Topic awaiting preservation: Distraught Democrat Commits Suicide at Ground Zero (Page 2 of 2)

^and what he said...*stupid me...why didnt I think of it*

exelent point Dan.. =)

DmS: Since marriage is an union of love between 2 persons, I don't see how even the Church could refuse any couple, same sex or not, to promise love and support whatever happens.

poi, I think the major reason why church doesnt support gay marriage is becasue in old testament there seems to be strong prejudice towards homosexuals, as it is told in story of Sodom

here is a link that supposedly verifies that story of sodom has nothing to do with gays or lesbians, but rather rape.

random link




added:


http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_aog.htm

here is more issues concerning why christians dislike homosexuals.

btw..i don't remember where, but I definately remember passage where there was saying something like "If man is found sleeping with man, they shall surelly be put to death"

(Edited by Ruski on 11-11-2004 20:03)

quote:

---

Ruski said:

...so many "next generation" citizens are raised by single parents, or barely any parental involvement. Kids are raised in slums, ghettos, hilly billy redneck farms etc. I don't see how will that differ at all, whenever you allow or not gay people to marry

---

You're right, those are two separate issues. I don't see how same sex marriage affects the multitudes of problems we have with marriage as it is now. Children being raised in loving families consisting of a father and a mother is the ideal. The government has an interest in fostering the ideal. If it didn't involve the raising of the children the government would have no serious need to be involved.

DmS, the question that needs to be answered is at what point should the government interfere with the personal relationships of consenting adults. Does that help in understanding more of where I'm coming from on this issue?

quote:

---

poi said:

Since marriage is an union of love between 2 persons, I don't see how even the Church could refuse any couple, same sex or not, to promise love and support whatever happens.

---

When has that been the definition of marriage? We're talking about redefining marriage when we include same sex unions. What the church says about it is the church's business, I'm concerned with what the government is going to say about it.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

(Edited by Bugimus on 11-11-2004 20:27)

oops, wrong thread
[edit2] Ruski, you're following me, don't you [/edit2]

(Edited by poi on 11-11-2004 20:53)

(Edited by poi on 11-11-2004 21:17)

fuck...err ^what he said..nevermind

(Edited by Ruski on 11-11-2004 21:12)

quote:

---

Bugimus said:

DmS, the question that needs to be answered is at what point should the government interfere with the personal relationships of consenting adults. Does that help in understanding more of where I'm coming from on this issue?

---

Umm. Never? Personal relationships are just that: Personal. They don't have to do with you, anyone else besides the partner(s), or the government. Or at least they really shouldn't. I don't know anyone who could possibly tolerate anyone else telling them what they can and can't do in their personal relationships (assuming consent from all parties).

-Xel

Bugs, I have to say, DmS has made an excellent post. I would very much like to see you expand on this

quote:

---

Yes, that means that I don't think people should expect to get marriage certificates from the government who aren't going to be raising families.

---

I don't remember anything about having children or raising a family in the vows I took. In fact, I don't remember the government in any way, shape, or form requiring anything of the sort. My vows were strictly between me and the person I was marrying. I think there may be some religious weddings that do, but I am not that familiar with them. Are the Jewish vows so? Don't they mention Prosper in them?

Other than the government officially as a witness recognizing my union, I most certainly don't want them intruding any further into what I feel is a very private area.

quote:

---

Are you serious, or am I misreading this?

What I see reading this part is that you should not be allowed to marry unless you intend to start a family, ie. producing children. I'm not sure if you imply that this only goes for relationships that cannot produce children because the parties are same sex or if it covers "normal" people who cannot have children on account of a physical defect or similar.

---

I would like you to answer to this, Bugs. I don't see how the government will seperate the two without being prejudiced. After all, adoption IS a legitamate way of raising a family. In fact, I do think that it is one of the ways suggested by Anti-Abortionists. Or would you then refuse to let same-sex partnerships adopt?

