Stewy Posted July 11, 2013 Report Share Posted July 11, 2013 Bummer when Democracy doesn't give you what you want, huh? It becomes "the tyrannical left" lol Umm wiz kid...it's not a matter of want we want, It's a matter of whats being taken away, and whats being forced on us. Does Obamacare ring a bell? Democracy gives losers like you with your hands out what they want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted July 12, 2013 Report Share Posted July 12, 2013 Appreciate your civility in this discussion but counting on inaccuracies and generalizations won't cut it. I seriously doubt that since the birth of this nation Christians have been punishing those who do not conform to Christanity. Many Islam sects on the other hand, from it's inception 1000 + years ago to this very day, punishes those that don't comply...funny how you folks are so quick point out Christianity as the bad guys. Homosexuality is condemned in fundamentalist Muslim countries and is punishable in a court of law...all Christians want is to preserve the meaning of marriage. You claim that Christians are always complaining that their "rights" are being infringed upon. Which ones? There is no doubt that their religious beliefs are being infringed upon though. You're right about having the freedom to express your religious beliefs any way you see fit, as long as you don't force your religious beliefs on anyone. I don't use religion as basis for arguing against gay marriage...although valid, it opens up a whole new can of worms. In turn, gays have the right to unions and engage in perversion all they want without religious teachings being forced down their throats like a big cock...just don't call it what it isn't..marriage. LOL.... Chris: "Hasn't Christianity spent the last 1500 years basically punishing anyone who doesn't conform to it?" We haven't been our U.S.A. for 1500 years. And I don't see a "right" to gay marriage, any more than I see a "right" to child abuse, run naked through town, marry a bridge or a camel or a sheep. In this country, we are about "let me be free"... except when others' "freedom" interferes with our own. Now, before you jump on that and say that gays should be free to marry... I say Americans should be free to establish what marriage IS. Between a man and a woman. Pretty much universal. So why the tyranny of the left to force those Americans to not be allowed to have their institution of marriage? Why do gays get their civil unions, and I don't care that they did, it's fine by me....and that gives them all those rights of real marriage...why the angst to be allowed to force the rest of America (generally considered about 97 percent not gay) to not be allowed to have a definition of marriage as they have always before? No, it's a political hit by the left, on the America. That is the only explanation I can come up with, that explains why those civil unions., very much the same thing, weren't good enough. It's part of a general undermining of American institutions. So you're basically making the same two points here, so I'll address them together to save effort because I'm late for work. 1) "America hasn't been punishing non-christians for 1000 years, we haven't existed that long" I didn't say America. I said Christianity. Look back to things like the crusades, killing the templars that then helped protect the holy land, forcing Galileo to renounce his claim that the earth goes round the sun because it went against the bible, burning "witches" at the stake because of their unholy understanding of science/nature. I'm not going to cite every single case because there just isn't time. But the point remains, Christianity, whilst it has done a lot of good in a lot of ways, has also been a very oppressive religion. 2) "Gays shouldn't be allowed to marry because marriage should be between a man and a woman" So two responses pop in to my head, pick your favourite. a) This is a matter of semantics. Gay couples should be entitled to the same legal rights as straight couples, this is a right that I don't think anyone can dispute without going all bible-y on me. Just because you don't agree with it, doesn't make it illegal. I'm sure in deepest darkest Texas there are plenty of people who think a black man and a white woman getting married should be illegal. Hell, my grandad would be furious if I brought home a black woman. That doesn't mean it should be illegal. So the point, then, is that yes, gay people should have the right to get "married." This shouldn't be in a church or any other institution, religious or not, that frowns on homosexuality, because that would infringe on *their* rights to believe what they want. A more interesting topic, why is marriage defined as between a man and a woman? Marriage is a man made concept, it's not something found in nature. So we have defined it to be what we want. On a strictly biological level, it's doesn't help procreation, it is - again, leaving the religious side of things out - an opportunity for two people to get up in front of their friends and tell everyone how much they love each other. They get presents, uncles get drunk, then they have the same legal rights discussed previously. So, the point is "we can't redefine marriage?" Sorry, but that's been happening for centuries. Henry VIII (british king, just in case) decided he didn't like his wife, so he invented a new religion and a new church, and then the concept of divorce, just so he could be free of her! How long ago was it illegal to marry someone of a different race? These things are now thought of as basic rights - I love someone, I can marry her, regardless