Topic awaiting preservation: Yes to gay marriage.

Doesn't bother me a bit. And you?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4632229.stm

Nope, it's in Canada

About time.

Freedom means freedom, not some bastardization of it.

Dan @ Code Town

It is the wave-front. Many US states are sympathetic to the concept and it is only the bigotry of the religious which is stalling the inevitable.

Oddly, many of the religious feel it is perfectly correct to shelter and protect pedophiles amongst their various clergy, but are dead set against two people who love one another joining in matrimoney.

Here one of our alleged national political "leaders" have vowed if his party ganins power the vote will be re-voisited. Up to now he had not a hope in hell of getting elected. Now that hope is not even a fading memory.

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:

---

WM: Freedom means freedom, not some bastardization of it.

---

That about says everything.

quote:

---

Dio: It is the wave-front. Many US states are sympathetic to the concept and it is only the bigotry of the religious which is stalling the inevitable.

---

I think it is more than just the "bigotry of the religious," think about our 2004 election and how many states, including Oregon, considered very progressive, voted against it.

quote:

---

Dio: Many US states are sympathetic to the concept and it is only the bigotry of the religious which is stalling the inevitable.

---

Correction, it is certain individuals in high places who play on the natural prejudices of little people to foster division, religion is just a means to an end. You know full well the power of rhetoric against the uneducated masses, especially when coupled with that of religion. That is also a bastardization.

In a Republic, as it was set up, there would be no debate because it would not be up to the majority to dictate rules for the minority, which is why this current fad of "democracy" is especially scary.

Think about it from this context, they ?free? the slaves in the 1800?s and then pass the 14th amendment, which does not bring the slaves up to the level of the white man and give them inalienable rights, but drops the white man, the common ordinary citizen, down to the level of the slaves and gives us all privileges, i.e. civil rights.

Then, once they have done that, they squeeze the common white man to the point where he feels oppressed. So then they, as in the planners, blame the problems on the blacks to both spread division among America and cover their own actions. Quite brilliant, however sick, and the same tactic is being used today.

I just posted this quote in another thread, but I think it is quite relevant here:

"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country ... corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war." -- Abraham Lincoln, letter to Col. William F. Elkins, Nov 21, 1864

And besides, George Bush himself is gay. Him and Jeff Gannon were getting it on all the time, why else you think a male prostitute got a WH press pass? We won't even get into the unresolved and uninvestigated allegations of child sex rings, massive orgies and politicians in Washington.

In any case, it would be wise for people to direct their efforts for more meaningful causes such as Kelo vs. New London, the recent violations of freedom of the press (Plame decision), freedom of expression (flag burning), right to privacy (lotsa stuff) and other efforts to destroy our true freedoms. The gay marriage issue I believe is nothing but a smokescreen, a convenient tool to keep us occupied bickering amongst ourselves..


Ramasax

I don't have a problem with it.

One of the biggest problems I have with most religion (and therefore, the laws today) is the topic of sex and love and the marriage union.

I am bisexual. So what. I was made that way. Does "God love me less"? Should any human have the right to judge me and tell me what I can and can't do? No. It's MY BUSINESS.

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

quote:

---

About time.

Freedom means freedom, not some bastardization of it.

---

Damn straight! That sums up my thoughts on it.

I think the whole thing highlights how pointless marriage has become as a concept outside of the inherent legal and financial advantages. It is a long way from the whole idea of marriage being the union of two souls for the purpose of procreation, by any measure.

Not that I care - I'm neither gay nor religious, and I have never spared more than a moment's thought to marriage. It is of little import (to me).

As for the whole religious protest - as well as what Diogenes stated rather succinctly, I'm convinced that if religious leaders had had their way through the ages, we'd still be living in stone huts and falling off the edge of a flat Earth at the centre of a universe made up of concentric glass spheres onto which stars had been painted - oh yeah, and burning anyone who didn't perceive the same flawed reality.
We'll never be truly enlightened if we remain bogged-down by some narrow-minded, socially-disconnected, ignorant and senile old fart's interpretation of what is 'right' and 'wrong' for the entire f***ing (lit.) human race.

What the dictators of faith have to say on anything nowadays (let alone the legal institute of marriage) is as worthless as an ash-tray on a motorbike.

Then again - if the sheep are not lead by religion, they may start believing in television, where it seems being gay (and shouting about it) is compulsory nowadays.

It could swing either way, really.

___________________________

quote:

---

...why else you think a male prostitute got a WH press pass?

---

But Ram, I wouldn't let anybody touch my press pass, let alone a prostitute!

~WH~

cf WebShaman's post.

"A right is a right and that is what this vote tonight is all about"
I can't believe a liberal would have the audacity to say that.

Why are you still taxing people based on income?
Why is it still acceptable to redistribute property?

These maggots care far more about doing what's "liberal" then doing what's "right".
It's just out of irony that they happen to be making the right decision in this case. The motive isn't there, and they don't deserve any of the credit.

As far as gay marriage is concerned, I'm all for it. It's a shame that it's taken so long for the government to take the proper stand - That this is not an issue they should have any say or control over.

Spain allows same sex union too. \o/

quote:

---

WarMage said:

Freedom means freedom, not some bastardization of it.

---

Yeah Freedom! No more laws! Huzzah!

You know how fed up I am with people hiding behind the "freedom" clause? What is freedom now anyhow? Since I have freedom in America, can I go outside stark naked? I love feeling the breeze, it is pretty cool. Why do I not have that freedom? I want to be naked!

I know, I will smoke pot, while naked, shouting threats to every politician I can think of. Where is that freedom?

There are laws for a reason. Natural laws are a good start. When parts don't fit, usually it is a good assumption that you are doing things wrong.

Bell, I want to say something. If your God is the same God as mine, He did not make you bisexual. He does not make people bisexual or homosexual. Those things are a CHOICE made by an individual. Please don't make God fit you like many previous hypocrites have done. If you make a choice, take the responsibility of it. Be your own person. (BTW whether you are bi or homosexual, God loves you anyway)

"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:

---

If your God is the same God as mine, He did not make you bisexual. He does not make people bisexual or homosexual.

---

Maybe God doesn't make you, period.

Freedom of action is derived from ownership.
If you own something, you have the the right (to freedom of action) to do what you want with it. Regardless of how any non-stakeholder in the same property feel.

The point where the free action of one person directly interferes with the free action of another person and ownership does not fall one way or the other is the point where we should have laws.

For example, Joe owns his own body (he isn't a slave). As the owner of his body, he decides to have an "I hate Jesus" tatoo tatooed to his forehead. Many people who enjoy an occasional Jesus much more than Joe find this action to be disrespecful, obscene, and a combination of the two. However, as a matter of law, since Joe owns his own body, his right to tatoo what he wants to it outweighs the right of the objectioners to not have to see it on Joe's forehead.

Another example, Joe wants to punch Sarah in the face. Joe owns his body, Sarah owns her body. Both parties have an equal right to the space, both have an equal right to do as they wish with thier bodies. Joe has the right to throw a punch, however Sarah also has the right to keep her body healthy and unharmed. This is clearly a conflict of one persons freedom to punch, versus another persons freedom to not be punched. Since there is no clear ownership violation, this is a situation that will require a law. How is the law decided? The law will side with whichever party is most levered to the consequences of the free action. There is minimal change in Joe, or Joe's property as a result of the punch. However, Sarah could be injured seriously as a result of the same punch. The law will then side with Sarah, and it is illegal for Joe to punch Sarah in the face.

Does this mean that people should be allowed to walk around naked? Does this mean that shopowners should be allowed to refuse customers based on personal prejudice? Does this mean that drugs should be legalized even when the legalization could seriously hurt society?
Yes. Yes on all counts. A free society means just that, that all rights lie in the hand of the person(s) with the most leverage to the free action being performed - that all people are free to perform actions with their property, that all people are free of the will of others.

In a free society. If one gay women who owns her own body wants to mary another gay women who owns her own body, then they will mary. You don't get a say. I don't get a say. The government doesn't get a say.

quote:

---

Natural laws are a good start. When parts don't fit, usually it is a good assumption that you are doing things wrong.

---

Of course, only the ignorant would say as much.

Here we see a classic example of Rectal-Cranium inversion. Not only is the poster here totally wrong and mis-informed, but uses this information, to further his opinion.

To set the record straight - Homosexuality has been observed in Nature. In fact, it is a rather normal occurance, and not that rare at all. And if the parts didn't fit, it wouldn't be possible to put them together, would it? And that leaves the point a moot one.

So, to sum things up

quote:

---

When parts don't fit, usually it is a good assumption that you are doing things wrong

---

And since a Cranium normally doesn't "fit" into a Rectum, I think we can all conclude, that the poster in question is doing things wrong.