Is that the key? Not letting them adopt, so then they can't raise a family, therefore, they shouldn't be allowed to marry? What about Lesbian couples that let themselves be impregnated? In other words, then, only male-male couples would be out of luck?

That doesn't seem to make a lot of sense, to me.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

Other than the government officially as a witness recognizing my union, I most certainly don't want them intruding any further into what I feel is a very private area.

---

Why do you need the government to officially recognize your marriage, WS? I don't want them intruding into this area unless they have a very good reason for doing so. I don't know how else to expand on what I've already said above about why I think the government has a legitimate reason for regulating how children are raised.

DmS and WS, I am talking about a mother and a father raising children as a family. If a couple wants to live together for their own love and support, that's great. But if they do not intend to raise children, then I simply don't see why the government should be involved. I don't know how much more clearly I can state it.

Also, most certainly adopting children is a perfectly legitimate way of raising a family.

So then the issue shifts to whether arrangements other than a mother and a father wanting to raise children should be recognized by the state. In my view, all things being equal, it is better for children to be raised by a mother and a father in a stable loving family. If that condition does not exist, then a loving mother-mother, father-father, single mother, single father, polygamous, etc. family should be allowed.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

quote:

---

Why do you need the government to officially recognize your marriage, WS?

---

So that it is legally recognized, and legally binding. This has a lot to do with property rights, etc, in the case that I should die, or my spouse, etc. If one is legally married (recognized by the government), then there are certain laws that govern such. Without such, the laws are much more vague, to non-existant.

Civil union legislation could cover those types of issues and we wouldn't have to redefine marriage thereby creating a win-win situation.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

and here comes the fear of gays/lesbians...

you do seem to have some sort of fear for letting two loving ladies to raise a child...dont you?

Or let's say...men?

Bugimus:

quote:

---

Children being raised in loving families consisting of a father and a mother is the ideal. The government has an interest in fostering the ideal. If it didn't involve the raising of the children the government would have no serious need to be involved.

---

Being a family man for 15 years and a father of three I really must disagree with that...
The first half of the first sentence is absolutely 110% correct!
For a child to be raised in a situation where he always, no matter what he does, knows he is loved, forgiven and welcomed is the most important thing that exists to a child. Period.

If this situation consists of one or 2 biological parents or is based on an adoptation or whatever doesn't really matter. Fact is that a couple that by any reason cannot produce offspring of their own that adopt or similar would probably be better suited to produce a loving enviroment than a family started "because it just happend".

quote:

---

I am talking about a mother and a father raising children as a family. If a couple wants to live together for their own love and support, that's great. But if they do not intend to raise children, then I simply don't see why the government should be involved. I don't know how much more clearly I can state it.

---

Here we go again... But if they do not intend to raise children... Well, what if they do intend to raise children but happen to be same sex, can't they marry? What I'm feeling here is that the problem isn't really about marriage or not, it's the norm set in society today over what we generally should accept or not.

One big part of this is the fact that if we only "allow" children to grow up in biological families that fit into the norm, we are actually reinforcing the lack of tolerance for other peoples preferences.
Granted, there has to be limits. These limits should imho be set on the basis on not hurting or forcing other people. I don't see that problem with same sex marriage, after all gay people aren't diseased and they can't "spread it", nor are they "sex maniacs". It's just two people that love each other and generally wants to share everything, just as any other couples.

Gay or not, that just happens to some people, I'm 100% sure that it's not a result of being "exposed" to gay people while growing up...
(please note that I never said that any of you did say that, it's simply something that is a common argument in debates like this.).

Next, "Kids will get hurt and teased if they have 2 dads, or 2 mums..."
Well, yes, in some cases, but that's because we, as parents give them the perspective that this is odd, unusual and generally not really ok. We teach them that.

Let's just face it, gay people has been around forever and they will not go away. If we as adults openly and officially give equal rights and standing to ALL types of persons in our society this will stop being a problem to most people and it will help our children to grow up as tolerant human beings.

That can't be all bad, can it?

