So how come, if our country was supposedly founded with the idea that consenting adults had the freedom to choose to do what they liked with the partner of their choosing, did our earliest lawbooks have laws banning sodomy and banning the cohabitation of an unmarried man and woman?
Why were America's first laws so darn un-American?
Where did I suggest that we were "founded with the idea that consenting adults had the freedom to choose to do what they liked with the partner of their choosing"?
There are lots of outdated, irrelevant, and just plain incorrect laws from 200 years ago. What bearing they have on modern society and understanding is unclear to me.
200 years of hatred, fear, and discrimination is no reason to continue down the same path.
Admit it, you're a secularist, and you hate religion, or any societal morals.
Excuse me, but having no religion does not equate with having no morals. On the whole religion dictates a particular set of morals, and if you choose (or are brainwashed into) a particular religion you should try and live by that set of morals. If you do not subscribe to a religion then you have to figure out morality for yourself and sadly it would appear that a lot of people don't bother. Just because my morals aren't the same as yours doesn't mean I don't have any.
Still waiting to hear your opinions on the rest of Leviticus.
Leviticus is a great book. Just remember that some of those laws that pertained to Israel -- which was a theocracy -- don't pertain in these days when the Gospel has gone out into a multi-cultural world. For example, God had a purpose for having the Israelites, who were delivered from Egypt, practice some strict laws in order to turn them from their former pagan environment. Things like wearing clothes made of a single fiber, not mixed fibers. Laws banning the eating of shellfish were later loosened up in the New Testament, while homosexuality was still deemed to be wrong. Some of God's laws and principles and intentions are timeless. Some applied to God's chosen people, living in a theocracy.
Yep. Let's get back to computers. When the those facts result in real advances such as iPhones and longevity they are more then a mere point of view based on folklore.
That's what I would say too, if I was losing this argument as bad as you are. Wait, isn't this thread about support for gay marriage, and not about computers. Oh, I get it, you're trying to change the subject.
You libs love to twist words. I'm glad that I don't live in your everything goes society. Admit it, you're a secularist, and you hate religion, or any societal morals. It's people like you that degrade society with the promoting of your liberal lack of responsibilities. You're a real poster boy for no rules.
If he won't I will. I'm proud to be a secularist, I hate religion in any form, YHWH the Wind God and all his derivatives are the most evil, hateful fantasy figures the human mind as ever come up with, and have been used to kill, oppress, and make people's lives miserable for 3,000 years now.
I am proud to be a Liberal. I believe in equality for all, and the right to do anything you want that does not demonstrably injure anyone else--and anyone who thinks they are "injured" or "their marriage is devalued" by someone whose sexual habits they disapprove of getting married, is a traitor to everything this country stands for (or used to stand for, that is.)
Anarchy is in fact, bad for society, and these right-wing anarchists who have been driving this country to Hell in a handbasket since that brainless, evil, monumentally unqualified f*cknut Reagan got elected have a lot to answer for!
I am heterosexual. I was born that way, and can no more help being heterosexual than I can help being right-handed. You idiots who think homosexuals "chose" to be that way, are obviously (at least) latent homosexuals yourselves, and need to examine the source of your fear.
I am voting for Obama. Obama is going to win the popular vote by the widest margin of any non-incumbent in history, and possibly edge into Roosevelt/Landon Johnson/Goldwater Nixon/McGovern Reagan/Mondale territory. Unfortunately, we have 2/3 of the states with 1/3 of the population and a solid majority in the Electoral College that will officially put McCain in the White House, unless the rebellion that should have taken place in 2000 does so this time. This, by you, is Democracy? This is the Majority ruling? To coin your phrase, get a clue!
