# Stuff and Things > The Pub >  Societal Boundaries

## Perianne

What proponents of gay marriage fail to realize is in conservatives' minds it is another societal boundary that is being violated.  Previously-violated boundaries include cohabitation, drug usage, out-of-wedlock births, rap music, and on and on.  There were boundaries for a reason:  to maintain a moral society.

----------


## President Peanut

I see your point, but disagree that all conservatives feel this way. The morality of a society can be determined by the people and no ideology is ever so grand as to encompass the morality of all. That said, I, as a moderate, believe that gay marriage is fundamentally and religiously wrong; however, I do believe, as a representative of all the people in my respective area (and consider this as President), that to create any such law against gay marriage is fundamentally wrong and a direct violation of the liberty and freedom our Founders so fought for. I do believe this to be a social issue and not a civil right, but it is also not for the government to decide, most notably the federal government. Therefore, I believe that the Tenth Amendment is in effect and would defer this to the states. If a state so chooses to follow the path as North Carolina and others in banning gay marriage, so be it. However, I would implore those citizens to question why their legislatures are so willing to utilize their tax dollars to pass such legislation, especially since it is far more than a safe bet that the education system of the state is less than adequate. I would implore those citizens to put their religious prejudice aside and ask what liberty and freedom truly mean to them if it is acceptable to tell someone who they may and may not marry. Moreso, I would implore those citizens to ask what right it is of the States or State to determin morality and legislate it.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

Good point about the 10th Amendment.  What happens when use of the 10th Amendment conflicts with the 14th Amendment?  

The "solution" to the gay marriage issue is to make the law balanced and fair to all; either grant gay couples all the rights and benefits of marriage as straight couples enjoy or remove those same rights and benefits to straight couples.  

http://people.howstuffworks.com/marriage1.htm



> *Benefits of Marriage*
> 
> Besides love and companionship, there are many benefits to marriage, especially in the eyes of the law. In fact, there are 1,138 federal benefits, rights and responsibilities associated with marriage [ref]. In this section, we'll list some of those benefits.
> Spouses have or are entitled to:
> 
> visitation rights and can make medical decisions, unless otherwise specified in a living willbenefits for federal employees -- many of which are also offered by private employers -- such as sick leave, bereavement leave, days off for the birth of a child, pension and retirement benefits, family health insurance planssome property and inheritance rights, even in the absence of a will
> 
> the ability to create life insurance truststax benefits, such as being able to give tax free gifts to a spouse and to file joint tax returnsthe ability to receive Medicare, Social Security, disability and veteran's benefits for a spousediscount or family rates for auto, health and homeowners insuranceimmigration and residency benefits, making it easier to bring a spouse to the U.S. from abroadvisiting rights in jail
> Social scientists have also found many positive benefits for married couples and families, including fewer incidents of poverty and mental health problems in families where the parents are married rather than simply cohabitating. Many studies also support the idea that children living with married parents do better in a variety of ways than children in any other living arrangement


http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04353r.pdf



> We have identified 120 statutory provisions involving marital status that were enacted between September 21, 1996, and December 31, 2003. During the same period, 31 statutory 
> provisions involving marital status were repealed or amended in such a way as to eliminate 
> marital status as a factor. Consequently, as of December 31, 2003, our research identified a 
> total of 1,138 federal statutory provisions classified to the United States Code in which 
> marital status is a factor in determining or receiving benefits, rights, and privileges.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

I understand your point, @Perianne, and even agree to an extent. My only issue is that gay marriage is not something that actually affects anyone outside the gay couple. Countries that legalized same-sex marriage decades ago are not witnessing the complete unraveling of their societies because of it, because at the end of the day, once all the hey has been made and the blustering ceases, we all go on with our lives as if nothing is different. 

Honestly, the best answer to this whole gay marriage debate is to just get the government out of the business of marriage. Prior to the age of big government, marriage was always recognized as a social institution free of government influence. Now that the government has decided it is the sole arbiter of marriage, and conservatives are more than happy to allow it to strengthen its power in that area, you have the equality issues we have now. 

The whole reason same-sex marriage is an issue is because the government recognizes straight marriages with over 1,000 benefits connected to it. It's government favoritism of one sole group, no different than how conservatives claim Muslims and blacks are treated more special by the government than any other group. If you want to end the debate on same-sex marriage, people need to either acknowledge that the government cannot play favorites and extend legal recognition of marriage and the benefits associated with it to ALL marriages, or completely remove the government from marriage.

----------

thedarkdaimon (10-03-2013)

----------


## President Peanut

> Good point about the 10th Amendment. What happens when use of the 10th Amendment conflicts with the 14th Amendment? 
> 
> The "solution" to the gay marriage issue is to make the law balanced and fair to all; either grant gay couples all the rights and benefits of marriage as straight couples enjoy or remove those same rights and benefits to straight couples. 
> 
> http://people.howstuffworks.com/marriage1.htm
> 
> 
> http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04353r.pdf


Good point. Give me some time to think about it.

----------


## JustPassinThru

Moral and propriety bounds, exist for a _REASON._

To start with, sex is dynamite.  It mixes up the strong-but-imperfect bonding instinct humans have...many species bond for life, birds, wolves...but with man, it's present but not so strong.  Yet it's very functional for survival, especially in pre-industrial hunter-gatherer settings.  Add to that, the demands of raising the young...even in a hunter-gatherer community, a child cannot survive alone until he's 11 or 12.  That's a lot of time and a lot of demand on the mother.

Communal child-raising removes the personal interest of the father.  It works fine where food is plentiful...where weather is comfortable.  In places where half the year everyone needs to plan and work to survive the other six months...not so well.

Marriage and the family unit solve most of these problems.

WITH THAT...societies always have segregated the sexes in the workplace.  It doesn't _MATTER how_ the work is divided up - in bush tribes, the women tend the crops, while the men decorate themselves and dance around with penis gourds.  The important fact is that in their workday, they're separated - to help preserve and strengthen the family/mate bond.

PROHIBITIONS ON PREMARITAL SEX function the same way.  What's the old joke about the difference between a blonde and a toilet?  A toilet won't follow you around after you use it.  Crass...but sex is part and parcel of the bonding.  The mind leads the body into sexual situations; but then the body leads the mind into the bond.  What the poets call "love"...is that bonding.

And when it's done quickly and casually with no agreement on reciprocation...to the male it may be as meaningless as a cathouse visit; to the female, she...she...she doesn't UNDERSTAND.  As a high-school girl might say.  She's bonding..against her will.

And if she catches pregnant...here's a kid with nobody to care for it.  Meaning the community has to deal with it.  And with it, a mother who's compromised herself in the "marriage market" - there's an instinct against cuckoldry.  In a survival community, and all human society started that way, no man wants to work and struggle to raise the child of another.

So...reckless sexual activity is dysfunctional in a culture - and forbidden.  

As well, there's the issue of disease and hygiene.  If there is one partner, one ONLY...STDs are not going to spread.  Of course it won't always be that way; and that is exactly why the STRONG MORAL SUASION to control one's sexual activity.

Homosexual activity is also dysfunctional.  And no, it is not "genetic" from all I've seen and all the politicized-science crowd tries to claim.  They only assert; and their assertion doesn't square with what I've seen and experienced.  I have seen a friend seduced and molested (age 10) and decide it was fun and become a practicing homosexual.  I have another family member who's an in-the-closet type.  I know what his practices were in high school...he's got a lot of issues but genetics have nothing to do with it!

To the question.  Homosexuality creates instability several ways:  First, sex outside the bond with the mate, causes or can cause emotional friction or internal conflict; it can introduce communicable disease into what had been a "closed circuit" - a monogamous bond which kept disease out.  It also interferes with the need to keep sex out of places other than the home...and it confuses who the players are.  Remember, the sexes in this setting are segregated at work.  As we segregate them, or used to, in public toilets.

In other words, you knew who the players were.  You knew there would be no sexual interest as you were working in the field or dancing with that really-big gourd on your junk, or as you go into the door marked MEN to take a leak.  

Open embracing of homosexuality disrupts all of these.  It causes chaos; it invites disease that can then be spread to unwitting partners.  It invades privacy...as someone in the Navy where there were a fair numbers of switch-hitters who liked to cruise, I can tell you it's annoying, invasive and infuriating.

The ancients knew.  The ancients wisely forbade.  We discard the wisdom of the ages at our peril.

----------


## Trinnity

> I understand your point, @Perianne, and even agree to an extent. My only issue is that gay marriage is not something that actually affects anyone outside the gay couple.


Baloney.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Baloney.


How does the marriage of a gay couple in California affect you, exactly?

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> The ancients knew.  The ancients wisely forbade.  We discard the wisdom of the ages at our peril.


Which ancients? The ancient Greeks and Romans, who we get 95% of our culture and civil society from, were totally okay with homosexuality and even pederasty.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> How does the marriage of a gay couple in California affect you, exactly?


I've been through that five or six times.

You ignored it then and you'll ignore it again.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> I've been through that five or six times.
> 
> You ignored it then and you'll ignore it again.


I'm a busy man. I probably didn't see it. That, or you mixed it in with calling me gay and a prolific gay sex participant for disagreeing with you, in which case I was completely uninterested in anything else you had to say.

----------


## Trinnity

> How does the marriage of a gay couple in California affect you, exactly?


It degrades the sanctity of marriage and cheapens society in general. Raising children in such a household is teaching them an abnormal lifestyle is normal.   Adopting children into such a household is in my opinion harmful to the child.

Look - you and I aren't gonna agree on this, so I'm not gonna get in fuss with you over it. The REAL problem, imo, is that govt needs to NOT be involved in marriage at all - on the federal level, state level, or tax level. No marriage licenses. Marriage is a religious covenant and the Church as an institution (including the local level) should be left alone to deal with it.

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (10-02-2013)

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Baloney.


How does a gay couple being married in San Francisco affect you or me?   I hear a lot of adulterers and divorcees in Washington DC bleating about the sanctity of marriage as their excuse to deny Americans equal rights, but I don't see how this has any bearing on our Constitution.   Does morality and/or the Bible trump our Constitution in legal terms?  Should it?

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Look - you and I aren't gonna agree on this, so I'm not gonna get in fuss with you over it. The REAL problem, imo, is that govt needs to NOT be involved in marriage at all - on the federal level, state level, or tax level. No marriage licenses. Marriage is a religious covenant and the Church as an institution (including the local level) should be left alone to deal with it.


Agreed.  The government shouldn't be involved in marriage.  No licenses, no tax breaks, no special privileges.  I'm good with that.

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (10-02-2013)

----------


## Canadianeye

Tactically, the argument is now about gay marriage. It started as tolerance...and there was WHOLE LOT OF mind numbing indoctrinating and forced social engineering on little children against the parents will that took place. Not even getting into all the other societally brutal forced social engineering via medical associations, the targeted churches etc, etc.

So, stepping away from the CURRENT discussion about the marriage issue....has that forced social engineering been harmful? I would say emphatically YES.

----------


## JustPassinThru

Okay.  Here's how it affects us.

Marriage, I'm gonna say again, is a PUBLIC CELEBRATION and RECOGNITION BY THE COMMUNITY that here is a pair which is coming together to form a home and raise children.

Forcing the community to acknowledge a deviate, perverted parody of marriage is a SLAP IN THEIR FACES.  It mocks their community; it mocks their religious standards; it mocks marriage as a SACRAMENT.

Yes.  Marriage, in the Catholic Church and many Protestant sects, is a Sacrament.  "Holy Matrimony."  I know the gay boyos get excited flinging dung onto paintings of the Virgin Mary or by putting a crucifix in human waste...but to come to our little sphere and slap us with your mockery...words fail me.

----------

Trinnity (10-02-2013)

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Okay.  Here's how it affects us.
> 
> Marriage, I'm gonna say again, is a PUBLIC CELEBRATION and RECOGNITION BY THE COMMUNITY that here is a pair which is coming together to form a home and raise children.
> 
> Forcing the community to acknowledge a deviate, perverted parody of marriage is a SLAP IN THEIR FACES.  It mocks their community; it mocks their religious standards; it mocks marriage as a SACRAMENT.
> 
> Yes.  Marriage, in the Catholic Church and many Protestant sects, is a Sacrament.  "Holy Matrimony."  I know the gay boyos get excited flinging dung onto paintings of the Virgin Mary or by putting a crucifix in human waste...but to come to our little sphere and slap us with your mockery...words fail me.


The thing is nobody is being "forced" to recognize it except the government, and last I checked, nobody on this forum was the government.

----------

Max Rockatansky (10-02-2013)

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> What proponents of gay marriage fail to realize is in conservatives' minds it is another societal boundary that is being violated.  Previously-violated boundaries include cohabitation, drug usage, out-of-wedlock births, rap music, and on and on.  There were boundaries for a reason:  to maintain a moral society.


Some other boundaries: miscegenation, women owning property, women voting, women being equal in a marriage.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Some other boundaries: miscegenation, women owning property, women voting, women being equal in a marriage.


Those didn't last, Ken.

There's always false starts.  There's always some dysfunctional customs in any culture.

The ones that actually show benefit, that can be seen to show benefit, should be hanged onto.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Those didn't last, Ken.
> 
> There's always false starts.  There's always some dysfunctional customs in any culture.
> 
> The ones that actually show benefit, that can be seen to show benefit, should be hanged onto.


So, in other words, you want to pick and choose which traditional societal values, that have lasted thousands of years, to follow. 

Convenient.

----------

BleedingHeadKen (10-02-2013)

----------


## Calypso Jones

> So, in other words, you want to pick and choose which traditional societal values, that have lasted thousands of years, to follow. 
> 
> Convenient.


just the traditional ones.  the normal ones?    you know.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> The thing is nobody is being "forced" to recognize it except the government, and last I checked, nobody on this forum was the government.


And all our government is being asked is to apply the 14th Amendment to marriage laws.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> just the traditional ones.  the normal ones?    you know.


Oh, no. You don't want all the traditional ones. Just the ones you guys find convenient. 

Then again, you may be okay with the whole stoning of disobedient children, homosexuals, adulterers, people who stepped on your grass, etc. sort of thing. Not sure.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> And all our government is being asked is to apply the 14th Amendment to marriage laws.


Or get rid of the marriage laws. Yep.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> So, in other words, you want to pick and choose which traditional societal values, that have lasted thousands of years, to follow. 
> 
> Convenient.


Not me.

This is where having guiding philosophies and morals, comes into usefulness.

There's more to life than mind-blowing orgasms.  There are behaviors that are functional and better than functional - that elevate and make better and wealthier and more secure.  And there's behaviors that are destructive and sow the seeds of strife and chaos and society falling apart.

And a morality, an INFLEXIBLE morality that's based on something more than _"Me so horny!"_ is a useful start to determining what is right and what one should do.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Or get rid of the marriage laws. Yep.


Agreed.  We see a lot of talk around here about supporting the Constitution and holding our government to sticking to the Constitution, but that support seems limited to selective issues based on the Bible.

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (10-02-2013)

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Not me.
> 
> This is where having guiding philosophies and morals, comes into usefulness.
> 
> There's more to life than mind-blowing orgasms.  There are behaviors that are functional and better than functional - that elevate and make better and wealthier and more secure.  And there's behaviors that are destructive and sow the seeds of strife and chaos and society falling apart.
> 
> And a morality, an INFLEXIBLE morality that's based on something more than _"Me so horny!"_ is a useful start to determining what is right and what one should do.


What business is it of yours how people live their lives? As long as they are not _actually_ causing you harm (and I do mean actual, real, tangible harm, not the bullshit "harm" you invent to justify your beliefs), you have no grounds to tell them no. You're nobody's nanny.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Agreed.  We see a lot of talk around here about supporting the Constitution and holding our government to sticking to the Constitution, but that support seems limited to selective issues based on the Bible.


Very few people actually support following the constitution, here or anywhere else. Social conservatives especially, however, are just as bad as the Democrats they allegedly hate when it comes to violating the constitution. They are a-okay with giving the government powers that it was never supposed to have according to the constitution, just so long as those powers are on the list of approved encroachments.

----------

BleedingHeadKen (10-02-2013)

----------


## Trinnity

> The thing is nobody is being "forced" to recognize it except the government, and last I checked, *nobody on this forum was the government.*


Damn right.

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (10-02-2013)

----------


## Perianne

> What's the old joke about the difference between a blonde and a toilet?  A toilet won't follow you around after you use it.


Hey!  I'm blonde.  hahahaha




> Agreed.  The government shouldn't be involved in marriage.  No licenses, no tax breaks, no special privileges.  I'm good with that.


Agreed, and we have discussed that on other threads.




> Some other boundaries: miscegenation,  women owning property, women voting, women being equal in a  marriage.


You have a good point.  You can add to that list: bikinis, thongs, bralessness, public vulgarity and profanity, divorce, incivility, boisterous behavior, promiscuity, and on and on and on.  All of these things were not tolerated, by societal boundaries, when our grandparents were alive.  Where does it stop?




> Tactically, the argument is now about gay marriage. It started as tolerance...and there was WHOLE LOT OF mind numbing indoctrinating and forced social engineering on little children against the parents will that took place. Not even getting into all the other societally brutal forced social engineering via medical associations, the targeted churches etc, etc.
> 
> So, stepping away from the CURRENT discussion about the marriage issue....has that forced social engineering been harmful? I would say emphatically YES.


@Candianeye, you have captured exactly what the point of this thread is.  I and many others on the forum see the changes in society that have come about in our lifetimes.  Many of the youngsters on this forum have not.  It doesn't make their opinions any less valid, just different.  I would like to be able to watch a movie without seeing titties and hearing f-words.  I would like to live in a society where "Piss Christ" is NOT accepted as "art".

I have come to understand that there is a reason why older people die.  We have trouble accepting the new ways.  There comes a time when the older generations must move on and let the younger generation form society as they see fit.  But like many others of my age, we don't see the changes as positive.  

Yes, all the changes are legal.  But should they be accepted by society?  It, in my mind, is not a matter of law.  At some point, where does "anything goes" end?

----------


## Canadianeye

> Agreed.  We see a lot of talk around here about supporting the Constitution and holding our government to sticking to the Constitution, but that support seems limited to selective issues based on the Bible.


I am not sure why you attribute this to the bible. Are you suggesting that those who do not even believe in a deity century after century after century, in culture after culture, haven't ostracized or had a revulsion towards homosexuality?

Just the religious folks huh. Interesting.

----------

Perianne (10-02-2013)

----------


## Coolwalker

I don't like this topic.

----------


## Perianne

> I don't like this topic.


 @Coolwalker, why you no like this topic?  You know I love you and your posts.  Have we found something we disagree on?

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> Those didn't last, Ken.
> 
> There's always false starts.  There's always some dysfunctional customs in any culture.
> 
> The ones that actually show benefit, that can be seen to show benefit, should be hanged onto.


Didn't last? They lasted thousands of years. It's only relatively recently that a woman has been treated as anything other than the property of her husband. Institutions that were a certain way for most of human civilization are changing. Slavery is almost entirely gone. Woman as property and objects is mostly gone. Prohibitions on interracial marriage are mostly gone and even the culture has changed to be mostly accepting of it (I still run into the rare asshole who has an issue with my wife and I because we are mixed.)

Many of us believe that any partnership recognized by the government ought to be recognized regardless of the genders involved. If that partner is secular marriage, then it ought to be available to homosexuals, or any other combination of two individuals who want to engage in it.

