Topic awaiting preservation: Yes to gay marriage. (Page 3 of 3)

quote:

---

You missed it again.

People with power take privileges. They can give nothing.

---

Nope, you missed it.

People with nothing can only give you what they have. Nothing.

Jestah, think of it this way - if you are alone, then you have basically everything that you yourself allow yourself, correct? Which is about everything.

Now add someone with "power" (in other words, someone who can exert their will over yours).

How can they give you more?

They cannot, with the exception that they give themselves to you.

They can only take, and then give what they take, back.

I would also be interested in finding someone who has nothing to give.

Dan @ Code Town

quote:

---

Paul wrote that homosexuality is neither a sickness nor does it result from a moral choice, it is rather God's punishment given to those who fail to worship God properly. Read it carefully, Paul is saying that God will afflict people with homosexual desires if they fall into improper habits of worship.

---

Well Jade my dear with that little bit there you have moved to the top of my list of 'The most fucked up things I've heard from christians.'

Till now that top spot had been occupied by the mormons who at one time taught and believed, ... that, black people were really white people who had pissed off god so much... god made'em black and sent them off to live where it was hot as hell.

Nope...second thought... it's a tie. I'll have to tell the pope. He'll be pleased I'm sure.

Some etymological info here which will doubtless be ignored and/or deplored, by the determined bigot.

Read the whole thing, quite interesting and further reveals just how inaccurate a document is the bible and just how much license the dedicated http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/b/b0242400.html

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibc1.htm

Of course "religious" and "tolerance" have no business associating in the same sentence.

That Dr. whatsisname, the one who supports Dumbya, recently delared 'tolerance' a word not to be used by his flock of fools.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

You know what's beautiful about America? The fact that those who disagree with homosexuality have the right to do so and the right to openly express as much.

You know what's sickening? The same people who exercise those rights exploit them to deny others the same kind of freedom. And they're getting away with it.

I would say it's beautiful that those people are setting the precedent that will enable others to one day deny them their freedoms -- if it weren't so terribly sad.

Seems to me no one here who disagrees with homosexuality has adequately answered the question Ram previously posed, which, as far as I'm concerned, is the real issue. Should anyone be able to use the government to deny people who are not like them the freedom to live as they choose?

It doesn't matter what you think "causes" homosexuality. Not one bit. If you think it's a choice, fine -- it's someone else's choice and they should have the right to make that choice.

The marriage of my gay friend and his partner will not have even the smallest effect on my future marriage. If it has an effect on yours, it won't be my friend's fault -- the only source for a problem in your marriage will be you and some personal paranoia you'll project on him.

quote:

---

It doesn't matter what you think "causes" homosexuality. Not one bit. If you think it's a choice, fine -- it's someone else's choice and they should have the right to make that choice.

---

Exactly. Cause is irrelevent. Choice or genetics is irrelevent. Irellevent, irrelevent, irrelevent.

Jade, Gideon, Jestah, and anyone else here who is opposed to gay marriage and/or doesn't grasp the concept of liberty, I urge you to watch this simple flash animation.

The Philosophy of Liberty.

While not directly about the issue of gay marriage, it strikes at the crux of the matter. Watch it, sit back and think, and then answer the question.

If you are not answering the question because of unwillingness to admit you are wrong in a forum, ask yourself, what is pride? If it is simply because you cannot grasp this simple concept or do not accept it, then just say so.

One last time: Would you have the government act as a proxy on your behalf to initiate deprivation of liberty against a certain group of people?

Let's wrap this up and move on. Let's talk about CAFTA, the corporate takeover of America (when and how), manufacturing consent for war, redefinition of eminent domain, poverty in Africa and what is NOT being done to fight it, the degradation of our liberties, the history of government sponsored terrorism and how it relates to the current state of the world (Northwoods, Project Gladio), and all the other issues which quite simply trump the silly issue of gay marriage (i.e. DIVERSION).

Ramasax
www.AmericanSerf.us

quote:

---

Should anyone be able to use the government to deny people who are not like them the freedom to live as they choose?