To whoever was telling us how bad soldiers hate the liberals: I assume you think the only way to "support the troops" is to mindlessly advocate sending them off to get killed for nothing on the principle that mindless belligerence is the same thing as strength (the Dubya Doctrine?) Let's remember that in the 2000 election as many Americans as have died in all of our wars since the Civil War put together (all of whom thought that they were giving their lives for "democracy" or "freedom") were told that their votes meant nothing. Half a million Americans disenfranchised by this corrupt system. (And that's not even considering the massive election fraud in Jeb Bush's Florida.)
Liberal=Good, Conservative=Evil! At least since the formerly unobjectionable name "Conservative" has been hijacked by the evil cabal that currently has this country in a stranglehold. And if they try to seize power again, through this "Electoral College" jiggery-pokery, then RISE UP in rebellion this time and take your country back! I will!
Look Einstein, I knew you were a secularist, and you admitted it. Game over. If you took your head out of that dark place you'd find that being religious is in no way anti-American and that most Americans are religious. YOU find religion to be anti-American in your twisted view of the world. One nation, under God, get it?
"Being religious" has nothing to do with being intolerant, discriminatory, or self-righteous. Ideally, it means the opposite of those things. I know plenty of people of faith that manage to understand that and apply it to the way they live and treat others. Religion as justification for discrimination or hate is the ultimate perversion of intent.
I respect your right to be religious just as much as I respect my neighbor's right to be gay, even if I don't participate in or agree with either of those decisions.
Where did I suggest that we were "founded with the idea that consenting adults had the freedom to choose to do what they liked with the partner of their choosing"?
There are lots of outdated, irrelevant, and just plain incorrect laws from 200 years ago. What bearing they have on modern society and understanding is unclear to me.
200 years of hatred, fear, and discrimination is no reason to continue down the same path.
200 years ago, murder and theft were against the law. Do you really want to go down this path? Or do you think that you should just follow the laws that you like?
200 years ago, murder and theft were against the law. Do you really want to go down this path? Or do you think that you should just follow the laws that you like?
Please take me down this path. I'm ready.
Murder and theft infringe on the basic fundamental rights of others. Homosexuality does no such thing and never will.
Excuse me, but having no religion does not equate with having no morals. On the whole religion dictates a particular set of morals, and if you choose (or are brainwashed into) a particular religion you should try and live by that set of morals. If you do not subscribe to a religion then you have to figure out morality for yourself and sadly it would appear that a lot of people don't bother. Just because my morals aren't the same as yours doesn't mean I don't have any.
Brainwashed? Did you forget that we escaped from beneath the heel of the King and the Church of England, to form our own country, and our own religious based laws? We all have to to obey the law, and here much of it is religious based. We don't do things the way they do them in merry old England, and that has held us in good stead lo these many years.
Leviticus is a great book. Just remember that some of those laws that pertained to Israel -- which was a theocracy -- don't pertain in these days when the Gospel has gone out into a multi-cultural world. For example, God had a purpose for having the Israelites, who were delivered from Egypt, practice some strict laws in order to turn them from their former pagan environment. Things like wearing clothes made of a single fiber, not mixed fibers. Laws banning the eating of shellfish were later loosened up in the New Testament, while homosexuality was still deemed to be wrong. Some of God's laws and principles and intentions are timeless. Some applied to God's chosen people, living in a theocracy.
So if we can all admit that Leviticus is at best open to interpretation and at worst completely irrelevant and outdated, perhaps we should be quoting the relevant passages in the New Testament when attempting to justify our denial of rights to homosexuals?
Or we could cut to the chase and realize that whether or not god thought people should engage in homosexual behavior is completely irrelevant to whether or not we as a society choose to allow people to do it. Disapprove is quite different than disallow.
Excuse me, but having no religion does not equate with having no morals. On the whole religion dictates a particular set of morals, and if you choose (or are brainwashed into) a particular religion you should try and live by that set of morals. If you do not subscribe to a religion then you have to figure out morality for yourself and sadly it would appear that a lot of people don't bother. Just because my morals aren't the same as yours doesn't mean I don't have any.
