relationship arraingments and the laws governing them change, a society will crumble, when it forgets the things that made it propser. For the United States these are were generally, Consitutionalism, Capitalism, Rule of Law, Respect for Life Liberty and Property Rights, Hardwork, Invention and Innovation.

Who's ****ing who, does not matter.

Corruption of Power, Secrecy in Government, Abuse of Privledge, Incompentancy in Leadership: these are the things that will Kill the USA, not Gays marrying and having associated legal protections and social status.

Bravo!!! You nailed that one! :applaud
 

jallman

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
36,913
Reaction score
11,283
Location
Los Angeles, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Duke said:
Irritated? To say the very least.

You must understand, I have a very large amount of Roman Catholic relatives, the kind that are just through the roof about it. Some examples:
1)My grandmother had 12 children, for she viewed each as a gift to God. This put the family into poverty. Not very sensical, huh?
2) Many of my (9) aunts did not come to my father's wedding with my mother, for it was not being held in a church (my father is no longer religious).
3)Many of my relatives did not come to my uncle's (their brother, or nepehew, ect.) funeral, for the religious rites were not done, or something of the like.

In every waking hour held with them, I am pestered an account of my lack of religion, and they sometimes get steaming mad, or the conversation just gets all-around ridiculous.


Duke

Thats sad because I am catholic and most of my family is either protestant or totally irreligious altogether. We get along just great because we know what the religion is there for; to give us comfort and unity, not to divide us. Those of my family who arent religious still have a great respect for us who are and we never push our beliefs on the side of the family that isnt. Its funny, cuz on holidays, my immediate family, who are protestant, now come to mass with me on christmas and I attend easter services at their church. Not all Roman Catholics are like your family is...are they ethnic...like irish or italian?
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
I've stated before that the Big Dog will accept a good non-Christian over a bad Christian everyday and twice on Sunday...That holds the same with sexual orientation, IMO...

God - "So you went to church every Sunday?...Perfect!...Charity?...Great!...Gave as much as possible and volunteered at the Red Cross...Lookin' good...Saved a woman from drowning?...Bonus points for that!...Took care of your parents in old age?...Good job there!...skimming through list...What?!?!...You're gay?...Sorry!...7th layer of Hell for you...Next!...

That ain't gonna happen...:roll:
 

sissy-boy

Banned
Joined
Aug 9, 2005
Messages
1,321
Reaction score
0
Location
Phoenix, AZ
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
libertarian_knight said:
I haven't read the whole thread kind of long, but I have a sense (unless it changed later).

We are Human Beings, not computer programs or simple machines. There is no "wrong way" to live. What the Enlightenement should have taught us is there is a right way to treat and interact with people to promote cultural advancement and civilization. Generally, that government and law should protect life liberty and property, and that people should be generous to one another.

Volitional homosexual acts and lifestyles are not violations of those principles.

Furthermore, it is my belief, that homosexuality is indicitive of a prosporous society, not a benefit, but a side effect. There is less social and environmental pressure to survive and breed in prosporus cultures; there is less pressure on the virile and fertile to breed and carry on.

A society will not crumble because volitional interpersonal relationship arraingments and the laws governing them change, a society will crumble, when it forgets the things that made it propser. For the United States these are were generally, Consitutionalism, Capitalism, Rule of Law, Respect for Life Liberty and Property Rights, Hardwork, Invention and Innovation.

Who's ****ing who, does not matter.

Corruption of Power, Secrecy in Government, Abuse of Privledge, Incompentancy in Leadership: these are the things that will Kill the USA, not Gays marrying and having associated legal protections and social status.



Thank you! Finally, a voice of reason that is not based on superstitious deities!! But then it's not surprising that so many people are bothered by what SEX a person has. The vast majority of Cons wanted Clinton to resign because he was fortunate enough to have recieved a BLOW JOB!
 

sissy-boy

Banned
Joined
Aug 9, 2005
Messages
1,321
Reaction score
0
Location
Phoenix, AZ
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Busta said:
You asked me if I thought that legislation banning opposite-sex marriage, and only permitting same-sex 'marriage, would be "punishment".