A bit of "motion-lotion" would fix that problem. Or a hard, firm tug on both ears.

Well said Dan and WS. It is an issue identical to abortion, "t'aint nobody's business but my own".

Spincter vision indeed.

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

Personally, I could care less whether or not somebody is gay or lesbian, or not. That's their choice and as long as they don't try to force it on me I am fine with it. They are human beings and should have all the rights entitled to a human being. That happens to include marriage. However I know there are a lot of people who have something against it and say that it 'disgraces the sanctity of marriage'. First of something tells me these are the same people who didn't think about that when they cheated on their significant other or some other action that would cause disruption of marriage. Anyways, I will get to the point so I don't go off topic. When this subject was brought to a gay man I think he said something very sensible and if a compromise must be reached (which it shouldn't) then this should be it. "It seems to me that the controversy isn't really over two gays having a wedding or getting together for life and devoting one to another. The problem seems to lie in calling it marriage. That's fine if they don't want to call it marriage let's not call it marriage. We can call it a union or a promise or something else just as long is it is considered as legal and is treated the same as marriage." Just a thought

History is nothing but a fable that has been agreed upon.
-Napolean Bonaparte

Sangreal -

This needs to be addressed:

quote:

---

I could care less whether or not somebody...

---

You are trying to say that you COULDN'T care less.

I couldn't care less...
that says that i don't care at all.

I could care less...
if I can care less, then obviously I must care.

Please get this straightened out before trying to conquer the issue of gay marriage.


Gideon -

As for parts not fitting - I've seen all kinds of parts fit in all kinds of ways with all kinds of other parts....you may wish to choose a different approach to the issue Gideon!


Nojive -

quote:

---

Yes to gay marriage

---

But....we hardly know each other!



(Edited by DL-44 on 07-03-2005 04:58)

quote:

---

They are human beings and should have all the rights entitled to a human being.

---

What makes marriage part of the rights entitled to a human being? Marriage is a right given to those who meet certain requirements of the government. It's not as though you are human therefore you're capable of marrying wherever or whenever, or even with whomever.

(Edited by Jestah on 07-03-2005 07:13)

Gids, you don't have to like it, you only have to tolerate it. Personally, I do not approve of gay marriage. I argued against it here many times, but I have realized a few things, besides the fact that I was wrong and thinking in a backwards way.

First, it is not my place to say, nor is it the government's place to say what others can or can't do with their property so long as they are not harming your's or another's property in the process (Dan explained this much better than I could above, so I'll leave it at that). Asking government to control another's property is no better than you controlling another's property yourself.

From the Christian standpoint, ask yourself this simple question, as I did: what would Jesus do? He might preach against it, but He would neither use force Himself nor ask somebody else to use force in His place. That would go against the entire Christian philosophy in my eyes, and is the type of attitude which has led to so many atrocities is His name. Attempting to control the sinner is itself sin. This is where tolerance (i.e. putting up with something you don't like) comes in handy. I know it is hard, but give it a shot.

The second thing I realized, and equally as important, is the simple fact that there are much more important and worthwhile things to fight against than what happens in another person's bedroom or two people of the same sex getting a piece of paper from the gov't that says they are 'married.'

It is a non-issue in contrast to the big picture.

One last thing:

quote:

---

Since I have freedom in America,

---

You keep on believing that if it makes you feel good...


Ramasax
www.AmericanSerf.us

(Edited by Ramasax on 07-03-2005 08:28)

quote:

---

Marriage is a right given to those who meet certain requirements of the government.

---

No. NO.
This is not true, not even a little bit. Our 'rights' transcend all government, and cannot be given to us. Marriage as you define it would be a privilege, in which case the government as the owner of the privilege it is handing out would be allowed to decide who can marry, end of story - they would not need laws, or rules to govern it.

Rights are derived from ownership, and nowhere else.
Rights cannot be given, only taken away.

If we conclude that anyone has the right to marry, then it must also be concluded that everyone has the right to marry. Gay, Straight or anything in-between.

quote:

---

Dan: Rights are derived from ownership, and nowhere else.
Rights cannot be given, only taken away.

---

Hammer, nail, head.

I love you Dan, in a purely platonic way of course.

Ramasax
www.AmericanSerf.us

quote:

---

Bell, I want to say something. If your God is the same God as mine, He did not make you bisexual. He does not make people bisexual or homosexual. Those things are a CHOICE made by an individual. Please don't make God fit you like many previous hypocrites have done. If you make a choice, take the responsibility of it. Be your own person. (BTW whether you are bi or homosexual, God loves you anyway)

---

I beg to differ on this one. I assure you, I did NOT choose to be sexually attracted to both male and female. This argument kills me, and it is so easy for someone who is not attracted to the same sex to say that it's a choice, and to make other people who are not attracted to the same sex to believe it.

I didn't choose it anymore than I chose to be born a female with brown hair and brown eyes. Why would someone "choose" to be gay or bisexual? Considering all the crap you have to put up with, wouldn't it be easier to "choose" to be straight?

All these preachers get up on their pulpit and preach to "Love your neighbor, love that robber, love that rapist, but hate that homosexual." They are no more a true Christian than my left eye is. And people like that give religion of any kind a bad name. I'm not trying to make "God fit me" people like Jerry Fallwell are trying to make "me fit their idea of God". Think about it.

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

quote:

---

You are trying to say that you COULDN'T care less.

---

I've been fighting this fight for years.


Incidentally, I didn't choose to be shy. Neither did I choose to love photography. I also did not choose to have a preference for rock, to be annoyed by thumping bass, to love the nuances of English grammar, to crave mint chocolate chip ice cream or to find female breasts absolutely irresistable.

If you prefer country and orange sherbert, and happen to be a leg man, it would be ridiculous for you to say I chose to have different tastes from you based simply on the fact that my tastes are different.

I have no idea what influences one's sexual preferences, but I'm certain it isn't the conscious checking of a box. To argue so shows a limited and egocentric view of humanity.

And if you think sex is confined to tab A fitting into slot B, you certainly have a limited view of that topic, as well.

It might also be worth noting that what tabs fit together isn't the summation of any sexuality.

If god didn't want men to be gay, he/she/it would not have given then an anus.

Can't blame women for being gay 'cause most men is sich bad lovers.

WWJD? You have no idea whatsoever and to suggest you do merely puts you in the same camp as Falwell interpreting that old book of myths in a manner designed to fill his pockets.

I love this debate, it ticks the terminally religious off so.

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:

---

I beg to differ on this one. I assure you, I did NOT choose to be sexually attracted to both male and female. This argument kills me, and it is so easy for someone who is not attracted to the same sex to say that it's a choice, and to make other people who are not attracted to the same sex to believe it.

I didn't choose it anymore than I chose to be born a female with brown hair and brown eyes. Why would someone "choose" to be gay or bisexual? Considering all the crap you have to put up with, wouldn't it be easier to "choose" to be straight?

---

Amen. That is the first post that I have read from you, that I totally agree with!

quote:

---

WWJD? You have no idea whatsoever and to suggest you do merely puts you in the same camp as Falwell interpreting that old book of myths in a manner designed to fill his pockets.

---

Compare me to Jerry Falwell for suggesting that Jesus would not force others to do as he pleased? Come on, pull your head out of your ass, clear the feces from your mouth, and post something of substance for a change rather than being such an ignorant and imperious prick.

The routine is really getting old.


Ramasax
www.AmericanSerf.us

quote:

---

Marriage as you define it would be a privilege, in which case the government as the owner of the privilege it is handing out would be allowed to decide who can marry, end of story - they would not need laws, or rules to govern it.

---

Are you even aware of the topic of conversation Dan?

The government CAN decide who is allowed to marry, end of story. In fact, that's what this topic of conversation is about - same gender marriage.

quote:

---

If we conclude that anyone has the right to marry, then it must also be concluded that everyone has the right to marry. Gay, Straight or anything in-between.

---

In fantasyland, perhaps, in the real world you're just wrong. Let me give you an example:

Men have the right to marry women in the US.
Men do not have the right to marry men in the US.

quote:

---

Men have the right to marry women in the US.
Men do not have the right to marry men in the US.

---

You are confusing rights (inalienable, natural) with privelages (artificial political constructs).

The difference between privileges and rights is, or was, the foundation of America: either people need Big Brother to grant permission for every personal and economic move, or we have confidence in a person's right to make their own choices.


Ramasax
www.AmericanSerf.us

(Edited by Ramasax on 07-04-2005 01:18)

The point ram is you have no idea what jesus would do in any circumstances.

You have an idea that you think you know, but that is merely the indoctrination kicking in.

