:nojive:
Not that I really care but I wnder why you classify people who disagree with the gay rights agenda as ignorant and stupid.
Since it's a matter of opinion, why is yours worth more than someone else's? Sounds like hate speech to me. Do you believe more hate will solve the problem you see?
~allewyn
From: there...no..there..... Insane since: May 2001
posted 03-17-2009 22:46
quote: Allewyn said:
why you classify people who disagree with the gay rights agenda as ignorant and stupid.
I'm not answering for NoJive, but I will say that the disagreement toward gay rights is ignorant and stupid. And, unless someone can prove to me otherwise, I will stand that position.
From: The Happy Hunting Grounds... Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 03-17-2009 22:55
I would call it somewhat ignorant, yes. I would not go as far as to call disagreement with it stupid (though I certainly feel that it is, I do not consider that to be factual).
I would say that disagreement with Gay Rights is very difficult to defend, logically. I have yet to see or hear a logical reason against Gay Rights.
WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles
quote:I would say that disagreement with Gay Rights is very difficult to defend, logically. I have yet to see or hear a logical reason against Gay Rights
What is the logical in dept well thought out reason for Gay Rights?
From: The Happy Hunting Grounds... Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 03-18-2009 17:27
quote:What is the logical in dept well thought out reason for Gay Rights?
The same for all those who are unjustly oppressed and seeking equal rights, of course. The same logical well-thought out reasons that apply to Women, Indians, African Americans, Hispanics, etc.
In fact, I think it is the same as those in the Constitution, is it not?
You know "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
And so forth.
WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles
I don't usually participate in these discussions because they become strident and divisive so quickly, but I'm going to make a stab at it.
Rather than discussing 'Gay Rights', let's assume we're talking about the rights of Purple People. Is it just to say that just because a person is purple, they may not hold certain jobs, or use certain public facilities, or have equal protection under that law? Is it just to make laws that say that because a person is purple they must be kept separate from the rest of society and only have some of the rights and privileges the rest of the people in society have come to expect?
Before you answer the questions I've asked above, substitute for the word 'purple', any and all of the following: 'women', 'black', 'children', 'men', 'hispanic', etc.
I believe that none of these is just. The purple people deserver the same rights and privileges as everyone merely because they are human.
Basically we are asking the same question that has already been asked. Can we divide society into different groups for the purpose of oppressing some of the people in society? The answer to that question is always 'NO!'
Any time one group of people tries to create prejudice against another group of people, it is done in an attempt to control all the people, not just those against whom the prejudice is fostered. We must eliminate all forms of prejudice if we are to end oppression. Any time one group of people is oppressed, whether they be purple, black, yellow, white, red, brown, male, female, old, young, etc. it requires the efforts of the rest of society to oppress them. It takes away from society not only the abilities of the oppressed, but also of the oppressors and overall subtracts from society.
I hope this helps you understand a little bit of why many people feel it is wrong to remove the rights of any group of people just because they happen to be purple.
No offense, Hyperbole, but it is not a question of CAN we be divisive in society... as we obviously can and often are divisive in society. It is a question of SHOULD we which depends on the goals of the person in question.
So the question to ask someone is what is your goal in being against <pick your people>?
If their answer is to promote everyone... they are liars and one of the below.
If their answer is to promote those people over there... they are racists, bigots, or hatemongers. The very kindest they could be called is unjust and unfair.
If their answer is to uphold existing virtues or standards... they are misguided racists, bigots, or hatemongers. The very kindest they could be called is unjust and unfair.
It is this last category of people that I think we're calling ignorant. The rest of them are jsut what they are... Bigots, Racists, or Hatemongers. Allowing someone to enjoy the freedom that is rightfully theirs does not equal condoning their actions or accepting them... it just means you are tolerant of them. If you can't be tolerant of people different than yourself... why should ANYONE be tolerant of you? Starting to feel outnumbered?
While I am not personally homosexual and find the thought of male homosexuality distasteful (regardless of the fact that some of my most respected friends are homosexual and male), I steadfastly believe in every human being's right to freedom and equality, even if all people are not equal (most people are short/hairy and/or stupid, as far as I have observed, but that doesn't make them less human than I am).
Whether I personally feel like having someone's organ shoved up my arse or not, I would happily protect and defend any consenting adult couple's right to do whatever the f*** they please with eachother.
To criminalise personal freedom (and that's what those eighty countries do) is both stupid and ignorant, regardless of opinion - it is simply a fact that stupidity and ignorance are the only logical reasons (and poor excuses) for making criminals of people for the way they feel for each other.
Of course, I extend my beliefs beyond simply matters of sex and love, so I'm simply showing the same regard for equality and freedom in homosexuality as I do in many other aspects of the human condition.
I fear I suffer some prejudices (like expecting stupid people to do or say stupid things, for instance) but I recognise my failings, especially when they make me seem ignorant and stupid. As an example, I often argue that as an Englishman, it is my heritage and right to bloody well hate the French. I have only rarely met a French person that I haven't gotten on great with... but I still hate the French... mostly Parisians...
That's stupid and ignorant (even if it is mostly in jest) and I haven't yet criminalised the act of being French. If I did criminalise it, I'd be worse than stupid and ignorant, I'd be unworthy of the very rights and freedoms that I've denied a selected group of others.
Okay, okay - I must confess that I am prejudiced. I'm prejudiced against some groups, and I'm (perhaps, stupidly and ignorantly) proud to admit it. I'm prejudiced against arseholes, and I class anyone who would support criminalisation, imprisonment, or execution of people for 'being gay' (or French, purple, religious, non-religious, cannabis smokers, cat/dog lovers, etc.) a complete and total, utter arsehole.
Beyond that, everyone's entitled to their opinion, stupid and ignorant or otherwise.
From: there...no..there..... Insane since: May 2001
posted 03-19-2009 02:37
I do not think it is wrong for anyone to have their opinion be it stupid, ignorant or otherwise. It is when it oppresses peoples from living a life that they are entitled to.
As hyperbole pointed out, you can substitute the word "Gay" for whatever and apply the same denial of rights and see how absurd it sounds. Let's deny rights to people that have blonde hair and blue eyes.
I could be wrong, but I didn't see NJ's original post as calling those against gay rights ignorant and stupid. Maybe I was just being naive, but I read it along the lines of when people say, "...and still no cure for cancer" when hearing about some seemingly trivial scientific advancement.
Or maybe not. I don't know. Maybe NJ will clarify for us.
From: The Land of one Headlight on. Insane since: May 2001
posted 03-19-2009 12:58
=) Oh sure ask the old guy what he was thinking 3 months ago!
To me the religious argument against homosexuality is based on ignorance ergo stupid. So I was probably thinking that in those countries where homosexuality is punishable by law wouldn't it be grand if they passed another law against ignorance and stupidity. That could never happen of course because they displayed both states via the law against homosexuality.
Having one of those catch 22 type moments I'm sure. Now if I can only find my keys. =)
___________________________________________________________________________
?Privatize the Profits - Socialize the Losses.? Randi Rhodes
I watched a Simpson's episode last night where Homer Simpson was house sitting for Mr. Burns. Homer decided to take Mr. Burns' yacht out for spin into international waters so that he would be able to drink beer before 5 p.m. on a Sunday. Out there was also a man marrying a cow.
This brings me to a few questions:
What will the new definition of marriage be? Will we limit it to just two consenting people, no matter of sex (same-sex)? What about age (9-15 year olds)? What about number of people (Mormons)? What about species (dogs, cows, etc)?
Since America is a democratic republic, I would be inclined to say that the definiton of marriage in America should rest on what the people say it is. In other countries it should rest on their way of determining laws. But just because one person has a different idea of what marriage should be, that does not mean the government must endorse that particular ideology. The government must make rules and the government must draw lines. That's the role of a government. They are supposed to discriminate against what the society deems harmful.
Some public gray areas have already been through the legal system in America, like alcohol. First, the people wanted alcohol to not be sold in America. Once the people found out that created more problems than it solved, they changed the law again to allow alcohol to be sold. It took several years, but I think the best solution came out in the end. Some people still disagree.
Personally, I don't think America's government should endorse other definitions of marriage other than one man and one woman (for life btw). I have many reasons for my belief, and I believe that other forms of marriage could be potentially harmful for my country. But that is my belief and my opinion.
From: The Happy Hunting Grounds... Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 05-29-2009 22:14
Hooboy.
So much here to address.
quote:What will the new definition of marriage be? Will we limit it to just two consenting people, no matter of sex (same-sex)? What about age (9-15 year olds)? What about number of people (Mormons)? What about species (dogs, cows, etc)?
The "new" definition of marriage? I don't see any reason for much of a new definition! It is between two loving, consenting individuals who are of legal age to marry.
To be honest - I also really don't have anything against marriages of more than two individuals. I just think that involving more than two individuals will require many more, complex laws governing what happens in case of a divorce. Imagine 20 men and 40 women (or vice versa, whatever) all married to one another, with children- I think that would get pretty messy if they (or some) decided to divorce.
Since animals cannot be considered to be consenting, and children are not of legal age to marry, I think that pretty much puts that all to rest.
quote:Since America is a democratic republic, I would be inclined to say that the definiton of marriage in America should rest on what the people say it is.
Ermmm...no. That is just so screwed up, I quite frankly find it difficult, no, incredulous to believe that I am reading it! Even coming from you this is just so unbelievably screwed up, it blows my mind!
We have a Constitution and a Bill of Rights created to prevent just the sort of thing you are suggesting! It is the job of the Goverment of the USA to impliment and uphold what is in those papers.
Now, The People do have the right to Amend the Constitution - so if enough believed that something should be such and such a way, then it could be done. However, it doesn't look like there are enough to do that.
End of that line of thought.
I find it truly discerning how people like you, Gid, can deny others equal rights. I also find it appalling that you are suggesting that it will somehow "harm" things? How in the HELL could it harm things? The way it is currently is harming things!
One does not have to like or agree with the lifestyles of others to be tolerant of said lifestyle. That they would want the same rights and privileges of others around them seems a pretty natural thing to me, and one that should be granted to them according to our Constitution.
As has been said - substitute the word "Gay" for any other and see if you can still retain your position. Start with the word Gideon2.
WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles
I have been hearing for decades about the "harmful" effects of gay marriage.
I have yet to hear a single person actually iterate any such harmful effects.
Reading through these few examples I did not see your definition in there at all. I saw many restrictions and regulations upon who can marry. Each of these restrictions is wrestled over in court and in legislature and finally agreed upon by representatives in the government. A few of the definitions included same-sex marriage. Others did not. The point is that each time the definition changes (which they do often), there is a new defintion. Where do we as a people want this definition to go?
[btw] According to law, children under the age of 18 are not of legal age to marry (in most states) unless they have parental consent. Then it is okay. [/btw]
Unfortunately, an open definition does not "put to rest" everything which can come up. The government must draw lines and must make distinctions unless we will get those problems of 40 person families who want a divorce. (You yourself put restrictions in your short definition of marriage)
How do we come up with those distinctions? The people elect representatives, then those representatives make laws based on the interests of those they represent. That is how government works in America. America is a democratic republic. Not an oligarchy. Not a democracy. You are right that we have such documents like the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to protect our rights. But "we the people" also have been given the power to change those laws when we need to. Who are you to say what is right and wrong? What makes you the judge of morality and equality in our country? That power belongs to the people.
side note:
quote: WebShaman said:
As has been said - substitute the word "Gay" for any other and see if you can still retain your position.
Polygamist, communist, socialist, alcoholic, pedophile, prostitute. I can go on if you would like.
[disclaimer: I personally am not against the first three, but I know that others in this country are, so I submit to the country when I live here.]
The people elect representatives, then those representatives make laws based on the interests of those they represent. That is how government works in America.
No, it's not
And it never has been.
The point to our system of government is precisely the fact that those elected do NOT simply follow popular opinion.
Our government, in principle if not in practice, is there to protect the rights of the people, including - quite particularly - those who might not have the majority opinion.
Communists/socialists are fine so long as they choose to be communist, and don't FORCE others to be. It's a belief system -- it may be wrong or even stupid, but it's a choice.
Alcoholics/prostitutes are fine, so long as they don't FORCE anyone to join them and don't harm those who do not wish to be harmed. It's a career path -- it may be wrong or even stupid, but it's a choice.
Pedophiles f*** people who lack the experience, intelligence, or development to consent. Pedophilia functions exactly like other sexual orientations, but it is bad because the people that pedophiles are attracted to can't consent -- ever. What this means is that pedophiles aren't inherently bad people, but pedophilia is a little bad (though not bad or controllable enough to warrant punishment to the person experiencing it), and pedophiles who act on their desires are bad people -- whether they wanted to act on those desires or not.
I don't necessarily hate polygamists, but I do think it's pretty weird -- and while I've never experienced such feelings, I'd theorize that they're composed more of lust than love: love is when you find a single person whose genes are compatible with yours (and there are many ways to tell) and wish to spend your life producing genetically superior offspring with them; whereas lust is the wish to screw everything that moves, with the sole intent of spreading your own genes around with no regard as to the genetic superiority of the resulting offspring. Polygamy involves by definition the screwing of several people by one person, so it seems to be motivated more by lust (the desire to screw a lot of people) than love (the desire to screw one -- maybe two depending on your personality -- people). Again, though, as I'm not a polygamist and I've never met a polygamist; and as my mind has developed abnormally, diminishing my social and emotional processing in favor of logical mental processing; and as I am unable to read the minds of anyone, much less people I don't even know; I can only make a blind guess as to the actual motives of polygamy.
Now, one could name criminals (child molesters, murderers, etc.), but that argument could be counter-argued with the point that by violating the rights of others and by having that violation proven in court, the criminals in question have thus relinquished their own rights -- to a point.
Because Gid is an individual and I think it would be too much work for the government to have a list of people who can't marry and keep up on it at all times.
They may be allowed to marry to some extent. The polygamist may be able to marry one person but cannot marry how he or she wants in our country, and the pedophile must have parental consent before he or she marries a minor.
My point with that list is that the government does restrict some privledges or rights from some people. Polygamists are not allowed to legally marry more than one person. Communists and socialists used to not be allowed to change our government. Alcoholics are not allowed to drive under the influence. Pedophiles aren't allowed to marry minors without parent consent. Prostitutes (especially sex slaves) are not allowed to sell their bodies for money in most states.
You never said your definition was the legal definition. Netiher did I claim it was. I was just pointing out that your definition was not the legal definition. My point with that was that we would have to change the legal definition to make your definition fit. My question then was: where do we draw the line?
quote: DL-44 said:
those elected do NOT simply follow popular opinion
Is there a reason they must follow someone's opinion?
The point, gideon, is that their job - among other things - is to ensure the rights of the people. You cannot assure the rights of the people by simply doing what the majority wants, because inevitably what the majority wants will infringe on the rights of the minority.
This is also precisely why your arguments in response to WS's post are irrelevant to his point. You are taking examples in which the actions taken by the people you describe directly infringe on other people's rights.
2 consenting adults marrying each other does absolutely nothing to infringe anyone else's rights. You have yet to offer any actual reason that same-sex couples should not be allowed to marry, other than "I don't think they should".
Side note: I am trying to find an article that I read just a couple of weeks ago, and not having any luck. Perhaps someone else will be able to find it - it was a summary of the decision of a judge in Idaho in a case attempting to ban gay marriage in the state, and it was extremely well stated. If I can find it again, I will post it...
Is it just to say that just because a person is purple, they may not hold certain jobs, or use certain public facilities, or have equal protection under that law? Is it just to make laws that say that because a person is purple they must be kept separate from the rest of society and only have some of the rights and privileges the rest of the people in society have come to expect?
...
I don't necessarily disagree with anything you've written hyperbole, but I'm not all that sure how applicable any of it is to the discussion of gay rights - at least from the standpoint of a US citizen.
While I certainly believe in equal rights for all, I think this whole gay rights movement is largely nonsense and equating it with genuine civil rights movements (I don't mean to say that you are) does a disservice for genuine civil rights movements. For the most part, I fail to see where the civil rights of gays are being trampled on exclusively. No matter how proponents frame it, it really isn't anything like slavery and so on.
Edit:
It's been a while since I've posted but I hope everyone is doing well.
quote:Communists and socialists used to not be allowed to change our government.
Neither are conservatives, liberals, independents, minors, majors, soldiers, civilians, web developers, n00bs, hackers, crackers, modders, gamers, readers, writers, TV viewers, Twitterers, anarchists, Democrats, Republicans, gays, straights, bis, musicians, artists, painters, sketchers, sculptors, forumgoers, /b/tards, trolls, Wikipedians, Halopedians, programmers, scripters, userscripters, script kiddies, spammers, scammers, minorities, majorities, pessimists, optimists, extroverts, introverts, perfectionists, procrastinators, slobs, neatfreaks... The only group that is "allowed" to change our government is the group of people who work for the government. Not even the majority can change the government, though it certainly has a very powerful if indirect influence on the government's functioning.
quote:Alcoholics are not allowed to drive under the influence.
We tried politely asking them not to run people over, killing, injuring, or permanently rendering comatose innocent people who did nothing wrong... but it didn't work.
quote:Pedophiles aren't allowed to marry minors without parent consent.
We tried politely asking them not to commit sexual acts that the minors, not being emotionally or developmentally ready to experience, would be emotionally or psychologically harmed by... but it didn't work.
quote:Prostitutes (especially sex slaves) are not allowed to sell their bodies for money in most states.
We tried politely asking them to try not to distribute STDs and other contagions, thereby drastically increasing the prevalence of such afflictions... but it didn't work.
quote:No matter how proponents frame it, it really isn't anything like slavery and so on.
The manifestation of the bigotry is different (no marriage instead of no freedom), but the bigotry itself is the same. Hell, if slavery and lynching and hate crimes weren't taboo, it'd probably be a lot more similar to the "genuine civil rights movements" that you're thinking of.
Also, sorry for the double-post -- Jestah must've posted while I was typing my other post.
The manifestation of the bigotry is different (no marriage instead of no freedom), but the bigotry itself is the same. Hell, if slavery and lynching and hate crimes weren't taboo, it'd probably be a lot more similar to the "genuine civil rights movements" that you're thinking of.
I disagree on the bigotry part but that's not all that relevant because it's not the alleged bigotry that's the issue but rather the suppression of rights. It's hard for me to hold a straight face when people compare slavery or lynching to insurance claims or inheritance issues but, as I said above, those issues aren't really exclusive to gay rights. I support equal rights for all but I think a lot of what gets brought up under the banner of gay rights is relatively small potatoes.
Of course I'm limiting this to the United States. I recognize the topic deals with global views but I don't know all that much about other countries.
but I think a lot of what gets brought up under the banner of gay rights is relatively small potatoes.
Well...it's all small potatoes to the people who are not affected by it...
Having never been lynched, enslaved, or denied the right to marry the person that I love...I guess I am not qualified to say how big each potato might be...
I do, however, imagine that although the potatoes might be different sizes, they all feel pretty painful when shoved where we don't want them...
Well...it's all small potatoes to the people who are not affected by it...
I don't know if you have to necessarily be enslaved or lynched to come to the conclusion that it's a little different than your significant other not being on your insurance.
From: The Happy Hunting Grounds... Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 06-06-2009 12:55
I must say, Jester, that you are really going off on a tangeant.
One could draw the same "similarities" between Sufferage and the Gay Rights Movement, if it sits better with your sensibilities.
It is called Equal Rights - it is not about what different groups that were denied equal rights have gone through, but rather that they should have equal rights!
Is that too difficult to understand?
I loathe the excuse that some are gathering under, to keep denying Gays Equal Rights - that it somehow is not "worthy enough" because Gays have not suffered enough or as much as other groups that have gotten equal rights.
Why should such matter? It is not about how much this or that group has suffered - that is just distracting from the point here. It is about Equal Rights and the granting thereof.
WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles
Not to mention the number of gays who have been persecuted up to and including torture and murder because of their sexual orientation. Although the number may be smaller, the treatment is the same as what many blacks suffered at various points in our history.
You're jumping to conclusions that I'm not making. I'm not suggesting at all that gays haven't suffered as much as other groups and are therefore not worthy of equal rights.
It's not that I don't support gay marriage. It's I simply do not see which civil rights are actually being violated.
Not to mention the number of gays who have been persecuted up to and including torture and murder because of their sexual orientation. Although the number may be smaller, the treatment is the same as what many blacks suffered at various points in our history.
People are persecuted, tortured, and murdered for various reasons DL. None of that holds any relevance to this discussion.
From: The Happy Hunting Grounds... Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 06-06-2009 22:05
quote:You're jumping to conclusions that I'm not making.
I wasn't aware that I made any conclusions regarding you (ok, one could perhaps consider "going off on a tangeant" perhaps to be a conclusion, but I don't)
*insert shrug Slimie here*
You do not see which civil rights are being violated? You mean not being granted, right?
There is a difference between violating rights that have been given, and not having granted those rights in the first place.
AFAIK, I don't see rights being "violated" in that sense - because they have not yet been granted.
That is why they are being asked for, IMHO.
And I can only reiterate what DL has posted to your reply:
WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles
A failure to grant rights that are deserved could kinda be considered a violation of those rights. During slavery, blacks' rights weren't violated because they never had rights -- but I would still consider the actions of slaveowners as violating their slaves' rights, despite the fact that the slaves didn't officially have such rights.
quote:Are things like this small potatoes too?
As an irrelevant but has-been-bugging-me-for-a-while side note, why don't most life sentences actually last for the rest of the convicted's life, and why does "concurrent sentencing" exist?
No matter how proponents frame it, it really isn't anything like slavery and so on.
While I am sure someone out there has done it, I have never heard anyone equate the issue to slavery.
More importantly, the black civil rights movement had nothing to do with slavery, and the real core of the movement took place nearly a century after the abolition of slavery.
The movement was entirely about being able to do the same things as anyone else, and eliminating the laws and/or the legally tolerated behaviors that excluded them from doing so.
I fail to see how the two are not part of the same fight...
I'm always up for conversation but if you're going to go into it being dishonest there isn't a real lot of incentive for me to bother with the discussion. If you want to talk like a normal person that's fine. If not, that's also fine.
A failure to grant rights that are deserved could kinda be considered a violation of those rights. During slavery, blacks' rights weren't violated because they never had rights -- but I would still consider the actions of slaveowners as violating their slaves' rights, despite the fact that the slaves didn't officially have such rights.
I see where you're coming from but do not believe rights, in the sense that we're talking, are something to be granted.
All people have certain universal, inalienable rights that colonial Americans accurately (IMO) summed up as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That those rights were denied to blacks during slavery did not mean they didn't exist. Their rights were being violated.
I don't believe that's the case with gays in the United States and fail to see a universal, inalienable right that the United States must recognize marriage amongst everyone.
If the USA gets out of the marriage business altogether, which I would whole heatedly support, would that mean everyone's rights were suddenly violated? If the USA ceases to exist in 100 years, does that mean rights will be forever violated going forward? As a single male, does it mean that my rights are currently being violated because the government will not recognize me as married until I legally marry a woman?
You're attempting to draw parallels between the treatment of gays and slaves that just don't exist.
As I explained above, I am not talking in any sense whatsoever about slaves.
I am commenting on the very real and obvious parallel between the discrimination against people based on their ethnicity, and the discrimintaion against people based on their sexual orientation.
Do you have anything behind your opinions that would address my points above?
I don't believe that's the case with gays in the United States and fail to see a universal, inalienable right that the United States must recognize marriage amongst everyone.
You do realize that the fight for gay rights is not about gay marriage, right?
Yes, it's part of it, here in the US, but it's obviously very far from the whole thing!
You do also realize that the article and post that spawned this conversation were about the decriminalization of homosexuality itself?
We're talking about a lot more than marriage.
On the other hand: you say that you believe we have, as an inalienable right, the pursuit of happiness. And yet you say you can't see what inalienable right is being denied gays?
Wouldn't it be easier to simply spell out each and every hardship and violation of rights gay Americans face on a daily basis rather than to tell me it's only part of the problem each time I make a point? I just don't see all the discrimination you see.
Well, like I said, it's small potatoes to the people who don't have to go through it...
Of course, I have yet to see you make much of a point, quite honestly.
What it would be easier to is to actually explain your points, and respond to mine instead of being defensive to the point of silliness.
You don't seem to like addressing many of the points that others bring up.
I am beginning to think you just missed being a troll, quite frankly...
From: The Happy Hunting Grounds... Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 06-08-2009 09:03
Wow.
You know Jestah, in all the years that I have had contact with you on these boards, it is the first time I can recall that you refer to me being "dishonest".
I suppose I should probably react to that, but as I do not think it would in any way, shape, or form make a difference in your perception, that instead I will just go along with your suggestion and not discuss things with you, seeing that you are the one jumping to conclusions.
Jestah, if you truly were interested in what sort of unequal treatment Homosexuals face everyday, you have one of the most powerful tools at your disposal - the internet.
Research it.
WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles
Jestah....
As long as you deal with athiest they will never see your view even when the facts are in front of them.
Your well thoughout very convincing views will never satisfy them. They will say you never have a convincing argument because their ideology is very different from the masses.
I don't believe gays are discriminated against either.. They,,,the homosexuals activist will never be at peace as long as they are considered "abnormal" in their sexual prefernces/tendencies for the same sex. Everything else about them in behavior will be considered as normal. So I don't see much discriminaton only what they choose to label as discrimination.
And where has any "well thought out very convincing view" been presented that supports the views you state on the subject?
Certainly not in this thread...
And what facts, exactly, are in front of us that you feel we are failing to see?
From: The Happy Hunting Grounds... Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 06-08-2009 23:40
Hehe...well, I guess Jestah should know that he is on the wrong side of things here, if Jade is not only agreeing with him, but praising his posts!
Halleluja!
Jestah and Jade, on the same side of things.
Certainly some topics do make for strange bedfellows
Oh, and I can only repeat what DL has stated - what does Gay Rights have to do with Atheism and which facts have been presented that we have failed to see?
WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles
And where has any "well thought out very convincing view" been presented that supports the views you state on the subject?
Certainly not in this thread...
And what facts, exactly, are in front of us that you feel we are failing to see?
you see what i mean...you never conceed to any view opposed to yours..."like thats true...you make a good point, I can see that too...maybe" Like there could never possibly be any middle ground.
No explaination is good enough for your train of thought on some issues. Its either your way or the highway...in ideoogy. Becaues its correct for you doesn't mean its correct for the rest of the world.
Thats why posters give up on you,....your .......your..."terco".....well I said it. Its true...
Most people of religious faith are against "some gay right issues" that they feel are not based on discrimination... We can all yell discrimination in our life reagarding certian habits, choices...like:
being female.
being fat, ugly
being hispanic
being religious
being liberal
being conservative
being promiscious
being white
being black
being a jerk
being morman
being mexican
being black
being indian
being beautiful
being intelligent as opposed to being stupid
being single
being married
being in a "live in not married relationship"
being lazy
being un-academic
See...these who are listed above can claim discrimination too. Get my point.
Jestah....As long as you deal with athiest they will never see your view even when the facts are in front of them.Your well thoughout very convincing views will never satisfy them. They will say you never have a convincing argument because their ideology is very different from the masses. I don't believe gays are discriminated against either.. They,,,the homosexuals activist will never be at peace as long as they are considered "abnormal" in their sexual prefernces/tendencies for the same sex. Everything else about them in behavior will be considered as normal. So I don't see much discriminaton only what they choose to label as discrimination.
"As long as you deal with athiest they will never see your view even when the facts are in front of them..." - What facts? Please, I'd love to hear them. I love how you impose an "us versus them" mentality on everything to justify your currently unexplained and likely illogical beliefs -- all without even realizing the fallacy!
"...They will say you never have a convincing argument because their ideology is very different from the masses..." - You're one to talk. How do you know that you're part of "the masses"? For all you know, people who hate gays for no apparent logical reason could be the minority -- I certainly hope that they are.
"...I don't believe gays are discriminated against either.. They,,,the homosexuals activist will never be at peace as long as they are considered "abnormal" in their sexual prefernces/tendencies for the same sex..." - I doubt that gays are mad about being abnormal -- biologically speaking, they are very clearly abnormal, and I should hope that most of them are aware of it. The problem, though, is that we are treating them unfairly for an abnormality that is completely beyond their control. I wonder, do you approve of the unfair treatment that blacks and women received for several centuries? They were treated like shit because they had an abnormality that was completely beyond their control.
"So I don't see much discriminaton only what they choose to label as discrimination." - I'm sure that white slaveowners didn't see their brutal and unfair practices as "discrimination" either -- the only discrimination was what black slaves labeled as discrimination. Does that mean that it wasn't discrimination?
quote: jade said:
quote:WTF does this have to do with atheism? And where has any "well thought out very convincing view" been presented that supports the views you state on the subject?
Certainly not in this thread...And what facts, exactly, are in front of us that you feel we are failing to see?
e]
you see what i mean...you never conceed to any view opposed to yours..."like thats true...you make a good point, I can see that too...maybe" Like there could never possibly be any middle ground.
No explaination is good enough for your train of thought on some issues. Its either your way or the highway...in ideoogy. Becaues its correct for you doesn't mean its correct for the rest of the world. Thats why posters give up on you,....your .......your..."terco".....well I said it. Its true...
Most people of religious faith are against "some gay right issues" that they feel are not based on discrimination... We can all yell discrimination in our life reagarding certian habits, choices...like:
being female.
being fat, ugly
being hispanic
being religious
being liberal
being conservative
being promiscious
being white
being black
being a jerk
being morman
being mexican
being black
being indian
being beautiful
being intelligent as opposed to being stupid
being single
being married
being in a "live in not married relationship"
being lazy
being un-academic
See...these who are listed above can claim discrimination too. Get my point.
"you see what i mean...you never conceed to any view opposed to yours..."like thats true...you make a good point, I can see that too...maybe" Like there could never possibly be any middle ground." - When Jestah makes a good point, that point will be recognized as such. And no, there is no middle ground: either you do discriminate, or you don't.
"No explaination is good enough for your train of thought on some issues. Its either your way or the highway...in ideoogy. Becaues its correct for you doesn't mean its correct for the rest of the world. Thats why posters give up on you,....your .......your..."terco".....well I said it. Its true..." - When someone thinks of a logical, well-thought out reason to discriminate against homosexuals, one based solely in valid, proven fact, and not in opinion, not in unproven mythologies such as religion, not in hyperbole or ad hominem -- cold, hard facts, and absolutely nothing more... That's the kind of explanation that is needed. We -- the guys that don't hate gays -- have logical reasons and comparisons showing why we shouldn't hate gays. You -- the guys that do -- don't.
"Most people of religious faith are against "some gay right issues" that they feel are not based on discrimination..." - Motive is irrelevant -- it's still discrimination. "Hey, I know, let's treat people unfairly just because they have an uncontrollable psychological abnormality that is being denounced by some ancient, unproven, pre-B.C.E. book written by naive cavemen who were so intellectually primitive that they thought the sun went around the Earth! What a great idea!" Please explain to me how that's not discrimination.
It doesn't change the fact that you have not made any relevant points here...you want people to "concede" to your "well thought out" views...but you have not presented any well thought out views here, Jade, and you -- for someone pointing their finger at so many others -- never pay the slightest bit of attention to the points that others make.
You have not once, that I recall, actually stated a reason that gays should be denied the basic civil rights as anyone else.
For that matter, neither has anyone else in this thread...
From: The Happy Hunting Grounds... Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 06-09-2009 09:12
quote:You have not once, that I recall, actually stated a reason that gays should be denied the basic civil rights as anyone else.
For that matter, neither has anyone else in this thread...
The actual crux of the matter.
Instead, lots of smoke and mirrors, sidestepping, sidetracking, and pointing the finger in any other direction than the one that is being discussed.
WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles
quote:I've been called worse by better people per DL
You see how you discriminate against me because I don't agree with your view???
Why are there better people out there as opposed to me...? Answer this question.
What is wrong with me that I am not a better person? Answer this question.
It seems you have judged me as an individual.
Besides..you side step, tap dance and salsa around my quesitons to you in past post...Your no different.
I still fail to see a convincing argument for the recent shift in gays rights.
Explain this:
Just today....I read NY is going to reverse its same sex marriage anticipated ruling because of a shift in a senate seat to totally banning same sex marriage in the state. The NY public opinon poll is tied 46-46% . The Supreme court ruling "don't ask ...don't tell " stood firm yesterday. This is a disappointment to the current Obama administration which said it was going to try to reverse the ruling.
From: The Happy Hunting Grounds... Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 06-09-2009 17:23
Though I cannot personally speak for DL, I do not think that he discriminates against you, Jade, because you "do not agree" with his view (whatever that might be).
I personally don't think he discriminates against you at all.
Instead, I rather suspect that he disagrees with what you post, because it is almost never backed up by anything remotely resembling evidence, nor are most of your posts rational. It is where I mostly disagree with what you post, because it rarely makes any sense at all, and doesn't seem to be founded on any rational basis.
You seem to believe (at least, you give that impression and post to such) that belief in and of itself is enough evidence to support a position. And although I believe that you really do think that this is a "truth" and therefore evidence in and of itself, it is not.
It is not how one goes about supporting a particular view or position.
It is true for you, soley for you. That is why it is referred to as belief - because one believes in it. Note that this does not just apply to religion here, or Faith (though faith in something is very similar).
The REASON(S) that someone believes in something is what is used to determine the validity of it to others (not meaning that it necessarily needs to be, but if one wishes others to understand the reason(s) behind the belief, then it is important to include and state them).
Now, let us consider some who have views (or perhaps positions is a better choice) that are closer to your own - Bugs and Master Suho. I think you will find that most of us here, although we may disagree with certain parts of their views, certainly do not "discriminate" or somesuch because we do not agree with their views of positions (and to be honest, I haven't seen much discrimination here in the Asylum at all).
So why do you think that is?
If you examine how both Bugs and Master Suho support their views and positions, then it should become clear to you.
As for your "assertions" that DL has avoided your questions - to a certain extent, I believe that is correct. I know that I tend to do this now, as well. It is because past experiences have taught us the futility in trying to educate you with responses to your questions.
Ram your head enough times against the wall, and one learns not to do it anymore.
WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles
quote:Now, let us consider some who have views (or perhaps positions is a better choice) that are closer to your own - Bugs and Master Suho. I think you will find that most of us here, although we may disagree with certain parts of their views, certainly do not "discriminate" or somesuch because we do not agree with their views of positions (and to be honest, I haven't seen much discrimination here in the Asylum at all
haha,,,this is totally untrue...your post to me...always show discrimination just for the mere fact that I am against same sex marriage and aboriton...Not by u, but I have been called stupid, ignorant, bastard, the F word...bitch, racist, bigot, uneducated, not intelligent...so stop trying bury your head in the sand. Its not like u.
Gays rights is not about liberty and the pursuit of happiness....There a thousand other issues that can be considered "this will make me happy" and are taboo. Their rights are not being violated. They have rights like all heteros do. Regarding insurance..every one should have insurance. Its should be low and affordable..
Its a scandal and shame for us in our country to deny medical benefits for all, not just homos. Regarding marriage of spouses.. the homos can leave their estate to one another without changing marriage laws. Just leave it in their will.
quote:Ram your head enough times against the wall, and one learns not to do it anymore.
same can be said for u from me.
quote:I am commenting on the very real and obvious parallel between the discrimination against people based on their ethnicity, and the discrimintaion against people based on their sexual orientation
Black persons I have talked to here at work take offense when you compare slavery to discrimination of gays. They do not see it the same way. Color of skin that you are born with as opposed to how you choose to have sex is so uncomparable to them They get upset about it. This is probably why many California blacks voted to ban same sex marriage in their state in Proposition 8. They see the movement as trying to lump themselves or align with the black cause just to make it more effective in promoting their lifestyle. And it backfired on them.
quote:The point to our system of government is precisely the fact that those elected do NOT simply follow popular opinion.
Our government, in principle if not in practice, is there to protect the rights of the people, including - quite particularly - those who might not have the majority opinion.
True.. that is why...the US Supreme court let stand the "don't ask, don't tell" policy in the military because it is for the good of the country and the military. They want the gays to live a secret life in the military.
Do you agree with them DL Webshaman? If not, state why in facts to support your reasoning against the US Supreme Court?
quote:It appears that neither you nor your black colleagues have grasped the fact that one does not choose to be gay.
Please prove this in scientific facts as opposed to your opinion poi. When a human male/female begin puberty tell me when the first signs appear of their homosexual tendencies for the same gender. Maybe you can enlighten the scientist.
There is no research to indicate proof.
Saying one is born gay cannot be proven anywhere.
Choosing to live a gay lifestyle or choosing to be bisexual can be choices. Sexual fullfillment can be achieved no matter what gender and this is where the choice lies.
quote:LMAO!
That's rich, Jade.
You call me names...and when I throw a quip back in reply, I am persecuting you...
Good stuff...thanks for the laugh, I needed it today
I did not call you names...I just say you seemed stubborn in views.
still waiting for each of my questions to be answered..
Why do you think the supreme court still wants gays to stay in the closet in the military? How are they justified in making this correct decsion since you are passionate about the gay causes?
still waiting for each of my questions to be answered..
If you would ask questions that weren't completely nonsensical, I might be able to Jade.
I won't waste my time on questions that have been answered over and over and over, or ones that are obvious trolling.
The issue of genetics and homosexuality is pretty well explored scientifically at this point, and there is a lot of evidence to support homosexuality having a genetic basis. There is a lot more to being a homosexual than what you do with your sexual organs, you know...
There is plenty of information to be found online with just the smallest bit of effort. I am certainly not going to attempt to explain it all, and I am not going to respond to childish demands that I offer some sort of absolute indisputable proof to refute your completely uninformed opinions, Jade.
You want me to "prove" that gays deserve equal rights, when you cannot offer any reason that they should not...
I don't think it needs to be proven that a human being deserves to be treated as such.
quote: jade said:
Black persons I have talked to here at work take offense when you compare slavery to discrimination of gays. They do not see it the same way
I did not, in any way, compare slavery to discrimination against homosexuals.
I very clearly pointed out, in and preceding the text of mine that you quoted, that nobody was drawing a correlation between slavery and discrimination as it exists today.
This is another prime example of why I view you as little more than a troll.
You know Jestah, in all the years that I have had contact with you on these boards, it is the first time I can recall that you refer to me being "dishonest".
I can't help it. I grew up a long time ago, tired of the oral masturbation found so often on this message board, and can't stand the "'SO WHAT YOUR SAYING IS ...' followed by a completely inane statement that has nothing to do with what I said" style of responding to a post that you used three times in two posts. Can you honestly tell me that it isn't a dishonest way to converse with someone or fail to see why it would be so annoying to respond to?
Unfortunately it got better from there.
Take for example my admission that I don't see the discrimination while seeking an explanation. I have you condescendingly telling me to fire up my browser and get an edjamakation while DL tells me I'm a troll that hasn't made a point. Clearly we're at an impasse. I don't see rights being violated and you two are far too superior to bother with a simpleton like me.
That shtick got old a long time ago but unfortunately this stroll down memory lane will have gained us nothing more than a new quip whenever DL next logs in.
I'm on pins and needles waiting to see what insult he thinks up next.
The problem, though, is that we are treating them unfairly for an abnormality that is completely beyond their control. I wonder, do you approve of the unfair treatment that blacks and women received for several centuries? They were treated like shit because they had an abnormality that was completely beyond their control.