The problem with morality is that it needs a common definition. If morality only has a personal definition, but doesn't operate as a common law, then the term 'morality' is useless.
Either we are free to choose our own morality -- in which case morality has no real meaning -- or there is a global definition of morality.
You have folks on this thread that claim that homosexuality is immoral. You have other folks on this thread claiming that having the position that homosexuality is immoral is itself immoral. Either we are free to believe whichever we choose (and in that case all the arguing on this thread in nonsensical) or homosexuality is immoral or it isn't. But it's a global law. Some have latched onto the truth and others haven't.
Brainwashed? Did you forget that we escaped from beneath the heel of the King and the Church of England, to form our own country, and our own religious based laws? We all have to to obey the law, and here much of it is religious based. We don't do things the way they do them in merry old England, and that has held us in good stead lo these many years.
Ironic that we left to form our own country due to religious persecution, and now several hundred years later find ourselves attempting to enforce our own brand of theocratic moral doctrine.
This is why America is a democratic republic dummy. The people are in-charge of the officials. the Officials civic duty is to support the interests of the society.
Republic: A form of government whose head of state is not a monarch (hereditary ruler i.e. king).
From this definition already follows that the US is also a democracy, since its rulers are chosen, not hereditary.
"We are a Democratic Republic" is like saying "you are a child-baby" since a baby is always a child.
I think you mean republican democracy.
The U.S. is a constitutional democracy and it is a republic.
It's a constitutional, representative, republican democracy.
I'm sure there are more adjectives that would be correct.
You and others need to choose your words more precise. They do not mean what you intend them to mean.
I just see prop 8 has a way of either granting or denying some civil liberties, which I think it's wrong to deny some people the same rights given to others, based on the choice of wording and lifestyle.
If it was called a civil union, would it be as a big of an issue?
It just seems like legalized bigotry, and the older I get, the more I think people should be allowed to get married (or have a civil union), regardless of sex, religion or so on.
Murder and theft infringe on the basic fundamental rights of others. Homosexuality does no such thing and never will.
Next?
I disagree, and it's immoral, just as incest is, or rape, bearing false witness, ad infinitum. Marriage is between one man and one woman, and not homosexuals. Homosexuals offer nothing for the survival of mankind, they're too wrapped up in their own selfish indulgences.
You probably support abortion too, which is rather silly, seeing as how if your mother had practiced it, you wouldn't be here.
Or we could cut to the chase and realize that whether or not god thought people should engage in homosexual behavior is completely irrelevant to whether or not we as a society choose to allow people to do it. Disapprove is quite different than disallow.
God wrote the owner's manual for our spirits and bodies, and his design and his directions are more important than what we might choose to believe ourselves.
God says to trust him and to not have sex unless you're married. That goes for heterosexual single people -- no sex until marriage. Do you have gay tendencies? Then you are to have no sex. Are we willing to trust the one who made us to know what is good for us and what is bad for us? Even though we still have urges that he built into us?
That's nice. You can disagree all you want, but there's no possible way that homosexuality between two consenting adults violates the fundamental, constitutionally protected rights of anyone. You do not have the right to not be offended.
Quote:
Marriage is between one man and one woman, and not homosexuals.
Says you. It seems others disagree.
Quote:
Homosexuals offer nothing for the survival of mankind, they're too wrapped up in their own selfish indulgences.
So you also support a constitutional amendment denying sterile couples the right to marry as well? the only purpose of the marital institution is procreation?
Quote:
You probably support abortion too, which is rather silly, seeing as how if your mother had practiced it, you wouldn't be here.
Comments
So how come, if our country was supposedly founded with the idea that consenting adults had the freedom to choose to do what they liked with the partner of their choosing, did our earliest lawbooks have laws banning sodomy and banning the cohabitation of an unmarried man and woman?
Why were America's first laws so darn un-American?
Where did I suggest that we were "founded with the idea that consenting adults had the freedom to choose to do what they liked with the partner of their choosing"?