Therefore, in-so-far as you have the temerity to conclude you have even the vaguest notion what a man 2000 years dead (if he ever existed) would do in modern circumstances, you are no different than the falwells of the world who do same thing.

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

Let's not forget the one thing the government really objects to in this debate--revenue, (restricting this to US government.)

Two people filing taxes individually will generally pay more in taxes than filing jointly.

Social Security death benefits do not have to be paid to to the widow(er) in an unmarried couple.

Further, a married surviving spouse continues to collect Social Security based on deceased spouse's benefits, albiet at a reduced rate, in addition to their own. That is reduced to zero for unmarried couples.

The government loses revenue too on inheritance taxes when assets pass to a married surviving spouse.

There are, as I recall, 126 different government benefits denied to unmarried couples (of any gender or orientation.) These are only four of them.

Many states' revenues are based on calculations of federal revenues, so they're not going to rock that boat either.

It's like the old magician's trick. They make you look at the right hand while the left hand is doing the important stuff. The "morality" issues are the right hand.

On a cynical note, I'm shocked there isn't much public support by divorce attorneys. You'd think they'd be right out front supporting same-sex marriage.

quote:

---

Diogenes: The point ram is you have no idea what jesus would do in any circumstances.

---

Dio, I was referring purely to the philosophical aspects of Jesus' gospel. Did he ever advocate violence or force? The only semi-violent act I can recall on his part was turning over the tables of the money changers in the temple. From my interpretation of the words in my book of myths, I can only conclude that he was a pacifist. "Do harm to no man." As usual, you confuse what came after with original intent. Comparing me to Jerry Falwell for advocating non-violence and non-force is ridiculous.

Has nothing to do with me being indoctrinated, because I did not come to believe in a church or even from my parents, who were new age hippies (I was lucky not to be named Sunshine or Moonbow), but on my own.

And lastly, considering we are in agreement with regard to this specific topic, your comment was obviously just another attempt to hijack the thread with your penchant for anti-religious bigotry, and look, I took the bait. One of these days I'll learn not to.

quote:

---

Brucew:It's like the old magician's trick. They make you look at the right hand while the left hand is doing the important stuff. The "morality" issues are the right hand.

---

Excellent point Bruce. That angle is often overlooked, and probably exposes an underlying reason for certain political opposition. I think it is becoming fairly obvious to many that these men in Washington calling themselves conservative and using the political angle of morality are not what they claim.

To what degree the $$ issue plays part we'll probably never know, but it is surely part of the formula.

I like the magician analogy btw.

Ramasax
www.AmericanSerf.us

quote:

---

You are confusing rights (inalienable, natural) with privelages (artificial political constructs).

---

No rights are natural Ram. Rights (or privileges) are given by those in power - be it a religion or government, or even someone with enough muscle.

(Edited by Jestah on 07-05-2005 06:34)

Well, in that case Jestah, we might as well throw away everything, bend over, and spread real wide, because if we can't even admit that rights are different than privileges and are inherent in humans, we'll never get anywhere with regard to freedom.

Go back to foundations, please, because with an attitude like that you'll get nothing but tyranny. No offense intended, so please don't take me the wrong way.

quote:

---

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature?s God entitle them (ed: choose one, you don't even have to believe in God), a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation.

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness(ed: are not gays pursuing happiness through marriage? are they not seeking the liberty to do as they choose?) ? That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men(ed: note above not over), deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive to these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it (ed: hmmm....), and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. ...
-Declaration of Indepedence, J4 1776

...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property...
-5th Amendment, Bill of Rights, 1787

---

Well, they have already taken our property, so we should at least hang on to liberty. But what is liberty?

Liberty (n.)
1a The condition of being free from restriction or control.
1b The right and power to act, believe, or express oneself in a manner of one's own choosing.
1c The condition of being physically and legally free from confinement, servitude, or forced labor.
2 Freedom from unjust or undue governmental control.

Pretty straight forward to me. Perhaps you just don't like those antiquated documents I quoted from above.

I know, I am an idealist, but we all have to shoot for something.

edit: Oh, amost forgot one of the most important ones:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Amendment X

Ramasax
www.AmericanSerf.us

(Edited by Ramasax on 07-05-2005 07:20)

Not sure I like the nick "Dio" Ram. Seems to me that is spanish for god.

In any event, your cogent explanation does not eliminate my literal interpretation of WWJD.

Though I assure you I did not ascribe your intentions to be vaguely similar to falwell or his ilk.

That you extrapolate from the old yarns a man of peace
and postulate he would still be one today, I stand by my statement you have no idea what he would do, just what you believe he might do and what you want to believe he would do.

There is nothing wrong with advocating non-violence, it just is not very realistic...unless you have a gun and the other fella a club.

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

DL:

quote:

---

But....we hardly know each other!

---

How do you think the family's going to take it?

quote:

---

"Why would someone "choose" to be gay or bisexual?"

---

I in fact know some 'do choose' homosexuality, and it still doesn't bother me. I do believe however 98-99% of all homosexuals are hardwired as such...and for them there is no choice.

So who would choose and why? Well depending on where you live...how old you are and just how observant you are...you may know someone who has already or will, in the future, 'choose' homosexuality.

I went to school and hung around with all sorts of people and in those various groups there were a couple of guys who were just as hormone driven as the rest of us peacocks.. but the ladies didn't love them. It mattered not that they were good guys... and great guys, fact was they'd very much been short changed when it came to physical features. Simply, women did not find them attractive. And never would.

When virtually everyone around you is getting some kind of attention from the opposite sex when your hormones are peaking...and there's nothing..coming your way..even from the least desirable of the other sex... it's rejection of perhaps the cruelest kind possible.

Eventually, like a lot of us small-towners, these guys left town. Years later I ran into one of them in 'the city.' We were in a bar and drank up a whole bunch of beer and got into the 'whatever happened to so-and-so.... remember that nite we all bla bla bla... and what about the time Gerry blew the engine in his old mans' Chryco..you were in the back seat with Sherry." then he said.. 'Man I had the biggest crush on her.' 'You ever get married' he asked 'yes...but it didn't work. how about you?'

He just looked at me and started laughing. 'Take a good look... I'm just as fuckin' ugly now as I was then... no 'woman' will have me but fortunately (starting to looking quite somber) I found a 'guy' who loves me for my ugly self.' I'm sure he was expecting a look of shock or disgust but he got neither because I suddenly remembered a conversation I'd had with my mother.

"Who are we to tell anyone where they may or may not find love and affection, compassion or companionship and friendship." she said.

If for a moment you remove the sexual aspect of the homosexual relationship you are left with what?? ...love affection..compassion etc. So would you (homophobes) deny them your same desires of love affection etc. Someone who loves you... holds you... just touches your hand or your face when you're stressed or depressed. Do you deny them that as well?

As I said way back up there someplace... 98-99+% of homosexuals I do believe are hardwired....the remainder so choose and who am I to tell any of them where they can or cannot find personal love and affection. We have no right.

(Edited by NoJive on 07-05-2005 08:31)

quote:

---

There is nothing wrong with advocating non-violence, it just is not very realistic

---

Well, this is not exactly true, as Ghandi proved. I can remain very peaceful, and non-violent as long as there are others, willing to intercede for me!

And even when there is not, the ultimate freedom that every human has, remains - the right to resist.

quote:

---

the right to resist.

---

Yeah, I tried to exercise that right with a cop back in my young drunken wiccan days.

Unfortunately, he didn't seem to think I had that right.

Consequently, neither did the judge

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

The RIGHT to resist is one where you decide to resist - I didn't say it wouldn't have consequences! In an extreme case, it could result in your death - but it is a right that cannot be taken from you (though the threat of retaliation/punishment/death can be a pretty good way of convincing one to give it up )

I suppose even this right could be prevented - keep one sedated, and tied down 24/7, and intravenous fed. Still won't stop one from resisting, however (though resisting under the circumstances would be very difficult, as is under torture).

Ram, you can post flowery speeches of "natural rights" such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness but the reality is until those in power gave us those rights, they never existed. Those who gave us these rights can just as easily take them away.

quote:

---

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

---

The above is an excellent example of my point. US States and/or the people are being given their power by the US Government, those in power. The citizens don't have the natural right to control the government, they have the rights given to them by the government. And if the government chooses to revoke those rights, what course of action does the population have?

quote:

---

And if the government chooses to revoke those rights, what course of action does the population have?

---

Saw Penn & Teller about that the other night. It was the episode about gun control.

I'm used to hearing about the 2nd Amendment being for hunting and regular self-defense. P&T brought up the point that US citizens might need guns for self-defense against the US government. Our fore-fathers put that in because they foresaw that there might be the need for civil war or revolution.

That really made me stop and think.

quote:

---

That really made me stop and think.

---

In light of rather recent developements in America, such has caused me to stop and think, as well.