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (10-02-2013),thedarkdaimon (10-03-2013)

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> I am not sure why you attribute this to the bible. Are you suggesting that those who do not even believe in a deity century after century after century, in culture after culture, haven't ostracized or had a revulsion towards homosexuality?
> 
> Just the religious folks huh. Interesting.


The religious folks use the Bible as their source of morality and it does specify rules against homosexuality.  It also gives rules against adultery and "Onanism" not to mention eating pork, but those same people conveniently overlook those rules when gay bashing.

So what is the justification for Atheists to hate gays?   Just don't like them?  

FWIW, most Americans would rather vote for a gay than an Atheist for President.   Ironic, isn't it?

----------


## Perianne

> FWIW, most Americans would rather vote for a gay than an Atheist for President.   Ironic, isn't it?


uh.....no.  The question was "No difference".  That is not the same as "most Americans would rather vote for a gay than an Atheist for President".

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> uh.....no.  The question was "No difference".  That is not the same as "most Americans would rather vote for a gay than an Atheist for President".


I think the "No difference" response means it doesn't matter to the voter.  Being gay didn't matter to 62% compared to 33% for Atheists.  Which balances nicely with those choosing "Less likely to support".  

Of note should be the high numbers on "More likely to support".  Race and gender mattered little, but the experience level of the candidate mattered quite a bit here.  There was a distinct disregard for "Washington Insiders".

----------


## Coolwalker

> @Coolwalker, why you no like this topic?  You know I love you and your posts.  Have we found something we disagree on?


Not that at all @Perianne . My beliefs and feelings on this are not even close to being PC and that appears to bring out the devil in others, therefore I refrain.

----------


## Perianne

> Not that at all @Perianne . My beliefs and feelings on this are not even close to being PC and that appears to bring out the devil in others, therefore I refrain.


Well, I started the thread, so I think you know my feelings on it.

----------

Coolwalker (10-02-2013)

----------


## Roadmaster

> My only issue is that gay marriage is not something that actually affects anyone outside the gay couple


Most would think that way unless they were being attacked by them.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Most would think that way unless they were being attacked by them.


Yes, I forgot about the roving bands of gay gangs. It's like West Side Story all over the place.

----------


## JustPassinThru

They don't need to travel in animal packs.

They have other ways to wreak havoc.

Wait until you start to feel Dudd-Fwank in your finances.  It'll feel...like....well...never mind.  It's gonna hurt.

----------


## Perianne

> Yes, I forgot about the roving bands of gay gangs.


They're the worst.  I always dread when the gay gang comes down my street.

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (10-03-2013)

----------


## thedarkdaimon

I wonder if any of the conservatives on this thread have ever sat down and talked to a gay man (or woman) knowingly (chances are good they have but just didn't know the person was gay). I know several people who are gay and they are the warmest, funniest, most loving and well adjusted people you would ever hope to meet. They are not after my, yours or anyone else's children. They don't have a secret agenda to try and take over America or destroy Christianity. They do not want to flaunt their sexuality in anyone's faces. They just want what everyone else wants. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I have to agree with those that say that who you have sex with is a choice, however, who you fall in love with is not. If it was, there would be a whole lot less heartbreak in this world.

When you are in love, you want to be able to show your partner your commitment to them. You want to celebrate it with family and friends. And you want to be able to get the same benefits that any other married couple has. Why is that so hard to understand?

This is not about religion, it is not about procreation, it is not about any of the slippery slopes that I've seen thrown around. It is about fairness. You don't have to like homosexuality to allow them to get married. I know many here don't like Muslims, Communists or Liberals yet I don't see anyone trying to take away their right to marry. Besides religion and the "ick factor" what reason is there to stop same-sex marriage?

----------

BleedingHeadKen (10-03-2013),Sinestro/Green Arrow (10-03-2013)

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> I wonder if any of the conservatives on this thread have ever sat down and talked to a gay man (or woman) knowingly (chances are good they have but just didn't know the person was gay).


I have.  I came from 13 years of active military service and a military upbringing into a civilian environment which had several gays just at a time when Clinton and Gore were elected to office.  

This was a common picture seen at the time:


It was a bit of cultural shock for me.  Add to that six months later I met a woman in Key West whom I dated for a time and many of her friends were gay.  Including a former Marine dying of AIDS.   It was quite an education.

----------


## Perianne

> I wonder if any of the conservatives on this thread have ever sat down and talked to a gay man (or woman) knowingly (chances are good they have but just didn't know the person was gay). I know several people who are gay and they are the warmest, funniest, most loving and well adjusted people you would ever hope to meet.... They do not want to flaunt their sexuality in anyone's faces.


I work with several gays.  Well-adjusted????  Matter of opinion, I guess.  Some flaunt it and some don't.

----------


## Canadianeye

> I wonder if any of the conservatives on this thread have ever sat down and talked to a gay man (or woman) knowingly (chances are good they have but just didn't know the person was gay). I know several people who are gay and they are the warmest, funniest, most loving and well adjusted people you would ever hope to meet. They are not after my, yours or anyone else's children. They don't have a secret agenda to try and take over America or destroy Christianity. They do not want to flaunt their sexuality in anyone's faces. They just want what everyone else wants. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I have to agree with those that say that who you have sex with is a choice, however, who you fall in love with is not. If it was, there would be a whole lot less heartbreak in this world.
> 
> When you are in love, you want to be able to show your partner your commitment to them. You want to celebrate it with family and friends. And you want to be able to get the same benefits that any other married couple has. Why is that so hard to understand?
> 
> This is not about religion, it is not about procreation, it is not about any of the slippery slopes that I've seen thrown around. It is about fairness. You don't have to like homosexuality to allow them to get married. I know many here don't like Muslims, Communists or Liberals yet I don't see anyone trying to take away their right to marry. Besides religion and the "ick factor" what reason is there to stop same-sex marriage?


You can stop wondering. All of us have talked and dealt with homosexuals. I am confident in making that blanket statement.

There was, and is harm that has been done to society via the mechanisms of the homosexual agendists. It can be denied as anything can be denied....even in the face of reality.

This piece of course was later expanded into a book. The Overhauling of Straight America.

http://library.gayhomeland.org/0018/...g_Straight.htm

----------


## thedarkdaimon

> You can stop wondering. All of us have talked and dealt with homosexuals. I am confident in making that blanket statement.
> 
> There was, and is harm that has been done to society via the mechanisms of the homosexual agendists. It can be denied as anything can be denied....even in the face of reality.
> 
> This piece of course was later expanded into a book. The Overhauling of Straight America.
> 
> http://library.gayhomeland.org/0018/...g_Straight.htm


A single book or article does not EVEN represent the whole gay community, though how is wanting people to accept you for who you are wrong?

----------


## Calypso Jones

I'm sorry but it's gonna be a little difficult for me to accept you as you force it in my reality that you are butt pirating another guy...or you are being butt pirated.    it is not normal...or clean....or moral....or healthy...or sane....

----------


## Canadianeye

> A single book or article does not EVEN represent the whole gay community, though how is wanting people to accept you for who you are wrong?


Sorry, but you cannot come onto a message board forum and dissuade me with words....to what I have actually witnessed for 30 yrs regarding the homosexual agendists. Lemme rephrase that. You can _try_ to come on a message board forum, but it isn't going work with me.

I watched the attacks on the church, the manipulation of my children in the education system, the systematic attacks against celebrities who stood against it, the hate speech legislation applied for simply disagreeing, the promotion of the homosexual lifestyle glamorized via all facets of the morally bankrupt entertainment industries, the nuclear family.

That is barely even scratching the surface of vicious hatred employed tactically against businesses to bring to ruination, or, the harm actually caused when you manipulate via political correctness and victim status techniques on all minds, esp kindergarten and onwards.

It has weakened societies moral fiber, by promoting for anything goes mentality as a byproduct of homosexual gains.

I think, no, I know how harmful that is.

----------


## thedarkdaimon

> Sorry, but you cannot come onto a message board forum and dissuade me with words....to what I have actually witnessed for 30 yrs regarding the homosexual agendists. Lemme rephrase that. You can _try_ to come on a message board forum, but it isn't going work with me.
> 
> I watched the attacks on the church, the manipulation of my children in the education system, the systematic attacks against celebrities who stood against it, the hate speech legislation applied for simply disagreeing, the promotion of the homosexual lifestyle glamorized via all facets of the morally bankrupt entertainment industries, the nuclear family.
> 
> That is barely even scratching the surface of vicious hatred employed tactically against businesses to bring to ruination, or, the harm actually caused when you manipulate via political correctness and victim status techniques on all minds, esp kindergarten and onwards.
> 
> It has weakened societies moral fiber, by promoting for anything goes mentality as a byproduct of homosexual gains.
> 
> I think, no, I know how harmful that is.


Thank you for letting me know. I won't waste your time or mine in trying to dissuade you. However, I will continue to fight for what I believe in and will continue to argue on behalf of gay rights. I may not be able to dissuade you, but I may be able to open the eyes and minds of others.

----------


## Canadianeye

> Thank you for letting me know. I won't waste your time or mine in trying to dissuade you. However, I will continue to fight for what I believe in and will continue to argue on behalf of gay rights. I may not be able to dissuade you, but I may be able to open the eyes and minds of others.


True that. Battles must be waged, and it never ends.  :Smiley20:

----------


## thedarkdaimon

> I'm sorry but it's gonna be a little difficult for me to accept you as you force it in my reality that you are butt pirating another guy...or you are being butt pirated.    it is not normal...or clean....or moral....or healthy...or sane....


I'm not 100% sure if this message was meant for me as you didn't quote anyone's post, but I assume so since it was right after my post and I'm one of the few on this thread supporting gay rights. If I am wrong please ignore the following, if I'm right, then I say that you assume too much yourself when you say "it's gonna be a little difficult for me to accept you as you force it in my reality that you are butt pirating another guy...or you are being butt pirated". I have never had anal sex outside of an monogamous, adult, consenting, heterosexual relationship.

There is a lot of things in this world we may not want to hear about, but we live in a country with free speech during the information age so I think it would benefit you to grow some thicker skin. The words normal, clean, moral, healthy and sane are too relative in nature to be the basis for discrimination.

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> You can stop wondering. All of us have talked and dealt with homosexuals. I am confident in making that blanket statement.
> 
> There was, and is harm that has been done to society via the mechanisms of the homosexual agendists. It can be denied as anything can be denied....even in the face of reality.
> 
> This piece of course was later expanded into a book. The Overhauling of Straight America.
> 
> http://library.gayhomeland.org/0018/...g_Straight.htm


So is it fair to say that anyone with a radical right wing agenda for world domination who writes a book about it represents the conservative movement?  If a Tea Party member comes out as racist, does that make all Tea Partiers racist?

Progressives of all stripes want to remake society in the fashion that they most desire. They generally only represent progressives of their stripe - whether it be radical leftist, or radical right, or radical homosexual. They will advocate and justify for any means that they believe will get them there. Even our resident progressive anarchist, @kilgram, falls into this trap.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> I'm sorry but it's gonna be a little difficult for me to accept you as you force it in my reality that you are butt pirating another guy...or you are being butt pirated.    it is not normal...or clean....or moral....or healthy...or sane....


Are you accusing Dark Daimon of being gay?  I thought he said he was married and straight?

----------

thedarkdaimon (10-04-2013)

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Are you accusing Dark Daimon of being gay?  I thought he said he was married and straight?


JustPassinThru made the same allegations about several of us. Obviously, only gay people would disagree with straight people.

----------

kilgram (10-04-2013),thedarkdaimon (10-04-2013)

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Thank you for letting me know. I won't waste your time or mine in trying to dissuade you. However, I will continue to fight for what I believe in and will continue to argue on behalf of gay rights. I may not be able to dissuade you, but I may be able to open the eyes and minds of others.


What rights?  You have the same rights as anyone.  And that's how it should be.

When you try to create SPECIAL "rights," really special license and dispensation to change the culture arbitrarily in a way which nauseates most Americans...you can expect pushback.  And the harder you shove, the harder the pushback.

It was a long road from ancient Sparta to Nazi and Moslem executions of homosexuals...but it happened.  And is happening.  And once society unravels, as lefties seem to be working towards, you can expect much the same.

People panicked and desperate don't have time or mental reserves to suck down repugnant, perverse behaviors shoved under their noses.  You and yours need to think about that.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> JustPassinThru made the same allegations about several of us. Obviously, only gay people would disagree with straight people.


Only someone on a mission would keep banging the pans, ignoring rational, reasoned answers to their Talking-Points assertions.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> JustPassinThru made the same allegations about several of us. Obviously, only gay people would disagree with straight people.


Agreed.  Likewise, someone who's mental state pushes them to find someone to hate would often equate anyone who defends the target of that hate as being one of "them".   I recall a similar attitude back in the Sixties when those who supported Civil Rights were called ******-lovers.  Same attitude, different target.

In a small way, I do feel sorry for those that have so much mental anguish that they feel compelled to hate someone else in order to feel better about themselves.  Very sad, but that doesn't meant I condone such acts anymore than I do the condition of a rabid dog.

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (10-03-2013)

----------


## JustPassinThru

False equivocation.

Save your sympathies and Big Feelings for yourself.  You'll need them...when you find out how much worse things can be; and how good you had it when you worked three shifts a day to pull it all down.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> False equivocation.


Prove it.

----------


## Network



----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (10-03-2013),The XL (10-04-2013)

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Prove it.


Unequal treatment based on COLOR OF SKIN (irrelevant) is obviously discrimination based on something of no merit.

Unequal treatment based on BEHAVIORS...HAPPENS EVERY DAY.  You're treated differently than your father is, as you both go around town.  And both of you are treated differently than I would be.  Because of dress; speech; the fact that I would be a stranger in town.

In the issues you like to carp about...you are NOT getting unequal treatment.  You wanna get married?  Find a woman who will marry you.  That's WHAT IT IS.

If you marry a lesbian, you both get those bennies; and you're both free to do whatever perversions you want..

What you DO NOT HAVE, is SPECIAL DISPENSATION to REDEFINE MARRIAGE based on your own wants.

What about pedophiles?  Roman Polanski liked little girls.  Should he be allowed to marry one, say, around five?  If he divorced her at 14, that would still be longer than most Hollywood marriages.

So...WHAT'S THE PROBLEM WITH THAT?



Sick, you say?

Yes.  As is homosexual sodomy sick.  And as is the idea of two sodomites forcing the community to acknowledge it, is sick.

As is anyone who'd advocate it - sick and narcissistic.  That such a small group should have such power over people who want to live natural normal, moral lives.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Unequal treatment based on COLOR OF SKIN (irrelevant) is obviously discrimination based on something of no merit.
> 
> Unequal treatment based on BEHAVIORS...HAPPENS EVERY DAY.  You're treated differently than your father is, as you both go around town.  And both of you are treated differently than I would be.  Because of dress; speech; the fact that I would be a stranger in town.
> 
> In the issues you like to carp about...you are NOT getting unequal treatment.  You wanna get married?  Find a woman who will marry you.  That's WHAT IT IS.
> 
> If you marry a lesbian, you both get those bennies; and you're both free to do whatever perversions you want..
> 
> What you DO NOT HAVE, is SPECIAL DISPENSATION to REDEFINE MARRIAGE based on your own wants.
> ...


Agreed.

Irrelevant to your accusation.

I like women.  What's your point?

I'm not a lesbian.  Again, what's your point?

Bullshit argument.  There is no Constitutional definition of marriage and anyone who claims there is doesn't know the law.

Prosecute pedophiles and imprison them.  What does this have to do with your accusation of "_False equivocation_"?  While I'm enjoying watching you dance, I'm starting to get bored.  Either bring out some dancing girls or get to your point.

Your hatred of gays and others you dislike has become very clear in the last week since you've been here.  I'm sure a few people even agree with you, but I do not.  I find it to be both unChristian and unAmerican.  However, you are free to hate whomever you like.  Just don't break the law when doing it.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Unequal treatment based on COLOR OF SKIN (irrelevant) is obviously discrimination based on something of no merit.
> 
> Unequal treatment based on BEHAVIORS...HAPPENS EVERY DAY.  You're treated differently than your father is, as you both go around town.  And both of you are treated differently than I would be.  Because of dress; speech; the fact that I would be a stranger in town.
> 
> In the issues you like to carp about...you are NOT getting unequal treatment.  You wanna get married?  Find a woman who will marry you.  That's WHAT IT IS.
> 
> If you marry a lesbian, you both get those bennies; and you're both free to do whatever perversions you want..
> 
> What you DO NOT HAVE, is SPECIAL DISPENSATION to REDEFINE MARRIAGE based on your own wants.
> ...


Look, we've been over this. Plenty of ancient societies allowed homosexual marriage, and even openly approved of it. Societies like ancient Greece and Rome, by the way. This is the same Rome that is often used as the picture of ultimate masculinity. 

It's not "redefining" marriage. You can define marriage however the fuck you want to. But when you conservatives gave the government the power and authority to regulate and recognize marriage, you also gave it the power to "redefine" marriage however it wants to. 

Suck it up. This is YOUR monster. You made the bed, now lie in it.

----------


## Canadianeye

> So is it fair to say that anyone with a radical right wing agenda for world domination who writes a book about it represents the conservative movement?  If a Tea Party member comes out as racist, does that make all Tea Partiers racist?
> 
> Progressives of all stripes want to remake society in the fashion that they most desire. They generally only represent progressives of their stripe - whether it be radical leftist, or radical right, or radical homosexual. They will advocate and justify for any means that they believe will get them there. Even our resident progressive anarchist, @kilgram, falls into this trap.


Its a false argument, unless you have 40+ plus years of TEA Partiers in complete control and indoctrinating the education systems, _worldwide_, a massively bias media on their side, and, the entertainment industry fully endorsing all their efforts.

You can't alter the reality of what happened via the homosexual agenda, the tactics they wrote about and implemented, and the inevitable resultant moral relativism that has ensued with an anything goes byproduct of that movement.

----------


## Perianne

> Look, we've been over this. Plenty of ancient societies allowed homosexual marriage, and even openly approved of it. Societies like ancient Greece and Rome, by the way. This is the same Rome that is often used as the picture of ultimate masculinity.


And all those societies failed from the inside out.

----------


## Canadianeye

> And all those societies failed from the inside out.


There are few reasons those societies failed. One interesting perspective was _multiculturalism_, especially the Roman Empire the 4th time it finally fell.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> And all those societies failed from the inside out.


IIRC, Greece was conquered, but the Roman Empire did rot from the inside out.  Not because of gays, but because, imo, too many Romans took their status as Roman citizens for granted and did little to actually make the system work.

I see the same with our country, although I think we're a long ways from actual collapse.  Very few civilians I know seem to have what it takes to be a pioneer or give their life for their country.  We have a lot of braggarts on this forum who talk big, but I don't see many of them picking up a rifle and running out to defend our country.  Most, it seems, would rather destroy it.

----------


## Perianne

> IIRC, Greece was conquered, but the Roman Empire did rot from the inside out.  Not because of gays, but because, imo, too many Romans took their status as Roman citizens for granted and did little to actually make the system work.


I was not implying that Rome fell because of homosexuality.  What I was saying is that great societies often fail because of internal rot, and that could include taking citizenship for granted.

----------

Max Rockatansky (10-04-2013)

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> I was not implying that Rome fell because of homosexuality.  What I was saying is that great societies often fail because of internal rot, and that could include taking citizenship for granted.


A point(s) of which we are completely agreed.