I just don't see the parallels between gays and blacks or women. The latter two were denied actual rights by the United States and I just don't see our government doing the same to gays.
Please prove this in scientific facts as opposed to your opinion poi. When a human male/female begin puberty tell me when the first signs appear of their homosexual tendencies for the same gender. Maybe you can enlighten the scientist.There is no research to indicate proof. Saying one is born gay cannot be proven anywhere. Choosing to live a gay lifestyle or choosing to be bisexual can be choices. Sexual fullfillment can be achieved no matter what gender and this is where the choice lies.(Edited by jade on 06-09-2009 20:05)
Do you choose to be straight? Please very descriptively describe the day when you just got up and said, "Ya know what? I think I'll choose to enjoy screwing people of the opposite gender."
Oh, wait, there wasn't a day where you said anything to that effect, because you don't choose who you fall in love with!
As for biological and logical proof, love has been proven to be the result of one person detecting compatible genes in another person. For example, people whose immunities to diseases differ from our own tend to smell nice -- we're smelling their immunities. When you and a person of the opposite gender have differing genes that, when combined, would produce genetically superior offspring, there is a very high chance that you and that person will fall in love. Love is a biological and psychological process controlled almost entirely by already-identified parts of the mind.
Considering that biological and psychological processes can go wrong (see also: genetic mutations, psychological disorders, Asperger's, autism, schizophrenia, psychosis, delusions, hallucinations, blindness, deafness, colorblindness, phobias, antisocial personality disorder, ADD, ADHD, amnesia, dissociative identity disorder, hypochondriasis, ...), and considering that love is a biological and psychological process, it is entirely possible that a "glitch", completely beyond the control of the affected person(s), can cause someone to fall in love with a person of the same gender -- homosexuality. Yes, it's an abnormality, but it's one that is completely beyond the control of the person affected, and it doesn't inherently cause harm to others, so it's not immoral and should thus receive the same treatment under the law as heterosexuality.
When you demonstrate logic that conclusively explains how and why sexuality is a choice -- not morally, not ethically, but psychologically and/or biologically -- then your argument will be valid. Until you demonstrate such rationality, your arguments are meaningless.
From: The Happy Hunting Grounds... Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 06-10-2009 10:48
DavidJCobb, you will not reach Jade.
She has already been presented with all the Biological Facts and Evidence in support of Homosexuality in Nature.
She has already been presented with all the rebuttals to points she has raised against Gay Rights (it was actually discussed under topics discussing Gay Marriage).
Jade rejects all this on Religious grounds. She believes that Homosexuality is a Sin against God.
Since this is based on Belief, nothing you say or trott out before her eyes will convince her to change her stance or position. We know this, because we have already tried it, many, many, many times before.
WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles
They have already been presented with all the Biological Facts and Evidence against Homosexuality in Nature.
They have already been presented with all the rebuttals to points they have raised for Gay Rights (it was actually discussed under topics discussing Gay Marriage).
Webshaman & DL reject all this on Athiest grounds. They believe that Homosexuality is a gift from Life.
Since this is based on BELIEF, with no scientific evidence nothing you say or trott out before their eyes will convince them to change their stance or position. We know this, because its been tried it, many, many, many times before.
DL...why has the US supreme court in their supreme intelligence regarding law want to keep gays in the closet in the military ....
3rd request. Answer this too Webshaman. Why is this Supreme court ruling good for our US of A.
Still no proven evidence facts people are born gay...just skirting around the issue so far...not impressed..No valid points have been made other than " feelings "...I FELT gay when I was growing up.... well... FELT religious growing up....what is the difference.
quote:Oh, wait, there wasn't a day where you said anything to that effect, because you don't choose who you fall in love with!
I beg to differ....love is a choice.....you choose love or you don't...you can allow youself not to love someone.
And there is a thin line between what you see as lust/love..
From: The Happy Hunting Grounds... Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 06-10-2009 16:48
quote:They have already been presented with all the Biological Facts and Evidence against Homosexuality in Nature.
Errr...no?
You never presented any - in fact, it is the other way around. You were presented with biological examples of natural homosexual cases (that have been peer reviewed) and since it occurs in nature, it is natural.
quote:They have already been presented with all the rebuttals to points they have raised for Gay Rights (it was actually discussed under topics discussing Gay Marriage).
Errr...no?
In fact, such never was presented by you (nor anyone). Bugs raised some points, but even he had problems supporting them.
quote:Webshaman & DL reject all this on Athiest grounds. They believe that Homosexuality is a gift from Life.
I don't reject things on Athiest grounds. Where ever did you get that idea? I base my acceptance or rejection of something based soley on the factual evidence (or lack thereof) and validity of a thing. I do not believe that Homosecuality is a gift from Life. That is just plain ridiculous!
I believe that it is a natural process that has been observed and documented in Nature (and you were presented with such evidence, and you can easily research it with Google). If you wish, I will provide you with links.
quote:Since this is based on BELIEF, with no scientific evidence nothing you say or trott out before their eyes will convince them to change their stance or position. We know this, because its been tried it, many, many, many times before.
Quite the contrary here.
quote:DL...why has the US supreme court in their supreme intelligence regarding law want to keep gays in the closet in the military ....
3rd request. Answer this too Webshaman. Why is this Supreme court ruling good for our US of A.
First of all, the US Supreme Court consists of people - just like you and me. They are not inhuman. So to suggest that they have "supreme intelligence" is misguided.
In regards to the Military, I quite frankly believe (note that I do not know the real reasons each Judge had for voting as they did on the issue - anyone got a link?) that they did it to actually protect Homosexuals from Hetrosexuals.
If one is on a battlefield (something, Jade, that I rather suspect you have no experience of), I woudn't want someone that hates me for what I am to have a gun in their hands and every opportunity to use it on me.
We know that women in the Military are in danger of getting raped, especially in combat - Iraq has proved this very well. I really shudder to think of what would happen if Homosexuals were known to be in certain units, and had "outed" themselves.
All social transitions take time - the Military adopted a "don't tell and we will not ask" policy due to the lawsuits if you recall. I consider that a first step towards tolerance.
I suspect that there will be more forthcoming.
quote:I beg to differ....love is a choice.....you choose love or you don't...you can allow youself not to love someone.
And there is a thin line between what you see as lust/love..
I am not entirely sure about that - one can control oneself (re: resist the urge to do something) yes. But you cannot stop the urge at all. This is something totally different.
Yes, you can control yourself to a point that you do not follow up on your feelings. But that you will have these feelings, whether or not you want to have them, is something else entirely.
Are you saying that you can control yourself to a point that you can decide what you feel? In other words, you can make yourself feel attraction to the opposite sex, or even to animals? That you can make yourself hate your newborn baby, merely with mental will?
If that is true, then you must be the happiest person on Earth, for you can make yourself feel indefinitely happy at all times. You do not ever suffer from sadness, pain, loneliness, loss, or suffer at all.
Addendum :
I took the liberty of digging up some quick links for you, Jade.
D'Augelli, A. R., Grossman, A. H., & Starks, M. T., "Childhood Gender Atypicality, Victimization, and PTSD Among Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Youth," Journal of Interpersonal Violence
Myers, D. G., Excerpt from Psychology, 8th edition. (New York: Worth Publishers, 2007), http://www.davidmyers.org
Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality, American Psychological Association, online at http://helping.apa.org
Myers, D. G., Excerpt from Psychology, 8th edition. (New York: Worth Publishers, 2007), http://www.davidmyers.org
Roselli C.E., Larkin K., Schrunk J.M., Stormshak F., "Sexual partner preference, hypothalamic morphology and aromatase in rams," Physiology and Behavior, 2004, Nov 15;83(2):233-45.
WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles
quote:Try as I might, I find only one thing to quibble over in your post, and that?s regarding pair bonding in birds. Monogamous pair bonding in birds is, I gather, most often temporary and not lifelong. It?s my understanding that few bird species really mate for life. Most of the bird data we have is for marine birds like ducks, and marine birds do indeed tend to mate for life. But many more birds are more transitory, making their mating habits hard to know; often birds will rejoin a mate in a given location, but mate frequently with other birds elsewhere, a difficult thing to track. Indeed, some birds have never been observed mating. (My hubby is a birder, very well-versed in all things bird, and I get much of my bird info from him.) I?ll bet you observed many bird couples at home on the farm, but how would you know who they mated with in the next county, or over the winter? Those rascals can be as promiscuous as, well, humans.
Here?s my own assessment of the overall issue. As you mention, there?s ample data to prove that homosexual behaviors are extremely common throughout the natural world, and in human societies recur in expectable proportions (in the range of 4-12% according to my recollection of studies published over the last half-century) in generation after generation irrespective of culture, and that this has been going on for as long as we know. Various homosexual behaviors in various nonhuman species range from no recorded observation all to very nearly ubiquitous appearance - I think 80% of one bird species were observed to engage in homosexual activity, and of course bonobos will have sex with anyone and anything.
The subject needs much more study before anyone can begin to assert that homosexuality has or hasn?t some cause or purpose, but I believe that based on empirical evidence we can say 1) it?s likely that homosexuality has a genetic component, 2) all sexuality is likely to be impacted by many factors (including but certainly not limited to pheromones), 3) homosexuality is prima facie of direct or indirect evolutionary value to the species that exhibit it, and 4) homosexual behavior is quite natural in every respect (unless of course one defines "natural" as "not homosexual").
Since homosexual behavior has been documented in hundreds of species, from insects and lizards to birds and primates, it is self-evidently not "indicative of existing physiological abnormalities, chemical imbalances", and since it occurs in generation after generation in consistent proportions it must either confer some direct benefit to species or be an integral byproduct of some other direct benefit.
The definitive text is "Biological Exuberance: Animal homosexuality and natural diversity" by Bruce Bagemihl, PhD, St. Martin?s Press, NY, 1999, 752 pp. The book is an exhaustive meta-analysis of published, peer-reviewed journals and observations by professionals throughout the life sciences. It utterly explodes many persistent myths and stereotypes, and has been extensively reviewed without (to my knowledge) any significant dispute of the book?s findings or its underlying data. The book?s conclusion is very much as you say, that homosexual behavior being widely present throughout nature is most appropriately viewed as one of a range of diverse behaviors naturally present in a biological universe teeming with vitality and abundance. The abundance of behaviors available to and engaged by species in their natural habitat is almost certainly itself a primary evolutionary tool, helping species cope with all manner of environmental change. A species that wants to survive is more likely to maximize its behavioral options, not limit them.
Anyone truly interested in the possible evolutionary value of sexual diversity should simply read the book, as it presents virtually all the data currently available to 1999. If your library doesn?t have a copy, you should insist that they get one. Readers will find ample evidence of all sorts of polysexual behaviors. To speak only of one aspect of animal sexuality, some animals never bond monogamously at all, and few bond for a lifetime (humans aren?t really one of them, although the culture of romantic love that purportedly dates from the courtly tradition of the late medieval and early Renaissance would have us believe we are), while most fall somewhere between these extremes. Far from ratifying any bonding configuration (such as the "nuclear family", the abundance of variability in nature strongly encourages us to believe not only that no single bonding configuration is superior to another but that any unnatural attempt to enforce a particular bonding strategy for theoretical, political or religious purposes (not that there?s any real difference between these three) could constrain and limit a species? "free market" abundance of behaviors to that species? detriment. One example of such a self-evidently detrimental constraint might be preventing same-sex couples from adopting children, particularly for hard-to-place children, when it is transparently obvious that such couples often do a much better parenting job than the state or, in many cases, heterosexual couples.
For some animals, homosexual pairs bond for life while heterosexual pairs do not. For some animals, homosexual pairs are quantitatively more successful at child-rearing, whether they copulate with the opposite gender and then return to the homosexual pair to rear the young or take in orphans or steal the young of others. The only generalization we can make is that few if any behavioral arrangements are truly anomalous. It would be helpful to study these matters more fully, but a certain element of American society generally opposes studies of human or even animal sexuality, presumably because the results may not conform to unexamined presuppositions.
Here are some excerpts from the book, which "offers a survey of the full range of homosexual activity found in the animal world, organized around five ,major behavioral categories: courtship, affection, sex, pair-bonding, and parenting." (p.12) They pretty much ratify what you wrote.
"The traditional view of the animal kingdom - what might call the Noah?s ark view - is that biology revolves around two sexes, male and female, with one of each to a pair. The range of genders actually found in the animal world, however, is considerably richer than this. Animals with females that become males, animals with no males at all, animals that are both male and female simultaneously, animals where males resemble females, animals where females court other females and males court other males - Noah?s ark was never quite like this! Homosexuality represents but one of a wide variety of alternative sexualities and genders. Many people are familiar with transvestism or transsexuality only in humans, yet similar phenomena are also found in the animal kingdom. Although this books focuses primarily on homosexuality, it is helpful to compare this with related phenomena that are often confused with homosexuality [discussion follows concerning hermaphroditic species, parthenogenetic species, mimicry of the opposite gender, transexuality and intersexuality (combining characteristics of both sexes)]. P.37
"A particular example of homosexual activity - whether animal or human - is in reality a unique amalgam or ?blend? of multiple factors, any one of which may be shared with other forms of homosexual activity without necessarily conferring identity between the overall patterns they represent. Comparisons of homosexuality in animals and humans that fail to recognize such complexities are simply misleading.
"It is helpful in this regard to think of homosexuality in terms of a number of independent axes, each of which is a continuum joining two ?opposite? ends of a particular category (as suggested by researchers Stephen Donaldson and Wayne Dynes, who developed a typology for human sexuality based on this framework). For example, one axis might represent the degree to which the homosexual interaction is gendered or role-based [examples given] ... Another axis would represent the age relationship of the partners involved (ranging from no age difference to a clearly age-differentiated interaction); another represents sexual orientation of participants (homosexual <-> bisexual <-> heterosexual); another consensuality (forced or nonconsensual <-> freely chosen or consensual); another genetic relationship of partners (incestuous <-> unrelated); social status or position of same-sex activity (socially sanctioned <-> socially condemned); and so on." P.45
"As primatologist G. Gray Eaton suggests, sexual versatility as both a biological and a cultural phenomenon in animals may be directly responsible for a species? success, in ways that challenge conventional views of evolution: ?The macaques? sexual behavior includes both hetero- and homosexual aspects as part of the "normal" pattern. Protocultural variations of some of these patterns have already been discussed but it is well to remember the extreme variation in behavior that characterizes individuals and groups of primates. This plasticity of behavior has apparently played a major role in the evolutionary success of primates by allowing them to adapt to a variety of social and environmental conditions.... The variability and plasticity of the behavior ... suggests an optimistic or "maximal view of human potentialities and limitations" ... rather than a pessimistic or minimal view of man as a biological machine functioning on the basis of instinct. This minimal view based on the fang-and-claw school of Darwinism finds little support in the evidence of protocultural evolution in nonhuman primates.?" [In the footnote, Baghemil notes that Vasey?s Homosexual Behavior in Primates suggests that "homosexuality may not be adaptive itself, but may represent a neutral behavioral ?byproduct? of some other trait that is adaptive, such as behavioral plasticity."] P.251
"Traditionally, scarcity and functionality have been considered the primary agents of biological change. The essence of Biological Exuberance is that natural systems are driven as much by abundance and excess as they are by limitation and practicality. Seen in this light, homosexuality and nonreproductive heterosexuality are "expected" occurrences - they are one manifestation of an overall "extravagance? of biological systems that has many other expressions." P.215
I think we can safely say that based on both factual and observed natural evidence (that stands up under peer review), Homosexuality occurs in Nature.
It is therefore natural.
WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles
Look,, found this regarding human choices in human nature where there is a will to do or not do.
What sets up apart from animals is our choice. Would you do the same thing if there was no opposite sex for you for the next up to 99 years or less in prison life? Or would you remain celibate till death?
In prisons, men who are deprived of women, often turn to each other to satisfy their needs. Men in captivity or stranded alone together in general tend to do so. It is the common need of feeling touch and connection to another person aside from the sexual release. Women too, find comfort and love in each other?s bodies if there are no alternatives in captivity. The studies then show that these same people revert to their basic sexuality after the event ends. It is rare psychologically for them to continue with homosexual activities after the fact.
Also this on the internet too.. so its who you look for to support your opposing view:
Some have exaggerated or misrepresented studies in attempt to prove that homosexuality is genetic. Others insist that homosexuality is developed after birth as a response to one?s environment. The truth is that we have no conclusive replicable research to prove either conclusion. However, most researchers have come to the conclusion that sexual orientation is likely determined by a complex interaction between a person?s genetic make-up and their environment.
Even the American Psychological Association asserts that:
There are numerous theories about the origins of a person's sexual orientation; most scientists today agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors. In most people, sexual orientation is shaped at an early age.17 (emphasis added).
And the American Psychiatric Association wrote:
Currently there is a renewed interest in searching for biological etiologies for homosexuality. However, to date there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality.
quote:You know, I do my best to ignore some threads... then I see Jade has posted, and I think "what the hell, I need a laugh"...
good for you....you relieved some stress today.. thanks to me. thanks for being interested in what I have to post.
quote:Are you saying that you can control yourself to a point that you can decide what you feel? In other words, you can make yourself feel attraction to the opposite sex, or even to animals? That you can make yourself hate your newborn baby, merely with mental will?
If that is true, then you must be the happiest person on Earth, for you can make yourself feel indefinitely happy at all times. You do not ever suffer from sadness, pain, loneliness, loss, or suffer at all.
this is jibberish from u...what are u trying to relate????
Yes.. I can control attraction to opposite sex if I am not looking for it..If I am on the prowl I will certainly find it. We are talking about romantic love her between the sexes...You getting off track regarding animals and babies...those are different kinds of love..maternal love and love of animals cannot be compared to romantic love. I am human and suffer from many ills, emotions just like everyone else but i can choose to be happy and I am.
I see two arguments here. One was that homosexuality occurs in nature. The other, presented as a counter argument, was that there's no conclusive consensus on causes of (or reasons for) homosexuality. I find them to be related, not mutually exclusive, arguments.
This is my "Feelings" regarding homosexual lifestyle......
In view of the Christian teachings on the subject of homosexuality, the profession is that this lifestyle if chosen in practice can never be of a holy nature if that is what the individual is seeking. Many in the homosexual community yearn to have their homosexual nature/desire validated by a religious umbrella as if to state, God made me this way so I must be ok. Or God does not create anything bad so I must be normal.
And many homosexuals do believe in God. They are not Godless. I would pray and hope those who have homosexual tendencies find the peace they yearn for in life. A homosexual lifestyle lived is a hard road to take. We all must make choices in life on how we want to live according to the principles we were taught or embraced. Christians, believe God loves all those who consider themselves homosexual just as much as he loves all those who call themselves heterosexual.
Personally, if asked, I would never tell one that to practice homosexuality is good and do whatever makes you happy. Christianity for us is to love everyone, regardless of the act or lifestyle they choose we consider immoral. Our message in spreading the Good News of Salvation is that Christ is coming to each of us ?no matter how wretched a person becomes in through their actions. The road to salvation is hard and the path is narrow if we can make it we will be rewarded for our courage to be strong.
In many tenants of faith of different denominations, the human anatomy is looked upon as a beautiful piece of creation in its make up, intelligence and in its gifted senses. But for us the most sacred part of a human person is what it contains in its spiritual nature. A human person reflects what it is on the inside in how he/she relates. The heterosexual and homosexual who uses their body for sexual gratification reflects what state their soul is. For believers, to engage in a union that bears no fruit never benefits society as a whole race of people. It only serves the self-gratification of the individual who gives into the lustful they inherit. What sets us apart from the animal is our ability to reason in what draws us to act morally and responsibility as a community and to each other. Each species of humankind is a compliment to one another. The nicest way to relate this is the plumbing that was installed in each speices to create new life in the multitudes. It fits.