Oh, almost forgot.
Marriage is to most people a very strong symbol of a union between two people, in fact a lot stronger than a legally equal partnership, so no, I cannot see it as a "win-win" situation where some people are allowed both the symbolic value of marriage and the legal benefits and others just get the legal benefits.
/Dan

{cell 260} {Blog}
-{ ?Computer games don?t affect kids; I mean if Pac-Man affected us as kids, we?d all be running around in darkened rooms, munching magic pills and listening to repetitive electronic music.? (Kristian Wilson, Nintendo, Inc, 1989.) }-

(Edited by DmS on 11-12-2004 10:08)

quote:

---

Civil union legislation could cover those types of issues and we wouldn't have to redefine marriage thereby creating a win-win situation.

---

Re-define marriage? I don't see marriage being redefined. I see it being opened.

If you want your view of marriage, I'm sure we can keep the original marriage how it is, allowing everyone to legally bind themselves to others in Marraige, and your Church can "sanction" your type of Marriages however they want.

I feel THAT is the best solution. You get to keep yours, others get to keep theirs, and those wanting to marry may, and have it be legally recognized.

Nobody gets ANYTHING forced upon them, and all partys retain what they want.

Bugimus:

quote:

---

When has that been the definition of marriage? We're talking about redefining marriage when we include same sex unions. What the church says about it is the church's business, I'm concerned with what the government is going to say about it.

---

Actually this is the definition of marriage for the government. Ok, I certainly went too fast to apply that to religious standards. Let's consider it as another thing I'll never understand with religious views.

quote:

---

Why do you need the government to officially recognize your marriage, WS? I don't want them intruding into this area unless they have a very good reason for doing so. I don't know how else to expand on what I've already said above about why I think the government has a legitimate reason for regulating how children are raised.

---

WebShaman's answer apply 100% for same sex unions.

Reading you questions about the reasons to legally recognize an heterosexual marriage makes me wonder even more why you're against same-sex marriage. Gays and lesbians just want the same rights and duties. It would be completely dumb to create a civil union that is EXACTLY like marriage at the only exception that it specify that the difference of sex of the 2 persons is not a requirement. What a waste of time. What an open minded solution.

quote:

---

DmS said:

If this situation consists of one or 2 biological parents or is based on an adoptation or whatever doesn't really matter.

---

DmS, it would seem we agree that a two parent loving famliy is best suited to raising children. We disagree about whether a two parent loving family consisting of a father and a mother is even better suited. I think it does matter. All things being equal, the best family consists of one man and one woman for the purposes of raising a child. That is the reason why the government should encourage and foster that family arrangement for society and hold it up as the ideal. I am not saying that is the only way to raise a child, that should be obvious.

I can assure you that my motivations for this position has nothing to do with a fear of gays and lesbians. I'm sure there are many who are motivated by that, however. I am only speaking for myself as usual. I am looking at this issue objectively and applying what I view as best for society. On a personal level, I tend to agree more with the rest of you on this. On an intellectual level, I simply cannot agree there is equality in any and all family arrangements.

If same sex marriage is approved does it mean that society will disintegrate overnight? The idea is absurd. There are so few gays and lesbians compared to the rest of the population that just isn't the issue. In fact, there are so many problems in the heterosexual world of families that are far more problematic. The government should be far more concerned about the deterioration of the family unit that already exists. Opening the definition of marriage would just add one more problem to the mix.

I know for a fact there are many very capable and loving gay couples who raise kids. I know for a fact that many of those families do a very good job compared to all the terrible heterosexual families out there. But that is not the point, is it? I hope this will become clearer about my position, the government should hold up an ideal family model to society and foster it by giving that arrangement preference. It should *not* prohibit all other family arrangements. Notice I am not referring to gays only in that last statement. Gays are not the only one asking for an opening of the definition of marriage.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

If you want your view of marriage, I'm sure we can keep the original marriage how it is, allowing everyone to legally bind themselves to others in Marraige, and your Church can "sanction" your type of Marriages however they want. I feel THAT is the best solution. You get to keep yours, others get to keep theirs, and those wanting to marry may, and have it be legally recognized.