---

No. And I'll take it one further. Not only should people not try to use the government this way, but the government, when put in this predicament, should not pass a law one way or the other. Let them set the inheritance laws that concern a marriage. But the government should stand up and say "hey folks, we cannot impede the freedom and free will of some and not others by defining who can get married and who cannot" instead of using it like they do to get votes.

A person can marry their cat and leave them their house for all I care. Because if thats what they are determined to do, they are going to do it no matter what I or anyone else thinks of it.

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

quote:

---

No. And I'll take it one further. Not only should people not try to use the government this way, but the government, when put in this predicament, should not pass a law one way or the other. Let them set the inheritance laws that concern a marriage. But the government should stand up and say "hey folks, we cannot impede the freedom and free will of some and not others by defining who can get married and who cannot" instead of using it like they do to get votes.

---

Well, this is how it was meant to be. We have a big problem and it stems from a number of causes.

The biggest one is this: our people have forgotten what type of government they have. If I have to scream one more time, "We are NOT a democracy, nor do we want to be one!" I swear my head will implode. I also want to kick the tv everytime some politician or talking head spouts democracy lines and how great it is.

We are a Constitutional Republic set up in a manner where the masses cannot vote away the rights of the minorities. Cannot take their life, liberty, or property.

In a democracy there is no such thing as a significant minority -- there are no minority rights except civil rights (privileges) granted by a condescending majority. Basically tyranny of the majority over the minority on the surface. Under the surface is quite different, because some flashy rhetoric from politicans can allow them to remake our government as they see fit, through manipulation, as we are now seeing. The end game of a democratic state is inevitable collapse after a prolonged period of opressive and overly large government, loose economic policy, rampant corruption, and what in many cases seems like endless war. Sound familiar?

Anyways, enough of my ranting. I didn't ask you to answer anyways!

Ramasax
www.AmericanSerf.us

quote:

---

We are NOT a democracy, nor do we want to be one

---

Well, I do agree that we really don't have a democracy going on. But I don't believe that we don't want one. Not to want one would be to say that nobody wants freedoms at all. I think. That's kind of confusing to me.

Anyway, I think the problem is that everybody wants the democracy to run "their" way. Which of course is not a democracy, because somebody is gonna get jipped out of something.

I think democracy is just like communism in that it is great in theory, but it just doesn't work the way it's supposed to when applied. Now if the leaders in Washington could show backbone and act like they really should for a democracy, it may stand a chance. But they are human too, and they are going to vote for things either:

A) the way they want things to be theirselves
or
B) the way they think they can get the most votes for themselves
or
C) the way they can gain power or finances for theirselves

Nobody ever "really" thinks about "everybody". Democracy rhymes with hypocrysy. Democracy only partially works in practice until you don't have enough physical room for a group to move off and practice their democracy how they want it. After that room is all used up, there's bound to be a mutiny ahead somewhere.

EDIT: on a second read through of your post Ram, I think we're on the same page and saying basically the same thing, you just say it politically and I say it philosophically. I think. I told you I was politically stupid

EDIT: Come to think of it, Communism didn't work because the government leaders became greedy and thought of themselves only. Is any and all types of government doomed to fail?? This is a sad thought. I'm going to try and forget I ever thunk it.

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

(Edited by Belladonna on 07-15-2005 06:47)

(Edited by Belladonna on 07-15-2005 07:24)

Yeah, we're on the same page, almost. We kinda do have a democracy going on, and that is part of the problem.

Democracy and Republic are often taken as the same thing, but there is a fundamental and contadicting difference. While in both cases the government is elected by the people, in Democracy the majority rules according to their whims (mobocracy, majoritarianism, think of a lynch mob; does the man at the end of the rope get a vote?), while in a Republic the government rules according to law. This law is framed in the Constitution/Bill of Rights and limits the power of Government ensuring the rights of individuals and personal sovereignty.

Here is a short article written by Rep. Ron Paul of Texas on the subject which might be helpful, if you're interested of course. Democracy is not Freedom.

Kinda off-topic, but it is important to note the differences here.

edit:

quote:

---

Come to think of it, Communism didn't work because the government leaders became greedy and thought of themselves only.