For us the homosexual lifestyle is one that is contrary to the nature of what God intended the human body created for. This has been said over and over again. I know,.. but its one we never lose faith in. To abuse the body and manipulate it for a purpose other than what it was designed for is defiling it according to many religious beliefs. Many people of faith will never lose sight of their convictions no matter how many homosexuals argue or debate their cause to live openly as comparable to heterosexuals do in society. We don?t become defeatist in our desire to have our many brothers and sisters in the homosexual community come to know God in his holiness. Since our only goal is to be holy and pleasing in all our actions to God, we are on a mission to make this a holier place. Many would see this as a prejudice or intolerance, bigotry or hatred. Call it what you will, but that is not what we call it. We call it love for of fellow man in Christ.
From: The Happy Hunting Grounds... Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 06-10-2009 23:38
Jade, your posts demonstrate exactly your denial of the facts, that which DL and I have pointed out and was mentioned in this thread (among others), which you say you do not engage in.
I posted them, you just denied them. Did you even read the links and material I posted?
I offer proof, you do not.
Please post your links, and please show me where your evidence holds up under peer review. I have done this.
The plain fact of the matter is, regardless of what you may consider to be "choice", that homosexuality occurs in Nature.
Now let us address this :
quote:Look,, found this regarding human choices in human nature where there is a will to do or not do.
What sets up apart from animals is our choice. Would you do the same thing if there was no opposite sex for you for the next up to 99 years or less in prison life? Or would you remain celibate till death?
In prisons, men who are deprived of women, often turn to each other to satisfy their needs. Men in captivity or stranded alone together in general tend to do so. It is the common need of feeling touch and connection to another person aside from the sexual release. Women too, find comfort and love in each other?s bodies if there are no alternatives in captivity. The studies then show that these same people revert to their basic sexuality after the event ends. It is rare psychologically for them to continue with homosexual activities after the fact.
This is actually pretty funny, because what you have posted is actually examples of heterosexuals engaging in homosexual activities when they are denied the opportunity to satisfy their heterosexual urges with someone of the opposite sex!
You did read the part that such revert back to their basic sexuality after the event ends (which is denial of a normal way to satisfy their sexual urges without another choice!)
In other words, one CANNOT make someone change their sexuality permanently! It can be suppressed, and it can be temporarily altered if the stress of the environment is great enough, but when presented with an environment where that is not so, it immediately reverts back to "normal".
And if you are asking me this question, I have no idea what I would be capable of doing in such an environment - as I have never been subjected to it.
Regardless or not if someone wishes to refuse their urges, hold them under control, humans have them. Homosexuals have urges and respond to the same sex in the EXACT same way that heterosexuals respond to the opposite sex.
Or are you denying this as well?
As to your assumption that I have not investigated the issue thoroughly (and I have, I have researched the many sides to the issue - being that there are more than two, the one that is best factually and scientifically supported is that homosexuality is natural) is groundless, because it is incorrect as well.
I find it interesting that you say that you can control attraction if you do not wish to be attracted. I would bet that if you were tested (there are ways that one can test if you are attracted or not, by monitoring that part of the brain that responds when attracted, and by measuring pulserate, and other things) that you indeed have a physiological response (because otherwise, you would not be human).
There was recently testing done on this - some surprising results came out of it, mostly surrounding women. Most women would report that they were not aroused or attracted, when both the areas of the brain that are responsible for attraction and arousal were active AND physiological reactions were measured!
This study seems to indicate that women's bodies and the physiological reaction to arousal and attraction is not directly coupled to the conscious thought processes in women as it is in most men. But make no mistake - all the women in the study did show arousal and attraction physiologically.
I think what you mean here is that you control your urge to attraction - which is different than not having any at all (on the other hand, perhaps you are not consciously aware that you are attracted and/or aroused).
What I want to know is, why should homosexuals not love one another and not have sex (as long as they are adults and consenting) to express their love? Why shouldn't they be allowed to marry one another in a bond of love?
Please base your answers to these questions factually, with evidence supporting your postion that has withstood peer review. Note that this rules the Bible out.
As for this little snippet
quote:For us the homosexual lifestyle is one that is contrary to the nature of what God intended the human body created for.
I am interested where you are getting this information of what "god" intended. I truly hope you have something better and more substantial as the Bible here.
If it is the Bible, please name the passages. Note that I will be using the texts and translations for the ancient Greek and Hebrew versions to refute any and all the passages that you might site from your bible, should that be your source.
I hope you have boned up on your ancient Greek and Hebrew.
I have.
WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles
DavidJCobb, you will not reach Jade. She has already been presented with all the Biological Facts and Evidence in support of Homosexuality in Nature. [...]
I know, but I just love participating in the intellectual pwnage of people who consistently fail to use logic and reason!
-----
quote: jade said:
This is my "Feelings" regarding homosexual lifestyle......In view of the Christian teachings on the subject of homosexuality, the profession is that this lifestyle if chosen in practice can never be of a holy nature if that is what the individual is seeking. Many in the homosexual community yearn to have their homosexual nature/desire validated by a religious umbrella as if to state, God made me this way so I must be ok. Or God does not create anything bad so I must be normal. And many homosexuals do believe in God. They are not Godless. I would pray and hope those who have homosexual tendencies find the peace they yearn for in life. A homosexual lifestyle lived is a hard road to take.
I submit to you several counterpoints that you will most likely fail to understand or even consider.
Your profession is irrelevant if it contradicts the very potent combination of biological fact and simple logic -- and multiple members in this topic have very clearly demonstrated that it does.
Actually, I would say that most gays don't give a flying crap about religious validation as much as they do societal violation. They're not yelling at God, they're not asking the Pope for rights, they're asking the people, the government, the media, for equality -- equality that they deserve. Your idea of what's right, your idea of what's moral, the only way that's relevant to the gay rights movement is that said "morality" only leads to hatred, bigotry, ignorance, and numerous other fallacies that have only made the world worse. Obviously, some gays do believe in God, but considering that there are multiple interpretations and ways of practicing Christianity -- and that more and more churches are starting to open their doors to homosexuals -- your morals, hell, the morals of your entire church, are only relevant to them in regards to the discrimination that you perpetrate.
quote: jade said:
We all must make choices in life on how we want to live according to the principles we were taught or embraced. Christians, believe God loves all those who consider themselves homosexual just as much as he loves all those who call themselves heterosexual. Personally, if asked, I would never tell one that to practice homosexuality is good and do whatever makes you happy. Christianity for us is to love everyone, regardless of the act or lifestyle they choose we consider immoral. Our message in spreading the Good News of Salvation is that Christ is coming to each of us ?no matter how wretched a person becomes in through their actions.
So it's not that God hates gays... It's just that he finds them disgusting, revolting, morally reprehensible, and not deserving of equal treatment or rights? Please tell me that that is not your idea of a fair and just God. Hell, if there is a God, and he really gives a damn about something as minor as a person's sexual orientation, then humanity would probably be better off in Hell.
quote: jade said:
The road to salvation is hard and the path is narrow if we can make it we will be rewarded for our courage to be strong.
In many tenants of faith of different denominations, the human anatomy is looked upon as a beautiful piece of creation in its make up, intelligence and in its gifted senses. But for us the most sacred part of a human person is what it contains in its spiritual nature. A human person reflects what it is on the inside in how he/she relates. The heterosexual and homosexual who uses their body for sexual gratification reflects what state their soul is. For believers, to engage in a union that bears no fruit never benefits society as a whole race of people. It only serves the self-gratification of the individual who gives into the lustful they inherit.
So I suppose people who are infertile are also worthless? And people that have sex for non-reproductive purposes are committing immoral acts? Screw the individual, society's all that matters!
quote: jade said:
What sets us apart from the animal is our ability to reason in what draws us to act morally and responsibility as a community and to each other. Each species of humankind is a compliment to one another. The nicest way to relate this is the plumbing that was installed in each speices to create new life in the multitudes. It fits.
There are almost certainly numerous homosexual people who reason far better than you are now, and are likely far more responsible than you as well. By the way, there's only one species of humans -- Homo sapiens -- because we actually killed off other species like the Neanderthals.
Also, how does the ability to use logic, use reason, possess intelligence... How does any of that relate to the filling of orifices for the purposes of reproduction? Or are there people whose intellects are concentrated in their genitalia? If such people exist, we should probably refer them to the government for immediate study, as a second brain would be a very useful augmentation to the first, even if the second were to be placed within the ballsack.
quote: jade said:
For us the homosexual lifestyle is one that is contrary to the nature of what God intended the human body created for. This has been said over and over again. I know,.. but its one we never lose faith in. To abuse the body and manipulate it for a purpose other than what it was designed for is defiling it according to many religious beliefs. Many people of faith will never lose sight of their convictions no matter how many homosexuals argue or debate their cause to live openly as comparable to heterosexuals do in society. We don?t become defeatist in our desire to have our many brothers and sisters in the homosexual community come to know God in his holiness. Since our only goal is to be holy and pleasing in all our actions to God, we are on a mission to make this a holier place. Many would see this as a prejudice or intolerance, bigotry or hatred. Call it what you will, but that is not what we call it. We call it love for of fellow man in Christ.
So let me get this straight...
The only reason we exist is so that we can reproduce. All those who fail to reproduce, be it due to homosexuality or infertility or some other reason, are useless deadbeats who contribute nothing to society and thus do not deserve equality or fair treatment.
Faith is a perfectly good justification for blind, stubborn ignorance to facts that can be proven with little more than basic biology and logic. "Screw your fossil evidence and your psychological tests, we have an ancient book written by cavemen who thought the Sun went around the Earth!"
Prejudice, bigotry, and discrimination are not hateful if they're masked under a facade of good intentions.
A dude practicing "love for his fellow man" isn't gay. ROFL.
I think I'm done, unless I get some more comedy fodder.
From: The Happy Hunting Grounds... Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 06-11-2009 15:38
I did more research into this
quote:DL...why has the US supreme court in their supreme intelligence regarding law want to keep gays in the closet in the military ....
3rd request. Answer this too Webshaman. Why is this Supreme court ruling good for our US of A.
It turns out that the issues are quite complex, at the moment, with multiple cases all intertwined with one another.
url=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124268952606832391.html]Obama Avoids Test on Gays in Military [/url]
Apparently, Jade, you do not understand quite what is happening and has happened (but that should not be all that surprising).
quote:In the appeals court case last year, the Bush administration argued that Air Force Maj. Margaret Witt, who was discharged after authorities discovered she had a relationship with a woman, had no grounds to challenge her expulsion in light of congressional findings that gays and lesbians in uniform "create an unacceptable risk" to military morale and "unit cohesion."
But the court ordered the government to show why military discipline would be imperiled by the specific presence of Maj. Witt.
President Obama faced an early March deadline to file an appeal to the Supreme Court. Obama aides twice filed requests asking for a one-month extension, which the court granted. The administration let the most recent deadline pass without seeking another extension.
A Justice Department spokeswoman said the government would defend the law at the trial over Maj. Witt's dismissal. The decision not to appeal to the Supreme Court "is a procedural decision made because the case is still working its way through the regular judicial process," she said.
Now, if you read down a bit you will find :
quote:Other priority issues for gay advocates loom as well. Mr. Obama will soon nominate a new Supreme Court justice, who will likely be forced to answer questions by the Senate about his or her view of various gay-rights issues that may arise -- particularly the constitutionality of bans on gay marriage, which has advanced in many states in recent months. The administration also must decide whether to allow gay and lesbian partners of workers at the federal court to qualify for health-care benefits.
It is always wise to delay things until one has a stronger hand to deal with
quote:The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had rejected similar suits in the 1990s. In its May 2008 ruling, the appeals court said the Supreme Court changed the legal landscape in 2003, when, in striking down a Texas sodomy law, it found that homosexuals had a constitutional right "to engage in their conduct without the intervention of the government."
Citing that case, the Ninth Circuit held that the government would have to do more than show that the "don't ask, don't tell" law furthered an important interest. Rather, at trial it must show how expelling Maj. Witt "significantly furthers the governments' interest and whether less intrusive means would" have worked just as well.
"Only then can DADT be measured against the appropriate constitutional standard," Judge Ronald Gould wrote for the court.
The ruling suggested the judges were skeptical that Maj. Witt, a nurse, posed a threat to military discipline.
WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles
What I want to know is, why should homosexuals not love one another and not have sex (as long as they are adults and consenting) to express their love? Why shouldn't they be allowed to marry one another in a bond of love?
I never stated they could not love each other?goodness there is more love needed in this world.
Though its thought of as disoriented love?homosexuals have a free will to choose the life they want to love/live just like you and I do..but whatever they, I or you decide is good for us... that does not mean is for the good of society or if it affects society in a negative impact.. If I chose to have 8 babies at once is it anyone?s business but mine? There was disgust, ridicule and horrible comments to this day made about the octo-mom because she is hurting society by us, the taxpayers paying for her and her 8 babies in care. So does what she decide to do with her body affect you and me??.yes?.just like the homosexual agenda does. I don?t agree with what she did but it is not up to me to force her not to have 8 more. Just like I cannot force two homexual men not to have sex. Is there going to be laws saying a woman cannot have 8 babies at once because she cannot afford them? Or is the US supreme court going to get involved in that woman?s body too? Concerned citizens will voice their opinions and try to make laws to protect society. They might win or loose. We have the right to voice or make legislation so this will not happen again. Just like two men want to enforce laws guaranteeing them a real marriage equal to a man/women marriage will affect all of society in regard to schools, government, family, children and the rewriting of laws to the USA.
?
I offer proof, you do not.
No you do not. I still have yet to see the proof for homosexual tendencies?being valid natural acts designed by the evolvement in the laws of nature. You may want to contact some genetic scientist as you will no doubt give them a scientific breakthrough? You may win the Nobel Peace Prize in science.
It?s not about I have to ?I need to ?Its about I WANT to have sex with men like me because I like the sex better.
This is actually pretty funny, because what you have posted is actually examples of heterosexuals engaging in homosexual activities when they are denied the opportunity to satisfy their heterosexual urges with someone of the opposite sex!
You did read the part that such revert back to their basic sexuality after the event ends (which is denial of a normal way to satisfy their sexual urges without another choice!)
In other words, one CANNOT make someone change their sexuality permanently! It can be suppressed, and it can be temporarily altered if the stress of the environment is great enough, but when presented with an environment where that is not so, it immediately reverts back to "normal".
It?s always a choice.
No. this is not want I see.. I see men, women giving in to their carnal animal nature URGES instead of using discipline. I see no control. I see weakness, lust, debauchery, evil and suffering. I see a person using any means of sexual gratification because they are addicted to their carnal lustful nature. I see a man who is ruled by his body instead of his heart/mind. Here the sexual organ is in control of the body by choice always.
I believe and also many others believe, where God is present in the spiritual nature of man, man can remain pure and innocent of this unnatural act?..
I find it interesting that you say that you can control attraction if you do not wish to be attracted.
Yes?.hard as it is for men who in general like to seek and conquer in a quest to bed women?(not all men)?if your more in touch with your canal nature in thought and visuals,?you will be seduced by attraction ?With prayer, diclipine if your heart is directed to the desire to be holy, good and honorable, pleasing, etc ?.. you can withstand the desire want to attraction.. I can look at the opposite sex and think how handsome and look at a woman and see beautiful?without being attracted. I appreciate how God can make some beautiful and striking creatures in appearance...
You know sometimes you do not need a scientific book to prove facts you already know by observation, wisdom and experience regarding human nature.....
Or are there people whose intellects are concentrated in their genitalia?
Yes.,,,,yes......most definitely in any area of life ... many sitcoms, series, news, variety shows, auto and motorcycle makers, magazines, novels, celebrities, clothes, tv commercials, music industry and your local news stands are geared towards arousing your genitalia because they want to for their interest.
DL...why has the US supreme court in their supreme intelligence regarding law want to keep gays in the closet in the military ....
3rd request.
1) I am not aware of what you are talking about off hand, or of what exactly was put before the court, or of exactly what their ruling was. If I get a chance, I will read up on it...
2) I am quite sure that whatever the case, they will (or have) detailed exactly why they ruled the way they did themselves.
3) I am not a mind reader, and cannot tell you (aside from quoting them) why they decided the way they did.
4) Just because the Supreme Court ruled on something, doesn't necessarily make them right. They are human too, and are appointed to their positions...
Just because the Supreme Court ruled on something, doesn't necessarily make them right. They are human too, and are appointed to their positions...by DL..
But by the same token just because homosexuals want a favorable ruling doesn't necessarily make them right in their petition.
I guess by this statment too DL you believe a supreme court judge's personal humanity (ideology) affected their decision instead of the rule law affected their ruling. Can this be true?
quote:I never stated they could not love each other?goodness there is more love needed in this world.
Though its thought of as disoriented love?homosexuals have a free will to choose the life they want to love/live just like you and I do..but whatever they, I or you decide is good for us... that does not mean is for the good of society or if it affects society in a negative impact.. If I chose to have 8 babies at once is it anyone?s business but mine? There was disgust, ridicule and horrible comments to this day made about the octo-mom ... blah blah blah ... Just like two men want to enforce laws guaranteeing them a real marriage equal to a man/women marriage will affect all of society in regard to schools, government, family, children and the rewriting of laws to the USA.
And yet you still fail to explain exactly what negative impact gay marriage will have on society. Again and again and again.
Wow, looks like people with your particular set of beliefs have gone from hating gays to still hating gays, but pretending to like them. Interesting.
quote:homosexuals have a free will to choose the life they want to love/live just like you and I do..but whatever they, I or you decide is good for us... that does not mean is for the good of society or if it affects society in a negative impact..
Yes, they have a free will. By not allowing them to make that choice (marriage), however, you are not allowing them to exercise that free will.
By extension, just because you decide homosexuality is bad doesn't mean it is bad. Since you've failed to offer any logical statements that are not based on fallacy and ignorance, you are inevitably wrong. Logical thought isn't like the legal system, it's the opposite -- you're wrong until you're proven to be right, and so far, you've offered a lot less proof than the people you're arguing against.
quote:If I chose to have 8 babies at once is it anyone?s business but mine? There was disgust, ridicule and horrible comments to this day made about the octo-mom ... blah blah blah ... Just like two men want to enforce laws guaranteeing them a real marriage equal to a man/women marriage will affect all of society in regard to schools, government, family, children and the rewriting of laws to the USA.
Octomom = Overpopulation =/= No Babies = Gays
Oh, no! We can't have increased equality in our schools, governments, families, and children! That would be a terrible alteration to society! Much better to teach them to hate each other for the most idiotic and insignificant reasons possible! </sarcasm>
quote:Oh, no! We can't have increased equality in our schools, governments, families, and children! That would be a terrible alteration to society! Much better to teach them to hate each other for the most idiotic and insignificant reasons possible! </sarcasm>
Who is teaching hatred...?? not I.....where does "HATE" come into the picture...???
You have choosen to used the word "HATE" to make your argument as to say all those who oppose gay marriage "HATE" gay people..do you know how silly, crazy, absurd and ridicilous this sounds...So all those in California who voted to uphold the ban on gay marriage...."HATE" gay persons...this is what your saying right? California then is filled with Hatred for their fellow man. The larger part of the American voters is what your describing. The voters are trying to preserve the marriage union of two consenting opposite sex couples....thats all.... in that its in no way equal in comparison to a union of two men/women. That is all.
I oppose abortion...does that mean I HATE women who have abortions or persons that perform or help in abortions. That means I would hate some of my friends who have had an abortion. Or my bisexual friend who is a friend of the family...That would be I "HATE" him too.
They, the gay cause promote hatred themselves in "HATE" words they use to those that oppose their cause. HATE mormans, HATE Catholics, HATE Chrisitans, HATE blacks who voted for the ban..."HATE" all who would work to defeat our case/cause.