---

Again, how this turns out does not change my marriage. It does not threaten my marriage. It has nothing to do with my marriage. If the state decided not to recognize my marriage, I would be relieved of one more government intrusion on my life.

If this was purely a question of personal choice on an individual level, then there would be no reason for all the fuss. Everyone would just do what they wanted. In fact, that is what I'm proposing. You are the ones who are saying the government needs to be *more* involved in our personal lives. As long as the government doesn't block inheritance, visiting rights, etc. for families then I would prefer to keep government intrusion at a minimum.

quote:

---

poi said:

Gays and lesbians just want the same rights and duties.

---

I understand your position. For you this is simply a question about equal rights. In all other areas of our society where it involves only each of us on an individual basis, I agree. None of us require government approval to marry. As stated by WS, I can still marry in my church but so can everyone else. That is the way it should be. We do what we want according to our own individual beliefs and the government should stay the hell out of it unless it has a good reason to intervene.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Bugs,
First, let me apologize. I somehow missed your response to me WAAAY back there. I'm a little slow in my old age, I guess.

I understand your position on gay marriage/union/civil rights/etc. very clearly. At least I think I do. We've had several comprehensive discussions on the issue.
I also understand that, among the right - especially the so-called "religious right" - you are an exception. You're a heathen, with barely a right to call yourself Christian, in the eyes of the "norm" of that wing of the conservative movement in the US today.
You are the anecdote.

Where I live, on the metaphorical buckle of the Bible belt, being openly gay can (and often does) result in the loss of employment and housing. I'm not talking about some wacko hillbillies. I live in an urban area, which happens to be right in the middle of the "red states" - the religious-right's base.
In some of the suburbs here around the city, we had prosecuters, sheriffs, councilmen and women and state senators and representatives running on platforms (and many were elected on platforms) that included such things as:
"Cracking down on sodomites"
"Stopping the gay agenda"
"Enforcing the state's sodomy laws"
"Keeping gays out of our schools"
etc.
In one local 4th of July parade, a GLBT group signed up to be in the parade. They were accepted, by the parade's organizers, to march with everyone else. A group of cops at the parade, right in the middle of the parade, stopped the parade and arrested most of the members of the group. They were held for 24 hours and let go, without charge. Why? Because they could.
Where I live, this "civil union" thing of which you speak, is the far left.



On the issue of abortion, I do "know it's more complicated than that".

Still, I disagree that it is a "human rights vs woman's right" thing. There are people, significant numbers of people, who think that a fetus is not human. There is no ultimate, undeniable definition of "human". The Jewish faith (again, speaking in generalities) says that a human doesn't exist until the first breath. Even simple nervous system functions don't occur until sometime around 20 weeks. The fetus can not sustain itself (with medical help or otherwise) outside of the womb until at least that point (and probably much later). Some Christians point to conception as the beginning of life. Some point before that and say that sperm and eggs are potential life, thus have the same rights - human rights.

This is a huge conversation, but ultimately the issue comes down to religious/philosophical doctrine. Christians (or Muslims or whomever) can not prove when a life begins any more or less than anyone else can. To then claim an exclusive right to do so is arrogant and irresponsible.
It is a personal issue; between a woman and her god (if she has one).



I mentioned the church on Sunday thing in response to Ramasax's assertion.

quote:

---

We on what you call exteme-right are supposed to have toleration of everything the left pushes at us, socialist economics, gay marriage, partial-birth abortion, humanistic values, the list goes on and on.

---

I wished to address the social issues, which, in order, were "gay marriage", "...abortion", and "humanistic values".
Going to church on Sundays was the only thing I could think of at the moment to address "humanistic values". Perhaps it wasn't the best example.

