You seem to have lost that argument. You didn't address any of the issues he brought up. You're not a worthy debate opponent if you can't even address the freedom promised by this countries founding documents with nothing more than "rant" as a rebuttle. I don't consider the Constitution and Bill of Rights a rant.
I consider it a rant when a person looses his/her cool and resorts to using foul language.
And I asked him to try again.
But if you like we can disregard the laws of this site and resort to foul langauge and name calling, your choice.
And that is why...
Conservatives' pessimism is conducive to their happiness in three ways. First, they are rarely surprised -- they are right more often than not about the course of events. Second, when they are wrong they are happy to be so. Third, because pessimistic conservatives put not their faith in princes -- government -- they accept that happiness is a function of fending for oneself. They believe that happiness is an activity -- it is inseparable from the pursuit of happiness.
Originally posted by upallnight What?!?!?!? Are you serious. You think there is violence on both sides of this issue?
Show me 5 articles of gay on straight violence. Go ahead, find me 5 articles anywhere in history where there was a case of violence categorized as "straight bashing" that is equivelant to the violence we gays are careful and cautious of everywhere we go. You're not going to find them. You can say that it's because of the media or whatever, but I'm sure that some media source somewhere would have picked up on those cases. There are plenty of right wing blogs and online news sources out there on the Internet. So, I challenge you to find only 5 of those cases. ... You're either very ignorant about what is going on in this country and the world, or you're just plain deceptive and scary.
I'll tell you what, I will find such sources (already done so) and will post them if you will do the same for "Defensive Shootings." Defensive Shootings defined as a civilian (no service member or police officer) performing self-defense for him/herself or the defense of another with a firearm.
Why are Defensive Shootings related to this reply? You will find out, but first give it a shot.
And that is why...
Conservatives' pessimism is conducive to their happiness in three ways. First, they are rarely surprised -- they are right more often than not about the course of events. Second, when they are wrong they are happy to be so. Third, because pessimistic conservatives put not their faith in princes -- government -- they accept that happiness is a function of fending for oneself. They believe that happiness is an activity -- it is inseparable from the pursuit of happiness.
Originally posted by Gameloading Your post is very misleading. islamineurope.blogspot.com/2008/08/netherlands-statistics-netherlands-to.html "Civil servants, particularly in the major cities, register dozens of bigamous or polygamous marriages annually. These marriages are banned and criminal in the Netherlands."
Negative. Noticed that your post or article had no mention of enforcement. The law or intent may be in place, but the enforcement may not be. Same here in California. Same-Sex Marriages were not legal, but that didn't stop the Mayor of San Fran from allowing it, and no enforcement of stopping it.
And that is why...
Conservatives' pessimism is conducive to their happiness in three ways. First, they are rarely surprised -- they are right more often than not about the course of events. Second, when they are wrong they are happy to be so. Third, because pessimistic conservatives put not their faith in princes -- government -- they accept that happiness is a function of fending for oneself. They believe that happiness is an activity -- it is inseparable from the pursuit of happiness.
This thread keeps going back to polygamy, but I don't really see this as an issue. Polygamy is it's own punishment
Please logically fill in the connections of your slippery-slope argument. Why is polygamy the next step and not incestuous marriages for instance? I'm fairly certain you can't do this since you lean on fabricated history and declare that it's already happened. Especially since you've been shot down several times over your statement about polygamy being legal in Norway.
The thing you have to remember is that the line IS already drawn at animals and children. Leaving animals aside for obvious sanitary reasons, lets talk about the redefinition of adult, visa vie age of consent. The lowest age of consent, among countries that even have an age of consent, is Japan where it's 13. Although culturally, it's not acceptable to even consider marriage to a woman that hasn't had her first period yet. Most European countries place age of consent at about 16. In the US it varies by state and hovers between 14 and 18 with a large number of people pushing to have it raised to 25. Nonetheless, many people become sexually active, with other people their own age, between the ages of 13 and 16.
Also keep in mind that as little as sixty years ago, people were getting married and starting families as young as 15. Chances are, that your great grandparents or grandparents were working and had their first child before they turned 18. Given, people live much longer nowadays, but not THAT much longer. I'm also willing to bet that people didn't mature any faster then than they do now.
I know that it's currently in vogue int he U.S. to consider anyone under the age of 30 a child, but realistically, childhood ends right around the end of puberty. Aside from a few Muslim countries, marriage and sex with anyone below the age of puberty is considered completely reprehensible. The line here has already been drawn several times and morphed into a wall. Unless you can give me some logical argument as to why people who have had these values for generations would abandon them within the space of twenty years or so, I'm going to feel obliged to write you off as full of shit.