In the end, we're our own worst enemies for the reasons stated.  We take our freedom, citizenship and luxuries for granted.  Another reason why I support reinstituting the draft and shipping our nation's little princes and princesses off to some Third World shithole for a year or two.  

Maybe the Mormons have a good point about sending their youth off on 2 year missionary trips.

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (10-03-2013)

----------


## JustPassinThru

These societies failed because, to make it short, the citizens/subjects became corrupt.  Morally bankrupt; spoiled by bread and circuses.

Homosexuality didn't cause this.  But homosexuality is one more symptom that it is becoming terminal in our own society.

----------


## Perianne

> Homosexuality didn't cause this.  But homosexuality is one more symptom that it is becoming terminal in our own society.


If I could edit your statement, please.   ....  Agree?

----------


## JustPassinThru

> If I could edit your statement, please.   ....  Agree?


Sorry.  I'm saying that in Greece, in Rome, in other failed and collapsed societies...there was a lot of deranged, destructive behaviors.

Obvious, pronounced homosexuality was one such.  Acceptance was one aspect of it; but that there were large numbers of unhinged persons; and many of them acting out with homosexual behavior.

I hold that homosexuality is one manifestation of mental aberration.   Not the only symptom; not the cause; but one more behavior that suggests.

EDIT:  If you're getting pressure to edit or remove...go with the flow.  I'll live.

----------


## Perianne

> Sorry.  I'm saying that in Greece, in Rome, in other failed and collapsed societies...there was a lot of deranged, destructive behaviors.
> 
> Obvious, pronounced homosexuality was one such.  Acceptance was one aspect of it; but that there were large numbers of unhinged persons; and many of them acting out with homosexual behavior.
> 
> I hold that homosexuality is one manifestation of mental aberration.   Not the only symptom; not the cause; but one more behavior that suggests.
> 
> EDIT:  If you're getting pressure to edit or remove...go with the flow.  I'll live.


I'm sorry, @JustPassinThru.  I thought that was what you meant to say.  My bad.  (I removed the edit..... sorry)

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> And all those societies failed from the inside out.


True, but all societies fall at some point, for many reasons. Nothing lasts forever.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> These societies failed because, to make it short, the citizens/subjects became corrupt.  Morally bankrupt; spoiled by bread and circuses.


Well, for Rome, that is true. But Greece was straight up conquered by larger empires. They put up a good fight, but when you've got armies like the Persians marching on your doorstep outnumbering you 100 to 1, it tends to end badly for you. 




> Homosexuality didn't cause this.  But homosexuality is one more symptom that it is becoming terminal in our own society.


Brother, our society hit moral decay long before homosexuality was openly accepted. Our society began its decent into moral decay when we decided that, regardless of the cost, we could go to war with any country we wanted to and for dubious reasons, and our people would look the other way.

----------


## Perianne

> Brother, our society hit moral decay long before homosexuality was openly accepted.


And that decay was the point of this thread.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Brother, our society hit moral decay long before homosexuality was openly accepted. Our society began its decent into moral decay when we decided that, regardless of the cost, we could go to war with any country we wanted to and for dubious reasons, and our people would look the other way.


Symptom.

You're sick with the flu before you start blowing chunks...the heaves are a SYMPTOM of the disease running through.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> And that decay was the point of this thread.


I thought it was homosexuality?

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Symptom.
> 
> You're sick with the flu before you start blowing chunks...the heaves are a SYMPTOM of the disease running through.


I'd argue it was the start, but whatever you call it, it's our biggest issue.

----------


## JustPassinThru

You'd be a whole lot more interesting if you'd drop this obsession with homosexuality.

It annoys.  And beyond that, it's predictable; it's reflexive, knee-jerk positioning, and to that extent, it's boring.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> You'd be a whole lot more interesting if you'd drop this obsession with homosexuality.
> 
> It annoys.  And beyond that, it's predictable; it's reflexive, knee-jerk positioning, and to that extent, it's boring.


...what obsession with homosexuality? I, like, never talk about it unless someone else brings it up. I mean, for Odin's sake, we've never really talked about homosexuality that much on this forum until you came along and started calling people gay for defending gay marriage.

----------

Canadianeye (10-04-2013)

----------


## Perianne

> You'd be a whole lot more interesting if you'd drop this obsession with homosexuality.


I kinda started it with this thread.  I didn't think it would devolve into another homosexuality thread.  Regardless, I view homosexuality as another societal boundary that is being crossed.  I don't think homosexuals should be punished, or treated badly.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> I kinda started it with this thread.  I didn't think it would devolve into another homosexuality thread.  Regardless, I view homosexuality as another societal boundary that is being crossed.  I don't think homosexuals should be punished, or treated badly.


I agree.

But it seems there's a whole lot of folks with a heavy emotional investment in seeing it normalized...mainstreamed...our values turned on their head.

It's more acceptable, at least officially, to be a public homosexual than a Christian.

I, frankly, am tired of the endless repetition of the victimhood Talking Points...of how it's unfair to treat homosexuals like everyone is treated; how the whole of the culture MUST be changed because a FRACTION of the population DEMAND it of the rest of us!

----------


## Roadmaster

> I kinda started it with this thread.  I didn't think it would devolve into another homosexuality thread.  Regardless, I view homosexuality as another societal boundary that is being crossed.  I don't think homosexuals should be punished, or treated badly.


 I don't bother them and have a brother-in- law that is or was gay. He walked down and was saved over 10 years ago after his partner died and I don't ask him questions about his sex life. That's between him and God.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> I kinda started it with this thread.  I didn't think it would devolve into another homosexuality thread.  Regardless, I view homosexuality as another societal boundary that is being crossed.  I don't think homosexuals should be punished, or treated badly.


I disagree with the view that homosexuality is a moral devolution, but I agree that making it such a big deal is ridiculous. I'm bi, but I'd be perfectly happy if we just got the government out of the business of recognizing and regulating marriage. The problem would go away on its own.

----------

Perianne (10-03-2013)

----------


## Perianne

> I disagree with the view that homosexuality is a moral devolution, but I agree that making it such a big deal is ridiculous. I'm bi, but I'd be perfectly happy if we just got the government out of the business of recognizing and regulating marriage. The problem would go away on its own.


I guess I am bi, too.  I have kissed a girl before.

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (10-03-2013)

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

> I guess I am bi, too.  I have kissed a girl before.


Nonsense, that would only be bi if there was tongue involved...and also where those lips are.... :Laughing7:

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (10-03-2013)

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy



----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (10-03-2013)

----------


## JustPassinThru

> I work with several gays.  Well-adjusted????  Matter of opinion, I guess.  Some flaunt it and some don't.


How about Bawney Fwank.  Let's ignore his home-based business, providing twinks to like-minded switch-hitters...when it came to the BUSINESS of the nation, he was the one who worked to ram through the Community Re-Investment Act, harder than anything had ever been rammed into HIM...and then mocked those who warned that Fanny/Freddie were on shaky financial ground and a crash was imminent.  All true; it would have been relatively easy to deal with eight years ago...and lisping, spraying Bawney opposed it all...with an enraged stutter.

Dudd-Fwank has yet to be felt.  It's a doozie...I don't know the full and complete bill; but it basically gives a Federal agency, staffed by lefties, the power to rewrite lending contracts.  General Electric's.  Citibank's.  Your mortgage; and your credit-card agreement.  

All in the interest of "fairness."

Now, WHAT business will loan money under those circumstances?  We are in for it.

THAT...is the kind of derangement that I refer to.  Bawney Fwank is MAD.  His sexual habits are really a small part of it; a telling part but only one symptom.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> 


LOL, that was my first thought too  :Tongue:

----------


## JustPassinThru

Deleted.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> I guess I am bi, too.  I have kissed a girl before.


Gay groups have tried to inflate their numbers by saying such things; equating a homosexual experience with being homosexual.   As it is, as Ghost mentioned, it depends on the kiss.  Pecking an woman on the cheek or even the lips isn't the same as swapping spit and fondling on the couch.

Regarding the discussion of morality; unless people are arguing we drag gays out into the streets and execute the IAW the Bible or imprison them for being gay, the gays are going to continue being gay.  Which is more moral - Allowing them to marry or, by law, condemning them to live in sin?  

That's a moral question and our government shouldn't be involved in legislating morality.  It should concern itself with secular activities like the law.  Our Constitution has an equal protection under the law clause.  If we deprive citizens of their Constitutional rights for ideological, religious or any other personal reason, we weaken our own Constitutional rights.

----------

BleedingHeadKen (10-04-2013),Sinestro/Green Arrow (10-04-2013)

----------


## kilgram

> So is it fair to say that anyone with a radical right wing agenda for world domination who writes a book about it represents the conservative movement?  If a Tea Party member comes out as racist, does that make all Tea Partiers racist?
> 
> Progressives of all stripes want to remake society in the fashion that they most desire. They generally only represent progressives of their stripe - whether it be radical leftist, or radical right, or radical homosexual. They will advocate and justify for any means that they believe will get them there. Even our resident progressive anarchist, @kilgram, falls into this trap.


If a Tea member is racist, it is just a person. But if most of the self-called tea party members are racist, then it is easy to suppose that Tea Party is racist.

I am going to transport it to a local example, of Spain. If a member of a party(Alianza Popular) is violent, and the rest of members don't take actions against him, we can think that there is tolerance of the violence in the party. If most of the members are violent then we can say that the party is dangerous and violent, and if the party is fascist we can say that the fascists are violent.

And by the way, it is not the same in the other way?

And don't insult me, I am not progressive. Tell me the correct name: Communist or Socialist, but don't mix with that moderates(progressive).

----------


## kilgram

> What rights?  You have the same rights as anyone.  And that's how it should be.
> 
> When you try to create SPECIAL "rights," really special license and dispensation to change the culture arbitrarily in a way which nauseates most Americans...you can expect pushback.  And the harder you shove, the harder the pushback.
> 
> It was a long road from ancient Sparta to Nazi and Moslem executions of homosexuals...but it happened.  And is happening.  And once society unravels, as lefties seem to be working towards, you can expect much the same.
> 
> People panicked and desperate don't have time or mental reserves to suck down repugnant, perverse behaviors shoved under their noses.  You and yours need to think about that.


There are no special rights. Are the same rights.

Do gays have the right to marry with the loved person? No. They don't have the same rights.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> There are no special rights. Are the same rights.
> 
> Do gays have the right to marry with the loved person? No. They don't have the same rights.


More importantly, IMO, under the US Constitution, do gays have the same rights and privileges under Federal law as straight couples?  I know of at least 1138 examples of where they do not.  This is a violation of the 14th Amendment.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> There are no special rights. Are the same rights.
> 
> Do gays have the right to marry with the loved person? No. They don't have the same rights.


You don't have the right to marry anyone, ANYONE...for "love."

You have the right to marry a consenting adult of the opposite sex.

That's the same right anyone else has.

How many more dozens of times are you agitators gonna repeat the same false meme?

----------


## JustPassinThru

> more importantly, imo, under the us constitution, do gays have the same rights and privileges under federal law as straight couples?  I know of at least 1138 examples of where they do not.  This is a violation of the 14th amendment.


Not true.

----------


## kilgram

> You don't have the right to marry anyone, ANYONE...for "love."
> 
> You have the right to marry a consenting adult of the opposite sex.
> 
> That's the same right anyone else has.
> 
> How many more dozens of times are you agitators gonna repeat the same false meme?


Ok, but behind the marriage, what is the reason? Love. 

I don't have the marriage to marry a woman just because I want to let her to get the papers to become civilillian of the country that she wants to be national.

By the way, why an adult person cannot marry with the adult person of choice?

----------


## thedarkdaimon

> What proponents of gay marriage fail to realize is in conservatives' minds it is another societal boundary that is being violated.  Previously-violated boundaries include cohabitation, drug usage, out-of-wedlock births, rap music, and on and on.  There were boundaries for a reason:  to maintain a moral society.


I was rereading this and I realized that there is more here than just gay marriage. @Perianne also mentions cohabitation, drug usage, out-of-wedlock births and rap music as previously-violated boundaries. This is why I get along with libertarians way more than social conservatives. Libertarians believe everyone has the right to do their own thing as long as it doesn't affect anyone else. Social conservatives want to force their morality on everyone else.

----------

kilgram (10-04-2013),Sinestro/Green Arrow (10-04-2013)

----------


## kilgram

> What proponents of gay marriage fail to realize is in conservatives' minds it is another societal boundary that is being violated.  Previously-violated boundaries include cohabitation, drug usage, out-of-wedlock births, rap music, and on and on.  There were boundaries for a reason:  to maintain a moral society.


What is a moral society?

Because maybe for me many things that you believe moral for me they are absolutely immoral. Who is right about what is moral and what is not?

----------


## Calypso Jones

you know what is moral and what isn't.  God has put it in your being....you know.... the fact of the matter is that you prefer your own way rather than God's.

----------

Perianne (10-04-2013)

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Ok, but behind the marriage, what is the reason? Love. 
> 
> I don't have the marriage to marry a woman just because I want to let her to get the papers to become civilillian of the country that she wants to be national.
> 
> By the way, why an adult person cannot marry with the adult person of choice?


Why can brother and sister not marry?

Father and daughter?

Grandpa and granddaughter?

Why can three people not marry?

Why can't I marry MYSELF?  I love myself.  I want an extra tax credit.  It's NOT FAIR!!  My RIGHTS are being violated!!

"Love" is at the bottom of marriage motives.  What we call "love" is really bonding.

You don't completely control it; but you do have some ability.  Which is why often you might meet an attractive member of the opposite sex...who's radiating vibes like sparks...and then he/she pulls back and snubs you.

He/she is controlling/stopping that bonding process.  For whatever reason, it's not the thing they need to do.

And to some extent, anyone healthy who isn't physically repulsive will do as a marriage partner.  If you can perform with that person in a whorehouse, you can marry that person.

Marriages were through much of man's history, arranged.  In primitive societies, it makes sense.  In feudal societies, class and bloodlines are everything; and the Royals, who seemingly own everything, cannot marry by personal choice...for "love."

And...as much to the point...love doesn't last.

The "love" a teenager feels as (usually) she pairs off...that's just the satisfaction of a need being met.  No different from a full belly; or from a restroom long after the need manifested.  

Someone of that age, is biologically ready to reproduce.  Like a bird wanting to fly south, that person feels the drive to pair off.  And doing it, is satisfying...thrilling.

That DOES NOT LAST.  "Like" will go a lot further in a marriage than "Love."  Eventually, if you live long enough...there's impotence; menopause; separate bedrooms; complete loss of interest.  But "liking" your spouse will take you through all that...even to the end of life, with someone whose company you enjoy.

But "Love" is a modern construct, mostly of hackneyed literature.

----------


## kilgram

> Why can brother and sister not marry?
> 
> Father and daughter?
> 
> Grandpa and granddaughter?
> 
> Why can three people not marry?
> 
> Why can't I marry MYSELF?  I love myself.  I want an extra tax credit.  It's NOT FAIR!!  My RIGHTS are being violated!!
> ...


Love always has existed. It is not a modern thing. Also it is liking, liking to the person who want to live forever. But for example, I cannot like in my life a person, but according to you, I could marry to that person(for example homosexual man with a woman). And you will have a marriage which will not last, or it will not be healthy, at least. 

And I tell you, I should be able to marry with the person of my choice. The person who makes me happy. The person that I like. Is there any problem of that person being a person of my same sex? Why do you want to restrict freedom of people?

----------


## thedarkdaimon

> you know what is moral and what isn't.  God has put it in your being....you know.... the fact of the matter is that you prefer your own way rather than God's.


Which god? Allah? Vishnu? Gaia? Thor? Christianity is not the only religion so what makes your morals any more "moral" than anyone else's?

----------

kilgram (10-04-2013),The XL (10-04-2013)

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

'I want!' 'I want!' should NEVER be a sufficient reason for ANYTHING!!!

5-year-olds think in such terms. If they had their way, they'd eat fudge for breakfast, lunch and dinner. Mere appetite should NEVER have its own way, that leads to barbarism. And THAT'S also why I'll NEVER be a pure libertarian.

So, yes, I DO believe in limiting human freedom, because 99% of human beings abuse it without strong societal guard-rails.

----------

JustPassinThru (10-04-2013),Perianne (10-04-2013)

----------


## JustPassinThru

> 'I want!' 'I want!' should NEVER be a sufficient reason for ANYTHING!!!


Yes.

More importantly, when "_I WANT!!_" is to change the BEHAVIOR and ATTITUDES of other people, presumably free people with rights equal to the petulant screamer...it's over the line.

Someone wants to practice unhealthful, unnatural sex with a consenting adult...fine.  If they want to shove our faces in it and call it natural...not fine.

----------

Perianne (10-04-2013)

----------


## thedarkdaimon

> Yes.
> 
> More importantly, when "_I WANT!!_" is to change the BEHAVIOR and ATTITUDES of other people, presumably free people with rights equal to the petulant screamer...it's over the line.
> 
> Someone wants to practice unhealthful, unnatural sex with a consenting adult...fine.  If they want to shove our faces in it and call it natural...not fine.


Actually the First Amendment says that people can shove it into your face (figuratively) and call it natural, but you have the right to shove it right back and call it unnatural.

----------


## thedarkdaimon

> 'I want!' 'I want!' should NEVER be a sufficient reason for ANYTHING!!!
> 
> 5-year-olds think in such terms. If they had their way, they'd eat fudge for breakfast, lunch and dinner. Mere appetite should NEVER have its own way, that leads to barbarism. And THAT'S also why I'll NEVER be a pure libertarian.
> 
> So, yes, I DO believe in limiting human freedom, because 99% of human beings abuse it without strong societal guard-rails.


So you think most of humanity has the maturity of 5-year-olds? You must be in that 1% of human beings that don't abuse it huh? 

Isn't "I want" the driving force of Capitalism?

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> You don't have the right to marry anyone, ANYONE...for "love."
> 
> You have the right to marry a consenting adult of the opposite sex.
> 
> That's the same right anyone else has.
> 
> How many more dozens of times are you agitators gonna repeat the same false meme?


You do have he right to marry someone for love, if that person happens to be of the opposite sex. You have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex for companionship, or to mingle your assets, or to help them get health insurance from your employer. You don't have these rights if the other person is of the same sex.

If you have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, then the reasons you have for doing so are rights that come with it.

----------


## JustPassinThru

You have the OPPORTUNITY.

It isn't a "right."  It isn't unqualified.

What if the other person doesn't want to marry you?

Or is blood kin?

How long are we gonna carry on adventure into absurdity?

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> You have the OPPORTUNITY.
> 
> It isn't a "right."  It isn't unqualified.
> 
> What if the other person doesn't want to marry you?
> 
> Or is blood kin?
> 
> How long are we gonna carry on adventure into absurdity?


So now you are arguing against yourself.  Anyway, it's a civil right, a privilege granted to you by your government. You speak of absurdities, but I know of no one but conservatives who put forth the absurd argument that one of the parties would not be a consenting adult. If you want to stop the "adventure into absurdity", stop making absurd arguments.

The partnership benefits of government marriage should be available to any two consenting adults who want to partake of it.

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

> So you think most of humanity has the maturity of 5-year-olds? You must be in that 1% of human beings that don't abuse it huh? 
> 
> Isn't "I want" the driving force of Capitalism?


I slightly exaggerated: from mere observation, maybe between 22% and 27% of people are fully-formed, self-disciplined, rational human beings or are capable of becoming so. 33% TOPS. 