---

Right, as with many leaders in all forms of government.

quote:

---

Is any and all types of government doomed to fail??

---

Eventually, I suppose so.

I guess it is more of a fault of humanity, inherent greed, lust for power, and corruptability which causes all governments to fail, be they democratic, communist, monarchies, whatever. If men were angels...


Ramasax
www.AmericanSerf.us

(Edited by Ramasax on 07-15-2005 07:51)

OK, I think I see now.

So you are saying that we are supposed to be a Republic, but we are acting like Democracy because things are actually done by a majority instead of by our rights--or, in other words, that the laws that run our republic are being made by a majority vote instead of by considering our individual rights. And in some cases, laws are made by actually overruling our individual rights. (Like this new property thing that got passed)

I was under the impression that democracy and republic were the same thing. So when you said that we don't want to be a democracy, you didn't mean that we don't want freedoms, you mean that we don't want majority ruled over individual rights. That we want to be a republic.

Am I on the right track now, or am I still not getting it?

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

(Edited by Belladonna on 07-15-2005 08:31)

Now you're getting it.

Just to clarify, republics are not all necessarily the same, and vary by their charter law, or constitution. Our republic was specifically set up to protect individual rights above all else, in an ideal world of course. History shows us that even from the beginning we broke our own laws (slavery being a prime example)

But rather than simply start enforcing existing law as we realized our folly, new law was created (14th Amendment), and it has been downhill ever since, not getting better, but worse in terms of individual liberty.

So, to expound on this and drag further from the topic (I can't help myself) both our political parties are failing us. Democrats are defined as "advocates of democracy" and republicans, who are defined as "favoring a republic as the best form of government," simply do not live up to the ideals they profess to follow, with few exceptions. Either way, both parties are corporate controlled to a large extent and therefore neither party will ever produce a viable candidate in upholding what we once were.

Sad really.

Ramasax
www.AmericanSerf.us

I don't care that we're off topic, this is interesting

I just read through that article a few minutes ago, and it was really helpful in a lot of ways.

But there is just one problem. I have always considered myself a Democrat, but now, after reading that, I don't know what I am

I'm certainly not of either the democrat or republican party by the definitions given in that article.

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

More evidence of the all-inclusive xian love of their fellow man;
http://www.canada.com/vancouver/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=d06b2057-831b-4baf-b953-c578c962919c

Intersting points, they sent half a mill to Bush, who later criticised them...but kept the money. The spokesman says they are not interested in grandstanding...what do you call this?

Hypocrisy!

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

Exactly you are not either of those, and neither are most people.

These parties are very established, and they have loads of money that they use to advirtise.

Both parties are corrupt, and we need to get rid of them. We can do this through education. People need to know that these parties no longer support the ideas that they once did, that they are corrupt and that there are other alternatives.

There are many many different parties, many many different candidates, and lots of options. You need to know what you support and then find the party that fits with what you need. You can also choose not to follow along with any party and vote for the candidates you agree with.

The two party system is a broken one, we should not have this, not all Americans or ever close to most can hope to have their wishes fufilled by subscribing to the biggest thing going. It does not work that way.

It is also important to note that local politics are often glossed over, but can be much more important than you federal politics. You often can not get change at the federal level. They are pretty much all corrupted by the system they created. But the lower you go the less corrupt and more idealistic you will find things. If you want to affect change start in you community. This is a true grass roots movement. That is how you can start to take back control of your life, and your liberty.

Dan @ Code Town

Problem is...wth a multi-party system such as we 'enjoy', one winds up with a plethora of political parties...all of which want to get in on the corruption.

As well, the little pissant parties drain votes away from larger parties which may otherwise have an opportunity to elect a few members.

Effectively, this has the effect of keeping the two major parties alternatly in power.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

Warmage, the two party system is faulty, yes. I remember many people saying that they would vote for so-and-so in the last election simply because he was the "lesser of two evils." Who would want someone like that in office? If we were to have many parties, then we would have more oppertunity to choose a candidate because he is good, not just "least evil."