of race. Now people just want to add 'regardless of gender' I think we're probably butting heads in eternal futility here, I doubt I'll convince either of you that my side is right and you're not going to convince me, so we should probably wrap this up at some point, yes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted July 12, 2013 Report Share Posted July 12, 2013 Don't sorry Chris, some people agree with you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted July 12, 2013 Report Share Posted July 12, 2013 Don't sorry Chris, some people agree with you I know a lot do, and I know a lot don't. That's what makes these discussions interesting. I always like to hear from people with opposing views to see why they think like that, because it's always possible I have the wrong view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted July 12, 2013 Report Share Posted July 12, 2013 I think that's about right. somebody overstepped their authority and the school apologized. I don't think anyone needs to be taken to the guillotine for this.I do wonder what the reaction would be had it been a Black Muslim or something else but that doesn't matter because it wasn't. Faux outrage? Probably. Not sure if the left has filed for a trademark on that but... WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted July 12, 2013 Report Share Posted July 12, 2013 Faux outrage? Probably. Not sure if the left has filed for a trademark on that but... LOLOLOLOL!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted July 12, 2013 Report Share Posted July 12, 2013 I didn't say America. I said Christianity. Look back to things like the crusades, killing the templars that then helped protect the holy land, forcing Galileo to renounce his claim that the earth goes round the sun because it went against the bible, burning "witches" at the stake because of their unholy understanding of science/nature. I'm not going to cite every single case because there just isn't time. But the point remains, Christianity, whilst it has done a lot of good in a lot of ways, has also been a very oppressive religion. ************************ Yes, you didn't say America - but that is my response to your post - Christianity isn't under attack because back in ancient history, there were Crusades, and Salem witch trials........ is lost on me. Today, in our country, as well as Egypt now, Christians are under harrassment/attack. It's like saying the New Testament is bad because a lot of laws that can't be followed were in the Old. Kids have been in trouble for praying by themselves before lunch, kids can't have a Bible study on school property, can't do a Christian play, can't wear a Christian t-shirt..... **************************************************************************** So two responses pop in to my head, pick your favourite. a) This is a matter of semantics. Gay couples should be entitled to the same legal rights as straight couples, this is a right that I don't think anyone can dispute without going all bible-y on me. Just because you don't agree with it, doesn't make it illegal. I'm sure in deepest darkest Texas there are plenty of people who think a black man and a white woman getting married should be illegal. Hell, my grandad would be furious if I brought home a black woman. That doesn't mean it should be illegal. So the point, then, is that yes, gay people should have the right to get "married." This shouldn't be in a church or any other institution, religious or not, that frowns on homosexuality, because that would infringe on *their* rights to believe what they want. ********************************************** man-woman marriage exclusiveness historically hardly is the same deal as black male and female marriage. bigotry. That's racial. Man-woman marriage has been the definition of marriage since....the beginning of marriage historically? Any incidence of gay "marriage" historically? I don't believe so. Society has a right to establish rules to protect it's own existence. We disagree. I figure your opinions are dumb, and my opinions are full of crap. GGG I enjoy the logic, and lack thereof, of discussions where people have different opinions, and explain why. ******************************************* A more interesting topic, why is marriage defined as between a man and a woman? Marriage is a man made concept, it's not something found in nature. So we have defined it to be what we want. On a strictly biological level, it's doesn't help procreation, it is - again, leaving the religious side of things out - an opportunity for two people to get up in front of their friends and tell everyone how much they love each other. They get presents, uncles get drunk, then they have the same legal rights discussed previously. So, the point is "we can't redefine marriage?" Sorry, but that's been happening for centuries. Henry VIII (british king, just in case) decided he didn't like his wife, so he invented a new religion and a new church, and then the concept of divorce, just so he could be free of her! How long ago was it illegal to marry someone of a different race? These things are now thought of as basic rights - I love someone, I can marry her, regardless of race. Now people just want to add 'regardless of gender' ********************************************************* Man-woman pairings occured since the beginning - Adam and Eve, or prehistoric neanderthals depending on your beliefs.. And mammals and reptiles. It's a natural fact biologically. I'll explain it this way: opposites attract. Positive end of a magnet attracts the negative end of another magnet. So there ya