In retrospect, I could have addressed the teaching of evolution, gravity, thermodynamics, and other scientific theories in public schools. Or maybe I could have written about forcing Jewish students to pray to Jesus. Or...
There were a hundred things I could have chosen. I chose poorly.



My thesis, however, remains - that is, (with regard to social issues) there is not a double standard on the left.
The left, by and large, are happy to let you marry whomever you want, have as many children as you can support, teach them to pray before their tests, in whatever school you'd like.
The left only has a problem when you try to force your beliefs on me and mine.
(Of course, by "you" I don't specifically mean Bugimus, but anybody. And by "me", I don't specifically mean "mobrul", but anybody.)

(Edited by mobrul on 11-12-2004 19:27)

Bugs mobrul has exelent point...

when are humans will be able to live as humans? not man or woman, not black or white, not gay or straight, but humans?

A man himslef has invented an image of woman and woman follows so...this has been going to through history...man made up himself a religious system which dictates what woman is and what she does and what she should do and shouldnt do.
Same concept applies for view on homosexuals, view on marriege, and any other different people and things.

When are people going to be viewed equaly? I mean, during 1960s black people were still linched in USA. In 50s they still were not allowed to use same bathrooms, sit in the same public chair...all becasue of the color of their skin.
We have similar problem going on with homosexuals nowdays...11 states banned gay marriege, you can still get fired becasue of your sexual preference, governmet should keep them from raising children... blah blah blah neverending religious fear. as if society should live according to majorities religious believes, because it's "normal" or "righteous" in the 'eyes of magical being"
(remeber bugs, I am not talking about you here, just pointing out general view of prejudial homophobe. )

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

There are now Americans, prominent Americans, who are LEAVING the US! Robert Redfork, Jennifer Aninison and Brad Pitt, and others are leaving the States. Many are going to Canada.

---

I just received this via email and it confirms this disturbing trend.

quote:

---

Illegal Immigrants in Canada

The flood of American liberals sneaking across the border into Canada has
intensified in the past week, sparking calls for increased patrols to stop
the illegal immigration.

The re-election of President Bush is prompting the exodus among leftleaning
citizens who fear they?ll soon be required to hunt, pray and agree with Bill
O?Reilly.

Canadian border farmers say it?s not uncommon to see dozens of sociology
professors, animalrights activists and Unitarians crossing their fields at
night.

??I went out to milk the cows the other day, and there was a Hollywood
producer huddled in the barn," said Manitoba farmer Red Greenfield, whose
acreage borders North Dakota.

The producer was cold, exhausted and hungry.

??He asked me if I could spare a latte and some free-range chicken. When I
said I didn?t have any, he left. Didn?t even get a chance to show him my
screenplay, eh?"

In an effort to stop the illegal aliens, Greenfield erected higher fences,
but the liberals scaled them. So he tried installing speakers that blare
Rush Limbaugh across the fields.

??Not real effective," he said. ??The liberals still got through, and Rush
annoyed the cows so much they wouldn?t give milk."

Officials are particularly concerned about smugglers who meet liberals near
the Canadian border, pack them into Volvo station wagons, drive them across
the border and leave them to fend for themselves.

??A lot of these people are not prepared for rugged conditions," an Ontario
border patrolman said. ??I found one carload without a drop of drinking
water. They did have a nice little Napa Valley cabernet, though."

When liberals are caught, they?re sent back across the border, often wailing
loudly that they fear retribution from conservatives. Rumors have been
circulating about the Bush administration establishing re-education camps in
which liberals will be forced to drink domestic beer and watch NASCAR.

In the days since the election, liberals have turned to sometimesingenious
ways of crossing the border.

Some have taken to posing as senior citizens on bus trips to buy cheap
Canadian prescription drugs. After catching a half-dozen young vegans
disguised in powdered wigs, Canadian immigration authorities began stopping
buses and quizzing the supposed senior-citizen passengers.

??If they can?t identify the accordion player on The Lawrence Welk Show, we
get suspicious about their age," an official said.