There are lots of outdated, irrelevant, and just plain incorrect laws from 200 years ago. What bearing they have on modern society and understanding is unclear to me.
200 years of hatred, fear, and discrimination is no reason to continue down the same path.
Admit it, you're a secularist, and you hate religion, or any societal morals.
Excuse me, but having no religion does not equate with having no morals. On the whole religion dictates a particular set of morals, and if you choose (or are brainwashed into) a particular religion you should try and live by that set of morals. If you do not subscribe to a religion then you have to figure out morality for yourself and sadly it would appear that a lot of people don't bother. Just because my morals aren't the same as yours doesn't mean I don't have any.
Still waiting to hear your opinions on the rest of Leviticus.
Leviticus is a great book. Just remember that some of those laws that pertained to Israel -- which was a theocracy -- don't pertain in these days when the Gospel has gone out into a multi-cultural world. For example, God had a purpose for having the Israelites, who were delivered from Egypt, practice some strict laws in order to turn them from their former pagan environment. Things like wearing clothes made of a single fiber, not mixed fibers. Laws banning the eating of shellfish were later loosened up in the New Testament, while homosexuality was still deemed to be wrong. Some of God's laws and principles and intentions are timeless. Some applied to God's chosen people, living in a theocracy.
Yep. Let's get back to computers. When the those facts result in real advances such as iPhones and longevity they are more then a mere point of view based on folklore.
That's what I would say too, if I was losing this argument as bad as you are. Wait, isn't this thread about support for gay marriage, and not about computers. Oh, I get it, you're trying to change the subject.
You libs love to twist words. I'm glad that I don't live in your everything goes society. Admit it, you're a secularist, and you hate religion, or any societal morals. It's people like you that degrade society with the promoting of your liberal lack of responsibilities. You're a real poster boy for no rules.
If he won't I will. I'm proud to be a secularist, I hate religion in any form, YHWH the Wind God and all his derivatives are the most evil, hateful fantasy figures the human mind as ever come up with, and have been used to kill, oppress, and make people's lives miserable for 3,000 years now.
I am proud to be a Liberal. I believe in equality for all, and the right to do anything you want that does not demonstrably injure anyone else--and anyone who thinks they are "injured" or "their marriage is devalued" by someone whose sexual habits they disapprove of getting married, is a traitor to everything this country stands for (or used to stand for, that is.)
Anarchy is in fact, bad for society, and these right-wing anarchists who have been driving this country to Hell in a handbasket since that brainless, evil, monumentally unqualified f*cknut Reagan got elected have a lot to answer for!
I am heterosexual. I was born that way, and can no more help being heterosexual than I can help being right-handed. You idiots who think homosexuals "chose" to be that way, are obviously (at least) latent homosexuals yourselves, and need to examine the source of your fear.
I am voting for Obama. Obama is going to win the popular vote by the widest margin of any non-incumbent in history, and possibly edge into Roosevelt/Landon Johnson/Goldwater Nixon/McGovern Reagan/Mondale territory. Unfortunately, we have 2/3 of the states with 1/3 of the population and a solid majority in the Electoral College that will officially put McCain in the White House, unless the rebellion that should have taken place in 2000 does so this time. This, by you, is Democracy? This is the Majority ruling? To coin your phrase, get a clue!
To whoever was telling us how bad soldiers hate the liberals: I assume you think the only way to "support the troops" is to mindlessly advocate sending them off to get killed for nothing on the principle that mindless belligerence is the same thing as strength (the Dubya Doctrine?) Let's remember that in the 2000 election as many Americans as have died in all of our wars since the Civil War put together (all of whom thought that they were giving their lives for "democracy" or "freedom") were told that their votes meant nothing. Half a million Americans disenfranchised by this corrupt system. (And that's not even considering the massive election fraud in Jeb Bush's Florida.)