go. Opposites attract. With magnets, that's an absolute. With human beings, we aren't dealing with absolutes here. But, to the 1-3 ? percent of gay people, their existence is an anomaly, plain and simple. Anomaly. Abnormal. Aberration. The "tiny" minority has rights. But the majority does, too. This tiny minority wants to usurp the rights of the rest of the entire society by changing the definition of marriage. Magnets. Opposites attract. Even with human beings, anything else is perverse. The same logic that some people use to justify gay "marriage", can also work to justify marriage between a human being and a tree or bridge or camel. It's all about where people draw the line between normal and abnormal. The inference that gay couples can't have a party and reception etc after declaring their civil union is bogus. Many people understand that very, very, very weird doesn't mean normal. Nothing is perverse? Accepting anything is society is the new age "enlightenment" ??? I think not. I'm never going to think so. **************************************************** I think we're probably butting heads in eternal futility here, I doubt I'll convince either of you that my side is right and you're not going to convince me, so we should probably wrap this up at some point, yes? *************************************** Certainly. This subject annoys me when I get into the discussions, my opinions can be full of crap - even intentionally sometimes...@@. Besides, I am way too stodgy to not see things the way I see them. It's ingrained in me to be contrary... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted July 12, 2013 Report Share Posted July 12, 2013 Magnets? Well I'm convinced. Please tell me how Christianity is under attack in the USA? We'll see if you get the difference between "under attack" and stuff that's just common sense changing of the times Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted July 12, 2013 Report Share Posted July 12, 2013 I didn't say America. I said Christianity. Look back to things like the crusades, killing the templars that then helped protect the holy land, forcing Galileo to renounce his claim that the earth goes round the sun because it went against the bible, burning "witches" at the stake because of their unholy understanding of science/nature. I'm not going to cite every single case because there just isn't time. But the point remains, Christianity, whilst it has done a lot of good in a lot of ways, has also been a very oppressive religion. ************************ Yes, you didn't say America - but that is my response to your post - Christianity isn't under attack because back in ancient history, there were Crusades, and Salem witch trials........ is lost on me. Today, in our country, as well as Egypt now, Christians are under harrassment/attack. It's like saying the New Testament is bad because a lot of laws that can't be followed were in the Old. I never said it was - I said that there is no small amount of irony that, having attacked various other religions, ways of life etc that fell outside the belief system of Christianity, now that Christians are under attack they're claiming grand persecution. I wasn't denying that there were instances where Christianity is under attack. Kids have been in trouble for praying by themselves before lunch, kids can't have a Bible study on school property, can't do a Christian play, can't wear a Christian t-shirt..... And I certainly agree with you that that's a bad thing, people should have the freedom to believe what they want and pray when they want. **************************************************************************** So two responses pop in to my head, pick your favourite. a) This is a matter of semantics. Gay couples should be entitled to the same legal rights as straight couples, this is a right that I don't think anyone can dispute without going all bible-y on me. Just because you don't agree with it, doesn't make it illegal. I'm sure in deepest darkest Texas there are plenty of people who think a black man and a white woman getting married should be illegal. Hell, my grandad would be furious if I brought home a black woman. That doesn't mean it should be illegal. So the point, then, is that yes, gay people should have the right to get "married." This shouldn't be in a church or any other institution, religious or not, that frowns on homosexuality, because that would infringe on *their* rights to believe what they want. ********************************************** man-woman marriage exclusiveness historically hardly is the same deal as black male and female marriage. bigotry. That's racial. Man-woman marriage has been the definition of marriage since....the beginning of marriage historically? Any incidence of gay "marriage" historically? I don't believe so. Well, you're wrong. Hate to be so blunt about it, but you are. A same-sex union was known in Ancient Greece and Rome,[2] ancient Mesopotamia,[3] in some regions of China, such as Fujian province, and at certain times in ancient European history.