Definition of Hate: intense hostility and aversion usually deriving from fear, anger, or sense of injury b: extreme dislike or antipathy
.
quote:Oh, no! We can't have increased equality in our schools, governments, families, and children! That would be a terrible alteration to society! Much better to teach them to hate each other for the most idiotic and insignificant reasons possible! </sarcasm>Who is teaching hatred...?? not I.....where does "HATE" come into the picture...???You have choosen to used the word "HATE" to make your argument as to say all those who oppose gay marriage "HATE" gay people..do you know how silly, crazy, absurd and ridicilous this sounds...So all those in California who voted to uphold the ban on gay marriage...."HATE" gay persons...this is what your saying right? California then is filled with Hatred for their fellow man. The larger part of the American voters is what your describing. The voters are trying to preserve the marriage union of two consenting opposite sex couples....thats all.... in that its in no way equal in comparison to a union of two men/women. That is all.I oppose abortion...does that mean I HATE women who have abortions or persons that perform or help in abortions. That means I would hate some of my friends who have had an abortion. Or my bisexual friend who is a friend of the family...That would be I "HATE" him too. They, the gay cause promote hatred themselves in "HATE" words they use to those that oppose their cause. HATE mormans, HATE Catholics, HATE Chrisitans, HATE blacks who voted for the ban..."HATE" all who would work to defeat our case/cause.Definition of Hate: intense hostility and aversion usually deriving from fear, anger, or sense of injury b: extreme dislike or antipathy .(Edited by jade on 06-11-2009 21:53)
Hate comes into the picture when false sincerity and empathy is used to justify the blatant and unjust denial of rights and equality to a group that deserves both; that sincerity and empathy is revealed to be little more than a facade through your constant condemnation of homosexuality as immoral when in fact it has no less morality than heterosexuality. The only difference between this -- the condemnation of a group of people, the deliberate denial of their rights, the encouragement of that denial, the ignorance to their plight -- and blatant hatred is that in this case, the hatred is indoctrinated and thus not seen as hate by those who practice it.
And please don't use the "majority" of the American public to support your views.
You have no way of proving that the majority of Americans are on your very ignorant side.
America is not your personal army.
Also, as an American, I can assure you that America has probably the highest incidence of inexcusable stupidity in the entire Western world, so even if the majority of America was on your side, that alliance would not be very meaningful.
You're just like those who say, "Oh, I don't hate gays, I just don't want them to be married." You don't hate them, you just publicly, blatantly, unforgivingly, and outright condemn them and the practices that form a significant part of their identity, while also denouncing them as immoral. You don't hate them, you just enjoy treating them like worthless piles of shit -- all at the behest of an ancient and completely implausible document written by cavemen who weren't even smart enough to write down the vowels in their god's true name for future reference!
just that u seem so passionate...
sorry..to disagree with your stance on issues in the "gay rights" platform..
America is a people mixture of may passionate political, curtural and religious ideologies.
There will never be total agreement in all issues pertaining to how we want our own utopias.
It is what it is and will be forever changing...There is always hope for your ideals and mine.
So lets agree to disagree..
DavidJCobbAre u gay?just that u seem so passionate...sorry..to disagree with your stance on issues in the "gay rights" platform..America is a people mixture of may passionate political, curtural and religious ideologies.There will never be total agreement in all issues pertaining to how we want our own utopias.It is what it is and will be forever changing...There is always hope for your ideals and mine. So lets agree to disagree..Peace to u.(Edited by jade on 06-11-2009 22:44)
I'm not gay, I just hate when religion and faith are used to justify blatant misuse or ignorance of logic and/or the denial of well-deserved rights to a group of people who have done nothing wrong.
From: The Happy Hunting Grounds... Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 06-12-2009 09:46
quote:No you do not. I still have yet to see the proof for homosexual tendencies?being valid natural acts designed by the evolvement in the laws of nature. You may want to contact some genetic scientist as you will no doubt give them a scientific breakthrough? You may win the Nobel Peace Prize in science.
Well, I did provide you with proof as you asked for, backed up by Peer review. I have no idea why I should contact "some genetic scientist" however
He would only be interested if I had biological proof that Homosexuality (not homosexual tendencies, as you so snidely put it) was decided by genetic traits. If I did have this sort of proof, then yeah, it would probably be a scientific breakthrough for them. What that has to do with the Nobel Peace Prize I have no idea. In fact, I am absolutely certain that there is no such thing as a Nobel Peace Prize being awarded in Science. Perhaps you mean a Nobel Prize, instead? (hard to tell with you).
You really should get your facts and your terminology straight before you type. You come across as being uneducated and not very serious here.
It is widely accepted in the scientific community that Homosexuality occurs in Nature (and has been proven, it is a FACT, there are hundreds of documented cases of this behavior across a wide swath of species).
Where Homosexuality is found in a species, it is natural (a part of Nature).
Since Humans are a species and a part of Nature, that means that Homosexuality in Humans is also natural.
It comes as no surprise that you reject it, considering your religious background.
The deciding factor here is upon what is the argument based?
Mine is based on observation of said behavior occuring in Nature, documentation thereof that stands up under Peer review, which is factual information.
Yours is based on belief (you have failed, again, and again, and again to support your position both factually and scientifically).
When making (or changing) laws, one should go along with the best possible reason(s), the one(s) that is best supported and accurate. In this case, that is that Homosexuality is natural in Humans, and thus, should be treated exactly and equally as Heterosexuality under the Law.
Religion (belief) should not (and cannot) be a basis here for deciding this. There are protections in the Constitution regarding exactly this.
As for this little "gem"
quote:It?s not about I have to ?I need to ?Its about I WANT to have sex with men like me because I like the sex better.
This is actually pretty funny, because what you have posted is actually examples of heterosexuals engaging in homosexual activities when they are denied the opportunity to satisfy their heterosexual urges with someone of the opposite sex!
I never said this - it is pretty childish of you to do this sort of thing. I would ask you to act in a more mature manner.
WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles
quote:I'm not gay, I just hate when religion and faith are used to justify blatant misuse or ignorance of logic and/or the denial of well-deserved rights to a group of people who have done nothing wrong.
Oh...You
quote:HATE
so this means..your so angry with no-tolerance for persons of the religious/faith since they promote abstinance and a life of holiness so your HATE them...right?
quote:You really should get your facts and your terminology straight before you type. You come across as being uneducated and not very serious here.
I see could see u the same way.....you just copy and paste someones view or ideology or you find a site to satisfy your interest. A youngling from middle school could do the research and come up with the view you sent. So are you really highly educated compared to them???
This forum is about getting to know how people feel tick and what comes from their heart/mind/soul/thought...not to sumarize who has the smartest post or veiw....or determine IQ.
quote:I never said this - it is pretty childish of you to do this sort of thing. I would ask you to act in a more mature manner
what....???? a mature manner is a prerequisite to be a part of this forum????...its not a secret to anyone that homosexual men LIKE to have sex with each other. They prefer men from the back or they do oral to each other. They can do it to each other in restroom of bars, parks, rest stops, bathhouses to complete strangers. Just as long as they get sexual gratificatiion. This is not an act they NEED to do or HAVE to do...they WANT to do it...so...why is this an immature statement????...Is this fact or fiction Webshaman.
From: The Happy Hunting Grounds... Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 06-12-2009 16:17
quote:what....???? a mature manner is a prerequisite to be a part of this forum????...its not a secret to anyone that homosexual men LIKE to have sex with each other. They prefer men from the back or they do oral to each other. They can do it to each other in restroom of bars, parks, rest stops, bathhouses to complete strangers. Just as long as they get sexual gratificatiion. This is not an act they NEED to do or HAVE to do...they WANT to do it...so...why is this an immature statement????...Is this fact or fiction Webshaman.
First of all, I never said anything about what sort of manners are appropriate for the Forum. I asked you (rather politely I might add) to act more mature because of HOW you posted - your insult was not lost on me, nor on others Jade. The way that you formed your statement was done with purpose, and that sole purpose was insulting (putting words in my mouth that I did not say).
It has nothing to do with the actual words themselves that determine the mature manner I am speaking of here, and I rather suspect that you know this. You can drop the pretend outrage.
quote:I see could see u the same way.....you just copy and paste someones view or ideology or you find a site to satisfy your interest. A youngling from middle school could do the research and come up with the view you sent. So are you really highly educated compared to them???
I am curious if you really believe this, or if this is again just another one of your snide insults. Just a quick check of some of the forum posts I have posted would remove any and all doubt as you have put it. I copy and paste things (and credit them) when the situation demands that certain points be backed up with authority (and of course you ASKED for, no DEMANDED such sources, if you remember correctly).
Since you asked for such, how am I supposed to supply it to you? This is nothing but a ruse on your part - when you ask for something and get it, is this how you normally react?
quote:This forum is about getting to know how people feel tick and what comes from their heart/mind/soul/thought...not to sumarize who has the smartest post or veiw....or determine IQ.
This forum is about
quote:Philosophy and other Silliness
What is reality? What are morals and ethics? Is there a Dog? Who really *is* on first? We're deep. You be deep too.
Though one may be able to think one is getting to know how people may feel, tick, and perhaps sometimes one does get something from heart(mind/soul/thought), this is not really what the forum is about, as one can see in the Title. This is not MySpace.
This is a place where those of this Website (which actually was created for Webdesign) to discuss things that have to do with Philosophy and other Silliness, so that such topics do not clutter up other forums of the Website with such.
Second, when one is asking for facts and accuracy, it is a wise course to follow to actually be able to make sense and at least try to keep a semblance of using terms and words that apply correctly, if one is expecting to be taken seriously. This does not mean that your spelling has to be perfect in every degree, but posting something along the lines of "a Noble Peace Prize for science" just does not make much sense - Noble Peace Prizes are not awarded for Science! Noble Prizes are awarded in Science, yes. Noble Peace Prizes are something entirely different here.
It would be like calling the Bible the Koran. Both are religious books, but they are not the same thing. If in a discussion on religious matters, I raised a point or debated a position, and I used the referrence Koran in place of the Bible (in order to support/debunk a biblical position), I think that most would tend not to take me as very knowledgeable and therefore, not seriously.
Since the position that you have been railing against has part of it embedded in Science, it makes sense that one would be expected to have at least a rudimentary understanding of that. You have repeatedly demonstrated that your grasp on Science, the scientific method, and even prizes awarded in Science are, at best, on an elementary level. This is not necessarily a reflection of your true grasp on Science, just how you come across here on the forum in how and what you post.
WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles
From: The Happy Hunting Grounds... Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 06-12-2009 16:30
quote: White Hawk said:
quote:It?s not about I have to ?I need to ?Its about I WANT to have sex with men like me because I like the sex better.Pardon my abbreviation, but WTF?!? Is Jade attempting to put more than words in your mouth, WebShaman?
Hehe...I don't know if she is smart enough to imply something like that - I think she was just doing that little girl thing of repeating everything back but replacing certain words so that it looks like I am speaking for her position instead of against it.
Of course, who knows how Jade's mind truly works? I am sure that if there is a god, it is also puzzled!
WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles
Haha?I am never outraged on this forum from day one..never get angry, flustered, never feel insulted. So you don?t have to try to put ?feelings? in my psyche..or words on my tongue for that matter. I know many of you don?t take me serious?so what else is new????
quote:
________________________________________
quote:I am curious if you really believe this, or if this is again just another one of your snide insults.
I am not insulting u?your taking me way to serious?remember I am just posting what I see /feel as opposed to you. No serious badgering, insult and name calling. I am being friendly...do i need to put slimes for u?
quote:This does not mean that your spelling has to be perfect in every degree, but posting something along the lines of "a Noble Peace Prize for science" just does not make much sense - Noble Peace Prizes are not awarded for Science! Noble Prizes are awarded in Science, yes. Noble Peace Prizes are something entirely different here.
Ok..I should not have put peace ...I do know Noble Prizes give money/recgonition for important persons regarding many titles in achievement.
Whatever?.this is not even revelant to bring up?da..spelling? word usage? Did you get my point or not is the question? Geezzzz?I feel I am in grammer school.
Hehe...I don't know if she is smart enough to imply something like that - I think she was just doing that little girl thing of repeating everything back but replacing certain words so that it looks like I am speaking for her position instead of against it.
What is your definition of a "Smart Person"...according to Webshaman standards..
Though your insulting my lack of knowlege according to your channel of thought, I don' t get or feel insulted.
Gosh..if I were to get a nickel for every post I have read that is absolutly silly, ignorant, useless, naive, jubberish, etc...i would have over a thousand.
quote:Of course, who knows how Jade's mind truly works? I am sure that if there is a god, it is also puzzled!
I think your the one who is puzzled by what or who God is? For the fact that you cannot say with absolute certainty that he exist or is a mytholgical invention. No one on the planet has the answer. You don't have all the answers to life or the comos. You like many others attempt to understand issues but your not well informed by any means regarding many subjects comparable to others I am sure. So don' t throw stones at persons who don't live up to your scholared standards..
Really off track but I am sure many have tired of my post...as whatelse can be said.....regarding a hot spot issue that has not been said by millions who will not give an inch on either side of the issue.
From: The Happy Hunting Grounds... Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 06-12-2009 17:58
quote:quote:You can drop the pretend outrage.
quote:Haha?I am never outraged on this forum from day one..never get angry, flustered, never feel insulted. So you don?t have to try to put ?feelings? in my psyche..or words on my tongue for that matter. I know many of you don?t take me serious?so what else is new????
You will note that I said pretend outrage.
The rest of your post is just gibberish.
WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles
I think this is probably a good time to draw the conclusion that this thread has epitomised the struggle for sense that embodies a topic of such widespread contention, and that there is no reasonable accord that could be reached by this forum at this time. I don't like to see you all scrapping.
quote:so this means..your so angry with no-tolerance for persons of the religious/faith since they promote abstinance and a life of holiness so your HATE them...right?
Abstinence covers all sexual orientations. And I really hope you're not equating the spread of hatred and malice to "holiness".
I'm not angry with all religious people. I personally know and respect quite a few religious people.
I am, however, angry with the religious people who use their religion as a bullshit excuse to force their twisted and distorted views of the world on others. This doesn't just cover gay-haters -- missionaries can kiss my rear end, too.
And yeah, I hate people who hate gays for little or no reason. That hate is fine. Why? Because I hate people for what they do, not for who they are, and certainly not because some minor and unimportant psychological quirk(s) they possess. You, on the other hand, hate gays because of some uncontrollable and insignificant behavioral abnormality they possess -- though you do quite a good job at masking that bigotry under a facade of benevolence. Hating someone for being gay is just as deplorable as hating someone for being a woman, or for being black, or for being a Muslim, or for being a Communist... The only real reason to hate someone is for what they do -- hating someone for any other reason only makes people hate you, and for good reason.
I'm all for spreading positive religious ideas like "don't stab people" and "stealing is bad" -- hell, if everyone believed in that, the world would be a far better place. But when someone uses their religious beliefs to facilitate, justify, and foster meaningless hatred and bigotry against an innocent group of people... That is flat out wrong, and indeed, such actions are (or should be) a disgrace to whatever religion(s) that person(s) happen to practice, if not a disgrace to humanity as a whole!
Okay, fine, I don't mean "hate". "Incredibly dislike", on the other hand... "Perfectly reasonable moral outrage toward those who deny rights and impose their will upon others", on the other hand...
quote:Okay, fine, I don't mean "hate". "Incredibly dislike", on the other hand... "Perfectly reasonable moral outrage toward those who deny rights and impose their will upon others", on the other hand...
ok...good.. dislike sounds so way much "softer" than hate...now you sound much nicer as a poster
You are either delusional or truly hard up for entertainment.Either way you sure do enjoy that verbal masturbation you condemned above. I still don't see anything being said relevant to the topic that hasn't already been addressed quite adequately, so this is clearly dead.
Honestly, doesn't this pathetic internet tough guy routine of yours ever get old?
You've said virtually nothing in this thread outside of your usual silly quips that we've all seen for over a decade now. Give it a rest already.
I had forgot to come back and update one of my previous thoughts - I had spoken about Idaho, but the reason I couldn't find the reference is because the case I was thinking of was in Iowa. Oops.
quote: DL-44 said:
jestah - really? dig up a post I made a month ago to call me pathetic, while still not having anything to say on the actual topic?
Yes DL, I've said nothing on the subject ... because ... well ... you said so.
Give me a break.
Any idiot can read through this topic and see quite clearly that (1) I've said I see no suppression of homosexuals and (2) I've invited you and others to expand on this alleged suppression. That same idiot can see you've stuck to your typical pathetic internet tough guy routine of personal attacks, insults, and snarky barbs.
Perhaps for the 10 Year Reunion you can get a new act?
And any idiot can see, Jestah, that a man who comes in talking about insults while doing nothing but hurling them at others, and avoiding any of the on topic conversation directed toward him, is nothing but full of shit and hot air.
~shrug~
Your infatuation with me is flattering...but I'm afraid you are not my type.
From the official summary of the Iowa decision:
(I believe that the manner in which these issues are addressed in this decision very effectively addresses them in the bigger picture, which is why I am posting it here. bearing in mind, of course, that marriage is only one small issue as part of this topic)
quote: Maintaining Traditional Marriage. Initially, the court considered the County?s
argument the same-sex marriage ban promotes the ?integrity of traditional
marriage? by ?maintaining the historical and traditional marriage norm ([as] one
between a man and a woman).? The court noted that, when tradition is offered
as a justification for preserving a statutory scheme challenged on equal
protection grounds, the court must determine whether the reasons underlying the
tradition are sufficient to satisfy constitutional requirements. These reasons, the
court found, must be something other than the preservation of tradition by itself.
?When a certain tradition is used as both the governmental objective and the
classification to further that objective, the equal protection analysis is transformed
into the circular question of whether the classification accomplishes the
governmental objective, which objective is to maintain the classification.? Here,
the County offered no governmental reason underlying the tradition of limiting
marriage to heterosexual couples, so the court proceeded to consider the other
reasons advanced by the County for the legislative classification.
Promotion of Optimal Environment to Raise Children. The second of the
County?s proffered governmental objectives involves promoting child rearing by a
father and a mother in a marital relationship, the optimal milieu according to
some social scientists. Although the court found support for the proposition that
the interests of children are served equally by same-sex parents and oppositesex
parents, it acknowledged the existence of reasoned opinions that dualgender
parenting is the optimal environment for children. Nonetheless, the court
concluded the classification employed to further that goal?sexual orientation?
did not pass intermediate scrutiny because it is significantly under-inclusive and
over-inclusive.
The statute, the court found, is under-inclusive because it does not exclude from
marriage other groups of parents?such as child abusers, sexual predators,
parents neglecting to provide child support, and violent felons?that are
undeniably less than optimal parents. If the marriage statute was truly focused
on optimal parenting, many classifications of people would be excluded, not
merely gay and lesbian people. The statute is also under-inclusive because it
does not prohibit same-sex couples from raising children in Iowa. The statute is
over-inclusive because not all same-sex couples choose to raise children. The
court further noted that the County failed to show how the best interests of
children of gay and lesbian parents, who are denied an environment supported
by the benefits of marriage under the statute, are served by the ban, or how the
ban benefits the interests of children of heterosexual parents. Thus, the court
concluded a classification that limits civil marriage to opposite-sex couples is
simply not substantially related to the objective of promoting the optimal
environment to raise children.
Promotion of Procreation. Next, the court addressed the County?s argument
that endorsement of traditional civil marriage will result in more procreation. The
court concluded the County?s argument is flawed because it fails to address the
required analysis of the objective: whether exclusion of gay and lesbian
individuals from the institution of civil marriage will result in more procreation.
The court found no argument to support the conclusion that a goal of additional
procreation would be substantially furthered by the exclusion of gays and
lesbians from civil marriage.
Promoting Stability in Opposite-Sex Relationships. The County also
asserted that the statute promoted stability in opposite-sex relationships. The
court acknowledged that, while the institution of civil marriage likely encourages
stability in opposite-sex relationships, there was no evidence to support that
excluding gay and lesbian people from civil marriage makes opposite-sex
marriage more stable.