Unfortunately, when you have many parties, then you get people like Hitler in power. He had many adversaries in the elections, but none of them were elected because their votes were split. I think that if you start having more than one party, then the President will not just have slightly less than half of America for him, but he could have 45, 40, or even 35% of Americans for him, and that could pose a problem.

Ram, just to clairify something, are you saying that introducing more amendments to the constitution was a bad thing? I was under the impression that the flexibility of the US Constitution was the saving grace that the Romans didn't have in their government...

Ram, I am all for the government not controlling certain groups of people, but like I said before, I am afraid that if the government does not control certain people, then those people will use the government to control other people.

Right now I think we will agree that it is generally those who are against gay marriage that have the government on their side. If that is the case, then they are using the government to oppress the homosexuals and say that they cannot be married. However, what happens when the government sides with homosexual marriages? Will gay marriage advocates pressure the government to enforce churches and establishments to recognize their marriage? That is the problem I see. Is there really is no good answer? Will oppression reign with whoever controls the government?

quote:

---

jade said:

Most shy guys go thru the same feelings you did about girls Gideon. I do have
sons too. This is normal. It is not a shortcomming. Its called SHYNESS.

---

Thanks for the encouragement, but I don't really think it was shyness. I didn't used to be shy towards girls until I started viewing them as sex toys. I was very friendly with girls until I started to lust vehemently. I am just now starting to recover from that part of my past.

quote:

---

Belladonna said:

You two are really taking it far out of proportion.

---

No Bell, you are cheapening lust, sexual desire, and Satan's abilities to exploit them. God created marriage. Not the word, but the act, the commitment. He made a marriage where 1 man and 1 woman come together with God forever. They vow to be with each other only.

Often people think that to ignore Satan is to beat him, but absolutely not. Satan is slimy, and loves it best to be ignored, because then he can work in private. Satan's twisted form of marriage is extra-marital sex. He tries to convince people that it is okay to use sex outside of marriage. Lust is connected. It is outside of marriage, and it cheapens marriage. You said that lust is in marriage, I want to argue that if lust is in marriage then that marriage won't last very long. Lust is something that Satan cooked up, LOVE is from God. I want to challenge that LOVE is from Heaven and LUST is from Satan.

quote:

---

Colossians 3:1-7
1 Since, then, you have been raised with Christ, set your hearts on things above, where Christ is seated at the right hand of God. 2 Set your mind on things above, not on earthly things. 3 For you died, and your life is now hidden with Christ in God. 4 When Christ, who is your life, appears, then you also will appear with Him in glory.
5 Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry. 6 Because of these, the wrath of God is coming. 7 You used to walk in these ways, in the life you once lived.

---

Lust is wrong. Attraction isn't, but the mental/emotional desire of sex with an individual outside of a marriage is wrong. The important thing is that lust can be beaten. Love can win out, and should win out. It is a strong struggle that most every man has to deal with, and many, many women, but with Jesus, all things are possible...

"For reason is a property of God's...moreover, there is nothing He does not wish to be investigated and understood by reason." ~Tertullian de paenitentia Carthaginian Historian 2nd century AD

Gideon, beside pornography you have a very strong addiction to religion...yes, it is still addiction nevertheless and it blurs your field of vision, as well skews the perspective on reality. Your posts are being taken less and less seriously by majority of inmates, you absolutely fail to contribute anything to be taken into consideration. So many have tried to fix or lets say help you fix the holes in your thoughts, yet your fanaticism nullifies everything they have said...

hopeless *shrugs*

quote:

---

God created marriage. Not the word, but the act, the commitment. He made a marriage where 1 man and 1 woman come together with God forever. They vow to be with each other only.

---

In your opinion.

And that is the very root of the problem.

Your opinion is not what we base society or law upon.

If you think the marriage of two men or two women is 'ungodly' so be it.

But how 'godly' anything is CANNOT be a criterium for legislation. PERIOD.




{edit - as for the proper way to run a multiparty political system - do some reading here: http://www.fixour.us/

BTW - a big part of hitler's rise to power was his outright popularity and charisma combined with his underhanded and violent dealings with opposition. It wasn't a matter of having too many parties...