We are Americans. We know there is a price for Liberty, Life, and the pursuit of Happiness. For Freedom.

But locking away Liberty, Life, and the pursuit of Happiness, and Freedom, for the illusion of Safety, is plain wrong. Furthermore, it is against everything that we stand for, and against everything that those who gave the ultimate sacrifice fought for.

Rather sobering, isn't it?

(Edited by WebShaman on 07-05-2005 23:55)

Yeah, was kind of sobering.

I do keep track of some things. Like nut cases slowly wearing away civil liberties. And the thumb-screw tightening by the government. Some of the concerns over privacy since 9/11. Segregation of the masses by things other than race. Things that I've really been keeping an eye on are the fights between the religious fanatics and the scientific community.

The civil unrest around here is really climbing. But I never really made the connection between said civil unrest and the 2nd Amendment. Kick in the pants.

Next thing you know, guns will be denied to gay couples seeking marriage.

If it does reach a climax and there is a revolution of sorts, I hope it happens soon and with little blood shed.
~crosses fingers~

Natural means without outside affect. Those with power never give anything. Those with power take things away. The reason you might choose one power is because you fell that the power you are pledging to will take less away from you than the other power. The human struggle with power is to find the most powerful entity that will not take anything from you.

Privileges are those things that have not yet been taken from you by those with power. The definition is a special immunity. Which implies that others do not have the same right that you have. It also means that your right has not been taken away.

This might be helpful: http://www.semperliber.org/Rights.htm

quote:

---

WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness

---

This is not the government granting rights, this is the government saying that they exist, in and of themselves by something even greater than man, and among them are those 3, but not restricted to. The next line says that our government was created to secure this rights, to protect pre-existing rights. They are not granting anything at all.

You then have your bill of rights, which was designed to further limit the ability of the government to take rights away from the people.

The goverment is not in the job of granting rights. A government takes them away. And when you take these rights from only certain people, the ones you didn't take them away from now have a privilege.

Dan @ Code Town

quote:

---

Jestah: Ram, you can post flowery speeches of "natural rights" such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness but the reality is until those in power gave us those rights, they never existed. Those who gave us these rights can just as easily take them away.

---

You are half right J. They can, and do, take away rights, but they no more give us those rights than Tiny Tim and his ukelele gave us good music. *cringe*

Rights do not exist because of government, but in spite of them. You can call the founding documents or me posting the definition of liberty "flowery speeches" all you want, and downplay the meaning of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to suit your views, whatever they may be, but they are the foundation of everything this nation was built upon, and if you accept that government, i.e. other men, give us our rights, I feel sorry for you, I really do. Believing such is nothing short self-induced slavery.

quote:

---

Jestah: The above is an excellent example of my point. US States and/or the people are being given their power by the US Government, those in power.

---

You missed the point entirely, and what you said is quite backwards. The people are the ultimate power, not the reverse. The powers not delegated to the US by the Constitution are up to the states or the people. Key part of that is "by the Constitution." Read it, it is quite precise, and any lack of clarity can easily be remedied by studying the individual writings of the men responsible for it. They wrote it all down for us, and it is time we start learning and heeding their words.

Also, The Bill of Rights was created so that government could not infringe upon our individual rights, which are unalienable, and exist whether government does or not.

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
-- George Washington

quote:

---

The citizens don't have the natural right to control the government,

---

We the People are the government, and therefore the right is ours entirely. We, as sovereign individuals, have all the rights, and federal government has none except what the Constitution gives it. Any laws which countermand this original Law, which are numerous, and of which this specific topic is one, are null and void. Any attempt to subvert this original law of the land is treason.

quote:

---

And if the government chooses to revoke those rights, what course of action does the population have?

---

I think warjournal and WS covered this. The second amendment is the de facto reset button, the last resort when all others fail. It was not created so much for defence from invading armies, but from tyranny within, which our forefathers, through the study of history, knew was a likely outcome. As Thomas Jefferson said, "The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."

Warjournal: I have also hoped that it would not come to bloodshed, but more and more I am thinking, unfortunately, that may be the ultimate outcome. The problem is, let's be honest, they would wipe out any insurrection quite easily. Think about Ruby Ridge, where they sent in over 400 troops, snipers, and armored vehicles for one family, shot a young boy in the back, and a nursing mother through the head. We are outgunned and no shotgun or pistol is going to make a difference. Waking up those under the spell is the only way, so I'll stick to my pen for as long as I am allowed, but when they try to take that freedom away, I will be forced to take up arms. We all have to die somehow, and to me, fighting for the dignity and freedom of my peoples, would be a very honorable way to go. Give me liberty or give me death.

As a sidenote, if such an event were to occur, we would all be classified as terrorists by section 802 of the Patriot Act. How convenient that was passed right before the tyranny drive hit hyperspeed. Makes you think.

quote:

---

Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort.
-Patrick Henry, Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death

---

Trust it not, Jestah; or like the man above sayeth, it will prove a snare to your feet.

Again, let me reiterate, individual and unalienable rights are not the same thing as collective privileges.

From the link WarMage posted (good link by the way, I was just reading the same thing) :

quote:

---

Privileges are not rights! They are bestowed by other humans, under their rules. What that means is that you grant them fealty, the fidelity sworn by a vassal to his feudal lord. You agree to play by their rules or even on their behalf. In essence, this is an "owner/owned" contract between people. Accepting privilege means you grant ownership of your behavior to another human being. Government grants privileges. Therefore, government can take them away.

The problem is that government is confusing rights with privileges. It doesn't see the distinction.

---

Please Jestah, I urge you to realize this distinction. Here is a link to the historical documents section of my website to get you started.

Ramasax
www.AmericanSerf.us

gotta say that I agree with you completely Ramasax.

good points, and well made.


As a side note, I would only caution you not to regard *too* highly the idealistic prose of our founding fathers, and be sure to judge them on their actions rather than their words (you will find the idealism is very tainted indeed).
I enjoy your new site - nicely done.

You are right DL, I understand and recognize their flaws as I come upon them. I will admit that I have not yet gotten to studying the men behind the words in great detail, beyond the basics, but it is on my ever increasing list. Actions compared with words often expose hypocrisy, but they were human afterall, and we are all hypocritical in some sense, to more or less a degree of course.

As far as their writings go, even while oftentime conflicting with even eachother, I have found an abundance of knowledge in what they had to say, and in that sense I revere them for both their foresight and their idealism, again, accepting their flaws as something inherent in all.

Another reason I hold their writings in such high regard is because they played a large part in me breaking free of what I now consider rape of the mind. Plainly said, reading those old dusty papers really woke my ass up.

Also, as a sidenote, and as I'm sure you are aware, a large majority of what they wrote was nothing but reiteration upon past concepts, from Aristotle to Cicero to John Locke, those being a few mentioned specifically by Jefferson. While idealistic, as I said above, we all have to set our sights somewhere, so why not set them high.

I was a bit apprehensive of posting my site on here, because I did not want to appear pretentious. It's not as if I am some great writer, so I am glad you like the new site. Although I think you might have enjoyed counterleft.com and my pro-Bush rants better.

What a waste of $8.95 that was...

Ramasax
www.AmericanSerf.us

And I certainly don't wish to belittle these men either - there was greatness in many forms among them.

It is definitely far too easy, though, to forget the circumstances of the time, the pure selfishness of many of these immensely wealthy men, the vanity and hypocisy involved. People (no reference to you here) prefer to enshrine them all in saintly glows and deem them pure and good.
It's part of what leads people to the flawed thoughts about how good we *used* to be and how bad we are now...

I read a book a few months ago that may be of interest to you -
An Imperfect God. It is a biography of Washington, dealing specifically with his conflicted stance on slavery, and the way it affected his decisions and the effect it had on him. Great read, very enlightening.

quote:

---

It's part of what leads people to the flawed thoughts about how good we *used* to be and how bad we are now...

---

I wouldn't know anything about that.

I looked the book recommendation up on Amazon (the link you posted went to that shrinking lotus article on CNN) and read through some of the reviews, and it does sound intriguing. I'll be sure to check it out. Thanks.


Ramasax
www.AmericanSerf.us

quote:

---

Belladonna said:

Considering all the crap you have to put up with, wouldn't it be easier to
"choose" to be straight?

---

I have to go through a lot of crap for being a Christian. I chose that path because of a major motivation. All choices in your life are from motivations: anger, fear, love, depression, lust, etc. Some motivations you have control over, others you do not.

Let me tell you something Belle, most "straight" people have urges and lusts for the same sex as well. Those who are labeled as "straight" are those who choose not to indulge in those desires.