Liberal=Good, Conservative=Evil! At least since the formerly unobjectionable name "Conservative" has been hijacked by the evil cabal that currently has this country in a stranglehold. And if they try to seize power again, through this "Electoral College" jiggery-pokery, then RISE UP in rebellion this time and take your country back! I will!
Jesus is all about one thing alone-salvation and that belongs to everyone from murderers to Obama supporters!
Jesus must be shaking his fist at all these supposedly religious people.Keep pushing his buttons and you might just get Jesus whacked!!!!!
Sport?
Look Einstein, I knew you were a secularist, and you admitted it. Game over. If you took your head out of that dark place you'd find that being religious is in no way anti-American and that most Americans are religious. YOU find religion to be anti-American in your twisted view of the world. One nation, under God, get it?
"Being religious" has nothing to do with being intolerant, discriminatory, or self-righteous. Ideally, it means the opposite of those things. I know plenty of people of faith that manage to understand that and apply it to the way they live and treat others. Religion as justification for discrimination or hate is the ultimate perversion of intent.
I respect your right to be religious just as much as I respect my neighbor's right to be gay, even if I don't participate in or agree with either of those decisions.
Where did I suggest that we were "founded with the idea that consenting adults had the freedom to choose to do what they liked with the partner of their choosing"?
There are lots of outdated, irrelevant, and just plain incorrect laws from 200 years ago. What bearing they have on modern society and understanding is unclear to me.
200 years of hatred, fear, and discrimination is no reason to continue down the same path.
200 years ago, murder and theft were against the law. Do you really want to go down this path? Or do you think that you should just follow the laws that you like?
200 years ago, murder and theft were against the law. Do you really want to go down this path? Or do you think that you should just follow the laws that you like?
Please take me down this path. I'm ready.
Murder and theft infringe on the basic fundamental rights of others. Homosexuality does no such thing and never will.
Next?
Excuse me, but having no religion does not equate with having no morals. On the whole religion dictates a particular set of morals, and if you choose (or are brainwashed into) a particular religion you should try and live by that set of morals. If you do not subscribe to a religion then you have to figure out morality for yourself and sadly it would appear that a lot of people don't bother. Just because my morals aren't the same as yours doesn't mean I don't have any.
Brainwashed? Did you forget that we escaped from beneath the heel of the King and the Church of England, to form our own country, and our own religious based laws? We all have to to obey the law, and here much of it is religious based. We don't do things the way they do them in merry old England, and that has held us in good stead lo these many years.
Leviticus is a great book. Just remember that some of those laws that pertained to Israel -- which was a theocracy -- don't pertain in these days when the Gospel has gone out into a multi-cultural world. For example, God had a purpose for having the Israelites, who were delivered from Egypt, practice some strict laws in order to turn them from their former pagan environment. Things like wearing clothes made of a single fiber, not mixed fibers. Laws banning the eating of shellfish were later loosened up in the New Testament, while homosexuality was still deemed to be wrong. Some of God's laws and principles and intentions are timeless. Some applied to God's chosen people, living in a theocracy.
So if we can all admit that Leviticus is at best open to interpretation and at worst completely irrelevant and outdated, perhaps we should be quoting the relevant passages in the New Testament when attempting to justify our denial of rights to homosexuals?
Or we could cut to the chase and realize that whether or not god thought people should engage in homosexual behavior is completely irrelevant to whether or not we as a society choose to allow people to do it. Disapprove is quite different than disallow.
Excuse me, but having no religion does not equate with having no morals. On the whole religion dictates a particular set of morals, and if you choose (or are brainwashed into) a particular religion you should try and live by that set of morals. If you do not subscribe to a religion then you have to figure out morality for yourself and sadly it would appear that a lot of people don't bother. Just because my morals aren't the same as yours doesn't mean I don't have any.
The problem with morality is that it needs a common definition. If morality only has a personal definition, but doesn't operate as a common law, then the term 'morality' is useless.