Conservation of Resources. Finally, the court rejected the County?s argument
that banning same-sex marriages in a constitutional fashion conserves state
resources. The argument in support of the same-sex marriage ban is based on a
simple premise: civilly married couples enjoy numerous governmental benefits,
so the state?s fiscal burden associated with civil marriage is reduced if less
people are allowed to marry. While the ban on same-sex marriage may
conserve some state resources, so would excluding any number of identifiable
groups. However, under intermediate scrutiny the sexual-orientation-based
classification must substantially further the conservation-of-resources objective.
Here again, the court found it was over- and under-inclusive and did not
substantially further the suggested governmental interest.
Religious Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage. Having addressed and rejected
each specific interest articulated by the County, the court addressed one final
ground believed to underlie the same-sex marriage debate?religious opposition.
Recognizing the sincere religious belief held by some that the ?sanctity of
marriage? would be undermined by the inclusion of gay and lesbian couples, the
court nevertheless noted that such views are not the only religious views of
marriage. Other, equally sincere groups have espoused strong religious views
yielding the opposite conclusion. These contrasting opinions, the court finds,
explain the absence of any religious-based rationale to test the constitutionality of
Iowa?s same-sex marriage statute. ?Our constitution does not permit any branch
of government to resolve these types of religious debates and entrusts to courts
the task of ensuring government avoids them . . . . The statute at issue in this
case does not prescribe a definition of marriage for religious institutions. Instead,
the statute, declares, ?Marriage is a civil contract? and then regulates that civil
contract . . . . Thus, in pursuing our task in this case, we proceed as civil judges,
far removed from the theological debate of religious clerics, and focus only on the
concept of civil marriage and the state licensing system that identifies a limited
class of persons entitled to secular rights and benefits associated with marriage.?
Constitutional Infirmity. In concluding the marriage statute is constitutionally
infirm, the court stated:
We are firmly convinced the exclusion of gay and lesbian
people from the institution of civil marriage does not substantially
further any important governmental objective. The legislature has
excluded a historically disfavored class of persons from a
supremely important civil institution without a constitutionally
sufficient justification. There is no material fact, genuinely in
dispute, that can affect this determination.
We have a constitutional duty to ensure equal protection of
the law. Faithfulness to that duty requires us to hold Iowa?s
marriage statute, Iowa Code section 595.2, violates the Iowa
Constitution. To decide otherwise would be an abdication of our
constitutional duty. If gay and lesbian people must submit to
different treatment without an exceedingly persuasive justification,
they are deprived of the benefits of the principle of equal protection
upon which the rule of law is founded. Iowa Code section 595.2
denies gay and lesbian people the equal protection of the law
promised by the Iowa Constitution.
Don't really have anything to add here other than to state that I fully support equal rights for humans, without exception.
I also want to applaud WebShaman's comment:
quote:When making (or changing) laws, one should go along with the best possible reason(s), the one(s) that is best supported and accurate. In this case, that is that Homosexuality is natural in Humans, and thus, should be treated exactly and equally as Heterosexuality under the Law.
Religion (belief) should not (and cannot) be a basis here for deciding this. There are protections in the Constitution regarding exactly this.
:clap: this is basically everything that should be needed in this thread. Basically every counterargument has some sort of foundation in organized religion, thus to me they are null and void.
I can't help to wonder if this ever had become an issue at all if people would stick to personal beliefs in the true sense, ergo "keep it personal" rather than relying on organized religion to provide answers.
Personally I'm very sad that people can't respect that someone wants to be able to freely and openly formalize their choice of companion in life.
The fact that humans walk in fear everyday in different countries instead of being able to publicly display affection for the person they love since religion does everything from deny them rights to condemn them, to outright kill them is tragic beyond belief.
It's such a pathetic behaviour to place your own personal beliefs above another humans feelings and the rights that should be selfevident to all in the best of worlds.
Personally I wouldn't label myself as gay, bi or hetero to be very honest.
Sure I live with the mother of my children since 20 years (no we are not married, nor have we baptized our children, that's their choice as they grow up), but at heart I can safely say that I love an individual for who they are. I don't love the gender per se.
I'm actively not confessed to any religion of any kind, nor am I a true atheist.
If anything I'm probably gnostic, I can absolutely see a scenario where one believes in god but not in religion.
I don't ridicule a personal belief in god, allah or what it may be, I fully respect and value indiviuals personal beliefs and the right to express them.
To use those personal beliefs to force others to act accordingly to them by leaning on a religion created by man for control purposes is a completly different thing!
I actually deeply resent religion since it is nothing more than a tool to control masses of people through virtually blind obediance, thus removing free will and providing perfect excuses for not taking a personal responsability for your actions.
If there at one point in time was a basic intention of good in organized religion, it sadly dissapeared as soon as humans got introduced to it.
If I where god I would have shaken my head over how my intentions was misused by human religion and walked away a long long time ago. After all, according to the bible it's been about 2k years since god last made an impact through physical appearance... I'd say that says something...
Respectfully.
(and yes, I spell god etc without a capital G intentionally)
/Dan
*/ I'm a ginio.....genios......genu......smart person! /*
{cell 260} I have no site due to no free time.
-{ Sleep: A common physical disorder that manifests itself as the level of blood in the caffeine circulation exeeds 20% }-
If I where god I would have shaken my head over how my intentions was misused by human religion and walked away a long long time ago. After all, according to the bible it's been about 2k years since god last made an impact through physical appearance... I'd say that says something...
I don't think God'sanctions the action these persons suffered below ...this is why religion has to have a voice in the world no matter how personal you think it should be. We voice for the one that has no voice. God champions us and is pleased with us for helping those that others have forgotten
Is this the point where I should post a multitude of
equally horrible pictures and documentation of atrocities
and other equally distasteful actions performed time and time
again over hundreds of not thousands of years performed
in the name of one or another religion?
Sorry to dissapoint you if that's the case.
I don't intend to get into a religious war of words.
I can't change your mind, nor do I want to.
All I want is the right to express my personal belief without
someone trying to change it into something that fits their agenda.
/Dan
*/ I'm a ginio.....genios......genu......smart person! /*
{cell 260} I have no site due to no free time.
-{ Sleep: A common physical disorder that manifests itself as the level of blood in the caffeine circulation exeeds 20% }-
All I want is the right to express my personal belief without
someone trying to change it into something that fits their agenda.
ok...i am doing the same...peace to u.
There is one fundamental difference between you and me though, just to be clear.
Trough actively opposing equal rights for gay people,
you are in fact using your personal beliefs and your religion to try to change
a group of people who's personal beliefs and preferences don't match yours...
The very same fundamental type of right that you feel entitled to, you want to deny them.
I, and many others do not do that.
/Dan
*/ I'm a ginio.....genios......genu......smart person! /*
{cell 260} I have no site due to no free time.
-{ Sleep: A common physical disorder that manifests itself as the level of blood in the caffeine circulation exeeds 20% }-
The very same fundamental type of right that you feel entitled to, you want to deny them.
This is true.....I want to deny them the right to go against the grain of what their body is made for. Lustful disoriented deceit. Big cause of the fall of man...I believe their body is made for praise.. I cannot make them believe like me, but because they are in bondage. ....really really big bondage...i want to set them free.
Theirs is not my body i know...,but I share a planet with them...and if their right to be married under a religious embrella or other affects the planet that I have to share with them...then I have a right to voice and work against them...in a peaceful..prayerful way....Its like this...If someone is walking down a path and they are blinded by some sunlight and they don't see this really big hole and are in danger of falling in ... if I see they are going to fall in the hole, do I warn them that they are going to fall in or to I let them fall. I don' t believe that two males having married life like a male/female reflects the beauty of God. If you don't believe in God which many of you do...it will not affect you since you sincerely do not care for your fellow man's soul..You will never understand since you have no relationship with God.....so...you will can voice your opinions but it will fall on deaf ears.....like my view does not penetrate your ears. I can look at the beautiful sky and give it the glory of God..you can look at the same sky and just see blue and ..that is the real difference between us.
From: The Happy Hunting Grounds... Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 08-14-2009 22:46
quote: jade said:
The very same fundamental type of right that you feel entitled to, you want to deny them.This is true.....I want to deny them the right to go against the grain of what their body is made for.
Except this is not a truth, it is not based on actual fact, it is not based on Nature (which actually does tell us what a body is made for, btw).
Instead, it is based on a belief system that is designed to hold things in a certain way and anything contrary to it is viewed as wrong and is aggressively and actively resisted - not only for those that believe in it, but for all.
And that is what is wrong in your stance, in all those stances that attempt to enforce a belief on those who do not hold that belief.
Especially those that are based on "it is for their own good" - those are the most dangerous of all. Many pograms of terror, murder, and grief have been based on this principle and commited by humans on their fellow man with this justification.
It is imperative that you, Jade, understand this. It is perfectly fine for you to hold to your beliefs, and to personally think what you like about Homosexuality. For you are entitled to your personal beliefs and that is something that the US was based on and something very precious that is worth fighting and protecting.
What you cannot do, what you must not do, is step over the line - and force your personal beliefs on others. You do not have this right. There is no law that grants you such a right to do such to others. It puts you on the side of injustice. You put yourself on the side that brings harm, grief, misery, and yes, even murder, death, and persecution upon others.
Even your own belief suggests what I am writing here - that only your god should be the judge. You yourself are supposed to follow and be true to the tenants of your belief, but you are not supposed to force others that do not believe in them to follow them! If you truly believed in the tenants of your belief and followed them, you would know this and not attempt to force others to do as you do, to be as you are, to think as you think,to believe as you believe.
Allowing and supporting Homosexuals in getting equal rights and recognition before the law is a worthy and just cause, and does not mean that you have abandoned your faith or belief. It also does not threaten your faith or belief, nor does it invalidate it, for it has absolutely nothing to do with you, personally. For it is not asking you to change your personal belief, opinion, or even how you view it. All that is being asked here is that you grant to others the same that has been granted to you - equal rights.
WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles
Btw, jade.
Don't think I'm unaware of the inner workings of a church/priesthood/the bible etc.
I was raised in a family of priests where prayers, sermons etc was a daily part of our life.
I've studied the bible and has had long discussion with my grandfather (priest) and uncle who also works in the church. My stance is based on knowledge, not just an opinion.
I have no problems what so ever with theological discussions when mutual respect is applied.
However, I'm sad to say that your arguments have the same tonality as any islamic fundamentalist who resort to suicidebombings as argumentation.
Quite simply, fundamentalists scares me, be it NRA, christians, islamists etc.
They always find an excuse or a reason in their religion.
There is nothing good in the way humans use religion today, period.
A personal belief in god on the other hand, I'm positive can bring happiness and peace to an individuals life.
Should you take your beliefs and use them to actually stand by people in need and help them through
hard times in life I applaud you!
If you use your personal belief to deny people rights under cover of "saving them on the name of religion", then I'm placing you in the same category as you place islamic fundamentalits.
/Dan
*/ I'm a ginio.....genios......genu......smart person! /*
{cell 260} I have no site due to no free time.
-{ Sleep: A common physical disorder that manifests itself as the level of blood in the caffeine circulation exeeds 20% }-
I couldn't agree more, though I find it hard to be quite as generous as Webshaman when it comes to my opinion of institutional indoctrination.
At the very least, an institution that spent many generations oppressing science, creative/critical thinking, and taught us that the naked body is shameful (a backward and damaging mindset that persists to this day) is IMHO unworthy of passing judgement on any aspect of what is right or proper. That such are based on the word of some intangible and unknowable supreme being (as written by some rambling lunatic who claims to speak for it, perpetuated by any number of child-rapists in frocks) doesn't in any way enhance their legitimacy for me.
So, while it might be your opinion that certain things are wrong or improper based upon your belief system, it is not necessarily what the majority of decent, upstanding people would consider 'against the grain' based upon a relatively advanced (by thousands of years) scientifically open-minded society's observations of the world around them; the real world.
While opinions may be shared freely (and ruddy well should be, regardless - even yours, Jade) it can only be wrong to enforce (one of many conflicting) interpretations of a long-dead rule-set upon the generally more enlightened and capable masses of the modern world.
Yeah, so a lot of them are incredibly stupid (as evidenced by any number of popular reality TV shows)... but I have some faith, though usually well hidden, in the animal we call the human race to make that judgement for itself.
their right to be married under a religious embrella or other affects the planet that I have to share with them...then I have a right to voice and work against them.
And you have yet to demonstrate in what way two men or two women being married will affect you or anyone else...
I want to deny them the right to go against the grain of what their body is made
for. Lustful disoriented deceit. Big cause of the fall of man...I believe their
body is made for praise.. I cannot make them believe like me, but because they
are in bondage. ....really really big bondage...i want to set them free.
Theirs is not my body i know...,but I share a planet with them...and if
their right to be married under a religious embrella or other affects the planet
that I have to share with them...then I have a right to voice and work against
them...in a peaceful..prayerful way....Its like this...If someone is walking
down a path and they are blinded by some sunlight and they don't see this really
big hole and are in danger of falling in ... if I see they are going to fall in
the hole, do I warn them that they are going to fall in or to I let them fall. I
don' t believe that two males having married life like a male/female reflects
the beauty of God. If you don't believe in God which many of you do...it will
not affect you since you sincerely do not care for your fellow man's soul..You
will never understand since you have no relationship with God.....so...you will
can voice your opinions but it will fall on deaf ears.....like my view does not
penetrate your ears. I can look at the beautiful sky and give it the glory of
God..you can look at the same sky and just see blue and ..that is the real
difference between us.
I really am shocked by this Jade. I only intended to quote part of your post but it is all so outrageously bad I had to select it all.
I am almost speechless. Your spelling reflects the lack of thought you have for your beliefs. It is ill conceived and badly delivered.
I will no longer take you seriously. I hope you can understand why.
From: The Happy Hunting Grounds... Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 08-16-2009 11:44
You do not seem to understand Tao - people like Jade are the main REASON that equal rights are being denied to Homosexuals (among others).
It is this sort of fanatical, unreasoning belief that chokes and kills a reasoning society - for people like Jade want EVERYONE to think and believe as they do. And if they do not, then they need to be made to, "for their own good", of course.
A reasoning person can see just what this sort of rationalization is capable of producing - pogroms of hate, murder, justified in the name of their belief, just about anything. And they will not feel guilty about it, or in the wrong. These types of individuals abuse and twist the tenants of their faith to justify their actions. They are like parasites that drag down those who truly believe and follow the tenants of a belief who do not try to force their beliefs on others. They give true believers a bad name.
Jade is intolerant and fanatical, and is abusing her religion to support her position and actions. Her religion preaches love and understanding, tolerance, but Jade is not interested in that, as one can plainly see. If one were to judge her according to her own beliefs, she has sinned and I would rather suspect that she has placed her immortal soul in jeopardy, according to the tenants of the religion she follows. She should seek guidance and atonement from her god. Not that she ever will, nor will she recognize or realize just how badly she has crossed and abused the tenants of her own faith and belief. She believes that she has a mandate from her god to persecute and trample on the rights of others, and she has expressed her desire to go from word into deed (if indeed she has not already done so). She has served as judge, jury, and would probably serve as executioner as well.
This is not about anything to do really with her religion - it is about hate, it is about fear, it is about intolerance.
It is what the human race has been fighting all along, what Equal Rights opposes. These types of people do not WANT others to be equal, if they believe and behave differently than they do. And they will abuse and misuse anything to support their stance, their mindset, tricking and twisting even their own selves into believing that only they are on the side of righteousness.
WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles
I used to live next to a lesbian couple. They were a lot of fun to hang out with. Just plain fun people. Had a little Halloween party with them and it was an absolutel blast.
What affect did it have on my life? Well, they have a son from a previous. I babysat and earned some money. Thanks to some lesbians, I had some extra cash. I used that money to buy fruit so the kids would have healthy snacks after school.
He was a really goofy kid. He was Girlie #1's best friend while they were around. He taught her how to take a fall, and she taught him how to dress a Barbie.
Good times.
Did they have an affect on society as a whole? Where they dragging others down? Certaintly not. Plenty of heterosexuals having kids all over the place. They had their own little niche and the world kept on turning.
tsk... tsk...no..english is my first language...thought you had better insight DL...In fact..I can speak english, fluent spanish, some french and latin...How many languages can you speak DL? OR can you only communicate in one language?
I must admit I am a bad speller...but I am sure my point gets accross.
This is not about anything to do really with her religion - it is about hate, it is about fear, it is about intolerance.
When all else fails...Webshaman uses the "hate card, the fear card and the intolerance card". I was waiting for those exact words to come from his post as he doesn't dissapoint. He believes its quite effective, but posters really know..I am not a hater...I am lover....so this/his view doesn't really doesn't penetrate....All Christians don't hate...they love...its just that those that hate Christ think that those who do love Christ don't know what they are talking about. This view they have of Christians, qualifes them to speak a notch above them since they, the athiest feel they are esteemed in intelligence, hoovering over us, the lost and misguided God loving feeble minded. Regardless,....... we all believe the opposite, that they who oppose Christ are the ones who are really blinded by the disgrace and defilement in homosexuality upon the nature of God. Its rampant unholy animalistic nature with no thought to perserve the soul. It serves no purpose but to lie ..and many of you are hooked on the lie but you were all easy targets.
The master of lies fished you in easy and didn't even have to throw the bait far. You were swimming in shallow water.
Oh dear... Just as I hoped there might be a possibillity for understanding and the "lost soul" card is played...
*/ I'm a ginio.....genios......genu......smart person! /*
{cell 260} I have no site due to no free time.
-{ Sleep: A common physical disorder that manifests itself as the level of blood in the caffeine circulation exeeds 20% }-
From: The Happy Hunting Grounds... Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 08-17-2009 21:25
Well, let me see...I speak fluent English, German, some French, Italian and Spanish.
So what, Jade?
And no, I certainly didn't play "any" cards, certainly not the hate one.
You did.
You know it, too. You see, your bible, your god has instructed you not to judge others, lest you yourself be judged (which you are being judged, and found wanting, I might add, by your own god, according to the tenants of your faith).
In other words, you are supposed to live your life according to the tenants of your faith. That is it. Nothing else.
Your god passes judgement on others, not you. Since you have abandoned that, you have moved away from your god.
And you know that, as well.
It does not say in the bible anywhere that you are supposed to go out and persecute those who do not believe in your faith. It does not say that you are supposed to persecute Homosexuals, either. These are things that YOU have misunderstood, purposely, in order for you to give your fear vent, which leads to intolerance (as you have already demonstrated) and ultimately hate (which you are also starting to demonstrate, by actively persecuting those you fear and are intolerant towards).
Since you say you "love" (which actually is the basis from the tenants of your faith), that means that you must support Equal Rights. Because that is the best way to show your love, you know. It is not your duty nor your place to try to do anything about anyone else's soul. That is the providence of your god to be the judge of.
If you truly love Homosexuals, I would expect you to be the first in line, screaming your support for their Equal Rights under the law. You realize that words mean nothing when compared with actions. And your actions belay your profession of love, entirely.
But of course, that will also not register with you, for you are one of the "lost souls" already, Jade. You have turned your face from your god, embraced fear, intolerance, and hatred. You have fallen to that which the tenants of your faith say is the providence of Satan.
Poor, lost Jade. May your god have pity on your soul.
You see, if you were truly a follower of Christ, then you would forgive Homosexuals of their sins, at the same time supporting their struggle for Equal Rights, for it is a good and just struggle. Overcoming persecution and suffering is something that most Christians are at least aware of in the history of that religion. You see, your god does not really interest itself in the laws of mankind, right? The only things that matter is that one tries to live according to the tenants of the faith and the judgement that will follow. Unfortunately, you have failed to realize this, blinded as you are by your fear, intolerance and hatred.