One can not comment on legislation that does not exist, even if only in theory. Without an example of such legislation, I can not answer your question.

If you want an answer, then just tell me which, or both, pieces of draft legislation you would like me to base my observation on.




But you CAN comment on a piece of legislation that does not exist. All I asked is how you would respond if the marriage was redefined not to include heterosexual marriage. You were unable to comment because you limited yourself by saying that you 'can't' answer it, maybe due to imagination skills? I'm really not interested anymore really. You've made it apparent that you have no intention of answering the question but are much more interested in the formulation of the question.

It's called 'skirting the issue'. I obviously hit a nerve that rendered you unable to answer a very simple question. Which to me simply means that you are incapable of putting yourself in the shoes of those who are treated with intolerance and bigotry.

Frankly I don't see how a person can have a rational debate without the ability to empathize and imagine wearing someone else's shoes.
 

Busta

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 18, 2005
Messages
1,135
Reaction score
0
Location
From somewhere, deep below the Earth...
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
cnredd said:
I've stated before that the Big Dog will accept a good non-Christian over a bad Christian everyday and twice on Sunday...That holds the same with sexual orientation, IMO...

God - "So you went to church every Sunday?...Perfect!...Charity?...Great!...Gave as much as possible and volunteered at the Red Cross...Lookin' good...Saved a woman from drowning?...Bonus points for that!...Took care of your parents in old age?...Good job there!...skimming through list...What?!?!...You're gay?...Sorry!...7th layer of Hell for you...Next!...

That ain't gonna happen...:roll:
That's my position as well.
 

Busta

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 18, 2005
Messages
1,135
Reaction score
0
Location
From somewhere, deep below the Earth...
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
sissy-boy said:

But you CAN comment on a piece of legislation that does not exist. All I asked is how you would respond if the marriage was redefined not to include heterosexual marriage. You were unable to comment because you limited yourself by saying that you 'can't' answer it, maybe due to imagination skills? I'm really not interested anymore really. You've made it apparent that you have no intention of answering the question but are much more interested in the formulation of the question.

It's called 'skirting the issue'. I obviously hit a nerve that rendered you unable to answer a very simple question. Which to me simply means that you are incapable of putting yourself in the shoes of those who are treated with intolerance and bigotry.

Frankly I don't see how a person can have a rational debate without the ability to empathize and imagine wearing someone else's shoes.

"All I asked is how you would respond if the marriage was redefined not to include heterosexual marriage."
As I said in post 473, It wouldn't matter in the slitest.

As for if it would be "punishment", that is a legal action, and without legislation or court opinion to read, it is impossible for me to know if I am being legally punished for anything.

My attitude is not predisposed to a persecution complex. If I am accused of a crime, convicted and sentenced, then that would be punishment. If I'm not accused of a crime, convicted and sentenced, then it is not punishment.

Also, as to the 2 proposed pieces of legislation that I presented which would ban opposite-sex 'marriages:
No, those pieces of legislation are not punishment for opposite-sex couples or heterosexual people.

Neither California's Prop 22 nor the recent Texas amendment were "punishment" to polygamists, same-sex couples or anyone ells. You have yet to provide any evidence to the contrary.

Again, as I said in post 473, my Marriage could be "nullified" tommarrow and it wouldn't matter in the slitest. My Marriage was forged by the name of the 'all inclusive wholeness', and as such can not be broken by Man's law. Man's law may not recognize my holy union with my wife, but since my marriage is not based on Man's law, it really wouldn't matter.

If TheBigC had his way and all marriage were abolished tommarrow, my relationship with my wife would remain unaffected.
 
Last edited:

sissy-boy

Banned
Joined
Aug 9, 2005
Messages
1,321
Reaction score
0
Location
Phoenix, AZ
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Busta said:
"All I asked is how you would respond if the marriage was redefined not to include heterosexual marriage."
As I said in post 473, It wouldn't matter in the slitest.

As for if it would be "punishment", that is a legal action, and without legislation or court opinion to read, it is impossible for me to know if I am being legally punished for anything.

My attitude is not predisposed to a persecution complex. If I am accused of a crime, convicted and sentenced, then that would be punishment. If I'm not accused of a crime, convicted and sentenced, then it is not punishment.