Either we are free to choose our own morality -- in which case morality has no real meaning -- or there is a global definition of morality.
You have folks on this thread that claim that homosexuality is immoral. You have other folks on this thread claiming that having the position that homosexuality is immoral is itself immoral. Either we are free to believe whichever we choose (and in that case all the arguing on this thread in nonsensical) or homosexuality is immoral or it isn't. But it's a global law. Some have latched onto the truth and others haven't.
Brainwashed? Did you forget that we escaped from beneath the heel of the King and the Church of England, to form our own country, and our own religious based laws? We all have to to obey the law, and here much of it is religious based. We don't do things the way they do them in merry old England, and that has held us in good stead lo these many years.
Ironic that we left to form our own country due to religious persecution, and now several hundred years later find ourselves attempting to enforce our own brand of theocratic moral doctrine.
Seems we learned nothing from our journey.
This is why America is a democratic republic dummy. The people are in-charge of the officials. the Officials civic duty is to support the interests of the society.
Republic: A form of government whose head of state is not a monarch (hereditary ruler i.e. king).
From this definition already follows that the US is also a democracy, since its rulers are chosen, not hereditary.
"We are a Democratic Republic" is like saying "you are a child-baby" since a baby is always a child.
I think you mean republican democracy.
The U.S. is a constitutional democracy and it is a republic.
It's a constitutional, representative, republican democracy.
I'm sure there are more adjectives that would be correct.
You and others need to choose your words more precise. They do not mean what you intend them to mean.
If it was called a civil union, would it be as a big of an issue?
It just seems like legalized bigotry, and the older I get, the more I think people should be allowed to get married (or have a civil union), regardless of sex, religion or so on.
Please take me down this path. I'm ready.
Murder and theft infringe on the basic fundamental rights of others. Homosexuality does no such thing and never will.
Next?
I disagree, and it's immoral, just as incest is, or rape, bearing false witness, ad infinitum. Marriage is between one man and one woman, and not homosexuals. Homosexuals offer nothing for the survival of mankind, they're too wrapped up in their own selfish indulgences.
You probably support abortion too, which is rather silly, seeing as how if your mother had practiced it, you wouldn't be here.
Or we could cut to the chase and realize that whether or not god thought people should engage in homosexual behavior is completely irrelevant to whether or not we as a society choose to allow people to do it. Disapprove is quite different than disallow.
God wrote the owner's manual for our spirits and bodies, and his design and his directions are more important than what we might choose to believe ourselves.
God says to trust him and to not have sex unless you're married. That goes for heterosexual single people -- no sex until marriage. Do you have gay tendencies? Then you are to have no sex. Are we willing to trust the one who made us to know what is good for us and what is bad for us? Even though we still have urges that he built into us?
I always worry about what folks in Amsterdam think.
I'm glad you're not, dear.
I disagree,
That's nice. You can disagree all you want, but there's no possible way that homosexuality between two consenting adults violates the fundamental, constitutionally protected rights of anyone. You do not have the right to not be offended.
Marriage is between one man and one woman, and not homosexuals.
Says you. It seems others disagree.
Homosexuals offer nothing for the survival of mankind, they're too wrapped up in their own selfish indulgences.
So you also support a constitutional amendment denying sterile couples the right to marry as well? the only purpose of the marital institution is procreation?
You probably support abortion too, which is rather silly, seeing as how if your mother had practiced it, you wouldn't be here.
You're getting desperate.
Republic: A form of government whose head of state is not a monarch (hereditary ruler i.e. king).
From this definition already follows that the US is also a democracy, since its rulers are chosen, not hereditary.
"We are a Democratic Republic" is like saying "I am a baby child" since a baby is always a child.
The U.S. is a constitutional democracy and it is a republic.
You and others need to choose your words more precise. They do not mean what you intend them to mean.
We are a representative Republic, and a constitutional democracy.