Of course 'I Want' is important if not dominating in capitalism, but I am also not a believer in laissez-faire: we don't allow heroin, crystal meth and cocaine to become legitimate segments of the capitalist system. Even capitalism must exist within societal norms and morality and law. Lawless capitalism is what exists in Russia and China, not in developed, mature capitalist countries.

----------


## kilgram

> You have the OPPORTUNITY.
> 
> It isn't a "right."  It isn't unqualified.
> 
> What if the other person doesn't want to marry you?


If the other does not want to marry you, he does not marry you. LOL

But that not eliminates the right. Are you not confusing right with duty?

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

I think I may actually have been overly optimistic in my percentages as to the segment of the population that barely qualifies as fully-formed rational human beings, as this horrifically depressing video makes clear [pass over the fact that it comes from the Infowars website, I despise the mad-as-a-hatter Alex Jones as much as anyone else]:

http://www.infowars.com/video-obama-...filiated-with/

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> I slightly exaggerated: from mere observation, maybe between 22% and 27% of people are fully-formed, self-disciplined, rational human beings or are capable of becoming so. 33% TOPS. 
> 
> Of course 'I Want' is important if not dominating in capitalism, but I am also not a believer in laissez-faire: we don't allow heroin, crystal meth and cocaine to become legitimate segments of the capitalist system.


When you say "we" do you mean that you work for the government? The government prevents these things from being treated as the lawful property that they are and the users from lawfully using their bodies as is their right. If you mean by "we" as in all of us, I'd point out that not all of us are in favor of the restriction of natural rights just because some people demand that the vices they don't like be treated as crimes.

Frankly, I think that those who use the nationalist language such as "we do x" when what they really mean is "govenrment does x". and who demand that vices be treated as crimes and that government destroy property rights; and civil liberties in pursuit of those non-criminals are not among the fully-formed, self-disciplined, rational human beings of which you speak. Still, those human beings are as deserving of having their rights respected and protected as any other human beings.

----------


## thedarkdaimon

> Why can brother and sister not marry?
> 
> Father and daughter?
> 
> Grandpa and granddaughter?
> 
> Why can three people not marry?
> 
> Why can't I marry MYSELF?  I love myself.  I want an extra tax credit.  It's NOT FAIR!!  My RIGHTS are being violated!!
> ...


So what, in your opinion, is marriage about if it is not about love?

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

You ONLY have 'natural rights' if these rights are soundly and rightly used. The concept doesn't even make sense otherwise. Separate 'natural rights' from morality and you have one of the most terrifying weapons of sheer destruction that humanity has ever devised. It can be a very dark thing indeed....

----------


## kilgram

> You ONLY have 'natural rights' if these rights are soundly and rightly used. The concept doesn't even make sense otherwise. Separate 'natural rights' from morality and you have one of the most terrifying weapons of sheer destruction that humanity has ever devised. It can be a very dark thing indeed....


What morality?

Your morality or the mine?

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

> So what, in your opinion, is marriage about if it is not about love?


The inevitable linking of marriage and love is a modernistic novelty rare before the 18th century. It was desirable to have love in a marriage, but not essential. By the way, I'm not endorsing that view of things, just reminding you that current ideas about marriage have never been the norm, and is still not the norm across wide areas of the globe.

----------


## The XL

> What proponents of gay marriage fail to realize is in conservatives' minds it is another societal boundary that is being violated.  Previously-violated boundaries include cohabitation, drug usage, out-of-wedlock births, rap music, and on and on.  There were boundaries for a reason:  to maintain a moral society.


Morality is subjective.

I find those things far less abhorrent than nonstop war, bigotry, etc, things a lot of conservatives are fond of.

----------


## The XL

> It degrades the sanctity of marriage and cheapens society in general. Raising children in such a household is teaching them an abnormal lifestyle is normal.   Adopting children into such a household is in my opinion harmful to the child.
> 
> Look - you and I aren't gonna agree on this, so I'm not gonna get in fuss with you over it. The REAL problem, imo, is that govt needs to NOT be involved in marriage at all - on the federal level, state level, or tax level. No marriage licenses. Marriage is a religious covenant and the Church as an institution (including the local level) should be left alone to deal with it.


The hetero divorce rate is at 50% or so.  Their is no sanctity there.

I agree the state should get out, though.

----------

kilgram (10-04-2013)

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

Mine.

Because I found my morality on the broad experience of human history and its accumulated, self-correcting wisdom. Every age has its evils--hunting out heretics and witches in medieval and early modern Europe, the 'flowery wars' of the Aztecs to keep the cosmos intact by mass human sacrifice, the examples can be multiplied indefinitely. But these are eccentricities that exist on the peripheries of morality, and arise, thrive and decline due to specific historical circumstances. But humanity's core morality actually is less varying and eccentric through time than one would think, as C. S, Lewis amply demonstrated in 'The Abolition of Man'.  My morality may be awkward and unwieldy at times, but at least it exists

Your morality, on the other hand, is founded on the irrational impulse of the moment, in short, founded on nothing at all. It has no real existence. Even the libertarian lame-ass 'as long as it doesn't harm other people' schtick is a limitation on 'natural human liberty', so, as a pure libertarian, why would one acknowledge THAT limitation: if it fulfills the irrational impulses of my 'natural human liberties' to punch you on the nose, it would be illegitimate to hinder me, right, given that as a libertarian my impulses of the moment are my only legitimate guideposts?

Your morality simply doesn't make rational sense.

----------


## Perianne

> Morality is subjective.
> 
> I find those things far less abhorrent than nonstop war, bigotry, etc, things a lot of conservatives are fond of.


When my husband got into fights or arguments, I supported him 100% because I loved him.  Conservatives support country for the same reason.  It is not a matter of being fond of war.

----------


## Calypso Jones

> Which god? Allah? Vishnu? Gaia? Thor? Christianity is not the only religion so what makes your morals any more "moral" than anyone else's?


Because He is the one true God...with the words to prove it.   Vishnu is no god, neither is Gaia or thor....nor this plagiarized allah.  

You have the proof of fulfilled prophesy in His word given to us.     You have the proof spelled out for you in the heavens and the earth.  I cannot help it if you cannot discern this.  But beware, if you continue to deny his existence then he will turn you over to your false man-made beliefs.

----------


## kilgram

> Because He is the one true God...with the words to prove it.   Vishnu is no god, neither is Gaia or thor....nor this plagiarized allah.  
> 
> You have the proof of fulfilled prophesy in His word given to us.     You have the proof spelled out for you in the heavens and the earth.  I cannot help it if you cannot discern this.  But beware, if you continue to deny his existence then he will turn you over to your false man-made beliefs.


The same will say the Islamic for your god, or the Indu. Why is yours better than theirs?

And if the god is the same for all religions, but he is playing with us  :Wink:  ? But it is another topic. But your morality is not better than the one of the rest.

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

> Morality is subjective.
> 
> I find those things far less abhorrent than nonstop war, bigotry, etc, things a lot of conservatives are fond of.


Let's, for the sake of argument, say that your absurd, ridiculous characterization of conservatives is true...

Why would you find non-stop war, bigotry, etc and all those things conservatives are fond of objectionable? You just said morality is subjective. According to your own ridiculous view of this matter, on what basis, then, can you judge the morality of people who espouse nonstop war, bigotry etc? 

They have their morality, you have yours. That's all that can be said, according to your position.

Admit it, this libertarian position makes no logical sense.

----------


## kilgram

> When my husband got into fights or arguments, I supported him 100% because I loved him.  Conservatives support country for the same reason.  It is not a matter of being fond of war.


Even if is he wrong?

I won't support somebody in everything? Even if I love that person.

----------


## kilgram

> Let's, for the sake of argument, say that your absurd, ridiculous characterization of conservatives is true...
> 
> Why would you find non-stop war, bigotry, etc and all those things conservatives are fond of objectionable? You just said morality is subjective. According to your own ridiculous view of this matter, on what basis, then, can you judge the morality of people who espouse nonstop war, bigotry etc? 
> 
> They have their morality, you have yours. That's all that can be said, according to your position.
> 
> Admit it, this libertarian position makes no logical sense.


I don't see how is ridiculous his position of conservative. If that is what they do.

----------


## The XL

> When my husband got into fights or arguments, I supported him 100% because I loved him.  Conservatives support country for the same reason.  It is not a matter of being fond of war.


Well, all these wars don't even help the country, but that's besides the point.

The point is, morality is subjective.  And gays aren't hurting or effecting anyone.  And no, you don't have a right to be not offended.

----------


## Calypso Jones

> The same will say the Islamic for your god, or the Indu. Why is yours better than theirs?
> 
> And if the god is the same for all religions, but he is playing with us  ? But it is another topic. But your morality is not better than the one of the rest.


You say he plays with you so that you can justify your turning your back to him.

http://www.christianbook.com/jesus-a...=AFF&p=1011693&

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

> Even if is he wrong?
> 
> I won't support somebody in everything? Even if I love that person.


According to what you said earlier, there can be no concept as 'wrong' in moral issues, as all morality is subjective, so what on earth are you even TALKING about?

----------

Perianne (10-04-2013)

----------


## Calypso Jones

the same can be said for these other gods but it is not the truth.    NO other religion on the earth has the amount of evidence to back it up as does the God of Abraham, The LORD.

----------


## Canadianeye

> Let's, for the sake of argument, say that your absurd, ridiculous characterization of conservatives is true...
> 
> Why would you find non-stop war, bigotry, etc and all those things conservatives are fond of objectionable? You just said morality is subjective. According to your own ridiculous view of this matter, on what basis, then, can you judge the morality of people who espouse nonstop war, bigotry etc? 
> 
> They have their morality, you have yours. That's all that can be said, according to your position.
> 
> Admit it, this libertarian position makes no logical sense.


Morality is conveniently subjective...and usually finds its voice from leftists (broadly) when social justice is involved and engaging the attempt for social justice to trump the rule of law.

----------


## Calypso Jones

> Well, all these wars don't even help the country, but that's besides the point.
> 
> The point is, morality is subjective.  And gays aren't hurting or effecting anyone.  And no, you don't have a right to be not offended.


*How does homosexual marriage affect me personally?* by Matt Slick
In the attempt to defend permitting homosexuals to marry (i.e., man to man and  woman to woman), proponents of homosexual marriage ask how such marriages would  personally affect those who are opposed to it.  This is worth answering, and  I believe there are two areas we need to look at in response.
*Philosophical Concerns*
How does a murder in another state between two people living in a trailer park  in the middle of nowhere, among people whom we have never known and who don't know  anyone we know, affect us personally?  It doesn't, but because it has no effect  on us personally this doesn't mean that we should ignore the moral issues associated  with murder and not condemn such actions.   Murder is morally wrong, and when any moral law is broken we are all ultimately  affected and we know that if such actions were to increase, society would be affected...no  matter where you are.
Am I comparing homosexual marriage to murder and saying they are related or somehow  equal?  Not at all.  I'm momentarily shifting the focus to something that  we all agree is morally wrong in order to demonstrate that  even though there can be an action somewhere that doesn't specifically affect us  (i.e., murder), we should rightfully condemn it because it is wrong.  It is  a moral concern.  Likewise, homosexual marriage is a moral issue and we must  be concerned with its moral implications -- whether or not we are personally affected  at the moment.
However, someone might say that homosexual marriage is not a moral issue, but  is instead a civil rights issue.  Though some pro-homosexual marriage proponents  wave the flag of "civil rights" in support of their cause, which I believe is inappropriate,  homosexual marriage is wrought with moral issues:  faithfulness, promise, love,  support, commitment, sex, etc.  Besides, civil rights are based on moral rights.   It is morally wrong to prevent someone from holding a job, eating at a restaurant,  or using public bathrooms based on skin color.  Likewise, the union of two  people in a public ceremony where emotional, sexual, and faithful commitment to  each other is recognized by the rest of society is also moral.  If you disagree,  then it is up to you to demonstrate that such public commitment is somehow a non-moral  issue.
When we look at the question again, we can see an implied moral standard; namely,  that morality is determined by how people are personally affected.  But something  is not right or wrong merely because of the effect an action might have on someone.   Something is right or wrong because there is an inherent nature to moral truths.   For example, it is wrong to murder.  It is wrong to torture babies for your  personal pleasure.  It is wrong to divide society based on skin color.   It is wrong to promise fidelity, commitment, and love to your marriage "partner"  and then break that promise.  It is wrong to hate someone without a cause.   It is wrong to desire the death of someone just because you don't like his skin  color.  If morality were determined by how a person is affected, then all of  morality would be based on effects, circumstances, and personal likes -- but only  when they are acted on, not when they are felt.  But this is problematic because  if I believe that homosexual marriage is morally wrong, am I morally wrong for simply  believing it?  Am I morally right?  Or is there no moral value to the  belief?  If you say there is no moral value to a mere belief, then hating someone  based on skin color or "sexual orientation" isn't wrong, is it?  See how morality  based "only" on how someone is affected is wrought with problems?  It ignores  the underlying motives and says that evil motives aren't wrong until they are acted  upon.
If you deny that there are intrinsic moral truths, then there is nothing wrong  with hatred, anger, lust, coveting, prejudice, etc., as long as they aren't manifested.   Again, if there are no intrinsic moral truths, then please find an exception to  the statement that it is always wrong to torture babies merely for your person pleasure.   If you can't, then aren't you admitting there are moral absolutes -- to which we  must ultimately answer since it implies a moral Truth Giver?  But, I digress.
Homosexual marriage is really about two things:  love and sex.  Sure,  homosexuals profess love for one another.  But, they also have sex with each  other and it is the latter issue that, in my opinion, is the driving force behind  their marriage redefinition.  Think about it:  homoSEXuality.  Yeah,  I know, its just a word.  However, it leads us to the practical concerns as  they are related to sex, the very thing that the homosexual community has brought  out of the closet/bedroom into the public eye.
*Practical Concerns*
If a single homosexual couple is married on the other side of the world, it has  no effect on me -- but that doesn't mean it isn't a moral issue.  However,  if a homosexual couple is legally married in the country in which I live, I am affected.   First of all, writing this article is the result of the question raised by pro-homosexual  marriage supporters.  I was affected, and I'm writing this as the result.   Second, the redefinition of marriage away from the public promissory bond of a man  and woman affects society as a whole, since society is based on the family unit  in which marriage is the legal contract of fidelity and commitment through which  children are brought into the world. Third, by redefining marriage away from a man  and a woman, where normal physical sexual intercourse can occur, the absolutes of  male female marriage relationships are broken down and sexual permissiveness is  encouraged.  This opens the door to further redefinitions of familial and sexual  relationships.  Take, for example, the 2011 symposium "Living in Truth and  Dignity" in Baltimore, Maryland on August 17.  In it, pedophilia was redefined  as "minor attracted persons," and the symposium sought to raise concerns about how  the DSM1  considers it a mental disorder.
At the symposium, one of the lectures was titled "Decriminalizing Mental Disorder  Concepts - Pedophilia as an Example."  It was presented by John Z. Sadler,  M.D., Prof. of medical ethics and psychiatry, UT Southwestern Medical Ctr., Dallas,  TX.2
Is this a precursor of more sexual "reconsiderations" in a changing world where  sexual permissiveness in the form of homosexual behavior now seeks acceptability  by redefining marriage so it can hide within its sacred halls and gain acceptability?   We have to ask if such a symposium would have gained traction if the fidelity of  traditional marriage had remained intact, and along with it the sanctity of sexuality  that marriage provides.  I can't see how.  With the redefining of sexual  roles and marriage partners, the dike that holds back the immoral deluge is cracking.
When the door to marriage redefinition is opened, a host of sexual moral obscenities  can slip in.  When and how do we close the door again?  After pedophilia  is accepted by society?  What about polygamy, polyandry, and polyamory?   Without a definite statement that marriage is  between a man and a woman, and with it the natural biologically designed sexual  union that is guarded within marriage, then anything goes -- pedophilia, bestiality,  necrophilia, gender identity, and more.  Philosophically, this can have profound  moral ramifications for society, and when morals change society changes and everyone  within it is affected.
As history too often demonstrates, when a society's morality frays the wicked  prosper and they soon turn their attention to the morally conservative and persecute  them.  This is already occurring here in America where people who dare express  contrary opinions to the politically correct view of homosexual marriage are fired  from jobs, ridiculed, and/or called bigots.  This causes others, myself included,  to be wary about saying anything, lest the brown-shirts3  of the homosexual agenda turn us in and we be punished for simply believing that  homosexual marriage is wrong.  Think it won't happen?  It already is!

1. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders of the American  Psychiatric Association" href="homosexual-marriage-effect-me#footnote2_sy53qzt"2. http://b4uact.org/science/symp/2011/program.htm3. The brown shirts were informants for the Nazi party in Germany who used violence to silence those in opposition to Hitler.

----------

Perianne (10-04-2013)

----------


## Calypso Jones

What is subjective about morality.....that murder is okay in one society and not okay in another.  Which is preferable.

----------


## The XL

> Let's, for the sake of argument, say that your absurd, ridiculous characterization of conservatives is true...
> 
> Why would you find non-stop war, bigotry, etc and all those things conservatives are fond of objectionable? You just said morality is subjective. According to your own ridiculous view of this matter, on what basis, then, can you judge the morality of people who espouse nonstop war, bigotry etc? 
> 
> They have their morality, you have yours. That's all that can be said, according to your position.
> 
> Admit it, this libertarian position makes no logical sense.


The point is everyone has their own idea of morality.  Go ahead, judge someone for being gay, but you have no right to make policy off your beliefs.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> So what, in your opinion, is marriage about if it is not about love?


Creation of a family.

The family being the basic structural block of society.

Do you think there's "love" in all the arranged marriages in Eastern society and European royalty?  Marriage was to provide a mate for issue...for children.  And because, as was noted in the Bible..."it was not good that man (or woman) should be alone."

And because the bar culture, whorehouses and glory holes, aren't so much fun when you're in your fifties.  A family is a little more satisfying.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Morality is subjective.
> 
> I find those things far less abhorrent than nonstop war, bigotry, etc, things a lot of conservatives are fond of.


Subjective morality is no morality.

Which is why secular society always unravels.

A workable morality is one that is attributed to a Higher Power and is immutable.

----------


## Perianne

> ...but you have no right to make policy off your beliefs.


But society as a whole does.  Thus, the purpose of this thread:  the untangling of societal boundaries.

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

> The point is everyone has their own idea of morality.  Go ahead, judge someone for being gay, but you have no right to make policy off your beliefs.