Originally posted by Gameloading Your post is very misleading. islamineurope.blogspot.com/2008/08/netherlands-statistics-netherlands-to.html "Civil servants, particularly in the major cities, register dozens of bigamous or polygamous marriages annually. These marriages are banned and criminal in the Netherlands."
Negative. Noticed that your post or article had no mention of enforcement. The law or intent may be in place, but the enforcement may not be. Same here in California. Same-Sex Marriages were not legal, but that didn't stop the Mayor of San Fran from allowing it, and no enforcement of stopping it.
Thats because the number here is so low that there barely needs to be enforcement. I have lived in this place for nearly 20 years now and I have NEVER seen polygamy.
Unless you can give me some logical argument as to why people who have had these values for generations would abandon them within the space of twenty years or so, I'm going to feel obliged to write you off as full of shit.
Seeing that you have wrote me off, it is useless to reply back because you will not bother to read.
So be it.
/block
And that is why...
Conservatives' pessimism is conducive to their happiness in three ways. First, they are rarely surprised -- they are right more often than not about the course of events. Second, when they are wrong they are happy to be so. Third, because pessimistic conservatives put not their faith in princes -- government -- they accept that happiness is a function of fending for oneself. They believe that happiness is an activity -- it is inseparable from the pursuit of happiness.
Thats because the number here is so low that there barely needs to be enforcement. I have lived in this place for nearly 20 years now and I have NEVER seen polygamy.
Because something that happens, no matter how small, does not all for it to be right and unenforcable.
And that is why...
Conservatives' pessimism is conducive to their happiness in three ways. First, they are rarely surprised -- they are right more often than not about the course of events. Second, when they are wrong they are happy to be so. Third, because pessimistic conservatives put not their faith in princes -- government -- they accept that happiness is a function of fending for oneself. They believe that happiness is an activity -- it is inseparable from the pursuit of happiness.
You seem to have lost that argument. You didn't address any of the issues he brought up. You're not a worthy debate opponent if you can't even address the freedom promised by this countries founding documents with nothing more than "rant" as a rebuttle. I don't consider the Constitution and Bill of Rights a rant.
I consider it a rant when a person looses his/her cool and resorts to using foul language.
And I asked him to try again.
But if you like we can disregard the laws of this site and resort to foul langauge and name calling, your choice.
Foul language doesn't take away from a person's point though. He was right.
Originally posted by upallnight What?!?!?!? Are you serious. You think there is violence on both sides of this issue?
Show me 5 articles of gay on straight violence. Go ahead, find me 5 articles anywhere in history where there was a case of violence categorized as "straight bashing" that is equivelant to the violence we gays are careful and cautious of everywhere we go. You're not going to find them. You can say that it's because of the media or whatever, but I'm sure that some media source somewhere would have picked up on those cases. There are plenty of right wing blogs and online news sources out there on the Internet. So, I challenge you to find only 5 of those cases. ... You're either very ignorant about what is going on in this country and the world, or you're just plain deceptive and scary.
I'll tell you what, I will find such sources (already done so) and will post them if you will do the same for "Defensive Shootings." Defensive Shootings defined as a civilian (no service member or police officer) performing self-defense for him/herself or the defense of another with a firearm.
Why are Defensive Shootings related to this reply? You will find out, but first give it a shot.
That sounds more like a rant to me. Or a diversionary tactic.
I looked up defensive shootings and found nothing but a bunch of schools for concealed handgun licenses. I already have one of those. Nearly everyone in Oklahoma where I live does. I'm still not getting your point.
You'd be hard pressed to convince someone on your point that us homosexuals are out attacking straights by pointing them towards concealed handgun license schools.
Unless you can give me some logical argument as to why people who have had these values for generations would abandon them within the space of twenty years or so, I'm going to feel obliged to write you off as full of shit.
Seeing that you have wrote me off, it is useless to reply back because you will not bother to read.
So be it.
/block
No offense Dracus, but your arguments don't make any sense. It's kind of easy to write you off.
There are some that make arguments that are at least honest and not senseless in their approach. But you seem driven by an agenda more than just making things right.
Draenor is a good example. He disagrees with me, but I don't think he hates me or tries to make non-sense statements to put me in categories that me or any other gay person don't fit into. We're not out to change anyones life but our own. It's just a fact that if gay marriage were allowed it would have no effect on anyone but gay people. About the only effect it would have would actually end up being positive for you if you sat down and actually read the studies that have been put out and looked at the effect it has had on other countries.
We're people who contribute to society just as much as straight people do. We deserve and demand our basic rights as citizens of this country. It's just that the time has come when we are losing our patience with this group that is intent on oppressing us. It's the same patience that was lost by women and blacks in this country and their change came about. Ours will too. We're not just going to sit aside and wait any longer. You all have had your chance, now we're ready to stand up for what we believe is ours.