(Edited by DL-44 on 07-15-2005 22:01)

quote:

---

Unfortunately, when you have many parties, then you get people like Hitler in power.

---

Just thought I would point out that the same is possible in a two party system or any system for that matter. This is a danger all governments face. In Hitler's case, it wasn't because there were too many parties, but because of many other factors contributing at that time. Attacks on other parties, huge financial backers, resentment among the German populace following WWI and the treat of Versaillles leaving them susceptible to his fiery oratory, etc... More: Hitler's Rise to Power A lot of parallels in there when compared to our nation at this juncture in time, rather frightening stuff.

Multiple parties in power means less corruption, less legislation passed for special interest groups and corporate lobbyists which cater to a dominant force, less chance of our government being hijacked by one specific ideology and agenda. Remember, a two party system is one step away from a one pary system, and that is totalitarianism. In the meantime, two parties battling for control can tear a nation to shreds in the process.

Having just two viable parties to choose from also means less choice for the people. How many out there simply don't vote because there is no one to vote for that stands for them? Or how many vote for the lesser of two evils? With multiple parties, especially in our house and senate, the people would have more choice and more say in what is going on.

quote:

---

Ram, just to clairify something, are you saying that introducing more amendments to the constitution was a bad thing? I was under the impression that the flexibility of the US Constitution was the saving grace that the Romans didn't have in their government...

---

Good question Gids, but not so easily answered. Amendments to the contstitution are not necessarily bad, but as I said above, rather than create new laws, we only had to enforce existing law. The first ten covered it all, and from what I have seen, every successive amendment has done nothing but deprive us, in an underhanded way, of our sovereignty and rights.

Rather than try to explain it and ramble on for hours, as I have some work to do, I will post a few links for your consideration.

14th Amendment (read carefully)
14th Amendment Enabled Legal Fiction of Corporate Personhood
The Truth of the 14th Amendment
The uncontitutionality of the 14th

That is a lot of reading so one last item I would highly recommend is a video. It is seven hours long, but worth every minute IMO. If you really want a good foundational understanding of our government, sovereignty, rights, liberty, democracy, republic, and all those commonly misunderstood words you should give it a go. (hopefully you have broadband) I have no doubt it would re-lay the entire foundation of your thought, as it did mine.

Michael Badnarik - Constitution Class

quote:

---

Ram, I am all for the government not controlling certain groups of people, but like I said before, I am afraid that if the government does not control certain people, then those people will use the government to control other people.

---

Two wrongs don't make a right. In short, you have to choose which ideals you want to live by. Do you want to condone government force and oppression or no? Which avenue best fits your specific beliefs? As both a Christian, and as an individual who highly values freedom and realizes it is all or none, the choice was an easy one.

There is always going to be somebody out there trying to use government to their own ends, this is a basic truth of mankind. As I think I mentioned before though, the lobbying of the gay community is right and justified in this case, they are simply fighting for the same right as others. This 2-4% of the population is not trying to take anything from you, just trying to get their due equality as they are supposedly guaranteed.

quote:

---

Will gay marriage advocates pressure the government to enforce churches and establishments to recognize their marriage? That is the problem I see. Is there really is no good answer? Will oppression reign with whoever controls the government?

---

Question 1: Possibly, but that would directly violate the 1st Amendment and I don't think even our outlandish judges would condone it. If they did, I would be against it.

Question 2: No, not really.

Question 3: Unless man can change and or harness his inherent insticts of greed, lust for power and control and all the other wonderful things that make our world such an interesting place, yes. We had upon the creation of this nation in our constitution on of the freest forms of government ever known to man, and those negative traits of men, coupled with the ignorance of the population at large, has over time destroyed many of those principles.

A vigilant and well-informed nation is the only hope we have.