Also, as to the 2 proposed pieces of legislation that I presented which would ban opposite-sex 'marriages:
No, those pieces of legislation are not punishment for opposite-sex couples or heterosexual people.

Neither California's Prop 22 nor the recent Texas amendment were "punishment" to polygamists, same-sex couples or anyone ells. You have yet to provide any evidence to the contrary.

Again, as I said in post 473, my Marriage could be "nullified" tommarrow and it wouldn't matter in the slitest. My Marriage was forged by the name of the 'all inclusive wholeness', and as such can not be broken by Man's law. Man's law may not recognize my holy union with my wife, but since my marriage is not based on Man's law, it really wouldn't matter.

If TheBigC had his way and all marriage were abolished tommarrow, my relationship with my wife would remain unaffected.



If you were not able to reap the tax benefits as the guy next door, it WOULD NOT remain 'unaffected'. You would not be able to claim your wife, you would lose money and you would also not be able to visit her in the hospital if her life was threatened. so if you see this as 'unaffected' then you are simply not looking at the whole picture. You wife would also not be able to be on YOUR health insurance policy as well.

Do those things not matter to you?

Do you actually believe that we're seeking marriage benefits JUST so we can think of our marriage as 'Holy'?? We already KNOW that they're 'HOLY' and are loving relationships and the vast majority of the same-sex couples already ARE married from some church or ritual, THAT isn't the only thing that we are seeking. It's the benefits such as hospital visits that we are denied unless we are married.

Don't you get it?
 

Duke

Royal Pain
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 30, 2005
Messages
2,595
Reaction score
108
Location
Minnesota
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
jallman said:
Thats sad because I am catholic and most of my family is either protestant or totally irreligious altogether. We get along just great because we know what the religion is there for; to give us comfort and unity, not to divide us. Those of my family who arent religious still have a great respect for us who are and we never push our beliefs on the side of the family that isnt. Its funny, cuz on holidays, my immediate family, who are protestant, now come to mass with me on christmas and I attend easter services at their church. Not all Roman Catholics are like your family is...are they ethnic...like irish or italian?

They are a little Irish, but they have no ethnicity in particular. They are Sons and Daughters of the Revolution, they have been here since god knows when. That side of the family is primarily Southern, I don't know if that has any meaning..........


Duke
 

Busta

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 18, 2005
Messages
1,135
Reaction score
0
Location
From somewhere, deep below the Earth...
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
sissy-boy said:

If you were not able to reap the tax benefits as the guy next door, it WOULD NOT remain 'unaffected'. You would not be able to claim your wife, you would lose money and you would also not be able to visit her in the hospital if her life was threatened. so if you see this as 'unaffected' then you are simply not looking at the whole picture. You wife would also not be able to be on YOUR health insurance policy as well.

Do those things not matter to you?

Do you actually believe that we're seeking marriage benefits JUST so we can think of our marriage as 'Holy'?? We already KNOW that they're 'HOLY' and are loving relationships and the vast majority of the same-sex couples already ARE married from some church or ritual, THAT isn't the only thing that we are seeking. It's the benefits such as hospital visits that we are denied unless we are married.

Don't you get it?
"If you were not able to reap the tax benefits as the guy next door......You would not be able to claim your wife,"
My relationship with my wife is not synonymous with my tax status. They are separate things. If I could not claim my wife on my taxes my relationship with her would remain unaffected.

Oh, and regardless of age, if she were not working (gasp! A stay-at-home-mom), and I were paying for all of the bills, yes, I could still claim her as a dependant. As for filing jointly, we won't be able to do that this year anyway.

"...and you would also not be able to visit her in the hospital if her life was threatened."
The ability to see her in the hospitole has no bearing on our relationship. Seeing her in the hospitole is an action, not the union.

Aside from that:
I went through a similar situation with her before we were married. She went to the hospitole for premature labor and bleeding (complications from previous abortions...as it turned out). The hospitole wasn't going to let me in because we weren't married. When she told them that I was the father of the child, and that we were engaged, they let me in.