Unless you can give me some logical argument as to why people who have had these values for generations would abandon them within the space of twenty years or so, I'm going to feel obliged to write you off as full of shit.
Seeing that you have wrote me off, it is useless to reply back because you will not bother to read.
So be it.
/block
No offense Dracus, but your arguments don't make any sense. It's kind of easy to write you off.
There are some that make arguments that are at least honest and not senseless in their approach. But you seem driven by an agenda more than just making things right.
Draenor is a good example. He disagrees with me, but I don't think he hates me or tries to make non-sense statements to put me in categories that me or any other gay person fit into. We're not out to change anyones life but our own. It's just a fact that if gay marriage were allowed it would have no effect on anyone but gay people. About the only effect it would have would actually end up being positive for you if you sat down and actually read the studies that have been put out and looked at the effect it has had on other countries.
We're people who contribute to society just as much as straight people do. We deserve and demand our basic rights as citizens of this country. It's just that the time has come when we are losing our patience with this group that is intent on oppressing us. It's the same patience that was lost by women and blacks in this country and their change came about. Ours will too. We're not just going to sit aside and wait any longer. You all have had your chance, now we're ready to stand up for what we believe is ours.
Actually it would affect everyone, in that legalizing gay marriage would in the end benefit everyone by giving us one less piece of BS to fight over.
Also, since loving commitment is the better way to go for lovers; enabling gay people to have more lasting, committed relationships would benefit people who believe in conservatism in the real sense of the world. It allows the non-traditional (gay) to live traditionally, if they so choose.
I see this as adding stability to society, just as allowing and accepting racially mixed marriages. the more socially acceptable such things become, the better for all.
I see it is something even Christians should support, in that encourages the best behavior possible, even if one views such thing as a sin. As I see Christ, he came to forgive sin and love sinners -- not judge sinners and stop them from sinning.
Again, that's only my opinion, and I understand good people can disagree with me on this, which is why I feel it is something worth discussing in a thoughtful, loving way.
Indeed Upallnight...I do indeed love you despite your sin...and I know that you love me despite mine...we're both Christians, afterall...Just because we believe that Jesus Christ is what saves us from our sin doesn't mean that we agree on everything else in life...and it doesn't mean that we can't talk about it in a civilized and educated manner
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
We must give rights to those who have them. Those who pass laws forbidding gay marriage are just letting the religious set policy for them.
As I have said previously, I am neither against, nor for gay marriage. I do not care either way. But, is there not a line to be drawn somewhere? Someone already posted that once marriage is "redefined" it will be done so again and again for every group who wants to push the bounds. Mormons will push for polygamy. Muslims will push for marrying children. Zoophiliacs will want to marry an animal.
Where does it end?
Sorry this will be a tad long, but something I have been following since the start. I am not gay, nor do I support any group nor the government. I am just posting my view.
I don't think it's a point of where does it end.... Is marriage part of a religion?... how about this... All religions have their view on marriage. Sure some a real close, but each is different in some way. Even if it is just a specific line that must be spoken. There are religions out there that believe in same sex marriage. There are some that do not. No matter what the government does they do wrong either way in this matter. But the issue should come down to this. Freedom of Religion. That is the very foundation this country was built on, and the very reason the settlers came to America. Check it out if you like.
If the government sets policy on how you can or can not marry, then they are setting policy for some religions. If any religious group believes in same sex marriage and the government says you can not do that, then the government is setting religious policy and not government policy. Sure there is no win-win here for anyone. The thing is, does the government follow the Bill of Rights and say marriage is up to your religion? Or do they say, you can only marry this way and endorse a particular religion. (yup, i said endorse. Because if they say no same sex marriage then they are endorsing all the religions (especially Christians) who are fighting to get same sex marriage banned. It also means they are saying that the religions that believe in it are wrong.)
Now for all those who say is this religious or not.... here ya go.. EVERYONE is part of some religion. Even Atheists is a religion. Naturalist, Pagan, Christian, Judas, Morman, Muslum, are just a few more. But everyone is part of one. Whatever you believe there is a religous classification you fit in. If you are Christian, even though you do not go to church or activly attend or participate, you will want a Christian marriage when you get married. The same for everyone else. Also, even if you go to an independent person (justice of the peace, judge, private minister), you will get a religious ceremony. The traditional one usued mostly today in America is the Christian ceremony. And believe it or not, the second most used is the Pagan ceremony. But if you research them, they are all religious. And before you go to say anything... yes I have researched them. I studied religions in colledge.