'Go ahead, judge someone for being a child molester, but you have no right to make policy off of your beliefs'. :Cool20:

----------


## The XL

> *How does homosexual marriage affect me personally?*
> 
> by Matt Slick
> In the attempt to defend permitting homosexuals to marry (i.e., man to man and  woman to woman), proponents of homosexual marriage ask how such marriages would  personally affect those who are opposed to it.  This is worth answering, and  I believe there are two areas we need to look at in response.
> *Philosophical Concerns*
> How does a murder in another state between two people living in a trailer park  in the middle of nowhere, among people whom we have never known and who don't know  anyone we know, affect us personally?  It doesn't, but because it has no effect  on us personally this doesn't mean that we should ignore the moral issues associated  with murder and not condemn such actions.   Murder is morally wrong, and when any moral law is broken we are all ultimately  affected and we know that if such actions were to increase, society would be affected...no  matter where you are.
> Am I comparing homosexual marriage to murder and saying they are related or somehow  equal?  Not at all.  I'm momentarily shifting the focus to something that  we all agree is morally wrong in order to demonstrate that  even though there can be an action somewhere that doesn't specifically affect us  (i.e., murder), we should rightfully condemn it because it is wrong.  It is  a moral concern.  Likewise, homosexual marriage is a moral issue and we must  be concerned with its moral implications -- whether or not we are personally affected  at the moment.
> However, someone might say that homosexual marriage is not a moral issue, but  is instead a civil rights issue.  Though some pro-homosexual marriage proponents  wave the flag of "civil rights" in support of their cause, which I believe is inappropriate,  homosexual marriage is wrought with moral issues:  faithfulness, promise, love,  support, commitment, sex, etc.  Besides, civil rights are based on moral rights.   It is morally wrong to prevent someone from holding a job, eating at a restaurant,  or using public bathrooms based on skin color.  Likewise, the union of two  people in a public ceremony where emotional, sexual, and faithful commitment to  each other is recognized by the rest of society is also moral.  If you disagree,  then it is up to you to demonstrate that such public commitment is somehow a non-moral  issue.
> When we look at the question again, we can see an implied moral standard; namely,  that morality is determined by how people are personally affected.  But something  is not right or wrong merely because of the effect an action might have on someone.   Something is right or wrong because there is an inherent nature to moral truths.   For example, it is wrong to murder.  It is wrong to torture babies for your  personal pleasure.  It is wrong to divide society based on skin color.   It is wrong to promise fidelity, commitment, and love to your marriage "partner"  and then break that promise.  It is wrong to hate someone without a cause.   It is wrong to desire the death of someone just because you don't like his skin  color.  If morality were determined by how a person is affected, then all of  morality would be based on effects, circumstances, and personal likes -- but only  when they are acted on, not when they are felt.  But this is problematic because  if I believe that homosexual marriage is morally wrong, am I morally wrong for simply  believing it?  Am I morally right?  Or is there no moral value to the  belief?  If you say there is no moral value to a mere belief, then hating someone  based on skin color or "sexual orientation" isn't wrong, is it?  See how morality  based "only" on how someone is affected is wrought with problems?  It ignores  the underlying motives and says that evil motives aren't wrong until they are acted  upon.
> ...


There was no point in this massive wall of text.  If someone gets murdered in a parking lot, their is a victim, and people are at risk because a murderer is o the loose, ergo, people are and have been affected.  The other examples listed were garbage too.

----------


## Perianne

> 'Go ahead, judge someone for being a child molester, but you have no right to make policy off of your beliefs'.


Now, the libs will say that molesting a child affects the other person.  Let's say Billy Bob likes fornicating with dogs.  The dog has no rights.  It isn't harming anyone else if he forks dogs in his back yard.  But society still says "no".

----------


## The XL

> But society as a whole does.  Thus, the purpose of this thread:  the untangling of societal boundaries.


No, society does not have a right to make policy against an action with no victim.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> No, society does not have a right to make policy against an action with no victim.


The victim is all the culture.

You will deny it.  But you can NOT find a lasting society that embraced homosexuality.

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

> Now, the libs will say that molesting a child affects the other person.  Let's say Billy Bob likes fornicating with dogs.  The dog has no rights.  It isn't harming anyone else if he forks dogs in his back yard.  But society still says "no".


If all morality is subjective, why would I give a rat's ass if I perform an action to satisfy a momentary impulse because my 'natural human liberty' allows me to do so? 

This consideration for 'victims' strikes me as a suspiciously lame attempt to reintroduce objective moral standards through the back door! [says the liberal amoralist].

----------


## The XL

> The victim is all the culture.
> 
> You will deny it.  But you can NOT find a lasting society that embraced homosexuality.


Lmao.  No society lasts forever, yet you want to use that retarded logic?  Ya, it's teh gays.  Sure.

Let's make this easy for you social conservatives to understand.  Molesting a child has victim.  Killing someone in fucking trailor has a victim.  An animal cannot consent, so you can't fuck it.   Two consenting adults engaging in sex, relationship, whatever, has no victim.

----------

kilgram (10-04-2013)

----------


## kilgram

> According to what you said earlier, there can be no concept as 'wrong' in moral issues, as all morality is subjective, so what on earth are you even TALKING about?


That you don't agree with him. I don't need to agree in everything with the people who I love. If in that thing from your point of view was wrong, why would you defend him?

----------


## Gerrard Winstanley

> The victim is all the culture.
> 
> You will deny it. But you can NOT find a lasting society that embraced homosexuality.


You seriously think the Roman Empire fell as a result of bumming and gayness?

----------

kilgram (10-04-2013),The XL (10-04-2013)

----------


## kilgram

> the same can be said for these other gods but it is not the truth.    NO other religion on the earth has the amount of evidence to back it up as does the God of Abraham, The LORD.


Because you believe that. Nothing else, for the others also their religions have evidence. Religion is a question of faith, nothing else.

As I said, if god mess with our minds, and it includes you, playing with us, making us to believe that exist different gods and religions just to have fun. He is all powerful, why not?

----------


## Gerrard Winstanley

> Because you believe that. Nothing else, for the others also their religions have evidence. Religion is a question of faith, nothing else.
> 
> As I said, if god mess with our minds, and it includes you, playing with us, making us to believe that exist different gods and religions just to have fun. He is all powerful, why not?


I have no clue what evidence she's referring to. The only thing that "proves" the existence of the Abrahamic god, or any deity for that matter, is one's capacity to believe in it. Fine by me.

----------


## Calypso Jones

> The point is everyone has their own idea of morality.  Go ahead, judge someone for being gay, but you have no right to make policy off your beliefs.


If everyone has their own idea of morality what is to stop someone whose idea of morality is that it is okay to murder you and your family and take over your possessions.      Of course people would like to have their own made up morality because then whatever they wanted to do would be ...moral.  

YOU make policy off beliefs.  You want to make policy that homosexuality is okay and doesn't hurt anyone.   Well yes.  it does.    You also make policy of belief based on God's laws.    no murder, no thievery, no incest, adultery, etc. etc.    you pick and choose don't you.

----------


## kilgram

> If everyone has their own idea of morality what is to stop someone whose idea of morality is that it is okay to murder you and your family and take over your possessions.      Of course people would like to have their own made up morality because then whatever they wanted to do would be ...moral.  
> 
> YOU make policy off beliefs.  You want to make policy that homosexuality is okay and doesn't hurt anyone.   Well yes.  it does.    You also make policy of belief based on God's laws.    no murder, no thievery, no incest, adultery, etc. etc.    you pick and choose don't you.


Policy, it is laws come from Civil Law and Common Law. And that is not based in god.

There is no law against adultery, for example, obviously in civilized countries, I am talking about.

By the way, incest was well seen in god eyes  :Wink:

----------


## thedarkdaimon

> The victim is all the culture.
> 
> You will deny it.  But you can NOT find a lasting society that embraced homosexuality.


You are wrong. The Japanese have accepted homosexuality for hundreds of years (longer than the US has been a nation) and they are still going strong.

----------


## The XL

> If everyone has their own idea of morality what is to stop someone whose idea of morality is that it is okay to murder you and your family and take over your possessions.      Of course people would like to have their own made up morality because then whatever they wanted to do would be ...moral.  
> 
> YOU make policy off beliefs.  You want to make policy that homosexuality is okay and doesn't hurt anyone.   Well yes.  it does.    You also make policy of belief based on God's laws.    no murder, no thievery, no incest, adultery, etc. etc.    you pick and choose don't you.


When you kill someone, their is an obvious victim.  It's not subjective at all.  And take morality out of the argument if you wish, society steps in out of fear of it's own collective ass.  

When two dudes are sleeping with each other, their is no victim, and no reason to step in.

----------


## The XL

> You seriously think the Roman Empire fell as a result of bumming and gayness?


He does.  It's insane.

----------

kilgram (10-04-2013)

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> If everyone has their own idea of morality what is to stop someone whose idea of morality is that it is okay to murder you and your family and take over your possessions.      Of course people would like to have their own made up morality because then whatever they wanted to do would be ...moral.  
> 
> YOU make policy off beliefs.  You want to make policy that homosexuality is okay and doesn't hurt anyone.   Well yes.  it does.    You also make policy of belief based on God's laws.    no murder, no thievery, no incest, adultery, etc. etc.    you pick and choose don't you.


No, you pick and choose. You'll make laws against murder, theft, incest, abortion, gay marriage...oh, but we can't have laws against the consumption of pork and shellfish, can we?

----------

The XL (10-04-2013)

----------


## The XL

> Now, the libs will say that molesting a child affects the other person.  Let's say Billy Bob likes fornicating with dogs.  The dog has no rights.  It isn't harming anyone else if he forks dogs in his back yard.  But society still says "no".


The dog can't consent.

This really isn't hard.

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> You ONLY have 'natural rights' if these rights are soundly and rightly used. The concept doesn't even make sense otherwise. Separate 'natural rights' from morality and you have one of the most terrifying weapons of sheer destruction that humanity has ever devised. It can be a very dark thing indeed....


From where do you derive your natural rights, and how can one create an objective framework of law from them, in your mind?  The difficulty with marrying (pun intended) natural rights to all subjective morality is that there is often a conflict between the two. I'll use adultery as an example. You may deem adultery to be immoral. However, one has a natural right to choose their associations and it would be a violation of a person's natural right to initiate aggression against them for their extramarital dalliances. They've done wrong, by your moral standard, but they have not committed force or fraud, so they have not violated the natural rights of anyone else. It is therefore wrong to violate theirs.

And, should you argue that a marriage is a form of contract, I'd point out that unalienable, aka "natural", rights are just that - unalienable. They cannot be contracted away.

----------

kilgram (10-04-2013),The XL (10-04-2013)

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> 'Go ahead, judge someone for being a child molester, but you have no right to make policy off of your beliefs'.


Is it really so hard for you to figure out the difference between an act of aggression against an non-consenting human being and a the exercise of natural rights?

----------


## Perianne

> The dog can't consent.
> 
> This really isn't hard.


Animals have few rights in society.  You can shoot a pig in the head to kill it, but you can't have sex with it.  It is all about what society determines to be moral.

----------

Coolwalker (10-04-2013)

----------


## Gerrard Winstanley

> He does.  It's insane.


I can't think of any lasting society which built pyramids. That must mean they collapsed as a result of their four-faced polygon-building antics.

----------

thedarkdaimon (10-04-2013)

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Which god? Allah? Vishnu? Gaia? Thor? Christianity is not the only religion so what makes your morals any more "moral" than anyone else's?


I personally prefer Thor.

----------

kilgram (10-04-2013)

----------


## The XL

> Animals have few rights in society.  You can shoot a pig in the head to kill it, but you can't have sex with it.  It is all about what society determines to be moral.


This is true, to an extent.  Matter of fact, I think it's the only decent point brought up by any social conservative in this thread.

The selective treatment of animals, what rights they have, should have, etc, would be a decent discussion to be had.

----------


## Perianne

> I can't think of any lasting society which built pyramids. That must mean they collapsed as a result of their four-faced polygon-building antics.


It means they collapsed because they used slaves to build those four-faced polygons.  They built their country on false morals.

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> If everyone has their own idea of morality what is to stop someone whose idea of morality is that it is okay to murder you and your family and take over your possessions.      Of course people would like to have their own made up morality because then whatever they wanted to do would be ...moral.  
> 
> YOU make policy off beliefs.  You want to make policy that homosexuality is okay and doesn't hurt anyone.   Well yes.  it does.    You also make policy of belief based on God's laws.    no murder, no thievery, no incest, adultery, etc. etc.    you pick and choose don't you.


We don't. We have an objective framework for creating law based on unalienable rights. Those things we deem immoral, but are not actual crimes, are not subject to government policies without violating that system of ethics. *You* pick and choose your forms of right and wrong, and have little or no guiding principle that is objective and rational for the creation of legislation. It's why you can object to Obamacare, but really have no rational argument why it's illegitimate to use government as a mechanism for controlling people's healthcare choices. Your underlying principle for law is that might is right.

We libertarians have such a framework to apply to law. And that is the unalienable rights of natural law.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> You ONLY have 'natural rights' if these rights are soundly and rightly used. The concept doesn't even make sense otherwise. Separate 'natural rights' from morality and you have one of the most terrifying weapons of sheer destruction that humanity has ever devised. It can be a very dark thing indeed....


Except "soundly and rightly used" is completely, totally subjective.

----------


## kilgram

> I personally prefer Thor.


A few moments ago Thor, the god of Thunder was working, because there were strong thunders in my town.  :Smile:

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (10-04-2013)

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> The dog can't consent.
> 
> This really isn't hard.


The unfortunate reality of an objective ethical framework is that a dog cannot be said to consent or not consent. The dog is property. Bestiality is wrong, deviant and sick, but it's not a crime as there is no force or fraud. Animals are not rational moral actors, they cannot recognize your rights, so they cannot have them either. They are property, or they are unowned natural resources.

----------


## Perianne

> A few moments ago Thor, the god of Thunder was working, because there were strong thunders in my town.


My dogs make strong thunders sometimes.... actually, quite often.

----------


## The XL

> The unfortunate reality of an objective ethical framework is that a dog cannot be said to consent or not consent. The dog is property. Bestiality is wrong, deviant and sick, but it's not a crime as there is no force or fraud. Animals are not rational moral actors, they cannot recognize your rights, so they cannot have them either. They are property, or they are unowned natural resources.


By that same logic, children are property, ergo, we can do what we wish to them, no?

This is where me and a lot of my fellow libertarians are at odds.  I call bullshit on that one, sorry.  You can't fuck your dog just because you deem it property and nothing more.  It can still be a victim.

----------


## Perianne

> The unfortunate reality of an objective ethical framework is that a dog cannot be said to consent or not consent. The dog is property. Bestiality is wrong, deviant and sick, but it's not a crime as there is no force or fraud. Animals are not rational moral actors, they cannot recognize your rights, so they cannot have them either. They are property, or they are unowned natural resources.


So, under the laws, it was okay for slave owners to rape slaves?  Morality is a code of morals that transcend opinions about it.

----------


## Gerrard Winstanley

> It means they collapsed because they used slaves to build those four-faced polygons.  They built their country on false morals.


The U.S. and imperial European powers utilised slavery extensively. They didn't collapse, and we're living the good, productive lives we do as a result of the foundations the leaders of old laid for the West.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> The victim is all the culture.
> 
> You will deny it.  But you can NOT find a lasting society that embraced homosexuality.


You also can't find a single lasting society. No society lasts forever. 

Argument fail.

----------

thedarkdaimon (10-04-2013)

----------


## thedarkdaimon

> If everyone has their own idea of morality what is to stop someone whose idea of morality is that it is okay to murder you and your family and take over your possessions.      Of course people would like to have their own made up morality because then whatever they wanted to do would be ...moral.  
> 
> YOU make policy off beliefs.  You want to make policy that homosexuality is okay and doesn't hurt anyone.   Well yes.  it does.    You also make policy of belief based on God's laws.    no murder, no thievery, no incest, adultery, etc. etc.    you pick and choose don't you.


Laws are not necessarily created from morality but from necessity. We don't want to be murdered or have our loved ones murdered, so we outlaw murder. We don't want our possessions stolen so we outlaw stealing. What necessity is being met by outlawing single-sex marriage? Laws should only exist to protect us from others, not because we disapprove of the way others choose to live their lives.

----------


## thedarkdaimon

> By that same logic, children are property, ergo, we can do what we wish to them, no?
> 
> This is where me and a lot of my fellow libertarians are at odds.  I call bullshit on that one, sorry.  You can't fuck your dog just because you deem it property and nothing more.  It can still be a victim.


Animals cannot consent to sex. In other words, they can't tell you no.

----------


## The XL

> Animals cannot consent to sex. In other words, they can't tell you no.



An unconscious chick can't tell you no either, yet I think all of us realize that doesn't give one the green light.

----------

Perianne (10-04-2013)

----------


## thedarkdaimon

> An unconscious chick can't tell you no either, yet I think all of us realize that doesn't give one the green light.


My point exactly. You can't force people to do something they don't want to which is why it is illegal for someone to have sex with an animal or a child but is perfectly legal for two adults to have sex as long as they both consent to it. This is why legalizing gay marriage will not lead to people marrying their dogs or kids.

----------

kilgram (10-04-2013),The XL (10-04-2013)

----------


## Calypso Jones

http://www.afany.org/HPR.pdf

Homosexual activists admit there is a connection between child hood abuse and homosexuality.

----------


## Perianne

> This is why legalizing gay marriage will not lead to people marrying their dogs or kids.


But again, this is or was a societal boundary that is changing.  We conservatives tend not to like that.  Can't you at least see where we are coming from on this issue?

----------


## thedarkdaimon

> Creation of a family.
> 
> The family being the basic structural block of society.
> 
> Do you think there's "love" in all the arranged marriages in Eastern society and European royalty?  Marriage was to provide a mate for issue...for children.  And because, as was noted in the Bible..."it was not good that man (or woman) should be alone."
> 
> And because the bar culture, whorehouses and glory holes, aren't so much fun when you're in your fifties.  A family is a little more satisfying.


Oh, I see. That's why we don't allow infertile people or post-menopausal women to marry.  :Facepalm:

----------

kilgram (10-04-2013),Sinestro/Green Arrow (10-04-2013)

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Oh, I see. That's why we don't allow infertile people or post-menopausal women to marry.


Yep, his argument is once again shot full of holes.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> But again, this is or was a societal boundary that is changing.  We conservatives tend not to like that.  Can't you at least see where we are coming from on this issue?


Completely.

----------

Perianne (10-04-2013)

----------


## Calypso Jones

> You also can't find a single lasting society. No society lasts forever. 
> 
> Argument fail.



would you say that China has a long lasting society?  As well as the Israelites?   How about  India...and the North American Indians...as well as others.   They are still lasting, their strength comes and goes as is with China and Russia.

No so much with Egypt since she has had judgement.  She will never again be a power.

----------


## thedarkdaimon

> But again, this is or was a societal boundary that is changing.  We conservatives tend not to like that.  Can't you at least see where we are coming from on this issue?


Actually I do. Change is scary. It is disturbing to see the rules change all around you. My wife and I were just talking the other day about how when we were kids we could hop into the back of a pickup and ride to the store and hardly anyone wore seatbelts. The can't happen anymore, the rules changed. But there is nothing to be scared of. Same-sex marriage has been legal here in California for a few months now and the churches are still going strong, people are not marrying kids or animals, and our society isn't crumbling down around us. There are many couples however that are enjoying the full benefits or marriage that were not able to enjoy before. Oh, and there has been a big increase in revenue for bakers, photographers, florists, dress makers and those that rent halls.

----------


## thedarkdaimon

> would you say that China has a long lasting society?  As well as the Israelites?   How about  India...and the North American Indians...as well as others.   They are still lasting, their strength comes and goes as is with China and Russia.
> 
> No so much with Egypt since she has had judgement.  She will never again be a power.


China has had a long tradition of accepting homosexuality at least until the communists took over.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> would you say that China has a long lasting society?


Nope. Their society has frequently been destroyed and a new one taken its place. They've never had one concurrent society, nobody has. 




> As well as the Israelites?


Nope. Time in Babylon and the various other conquering empires, especially Rome, changed the culture. I will say that it is the oldest currently active society though, because a lot of the original elements still remain. But not many. The exile changed my people.