Let me be very transparent with you. I am a recovering porn adict. I chose to indulge that lust in the past. Thanks to some divine intervention and the want to change, I do that less and less every day. Did I choose to become a porn adict? Yes. Sometimes people just want to push off their consequences on others. Most people decide to shove it onto God, when it is actually your own doing.

Plus, Satan is really good at masking a decision, and making it seem okay, but before you know it, it appears like it wasn't your personal decision. You always have a choice to say "yes" or "no."

Do I believe God made me a lustful, sex hungry porn adict? No. That goes against the commandments and teachings of Jesus. I believe that He allowed me to go through that ordeal to make me stronger. The more I learn how to fight this addiction, the more I can fight other addictions I have as well.

Are homosexuals evil? Absolutely not. I try my best to love everyone and that includes homosexuals. There is a difference between hating a person, and hating an act. I can still hate murder, but love my sister if she creates a murder. Same for homosexuality, it takes someone who truly knows the love of Christ to be able to truly love everyone.

Even then, love is a choice...

As for marriages, my issue is not with homosexuality. People do have a right to make their own choices and to follow their own path. My beef is with homosexuals trying to force the government and churches to call their union an marriage. It is my personal belief that a government can decide what it wants to call a marriage, and what it doesn't want to call a marriage. I like people and governments to have freedom, and imposing your own beliefs upon a government is just as bad as a government imposing their beliefs on you...

"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

I am sure there is some culture, on some planet, where what you just said makes some kind of sense.

Thankfully, it's not on this one...

=)

^ I couldn't have said it better...

quote:

---

My beef is with homosexuals trying to force the government and churches to call their union an marriage. It is my personal belief that a government can decide what it wants to call a marriage, and what it doesn't want to call a marriage.

---

That may be your belief, but it does not make it true.

Churches are one thing Gids, and I will protect any private entity such as that to make a decision based on their world-view. They do not have an obligation to comply.

Our government, on the other hand, is secular, non-religious, apart from religion, and can only make decisions based on it's laws, not on the prejudices or beliefs of the lawmakers, nor on the citizens who vote for them. This is a constitutional republic in which the rights of the individual should always, always come before all other considerations, with the exception of doing harm to others. (You may have an argument there, but since it is only speculative, a "what-if" it has no grounds) Put simply, people need to mind their own business. Focus on pulling the plank out of their own eyes before telling their neighbor to pull the splinter from his.

One group of peole with rights over another group of people is called oppression, and that is not what a free society is about.

In this sense, the gay and lesbian community has all the right in the world to try and force government's hand into compliance, because government is not following its own laws by depriving them of equal rights and protections of the law.

It is all so very simple if you look at the remarkably wise charter documents. Seems so many people are caught up in the morality of the debate rather than what the law, our supreme law of the land, actualy says. And it also seems there are far too many willing to force others, through government proxy, to their bidding. That is neither the function of government, nor the function of the voters in this Republic.

So to recap:

1) This government is a secular entity based on law.
2) One group of people having rights over another is called oppression.
3) Individual rights come before everything else, by law.
4) Gays and lesbians are fighting for equality, which is justified under law.
5) Those in government are not there to decide who gets to do what with their bodies (property), but to protect and defend the foundations they take an oath on.
6) Most importantly, forcing others, even through proxy, is wrong. A sin according to Christianity.

Lose all the stuff clouding your judgement, wipe the slate clean, and go back to basics on this issue. Relay the foundation of your thought. Learn what liberty, freedom, and rights mean and why it is so important that we are all treated equally. It will free you from those invisible chains. You may not realize you wear them, but I know they are there because I carried the same for much of my life. The correct action when you are against something is not to use force, and that is all government is if abused, but to find the source of the problem, which in this case is government itself, through its unconstitutional involvment in the institution of marriage.

quote:

---

I like people and governments to have freedom, and imposing your own beliefs upon a government is just as bad as a government imposing their beliefs on you...

---

People have freedom, governments only have restrictions, or, if you will, privelages which those with freedom grant it. Government has no beliefs, it only has law, which is the framework of society. Laws which force compliance of one belief over another are harmful to society, and over time wars have been known to ensue, and society unravels. You may think gay marriage will unravel society, but the alternative is a guarantee.

quote:

---

?Marriage is? something more than a civil contract subject to regulation by the state: it is a fundamental right of free men? legislation infringing such rights must be based upon more than prejudice and must be free from oppressive discrimination to comply with the constitutional requirements of due process and equal protection of the laws.?
--1948, California Supreme Court

---

Think on it.

Ramasax
www.AmericanSerf.us

"Marriage" is Christianity sanctioned paganism. The Church would not acknowledge it initially, but a few centuries ago, eventually gave up to the fact that not everyone can pursue purity and stay single. And so, in the old "if you can't beat them, join them" mood, marriage, as everyone in the western world knows it, was created.
What the word marriage means, is then "the recognition of two individuals as a couple".

So... what is wrong with all this?

Simply put, Christians or any other people with religious background should not have to endure the fact that they have the same earned status as someone who is doing something totally against their practices.

Therefore, even if it is quite fair and sound to recognize two gay men or women, as couples, or even thirty five people as a thirty five people unity, it is not sound to recognize them as married. Even if in legal terms the words are homophones.
In again other words, there exists a strong, neutral stand of opinion that states that even if in legal terms, two or more individuals should be able to have their union acknowledged, and inherit all the benefits and responsibilities over one another, they are not to be recognized nor as a biological functional couple, nor as normal.
Because they aren't. Therefore gay marriage, should (and probably will), forever remain as gay marriage, with a set of rules of its own, different from marriage.


Don't delude yourselves, members of the gay community: you are freaks; your pursue for neutrality will forever be daunted by the prejudice that even yourselves have to recognize in order to fight back.
But then again, you can always go and found a new country free from pre-conceptions, but, you better know that whatever name you call it, it will always be known as something else, for someone else.

~this is not a signature~

Gideon--I'm happy for you. That you are beating your porn addiction. I know that can be just as hard as beating any chemical addiction around.

I know that most people have fantasies about the same sex from time to time. This is why straight people think homosexuality is a choice. They think that because they didn't choose to act out their fantasy, that everyone else is able to make the same "choice". This is an un-truth. And it is false thinking.

Curiosity is not the same thing as desire and attraction.

If the bible said that heterosexuality was a sin instead of homosexuality, would you be able to change your desires from women to men? You could probably force yourself to sleep with men instead of women if your religion called for it, and you believed that you must. But would you be happy? Would you be able to change your actual desire? No. It would be very un-natural for you. You would not be happy at all. Sex is not just for reproduction--it is for expression of love. And if you loved women, you could not be satisfied with loving a man. And if women visually and mentally stimulate your desire, you would not be able to change that bodily response to men just because the bible told you it was the right way. Or for any other reason.

Really think about that Gideon. Really think about how difficult it would be if religion said that YOU had to change. It's like asking a leopard to change it's spots. And then realize that that is exactly what is trying to be forced onto homosexuals. The "sin" is not in the sexual act itself Gideon, or even in WHO you have sex with--as long as you are not breaking a commitment. The "sin" is in people's attitude toward sex.

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

Belladona,

I don't agee with your view in regard to sexaul attraction. I am heterosexual female, but if I wanted to, I can let myself be attracted to a female if I wanted to. Its all about choice. I can choose to have sex with a female if I let myself be desirous of one. So sexual attraction is a choice. I allow myself to be attracted or don't. A homosexual person is not born homosexual. That is a way of trying to understand the attraction that a person alows him or herself to be taken. If a man chooses to have sex with a man for the rest of his life its because he has choosen that lifestyle, the lifestyle didn' t choose him. If a persons has a desire to have sex with children under ten, is it because he is attracted to only 8 yr olds or he chooses to have sex with kiddies because he was born with those desires. If person has desires to have sex with animals, where they born that way attracted to German Shepherds or toy poddles or do they choose to have sex with four legged creatures. This is why I do not agree with your response to Gideon. Lets say in the story of creation, God created Adam and no Eve, but other Adams to co-exist with, what would be his purpose in the grand scheme of things. Could they be fruitful and multiply. Sex between two same sex genders is un-natural and does defy the the natural order. That is pretty basic, but how we chose to follow the natural law or not is the real issue. What your saying is a pedophile cannot change and stop having a desire to have sex with children and I say he can just like a homosexual can change and stop desiring persons of the same sex. We can agree sexual gratification comes from many sources, porn comes in many forms. Persons can choose to have sex with themself if they want to. Its about choice. If a male has sex with a male just one time to be curious, he may enjoy it better with a woman he had sex with before and feels better stimualted. Does that make it natural? NO. So he allows himself to open the attractions to males as opposed to not being attracted before. Then they fall in love and want to start a family. Whats wrong with this picture? Where do the babies come from? A clinic? Yes. Homosexuality has been going on for many centuries and is in every culture past and present, and to use this argument as a reason it should be looked upon as a nomal is deceiving. Bisexuality is the same too. You can choose either gender and decide to have sex with them if you allow yourself to be sexually attracted. Thats why I say its alway a choice which involves your free will to decide who you want to have sex with. Be it males, females, children, animals and yourself.