The thing is it comes down to this... It is a religious ceremony... now do we let the government set religious policy or do we follow what our country was founded for and get the religions their freedom? And remember Freedom of Religion means ALL religions.
Marriage rights are there to encourage men and women to form family units, screw, increase the tax base.... homosexual "unions" can't fulfill this.
Yes they can. Also, you forgot your /propeganda tag
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
Anyone saying atheism is a religion, doesn't know what a religion is. Marriage is both a religious ceremony and a civil contract. They are changing the civil contract. Religion has nothing to do with it.
Obviously you did no research before you spoke. Atheism is a religion, so stated by themselves and the Charter when Atheism was founded. Their belief is that there is no Scientific Proof of the existance of God. However, it also states in the charter that ANY religion that shows Scientific Proof of the existance of God, that Atheist will convert and follow that religion. I urge you to look it up. Also the charter was filed with the government as a Church charter. How do I know this? I am a multi-denominational minister. I am one of the ministers that represent the Atheist, the Pagan, the Naturalist, and many more. Yes I went to colledge and practiced many years before I even took up any ministeral duties.
Btw, I never mentioned the civil contract part. Yup you have to go to the courthouse and get a liscense. However, that is not the ceremony. It is just a one of the many ways the government uses for income. Pretty much the same as having to get a permit to have a garage sale or a revival in most places. Even if they change the civil contract they still are in the wrong. It would be the same as saying you can have a permit if you live on the east side of town, but no one else can.
All I have been describing is that the government can put no restrictions on marriage. It's not about if marriage is religous or not. It's about belief. Some religions believe in same sex marriage and some do not. So does the government hinder some religions or do they get the very freedom this country was founded on? If the government puts in a law that hinders ANY religion then they have gone against the Freedom of Religion that the founders of the country came here for. Check that out if you like also.
Anyone saying atheism is a religion, doesn't know what a religion is.
I was gonna say something to this effect, but I realize the people of a religious mindset see religion in everything. It's like a professor that I had in college who believed that everything we do in life has political ramifications. We see the world through whatever filter we put over our eyes and woe to anyone that dares suggest we're wearing them.
Anyone saying atheism is a religion, doesn't know what a religion is. Marriage is both a religious ceremony and a civil contract. They are changing the civil contract. Religion has nothing to do with it.
Obviously you did no research before you spoke. Atheism is a religion, so stated by themselves and the Charter when Atheism was founded. Their belief is that there is no Scientific Proof of the existance of God. However, it also states in the charter that ANY religion that shows Scientific Proof of the existance of God, that Atheist will convert and follow that religion. I urge you to look it up. Also the charter was filed with the government as a Church charter. How do I know this? I am a multi-denominational minister. I am one of the ministers that represent the Atheist, the Pagan, the Naturalist, and many more. Yes I went to colledge and practiced many years before I even took up any ministeral duties.
Btw, I never mentioned the civil contract part. Yup you have to go to the courthouse and get a liscense. However, that is not the ceremony. It is just a one of the many ways the government uses for income. Pretty much the same as having to get a permit to have a garage sale or a revival in most places. Even if they change the civil contract they still are in the wrong. It would be the same as saying you can have a permit if you live on the east side of town, but no one else can.
All I have been describing is that the government can put no restrictions on marriage. It's not about if marriage is religous or not. It's about belief. Some religions believe in same sex marriage and some do not. So does the government hinder some religions or do they get the very freedom this country was founded on? If the government puts in a law that hinders ANY religion then they have gone against the Freedom of Religion that the founders of the country came here for. Check that out if you like also.
What you really say here is that atheism isn't a religion, but that atheists has said they'd convert into one with proof about what the religion preaches.
Thus atheism ain't a religion yet.
BESIDES, if a religion had proof, you wouldn't "believe" in a god or something, you'd just see the fact that a god (or more) existed.
To the people who say Prop 8 is a religious issue, I say you're full of it. I live in San Diego and went to a No on Prop 8 rally. There were counter protestors there. I went with my husband and 3 children. My husband got called a faggot by someone who didn't realize that he was standing there with his wife and 3 kids!!! I was asked why I would raise children as a lesbian by someone else just as blind. And there were insults being slung at us as a group left and right. I guess this loving crowd of religious folks just let the hate shine through. I also guess they can't understand that some straight people support equal rights as well. This is an issue of hatred, plain and simple. If you were there with me you could not help but agree. There were a few people that were telling the ones saying these mean things to quiet it down, but they were the minority of the counter protestors. My husband and I took our kids home because we got scared being there.
Aren't religious nutters so kind and understanding. They don't cast stones in glass houses, they don't judge others, they live by peace, harmoney, understanding, and in accordance with God's wishes.