> How about  India...


Nope.




> and the North American Indians


Sitting in homes with central heating and air and indoor plumbing. Nowhere near the same. 




> ...as well as others.   They are still lasting, their strength comes and goes as is with China and Russia.
> 
> No so much with Egypt since she has had judgement.  She will never again be a power.


Just because nations with the same races of people exist on those plots of land does not mean their societies never ended. All societies, _allllllllll societies_, have had a rise, a climax, and a fall. There is no society today that is just like what came before.

----------


## Perianne

> Actually I do. Change is scary. It is disturbing to see the rules change all around you.


Thanks for your thoughtful response.  I don't see change as scary. I DO see it as disturbing on some accounts.

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> By that same logic, children are property, ergo, we can do what we wish to them, no?


Unlike animals, children have the faculties to become rational moral actors. As they are human beings, they have property rights in their person and, as they grow, they are able to respect the property rights of others and be required, within reason, to pay restitution for or be punished for transgressions against others. As potential human beings, it is wrong of other human beings, particularly adults, to aggress against them. If your dog bites another dog, you are responsible for the damages done by that dog. You can immediately punish your dog in order to create a reminder that doing what it did is not to be done in the future, but you cannot hold the dog responsible for violating the rights of another dog.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/1970/01/m...en-and-rights/




> This is where me and a lot of my fellow libertarians are at odds.  I call bullshit on that one, sorry.  You can't fuck your dog just because you deem it property and nothing more.  It can still be a victim.


Whether or not it can be a victim does not mean that it has rights. You may *want* animals to have rights, just as the conservatives here *want* homosexuality to be a crime, but your case is not logical. Should the law be subject to the emotions of people, or should it be fair and objective? If it's the former, then you really can't complain when you are subjected to law that treats you unfairly, as others deem it to be emotionally satisfying. If it's the latter, then you have to accept that some things that are repellent to you are still lawful and it is wrong to criminally punish the perpetrators of acts you deem immoral but do not constitute force or fraud.

You can take your pick. You aren't at odds with libertarians, you are at odds with a rational, logical, and eminently fair basis for lawful regulation of human actions.

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> So, under the laws, it was okay for slave owners to rape slaves?  Morality is a code of morals that transcend opinions about it.


I am trying to think of anywhere, in any time or space, I have made any indication that the scribblings of legislators and dictates of rulers constitute just law because they scribbled or dictated. Your rulers may declare that some people are property, does not make them property. All human beings are self-owners or, in the case of children, potential self-owners. Animals are not self-owners because they cannot hold the responsibilities to be self-owners. When Michael Vick was prosecuted and in the news, did you hear anyone calling for the dogs in dog fights to be prosecuted for assault, battery and murder? Why not? If they have rights, did they not then violate the rights of other dogs? They didn't know any better, of course, because _they are not capable of respecting rights_. You can't claim to have a right that you don't have to respect in others.

Slavery is a violation of the unalienable, self-ownership rights of human beings.  It doesn't matter what the statutes or government says. Governments don't create right and wrong by any means, including the fashioning of law.

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> It means they collapsed because they used slaves to build those four-faced polygons.  They built their country on false morals.


If the law and governments declared slavery to be good, by what principle would you declare them wrong? I can tell you mean: The rights of human beings come before government and government laws. But you don't recognize those rights in every case, so I'm wondering how you know, with logic and objectivity, when a government law is good and when it's wrong. If your view on the matter is entirely subjective, then I'd say that your view is no more valid or reasonable than the view that slavery is a good institution. Some like it, some don't.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Not true.


True:  http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04353r.pdf



> The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) provides definitions of marriage and spouse that
> 
> are to be used in construing the meaning of a federal law and, thus, affect the interpretation
> 
> of a wide variety of federal laws in which marital status is a factor.
> 1 In 1997, we issued a
> 
> report identifying 1,049 federal statutory provisions classified to the United States Code in
> 
> ...

----------


## JustPassinThru

> You also can't find a single lasting society. No society lasts forever. 
> 
> Argument fail.


Nope.

Societies fail, because, as Ben Franklin noted, "The people become corrupt and require despotic government, being incapable of living under any other."

Eventually it will happen to every society.

Eventually you will be involved in an automobile accident.

Does that mean you should rush out and ram your car into a telephone pole this afternoon?   Because THAT is what celebrating a godless, situational-ethics, moral-relativist society would be, and is.  It's aiming that car towards the bridge abutment at 80 mph...

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Nope.
> 
> Societies fail, because, as Ben Franklin noted, "The people become corrupt and require despotic government, being incapable of living under any other."
> 
> Eventually it will happen to every society.
> 
> Eventually you will be involved in an automobile accident.
> 
> Does that mean you should rush out and ram your car into a telephone pole this afternoon?   Because THAT is what celebrating a godless, situational-ethics, moral-relativist society would be, and is.  It's aiming that car towards the bridge abutment at 80 mph...


Basically, you just agreed with what I said, and shot down your previous argument. Way to go.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> You seriously think the Roman Empire fell as a result of bumming and gayness?


Yes.

It fell because the people had the morality of Caligula.  

It fell because they lost all focus on right and wrong, or where what is right and wrong should come from; and instead focused on mind-blowing orgasms and the endless buzz.

----------


## kilgram

> But again, this is or was a societal boundary that is changing.  We conservatives tend not to like that.  Can't you at least see where we are coming from on this issue?


Yes, we get it. We can see it.

If it was for the conservative we would continue living in a Feudal system with absolutist monarchs, or USA would continue having slavery, women would not be able to vote... Because you fear change.

For something Conservative also are called reactionary.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Lmao. ...yet you want to use that retarded logic?


If YOU weren't such a jackass, you'd have read earlier:  I said widespread homosexuality was a SYMPTOM.  Not a cause.  The cause is mental aberration.  That leads to destructive, unhealthy sex practices and also to societal collapse.

Fools laugh at wisdom.  And you're laughing at me...why am I not bothered by that?

*


Warning:
 I expect people here to be civil. Name calling isn't okay with me. Please don't do that.*

----------


## Perianne

> Yes, we get it. We can see it.
> 
> If it was for the conservative we would continue living in a Feudal system with absolutist monarchs, or USA would continue having slavery, women would not be able to vote... Because you fear change.


Okay.  Conversation over with me. I am stepping out of my own thread.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Basically, you just agreed with what I said, and shot down your previous argument. Way to go.


If you were in a debating club, now would be about the time we took table legs to your cranium.

If you agreed with that, you have a peculiar way of stating it.  You said, societies fall, so PAR-TAY!  Get on those chaps, and get out on the sidewalk and FLOG IT!

I said, it happens when the people become corrupt and deranged.  So I don't think the wise plan is to just shrug and deliberately become corrupt and act deranged.

----------


## Roadmaster

A Christian way to look at gays is don't cut down a temptation that has never tempted you. They are wrong, broken, and you can't pray this away. The devil will be on them to the end telling them it's ok. Do I know ex-gays yes and it's hard for them but they can do this with the help of God. Same with drinking, the temptation will always be there. Gays and bi-sexuals know they are wrong and I won't tell them it's ok because it's not. You can say what you want but morals do go out the window in these relationships just like a woman sleeping with anyone. If they don't turn from their sins they will continue to be blind. I can love them but not the sin.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Yes.
> 
> It fell because the people had the morality of Caligula.


Wrong again, but I'm becoming more and more fascinated by your very odd view of the world.   Where do you learn history like that?

FWIW, Caligula died in 41 A.D., Rome fell in 476 A.D.    That's 435 years later, about twice the age of the United States.   Even then, we're talking about the Western Empire.  The Eastern Empire thrived for hundreds of years more. 

http://www.ushistory.org/civ/6f.asp

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> If you were in a debating club, now would be about the time we took table legs to your cranium.
> 
> If you agreed with that, you have a peculiar way of stating it.  You said, societies fall, so PAR-TAY!  Get on those chaps, and get out on the sidewalk and FLOG IT!
> 
> I said, it happens when the people become corrupt and deranged.  So I don't think the wise plan is to just shrug and deliberately become corrupt and act deranged.


No, wrong. I did not, ever, not once, say that all societies fall so we should be as morally depraved and reckless as we want. That's your bullshit, not mine.

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> Wrong again, but I'm becoming more and more fascinated by your very odd view of the world.   Where do you learn history like that?
> 
> FWIW, Caligula died in 41 A.D., Rome fell in 476 A.D.    That's 435 years later, about twice the age of the United States. 
> 
> http://www.ushistory.org/civ/6f.asp


It's interesting that they always focus on the immorality of the rulers, but never on the power of the rulers. Conservatives are in awe of power, so they ignore that the Roman state, when it fell, had completely taxed almost all of the citizens into slavery in order to pay for wars and expanding government. 

Despite HBO shows, most Romans were quite conservative in their sexuality, and homosexuality was generally not tolerated. The rulers were depraved, as rulers often are. That includes the popular conservative rulers of today who cheat on their spouses, sell your grandchildren's future into debt bondage, accept huge perks from lobbyists, and feel no shame for it.

----------


## thedarkdaimon

> Yes.
> 
> It fell because the people had the morality of Caligula.  
> 
> It fell because they lost all focus on right and wrong, or where what is right and wrong should come from; and instead focused on mind-blowing orgasms and the endless buzz.


You do know that Rome did not fall until after Christianity became the state religion right?

----------


## Canadianeye

> A Christian way to look at gays is don't cut down a temptation that has never tempted you. They are wrong, broken, and you can't pray this away. The devil will be on them to the end telling them it's ok. Do I know ex-gays yes and it's hard for them but they can do this with the help of God. Same with drinking, the temptation will always be there. Gays and bi-sexuals know they are wrong and I won't tell them it's ok because it's not. You can say what you want but morals do go out the window in these relationships just like a woman sleeping with anyone. If they don't turn from their sins they will continue to be blind. I can love them but not the sin.


The point is though roadmaster, just for a moment imagine there is no god and if we as societies had a moral fiber woven into the social contract of how we operated as a society...that had nothing to do with a god.

The moral decay is still real and it still has horrible consequences on our societies. Deity or not.

----------

Roadmaster (10-04-2013)

----------


## Roadmaster

> The point is though roadmaster, just for a moment imagine there is no god and if we as societies had a moral fiber woven into the social contract of how we operated as a society...that had nothing to do with a god.
> 
> The moral decay is still real and it still has horrible consequences on our societies. Deity or not.


The moral decay is still real but I can't imagine living without God. Once you step over the line it's hard to keep your balance. There will be consequences and it will hurt the children.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> A Christian way to look at gays is don't cut down a temptation that has never tempted you. They are wrong, broken, and you can't pray this away. The devil will be on them to the end telling them it's ok. Do I know ex-gays yes and it's hard for them but they can do this with the help of God. Same with drinking, the temptation will always be there. Gays and bi-sexuals know they are wrong and I won't tell them it's ok because it's not. You can say what you want but morals do go out the window in these relationships just like a woman sleeping with anyone. If they don't turn from their sins they will continue to be blind. I can love them but not the sin.


All well and good.

But when they ask us to acquiesce to deviancy, to degenerate sexuality in our midst...when they demand we participate in it by treating it as normal traditional marriage...that's involving us in their filth.

And when they CRIMINALIZE decisions to exit; caterers who don't want to service these obscene parodies; photographers who decline, pastors who refuse to do the ceremony...when self-exclusion is made CRIMINAL, then what of THAT?

----------


## Gerrard Winstanley

> Yes.
> 
> It fell because the people had the morality of Caligula.  
> 
> It fell because they lost all focus on right and wrong, or where what is right and wrong should come from; and instead focused on mind-blowing orgasms and the endless buzz.


It fell because of a succession of terrible administrators and military organizers - all Christians, need I remind you? Read up on your history.

----------


## Roadmaster

> All well and good.
> 
> But when they ask us to acquiesce to deviancy, to degenerate sexuality in our midst...when they demand we participate in it by treating it as normal traditional marriage...that's involving us in their filth.
> 
> And when they CRIMINALIZE decisions to exit; caterers who don't want to service these obscene parodies; photographers who decline, pastors who refuse to do the ceremony...when self-exclusion is made CRIMINAL, then what of THAT?


They go against us and it may come to a time that our pastors won't do ceremonies anymore. Many are thinking about not getting a new license. Pastors in the military are quitting because they choose God first. Not something we wanted to do but we have to fight back for our rights.

----------


## Roadmaster

> It fell because of a succession of terrible administrators and military organizers - all Christians, need I remind you? Read up on your history.


 You don't know us and don't tell us how to think.

----------


## Trinnity

> It fell because of a succession of terrible administrators and military organizers - all Christians, need I remind you? Read up on your history.


Rome didn't fall because of Christianity, as you've directly implied. It fell due to abuse of power, which is a human trait that completely transcends religions affiliation. I can't believe I had to point this out. <good grief>

----------


## Gerrard Winstanley

> You don't know us and don't tell us how to think.


He's arguing homosexuality destroyed Rome. Am I prohibited from correcting him now? Hell, if that's what he honestly believes, there's very little I can actually do to change that, but least I tried.

----------


## Roadmaster

> He's arguing homosexuality destroyed Rome. Am I prohibited from correcting him now? Hell, if that's what he honestly believes, there's very little I can actually do to change that, but least I tried.


 Not entirely but it didn't help.

----------


## Gerrard Winstanley

> Rome didn't fall because of Christianity, as you've directly implied. It fell due to abuse of power, which is a human trait that completely transcends religions affiliation. I can't believe I had to point this out. <good grief>


Religion doesn't come into it, I just thought I'd point that out.

----------


## thedarkdaimon

> Rome didn't fall because of Christianity, as you've directly implied. It fell due to abuse of power, which is a human trait that completely transcends religions affiliation. I can't believe I had to point this out. <good grief>


I actually wasn't trying to imply that, I was trying to refute the idea that Rome fell because they accepted homosexuality. Since at the time of the fall of Rome they were Christians, the Romans would have no longer accepted homosexuality so the idea that homosexauality caused their fall is wrong.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> It's interesting that they always focus on the immorality of the rulers, but never on the power of the rulers. Conservatives are in awe of power, so they ignore that the Roman state, when it fell, had completely taxed almost all of the citizens into slavery in order to pay for wars and expanding government. 
> 
> Despite HBO shows, most Romans were quite conservative in their sexuality, and homosexuality was generally not tolerated. The rulers were depraved, as rulers often are. That includes the popular conservative rulers of today who cheat on their spouses, sell your grandchildren's future into debt bondage, accept huge perks from lobbyists, and feel no shame for it.


If you are saying "Power corrupts", I agree.   But rulers aren't the only cause of a system breakdown.  It goes with the citizens too.  People who think they are entitled to do as they please simply because they are a Roman citizen or a British citizen or an American citizen, but do know use that power wisely or responsibly, are just as much of a problem as their corrupt leaders.   Wasn't it abuses of the British government which caused the US to revolt?  The abuses of the French aristocracy which led to the French revolution?  After the revolt in France came that "Reign of Terror".  That fell squarely on the French citizens.   The Monroe Doctrine and how we treated the Indians fell squarely on us.  Not the British or even just Washington, DC.   Citizens are sometimes just _too_ happy to support their corrupt or immoral leaders.

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

Let's all remember that when Rome fell it was a very Christian empire.

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

Also, when Rome was still pagan, homosexuality was tolerated, but disapproved of and laughed at. Many satirical poets used it for laughs and to poke enemies.

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

Some Roman poets, following Hellenistic poetic models, actually wrote homosexual love poetry. I think Tibullus was one who had quite a few of these, but it's been several years since I've read him.

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

Let's face it: homosexuality--the act of it--is funny and absurd. Not really demonic and hideous. Just sad and funny.

----------

Calypso Jones (10-04-2013)

----------


## Calypso Jones

and unhealthy.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> He's arguing homosexuality destroyed Rome. Am I prohibited from correcting him now? Hell, if that's what he honestly believes, there's very little I can actually do to change that, but least I tried.


You really like strawmen, don't you.  I said twice and I'll say again:  IT WAS A SYMPTOM OF THE DEBASEMENT AND CORRUPTION OF THE PEOPLE.

NOT THE CAUSE.  ONE SYMPTOM.

PEOPLE DEBASED, DERANGED AND CORRUPTED AS THEY WERE, SHOULD BE MARGINALIZED.  BECAUSE TO EMBRACE THEM AND THEIR DEBASEMENT INVITES THE SAME PROBLEMS THAT LED TO COLLAPSE.

WHICH WE'RE SEEING NOW, WHERE THERE IS NO TRUTH IN POLITICAL DISCOURSE.  NOT FROM OBAMMY; NOT FROM CONGRESS; NOT FROM TEVEE TALKING HEADS.  NOT FROM FACTIONS HERE.

----------


## JustPassinThru

Rome's Christianity probably saved it, in the form it survived in.

The "Holy Roman Empire" faded in strength and control, as the various dukes and potentates set up shop.  It was in place as a concept, fading in actual power and influence as the followers of Mohammed overran Gaul and Iberia and then were beaten back.

It exists today, as Vatican City.  Pathetic as it is, it's a bigger mark than Ancient Greece left.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Let's face it: homosexuality--the act of it--is funny and absurd. Not really demonic and hideous. Just sad and funny.


As something to do, it is sad and pathetic...laughably so.

As something that childlike grown men and grotesque unsightly women celebrate...it's part and parcel of mental unbalance.  

If we cede control of the culture to the mentally ill...we cannot help but fail.

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

Whenever I encounter homosexuality in biographies or famous men and women, it just gives the overwhelming impression of shallowness and meagreness and triviality. Only very, very rarely do you encounter a great, passionate, life-long true love, and you mostly find that among lesbians for some reason. Maybe women are deeper and more complex than men even as lesbians. I just finished reading a literary history of Paris in the 20s revolving around Sylvia Beach, and with the great love of her life Adrienne Monnier you sense the real thing there.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Let's face it: homosexuality--the act of it--is funny and absurd. Not really demonic and hideous. Just sad and funny.


How many women really think a man's "Oh-Face" is hot, manly and sexy?  Men?  Men find almost anything sexy.   Ask Bill Clinton!

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> It fell because of a succession of terrible administrators and military organizers - all Christians, need I remind you? Read up on your history.


Aw, hell, you done it now. Can't be talking so un-PC around here, people get offended.

----------


## Calypso Jones

Well the barbarians at the gate were not Christian.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Well the barbarians at the gate were not Christian.


No, no they were not.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> No, no they were not.


...but apparently God was on their side since they sacked the city and finished off the Western Empire.

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (10-04-2013)

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

> No, no they were not.


Yes, yes they were.

Alaric and his Visigothic army had already been converted to Christianity, but by Arian heretics. That only added to the tension between Roman and barbarian: denominational hostility. The Doctrines of Arius had been condemned as heresy at Nicaea early in the 4th century.

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (10-04-2013)

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Yes, yes they were.
> 
> Alaric and his Visigothic army had already been converted to Christianity, but by Arian heretics. That only added to the tension between Roman and barbarian: denominational hostility. The Doctrines of Arius had been condemned as heresy at Nicaea early in the 4th century.


Hm. I stand corrected.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> ...but apparently God was on their side since they sacked the city and finished off the Western Empire.


LOL, one would think. Come to think of it, I don't think I've ever heard Calypso screech about G-d judging Christian nations. Well, I guess we have an example of where he did (assuming she's right and it's not just dumb luck).