I understand very well the tenants of the Christian faith, Jade. For I was a Christian for a long time. I daresay that even now, I am a better Christian than you are. I am not blinded by fear, intolerance, nor hatred. I do not seek to persecute or bring suffering on others, as you do. I do not seek to make others believe as I do, nor do I demand that. I live my life according to the tenants of my personal beliefs and my actions back up my words!
You are but a pale shadow of that.
Fear. Full of fear you are.
Intolerance, bred from the fear.
Hatred, because you fear that which you should not, and it prevents you from
truly following the tenants of your faith and it eats at you, consumes you, and needs an outlet. If it was not Homosexuals, then it would be something else. Ah, yes, Abortion! Of couse! And if not that, then again something else, always, it is something else. Never look inwards at the source, oh no, always push it outwards, onto something else.
You are truly the one lost here. I would suggest spiritual counseling and guidance.
WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles
I am only fluent in english. But being able to communicate in one language seems much better than not being able to communicate in several...
I guess I come acaross in different ways to different posters..
Other formus I am involved in dont perpetually give me this info...they all like me and look for me......Plus, from what I hear,,others think your .........well......you know.......
Its a mattter of opinion on what spews from that head of yours DL and Webshaman too for that matter...I see no growth in you since I have incepted on this forum..Your not progressing.. still immersed in still waters....like being stuck in the mud...what an interesting lives you must have..... just the same old rant...."that your smarter than most".....or "your not directly anserwing my quesions,..therefore your wrong"...(yawns)...Are there no posters out there that can bring some life to this forum like in the old days???.....new baby posters???
From: The Happy Hunting Grounds... Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 08-18-2009 00:21
quote: jade said:
I am only fluent in english. But being able to communicate in one language seems much better than not being able to communicate in several...I guess I come acaross in different ways to different posters..Other formus I am involved in dont perpetually give me this info...they all like me and look for me......Plus, from what I hear,,others think your .........well......you know.......Its a mattter of opinion on what spews from that head of yours DL and Webshaman too for that matter...I see no growth in you since I have incepted on this forum..Your not progressing.. still immersed in still waters....like being stuck in the mud...what an interesting lives you must have..... just the same old rant...."that your smarter than most".....or "your not directly anserwing my quesions,..therefore your wrong"...(yawns)...Are there no posters out there that can bring some life to this forum like in the old days???.....new baby posters???(Edited by jade on 08-17-2009 23:52)
Does this babble have a point?
And what, for the life of me, does some other forums have to do with this one?
As for the feedback that you receive from other forums, I cannot respond to (nor do I wish to).
I can say that the feedback that you are getting here is about the soundest that I have ever witnessed. Of course, you don't wish to see it like that, or you would have to admit error, and would have to reconciliate your position, and actually learn something.
You know, change?
Expand your mind, horizons, that sort of thing?
We have all been patiently waiting for you, you know.
Others have gone through this before - like Ramasax, for example. Or Gideon (though not so sure what he changed into is something better, but at least it is not a Young Earther mentality anymore).
It is pretty interesting that you seem to be unable (and unwilling, for that matter) to recognize your failings and attempt to do something about them. Many here (including myself) have had their selves held up for self inspection, and have not always liked what they have been shown. Some bit the bullet and recognized the great value of this, and responded to it positively. Others less so.
Some, like you, have not only ignored it, but have even gone so far as to turn combative and vindictive against those who have patiently been helping, all along.
Why do you think you always get into fights with members on this board? Think about it.
WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles
Jade, I do believe that you feel you are "right" in your belief and the way you have chosen to live your life. I even have an understanding, as to why you believe you should encourage, as much as possible; those who do not, and help in what ever way you can to enable them to "see the light".
It is not my intention, and I have no wish, to mock your religion or your belief system, please understand this. One of the reasons I criticised your post earlier is because I believe if a person wants to "spread the word" then they owe it to their God to take the time to spell those words correctly.
In taking the time, one will also consider the truth of what is being said.
First take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.
One of the most important things my years of searching and study have taught me, and, believe me, I have been searching and studying since I joined a monastery at the age of eleven some forty-three years ago, is to use those talents I have been given, to the best of my ability.
I have been given a critical and enquiring mind and I will not accept, just on the say so of some dusty old books, written by frail humans, retelling events, according to them, of how I have been instructed to live my life. Rather, I will take the more difficult path of using what intelligence I have been given to try to discern the truth for myself, and, in my own way, pray to the Great Spirit that my aim may be true.
quote:Its a mattter of opinion on what spews from that head of yours DL and Webshaman too for that matter...I see no growth in you since I have incepted on this forum..Your not progressing.. still immersed in still waters....like being stuck in the mud...
From: The Happy Hunting Grounds... Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 08-18-2009 15:09
More like
Define: "Frustration"
"I have been trying to change your minds and beliefs and you have resisted my efforts entirely and I am fed up and frustrated. You are supposed to be true believers in Christ by now and be thanking me for my efforts to save your soul."
WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles
quote:I have been given a critical and enquiring mind and I will not accept, just on the say so of some dusty old books, written by frail humans, retelling events, according to them, of how I have been instructed to live my life. Rather, I will take the more difficult path of using what intelligence I have been given to try to discern the truth for myself, and, in my own way, pray to the Great Spirit that my aim may be true.
Yes...only posting..what I know to be true for me...only sharing....so those that want to hear will hear and those that reject my views...reject the one that sends me. I don't sent myself. I am directed...Tao follows his own direction/course...good for you. I am the designer of my own destiny..I pick, I choose.....I choose Christ. You can attack me verbally, saying I am ignorant, hateful, stuipd, bad at grammar...out of touch..This is irrevelant to me...
Times are changing, people's ideals are changing...the way of the world is changing, but one thing about God for us is that he is the same from the beginning and will be the same at the end of our time. We are time travelers living in such a small amount of time in history. 100 year span some of us? This is minute compared to what was in history and what is to come in the future..Why do we think we have the supreme intelligence to go beyond what we are incapable of understaning in our life span? We are no more than a microscopic dot in history. In the next hundred years...many of the ideologies of today..will be erased in history.
I belong to a huge family of Christian believers that has been around for centuries that I have promised to defend, help and be true to. I am proud to be apart of this family. I will remain true to this family till death and give it every inch of my heart. Though this family is attacked from every front, it retains an everlasting beauty that I cannot believe possible sometimes.
Yeah - ideas change and history moves on... which is why we're not still burning women/children at the stake for being outspoken, unmarried adulterers, or unruly - though other faiths still stone their women to death for the crime of having been raped.
Which is why, in time, the whole debate over homosexuals will seem just as it is; a hangover from the oppressive and hateful grip of religion on society. Enlightened humans have no qualms about allowing other people the right to happiness and liberty, and I truly hope that they inherit the future, because ignorance surely must end.
The everlasting beauty of hate, murder, corruption, protection of child rapists, support of Nationalist Socialism, oppression of women, suppression of knowledge and scientific endeavour and bullying of free minds... that is something that chills me to the core.
You believe in the Lord's infallibility. We couldn't care less.
But then we get to your moral beliefs. And that's where the problems begin.
You believe that it is right to patronize, insult, and condemn those whose beliefs differ from your own. You hide under your religion, dragging it through the mud, mangling its teachings and morphing its sanctions to suit your own bigotry. You take the word of your Lord and you twist and break it, adapting it to your disgust and your damaged morals. You cower behind your God, using Him as a shield, a position of safety from which you can launch your assault on equality and humanity.
You believe that a thin veil of false sincerity and kindness can hide your malice and loathing. Maybe you can hide your darker side from yourself, but others can see it clearly, see it clearly and know that you are not as good a person as you think you are. Your words, your "beliefs", are nothing more than denial, your denial of your own true nature. You're a paradox, talking about "helping" those who have "sinned", but at the same time condemning them as filthy, subhuman, animalistic heretics!
You believe that the human mind has no worth, and that rather than using their own intelligence and logic, people should blindly accept ancient words as infallible truths. Indeed, you have condemned intellectual and moral self-determination -- that is, you loathe those who use their minds to determine their morals. The ironic thing is that if there is a God, then the mind is a God-given gift, and yet you damn it, blame it, suppress it with dubious rhetoric and an ersatz spiritual philantrophy.
And your "huge family of Christian believers", that you "have promied to defend"? What are you defending them from? Logic? Reason? Intelligence? Morality? Are these "crimes" dangerous to you? Do you fear us heretics? Or are you just trying to gain sympathy by pretending that everyone is out to get you? Are you deluded or manipulative?
From: The Happy Hunting Grounds... Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 08-19-2009 15:11
quote: DavidJCobb said:
We do not attack you for your religious beliefs.You believe in God. We couldn't care less.You believe in the Bible. We couldn't care less.You believe in the Lord's infallibility. We couldn't care less.But then we get to your moral beliefs. And that's where the problems begin.You believe that it is right to patronize, insult, and condemn those whose beliefs differ from your own. You hide under your religion, dragging it through the mud, mangling its teachings and morphing its sanctions to suit your own bigotry. You take the word of your Lord and you twist and break it, adapting it to your disgust and your damaged morals. You cower behind your God, using Him as a shield, a position of safety from which you can launch your assault on equality and humanity.You believe that a thin veil of false sincerity and kindness can hide your malice and loathing. Maybe you can hide your darker side from yourself, but others can see it clearly, see it clearly and know that you are not as good a person as you think you are. Your words, your "beliefs", are nothing more than denial, your denial of your own true nature. You're a paradox, talking about "helping" those who have "sinned", but at the same time condemning them as filthy, subhuman, animalistic heretics!You believe that the human mind has no worth, and that rather than using their own intelligence and logic, people should blindly accept ancient words as infallible truths. Indeed, you have condemned intellectual and moral self-determination -- that is, you loathe those who use their minds to determine their morals. The ironic thing is that if there is a God, then the mind is a God-given gift, and yet you damn it, blame it, suppress it with dubious rhetoric and an ersatz spiritual philantrophy.And your "huge family of Christian believers", that you "have promied to defend"? What are you defending them from? Logic? Reason? Intelligence? Morality? Are these "crimes" dangerous to you? Do you fear us heretics? Or are you just trying to gain sympathy by pretending that everyone is out to get you? Are you deluded or manipulative?----------------------
QFT!
The sad part is that Jade will never realize this in her. She will just consider this another "attack" on her person, beliefs, etc.
That pointed out, it needed saying. She needs to at least be made aware of her failings - even if she does not accept them. For then she has no excuses for her behavior. She will never be able to say "no-one told me!" because she was informed here, at the Ozone Asylum.
Jade, I hope you do decide to take the tenants of your faith seriously, and atone for your sins. Though I do not believe in the tenants of your faith, I can still hold you accountable to them, since you profess to believe in them (and you pontificate on how important and precious your belief is to you).
You see, you have every right to
quote:I belong to a huge family of Christian believers that has been around for centuries that I have promised to defend, help and be true to. I am proud to be apart of this family. I will remain true to this family till death and give it every inch of my heart.
And nobody here is trying to deny you of this - on the contrary, everyone here that I am aware of accepts this of you. Many here may not agree with what you believe, but I do not think that any here are opposed to you being able to believe what you wish to.
The main problem is that you attempt to force your beliefs on others. That crosses a very deciding line between personal belief, and becoming an active extremist who is willing to do anything and justify it in the name of god.
The tenants of your faith (handed down from your god, according to the beliefs that you follow) is against just this. It is against hatred, persecution, loathing, and condemning. "Love thy neighbor" and all that. So why are you going against this? Why are you going against the tenants of your faith? Why do you insist on persecuting others in the name of your god?
Can't you see just how wrong you are?
Let me give you an example, coming from the Catholic Church. Way back when, the Catholic Church determined that my folk did not have souls. Therefore, it was acceptable to erradicate them, for they were no better than animals. This was done and sanctioned by the Catholic Church. It took over a hundred years for the Catholic Church to recant it's false ways (when it was finally decided that the American Natives did indeed have souls). Of course, that was much to late for the untold millions who were put to death.
Well, you are doing the same thing here - you are condeming Homosexuals. Worse, you support their continued persecution as if such were a mandate from your religion, from your god.
Obviously you do not know enough of the book that you purport to cherish. I suggest you bone up on some of the more important parts...starting with "love thy neighbor".
WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles
quote:Let me give you an example, coming from the Catholic Church. Way back when, the Catholic Church determined that my folk did not have souls. Therefore, it was acceptable to erradicate them, for they were no better than animals. This was done and sanctioned by the Catholic Church. It took over a hundred years for the Catholic Church to recant it's false ways (when it was finally decided that the American Natives did indeed have souls). Of course, that was much to late for the untold millions who were put to death.
who is your folk...???
you need to get over it ..were you personally eradicated???..just let go..I don't cry about it still, when long ago the Texas army in the name of the republic slaughtered off my Mexican ancestors years ago to take their land. Stole our wineries in California too....Are you the kind of person that holds a grudge and stays mad...your telling on yourself....you make up anything just to be right...Are you mad at the US goverment too for stealing your ancestor's land ages ago??? Do you want it back??? Stop going back into history to pull old stories to make your case.....People do bad in the name of religion all the time....for their purpose. It does not mean God sanctioned it..Gosh..I thought you were bright enough to figure that out.
you may be able to soften when you unharden your heart...Always blaming religions for everything that went wrong or goes bad in the world. How sad.
who is your folk...???you need to get over it ..were you personally eradicated???..just let go..I don't cry about it still, when long ago the Texas army in the name of the republic slaughtered off my Mexican ancestors years ago to take their land. Stole our wineries in California too....Are you the kind of person that holds a grudge and stays mad...your telling on yourself....you make up anything just to be right...Are you mad at the US goverment too for stealing your ancestor's land ages ago??? Do you want it back??? Stop going back into history to pull old stories to make your case.....People do bad in the name of religion all the time....for their purpose. It does not mean God sanctioned it..Gosh..I thought you were bright enough to figure that out. you may be able to soften when you unharden your heart...Always blaming religions for everything that went wrong or goes bad in the world. How sad.
You clearly have no idea what an example is. He was demonstrating how a religion can be wrong and can be bigoted. And he did identify "his people" as Native Americans. Lrn2readplz.
So what does God sanction, Jade? Are you the One who knows what is truth and what is not? Are you the second coming, Jade, or do you only trust the word of the current 'god on earth' leader of your faith because he's not the same evil shit who declared an entire race to be soulless, or gave his moral support to the Holocaust, or perhaps sanctioned the deliberate cover-up of paedophilia (paying off parents and quietly moving paedophiles to equally responsible posts elsewhere)? How does the word as you see it tally with the tenets of your faith, and how do you know when they stop being the true word of an infallible God and become the stark-raving lunacy of a fanatical 'bad person'?
How do you transmute the biblical call to murder all homosexuals (or any man that has sex with a woman the wrong way round, apparently) to simply denying them their human rights?
Think about it for a moment. As a true Catholic, I do hope you've only ever had sex for the purpose of procreation with your husband, and in the one and only agreeable position for such an act, because according to the very same rantings that declare God's abhorrence for homosexuality, you are otherwise likewise condemned and categorised as unfit for life. Your fate, however one wishes to interpret the words, must be the same fate that your belief system demands for homosexuals if you have ever so much as enjoyed the act of sex inappropriately.
Or is that a 'people who do bad in the name of religion' perspective on it? Does your interpretation differ enough that the 'good people' agree you're right in condemning homosexuality while perhaps enjoying the odd knee-trembler or doggy-style romp with relative impunity..?
...of course, none of my argument has the intended impact if you're such a devout Catholic that you are either interred within the mental ward that is a Catholic Nunnery, are a faithful virgin yet to marry, or have been a terribly unfulfilled/unfulfilling bed partner to your husband. In any or all of these cases, no argument could possibly suffice where a sad sigh and sympathetic shake of the head would be most appropriate.
From: The Happy Hunting Grounds... Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 08-20-2009 15:10
quote: jade said:
quote:Let me give you an example, coming from the Catholic Church. Way back when, the Catholic Church determined that my folk did not have souls. Therefore, it was acceptable to erradicate them, for they were no better than animals. This was done and sanctioned by the Catholic Church. It took over a hundred years for the Catholic Church to recant it's false ways (when it was finally decided that the American Natives did indeed have souls). Of course, that was much to late for the untold millions who were put to death.who is your folk...???you need to get over it ..were you personally eradicated???..just let go..I don't cry about it still, when long ago the Texas army in the name of the republic slaughtered off my Mexican ancestors years ago to take their land. Stole our wineries in California too....Are you the kind of person that holds a grudge and stays mad...your telling on yourself....you make up anything just to be right...Are you mad at the US goverment too for stealing your ancestor's land ages ago??? Do you want it back??? Stop going back into history to pull old stories to make your case.....People do bad in the name of religion all the time....for their purpose. It does not mean God sanctioned it..Gosh..I thought you were bright enough to figure that out. you may be able to soften when you unharden your heart...Always blaming religions for everything that went wrong or goes bad in the world. How sad.
Comprehension lessons are in order here. Please enroll in a class.
WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles
quote:of course, none of my argument has the intended impact if you're such a devout Catholic that you are either interred within the mental ward that is a Catholic Nunnery, are a faithful virgin yet to marry, or have been a terribly unfulfilled/unfulfilling bed partner to your husband. In any or all of these cases, no argument could possibly suffice where a sad sigh and sympathetic shake of the head would be most appropriate.
my goodness...what prejudice..because you feel and believe women who are devoted to the cause of Christianity cannot have a fulfilling sex life as a wife in every sense and cannot please their husbands... your telling on your self again....and I don't see a pretty picture...seems you feel...women are for sex objects..to satisfy the male flesh. And if they have their head and heart immersed in God..they are worthless to themselves and men.. Or of what good are they. Seems you serve the flesh only...and its no wonder... that is why you are a homosexual lifestyle cheerleader. Its a given. In light of our Christian faith the loving nature of two individuals of the opposite sex coming together for the procreation of chidlren is more meaningful in regard to our God given nature. than the animalistic nature of the same sex coming together. But....since you don't believe in God...you can't go there heartwise or brainwise...so I don't expect you to see where sight is not given.
You know there are men out there, who love God they way I do and think faithful women like me are like fine pearls. There are men out there who do not worship the flesh like you do. They worship God and when they do, they know the real essence of what is feels like to be true male in God sense. And play out that role in every day life.
If you think I have a mental disorder when you say I belong in a mental ward...then I must be one with the comaradrie of billions out here that think like me...especially in California...who voted against gay marriage. Do most of the poplulation in Califorana belong in a mental ward? See how ridicilous your thought sounds? And where do you belong? Its something how the view on one topic of life in regard to sex ..sets someone apart from the real word in just one cause sending them to the crazy house.
my goodness...what prejudice..because you feel and believe women who are devoted to the cause of Christianity cannot have a fulfilling sex life as a wife in every sense and cannot please their husbands...
Actually, he's saying that Christian/Catholic beliefs put numerous restrictions on sex. If you don't practice these restrictions, you're just as bad as you think your religion thinks gays are.
quote: jade also said:
your telling on your self again....and I don't see a pretty picture...seems you feel...women are for sex objects..to satisfy the male flesh. And if they have their head and heart immersed in God..they are worthless to themselves and men.. Or of what good are they.
You have serious issues when it comes to actually understanding what people are saying to you.
quote: jade also said:
Seems you serve the flesh only...and its no wonder... that is why you are a homosexual lifestyle cheerleader. Its a given. In light of our Christian faith the loving nature of two individuals of the opposite sex coming together for the procreation of chidlren is more meaningful in regard to our God given nature. than the animalistic nature of the same sex coming together.
I forget... Why is it animalistic? Please do explain to me how it is completely and totally impossible for two people of the same sex to love each other. Please also explain how people that are gay but have never had sex are still "giving in to an animalistic and lustful nature".
quote: jade also said:
But....since you don't believe in God...you can't go there heartwise or brainwise...so I don't expect you to see where sight is not given.You know there are men out there, who love God they way I do and think faithful women like me are like fine pearls. There are men out there who do not worship the flesh like you do.