For persons who follow the moral law, as Gideon and myself does, we see the homosexual act as a violation of the heart of the law in its attack on family. I see the act itself as immoral unnatural but do not judge the person in their violation of the law. If they are regarded as sinning, I know its not my sin. We are all sinners. We do pray for the welfare of others because that is at the heart of the law, which is to love all.

(Edited by jade on 07-11-2005 21:58)

quote:

---

Jade: Persons can choose to have sex with themself if they want to.

---

Woohoo!

Anyways...While I do agree with some of your sentiments above with regard as to whether it is choice or genetic, (I tend to believe it primarily a choice myself, although not entirely black and white) it really is irrelevent and has no foundation in deciding the legality of gay marriage.

A question for you and Gids and anyone else opposed:

Would you have the government act as a proxy on your behalf to initiate deprivation of liberty against a certain group of people? A group of people who are doing as they choose with their own bodies (i.e. property), making a choice, ala free-will?

A yes or no answer will suffice, no need for spin, because this cuts right to the heart of the matter.

It really is that simple.

Ramasax
www.AmericanSerf.us

(Edited by Ramasax on 07-11-2005 20:50)

I think I know where you are going with this Ram, but I don't think this question can be answered with a simple yes or no...
Not too many things are black and white in this world...

"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:

quote:

---

I don't think this question can be answered with a simple yes or no...

---

Really ? Read my lips/post :

NO.

Bell, one simple answer, the Bible does tell me I have to change. Maybe not whether I choose men or women to marry, but several other things, especially sex. I know that pornography and masturbation is a sin, because the Bible outlines quite a few facts about sex, and what is or isn't sin. On those two subjects I am very safe in saying that if Jesus was standing before me right now and I asked Him if porn was wrong, He would say yes. I am also sure that He would say masturbation is wrong. Why? They are tied to the sexually immoral act of lust. I know I have to change, and I am trying my best to let go.

Bell, it is your choice whether you have sexual relations with men or women. And I know that whatever you choose, Jesus will still love you the same. He may not be happy, but He will still love you. One thing I worry about is when the Bible said that sexually immoral people, homosexuals and porn adicts alike, will not inherit the Kingdom of Heaven. Do you know the passage I am talking about? I believe that salvation is eternal, and can never be taken away, but what does that verse say to you? What do you think God thinks of sexual immorality?

One other thing, I know for a fact that it is a choice because of a man named Sy Rodgers. He was a homosexual. He changed and is now a happily married man, with children, who has made it his passion to help those who are on the homosexual path know that there is a way to change. Google him up and it should show how he was able to change from being a homosexual to a heterosexual. I listened to him once and what he said encouraged me in my fight against lust.

quote:

---

Arthemis said:

Don't delude yourselves, members of the gay community: you are freaks

---

Ooh, ooh, me too! I'm a freak, pick me! I am a freak of the Jesus kind... Jesus Freak!!!

I think there is plenty of room in this country to house everyone Arthemis. Tall, short, fat, skinny, religious, not religious, smart, unintelligent, peaceful, war hungry, heterosexual, homosexual, murderers, rapists, civil rights activists, good hearted people, sour hearted people, different races and religions... I think that the diversity is good for us...

"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:

---

I think I know where you are going with this Ram

---

You know exactly where I am going with it, although it is not my place to call you on it, and that is why you didn't answer.

It is a black and white question based on a black and white concept of force/non-force. There really are no gray areas when you boil the discussion down to this base level. Yes, you will condone government force and deprivation of individual liberties, or no you will not. Simple.

Remember Gids, I am with you in that I do not approve of the lifestyle or the desecration of marriage (although we heterosexuals have done plenty of that). What I learned though, aside from being intellectually honest with myself, is that people must be given the opportunity to make their own choices and government's purpose is to protect their right to make their own choices from people who would deprive them of such. I don't like it, but I feel compelled to fight for people to have the opportunity to make their own choices, for better or worse. That is freedom, individual liberty, and if you cannot muster the tolerance for living in such a society just consider the alternatives.

Again, and I know I am starting to sound like a broken record, but it bears repeating obviously, individual liberty is the foundation of this nation and freedom is not a "clause" or "excuse" as I think you mentioned before. Dabbling in the simplicity of what was laid out so long ago is what has gotten us to our current troubles, and more dabbling can only have more detrimental effects to our nation and society, because government is not our friend, never has been and never will be. Learn to fear government, as we all should, and everything else falls into place.

Listen to the voice inside your head that is screaming incessantly for you to listen, but which your heart and emotions on the issue are stifling... You don't have to like gay marriage, you don't have to like the sin, but you do have to let people live their own lives as they choose. It will all be sorted out later and it is not our place to sort it out now.

So again:

Force or non-force? Tyranny or freedom? Oppression or equality? More government intrusion or less government untrusion? Yes or no?

Ramasax
www.AmericanSerf.us

There's a new Show on FX called 30 days (as in 30 days in someone elses shoes) The first episode was about a religious young man who lives for 30 days with a gay man in the Castro in SF. It's an interesting view (unfortunately I already cleared it off my PVR or I would have posted a link). No one converts or changes their minds but they do learn to see the other side.


But Gideon it does ask an interesting question. To play the devils advocate, if right now through some revelation you found out that the teachings were wrong and that according to God men are supposed to be gay could you switch?



.:[ Never resist a perfect moment ]:.

Gids: Read this article to understand where I am coming from when I say the state has no business in marriage. There is a distinction between the institution of marriage and the legal contract of marriage as defined by the state, and this article explains it much better than I could.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/vandun3.html

I think it will help bring you round to my POV.

Ramasax
www.AmericanSerf.us

quote:

---

There's a new Show on FX called 30 days (as in 30 days in someone elses shoes)

---

I saw this episode. It was really an eye-opener.

quote:

---

masturbation is a sin

---

This is the kind of thinking that worries me. Masturbation is a sin?? I'd rather my 14 year old daughter masturbate to fulfill her PERFECTLY NATURAL desires than to run out and have sex with a boy or two. It's much better than the consequences of possibly becoming pregnant, catching a disease, or suffering the emotional devistation of early sex without love. And I'm pretty sure God would agree on that. Or would you say that God would rather me teach her that she needs to suppress that desire and never touch herself? That it is a sin? Why? So that she will associate her bodily desires with sin? And what happens when she falls in love and gets married? Those associations do not just automatically erase when you take vows. It would not be fair to her or to her husband to have an unhealthy attitude about sex. It will rob them of the bliss they can give each other. I don't know if men can fully understand that. The "sexual sin" complex affects women in a far greater way than it does men.

Jade: You cannot compare pedophiles and beastiality to homosexuality. Most true pedophiles have severe emotional problems. And I say "true pediphiles" because a lot of people are labled "child molester" when they are not. A 23 year old who had sex with a 15, 16, or 17 year old is not necessarily a child molester, although he will be labled as one and have to register as a sex offender. In a case like that, it really depends on the circumstances. But true pedophilia--sex with a person who is sexually immature physically-- can be compared to rape. It is NOT about sex OR attraction AT ALL. It is about power and control and domination. Beastiality is....well, it's just disgusting. But lets face it. There are some men in the world who will stick it in an apple pie just to get off. And I guess some women too. Beastiality is not about attraction or love--it is about lack of ANY self control at all. Or maybe desperation in some cases. And when you get down to it, homosexuality is not truly about sex, nor is heterosexuality. It is about who you are attracted to emotionally and physically. Many many homosexuals are promiscuous, lustful, and have some lack of control. But so do many many many straight people. A homosexual man IS born attracted to males. Now, he can become a pedophile, or have sex with a dog. But he is still attracted to males and cannot change that. He can be a playboy and sleep around, he can exploit teen age boys, or he can refrain from sex until he falls in love and commits to one person. But he is still, and always will be, attracted to males.

You said you are a heterosexual female. And that if you chose to, you could be attracted to females. But listen--you didn't CHOOSE to be attracted to males. You ARE attracted to males. You have probably ALWAYS been attracted to males. And yes, you may can look at a beautiful woman and appreciate her beauty, you may could even be turned on by a woman and have sex with her if you let yourself. That is not the same thing as being homosexual, or even bisexual. That is just giving in to your desires of the moment. And if you did give in and do it, you would STILL be heterosexual. If you physically enjoyed sex with a female better than with male and so continued to have sex with females, you would STILL be heterosexual. Because your HEART and therefore your true desire and attraction, will always belong to the opposite sex.