----------


## Calypso Jones

God will judge all nations.  I'm surprised you didn't get that TP/Sinestro.

there was probably no more God centered nation than Israel and Judah and yet God judged them as well as he judged those heathen nations that He allowed to mete out punishment on the Israelites and Judahites.

----------


## Maximatic

> God will judge all nations.


Another good argument in favor of abolition.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> God will judge all nations.  I'm surprised you didn't get that TP/Sinestro.
> 
> there was probably no more God centered nation than Israel and Judah and yet God judged them as well as he judged those heathen nations that He allowed to mete out punishment on the Israelites and Judahites.


I do not believe G-d actively judges nations. He doesn't have to, because the consequences of sin are punishment enough.

----------


## Calypso Jones

> I do not believe G-d actively judges nations. He doesn't have to, because the consequences of sin are punishment enough.


are you not one of those who always sings the blues about the poor innocent nations whose women and children and cattle were annihilated in a holy war by the Israelites?   You change your mind when it suits you.  God judges nations.  God judged nations.  HE judged those nations that he allowed the Israelites to subdue.  He judged Israel and Judah when they began to practice heathen worship and put their children thru fire.

----------


## Roadmaster

He has judged Nations before especially Israel. They tend not to listen.

----------


## Calypso Jones

> He has judged Nations before especially Israel. They tend not to listen.


The Israelites always had the time to mourn the loss of their nation and freedom and God heard their cry and restored them.   He'd do  that for us if the nation would repent and call on the name of the LORD.   Many nations continued on in their sin and never listened.

I wonder sometimes if God has been kinder to the US for the number of Christians left in this country.     When God raises a leader it often takes years and years.   Look at Saul...look at David.  David was quietly anointed king but still had to avoid Saul and stay alive for 15 years before he assumed the kingship.  David had several opportunities to kill Saul but he would not raise his hand against one of God's anointed.

----------


## thedarkdaimon

> Well the barbarians at the gate were not Christian.


And they were not homosexuals either.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> are you not one of those who always sings the blues about the poor innocent nations whose women and children and cattle were annihilated in a holy war by the Israelites?   You change your mind when it suits you.  God judges nations.  God judged nations.  HE judged those nations that he allowed the Israelites to subdue.  He judged Israel and Judah when they began to practice heathen worship and put their children thru fire.


No, I am consistent. There's a difference between a judgment of G-d and the actions of man. I would have thought you'd know the difference.

G-d does not judge nations. He judges people. That's why every time he appeared to judge nations, he only did so after every righteous person in those nations had been taken out from among them. He never judged nations while righteous men still lived within them. Or, at least, there's no record of him doing so.

----------


## thedarkdaimon

> are you not one of those who always sings the blues about the poor innocent nations whose women and children and cattle were annihilated in a holy war by the Israelites?   You change your mind when it suits you.  God judges nations.  God judged nations.  HE judged those nations that he allowed the Israelites to subdue.  He judged Israel and Judah when they began to practice heathen worship and put their children thru fire.



Yeah, don't piss off God or He will not only send an army to destroy your country and kill all the men and married women, but He will give the invaders permission to rape your young daughters and force them into marriage (Judges 21:10-24, Numbers 31:7-18 and Deuteronomy 20:10-14). What a guy.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Yeah, don't piss off God or He will not only send an army to destroy your country and kill all the men and married women, but He will give the invaders permission to rape your young daughters and force them into marriage (Judges 21:10-24, Numbers 31:7-18 and Deuteronomy 20:10-14). What a guy.


I believe that was the ancient peoples' justification for what they did, not actual commands of G-d.

----------


## Canadianeye

> I believe that was the ancient peoples' justification for what they did, not actual commands of G-d.


I agree. :Thumbsup20:

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (10-04-2013)

----------


## thedarkdaimon

> I believe that was the ancient peoples' justification for what they did, not actual commands of G-d.


So the Bible isn't totally accurate and there is room for interpretation? Don't let Calypso hear that.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> So the Bible isn't totally accurate and there is room for interpretation? Don't let Calypso hear that.


The point of the Bible is to communicate sound teaching. The ancients communicated that teaching differently than us, but the teaching is still sound. People like Calypso get too caught up in the letter of the law and forget the spirit of the law. It gives the rest of us a bad name.

----------

thedarkdaimon (10-04-2013)

----------


## Calypso Jones

I don't deal with the law...Christ freed us from that.   You musta missed that part.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> I don't deal with the law...Christ freed us from that.   You musta missed that part.


It's a figure of speech, Calypso, but I'd point out once again that it's easy for you Christians, who have never even attempted to follow Torah, to claim that the Torah is bondage that you need to be freed from. Those of us who actually do choose to follow it realize just how freeing it is. I even know Christians who freely chose to follow Torah, and they agree.

----------


## Calypso Jones

the bible is totally accurate.  AND there is no room for interpretation in the Bible itself.  I can't help what man does to it in order to satisfy what they want to believe.   Actually, no book has been used more to determine ancient history sites and all related matters for years.   If there is a particular part of the bible that does not seem to make sense, it is only because we do not have all the information, that is a paraphrase of a quote by a famous scientist that you have probably studied.

Now in regard to the 3 scriptural passages that you provided.    you failed to give any information before and after your cherry picked scripture.   I may hit on this tomorrow one at a time but right now I am fatigued.   Just let me say for tonite and give you something to think about.


You are taking passages and using them to insult the nature, name and behavior of the Creator of all things.    That is really a big no no according to Deuteronomy 4:2, Proverbs 30:6 and Revelation 22:18-19

I would think about that because Hebrews10:31  It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.   Vengence is His.   and He will judge.

----------


## Calypso Jones

God says to the Hebrews:  

"It is not for your righteousness or for the uprightness of your heart that you are going to possess their land, but it is because of the wickedness of these nations that the LORD your God is driving them out before you, in order to confirm the oath which the LORD swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Deut 9:5

These people were wicked because they killed their own sons and daughters by burning them in sacrifices to their  gods:
  "You shall not behave thus toward the LORD your God, for every abominable  act which the LORD hates they have done for their gods; for they even burn  their sons and daughters in the fire to their gods. (Deut 12:31)

The wickedness of these people is confirmed in other verses of the Bible.These people are not quite as innocent as atheists would like  you to believe. The fact that these people practiced child sacrifice is also  confirmed in the secular writings of the Greeks.
 Then again, maybe atheists believe that killing your children is not all  bad. After all, killing viable unborn babies is legal in this country  For these reasons (and others), God ordered the destruction of the peoples whom the Israelites dispossessed.Did God kill any innocent people along with the evil ones? When God was about  to destroy the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, Abraham asked God if He would  destroy the cities if there were 50 righteous people in them. God said no. Then Abraham asked the same question if there were 45 righteous  people. Every time he dropped the number and got the same answer. The  fact is that God would not have destroyed those cities if there were _any_ righteous people in them. The few righteous who were in those cities He warned  ahead of time to get out. God does not  destroy the righteous along with the evil.

----------


## Calypso Jones

> It's a figure of speech, Calypso, but I'd point out once again that it's easy for you Christians, who have never even attempted to follow Torah, to claim that the Torah is bondage that you need to be freed from. Those of us who actually do choose to follow it realize just how freeing it is. I even know Christians who freely chose to follow Torah, and they agree.



Jews try to follow the law TP because  the Pharisees denied the Christ when he came.   We know the whole story.    The Pharisees followed the law and they were hypocrits.  Their father is the father of lies.    You'll see...It will be made plain to you.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Jews try to follow the law TP because  the Pharisees denied the Christ when he came.   We know the whole story.    The Pharisees followed the law and they were hypocrits.  Their father is the father of lies.    You'll see...It will be made plain to you.


Uhm...no. Jews follow the Torah because we were commanded to by G-d. It preexisted the Pharisees by thousands of years.

----------


## thedarkdaimon

> God says to the Hebrews:  
> 
> "It is not for your righteousness or for the uprightness of your heart that you are going to possess their land, but it is because of the wickedness of these nations that the LORD your God is driving them out before you, in order to confirm the oath which the LORD swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Deut 9:5
> 
> These people were wicked because they killed their own sons and daughters by burning them in sacrifices to their  gods:  "You shall not behave thus toward the LORD your God, for every abominable  act which the LORD hates they have done for their gods; for they even burn  their sons and daughters in the fire to their gods. (Deut 12:31)
> 
> The wickedness of these people is confirmed in other verses of the Bible.These people are not quite as innocent as atheists would like  you to believe. The fact that these people practiced child sacrifice is also  confirmed in the secular writings of the Greeks.
>  Then again, maybe atheists believe that killing your children is not all  bad. After all, killing viable unborn babies is legal in this country  For these reasons (and others), God ordered the destruction of the peoples whom the Israelites dispossessed.Did God kill any innocent people along with the evil ones? When God was about  to destroy the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, Abraham asked God if He would  destroy the cities if there were 50 righteous people in them. God said no. Then Abraham asked the same question if there were 45 righteous  people. Every time he dropped the number and got the same answer. The  fact is that God would not have destroyed those cities if there were _any_ righteous people in them. The few righteous who were in those cities He warned  ahead of time to get out. God does not  destroy the righteous along with the evil.


You are a hypocrite. You say you are all against killing children, but turn a blind eye when God does it. Do you think the children in Jabesh Gilead and Midian were evil and deserved to die? How about pregnant women? They were not virgins so they were not to be spared. What about the unborn children in their wombs? What evil did they do?

Of course it is quite possible that the Israelites added these passages so that they could justify their actions, but that would mean that the Bible is not completely accurate and is open to interpretation.

----------


## Gerrard Winstanley

> You are a hypocrite. You say you are all against killing children, but turn a blind eye when God does it. Do you think the children in Jabesh Gilead and Midian were evil and deserved to die? How about pregnant women? They were not virgins so they were not to be spared. What about the unborn children in their wombs? What evil did they do?
> 
> Of course it is quite possible that the Israelites added these passages so that they could justify their actions, but that would mean that the Bible is not completely accurate and is open to interpretation.


Calypso believes abortion should be kept legal because it starves the Democratic Party of potential supporters. Maybe God disproves of unborn liberals.  :Dontknow:

----------


## Calypso Jones

> Calypso believes abortion should be kept legal because it starves the Democratic Party of potential supporters. Maybe God disproves of unborn liberals.


I think that was Perianne and it was somewhat of a black joke.  Regardless.   Liberals are engaging in the very acts that God punished sinful nations for.   God also destroyed the earth with the Great Flood.  

 You are so angry.  In the words of Max Rockatansky....I would like to know what has happened in your past to make you think you hate God so.    I hope you come out of that.

----------


## Calypso Jones

> You are a hypocrite. You say you are all against killing children, but turn a blind eye when God does it. Do you think the children in Jabesh Gilead and Midian were evil and deserved to die? How about pregnant women? They were not virgins so they were not to be spared. What about the unborn children in their wombs? What evil did they do?
> 
> 
> Of course it is quite possible that the Israelites added these passages so that they could justify their actions, but that would mean that the Bible is not completely accurate and is open to interpretation.


I do not make the decisions. God is God.  He does as He Pleases in accordance with his plan.

You failed to include relevant parts in your passages.  Such as, Balaam was the cause of Israelites doing some bad things thru the 'enemy' women in Judges.  Plus yes, they were evil people.   Those children were probably saved from sacrifice by fire and they entered God's heaven immediately.     

You ignore the fact that these destroyed people had been given opportunity after opportunity to change their ways and they didn't.   Do you have any condemnation for their killing their children and forcing women men and children into temple prostitution.  They were guilty of other vile acts that are mentioned in other places of the bible.   Why are you so supportive of sodomites and turn your back to the killing of the unborn?   What god are you worshipping?

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Calypso believes abortion should be kept legal because it starves the Democratic Party of potential supporters.


That's actually a very enlightened strategy.   Abortion is a matter of choice just as God gave us free will.  It shouldn't be up to man to tell others what to do except where it involves hurting human beings.

----------


## Calypso Jones

you guys use the same passages ALL. THE. TIME. when you want to insult God or the Bible.   Seriously, you're not reading this stuff.   You, I am assuming, are above intelligence guys and yet you allow another source to cherry pick your scripture and tell you what to post and you don't even check it out.   There is so much more in the Bible that you are totally missing. Awesome stuff and it goes totally over your heads because all you want to do is to critique God.   You don't understand the Bible because of this.

*"None of the wicked shall understand;    but the Wise shall understand"* (Daniel 12:10)

----------


## Gerrard Winstanley

> I think that was Perianne and it was somewhat of a black joke.  Regardless.   Liberals are engaging in the very acts that God punished sinful nations for.   God also destroyed the earth with the Great Flood.  
> 
>  You are so angry.  In the words of Max Rockatansky....I would like to know what has happened in your past to make you think you hate God so.    I hope you come out of that.


No, I don't hate God - by any definition, he's been good to me. Problem is, I don't necessarily believe he exists, so hating him would be as redundant as hating Bigfoot or the Cookie-Monster. I resolved long ago that, supposing we've all screwed up and there is no sky-being for us to answer to, it would be best to live as productively as I can. I live how I want to live, I spread happiness and do good deeds because I _want_ to - not at the behest of a big book -, and try getting along with as many people as I can.

What I have real beef with are those Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus and Jedis who seek to justify their own worldly prejudices with the "word" of their deities.

----------


## Gerrard Winstanley

> you guys use the same passages ALL. THE. TIME. when you want to insult God or the Bible.   Seriously, you're not reading this stuff.   You, I am assuming, are above intelligence guys and yet you allow another source to cherry pick your scripture and tell you what to post and you don't even check it out.   There is so much more in the Bible that you are totally missing. Awesome stuff and it goes totally over your heads because all you want to do is to critique God.   You don't understand the Bible because of this.
> 
> *"None of the wicked shall understand;    but the Wise shall understand"* (Daniel 12:10)


Quit cherry-picking from the Koran, then.

----------


## Calypso Jones

Cherry picking from the Koran.  I don't think I have specifically cherry picked from your favorite book.   IF some of you guys were honest THAT is where you'd be choosing your violent, unmerciful scripture.  A god that requires the sacrifice of the children of it's worshippers.  WHAT the HELL kind of god is this??  A god that requires you to kill those that do not believe in allah. WHAT THE HELL kind of god is this.   it is a false god, it is demon inspired.

----------


## Calypso Jones

> Quit cherry-picking from the Koran, then.


this is called a red herring. you seem adept at that.

----------


## Calypso Jones

> No, I don't hate God - by any definition, he's been good to me. Problem is, I don't necessarily believe he exists, so hating him would be as redundant as hating Bigfoot or the Cookie-Monster. I resolved long ago that, supposing we've all screwed up and there is no sky-being for us to answer to, it would be best to live as productively as I can. I live how I want to live, I spread happiness and do good deeds because I _want_ to - not at the behest of a big book -, and try getting along with as many people as I can.
> 
> What I have real beef with are those Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus and Jedis who seek to justify their own worldly prejudices with the "word" of their deities.


that is a remarkably inconsistent post.  Congrats on that.    

you don't hate him, he's been good to you, you don't necessarily think he exists. 

okay.   that's....wonderful.   LoL

It doesn't matter how Good you think you are.  THAT is not the criteria.   Maybe God will share that with you.  I don't feel like it right now.

and what does this even mean?

What I have real beef with are those Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus and Jedis who seek to justify their own worldly prejudices with the "word" of their deities

----------


## Gerrard Winstanley

> Cherry picking from the Koran.  I don't think I have specifically cherry picked from your favorite book.   IF some of you guys were honest THAT is where you'd be choosing your violent, unmerciful scripture.  A god that requires the sacrifice of the children of it's worshippers.  WHAT the HELL kind of god is this??  A god that requires you to kill those that do not believe in allah. WHAT THE HELL kind of god is this.   it is a false god, it is demon inspired.


Funny thing is, that's _your_ God. And you can deny it all you want, but there's virtually nothing beyond blank conjecture to suggest otherwise. Our friend @kilgram, meanwhile, has a textbook of violent Bible verses to spruce up this conversation, but that's been established by now.

Now, I can go get my Koran right now, and, at summary, fish out a ton of pleasant verses. You in, or will I just be wasting my time?

----------


## Calypso Jones

you can do as you please.  The proof is in the pudding in the actions and words of those who follow the moon googoo allahbaba.

----------


## Calypso Jones

btw, killi uses the same source as you guys do in order to disparage God, the Bible, Christians in general.   You spend so much time on that which tells me that you must see something in it to cause you this much consternation.  I'm strangely okay with that.   :Wink:

----------


## Gerrard Winstanley

> that is a remarkably inconsistent post.  Congrats on that.    
> 
> you don't hate him, he's been good to you, you don't necessarily think he exists. 
> 
> okay.   that's....wonderful.   LoL
> 
> It doesn't matter how Good you think you are.  THAT is not the criteria.   Maybe God will share that with you.  I don't feel like it right now.
> 
> and what does this even mean?
> ...


By pretending God's on their side when they go out and hate, hate, hate. They use verses from their holy books to add a "positive" slant to this behaviour, too.

----------


## Calypso Jones

> By pretending God's on their side when they go out and hate, hate, hate. They use verses from their holy books to add a "positive" slant to this behaviour, too.


I don't know where you are getting this from or what example you are using.  Why don't you post a specific.

----------


## Gerrard Winstanley

> this is called a red herring. you seem adept at that.


No, it's very relevant. So, by definition, we have no right to cherry-pick from the Bible, yet the opposite is perfectly okay where the Islamic texts are concerned?

----------


## Gerrard Winstanley

> I don't know where you are getting this from or what example you are using.  Why don't you post a specific.


Oh, come on. Christians who hate gays, and use God's "displeasure" with them as a defence?

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (10-05-2013)

----------


## Gerrard Winstanley

> you can do as you please.  The proof is in the pudding in the actions and words of those who follow the moon googoo allahbaba.


Don't use the Arabic version of your Lord's name in vain.

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (10-05-2013)

----------


## thedarkdaimon

> I do not make the decisions. God is God.  He does as He Pleases in accordance with his plan.
> 
> You failed to include relevant parts in your passages.  Such as, Balaam was the cause of Israelites doing some bad things thru the 'enemy' women in Judges.  Plus yes, they were evil people.   Those children were probably saved from sacrifice by fire and they entered God's heaven immediately.     
> 
> You ignore the fact that these destroyed people had been given opportunity after opportunity to change their ways and they didn't.   Do you have any condemnation for their killing their children and forcing women men and children into temple prostitution.  They were guilty of other vile acts that are mentioned in other places of the bible.   Why are you so supportive of sodomites and turn your back to the killing of the unborn?   What god are you worshipping?


There are no gods worthy of worship so I don't worship any. I do condemn killing of children and forced slavery, but I don't believe that those responsible should be tortured forever because that what awaits them after death right? Infinite torture? Tell me, what crime could be so heinous that it requires pain and suffering FOREVER. I could see having to suffer the way you made others suffer or even 10x, 1000x or a 1,000,000x the pain your victims suffered, but infinite suffering? And with homosexuals having sex with each other, do they really deserve infinite suffering even though they were not hurting anyone? Why should I worship a deity that does that?

This is why I can't get into the Old Testament. I much prefer the New Testament with its message of peace, charity and love.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> There are no gods worthy of worship so I don't worship any.


Do you always dislike something because of third party testimony?

Do you have any spiritual beliefs or are you an atheist?  Something else?