I can't speak for others, but I don't worship the flesh, I worship the mind. I don't expect you to understand how such a thing is possible.
quote: jade also said:
They worship God and when they do, they know the real essence of what is feels like to be true male in God sense. And play out that role in every day life.
"True male"? How is that relevant to anything? And what is a "true male"? Are you saying that people who don't believe in your god are less masculine? Less human? Are you saying that those who do not believe as you do are animals?
quote: jade also failed:
If you think I have a mental disorder when you say I belong in a mental ward...then I must be one with the comaradrie of billions out here that think like me...
We don't think you need to go to a mental ward for your beliefs. Your inability to understand what others say, and your inability to think rationally, on the other hand...
quote: *grabs popcorn*:
especially in California...who voted against gay marriage. Do most of the poplulation in Califorana belong in a mental ward?
Nope. But roughly half of them are bigoted, prejudiced, and likely quite unpleasant to be around. It was not a significant majority that voted against gay marriage -- it was just barely banned. Do you feel proud for denying loving couples the right to get married? The right to have their love formally recognized? Or have you just deluded yourself into thinking that love is only possible between two people of the opposite sex? Anyone with rationality would understand that love, being a biological mechanism, is prone to the biological equivalent of "glitches"*, which could result in, say, someone loving a person of the same sex.
quote: More epic failure:
See how ridicilous your thought sounds? And where do you belong? Its something how the view on one topic of life in regard to sex ..sets someone apart from the real word in just one cause sending them to the crazy house.
I don't see how ridiculous his thought sounds because that's not what his thought was. Lrn2read.
-----
* I'm not saying that gays are "broken" or malfunctioning... Hell, I have mental abnormalities of my own. But technically speaking, homosexuality is a "glitch", though that is certainly not a valid reason to ban it, be outraged at it, or deny homosexuals their rights.
quote:The main problem is that you attempt to force your beliefs on others. That crosses a very deciding line between personal belief, and becoming an active extremist who is willing to do anything and justify it in the name of god.
No. just posting..not harming..how am I an extemist.? I am not blowing up buildings or killing. I am using innocent fingers to type. I think you have irrationalized this. Are you OK?? I have been on this forum for about 6 years ....have I forced you to do anything. Christians just tell, witness and pray...
quote:The sad part is that Jade will never realize this in her. She will just consider this another "attack" on her person, beliefs, etc.
Not really.
quote:That pointed out, it needed saying. She needs to at least be made aware of her failings - even if she does not accept them. For then she has no excuses for her behavior. She will never be able to say "no-one told me!" because she was informed here, at the Ozone Asylum.
?????? Who will? excuse me...I don' t get it. Who am I suppose to make excuses to???
My God would not like two men/women of the same sex loving each other in the biblical sense.
So it must be the deity you cater to.
quote:Jade, I hope you do decide to take the tenants of your faith seriously, and atone for your sins. Though I do not believe in the tenants of your faith, I can still hold you accountable to them, since you profess to believe in them (and you pontificate on how important and precious your belief is to you).
quote:And nobody here is trying to deny you of this - on the contrary, everyone here that I am aware of accepts this of you. Many here may not agree with what you believe, but I do not think that any here are opposed to you being able to believe what you wish to.
This is not true...99.5% oppose what I stand for. Loook in the mirror...werent' you the one who called me ignorant, cruel, hateful..
quote:Can't you see just how wrong you are?
No...I am right.
quote:Well, you are doing the same thing here - you are condeming Homosexuals. Worse, you support their continued persecution as if such were a mandate from your religion, from your god.
Your putting words aligned to me but are not mine. "Who is comdeming. Not agreeing and condemning are way different regarding how I feel. I think its wrong..so what...you don't agree..that is not new news...
quote:Obviously you do not know enough of the book that you purport to cherish. I suggest you bone up on some of the more important parts...starting with "love thy neighbor".
I am exactly loving my neigbors..by letting them know what they are doing is offending God...What you see as love and what I see as love are very different...We disagree on what love mean evidently. I am bound by faith do to what I have to...even if you don't like it or see it.
quote:forget... Why is it animalistic? Please do explain to me how it is completely and totally impossible for two people of the same sex to love each other. Please also explain how people that are gay but have never had sex are still "giving in to an animalistic and lustful nature".
In many studies about man, we read man is a rational animal.. and what sets him apart from the irrational animal nature in him is his ability to reason on things. In regarding the sexual nature of man...when he attempts to act upon his sexual desires without the moral consequenses he equates himself "animal"...like having sex with someone for the pure pleasure/desire to fulfill the need they think that have to give into. They are acting like the animial down the steet that meets another animal for sex on the corner. If these two animals never see each other again...its no big deal...they just used each other for gratification. They use this gift of nature for selfish reasons. No love is involved. Are you the one who has sex online with strangers via photos, etc???? Its the same concept. You use each others bodies for sexual gratification. Whats different from you and the animal that does not care.. Now.. in the confusion of the sexaul gratification one achieves with the same sex...the mind begans to think is this lust or love? I think its love...so I want to stay with this person and make a happy home.. We as Christians believe, the pleasures of the skin can be anyones ruin, here on this earth and into eternity.
For your information, in Christianity there are no restrictions ..unless one feels restricted. The 10 commandments can be seen as rules or restrictions to some, but to others they are ways of loving God. They are about love. Those who are prisoners of the flesh, would see them as restrictions.
From: The Happy Hunting Grounds... Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 08-21-2009 14:43
quote:No. just posting..not harming..how am I an extemist.? I am not blowing up buildings or killing. I am using innocent fingers to type. I think you have irrationalized this. Are you OK?? I have been on this forum for about 6 years ....have I forced you to do anything. Christians just tell, witness and pray...
Except that this is a lie, and you know it. You actively support measures that persecute Homsexuals, for example. You actively support measures against Abortion. Etc, etc, etc.
quote:quote:And nobody here is trying to deny you of this - on the contrary, everyone here that I am aware of accepts this of you. Many here may not agree with what you believe, but I do not think that any here are opposed to you being able to believe what you wish to.
This is not true...99.5% oppose what I stand for. Loook in the mirror...werent' you the one who called me ignorant, cruel, hateful..
Regardless of whether or not someone holds you accountable for your words, noone here has been opposed to you being able to believe whatever it is you wish to. It is when you force your beliefs (or attempt to) on others that they object, Jade. Or when you blurt out things that make no sense. Don't be surprised when someone points out your mistakes.
What I may (or may not) think of your behavior is irrelevant to the point - I am not trying to force my beliefs on you. I am expressing my opinions (and some that are actually factual, based on your rhetoric) towards your rhetoric.
You do understand the difference here, right? I mean, most people would.
Again, reading comprehension skills are in order here. Though I know that you can read quite well - this is trolling behavior from you. You have demonstrated this type of behavior before, in the past - purposely "misunderstanding" stuff, so that you would have inane "excuses" to post your rubbish answers in reply (because you do not really have any real answers). You have even admitted to doing so.
quote:quote:Well, you are doing the same thing here - you are condeming Homosexuals. Worse, you support their continued persecution as if such were a mandate from your religion, from your god.
Your putting words aligned to me but are not mine. "Who is comdeming. Not agreeing and condemning are way different regarding how I feel. I think its wrong..so what...you don't agree..that is not new news...
This would be correct, except that you are supporting persecuting others, which is not just disagreement here. By persecuting others, you are condemning them and you are willing to deny them equal rights in the process.
quote:I am exactly loving my neigbors..by letting them know what they are doing is offending God...What you see as love and what I see as love are very different...We disagree on what love mean evidently. I am bound by faith do to what I have to...even if you don't like it or see it.
It is not your place to "inform" (ha, what a joke! You are not informing them, you are CONDEMNING them!) others of what you believe is offensive to your god. It is not your responsibility. In fact, you are INTRUDING upon the freedoms of others by doing this. The tenants of your religion are very adamant about this sort of stuff here. It is soley the place of your god to pass judgement, not yours Jade. Since you have sinned (and you do not even realize that you are breaking one of the core tenants of your faith), I would suggest you seek spiritual counciling.
You are not loving anyone but you and yourself. You are guilty of the "I am better than thou" sin here. You are soley and alone responsible only for yourself. The tenants of your faith are directed directly at you, and do not include others here. It is you, and you alone, that are supposed to follow them! It is not your responsibility to make sure that others are doing the same, and it is not your responsibility or place to try to make them knowledgable of this, unless this is requested of you by them, themselves.
You are basically doing this in order to make yourself feel better. You put yourself in a higher position, by making sure others are aware of how "good" you are, how faithful, how perfectly in tune with the tenants of your faith at the same time putting others down that are not. In doing so, you expose what you truly are - a hateful, spiteful, person with low self confidence. That is not love, Jade. If you truly loved your neighbors, you would accept them as they are, love them for who and what they are, and pray privately for them. You would help them out when they needed help (asked for it), but that is where it ends. And you would stop persecuting them and grant them graciously the same rights that you enjoy, for one who truly loves wishes such for those they love.
If you think it is love trying to help others that do not want your help, then keep in mind that this is what "trying to force your beliefs on others" means. It means that you are trying to help others who do not wish or want your help. You are in fact not helping at all, but making things worse. This is why the tenants of your faith can only apply to yourself, should only be important in relation to yourself, and no other.
It is supposed to be a personal relationship with christ and god, not a witch hunt, not an inquisition, Jade. Only you, and christ and god. All the others, they are responsible for themselves and their own actions, and according to your faith, your god will pass judgement over them. And only your god is empowered to do this. You are not, according to the tenants of your faith.
In doing so, you sin.
It is actually kind of interesting how it is possible for me to hold you accountable to the tenants of the faith that you follow, and I am exempt from them (because I do not follow them or believe in them). Normally, one that follows tenants of a faith would be grateful for the help, eh? Oh wait...that is not very loving, is it? It doesn't feel very nice, does it?
Perhaps you might want to think on that.
WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles
quote:In doing so, you expose what you truly are - a hateful, spiteful, person with low self confidence. That is not love, Jade. If you truly loved your neighbors, you would accept them as they are, love them for who and what they are, and pray privately for them. You would help them out when they needed help (asked for it), but that is where it ends. And you would stop persecuting them and grant them graciously the same rights that you enjoy, for one who truly loves wishes such for those they love.
How have I persecuted homosexuals?? ...All I do is pray...I do accept homosexuals as persons, friends and I do love them for who they are..Their sexual preference is a small part of their whole person..Just because one chooses to go against their natural biologcial nature does not make them bad persons. You know,..your not getting it..or getting where I am really coming from...Your hatred for my way of life or thinking has prejudiced/blinded you to what I really am....which is confused nonsense. How you picture me is so far from the truth. Your liberalism has spewed hatred and is going to be your undoing In your view of religious persons, you think they are your enemy.
I know two persons who are drug addicts... On bad case and one controled...they are doing terrible things to their bodies...One of them now is even thinking of using her body to buy cocaine. She said this in jest...but she may do it. Do I disown her because of the bad choices she is making. This is when she needs me the most. I can't make her stop...ultimately she is going to do what she wants. It will be their ruin if they continue. All I can do is tell them and pray...which is what in do in regard to the homosexuals. They don't hate me like you all do.. They are weak in mind and spirit. See..where you see hate..I see love.
From: The Happy Hunting Grounds... Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 08-21-2009 16:30
How have you persecuted homosexuals?
You support denying them equal rights, the same rights that you have!
If you truly loved them, if you truly were not persecuting them, then you would not stand in the way of their struggle to achieve equal rights.
That much should be obvious to you.
quote:Your hatred for my way of life or thinking has prejudiced/blinded you to what I really am....which is confused nonsense. How you picture me is so far from the truth.
I do not hate your way of life, nor do I hate your way of thinking (whatever that might be or mean). I could care less how you personally choose to live your own live, or think your own thoughts. I only oppose you when you try to force your beliefs on others, and I oppose anyone who is so.
Though I will agree with you that you really are confused nonsense, as you say.
I do not picture you. I read the words that you type and hold them up for your inspection. That you do not like what you see in the mirror, comes as no surprise to me. That you do not wish to accept what you see, also comes as no surprise to me. I think you do not understand or realize how and what you are communicating to others.
We have repeatedly shown you, you know. You just refuse to grasp this.
quote:Your liberalism has spewed hatred and is going to be your undoing In your view of religious persons, you think they are your enemy.
My...liberalism?! Well, perhaps I do contain some liberalism in me. It has been a long time. I am normally pretty conservative, but occasionally I do wander among liberal lines. Call me a moderate conservative
I do not think that religious individuals are my enemy, at least not as a whole. Certainly there are individuals among the religious that have been my enemy in the past, and I am sure there will be some in the future. Perhaps there are even a few currently, I do not honestly know. I do know that organized religion is the enemy of all, however, who does not believe or act as they would wish. This does not mean that individuals of that religion are my enemy.
I do not consider Bugs to be my enemy, nor Master Suho, for example. I do not consider Tao to be my enemy either. Nor the vast amount of other, religious individuals that I may have had contact with.
quote:I know two persons who are drug addicts... On bad case and one controled...they are doing terrible things to their bodies...One of them now is even thinking of using her body to buy cocaine. She said this in jest...but she may do it. Do I disown her because of the bad choices she is making. This is when she needs me the most. I can't make her stop...ultimately she is going to do what she wants. It will be their ruin if they continue. All I can do is tell them and pray...which is what in do in regard to the homosexuals. They don't hate me like you all do.. They are weak in mind and spirit. See..where you see hate..I see love.
All you can do is privately pray for them, and aid them if they seek your aid.
It is not your place to "tell them" anything. They are adults and are responsible for their own lives, regardless of how peaceful or hellish it is. If they actively seek your aid (honestly seek your aid, not seeking material wealth to further their habits), then you should help them. But only if asked to do so.
And you sure like to brandy about the "hate" thing, don't you. Well, not on my watch you won't! You do not get a free ride on the "hate" thing, the "poor little Jade, everyone hates me" trip. You are an adult, and you are responsible for your actions and what you post. The reactions to what you post are exactly that - REACTIONS. That means that it is FEEDBACK. Normal people tend to realize this, that they are receiving feedback to what they are doing.
You post what you do to get a reaction out of others - we know this, you have admitted to doing it. So no hiding behind the "they all hate poor little me" wall.
Your book of faith I think has a saying for this "You reap what you sow."
What else did you expect?
WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles
Thanks for making this forum really interesting for me...though you may see me as antonigistic or whatever...you never disappoint.. I wish I could meet you in person one day.. You would be suprised to feel and see how nice I am...I think you have a love hate relationship with me...Deep down I think you really like me...
Thanks for making this forum really interesting for me...though you may see me as antonigistic or whatever...you never disappoint.. I wish I could meet you in person one day.. You would be suprised to feel and see how nice I am...I think you have a love hate relationship with me...Deep down I think you really like me...
I REALLY REALLY REALLY LIKE YOU WEBSHAMAN!!!!!!
Are you two-timing me WebShaman?
Jade you say;
?I want to deny them (homosexuals) the right to go against the grain of what their body is made
for. Lustful disoriented deceit. Big cause of the fall of man.?
I'd like to know what you think gives you the right to decide that! Decide what a persons body is made for.
How can you say ?lustful disoriented deceit. You do not know, cannot know, the mind of another, and as for ?big cause of the fall of man?! Fall from where? To where, and just who do you think you are to decide that man has not only fallen but fallen ?big??
Then you go on to say;
?I believe their body is made for praise.. I cannot make them believe like me, but because they
are in bondage. ....really really big bondage...i want to set them free.?
Isn't that just your belief, body made for praise? What kind of praise? Are you just spouting dogma?
I will resist commentating on ? but because they are in bondage. ....really really big bondage? That would be akin to shooting fish in a barrel..
I can feel a sigh coming on.
Jade I have many, very good friends, who are Roman Catholics (which, I think, is your flavour of belief) That includes a few priests and a Bishop. I only mention this to assure you and others, that I do not hate religious people.
I will say again I am shocked by your arrogant posturing which I find ill conceived and badly delivered.
I'll have to get my old dusty books down and hide behind them, lets see, Bhagavad Gita, Bardo Thodol, Tao Te Ching, Leabhar Cheanannais and The House at Pooh Corner. That should do for starters.
Jade I have many, very good friends, who are Roman Catholics (which, I think, is your flavour of belief) That includes a few priests and a Bishop. I only mention this to assure you and others, that I do not hate religious people.
And, of course, this is generally true of atheists and other non-christians...
One of the many many many huge misconceptions about us evil atheists is that we sit around hating anyone who is religious, and shun them, and - of course - "persecute" them...
The majority of my friends are religious in one way or another, mostly christian, and some rather devoutly so.
I am well aware of their religious beliefs, because the vast majority of religious people make it exceptionally apparent.
On the other hand, many of them do not realize that I am an atheist, because I don't feel the need to shove it in people's faces.
I also tire of the persecution that atheists DO endure by the devoutly religious, and tire of having to explain that I don't eat babies and worship satan...
I am friends with ministers, faith healers, wiccans, buddhists, catholics, jews, people of native american spiritual beliefs (the narraganset, mohegan, and pequot tribes are rather prevalent here), and plenty more.
It's no big deal to us atheists...
until the religious jump all over us and tell us how wrong we are, tell us what are beliefs actually are (?!), tell us we are evil, that we are going to hell...that we shouldn't be allowed to have children, that we are not citizens, etc.
Which they do constantly.
While shouting and crying about how they are being persecuted....?!
Well, DL, when you continue living the way you do and show that a person can be perfectly happy and well balanced without ancient, self-imposed restrictions or constant, perceived help from some invisible force, you're just asking for it.
I thought a few videos I happened upon from YouTube might prove interesting.
I'm not too sure of all the facts in this one it is USA based but it made me smile in parts; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdVucvo-kDU
Checkmate Atheists Affected me in the same way that Jade and Allewyn have recently, in that I had difficulty trying to decide if they are being serious.
Here in old Blighty I think there is still a collective memory of pre-Christian life, so pagans like myself are generally left to their happy ways. At least that's been the reality for me since the trauma that is school.
I just can't keep my nose out of this, I keep finding such challenging tidbits all over the place
Jade, you said:
quote:letting them know what they are doing is offending God...
I'd probably rephrase that...
quote:letting them know what they are doing is offending MY INTERPRETATION of WHAT THE God I BELIEVE IN SAYS...
Since that is what you do. It's your belief in a god, it does not have to be theirs...
What you are saying is that they should act in accordance with your interpretaton of what your god wants, right?
If they don't agree that your definition of god's will is correct, or for that matter, that there is a god at all, why should they follow it. It's not like it's a law by nature or man you know. It's personal belief, no more, no less.
I also in particular enjoy the fact that you tell WS to:
quote:Stop going back into history to pull old stories to make your case.....
Hang on...
This is exactly what you are doing, you go back in history and rely on a collection of stories written by man and said to be the word of a god. But it's wrong if someone else does it to prove a point you don't agree with...
Yes I know, you will not change your beliefs, I respect that and I do not ask of you to change them. I ask of you (again) to extend that same courtesy to those who's beliefs does not correspond to yours.
In short, allow those that feel that marriage between the same sexes to be a good thing to do just that. Marry.
It's not hard you know, it just requires an open mind and respect for others.
/Dan
*/ I'm a ginio.....genios......genu......smart person! /*
{cell 260} I have no site due to no free time.
-{ Sleep: A common physical disorder that manifests itself as the level of blood in the caffeine circulation exeeds 20% }-
The video is a dramatization of a famous open letter to Dr Laura, written in response to her tirade against homosexuality many years ago on her (or someone's) radio show.
posted 12-15-2008 17:50