Anyone can choose to live immorally --male, female, heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual. Anyone can choose how they conduct themselves and carry themselves. Anyone can practice self control or not. But you cannot choose who you truly love. I don't know any other way to explain it.

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

Very well said Belladonna.

For those of you who share Gideon's or Jade's view, please read, re-read, and re-read this post.

Until *you* are in the position described, you *cannot* be a judge of whether the actions in question are a simple choice.

I still do not agree with your view of sexual attraction. I believe its always about choice. You also choose to love who you want. Love doesn't choose you. I fall in love with a person because I choose to. I have a friend who fell into lesbianism. While she was in it, it was the best thing. She thought she was born that way and never knew her real self. She had married before and had 1 child and then divorced. Later on after about 3 years of a series of relationships, she fell out of being a lesbian and renounced that period as a phase she went thru. Now, she regrets what she did and how many sexual encounters she had with women. Was she born this way or not?.
No. She told me she got drunk one night with her friend who was not a lesbian either and they started a brief affair. Her friend has since married and my friend is no longer a lesbian. Figure that.

For God fearing individuals, any form of sexual relationships outside of marriage, is against the moral teachings of faith. If your a bible Christian you follow your bible teachings. I see you say how God would think masturbation is a good thing. I don't believe you know how God thinks. If you did, you equate yourself with the intelligence of God or as if you share a camaraderie with him.

I don't understand why you encourage your child to masturbate. This is so very wrong. There is so much more to the human person than touching themselves to achieve sexual gratification. It is certainly not normal. Anything that feels good, you can get addicted to and say if it feels good its ok. I am not harming anyone. Would you encourage your daughter to look at porn to gratify herself also as opposed to going out with a boy. Why have a loving sexual relationship with another human person when you don't need them. You can take care of your sexual desires with yourself. Is it more healthier for your daughter to go out on a date and encourage abstanience or go or tell her to stay home a masturbate. People become addicted to porn because they can masturbate all day long. Something is terribly wrong with this. Your daughter can say no to sex if she chooses. You can give her the tools to become educated about sex and say no to disease and pregnancy.

Bit, I did find a revelation from God about 2.5 years ago that said sexual lust was wrong. This included porn and masturbation. I was on the previous notion that masturbation was okay. It's better than real sex with a woman because there is no strings attached, right? Wrong, it is possibly worse. I have gone full circle and I am now heading in the right direction.

Ram, I am now sad and depressed, thanks.
I read that and if he really is a lawyer, and knows what he is talking about, then he might have a case there. I will give it some thought.
Something I am always thinking about though, is the future. What worries me is that if homosexual marriage is legalized, then we could have the same situation with churches doing preferential marriages that we did with those drug store owners...

Bell, let me tell you why masturbation is a sin. Masturbation, and pornography, are related to lust. You must lust after a person in order to masturbate, and usually pornography is just a means to lust. Lust is the desire to have sex with the individual. You can look at someone and say, "wow, they are attractive." And that is not lust. If you look at someone and say, "wow, I could really go for some of that." That is lust. As soon as you start thinking about someone in a sexual manner, that is lust. Jesus says in Matthew 5:28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman [or a man] lustfully has already committed adultry with her in hes heart. So essentially lust is the sex of the mind and heart. In Exodus 20:14 the 7th commandment, you shall not commit adultery. What is adultery? Having sex with someone other than your spouse. So lust is the adultery of the mind. Adultery is definitly a sin...

I got roped into masturbation and porn because it was easier than sex, and more readily available. Unfortunately, that period of my life totally and utterly annihilated my heart and mind. It messed me up on the inside. You hear horror stories about premarital sex and not lust. Why? Lust hurts deep. It tore me away socially. I could not really talk to a girl until about a year ago. It cheapens sex. Masturbation is actually a very terrible thing for marriage. Because masturbation is easier to get than real sex, so in a marriage it cheapens the sex between husband and wife. Then, that drives people apart.

You want to know some horror stories about masturbation? How about a wife who was about ready to have an affair because her husband chooses porn over her? She didn't have the affair, but is still wanting to get a divorce, because her husband's addiction is still so great. That is not some natural fulfillment of desires, that is an endangerment to a loving bond shared between husband and wife.

I'm sorry that I am going off like this, but masturbation and pornography hits me personally. I have been struggling with it for so long, that I know show the scars of it on my life. I won't ever be able to get back those dark years of my life that I spent in social isolation because of lust. Please, don't tell your daughter it is okay to masturbate. It really isn't.

For anyone who needs it, something that I wish I had know about earlier is the website xxxchurch.com. If you are struggling with mastrubation or pornography, there are many help aids on the web site, along with a forum if you need someone to talk to, or just someone to pray for you.

quote:

---

Belladonna said:

A homosexual man IS born attracted to males.

---

I want to ask you a question Bell, you say that homosexual men are born attracted to men. Are they attracted to a certain physical traight that only men have? Big muscles? I have seen women with big muscles. Deep throats? Yep. Hair? Believe it or not... Unless they are attracted to a man because of his genitilia, there is a woman out there with his physical fantasy fulfilled. Is it emotional or hobby related? I have a friend who acts less like a girl and more like a guy. She can burp better than I can some times. I have a sneaky suspicion that attraction to male characteristics isn't what leads men to homosexuality...

"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

And your personal shortcomings, and your 'sneaky suspicions' have about as much to do with the subject as mashed potatoes do...

A man who chooses pornography over his wife has one of two problems

a) he chose poorly when deciding who to marry

b) he has no level of self control or social awareness, and this problem will manifest itself in a variety of possible ways - the pornography has nothing to do with the actual problem.

Just because you were unable to talk to a girl or control your lust does not make masturbation bad. It showcases a personal shortcoming that you wish to defect by naming something else "wrong".

Deal with your own shortcomings. Don't blame them on outside forces.

Addiction is a matter of personality. A person who becomes 'addicted' to porn will become addicted to a great many things throughout his life, always avoiding the actual problem - the problem stemming form within - in favor of attacking and/or latching onto outside sources as both excuses and comforts.

The only way to fix an internal problem is internally.

quote:

---

shortcomings, and your 'sneaky suspicions' have about as much to do with the subject as mashed potatoes do... A man who chooses pornography over his wife has one of two problems a) he chose poorly when deciding who to marry b) he has no level of self control or social awareness, and this problem will manifest itself in a variety of possible ways - the pornography has nothing to do with the actual problem.

---

I don't think this is good advice for a person who is trying hard to deal with his personal issue of sexuality. Gideon, I do believe your suspicision regarding the problem of unnatural sexual behavior is right on target. I know of a particular person close to me who is haveing the same problem regarding porn/masterbation. The husband no longer lust after his wife, because he rather masterbate with porn magazines. They have a diminshed sex life and she wants him to go see a counselor. A friend of mine who is single and has a boyfriend comfided in to me that her alcoholic boyfriend would rather masterbate with porn than have sex with her, but she still loves him and cannot let go. They both just sleep together like brother and sister and she cries herself to sleep. The problem is more widespread that we think. Mag/Newstand with porn are always full of cars in the parking lots.. I do believe lust is at the center of this problem

quote:

---

Just because you were unable to talk to a girl or control your lust does not make masturbation bad. It showcases a personal shortcoming that you wish to defect by naming something else "wrong". Deal with your own shortcomings. Don't blame them on outside forces.

---

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. Because you escaped into dealing with your sexuality in a way that is not really healthy does not mean something is wrong with you. Once you get over the shyness, you will be cool. Think of ways to keep yourself occupied to not think of you desire to overcome temptation with spiritual couseling of other persons with the same affliction and you will see you will become stronger Christian.

quote:

---

Addiction is a matter of personality. A person who becomes 'addicted' to porn will become addicted to a great many things throughout his life, always avoiding the actual problem - the problem stemming form within - in favor of attacking and/or latching onto outside sources as both excuses and comforts. The only way to fix an internal problem is internally.

---

Well you can start by asking Gideon if he is addicted to anything else and see if its true. I am addicted to chocolate and the food channel, but that doesn't mean I have a problem.

DL--you are right on

Jade, Gideon

You two are really taking it far out of proportion. Not to mention, putting words in my mouth and totally misreading my entire post.

First of all. Lust in and of itself is not sin. It is a natural bodily response, and we have it for a reason. If lust were a sin, it would be a sin to lust after your spouse. Noone would ever get married anyway if there was no lust.