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> There are no gods worthy of worship so I don't worship any. I do condemn killing of children and forced slavery, but I don't believe that those responsible should be tortured forever because that what awaits them after death right? Infinite torture? Tell me, what crime could be so heinous that it requires pain and suffering FOREVER. I could see having to suffer the way you made others suffer or even 10x, 1000x or a 1,000,000x the pain your victims suffered, but infinite suffering? And with homosexuals having sex with each other, do they really deserve infinite suffering even though they were not hurting anyone? Why should I worship a deity that does that?
> 
> This is why I can't get into the Old Testament. I much prefer the New Testament with its message of peace, charity and love.


What's wrong with the Norse pantheon?

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> you guys use the same passages ALL. THE. TIME. when you want to insult God or the Bible.   Seriously, you're not reading this stuff.   You, I am assuming, are above intelligence guys and yet you allow another source to cherry pick your scripture and tell you what to post and you don't even check it out.   There is so much more in the Bible that you are totally missing. Awesome stuff and it goes totally over your heads because all you want to do is to critique God.   You don't understand the Bible because of this.
> 
> *"None of the wicked shall understand;    but the Wise shall understand"* (Daniel 12:10)


Well, it's not like the Bible is constantly updating with new verses. There's only so many passages to use. 

Regardless, I don't vilify the Bible. I call it what it is: the writings of men that convey the teachings of G-d, even if through the corrupted lens of man. The teachings are still pure, even if the telling isn't.

----------


## thedarkdaimon

> Do you always dislike something because of third party testimony?
> 
> Do you have any spiritual beliefs or are you an atheist?  Something else?


I don't know if there is any kind of supreme being or not, but I know that the God of the Bible does not exist. Epicurus said it best, ""Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"

----------


## thedarkdaimon

> What's wrong with the Norse pantheon?


Like the Greek pantheon, they are too human with too many human frailties like lust, anger and vanity.

----------


## Gerrard Winstanley

> Like the Greek pantheon, they are too human with too many human frailties like lust, anger and vanity.


Always made more sense to me than an all-seeing, all-loving God ... who neglects his devout followers in Africa and South America to lives of poverty, starvation and death.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> I don't know if there is any kind of supreme being or not, but I know that the God of the Bible does not exist. Epicurus said it best, ""Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"


A good quote, but one that falls short of what I believe to be a bigger picture.   I agree the God described in the Bible is a flawed and incomplete interpretation, but I also see the quote from Epicurus as being flawed in its usage since it fails to explore the deeper implications.

Do we want God to remove evil or evil people?  What impact does this have on free will?    If God created "evil", a subject needing a clearer interpretation, then what would be the purpose?  The most common answer presented is as part of the duality of the Universe.  How can we know good without evil?  Heat without cold?  Joy without suffering?   In short, the existence of "evil" is necessary in order for people to understand "good".   If that is the purpose, is that malevolent?

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Like the Greek pantheon, they are too human with too many human frailties like lust, anger and vanity.


Is that such a bad thing? I think it makes them more relatable.

----------


## Gerrard Winstanley

> Is that such a bad thing? I think it makes them more relatable.


Simply declaring your creator to be a selfish dummy with booze and women troubles makes for a more credible explanation as to the state of the world today than assuming that he's omnipotent and all-loving.

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (10-06-2013)

----------


## thedarkdaimon

> A good quote, but one that falls short of what I believe to be a bigger picture.   I agree the God described in the Bible is a flawed and incomplete interpretation, but I also see the quote from Epicurus as being flawed in its usage since it fails to explore the deeper implications.
> 
> Do we want God to remove evil or evil people?  What impact does this have on free will?    If God created "evil", a subject needing a clearer interpretation, then what would be the purpose?  The most common answer presented is as part of the duality of the Universe.  How can we know good without evil?  Heat without cold?  Joy without suffering?   In short, the existence of "evil" is necessary in order for people to understand "good".   If that is the purpose, is that malevolent?


I've never understood how an omniscient being could possibly create a being with free will. By definition, an omniscient being knows everything which means such a being would know what the outcome of creating humans before the humans knew. Where is the free will?

Good, evil, heat, cold, joy, suffering... these are all relative terms. Take heat and cold. Most of the universe is extremely cold with some pockets of extremely hot. We humans live in a very narrow band of temperature so what we consider cold, is actually quite hot for most of the universe. What we consider hot, is down right freezing for a star.

Good and evil are the same. One man's drink is another man's poison.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> I've never understood how an omniscient being could possibly create a being with free will. By definition, an omniscient being knows everything which means such a being would know what the outcome of creating humans before the humans knew. Where is the free will?
> 
> Good, evil, heat, cold, joy, suffering... these are all relative terms. Take heat and cold. Most of the universe is extremely cold with some pockets of extremely hot. We humans live in a very narrow band of temperature so what we consider cold, is actually quite hot for most of the universe. What we consider hot, is down right freezing for a star.
> 
> Good and evil are the same. One man's drink is another man's poison.


You are trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.  More specially, you are thinking like a three-dimensional mortal creature and trying to fit a power which transcends that existence into your own narrow view of existence.

Here's another one people do; they try to claim theirs is the one true religion.  That action is limiting God just as you've done.  It's trying to fit God into a three dimensional physical Universe when, by definition, God is far greater than this little piece of creation.   Inside the Universe, 2 + 2 = 4 and only one truth can exist.  Outside the Universe, anything and everything is possible.  IMO, all of the world's religions are both wrong and right.  Mostly wrong in limiting their view and right in seeing a bit of wisdom.

----------


## thedarkdaimon

> You are trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.  More specially, you are thinking like a three-dimensional mortal creature and trying to fit a power which transcends that existence into your own narrow view of existence.
> 
> Here's another one people do; they try to claim theirs is the one true religion.  That action is limiting God just as you've done.  It's trying to fit God into a three dimensional physical Universe when, by definition, God is far greater than this little piece of creation.   Inside the Universe, 2 + 2 = 4 and only one truth can exist.  Outside the Universe, anything and everything is possible.  IMO, all of the world's religions are both wrong and right.  Mostly wrong in limiting their view and right in seeing a bit of wisdom.


Then this is where I differ. To me, 2+2 can never equal anything else but 4. Logic can never be anything but... well, logical. And while I don't discount the possibility that there may be something out there that created this universe, it certainly wouldn't look anything like the God of the Bible and it certainly wouldn't require worship. To convince me otherwise would take some serious evidence beyond that which anyone has yet to offer.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Then this is where I differ. To me, 2+2 can never equal anything else but 4. Logic can never be anything but... well, logical. And while I don't discount the possibility that there may be something out there that created this universe, it certainly wouldn't look anything like the God of the Bible and it certainly wouldn't require worship. To convince me otherwise would take some serious evidence beyond that which anyone has yet to offer.


Dude, no disagreement about 2 +2 = 4.  I agree with you in this Universe.  Are you saying this rule remains the same outside the Universe???

No evidence exists in this Universe, at least not at present, of anything outside of it.  If you want to believe that you are a meat computer whose existence dies when you do and is worth nothing more than any of the other millions of meat machines which preceded you, that's your choice. 

One of my favorite, and first, college professors was Ron Smith.  I took every class he offered.  One was Ethics 101.  The first day of class he walks in, sets down his valise, opens it and pulls out a .357 and points it at the class then says "Tell me why I shouldn't kill every one of you".   Can't do that shit nowadays, but in 1975 it made quite an impression on me.

That said, if we're all meat computers, tell me why I shouldn't kill you?

----------


## thedarkdaimon

> Dude, no disagreement about 2 +2 = 4.  I agree with you in this Universe.  Are you saying this rule remains the same outside the Universe???
> 
> No evidence exists in this Universe, at least not at present, of anything outside of it.  If you want to believe that you are a meat computer whose existence dies when you do and is worth nothing more than any of the other millions of meat machines which preceded you, that's your choice. 
> 
> One of my favorite, and first, college professors was Ron Smith.  I took every class he offered.  One was Ethics 101.  The first day of class he walks in, sets down his valise, opens it and pulls out a .357 and points it at the class then says "Tell me why I shouldn't kill every one of you".   Can't do that shit nowadays, but in 1975 it made quite an impression on me.
> 
> That said, if we're all meat computers, tell me why I shouldn't kill you?


Whether I like the idea that my existence dies when I die is not relevant (I don't like the idea), but if it is what it is, there is nothing any of us can do about it. Now I don't think you would commit murder if there was no punishment anymore than I would. You have your own moral code that prevents you from killing and not because you are afraid of punishment. You don't kill because you know it is not right.

So if we're all meat computer, why shouldn't you kill me? Because you don't want to live in a world where people can kill indiscriminately.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> I've never understood how an omniscient being could possibly create a being with free will. By definition, an omniscient being knows everything which means such a being would know what the outcome of creating humans before the humans knew. Where is the free will?
> 
> Good, evil, heat, cold, joy, suffering... these are all relative terms. Take heat and cold. Most of the universe is extremely cold with some pockets of extremely hot. We humans live in a very narrow band of temperature so what we consider cold, is actually quite hot for most of the universe. What we consider hot, is down right freezing for a star.
> 
> Good and evil are the same. One man's drink is another man's poison.


By that logic, free will doesn't and can't exist.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Whether I like the idea that my existence dies when I die is not relevant (I don't like the idea), but if it is what it is, there is nothing any of us can do about it. Now I don't think you would commit murder if there was no punishment anymore than I would. You have your own moral code that prevents you from killing and not because you are afraid of punishment. You don't kill because you know it is not right.
> 
> *So if we're all meat computer, why shouldn't you kill me?* Because you don't want to live in a world where people can kill indiscriminately.


That's my question to you.   I don't believe we are meat computers.  I don't believe in a "dumb" Universe or that the Universe suddenly popped into existence from nothing for no reason.

----------


## Calypso Jones

> Whether I like the idea that my existence dies when I die is not relevant (I don't like the idea), but if it is what it is, there is nothing any of us can do about it. Now I don't think you would commit murder if there was no punishment anymore than I would. You have your own moral code that prevents you from killing and not because you are afraid of punishment. You don't kill because you know it is not right.
> 
> So if we're all meat computer, why shouldn't you kill me? Because you don't want to live in a world where people can kill indiscriminately.


Men didn't come up with the 'thou shalt not kill' rule.  Indeed their's was just the opposite....Where did it come from little daimon.   Come on....you can say it.

----------


## Canadianeye

Cherry picking? Seems like common sense has taken a vacation around here.

In the old testament there are harsh, horrible and malevolent words. In the Quran there are harsh horrible and malevolent words. Both, have areas of not so wrathful writings.

The common sense part is this.

Radical Christians are not *globally* killing and maiming people *daily*_ in the name of Jesus_.

It is not cherry picking regarding providing vicious and malevolent passages of the Quran...when they are actively  engaging in those murderous activities, as supported by the writings.

----------


## thedarkdaimon

> That's my question to you.   I don't believe we are meat computers.  I don't believe in a "dumb" Universe or that the Universe suddenly popped into existence from nothing for no reason.


I really didn't mean this to turn into a debate about the existence of God, I was merely trying to point out to Calypso that the Bible is not infallible. If you believe in God, that is fine with me. I don't know if there is a God and if there was, I don't see that God being the God described in the Bible.

----------


## thedarkdaimon

> Men didn't come up with the 'thou shalt not kill' rule.  Indeed their's was just the opposite....Where did it come from little daimon.   Come on....you can say it.


Uh... yes we did. Every culture has rules against killing indiscriminately. They have to. Not because of any god(s), but because without that rule, a society couldn't work.

----------


## thedarkdaimon

> Cherry picking? Seems like common sense has taken a vacation around here.
> 
> In the old testament there are harsh, horrible and malevolent words. In the Quran there are harsh horrible and malevolent words. Both, have areas of not so wrathful writings.
> 
> The common sense part is this.
> 
> Radical Christians are not *globally* killing and maiming people *daily*_ in the name of Jesus_.
> 
> It is not cherry picking regarding providing vicious and malevolent passages of the Quran...when they are actively  engaging in those murderous activities, as supported by the writings.


Sorry, but I'm really missing the connection between how the Bible not being infallible has anything to do with Muslims, except for the fact I don't believe the Quran is infallible either.

----------


## Gerrard Winstanley

> Men didn't come up with the 'thou shalt not kill' rule.  Indeed their's was just the opposite....Where did it come from little daimon.   Come on....you can say it.


On the contrary, you can't run a functioning society without a 'thou shalt not kill' law. All of the ancient (pagan) civilizations had a piece of anti-murder legislation in some form or another.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> I really didn't mean this to turn into a debate about the existence of God, I was merely trying to point out to Calypso that the Bible is not infallible. If you believe in God, that is fine with me. I don't know if there is a God and if there was, I don't see that God being the God described in the Bible.


Agreed the Bible is fallible.  Even the Christians who take the Bible literally do so while gnawing on a pulled pork BBQ sandwich and a shrimp cocktail.

----------


## Perianne

> Agreed the Bible is fallible.  Even the Christians who take the Bible literally do so while gnawing on a pulled pork BBQ sandwich and a shrimp cocktail.


You gotta admit those two are pretty tasty!

----------

Max Rockatansky (10-07-2013)

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> You gotta admit those two are pretty tasty!


I never turn them down!

----------


## Perianne

I've never started a thread that went to 300 posts.  Just one more?

----------


## Max Rockatansky

Just for you, baby!

----------


## Perianne

> Just for you, baby!


Thank you, darlin'!  lol

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Cherry picking? Seems like common sense has taken a vacation around here.
> 
> In the old testament there are harsh, horrible and malevolent words. In the Quran there are harsh horrible and malevolent words. Both, have areas of not so wrathful writings.
> 
> The common sense part is this.
> 
> Radical Christians are not *globally* killing and maiming people *daily*_ in the name of Jesus_.
> 
> It is not cherry picking regarding providing vicious and malevolent passages of the Quran...when they are actively  engaging in those murderous activities, as supported by the writings.


They may not be directly killing and maiming people across the globe, but they do (in large numbers, lest a Christian whine about generalizations) support having their governments do their global killing and maiming for them.

I could also show numerous instances from Christians JUST on this board alone advocating for wholesale slaughter and cheering on death, but I highly doubt anyone will read this post with an open mind, so...*shrug*

----------


## Perianne

> I could also show numerous instances from Christians JUST on this board alone advocating for wholesale slaughter and cheering on death, but I highly doubt anyone will read this post with an open mind, so...*shrug*


What would Green Lantern do?

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> What would Green Lantern do?


About what?

----------


## Perianne

> About what?


Showing numerous instances from Christians JUST on this board alone advocating for wholesale slaughter and cheering on death.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Showing numerous instances from Christians JUST on this board alone advocating for wholesale slaughter and cheering on death.


He wouldn't do it. It wouldn't matter. What would be the point? The ones who do it obviously don't even realize what they are doing, or don't care, and pointing out their words won't help them see. After all, if it would, why would they say it to begin with? 

No. The better option, the more constructive option, would be to continue advocating peace and justice, and working toward that goal. Show people that peace and justice can work, don't just tell them. Show them that there is a better way, and fight with all your willpower to make that vision a reality. 

That's what the Green Lantern would do.

----------

Gerrard Winstanley (10-08-2013),Max Rockatansky (10-08-2013)

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> He wouldn't do it. It wouldn't matter. What would be the point? The ones who do it obviously don't even realize what they are doing, or don't care, and pointing out their words won't help them see. After all, if it would, why would they say it to begin with? 
> 
> No. The better option, the more constructive option, would be to continue advocating peace and justice, and working toward that goal. Show people that peace and justice can work, don't just tell them. Show them that there is a better way, and fight with all your willpower to make that vision a reality. 
> 
> That's what the Green Lantern would do.


All great points.   

Most people are all talk even when they are saying evil things such as advocating the wholesale slaughter of human beings with whom they disagree politically or religiously.   What they don't realize is that those attitudes, if enough voices advocate them, can turn into reality.  It wouldn't be the first time such atrocities have happened after what began as bitching in a bar.

----------

Gerrard Winstanley (10-08-2013),Sinestro/Green Arrow (10-08-2013)

----------


## Perianne

> All great points.   
> 
> Most people are all talk even when they are saying evil things such as advocating the wholesale slaughter of human beings with whom they disagree politically or religiously.   What they don't realize is that those attitudes, if enough voices advocate them, can turn into reality.  It wouldn't be the first time such atrocities have happened after what began as bitching in a bar.


Other than hyperbole, who is advocating for mass slaughter?  I must have missed something.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Other than hyperbole, who is advocating for mass slaughter?  I must have missed something.


More than a few advocated nuking all Muslims and/or getting rid of all Muslims in the US.  About 1.2 million IIRC.  During WWII, we interred 110,000 Japanese.  Doing the same to all American Muslims would be a quantum leap backwards into barbarity.

----------


## Canadianeye

> All great points.   
> 
> *Most people are all talk even when they are saying evil things such as advocating the wholesale slaughter of human beings with whom they disagree politically or religiously.   What they don't realize is that those attitudes, if enough voices advocate them, can turn into reality*.  It wouldn't be the first time such atrocities have happened after what began as bitching in a bar.


Yes, exactly. Closing in on 22,000 Islamic atrocities, specifically committed in the name of allah, since 9/11. At least the reported, verifiable atrocities. Not inclusive of the honor killings, and generally not incorporating all the mutilations that didn't result in a death.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/TheList.htm

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Yes, exactly. Closing in on 22,000 Islamic atrocities, specifically committed in the name of allah, since 9/11. At least the reported, verifiable atrocities. Not inclusive of the honor killings, and generally not incorporating all the mutilations that didn't result in a death.
> 
> http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/TheList.htm


What, if any, is your religion?

----------


## Canadianeye

> What, if any, is your religion?


No religion. Not spiritual. I have no belief in deities in any form.

As well, as far as I am concerned, Islam isn't a religion.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> No religion. Not spiritual. I have no belief in deities in any form.
> 
> As well, as far as I am concerned, Islam isn't a religion.


Thanks for your honesty.  So what do you think about Sarah Palin thinking that the Bible should be the basis of our Constitution and many other "conservatives" who think Creationism is a legitimate alternative to the _Theory_ (wink) of Evolution?

----------


## Perianne

A Muslim's dream:

_CAREFREE, Ariz. – Some parents of students at Cactus Shadows High  School are outraged over a play that has students acting out sexual  encounters with a goat, and using vulgar sexual expressions._



_Other  parents of students in teacher Andrew Cupo’s advanced drama class  believe the concerns are overblown, and resent parents who questioned  their children about the sexually explicit play without their  permission.
_
http://eagnews.org/some-parents-upse...s-with-a-goat/

----------


## usfan

Carefree is mostly a rich liberal town, populated with elitists & wealthy retirees, drawing a fat public pension.  But that mindset is continuing to grow, & corrupt society with amoral values.  The values in the ghetto today will be the values in the suburbs, tomorrow.  The decline is on!  The only way to stop it is for producers to get stingy with their money, cut up the govt credit cards, & force people to work for a living.  Between academia, govt, hollywood, & the media, everyone in those institutions view themselves as privileged elite, who deserve the unwashed masses support.  If we the people could somehow impress upon them that they are SERVANTS of the public, rather than LORDS, it would do wonders for our modern mindset.

----------


## Perianne

> If we the people could somehow impress upon them that they are SERVANTS of the public, rather than LORDS, it would do wonders for our modern mindset.


If everyone would just agree with me on things it would make life a lot easier.

----------