Ramasax
www.AmericanSerf.us

quote:

---

Right now I think we will agree that it is generally those who are against gay marriage that have the government on their side. If that is the case, then they are using the government to oppress the homosexuals and say that they cannot be married. However, what happens when the government sides with homosexual marriages? Will gay marriage advocates pressure the government to enforce churches and establishments to recognize their marriage? That is the problem I see. Is there really is no good answer? Will oppression reign with whoever controls the government?

---

This is why I said that the Government should not take sides at all and show backbone and say they cannont and will not make this decision for everybody. It is no more fair for the government to take the side of the homosexuals than the heterosexual side. It is not the Governments place to say who can get married and who cannot. And if you want to throw religion into it, then what does the bible say? Does not God allow people to choose him or not to choose him? To follow his law or to not follow his law? Does it not say from the mouth of Jesus himself that the tares will grow up along side the wheat? And that this is how it should be because we have free will? To render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's and to render unto God that which is God's?

You keep talking about how marriage is a God given institute--and I personally agree with that in and of itself (however, marriage to me is a VOW to make a LIFE together--not about LOVE per se, although you need love in order to KEEP that VOW. and a marriage liscense is just a piece of paper that says you are ACCEPTED AS MARRIED IN THE EYES OF THE GOVERNMENT) So give the VOW to God or the Devil, if one so chooses to believe homosexuality as a devil's institute--God gives us that right to choose between Him or "not" Him, why shouldn't people give people that right? And give the LEGALITIES of marriage to the Government. What is so difficult about that?? God will make his own judgement about his own laws in his own good time. It says that over and over in the bible. In the mean time, it is NOT the place of humans to judge on HIS institutions.

The problem lies when over zealous people decide it is their responsiblity to "save the world from theirselves" or that "they should not have to be subjugated to the sins of others" or bla bla bla. It may be a Christian responsiblity to make sure people hear the message of Christ, but it is NOT a Christian responsibility to FORCE people to follow the message of Christ. And when the government is forced to make this kind of decision, because the PEOPLE are forcing the decision, then it becomes self-righteous and just as abominable a sin as one may think homosexuality is in the first place.

Remember, Jesus was not about militious FORCE. He PREACHED, and you either chose to follow or you didn't, and he did not give his JUDGEMENT at that time--and this is why so many rejected Him. And why so many today say they are Christian, but are not really following his example, only his words.

Of course, if the Government decided to take the stand that they SHOULD take, and tell everybody to just grow the hell up and deal with it, there will be even more of an outcry from the mob. But instead of fighting each other, we will all unite to fight the GOVERNMENT because to do so, the Government will have pissed EVERYBODY off instead of just PART of the people. So, I don't really see a way out of the government having to make a choice one way or the other, becasue over zealous people will not leave things alone. And I'm not just talking about gay marriage here, but abortion, capital punishment, and a whole slew of other things. They are like a dog worrying a bone. At this point, I think a revolution would be better than the waste of time and the splitting that these petty issues cause.

As far as if gay marriage will advocate pressure on the government to force churches to perform these marriages....I can't see that happening. I agree with what Ram said on that. Gay people have their own churches too. They will more than likely have no problem finding someone to perform the ceremony and not have to try and "force" churches to do this.
*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

(Edited by Belladonna on 07-16-2005 01:10)

quote:

---

Ruski said:

So many have tried to fix or lets say help you fix the holes in your thoughts,
yet your fanaticism nullifies everything they have said...

---

Good. I hope my fanaticism continues until the day I die. Or until Jesus comes. Either one.

I agree DL. Taking some thought into it, I really have no right to tell people what they can/cannot do. It is up to themselves. Unfortunately, the decisions of the few can and will effect the many...

I know that Hitler's rise to power was mostly his underhanded schemes and his charisma, but what I was trying to point out is that he did not recieve the majority vote. I think the number was about 40%. That means over half of Germany didn't want him. You can see what is happening in the US when the President has half, or less than half of the public's support, what if that support difference increases?

I see your point, Ram, about government control. Thanks, you have just made me more paranoid than I was before.
On a serious note, though, am I just supposed to sit aside and accept evil? Am I supposed to condone it? When I disagree with an act, or a decision, isn't it my right to voice my opinion about it?
Freedom is a breeding ground for those evil qualities you listed about men. If one is free, you can take advantage of others, and if you have the government to back you, the better. But then when the government steps in to limit those freedoms, then you have positive qualities being suppressed. I can't seem to see a solution...