Canadian citizens have complained that the illegal immigrants are creating
an organic-broccoli shortage and renting all the good Susan Sarandon movies.

??I feel sorry for American liberals, but the Canadian economy just can?t
support them," an Ottawa resident said. ??How many art-history majors does
one country need?"

In an effort to ease tensions between the United States and Canada, Vice
President Dick Cheney met with the Canadian ambassador and pledged that the
administration would take steps to reassure liberals, a source close to
Cheney said.

??We?re going to have some Peter, Paul & Mary concerts. And we might put
some endangered species on postage stamps. The president is determined to
reach out."

Joe Blundo is a Dispatch columnist

---

I have no idea the source, I thought it was pretty funny though.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

^^
Heh.

The source.. http://www.dispatch.com/default.php?story=dispatch/columnists/columnists-main.php#blundo

For my part, I think this guy's got it about right:

quote:

---

Something to keep in mind, post presidential election, is that in the long run conservatives always lose. If this statement were not true, we would still be living in caves. We wouldn't have cell phones, vaccines, and rockets. Conservatives will never go to the stars. They are too busy trying to hold society back.

Every new idea that is introduced is liberal at first. The idea that the Earth is round and revolves around the Sun was denounced by conservative leaders at the time. Fact-based evolution is currently being denounced and taken out of some school curriculums, to be replaced, or taught side-by-side, with faith-based creationism. Faith has it's place for some people in society, but it didn't get us to the moon and beyond.

-- Roger Nygard

---

Here ya go Bugs, Lesbian couples raise well-adjusted teenagers

quote:

---

I can assure you that my motivations for this position has nothing to do with a fear of gays and lesbians. I'm sure there are many who are motivated by that, however. I am only speaking for myself as usual. I am looking at this issue objectively and applying what I view as best for society. On a personal level, I tend to agree more with the rest of you on this. On an intellectual level, I simply cannot agree there is equality in any and all family arrangements.

---

Irregardless of the best of intentions, Bugs, a law cannot be based on what you have just said. The constitution says that we are all created equal and deserve to be treated so. Since marriage is a legal institution, it must be open to all.

quote:

---

If this was purely a question of personal choice on an individual level, then there would be no reason for all the fuss. Everyone would just do what they wanted. In fact, that is what I'm proposing. You are the ones who are saying the government needs to be *more* involved in our personal lives. As long as the government doesn't block inheritance, visiting rights, etc. for families then I would prefer to keep government intrusion at a minimum.

---

This is simply not true! That is not what I am saying! The institution of marriage is a legal institution, Bugs! No-one here made it that way. Since that is so, it should include all people, not just heterosexuals. I see no-one here saying that the government should become "more" involved. I see the opposite - that more are saying, that the government should become less involved, by opening the legal aspect of marriage to homosexuals, as well!

Whoa! Who hijacked the thread?

I cant possibly read all that's above... personal obsessions are diluting my attention span right now.

Can someone do a rough sketch of what went zig or zag here?

______________
Is This Thing On?

Webbing; the stuff that sticks to your face.

*breaks out blue crayons*

Is it alright if I do it with mah feeties?

aha! Blue crayon, you say?

So you're the one responsible for the grafiti http://www.ozoneasylum.com/5067

______________
Is This Thing On?

Webbing; the stuff that sticks to your face.

"Hey look! There is a lever! I think I'll pull it!"

*Whoooosh!*

*WebShaman waves good-bye to Unknowncomic*

*UC smiles as lever snaps back and pokes WS's eye out..then he takes out his remote control and hits a series of buttons and a large hole opens in the ceiling and a huge net wisks UC out of the air and brings him safely to the ground*

______________
Is This Thing On?

Webbing; the stuff that sticks to your face.

*WebShaman camly puts the eye back in, and observes UC disappearing into the distance*

"Should have warned him about that Automatic Net Retrieval System!...Oh well. The Tentacle porn was getting lonely, anyway...hehe."