I realize that that situation is not universal, and does not apply to every couple or situation, but if opposite-sex 'marriage were banned, just as same-sex 'marriage is currently banned, I would push for a legal reinforcement of Living Will, Power of Attorney and Final Will and Testomit. As I have made known, I believe that those legal instruments should have enough strength, now, to allow a same-sex partner to be present in a hospital, make medical decisions, etc.

"You wife would also not be able to be on YOUR health insurance policy as well."
Aside from the fact that my relationship with my wife is not synonymous with legal policies, my wife is not on my insurance policy now, we are on separate plans, so there would be no change there either.

"Do you actually believe that we're seeking marriage benefits JUST so we can think of our marriage as 'Holy'??"
Given that the State can't sanctify a marriage....of-coarse not.

"We already KNOW that they're 'HOLY'.."
The Lord rebukes you.

"...and are loving relationships and the vast majority of the same-sex couples already ARE married from some church or ritual..."
Sure. But that leads me back to one of my observations of the Church's hypocrisy: Christians are not suppose to pray in public. Your's is another example of how the church is hypocritical.

"It's the benefits such as hospital visits that we are denied unless we are married."
As I have made known, I have no problem with same-sex couples having hospitole visitation rights, next-of-kin status, etc.

I believe that these relationships should be reflected in the Nuclear Family, and that excludes marriage because a man can not be a wife, nor can a woman be a husband.

There is still room for negotiation, however.

"Don't you get it?"
Always did.
 
Last edited:

jallman

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
36,913
Reaction score
11,283
Location
Los Angeles, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Duke said:
They are a little Irish, but they have no ethnicity in particular. They are Sons and Daughters of the Revolution, they have been here since god knows when. That side of the family is primarily Southern, I don't know if that has any meaning..........


Duke

Nah, I doubt that matters much...my whole family is southern also. We are from North Carolina...and then Romania a generation back on my dad's side...scotch irish on my mom's side. I would have to say your family just sounds very extreme in their catholicism. Could be that their parish is headed by jesuits whereas mine is headed by franciscans. Jesuits have a reputation for being quite militant in their faith. LOL
 

sissy-boy

Banned
Joined
Aug 9, 2005
Messages
1,321
Reaction score
0
Location
Phoenix, AZ
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Busta said:
"If you were not able to reap the tax benefits as the guy next door......You would not be able to claim your wife,"
My relationship with my wife is not synonymous with my tax status. They are separate things. If I could not claim my wife on my taxes my relationship with her would remain unaffected.

Oh, and regardless of age, if she were not working (gasp! A stay-at-home-mom), and I were paying for all of the bills, yes, I could still claim her as a dependant. As for filing jointly, we won't be able to do that this year anyway.

"...and you would also not be able to visit her in the hospital if her life was threatened."
The ability to see her in the hospitole has no bearing on our relationship. Seeing her in the hospitole is an action, not the union.

Aside from that:
I went through a similar situation with her before we were married. She went to the hospitole for premature labor and bleeding (complications from previous abortions...as it turned out). The hospitole wasn't going to let me in because we weren't married. When she told them that I was the father of the child, and that we were engaged, they let me in.

I realize that that situation is not universal, and does not apply to every couple or situation, but if opposite-sex 'marriage were banned, just as same-sex 'marriage is currently banned, I would push for a legal reinforcement of Living Will, Power of Attorney and Final Will and Testomit. As I have made known, I believe that those legal instruments should have enough strength, now, to allow a same-sex partner to be present in a hospital, make medical decisions, etc.

"You wife would also not be able to be on YOUR health insurance policy as well."
Aside from the fact that my relationship with my wife is not synonymous with legal policies, my wife is not on my insurance policy now, we are on separate plans, so there would be no change there either.

"Do you actually believe that we're seeking marriage benefits JUST so we can think of our marriage as 'Holy'??"
Given that the State can't sanctify a marriage....of-coarse not.

"We already KNOW that they're 'HOLY'.."
The Lord rebukes you.

"...and are loving relationships and the vast majority of the same-sex couples already ARE married from some church or ritual..."
Sure. But that leads me back to one of my observations of the Church's hypocrisy: Christians are not suppose to pray in public. Your's is another example of how the church is hypocritical.