They never bomb abortion clinics, or attack anyone that doesn't believe like they believe.
And they teach their kids the value of Killing for Christ......
It reminds me when McCain was talking to Ellen Degeneres, he basically told her that he was against gay marriage but he still "wished her happiness" in her marriage to another woman. Well, if he really wanted her to be happy, wouldn't he just let her marry the person she is in love with? If you're going to be against gay marriages, he could at least have the balls to tell her how he really feels.
It's just a fact that if gay marriage were allowed it would have no effect on anyone but gay people. About the only effect it would have would actually end up being positive for you if you sat down and actually read the studies that have been put out and looked at the effect it has had on other countries. We're people who contribute to society just as much as straight people do. We deserve and demand our basic rights as citizens of this country.
Actually gay marriage has had a negative impact in the countries where it was legalized. Furthermore, a gay marriage does not contribute the same things as a heterosexual marriage, it isn't even possible, but tax breaks and et al are identical so long as it is a marriage. I wouldn't be opposed to a civil union for gay people, with benefits and rights, but it shouldn't be under the legal definition of marriage.
___________________ Sadly, I see storm clouds on the horizon. A faint stench of Vanguard is in the air.-Kien
Indeed Upallnight...I do indeed love you despite your sin...and I know that you love me despite mine...we're both Christians, afterall...Just because we believe that Jesus Christ is what saves us from our sin doesn't mean that we agree on everything else in life...and it doesn't mean that we can't talk about it in a civilized and educated manner
Exactly. Which is why I respect you.
You're not like these other people who are driven to put us down because of their hatred. Like whomever it was the other day that told me I should change my religion. I just don't get those people. But having honest love and compassion I do understand. Because that's what a Christian is.
Nice to know we can disagree politically and even on some religious aspects, but we can still worship and serve Christ together.
Anyone saying atheism is a religion, doesn't know what a religion is. Marriage is both a religious ceremony and a civil contract. They are changing the civil contract. Religion has nothing to do with it.
There is no civil contract that I consider equivelant to my duty to God. I trust no government or any of its intentions, I trust God. My church says that it is okay for me to marry who I am capable of loving and who loves me back the same. No government should stand in the way of that or say one church takes precedence over the other.
Comments
I consider it a rant when a person looses his/her cool and resorts to using foul language.
And I asked him to try again.
But if you like we can disregard the laws of this site and resort to foul langauge and name calling, your choice.
And that is why...
Conservatives' pessimism is conducive to their happiness in three ways. First, they are rarely surprised -- they are right more often than not about the course of events. Second, when they are wrong they are happy to be so. Third, because pessimistic conservatives put not their faith in princes -- government -- they accept that happiness is a function of fending for oneself. They believe that happiness is an activity -- it is inseparable from the pursuit of happiness.
I'll tell you what, I will find such sources (already done so) and will post them if you will do the same for "Defensive Shootings." Defensive Shootings defined as a civilian (no service member or police officer) performing self-defense for him/herself or the defense of another with a firearm.
Why are Defensive Shootings related to this reply? You will find out, but first give it a shot.
And that is why...
Conservatives' pessimism is conducive to their happiness in three ways. First, they are rarely surprised -- they are right more often than not about the course of events. Second, when they are wrong they are happy to be so. Third, because pessimistic conservatives put not their faith in princes -- government -- they accept that happiness is a function of fending for oneself. They believe that happiness is an activity -- it is inseparable from the pursuit of happiness.
Negative. Noticed that your post or article had no mention of enforcement. The law or intent may be in place, but the enforcement may not be. Same here in California. Same-Sex Marriages were not legal, but that didn't stop the Mayor of San Fran from allowing it, and no enforcement of stopping it.
And that is why...
Conservatives' pessimism is conducive to their happiness in three ways. First, they are rarely surprised -- they are right more often than not about the course of events. Second, when they are wrong they are happy to be so. Third, because pessimistic conservatives put not their faith in princes -- government -- they accept that happiness is a function of fending for oneself. They believe that happiness is an activity -- it is inseparable from the pursuit of happiness.
This thread keeps going back to polygamy, but I don't really see this as an issue. Polygamy is it's own punishment
Please logically fill in the connections of your slippery-slope argument. Why is polygamy the next step and not incestuous marriages for instance? I'm fairly certain you can't do this since you lean on fabricated history and declare that it's already happened. Especially since you've been shot down several times over your statement about polygamy being legal in Norway.