Bell, you are right, of course. Jesus did allow people to make their own decisions. God allows people to make their own decisions. Unfortunately, since when do people know what the best is for themselves?

I really hope what you said about churches is right Ram and Bell. I really hope it is right...

"For reason is a property of God's...moreover, there is nothing He does not wish to be investigated and understood by reason." ~Tertullian de paenitentia Carthaginian Historian 2nd century AD

quote:

---

Good. I hope my fanaticism continues until the day I die. Or until Jesus comes. Either one.

---

then save everyone a trouble and get a vasectomy.

quote:

---

I see your point, Ram, about government control. Thanks, you have just made me more paranoid than I was before.

---

I tend to have that effect on people. Rest assured, paranoia, in moderate doses, is quite healthy -- especially when it comes to government.

With regard to the church issue, I hate to say this, but by the time you and I reach old age I'll wager that nearly all churches will be performing homosexual marriages. Not through any type of coercion, but just because over time it will become more and more accepted. This is of course if we remain on the same general course a nothing catastrophic and/or apocalytic happens.

In any case, the Bible will be reinterpreted to suit the times and what was once unacceptable becomes acceptable to the followers. One generation departs, and another, more accepting, generation takes its place. Sexual deviancy will be redefined just as all other things have been redefined. Saying otherwise will one day be akin to saying the Earth is flat. Nothing on this Earth will stop it.

Ramasax
www.AmericanSerf.us

(Edited by Ramasax on 07-16-2005 05:45)

Ram, that was one of the most realistic posts on this topic, if not THE most realistic.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

I double what Ramasax said in that last post. Excellent foresight there.

And Gideon--No, you are not supposed to just stand aside and accept evil. Or condone it. Voicing an opinion is showing that you do not condone it or accept it for yourself, and at the same time not forcing someone to follow the will of God in which they don't believe.

People DON'T always know whats best for themselves. This is the beauty of the whole situation Gideon. God wants people to love Him and follow Him because they WANT to and realize what kind of choices are best for them ON THEIR OWN. This is why He gave us free will. It is no good to Him if someone is FORCED into it. And this is stated in the bible. Tell people, and show people, so they can be informed if they never heard of it, and then let them decide for theirself. And don't judge if they choose not to accept it. Judgement is not OUR job. For a person to judge another person is taking on the role of God. This is blasphemy. And many many preachers today do that very thing, and so their congregation does it, thinking it is OK.

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

Thanks Bell, I try my hardest not to judge people, but sometimes it is just so easy...
I really need to leave that up to the Big Guy.

You're right Ram. Fortunately, there is outside influence for believers and true Followers of the Way. That is why it is pretty cool to see people in those countries who condone unGodly acts (not just sexual immorality) resist.

I believe that America is a lot like Titanic. She is the big dream ship, that is slowly sinking because people aren't paying attention to the huge gashes in her side. I just hope that Jesus comes before America hits rock bottom. I really don't want to see that.

"For reason is a property of God's...moreover, there is nothing He does not wish to be investigated and understood by reason." ~Tertullian de paenitentia Carthaginian Historian 2nd century AD

It's now official: Canada Legalizes Gay Marriage

Ramasax
www.AmericanSerf.us

Gay marriage legal in Canada....lemme look outside...nope sky not falling.

No plague of locusts in sight, no boils, no heaving ground...no xians committing suicide....no obvious change to the world we knew before the "Big Change"!

Gosh! What does it all mean?

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

quote:

---

Jestah said: , they have the rights given to them by the government.

---

Seriously? Do you really think that only a government can give you your rights?
Maybe I missed your sarcasm, but what about my right to believe in a higher power.

As for the issue at hand, only homophobes truly want to NOT see gays be allowed to married.

Unless your arguing the word itself, "marriage", then of course you must agree that civil unions satisfy your lust to stop gays from getting "married". Right?