"It's the benefits such as hospital visits that we are denied unless we are married."
As I have made known, I have no problem with same-sex couples having hospitole visitation rights, next-of-kin status, etc.

I believe that these relationships should be reflected in the Nuclear Family, and that excludes marriage because a man can not be a wife, nor can a woman be a husband.

There is still room for negotiation, however.

"Don't you get it?"
Always did.



So your position lies exclusively from a religious point of view. Now I got 'cha.

It is sad however that even knowing the injustices that banning same-sex marriage causes that you still would call for inequality.

OH -- and a man sure CAN be called a 'bride' and a woman a 'groom'. Just ask me!! ;->)

I know a female groom right now. And her wife was determined by roles that are defined in their relationship. The children call one of them 'mommy' and the other 'Kelly'. But of course in public they refer to both of them as 'mommy'.

That's how God wants it! Why do you think God blessed their wedding??
 

Busta

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 18, 2005
Messages
1,135
Reaction score
0
Location
From somewhere, deep below the Earth...
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
sissy-boy said:

So your position lies exclusively from a religious point of view. Now I got 'cha.
It is sad however that even knowing the injustices that banning same-sex marriage causes that you still would call for inequality.
OH -- and a man sure CAN be called a 'bride' and a woman a 'groom'. Just ask me!! ;->)
I know a female groom right now. And her wife was determined by roles that are defined in their relationship. The children call one of them 'mommy' and the other 'Kelly'. But of course in public they refer to both of them as 'mommy'.
That's how God wants it! Why do you think God blessed their wedding??
"So your position lies exclusively from a religious point of view. Now I got 'cha."
Despite everything that I have said, if that is what you still choose to believe, then so be it.

"It is sad however that even knowing the injustices that banning same-sex marriage causes that you still would call for inequality."
I have already conceded my vote.

"OH -- and a man sure CAN be called a 'bride' and a woman a 'groom'. Just ask me!! ;->)
I know a female groom right now. And her wife was determined by roles that are defined in their relationship. The children call one of them 'mommy' and the other 'Kelly'. But of course in public they refer to both of them as 'mommy'."

Absolutely.
We can call each other whatever we want: Spouse, wife, husband, significant other, partner, etc.
You can call a a bicycle a car, or a car a bicycle, or whatever ells you choose. But names do not change the nature of the thing.
A man can not be a wife nor can a woman be a husband.
The literal reality of their genders show this, and a name can not change that.

"That's how God wants it! Why do you think God blessed their wedding??"
The Lord rebukes you.
 

George_Washington

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 2, 2005
Messages
1,962
Reaction score
0
Location
United States of America and proud of it!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
jallman said:
Nah, I doubt that matters much...my whole family is southern also. We are from North Carolina...and then Romania a generation back on my dad's side...scotch irish on my mom's side. I would have to say your family just sounds very extreme in their catholicism. Could be that their parish is headed by jesuits whereas mine is headed by franciscans. Jesuits have a reputation for being quite militant in their faith. LOL

You're part Irish? That's cool, so am I. The Catholics in my family seem to be fairly tolerant of gays. My mom is Catholic but yet she supports same sex marriage because she doesn't think being gay is immoral.
 

sissy-boy

Banned
Joined
Aug 9, 2005
Messages
1,321
Reaction score
0
Location
Phoenix, AZ
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Busta said:
"So your position lies exclusively from a religious point of view. Now I got 'cha."
Despite everything that I have said, if that is what you still choose to believe, then so be it.

"It is sad however that even knowing the injustices that banning same-sex marriage causes that you still would call for inequality."
I have already conceded my vote.

"OH -- and a man sure CAN be called a 'bride' and a woman a 'groom'. Just ask me!! ;->)
I know a female groom right now. And her wife was determined by roles that are defined in their relationship. The children call one of them 'mommy' and the other 'Kelly'. But of course in public they refer to both of them as 'mommy'."

Absolutely.
We can call each other whatever we want: Spouse, wife, husband, significant other, partner, etc.
You can call a a bicycle a car, or a car a bicycle, or whatever ells you choose. But names do not change the nature of the thing.
A man can not be a wife nor can a woman be a husband.
The literal reality of their genders show this, and a name can not change that.