Gideon--take a good long think about those verses you threw out. That verse in Matthew is taken from Jesus clarifying the Ten Commandments. He is talking about adultery. Adultery is a sin because you are breaking your marriage vow to your spouse and to God. Now, a man can have an affair over the internet, and justify it to himself and to his wife that "It's not real, it's just words" and to him that is the truth. Men are able to separate emotions and sex in a way that women cannot and don't. He did not love the woman, he just fooled around with words. To the wife though, it hurts just as bad as if he really cheated. This is what Jesus is warning about in that verse. He is explaining to men specifically that just the very thought can hurt his wife as much as the deed itself. And the whole context is within a marriage. He is not saying that lust or masturbation is a sin in itself, he is saying "Man, control yourself. Love and respect your wife or else you are commiting adultery and breaking your vow, and do not love her as Christ loved the Church."

You can say that is my own interpretation if you want to. But it is what it says, and it is what it is about. Commitment and marriage. Not lust per se. Ask your pastor if you don't believe me.


Now, I am truly sorry that lives get messed up and relationships ruined because of sex. But every one of those examples that the two of you pointed out is lack of control, self indulgence, and selfish behavior. An alcoholic cannot control his drinking. He cannot drink in moderation either. He must abstain completely--at least for a long while, sometimes forever. But alcohol in and of itslef is not the sin. There is usually an underlying problem as to why an alcoholic is an alcoholic. And that underlying issue is what needs to be addressed. It is no different with sex. If you are non-religious, you go to a shrink to find out what the REAL problem is. If you are religious, then you pray to God to help you solve the problem yourself. But if you ask either a shrink or God to remove lust from your heart, your request is futile. You are human, and lust is natural. A Monk or a Nun will not tell you that they do not feel lust toward other humans. What you pray to God for is strength and control and wisdom to understand your desires and master them. You pray to God to guide you to find the true meaning of love and commitment. And then you search them out with wisdom.

As far as my daughter--I never said that I "encourage masturbation". I simply do not teach her it is a sin to masturbate. To do so would be the same as saying your desires are a sin. She DOES go out on dates, and they are properly supervised for a 14 year old. What I teach my daughter is that sex is a natural thing, and is beautiful between two people who are truly in love. I teach her that her virginity is a gift, and that she should be 100% sure before she gives it up, because once it's gone, it's gone. I teach her that true love is about commitment, not about an emotion and butterflies in your stomach that will come and go and fade in and out, suffer peaks and valleys even within a strong marriage. I teach her self-control and the joys of delayed gratification in ALL things, not just sex. I teach her how to deal with the pressure that a boy can put on a girl, or peer-pressure when "all my friends are doing it". I teach her that sex is not just a great physical pleasure, but a huge emotional responsibility. And if she were to ask me about masturbation, which she has not yet, then I will tell her that it is a tool. How can you please someone else sexually if you don't know how to please yourself? And sexual pleasure is a BIG part of the health of a marriage. And if I ever walked in on her and caught her in the act of self pleasure, I would teach her that she does not have to be ashamed of her feelings. I would teach her that it is a personal and private thing, and that just like anything else, you cannot let it rule you.

My kid has a good head on her shoulders. She knows right from wrong. She has a deep belief in God. And she has a very healthy and natural sexual attitude.

How can you teach a kid to control their desires if what you are telling them is to suppress them completely? Suppression is not control. How can you teach a child to have an open and beautiful sexual relationship in their marriage if you are shoving abstinance down their throat? You cannot. This is not the way to teach a healthy sexual attitude. You cannot send mixed signals. Sex cannot be bad in one scenario and good in another. It is still sex, no matter how you do it, how much you do it, who you do it with, or if you don't do it at all. Sex itself, and lust itself, is NOT the problem.

Jade--your friend you mentioned? She was NEVER a lesbian. If you dont' understand that, then I'm sorry. Read my post above that again.

And if you truly believe that you choose who you love, then you truly don't understand the meaning of love. Your heart leads, your mind chooses. Always.

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

I really hate to see really powerful and worthy words going by the wayside. Belladonna, you have put down some really powerful words and I want to let you know that you are not being ignored. It is often harder to show support of someone than it is to attack them, and I want you to know that I support what you have written.

For all of that refuse to even explore the ideas of others, why do you ever try and debate these things? What is the point of you being here? Are you only here to attack and to preach?

Jade and Gideon how can you say that you would know what Jesus would do and think, and then follow up by telling someone else that their interpretation is wrong? Do you not even feel the hypocrisy that washes over you when you do this. You claim to accept Jesus and his new gospel, but you recant back to the old testament and use it as a basis to attack and condemn others.

You continually say love, but everything else you write reads hatred. Your hypocrisy is sickening.

Dan @ Code Town

Thank you WarMage. I did not want to call out the hypocrisy myself, because I really don't think they even realize they do it. Or mean it. But it does hurt when people act that way, to say the very same thing is right when they do it and wrong when you do it.

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

quote:

---

I'm used to hearing about the 2nd Amendment being for hunting and regular self-defense. P&T brought up the point that US citizens might need guns for self-defense against the US government. Our fore-fathers put that in because they foresaw that there might be the need for civil war or revolution.

That really made me stop and think.

---

That's really my point WJ. Might make right - it always has and it always will. Those in a position of power will always be the ones giving out rights & privileges.

You missed it again.

People with power take privileges. They can give nothing.

Dan @ Code Town

Jade - I suppose I really *should* defer to your 'wisdom' on the issue, destpite decades of clinical evidence to the contrary.

But....I just can't.

Addiction is a matter of personality in most (if not all) cases. Period.
In all of those cases, one item is easily substituted for another

You can deny it all you want in favor of your religious belief, but that doesn't alter reality.

I don't care to argue the point further - it is a basic truth, the supporting facts and articles for which litter both the internet and any number of printed periodicals and books.

Nice post BD. Just filter all the religion out, and it would be brilliant.

quote:

---

My kid has a good head on her shoulders. She knows right from wrong. She has a deep belief in God. And she has a very healthy and natural sexual attitude.

---

Replace "She has a deep belief in God" with "She has a deep belief in herself", for example.

I won't even bother commenting on J&G.

Thanks WS. Unfortunately, I can't *totally* filter out my beliefs anymore than anyone else can. Although, I really do try to keep basic things generic. And facing reality is a very basic thing. Anyone who uses religion to lay blame of their problems on an outside source is no different from anyone else who uses any other kind of escapism to remove blame for themselves. And anyone who thinks God or any other source is going to just hand you an answer without you having to work and search for it within yourself, or without facing your problems rather than suppressing them, is no different from a spoiled child.

Anyway, I'm tired of arguing the point too. Not to mention it's all way off topic.

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

They glorified God not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened (Romans 1:21 KJV)."
"For this cause God gave them up into vile affections; for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet (Romans 1: 26,27 KJV)."
Its easier to call us hypocritical than to believe we have any basis for how we believe. To go against the teaching of Christ is a very serious offense for us. We advocate abstiance. And believe sexual relationships are meant of committed persons in a married state. Though the laws of the country will pass laws giving rights to homosexuals to marry, it is not the place of the state to bind or unbind two persons in a sacramental way.


It is easier to go along with society today in their ideological wayward tendency to go self destruct or speak out because care. You see hypocrites. I see love. Gideon and I are only following scriptural teaching. To take scripture and interpret it in way to think it sanctions homosexuality and masturbation is just... well.... I am just at a loss for words.

If Christ were here today walking the planet, how would he counsel the gay partners in marriage relationship? Would he say keep your marriage holy and pure? Be fruitful and multiply by having children. Love each other and no one else for the rest of you life.

The bible makes references to the Christ as a bridegroom and the church as his bride (Male/female imaginary are used here). Not male/male imaginary. The union of Christ with the Church is a communion of committed persons forever. The bible uses marriage very often in scripture to express how God wants to relate to us as spouse.
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. Why do people still look in the Bible not for truth but for the confirmation of their prejudices against believers?

This is the absolute last thing I have to say about this, but I cannot let this pass without being said.

Paul was not God. He was just a man who interpreted things his way. No different from you. No different from me.

(plus, you contradicted yourself. Now you say that no, homosexuality is not a sickness, and does not come from a choice. You say it is an affliction from God. So that means you are born with it, correct? Or that if you are a bad person or lose sight of God you will 'suffer' from homosexuality? This makes no sense at all.)

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

(Edited by Belladonna on 07-13-2005 16:48)

*templar passes by in his stupid and utterly moronic way*

Hmmm... this sounds like a place for that naked guy to be...

*continues to waddle around a circle for a few seconds, then runs away in the corner and shouts in an echo*

"BELIEVE IN THE FISH AS THEY BELIEVE IN YOU..."

Since ye of overwheening faith put all in your god, it seems to me she must also be responsible for creating gays.

Therefore they must be acceptable.

Therefore denying them their natural, god-given sexuality is to deny your god.

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:

---

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?