The thing you have to remember is that the line IS already drawn at animals and children. Leaving animals aside for obvious sanitary reasons, lets talk about the redefinition of adult, visa vie age of consent. The lowest age of consent, among countries that even have an age of consent, is Japan where it's 13. Although culturally, it's not acceptable to even consider marriage to a woman that hasn't had her first period yet. Most European countries place age of consent at about 16. In the US it varies by state and hovers between 14 and 18 with a large number of people pushing to have it raised to 25. Nonetheless, many people become sexually active, with other people their own age, between the ages of 13 and 16.
Also keep in mind that as little as sixty years ago, people were getting married and starting families as young as 15. Chances are, that your great grandparents or grandparents were working and had their first child before they turned 18. Given, people live much longer nowadays, but not THAT much longer. I'm also willing to bet that people didn't mature any faster then than they do now.
I know that it's currently in vogue int he U.S. to consider anyone under the age of 30 a child, but realistically, childhood ends right around the end of puberty. Aside from a few Muslim countries, marriage and sex with anyone below the age of puberty is considered completely reprehensible. The line here has already been drawn several times and morphed into a wall. Unless you can give me some logical argument as to why people who have had these values for generations would abandon them within the space of twenty years or so, I'm going to feel obliged to write you off as full of shit.
Negative. Noticed that your post or article had no mention of enforcement. The law or intent may be in place, but the enforcement may not be. Same here in California. Same-Sex Marriages were not legal, but that didn't stop the Mayor of San Fran from allowing it, and no enforcement of stopping it.
Thats because the number here is so low that there barely needs to be enforcement. I have lived in this place for nearly 20 years now and I have NEVER seen polygamy.
Seeing that you have wrote me off, it is useless to reply back because you will not bother to read.
So be it.
/block
And that is why...
Conservatives' pessimism is conducive to their happiness in three ways. First, they are rarely surprised -- they are right more often than not about the course of events. Second, when they are wrong they are happy to be so. Third, because pessimistic conservatives put not their faith in princes -- government -- they accept that happiness is a function of fending for oneself. They believe that happiness is an activity -- it is inseparable from the pursuit of happiness.
Because something that happens, no matter how small, does not all for it to be right and unenforcable.
And that is why...
Conservatives' pessimism is conducive to their happiness in three ways. First, they are rarely surprised -- they are right more often than not about the course of events. Second, when they are wrong they are happy to be so. Third, because pessimistic conservatives put not their faith in princes -- government -- they accept that happiness is a function of fending for oneself. They believe that happiness is an activity -- it is inseparable from the pursuit of happiness.
I consider it a rant when a person looses his/her cool and resorts to using foul language.
And I asked him to try again.
But if you like we can disregard the laws of this site and resort to foul langauge and name calling, your choice.
Foul language doesn't take away from a person's point though. He was right.
--------------------------------------
I'll tell you what, I will find such sources (already done so) and will post them if you will do the same for "Defensive Shootings." Defensive Shootings defined as a civilian (no service member or police officer) performing self-defense for him/herself or the defense of another with a firearm.
Why are Defensive Shootings related to this reply? You will find out, but first give it a shot.
That sounds more like a rant to me. Or a diversionary tactic.
I looked up defensive shootings and found nothing but a bunch of schools for concealed handgun licenses. I already have one of those. Nearly everyone in Oklahoma where I live does. I'm still not getting your point.
You'd be hard pressed to convince someone on your point that us homosexuals are out attacking straights by pointing them towards concealed handgun license schools.
--------------------------------------
Seeing that you have wrote me off, it is useless to reply back because you will not bother to read.
So be it.
/block
No offense Dracus, but your arguments don't make any sense. It's kind of easy to write you off.
There are some that make arguments that are at least honest and not senseless in their approach. But you seem driven by an agenda more than just making things right.
Draenor is a good example. He disagrees with me, but I don't think he hates me or tries to make non-sense statements to put me in categories that me or any other gay person don't fit into. We're not out to change anyones life but our own. It's just a fact that if gay marriage were allowed it would have no effect on anyone but gay people. About the only effect it would have would actually end up being positive for you if you sat down and actually read the studies that have been put out and looked at the effect it has had on other countries.
We're people who contribute to society just as much as straight people do. We deserve and demand our basic rights as citizens of this country. It's just that the time has come when we are losing our patience with this group that is intent on oppressing us. It's the same patience that was lost by women and blacks in this country and their change came about. Ours will too. We're not just going to sit aside and wait any longer. You all have had your chance, now we're ready to stand up for what we believe is ours.
--------------------------------------
Seeing that you have wrote me off, it is useless to reply back because you will not bother to read.
So be it.
/block
No offense Dracus, but your arguments don't make any sense. It's kind of easy to write you off.
There are some that make arguments that are at least honest and not senseless in their approach. But you seem driven by an agenda more than just making things right.