"That's how God wants it! Why do you think God blessed their wedding??"
The Lord rebukes you.



'When God hates all the same people as yourself, you can rest assured that you've created him in your own image." -- Anon
 

Duke

Royal Pain
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 30, 2005
Messages
2,595
Reaction score
108
Location
Minnesota
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
sissy-boy said:

'When God hates all the same people as yourself, you can rest assured that you've created him in your own image." -- Anon

Ramen!


Duke
 

Busta

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 18, 2005
Messages
1,135
Reaction score
0
Location
From somewhere, deep below the Earth...
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
sissy-boy said:

'When God hates all the same people as yourself, you can rest assured that you've created him in your own image." -- Anon
Since I wasn't talking about God hating anyone, and I've made clear that I am just as "worthy of death" as any homosexual, I'm afraid I don't follow what you are trying to say.
 

sissy-boy

Banned
Joined
Aug 9, 2005
Messages
1,321
Reaction score
0
Location
Phoenix, AZ
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Busta said:
Since I wasn't talking about God hating anyone, and I've made clear that I am just as "worthy of death" as any homosexual, I'm afraid I don't follow what you are trying to say.



You mentioned that 'The Lord' -- your idea of 'God' would 'rebuke' me. Which is to hold strong dissaproval. And by that statement you suggested that you had more privvy to 'God's word' than I. That simply is not true. Every person on this planet is no more worthy or unworthy than anyone else. For you to suggest that God approves of YOUR lifestyle more than mine is actually a very blasphemous thing to say -- and that's using YOUR idea of God.

THAT is why I posted the very FITTING quotation. Because it seems that you have done what I posted.
 

Busta

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 18, 2005
Messages
1,135
Reaction score
0
Location
From somewhere, deep below the Earth...
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
sissy-boy said:

You mentioned that 'The Lord' -- your idea of 'God' would 'rebuke' me. Which is to hold strong dissaproval. And by that statement you suggested that you had more privvy to 'God's word' than I. That simply is not true. Every person on this planet is no more worthy or unworthy than anyone else. For you to suggest that God approves of YOUR lifestyle more than mine is actually a very blasphemous thing to say -- and that's using YOUR idea of God.
THAT is why I posted the very FITTING quotation. Because it seems that you have done what I posted.
Yes, God disaproves of Homosexuality.
Everyone on Earth has equil access to God. You can use prayer, meditation, whatever you like. Our cores are the same, we all came from the same place, and we will all end up in the same place.

I did not sugest that I had more privvy to 'God's word' than you, you assumed that. Just as you assumed that anti same-sex marriage legislation is "punishment". You have yet to provide any evidence of either.

"Every person on this planet is no more worthy or unworthy than anyone else."
Hello? That's what I've been saying.....
Busta said:
....and I've made clear that I am just as "worthy of death" as any homosexual...
Am I not the one who showed the "Rule-Zero" for following divine law?
James 2:10;
10 "For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it.
11 For he who said, "Do not commit adultery," also said, "Do not murder." If you do not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker".

"For you to suggest that God approves of YOUR lifestyle more than mine is actually a very blasphemous thing to say -- and that's using YOUR idea of God."
Now you are altering the parameters of this thread by going beyond the scope of gay 'marriage.

As I have said over and over and over.......I am no more innocent than any homosexual, nor am I any less "worthy of death" than any homosexual. *I am just as guilty as you.*

"The Lord rebukes you" does not say any of what you have assumed that I implied. That was a quote from the Arch Angel Micheal:
Jude 1:9;
"Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee."

Basically, saying (granted, in modern English) "The Lord rebukes you" is a way of telling someone that they are inconsistent with God's law and will, WITHOUT accusation, insult or implied superiority.

You said that God had blessed a homosexual union, yet homosexuality is rejected the very law that those women wished to be married by. So, I was using our mutual idea of God, not my own.

If I were as you wish me to be painted, then I would have never conceded my vote so as too be in favor of same-sex 'marriage.
 
Top Bottom