[4] These same-sex unions continued until Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire. A law in the Theodosian Code (C. Th. 9.7.3) was issued in 342 AD by the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans, which prohibited same-sex marriage in ancient Rome and ordered that those who were so married were to be executed. [5] Wiki again, but it's all well cited. I added the end part in there in response to your first point that Christianity hasn't been persecuting people. Society has a right to establish rules to protect it's own existence. We disagree. I figure your opinions are dumb, and my opinions are full of crap. GGG I enjoy the logic, and lack thereof, of discussions where people have different opinions, and explain why. Society will make the rules it wants to govern its way of life. It just happens that a large proportion of modern society thinks that gay marriage is an OK thing. And so, as that proportion grows and becomes a majority, the rules will change to make it so, legally. ******************************************* A more interesting topic, why is marriage defined as between a man and a woman? Marriage is a man made concept, it's not something found in nature. So we have defined it to be what we want. On a strictly biological level, it's doesn't help procreation, it is - again, leaving the religious side of things out - an opportunity for two people to get up in front of their friends and tell everyone how much they love each other. They get presents, uncles get drunk, then they have the same legal rights discussed previously. So, the point is "we can't redefine marriage?" Sorry, but that's been happening for centuries. Henry VIII (british king, just in case) decided he didn't like his wife, so he invented a new religion and a new church, and then the concept of divorce, just so he could be free of her! How long ago was it illegal to marry someone of a different race? These things are now thought of as basic rights - I love someone, I can marry her, regardless of race. Now people just want to add 'regardless of gender' ********************************************************* Man-woman pairings occured since the beginning - Adam and Eve, or prehistoric neanderthals depending on your beliefs.. And mammals and reptiles. It's a natural fact biologically. Well, no, I disagree, and so does science: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals Specifically: " A new review made in 2009 of existing research showed that same-sex behavior is a nearly universal phenomenon in the animal kingdom, common across species" (and before anyone jumps on the "Wikipedia is a terrible source" argument, it's all cited, if you want the underlying source just click on the link, Wikipedia just summarises). I'll explain it this way: opposites attract. Positive end of a magnet attracts the negative end of another magnet. So there ya go. Opposites attract. With magnets, that's an absolute. For now, but if and when someone finds the hypothesised monopole particles that might change. But ok, I'm just being a picky arse at this point With human beings, we aren't dealing with absolutes here. But, to the 1-3 ? percent of gay people, their existence is an anomaly, plain and simple. Anomaly. Abnormal. Aberration. The "tiny" minority has rights. But the majority does, too. This tiny minority wants to usurp the rights of the rest of the entire society by changing the definition of marriage. Magnets. Opposites attract. Even with human beings, anything else is perverse. The same logic that some people use to justify gay "marriage", can also work to justify marriage between a human being and a tree or bridge or camel. It's all about where people draw the line between normal and abnormal. I'd say it's abnormal to think that a non-sentient object like a tree is capable being in a loving committed relationship. I do agree, though, that it's not an evolutionary trait that is conducive to the propagation of the species, so you can argue it's not 'natural.' The inference that gay couples can't have a party and reception etc after declaring their civil union is bogus. Many people understand that very, very, very weird doesn't mean normal. Nothing is perverse? Accepting anything is society is the new age "enlightenment" ??? I think not. I'm never going to think so. **************************************************** I think we're probably butting heads in eternal futility here, I doubt I'll convince either of you that my side is right and you're not going to convince me, so we should probably wrap this up at some point, yes? *************************************** Certainly. This subject annoys me when I get into the discussions, my opinions can be full of crap - even intentionally sometimes...@@. Besides, I am way too stodgy to not see things the way I see them. I'm still fairly young, so my views on life are certainly subject to change, but I'd say what I consider to be a 'right' - such as being able to love the person you love, in this instance - is not something that's likely to change either. It's ingrained in me to be contrary... I love playing devil's advocate too, it's just fun. When people start going off on a rant about something or other, I like poking holes, whether I support them or not - I don't want to 'win' a debate on a faulty argument! It's been fun, cal. Hopefully we don't get people on here name calling, because I genuinely enjoy this kind of debate, even/especially when there's no chance of either of us changing our stances! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted July 13, 2013 Report Share Posted July 13, 2013 Cool ! You should know, that I am much older, and as such, am entitled to be stodgy and creative in my arguments. Seriously, who else anywhere would use magnetism as an argument winner about this subject? GGG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted July 13, 2013 Report Share Posted July 13, 2013 "Argument winner" Lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted July 13, 2013 Report Share Posted July 13, 2013 Yes, Woody. I made a joke on myself, and you laughed. Thanks for the compliment... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.