Draenor is a good example. He disagrees with me, but I don't think he hates me or tries to make non-sense statements to put me in categories that me or any other gay person fit into. We're not out to change anyones life but our own. It's just a fact that if gay marriage were allowed it would have no effect on anyone but gay people. About the only effect it would have would actually end up being positive for you if you sat down and actually read the studies that have been put out and looked at the effect it has had on other countries.
We're people who contribute to society just as much as straight people do. We deserve and demand our basic rights as citizens of this country. It's just that the time has come when we are losing our patience with this group that is intent on oppressing us. It's the same patience that was lost by women and blacks in this country and their change came about. Ours will too. We're not just going to sit aside and wait any longer. You all have had your chance, now we're ready to stand up for what we believe is ours.
Actually it would affect everyone, in that legalizing gay marriage would in the end benefit everyone by giving us one less piece of BS to fight over.
Also, since loving commitment is the better way to go for lovers; enabling gay people to have more lasting, committed relationships would benefit people who believe in conservatism in the real sense of the world. It allows the non-traditional (gay) to live traditionally, if they so choose.
I see this as adding stability to society, just as allowing and accepting racially mixed marriages. the more socially acceptable such things become, the better for all.
I see it is something even Christians should support, in that encourages the best behavior possible, even if one views such thing as a sin. As I see Christ, he came to forgive sin and love sinners -- not judge sinners and stop them from sinning.
Again, that's only my opinion, and I understand good people can disagree with me on this, which is why I feel it is something worth discussing in a thoughtful, loving way.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Indeed Upallnight...I do indeed love you despite your sin...and I know that you love me despite mine...we're both Christians, afterall...Just because we believe that Jesus Christ is what saves us from our sin doesn't mean that we agree on everything else in life...and it doesn't mean that we can't talk about it in a civilized and educated manner
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
As I have said previously, I am neither against, nor for gay marriage. I do not care either way. But, is there not a line to be drawn somewhere? Someone already posted that once marriage is "redefined" it will be done so again and again for every group who wants to push the bounds. Mormons will push for polygamy. Muslims will push for marrying children. Zoophiliacs will want to marry an animal.
Where does it end?
Sorry this will be a tad long, but something I have been following since the start. I am not gay, nor do I support any group nor the government. I am just posting my view.
I don't think it's a point of where does it end.... Is marriage part of a religion?... how about this... All religions have their view on marriage. Sure some a real close, but each is different in some way. Even if it is just a specific line that must be spoken. There are religions out there that believe in same sex marriage. There are some that do not. No matter what the government does they do wrong either way in this matter. But the issue should come down to this. Freedom of Religion. That is the very foundation this country was built on, and the very reason the settlers came to America. Check it out if you like.
If the government sets policy on how you can or can not marry, then they are setting policy for some religions. If any religious group believes in same sex marriage and the government says you can not do that, then the government is setting religious policy and not government policy. Sure there is no win-win here for anyone. The thing is, does the government follow the Bill of Rights and say marriage is up to your religion? Or do they say, you can only marry this way and endorse a particular religion. (yup, i said endorse. Because if they say no same sex marriage then they are endorsing all the religions (especially Christians) who are fighting to get same sex marriage banned. It also means they are saying that the religions that believe in it are wrong.)
Now for all those who say is this religious or not.... here ya go.. EVERYONE is part of some religion. Even Atheists is a religion. Naturalist, Pagan, Christian, Judas, Morman, Muslum, are just a few more. But everyone is part of one. Whatever you believe there is a religous classification you fit in. If you are Christian, even though you do not go to church or activly attend or participate, you will want a Christian marriage when you get married. The same for everyone else. Also, even if you go to an independent person (justice of the peace, judge, private minister), you will get a religious ceremony. The traditional one usued mostly today in America is the Christian ceremony. And believe it or not, the second most used is the Pagan ceremony. But if you research them, they are all religious. And before you go to say anything... yes I have researched them. I studied religions in colledge.
The thing is it comes down to this... It is a religious ceremony... now do we let the government set religious policy or do we follow what our country was founded for and get the religions their freedom? And remember Freedom of Religion means ALL religions.
Anyone saying atheism is a religion, doesn't know what a religion is.
Marriage is both a religious ceremony and a civil contract. They are changing the civil contract. Religion has nothing to do with it.
Marriage rights are there to encourage men and women to form family units, screw, increase the tax base.... homosexual "unions" can't fulfill this.
Yes they can. Also, you forgot your /propeganda tag
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
-Thomas Jefferson
Indeed.
Obviously you did no research before you spoke. Atheism is a religion, so stated by themselves and the Charter when Atheism was founded. Their belief is that there is no Scientific Proof of the existance of God. However, it also states in the charter that ANY religion that shows Scientific Proof of the existance of God, that Atheist will convert and follow that religion. I urge you to look it up. Also the charter was filed with the government as a Church charter. How do I know this? I am a multi-denominational minister. I am one of the ministers that represent the Atheist, the Pagan, the Naturalist, and many more. Yes I went to colledge and practiced many years before I even took up any ministeral duties.
Btw, I never mentioned the civil contract part. Yup you have to go to the courthouse and get a liscense. However, that is not the ceremony. It is just a one of the many ways the government uses for income. Pretty much the same as having to get a permit to have a garage sale or a revival in most places. Even if they change the civil contract they still are in the wrong. It would be the same as saying you can have a permit if you live on the east side of town, but no one else can.
All I have been describing is that the government can put no restrictions on marriage. It's not about if marriage is religous or not. It's about belief. Some religions believe in same sex marriage and some do not. So does the government hinder some religions or do they get the very freedom this country was founded on? If the government puts in a law that hinders ANY religion then they have gone against the Freedom of Religion that the founders of the country came here for. Check that out if you like also.
I was gonna say something to this effect, but I realize the people of a religious mindset see religion in everything. It's like a professor that I had in college who believed that everything we do in life has political ramifications. We see the world through whatever filter we put over our eyes and woe to anyone that dares suggest we're wearing them.
Obviously you did no research before you spoke. Atheism is a religion, so stated by themselves and the Charter when Atheism was founded. Their belief is that there is no Scientific Proof of the existance of God. However, it also states in the charter that ANY religion that shows Scientific Proof of the existance of God, that Atheist will convert and follow that religion. I urge you to look it up. Also the charter was filed with the government as a Church charter. How do I know this? I am a multi-denominational minister. I am one of the ministers that represent the Atheist, the Pagan, the Naturalist, and many more. Yes I went to colledge and practiced many years before I even took up any ministeral duties.
Btw, I never mentioned the civil contract part. Yup you have to go to the courthouse and get a liscense. However, that is not the ceremony. It is just a one of the many ways the government uses for income. Pretty much the same as having to get a permit to have a garage sale or a revival in most places. Even if they change the civil contract they still are in the wrong. It would be the same as saying you can have a permit if you live on the east side of town, but no one else can.
All I have been describing is that the government can put no restrictions on marriage. It's not about if marriage is religous or not. It's about belief. Some religions believe in same sex marriage and some do not. So does the government hinder some religions or do they get the very freedom this country was founded on? If the government puts in a law that hinders ANY religion then they have gone against the Freedom of Religion that the founders of the country came here for. Check that out if you like also.
What you really say here is that atheism isn't a religion, but that atheists has said they'd convert into one with proof about what the religion preaches.
Thus atheism ain't a religion yet.
BESIDES, if a religion had proof, you wouldn't "believe" in a god or something, you'd just see the fact that a god (or more) existed.
How do I know this?
Logic. It builds up trough life.
Aren't religious nutters so kind and understanding. They don't cast stones in glass houses, they don't judge others, they live by peace, harmoney, understanding, and in accordance with God's wishes.
They never bomb abortion clinics, or attack anyone that doesn't believe like they believe.
And they teach their kids the value of Killing for Christ......
It reminds me when McCain was talking to Ellen Degeneres, he basically told her that he was against gay marriage but he still "wished her happiness" in her marriage to another woman. Well, if he really wanted her to be happy, wouldn't he just let her marry the person she is in love with? If you're going to be against gay marriages, he could at least have the balls to tell her how he really feels.
Actually gay marriage has had a negative impact in the countries where it was legalized. Furthermore, a gay marriage does not contribute the same things as a heterosexual marriage, it isn't even possible, but tax breaks and et al are identical so long as it is a marriage. I wouldn't be opposed to a civil union for gay people, with benefits and rights, but it shouldn't be under the legal definition of marriage.
___________________
Sadly, I see storm clouds on the horizon. A faint stench of Vanguard is in the air.-Kien
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2006/12/13/
Exactly. Which is why I respect you.
You're not like these other people who are driven to put us down because of their hatred. Like whomever it was the other day that told me I should change my religion. I just don't get those people. But having honest love and compassion I do understand. Because that's what a Christian is.
Nice to know we can disagree politically and even on some religious aspects, but we can still worship and serve Christ together.
--------------------------------------
There is no civil contract that I consider equivelant to my duty to God. I trust no government or any of its intentions, I trust God. My church says that it is okay for me to marry who I am capable of loving and who loves me back the same. No government should stand in the way of that or say one church takes precedence over the other.
--------------------------------------
